Fuzzy Feet and Voles to Meet

I'd reaaaally like to know more about how ability scores are generated. If it's true that backgrounds play a part I'm worried that we're going to get into a situation where all Barbarians take the same 3 backgrounds because they grant a STR boost, for example.

I'm really concerned about this as well. At the very least, I'd like as many backgrounds as possible to have multiple options for stat boosts.

Example backgrounds:

Mercenary: +2 to any stat

Scholar: +2 to Int or Wis

Escaped slave: +2 to any stat

Thief: +2 to Dex, Int, or Cha

It's been said before, but honestly the races all sound like lesser versions of the PF1 selves. All of the flavor, but half the calories (racial features).
Seems to me like the races are less mechanically different than the PF1 races. Of course, it's impossible to say for certain, but that's the sense I'm getting from these posts.

To a halfling or gnome, a dagger is akin to a short sword, a short sword similar to a long sword, and a long sword more like a bastard sword.

That's not actually true, though. The weight and balance are completely different, even if the size is proportional, and the grips will be made to fit a larger or smaller hand. 3.5 and PF1's -2 penalty to attack per size difference makes much more sense than the old method because of this: you can do equivalent damage, but a dagger is not the same as a small short sword.

This is really a tangent that might deserve its own thread by now. But it's definitely refreshing to be able to grant cool benefits that aren't married to a damage increase chart that gives a linear +1 expected damage for a while (d4, d6, d8) and then bumps and to 2d6 and starts increasing exponentially from there (increasing roughly by a rounded version of multiplying by 2^(x/2) where x is the number of size increases beyond when you hit 2d6), such that anything you tried to balance for the exponential version would be weaksauce if you were stuck in the linear part and anything you designed assuming the linear part would be overpowered for the exponential.

Well, I will definitely eagerly await what you have come up with on this front!

Still processing the removal of damage difference for Small/Medium weapons.

I don’t think I’m opposed to it, but I hope it’s just for them and that a Small Greatsword and Colossal Greatsword will deal different damage. Otherwise it starts to break the verisimilitude.

Yeah same here. I do hope large and bigger will still do more damage and a halfling can't use a cloud giant's sword without some serious mojo.

I actually haven't had much problem doing plenty of damage with small sized melee characters. Dex to damage of course helps a lot, my halfling swashbuckler was pretty hard-core. But even with a strength build, I did enormous damage with a gnome fighter. The bonuses really outshine the die type after a certain point.

Having loot sized for you is an issue though. Maybe allow magic weapons and armor to resize up to one size category.

Well, the scale was already broken in 3e since Ability Scores only went down to 1 (-5), but had no practical upper limit. It does seem like characters will have universally high scores in every ability compared to the current edition (which is boring) , but this could actually bring things closer to a real approximation of the game world's 'real' scale. Especially if they can get rid of most negative numbers in the process.

Like others I'm not a big fan of all 3 small races getting a CHA boost.

Am I reading the section on ability boosts correctly? The ability boost will be applied before stats are assigned? So a Halfling will start with 12 DEX instead of 10 and then the point buy will go from there?

It sounds like there is no point buy per se, just several sets of ability ups that all work the same. So it might go something like this:

Ancestry: +2 to two specific stats, floating +2, -2 to one stat.
Background: +2 to one specific stat, two floating +2s,
Class: +2 to one specific stat (Wis for Clerics for example), two floating +2s,
Final Step: One final floating +2,

With no floating bonus allowed to go in the same stat as that stage's set bonuses.

It's something like that anyway.

Mark Seifter wrote:

All weapons!

I am happy to hear that Pathfinder 2nd Edition is going to be the friendliest game in this family of games for "Greataxe Wielding Gnome Barbarians."

Not necessarily; PF2 may have a property similar to D&D 5e’s “Heavy” weapon property, where small creatures are either prohibited or have a hefty penalty to using great weapons like great swords, great axes, or pole arms.

It's been said before, but honestly the races all sound like lesser versions of the PF1 selves. All of the flavor, but half the calories (racial features).

Seems to me like the races are less mechanically different than the PF1 races. Of course, it's impossible to say for certain, but that's the sense I'm getting from these posts.

I know what you mean, but we still have not seen this system in its full milieu yet. I’m really hoping that what we get here is an incredibly flexible way of building off of ancestries, allowing us to create core character concepts that might have been impossible in PF1. I’m hoping for a lot of modularity and a chance to build towards the quirky.

Hopeful signs:

• The flexible floating stat
  
• The same damage for small and medium characters

One thing that bugged me in PF1 was that if you chose one racial feature, you often blocked out not only one choice, but many others down the line.

Now, I have no idea how all this comes together. Maybe Heritage will lock poor gnomes into specific categories like lava gnomes (who I’ve always imagined wearing lava lamps on their heads — tell me I’m not the only one!) and traveler gnomes and tinker gnomes that are all mutually exclusive.

We’ll have to see what the Playtest brings and what stories we can build out of these characters.

Hmm

I'd reaaaally like to know more about how ability scores are generated. If it's true that backgrounds play a part I'm worried that we're going to get into a situation where all Barbarians take the same 3 backgrounds because they grant a STR boost, for example.

This is something I'm deeply concerned about as well. I don't want to feel pressured to twist my character's backstory because the only way to get the ability scores I want is using the Hermit or Sailor backgrounds.

I'm also seriously concerned about ability scores being entirely defined by the ABC sequence. We know die rolling is still an option in some form, and I hope point buy is as well. I don't want every character with the same ancestry and background to have the same numbers.

Finally, as I've mentioned before, I'll be extremely disappointed if under-10 ability scores are either not available, or use the Starfinder style of "you can cripple yourself for no benefit whatsoever". Same as with the universal proficiency bonus - let me be bad at something, and let me gain something (no matter how small) in return. The first keeps us from building a Raistlin style character (and yes, I know this isn't D&D), while the second can lead to bitterness and acrimony from party members or organized play players who become angry if you're not playing optimally.

I look forward to seeing (and opining on) the playtest. This is an extremely important issue for me, and I hope the end result will be something I can enjoy. ^_^

This does also highlight the issue that Ancestries themselves don't seem very distinct:

+2 Dex/+2 Cha/-2 Wis; 8 HP; 25 feet; Darkvision
+2 Dex/+2 Cha/-2 Str; 8 HP; 20 feet
+2 Con/+2 Cha/-2 Str; 8 HP; 20 feet (I think? It's not in the Blog); Low-Light Vision

Goblins (the first entry) only get 6 HP for their race.

Ectar wrote:

It's been said before, but honestly the races all sound like lesser versions of the PF1 selves. All of the flavor, but half the calories (racial features).

Seems to me like the races are less mechanically different than the PF1 races. Of course, it's impossible to say for certain, but that's the sense I'm getting from these posts.

I know what you mean, but we still have not seen this system in its full milieu yet. I’m really hoping that what we get here is an incredibly flexible way of building off of ancestries, allowing us to create core character concepts that might have been impossible in PF1. I’m hoping for a lot of modularity and a chance to build towards the quirky.

Hopeful signs:

• The flexible floating stat
  
• The same damage for small and medium characters

One thing that bugged me in PF1 was that if you chose one racial feature, you often blocked out not only one choice, but many others down the line.

Now, I have no idea how all this comes together. Maybe Heritage will lock poor gnomes into specific categories like lava gnomes (who I’ve always imagined wearing lava lamps on their heads — tell me I’m not the only one!) and traveler gnomes and tinker gnomes that are all mutually exclusive.

We’ll have to see what the Playtest brings and what stories we can build out of these characters.

Hmm

My hope is that each character gets sufficient racial feats at level 1 to recreate the physical traits of PF1 races. Actually, I'd rather the physical traits were baked in, but since that doesn't seem to be the case I'd like if I could recreate the physical chassis of a PF1 race from first level.

Oh, added bonus comment (on topic this time!):

I'm also not excited about the possibility of previously standard racial traits being pushed down the line. The old "racial traits plus alternate racial traits" system was one of my favorite parts of PF1.

I'd prefer a system where the ancestries are similar to their PF1 selves, and ancestry feats make them even MORE impressive. I don't want to have to buy back what I had over my first ten levels.

Sorry if this sounds like I lack faith in the design! I'm just anxious about this stuff. ^_^

My, those puns are amazing... also, does anyone other than me just absolutely love gnomes for some reason?

My, those puns are amazing... also, does anyone other than me just absolutely love gnomes for some reason?

Whistles.

Now, I have no idea how all this comes together. Maybe Heritage will lock poor gnomes into specific categories like lava gnomes (who I’ve always imagined wearing lava lamps on their heads — tell me I’m not the only one!) and traveler gnomes and tinker gnomes that are all mutually exclusive.

We’ll have to see what the Playtest brings and what stories we can build out of these characters.

Hmm

Not lava lamps but glowy hair that kinda looks like lava.

Gnome magic is one of those racial traits that I never really made use of, but didn't have alternatives that interested me. I'm glad that it is an option I can replace more freely now.

Looking good!

Oh, added bonus comment (on topic this time!):

I'm also not excited about the possibility of previously standard racial traits being pushed down the line. The old "racial traits plus alternate racial traits" system was one of my favorite parts of PF1.

I'd prefer a system where the ancestries are similar to their PF1 selves, and ancestry feats make them even MORE impressive. I don't want to have to buy back what I had over my first ten levels.

Sorry if this sounds like I lack faith in the design! I'm just anxious about this stuff. ^_^

I agree with you wholeheartedly. When the Dwarf and Elf Blog said that Hardy was a Level 1 Only Ancestry Feat and that Weapon Familiarity and Ancestral Hatred were also Ancestry Feats I was rather bummed.

Let us be full Dwarfs/Elves/Halflings/Gnomes/Goblins from day 1, not piecemeal approximations of the old PF1 Races.

Discerning Smell lets a gnome truly appreciate peculiar food and drink, or sniff out that invisible orc who's caked in the clay from a particular mountain pass, hasn't bathed in roughly 8 years, and recently ate a live bird. (A swallow, fittingly.)

Did anyone else notice this awesome gnome scent racial ability? I’ve never seen a gnome depicted as having a fantastic sense of smell, but I can’t wait to build one in PF2.

Hmm

Hope this time gnomes are better mechanically, as a person that quite likes the fey in general, i would play them more in PF1 if pretty much always another race wasnt a better fit to certain classes.

Ofc, this doesnt change that, maybe humans will still be an awesome pick always and i will remain making them one after the other even if i find the race boring by itself.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Also...even if some are set, how important is it to be able to have a Cleric with less than, say, 14 Wis? Because that doesn't seem like a real customization option, just the kind of trap build people have been asking for Pathfinder to get rid of.

If you are absolutely dead-set on doing it, you could play a cleric with 10 Wisdom without using the rolling method. I really would not recommend this to anyone, though it's less devastating than doing it in PF1 would be; you could certainly still be a contributing member of the party, but man, you spells...

I'd really like to be able to make a cleric with 10 Wis or a wizard with 10 int and have it still be a viable character.

In 5e, I can do that. Granted, I can't make a caster that's doing lots of damage, but I can do buffs, terrain manipulation, and lots of out-of-combat utility. I can make a viable caster with a dumped casting stat and it would be viable (I've actually done it, and it didn't feel like a bad character at all during game play).

Will I be able to do that with PF2?

I mean, I understand I won't be getting the bonus spells. That's fine. But will I still be viable? Can I just pick lots of spells that aren't dependent on saving throws or my wisdom score? Will I have cantrips to use as backup?

Also, consider that my 10 Wis cleric will have much higher stats elsewhere, so maybe he'd be a cleric who wears lots of armor, self buffs, and runs into combat. Or a cleric who can charm the socks off a snake, while providing lots of utility. When you dump a primary stat, it always comes with higher stats elsewhere.

Logan Bonner, “Gnome Blog” wrote:

Discerning Smell lets a gnome truly appreciate peculiar food and drink, or sniff out that invisible orc who's caked in the clay from a particular mountain pass, hasn't bathed in roughly 8 years, and recently ate a live bird. (A swallow, fittingly.)

Did anyone else notice this awesome gnome scent racial ability? I’ve never seen a gnome depicted as having a fantastic sense of smell, but I can’t wait to build one in PF2.

Hmm

I think it was an option in AD&D 2e either via subrace or in one of the Player's Advantage books. It was connected to the giant noses they were always depicted with in AD&D...

The scent makes sense since gnomes are always trying to experience the world with every single one of their senses. Like playing a point and click adventure game character who can feel and taste everything.

Logan Bonner, “Gnome Blog” wrote:

Discerning Smell lets a gnome truly appreciate peculiar food and drink, or sniff out that invisible orc who's caked in the clay from a particular mountain pass, hasn't bathed in roughly 8 years, and recently ate a live bird. (A swallow, fittingly.)

Did anyone else notice this awesome gnome scent racial ability? I’ve never seen a gnome depicted as having a fantastic sense of smell, but I can’t wait to build one in PF2.

Hmm

In 3.0 gnomes could take Scent as a feat as a variant rule. Not sure if it was included in the 3.5 DMG.

Eh. I thoroughly dislike this approach to races. It's purely a stat-based decision, followed by rooting through a random grab-bag of stuff for restricted feat-type #4 (race as opposed to class or background or skill or whatever other arbitrary restrictions are needed to put feats into discrete categories).

There isn't any particular reason a halfling can't have Smell-o-Vision, or that a dwarf can't hit someone harder with rocks.

Goblin - Boost to Dex & Cha
Halfling - Boost to Dex & Cha
Gnome - Boost to Con & Cha

Hmmm...would have liked a bit of diversity in the small races. Sure, you can add a boost to one stat of choice, but c'mon. Couldn't one of them get something other than Cha.? Perhaps Int or Wis?

Yeah its because 3.5/AD&D gnomes took a lot of their inspiration from the Shannara gnomes who looked like this

The fey thing is a mostly paizo invention to differentiate the gnomes more from the dwarves.

I'm still in favor of halflings getting Wis for their tenacious spirit and gnomes getting intelligence for their keen minds. All small races getting Charisma seems bland

I actually like the Idea of Halflings being +dex/+wis, but I'd prefer for the Gnome to remain +con/+cha

But I don't mind things staying the way they are now

Since the basic stats of the five races we have some information about do not seem to be balanced among one another, I wonder whether the initial number of Heritage feats each race gets might be used as a balancing factor?

Hmm wrote:

Logan Bonner, “Gnome Blog” wrote:

Discerning Smell lets a gnome truly appreciate peculiar food and drink, or sniff out that invisible orc who's caked in the clay from a particular mountain pass, hasn't bathed in roughly 8 years, and recently ate a live bird. (A swallow, fittingly.)

Did anyone else notice this awesome gnome scent racial ability? I’ve never seen a gnome depicted as having a fantastic sense of smell, but I can’t wait to build one in PF2.

Hmm

In 3.0 gnomes could take Scent as a feat as a variant rule. Not sure if it was included in the 3.5 DMG.

In 3.5 they got +2 to alchemy because they could monitor the process by smell.

If you (general you) don't think there's any difference between the three small ancestries, simply due to them all getting +2 to Cha, then you're discarding the other 99.9% of what makes each ancestry unique.
There's a whole lot more to a character than just their stat bonus.

On another note, the comment from Mark about playing a caster with a score of 10 in his casting stat also seems to point to minimum stat requirements to cast X-level spells are gone.

2) The blog tone is just un-necessarily cutesy. And for what? There doesn't seem like any fundamental change to these races. Nobody needs or wants to read a Preview Blog to learn "OMG I can play Frodo!" "OMG I can play Rainbow Sprite!". The people reading it are doing so because they're interested in rules developments. OK, maybe there isn't enough crunch there re: these races, and maybe you're working on some heavy developments re: Playtest rules themselves and/or next Rules Preview. Just mentioning this in hope future Blog Previews deliver the goods.

I know it's a crazy idea, but maybe, just maybe, Paizo knows that the blog posts are read by a wide variety of people, including newcomers to the game, and not just old grognards, like us ...

Beyond the fact that their new system of determined ability scores is almost guaranteed to be a disaster, I'm a fair bit concerned for how more 'monstrous' races will be treated in this system.

By monstrous I mean races that have currently a +4 racial modifier in any ability score: for example Orcs have a +4 Strength (and a hefty hit to their mental stats) and are known for their prestigious strength and violent temperament. Now I KNOW how they can, but ultimately its a matter of how 'they' perceive the issue.

For example do they simply plan on making them a bog-standard +2 race and ignore the obvious setting implications and lazy design, or are they willing to let those races get their dues.

If you (general you) don't think there's any difference between the three small ancestries, simply due to them all getting +2 to Cha, then you're discarding the other 99.9% of what makes each ancestry unique.

There's a whole lot more to a character than just their stat bonus.

The problem is that right out of the gate, that's all you have.

A PF1 Halfling and a PF1 Gnome have the same 2 out of 3 Ability Score modifiers (+2 Cha, -2 Str), they were both Small, they both had the same Speed and both have Keen Senses. And that was it.

A Halfling got Fearless, Halfling Luck, Sure Footed and Weapon Familiarity (with Slings).

A Gnome got Low-Light Vision, Defensive Training, Gnome Magic, Hatred, Illusion Resistance, Obsessive and Weapon Familiarity (with "Gnome" weapons).

That means they shared 5 Things (+2 Cha/-2 Str/Small/20 feet/Keen Senses). Halflings had 4 things that were theirs (+2 Dex/All the ones I listed), and Gnomes had 7 (+2 Con/All the ones I listed); at least when comparing each other (since +2 Dex/+2 Con/Low Light/Defensive Training/Hatred were not exclusive to either of them).

Now, will they be different in PF2? Yes, because their Ancestry Feats are different. But how many Ancestry Feats do we get at first level? We'd need a whole bunch to get the same level of "Difference" we had in PF1 between Gnomes and Halflings.

This is what I mean when I say they all feel rather samey.

We all know there's more to characters than stat bonuses. Primarily, how you roleplay them. But mechanical differences are important too, and I don't feel they'll have enough of that out of the gate.

All three small races get bonuses to Charisma?

That seems redundant.

Its cause small races are adorable! ok yeah goblins getting + to charisma is weird.

That should definitely be kobolds thing. Also kobolds should get +2 str dex con int and wis too... maybe +4

GentleGiant wrote:

If you (general you) don't think there's any difference between the three small ancestries, simply due to them all getting +2 to Cha, then you're discarding the other 99.9% of what makes each ancestry unique.

There's a whole lot more to a character than just their stat bonus.

The problem is that right out of the gate, that's all you have.

A PF1 Halfling and a PF1 Gnome have the same 2 out of 3 Ability Score modifiers (+2 Cha, -2 Str), they were both Small, they both had the same Speed and both have Keen Senses. And that was it.

A Halfling got Fearless, Halfling Luck, Sure Footed and Weapon Familiarity (with Slings).

A Gnome got Low-Light Vision, Defensive Training, Gnome Magic, Hatred, Illusion Resistance, Obsessive and Weapon Familiarity (with "Gnome" weapons).

That means they shared 5 Things. Halflings had 3 things that were theirs, and Gnomes had 6 (3, if you do not wish to count Low-Light Vision, Defensive Training and Hatred, since other races had those).

Now, will they be different in PF2? Yes, because their Ancestry Feats are different. But how many Ancestry Feats do we get at first level? We'd need 3 (at least) to get the same level of "Difference" we had in PF1 between Gnomes and Halflings.

This is what I mean when I say they all feel rather samey.

We all know there's more to characters than stat bonuses. Primarily, how you roleplay them. But mechanical differences are important too, and I don't feel they'll have enough of that out of the gate.

You'll have to point me to the exact page number in the playtest document where it says that ... oh, wait, we don't have that yet. So, again, you're conjuring up negativity over "information" we don't have yet.

TheFinish wrote:

GentleGiant wrote:

If you (general you) don't think there's any difference between the three small ancestries, simply due to them all getting +2 to Cha, then you're discarding the other 99.9% of what makes each ancestry unique.

There's a whole lot more to a character than just their stat bonus.

The problem is that right out of the gate, that's all you have.

A PF1 Halfling and a PF1 Gnome have the same 2 out of 3 Ability Score modifiers (+2 Cha, -2 Str), they were both Small, they both had the same Speed and both have Keen Senses. And that was it.

A Halfling got Fearless, Halfling Luck, Sure Footed and Weapon Familiarity (with Slings).

A Gnome got Low-Light Vision, Defensive Training, Gnome Magic, Hatred, Illusion Resistance, Obsessive and Weapon Familiarity (with "Gnome" weapons).

That means they shared 5 Things. Halflings had 3 things that were theirs, and Gnomes had 6 (3, if you do not wish to count Low-Light Vision, Defensive Training and Hatred, since other races had those).

Now, will they be different in PF2? Yes, because their Ancestry Feats are different. But how many Ancestry Feats do we get at first level? We'd need 3 (at least) to get the same level of "Difference" we had in PF1 between Gnomes and Halflings.

This is what I mean when I say they all feel rather samey.

We all know there's more to characters than stat bonuses. Primarily, how you roleplay them. But mechanical differences are important too, and I don't feel they'll have enough of that out of the gate.

You'll have to point me to the exact page number in the playtest document where it says that ... oh, wait, we don't have that yet. So, again, you're conjuring up negativity over "information" we don't have yet.

If Mark comes in here now and says "Yeah guys, everyone gets a whole bunch of Ancestry Feats at 1st level, don't worry", I'll stop worrying.

As it is, since it hasn't been mentioned in any of the three Race blogs we've had so far (and they always talk about picking an Ancestry Feat at a time), I'll keep my misgivings.

Definitely agree - you should get at least 2 ancestry feats at level 1. Otherwise all the races will just look the same at low levels.

If Mark comes in here now and says "Yeah guys, everyone gets a whole bunch of Ancestry Feats at 1st level, don't worry", I'll stop worrying.

As it is, since it hasn't been mentioned in any of the three Race blogs we've had so far (and they always talk about picking an Ancestry Feat at a time), I'll keep my misgivings.

There's a very long list of things they haven't said yet, so ...

All three small races get bonuses to Charisma?

That seems redundant.

Being small makes you cute. It's science.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

All three small races get bonuses to Charisma?

That seems redundant.

Being small makes you cute. It's science.

This guy knows^

The good: This new stat system could be really good. Point buys are our best current system but are more finicky than is needed. And odd scores being pointless has always been a little silly. Making stats all even scores and streamlining the stat creation process is gonna be huge for new players. I also won't cry over the loss of dump stats, though I recognize some people like them.

I don't mind the current stat spread for small races, especially with floating bonuses. I can dig charisma for goblins-- they've always been egotistical little attention seekers, and it is easier to integrate them into society if people find them likable. I could also dig Intelligence instead. While it is weird pairing a largely illiterate race with what I tend to think of as book smarts, goblins are savants when it comes to crafting equipment out of junk, finding hiding spots, and other weirdly specific things. The crafting could certainly align with the new alchemist. Also, having no writing means goblin culture must be passed down orally, so maybe they have a surprisingly good memory.

What goblins are not is wise. They think ovens are a good place to hide, can't differentiate between longshanks, and don't even note the passage of time much.

Halfling and Gnome bonuses mostly just feel like legacy. I wouldn't mind those changing, but I am not sure Halflings will lose CHA while their main iconic is a Bard.

Losing some of the weapon distinction between small and medium is probably good. If oversized weapons are still a thing, and Mark's comment on Amiri makes me think they are, I am betting larger weapons impact your proficiency bonus. Proficiency level would certainly be the sensible thing from a narrative perspective, and probably leaves room for some feats or archetypes to simply give your normal proficiency levels on those weapons. Our current oversized weapon rules and archetypes are certainly too clunky.

The bad: I too am getting worried that our PF2 ancestries (and to a lesser extent our classes) will be their PF1 versions with the same amount of butter spread over too much toast. Obviously there's still room to be proven wrong, but put me in the camp of "hoping ancestry feats let us be even dwarfier than a PF1 dwarf at level one." I'd rather see ancestries starting with most or all of the racial traits from PF1, and then getting PF1 style racial feats for free as they level. So dwarves all start with hardy, and as they level up can gain Steel Soul.

I'm also a little concerned about backgrounds informing ability scores, but as long as it is flexible enough this should be OK.

Here's how we do small people stat bonuses:

-Goblin-
•+2 Dex/Int: PF seems to be going the "Warcraft Goblin" route in that they are scavengers and tinkerers with the bent of "more explosions/fire = good." Therefore they are smart enough to spot useful scrap and smart enough to build/brew things. They're also agile enough to avoid the brunt of backfires that are near guaranteed to be a problem.
•-2 Wis: They're smart, but that doesn't mean they make good decisions.

-Halfling-
•+2 Dex/Wis: Halflings are *not* charismatic, and never have been. They're gruff, xenophobic, enjoy simple things, and generally just want you to leave them to their comfortable hobbit halfling holes.
However, what they are is nimble, perceptive, and strong-willed.
•-2 Str: Halflings work smart, not hard (more argument for +wis!). They may be athletic but they don't even lift, bro.

-Gnome-
•+2 Con/Cha: The traditional Gnome (Krynn's Tinkerer, D&D's Illusionist, etc) is not a Gnome. It's a particularly intelligent Halfling. Consider me happy that Pathfinder said, "Screw that," and changed Gnomes up drastically, injected them with Fey shenanigans, and gave them their own identity for the first time in tabletop gaming history. Pathfinder Gnomes LIVE LIFE. They explore both physically and socially with a gusto that other races are hard-pressed to match. As such, they're sturdier and heartier than their also-small fellows in addition to being much more socially outgoing.
•-2 Int: Gnomes would rather be out, doing than in, reading. You can study the world or live it, and Gnomes would rather live it.

(Stereotypes have been applied and, of course, can be broken with proper stat bump allocation.)

If you (general you) don't think there's any difference between the three small ancestries, simply due to them all getting +2 to Cha, then you're discarding the other 99.9% of what makes each ancestry unique.

There's a whole lot more to a character than just their stat bonus.

On another note, the comment from Mark about playing a caster with a score of 10 in his casting stat also seems to point to minimum stat requirements to cast X-level spells are gone.

That's what its boiled down to now. Thats all ancestry really is anymore.

I would almost rather them scrap the concept entirely than what they've done with it at this point.

Definitely agree - you should get at least 2 ancestry feats at level 1. Otherwise all the races will just look the same at low levels.

I agree with this. Two Ancestry Feats seem much more interesting and compelling than one.

ErichAD wrote:

Aside from needing to remove the bleaching nonsense and changing one of the small races to having an int bonus and another to a wisdom bonus, it all looks pretty okay.

bleeching has been a gnome thing for a long time in pathfinder and helps make them different from d&d gnomes , i doubt they will remove it.

what don't you like about it?

It's a good chunk of personality direction chosen by race selection. I'm not sure how that could be a good thing. It's easy enough to write out of anything I'd run though, so it's not a change that needs to be officially made.

Being different from D&D gnomes isn't a selling point for me any more than being the same as D&D gnomes would be.

RumpinRufus wrote:

Definitely agree - you should get at least 2 ancestry feats at level 1. Otherwise all the races will just look the same at low levels.

I agree with this. Two Ancestry Feats seem much more interesting and compelling than one.

I'm with Kalindlara though - I really am not at all interested in having to buy my PF1 race traits back over the course of my characters career.

When they first announced "ancestry feats" it sounded like they were going to add awesome stuff TO the concept of ancestry, not spread the butter of your core ancestry stuff from PF1 over the course of a career.

Maybe there is some cooler stuff locked behind higher levels, but as of now this sounds just....less interesting than what we have.

All weapons!

The separate damage die collumn for small races was always extremely wonky. Much, much better is to simply restrict the (normal) size weapons they can use, like we did back in the 70s.

Small races use a short bow, not a longbow. They use a shortsword in one hand, or a longsword in two hands, but not a greatsword, not at all.

Also, now we know how stats and point buy works. There are no points. Everybody is 10/10/10/10/10/10, then gets their bonus from ancestry, then from background, then from class. Since we know all the characters in the playtests had an 18 somewhere, I predict that ancestry gives a few +2s, background a few more +2s and class gives a whopping +4 in your primary attribute.

I dislike the idea that all characters are going to be so much the same, but you already saw that in point buy. Maybe it's just the old grognard in me that likes rolling dice for stats (Arrrrh! In my day we rolled 3d6 in order and liked it! Arrrrh!) but after playing a DD3.5 campaign where my fighter had a 13 STR starting out, and then hung on for 4 years of gaming, I can really understand the drawbacks of dice rolling.

Good reveals in this blog! Can't wait for August!

Not so exciting post, since it just bring disappointing teasers instead of some interesting things. But there are some considerations:

1) So, if I get a small character, I *need to be* charismatic? Also, if I get a "essentialy/naturally" charismatic character I "need to be" small (please, don't come again with the floating ability boost justification...)?

That's not a good ideia. Please, please, please (I never asked you anything haha), give half-elves a Charisma (and Dex) boost. (And Str/Wis to half-orcs.)

2) All small characters having a Charisma boost? That's the most disappointing thing I've seen here (and remember: I really dislike the raise a shield action to get AC bonus...)!

I was really hoping some change here. Specially after goblins splashing with Dex and Cha boosts.

For me, if goblins (that IMO shouldn't be in the corebook due to their rarity as heroes in Golarion/any other game world...) have a Dex and Cha, you really should then get different races with different ability boosts.

However, that is how I think this should be:

*Goblins are not charismatic by themself (except for those like in RL hyping them). They look much more instinctive creatures than leaders or strong will people; so, I guess they should get a Wisdom boost instead of Charisma. (Also, maybe you should consider if there is a real crunch/rules need to get a boost in physical and mental scores, specially with the floating ability boost. I think there are a need, but maybe you can think something innovative and different.) For me, goblins show get +2 Dex, +2 Wis, -2 Str.

*Halflings are really charismatic (who in the entire Middle-earth dislike Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin and even Golum?!?!?) and able to handle with all kind of people, so they should get the Cha boost. I guess they should keep the +2 Dex, +2 Cha, -2 Str.

*Gnomes TRY TO be charismatic, but they aren't really pleasant to everyone. In fact, they usually are inconvenient and kind of obnoxious to many other races. However, they ALWAYS are smart, always have quick thinking and use to be wizards, alchemist and crafters. This clearly made them intelligent. So, I'd go with +2 Con, +2 Int, -2 Str. (Gnomes are my preferred race since ever and half my character are gnomes, just for information).

If the intention is to give each ancestry it's own personality, you're failing here. The ability scores of each ancestry is a very important part of them. Even that you give the floating boost to help this, remember: the first thing everyone looks when start reading a race is its ability scores changes. This can make unaware players think (and claim/affirm) that halflings, goblins and gnomes are all "equals", with only different WAR's sketchs.

3) Since now all Small and Medium weapons cause the same damage (as confirmed by Mark), all the Small ancestries receiving a Strenght flaw looks just reasonable. They ARE weaker than Medium people, so they should cause lesser damage. Also: you will not need to make efforts to create crazy/outlandish/stupidy in-game ideas to justify a crunch need.

If there are some Small one that is really strong for its size/people, "matching the strength of the 'tall people'", you can use the floating boost to represent it. For me, just don't make sense to affirm that goblins are stronger than halflings or gnomes and have the same strenght of a human, elf and dwarf.

4) I'd be really happy if you still remain the differentiation to the not-standard (Small/Medium) sizes. Please, don't flat it and make sizes unimportant as you did in Starfinder. This was the worse of all decisions you guys made in Starfinder. Seriously: bad idea ever. (I know it's a different design team, but I guess is my role to alert you of this bad decision.)

5) So, halflings are more sturdy than elves? This look not real to me.

6) I'd preferably go with small characters having a 25 ft speed, Medium (and goblins, blargh!) having a 30 ft speed and fast characters (as elves) having a 35 ft speed. The possibility to walk 3 times in a given round will not happen all the time. Probably, this will occur only in the first round. In the rest of combat, you'll be dumping Medium characters. We don't want the characters to be dumped.

7) The halfling art remember me Hey Arnold! and his football head. Not a cool art... WAR can make it better :P (Except for the anime-ish eyebrows, the gnome one is good.)

8) Bleaching is a bad idea. No one (that since ever liked gnomes) that I know like it. This will not make players choose gnomes more often. Instead, it will probably make players choose gnomes less than now.

9) Discerning Smell gave me the idea of an "Aragorn-style" ranger/tracker gnome. Nice idea!