Fuzzy Feet and Voles to Meet

So Halflings get to reroll a D20 once a day while gobos get no STR flaw, faster speed, and darkvision. Talk about going from the trash heap to the penthouse.

Why is "gnomes need to enjoy themselves, go on adventures, or experience new things" a problem in a game that is predicated on doing those exact things?

Yeah I was not a fan of size not mattering in starfinder.

I can see [Goblins] as irrational and generally detached from empathy and perspective, but with a cunning and ingenuity that leads them to having an INT bonus even though they don't normally have much sense. Just as I can see them being driven and intense enough to have a +CHA without them being nice or sociable. And very possibly if you can get them past their cultural taboos, then they might make surprisingly adept wizards, but they normally go for alchemy in that direction.

Nobody expects that of them though, since the normal encounter with goblins leads people to think their apparent insanity is also stupidity....

I think Stone Dog's comments are worth repeating.

Being unwise or slightly mad is not the same thing as lacking "book smarts", and an intelligent people can go a long way with in terms of education without a written language. Goblins may be naive, short-lived, illiterate, distractible, hyperactive, aggressive, and given toward a lack of empathy and a tendency to think with their stomachs, but they have also been portrayed as having a fairly sophisticated culture and a great deal of skill with such complicated skills as music, storytelling, art, alchemy, magic, problem-solving, tool-making, engineering, society-building, complex planning and communication.... Their intelligence doesn't necessarily look like human intelligence, but then why should it? Goblins are an alien folk, with an alien psychology: it shouldn't look like human intelligence, but that difference should not be read as stupidity.

It's also worth noting that the Goblin heroes portrayed in the Goblin scenarios seemed (as appropriate for heroes) to be cut from a different sort of cloth than the average Goblin - they were a little smarter, a little wiser, a little more thoughtful, a little more forward-looking, a little stronger and more nimble and tougher, and more skillful, well-traveled, ambitious, and proactive than their ordinary Goblin counterparts. Goblin heroes are less likely to be the ones that cause mindless, selfish mischief with other people, and more likely to be the selfless leaders and diplomats and lawkeepers of their tribes, and act as the glue that hold their people together.

Goblin heroes aren't the rank-and-file Goblin goon-squads that adventurers slaughter by the dozen in the average dungeon adventure, any more than Human heroes are the rank-and-file bandits, assassins, cultists, or whatever that adventurers might slaughter by the half-dozen in other dungeon adventures.

I, for one, don't really mind that the stats for Goblins, Halflings, and Gnomes aren't all that different on paper - as I see it, if the stats are the only way to tell one character apart from another, it's probably a pretty boring RPG. There should be (and generally seems to be) a lot more to a character's unique "ancestry" than an extra +2 to a stat that nobody else gets - things like interesting and meaningfully different abilities and feats, for example, that nobody else gets, or interesting and meaningfully different backgrounds, skills, spells and such that help them to fill unique roles within the party that nobody else could fill so well. And, at the very least, there are differences in "fluff", such as the character's description, psychology, history, relations with other characters, etc. There are other ways to differentiate character "races" than simply throwing stat bonuses around, and if the design team can give us genuinely unique and exciting differences between Goblins, Halflings, and Gnomes that make all three ancestries interesting to play, without leaning on stat bonuses as the most interesting difference, then I can see that as entirely a win.

I hope different sized weapons and armor for small/medium races are a thing of the past altogether or that they auto-scale to their owners size. It was a huge disincentive to play a small character when you knew that most loot weapons and armor would be not of your size.

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.

Actually per Mark Seifter saying a Cleric can have a Wis of 10, I think Class is only a +2

Which sorta implies that there's a fourth 'free' step you can use to get a stat to 18.

I earlier theorized the following:

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,

Or something else like that. The details might well be different, but I'm betting it's structurally in four stages like that.

I hope their is one more step I still want to be able to have a character with at least some what odd stats.

I wonder if one solution to the problem with MAD classes is to have certain classes get more stat boosts than others. Assuming you just get boosts for your level 1 class (so multiclassing doesn't get silly) giving the monk boosts to like 4 stats while the wizard gets 2 might not be unreasonable. It's not like you'd take a level in monk to be a better wizard.

I've always liked the Bleaching myself. It hasn't been a big feature in anything I've run so far, but it is something that gnomes in my game are aware of, but don't talk about. It rarely happens because gnomes are sufficiently into art, exploration and discovery as a culture that it isn't a normal issue. But they know. And like a history of dementia in the family, it worries them sometimes.

I'm happy that slings got better! I'd also like it more if one of the Small-sized folks got +WIS, but I'm not sure which one should get it instead. Maybe halflings?
Also, why the complaining about Bleaching? It'll never happen to gnome PCs unless the GM is petty and hates you in person.

"Additionally, the sling is now a more formidable weapon than in Pathfinder First Edition—we've both increased its damage and done away with the difference in damage die size between Small and Medium creatures. A halfling with a sling can be pretty dangerous!"

I suppose that crossbows will get a buff too?

seeing how PF2 is moving away from a increase in static bonuses, giving instead increases in dice of damage, it is a good thing using the same dices for small and medium characters, but it reduce a bit the difference between races.
In PF1 after a few levels the dice used by the weapon become almost irrelevant for damage dealers.

- - - - - -

Stat generation: from what I have seen so far the stat increases are always by two point (or possibly multipliers of two). We will not get a odd value. While that make the math easier, it end making the odd values redundant and useless (possibly with the exception of stat damage or drain).
it seem that having stats that go from 3 to 18 (or whatever are the new values) will have no meaning beside being a legacy, a stat range of 2-9 with a different modifier for each point will do exactly the same.

It'll never happen to gnome PCs unless the GM is petty and hates you in person.

I seriously can't picture a campaign where a PC gnome has to deal with a literally fatal level of ennui.

The Shifty Mongoose wrote:

It'll never happen to gnome PCs unless the GM is petty and hates you in person.

I seriously can't picture a campaign where a PC gnome has to deal with a literally fatal level of ennui.

I think if your campaign is uninteresting enough that you think the party's gnome should start bleaching then you've got bigger problems...

I wonder if one solution to the problem with MAD classes is to have certain classes get more stat boosts than others. Assuming you just get boosts for your level 1 class (so multiclassing doesn't get silly) giving the monk boosts to like 4 stats while the wizard gets 2 might not be unreasonable. It's not like you'd take a level in monk to be a better wizard.

See I would think if you had to do that you didn't balance it well in the first place.

Can we conclude from this blog post that point buy is gone? Or is what is in this blog (and indicated future blogs) just something that is added to point buy?

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.

Especially when you take Heritage Feats into account, since you'd be stuck without something that might be really important to your concept if you also need one of the Heritage Feats. I'm hoping it's at least 2 if not 3 Ancestry Feats at level 1. That being said, it seems like something that could easily end up changing through the Playtest.

I've always liked the Bleaching myself. It hasn't been a big feature in anything I've run so far, but it is something that gnomes in my game are aware of, but don't talk about. It rarely happens because gnomes are sufficiently into art, exploration and discovery as a culture that it isn't a normal issue. But they know. And like a history of dementia in the family, it worries them sometimes.

I've never seen it used in-game, so I've got no definitive opinion on it one way or the other, but from what I remember of it, I can't see the problem: it looks harmless, and it seems to provide some role-playing options for the player. The Bleaching thing strikes me as being no more or less offensive than D&D "sub-races".

Flag and move on, friends. ^_^

Something I noticed, it looks like halflings lost low-light vision?

That's interesting. I don't find that comes up very often, just wondering why it was dropped.

Something I noticed, it looks like halflings lost low-light vision?

That's interesting. I don't find that comes up very often, just wondering why it was dropped.

Halflings never had low-light vision.

I've been thinking, and add me to the list of people who would prefer Ancestries to look more like their PF1 versions, with the Ancestry Feats being cool extras you can do later.

From what we've seen so far, it does seem like abilities that used to be 1st level are being spread out, instead of getting more cool new things. Of course, some PF1 races really did seem to dish out a lot more abilities than others, so maybe some balancing is in order. I just don't want the Ancestries to seem to 'stripped down' to start.

I've been thinking, and add me to the list of people who would prefer Ancestries to look more like their PF1 versions, with the Ancestry Feats being cool extras you can do later.

From what we've seen so far, it does seem like abilities that used to be 1st level are being spread out, instead of getting more cool new things. Of course, some PF1 races really did seem to dish out a lot more abilities than others, so maybe some balancing is in order. I just don't want the Ancestries to seem to 'stripped down' to start.

Yeah, it's a feeling I'm getting too. And getting the feats as you level does seem a bit odd and immersion breaking. "Oh I killed some more orcs, so now I remembered something from my childhood." Or "Some of my genes started functioning now that I've learned more." Just doesn't make a lot of sense. Ancestry logically seems like it should be front loaded. I can see not doing so for the sake of balance, but it can be a bit odd. And taking multiple levels to have what used to be the basics is not cool.

Can we conclude from this blog post that point buy is gone? Or is what is in this blog (and indicated future blogs) just something that is added to point buy?

I think we can.

At 1st level, your ability scores all start at 10. Your ancestry then gives you ability boosts, each of which increases the score by 2. Most ancestries get three ability boosts, two of which have to go into specific scores. The remaining free ability boost can go into any score except the two set ones. Most ancestries also get a flaw, which decreases a designated score by 2. You can put your free ability boost in the same score as your flaw if you want to get back to 10. In later parts of character creation, you'll get more ability boosts, which we'll cover in later blogs! (And if you want to roll your ability scores randomly, we have an option for that in the playtest so you can see how that might work, though we prefer for characters used in the playtest to be generated in the standard way.)

This sounds like it's the new standard stat generation method, but that we'll get more options with the final release of PF2.0 in August 2019.

To reach 18 (which all the characters in the playtest had one of) you start with 10, get some +2s from Ancestry, some more +2s from background, and a +4 from your class. And maybe a few more bits & bobs along the way, but only one stat will reach 18.

The further boosts at levels 5, 10, 15 and 20 are intended to replace stat boosting items, as near as I can tell.

UnArcaneElection wrote:

Can we conclude from this blog post that point buy is gone? Or is what is in this blog (and indicated future blogs) just something that is added to point buy?

I think we can.

Paizo Blog wrote:

At 1st level, your ability scores all start at 10. Your ancestry then gives you ability boosts, each of which increases the score by 2. Most ancestries get three ability boosts, two of which have to go into specific scores. The remaining free ability boost can go into any score except the two set ones. Most ancestries also get a flaw, which decreases a designated score by 2. You can put your free ability boost in the same score as your flaw if you want to get back to 10. In later parts of character creation, you'll get more ability boosts, which we'll cover in later blogs! (And if you want to roll your ability scores randomly, we have an option for that in the playtest so you can see how that might work, though we prefer for characters used in the playtest to be generated in the standard way.)

This sounds like it's the new standard stat generation method, but that we'll get more options with the final release of PF2.0 in August 2019.

To reach 18 (which all the characters in the playtest had one of) you start with 10, get some +2s from Ancestry, some more +2s from background, and a +4 from your class. And maybe a few more bits & bobs along the way, but only one stat will reach 18.

The further boosts at levels 5, 10, 15 and 20 are intended to replace stat boosting items, as near as I can tell.

As long as the standard generation method is based on choice rather than chance, I'm happy. Going with Ancestry, Background and Class seems neat.

Yeah it's very 13th Age. One of the things I like about the system

Stone Dog wrote:

I can see [Goblins] as irrational and generally detached from empathy and perspective, but with a cunning and ingenuity that leads them to having an INT bonus even though they don't normally have much sense. Just as I can see them being driven and intense enough to have a +CHA without them being nice or sociable. And very possibly if you can get them past their cultural taboos, then they might make surprisingly adept wizards, but they normally go for alchemy in that direction.

Nobody expects that of them though, since the normal encounter with goblins leads people to think their apparent insanity is also stupidity....

I think Stone Dog's comments are worth repeating.

Being unwise or slightly mad is not the same thing as lacking "book smarts"...

I had made a similar point in the goblin thread, though not nearly so in depth or eloquent. I agree that goblins are definitely a great place to show a less typical idea of intelligence, and would much prefer a +INT over the +CHA they're getting in the playtest. Also not too keen on all the small races having the same mental stat bonus.

Ah... Another blog I am not terribly interested in.

So - to summarize.

It is Starfinder "Ancestry" basically with an additional +2.

Two get a +2 pre-assigned, one gets a -2, but you get a +2 that you can put anywhere to get rid of that -2 or add another +2 to a stat.

Humans, undoubtedly, will get +2 to two stats of their choice with no -2.

Ugh.

Okay Paizo... Please give us a blog on the things that are actually hot topics. The boards explode over things like alignments and Paladins... While Gnomes and Halflings are fine... Nobody is begging and screaming for this information.

Please give us information about the things we've been asking about for weeks now.

To join the chorus: Yes, please make the mental stats more different. I suggest Int for Goblins and Wis for Halflings. Int for Gnomes would also work, but Goblin Alchemists and Gnome Bards make more sense than the other way around.

Small weapons doing the same damage as mediums is a crappy rule. I am sorry but your todler sized warriors SHOULD suck in comparison. Now if small sized characters can use medium sized weapons that is ok, as long as they are limited to the upper limit of something longsword(the dnd longsword not the actual weapon.) sized, unless they spend the equivalent resources it would take medium to use large sized weaponry.

I agree that the one mental one physical bonuses is a thing that just needs to die.

And count me among the people that think we need a lot of 1st level ancestory feats (like minium of 3) or the races just look like skins instead of anything else.

And it seems that gnomes will continue to be axed in all the games that I run. Ok paizo listen in, cooky/zany characters aren't fun, they are annoying. That is why your goblins suck.

Finally, I really hate how this blog post was written. The tone was annoying and it barely contained information. I could have written all the relevant information with a quarter of the space.

Small weapons doing the same damage as mediums is a crappy rule. I am sorry but your todler sized warriors SHOULD suck in comparison. Now if small sized characters can use medium sized weapons that is ok, as long as they are limited to the upper limit of something longsword(the dnd longsword not the actual weapon.) sized, unless they spend the equivalent resources it would take medium to use large sized weaponry.

I agree that the one mental one physical bonuses is a thing that just needs to die.

And count me among the people that think we need a lot of 1st level ancestory feats (like minium of 3) or the races just look like skins instead of anything else.

And it seems that gnomes will continue to be axed in all the games that I run. Ok paizo listen in, cooky/zany characters aren't fun, they are annoying. That is why your goblins suck.

Finally, I really hate how this blog post was written. The tone was annoying and it barely contained information. I could have written all the relevant information with a quarter of the space.

agree with most of it but the cooky zany characters aren't fun part. You may not like em but some people think their fun.

Also as far as the blog posts go you know they are a long ways away from having a finished product they might not have that much information ready to leak out yet.

Can we conclude from this blog post that point buy is gone? Or is what is in this blog (and indicated future blogs) just something that is added to point buy?

50/50 at this point (with me leaning towards point buy remaining).

The low starting stats make the PCs seem 'average' not 'heroic'. By the sound of it (with limited info), you can only get a 12 in a stat. Is there another mechanic? Do I need to burn skill points or feats to boost my stats? I've had the options/chance of a starting 18 for 40 years. I hope that is not going away.

Small weapons doing the same damage as mediums is a crappy rule

Who says small weapons exist? I'd expect small creatures to just use medium sized weapons with potential restrictions on which weapons they can use.

I'm expecting to see choosing your (first) class giving +2 to 4 abilities, since that's what you get levelling at 5th etc, and they've said it will be unified.

To join the chorus: Yes, please make the mental stats more different. I suggest Int for Goblins and Wis for Halflings. Int for Gnomes would also work, but Goblin Alchemists and Gnome Bards make more sense than the other way around.

More specifically: My first reaction to Wis for Halflings was «but they're charismatic!», only to realize that did not match my experience with Halflings in the game. Most often, they are shown as an oppressed or otherwise troubled people who have to endure hardship and who keep to themselves in tight-knit communities. Even Tolkien's Halflings are the embodiment of common sense, seeing as they never go on adventures. They are the introverts among the small people, and Wisdom is the best stat for them. I think Halflings also make the most likely Clerics among the small races, flavor-wise.

You can still build the occasional Pippin Took by putting the floating bonus into Cha, but that's not what Halflings are like as a rule.

Now, a case could be made that both Gnomes and Goblins are aggressively extrovert -- both come with very individualistic, in-your-face, YOLO type personalities. I could live with Cha for both of them, though Int for Goblins still makes more sense to me. Shouldn't Gnomes make the best Bards? Certainly not Goblins!

(Also, let me just say that I'm utterly appalled that some people suggest a Wis bonus for Goblins. They are the very embodiment of poor judgement.)

So its decided then. Int for goblins, wis for halflins, chr for gnomeys and Kobolds get +4 to all 3.

+2 INT, -2 WIS could make sense for goblins (I didn't realise Pathfinder 1e gnomes weren't INT based. I only ever saw one gnome played. Maybe two but the character was so annoying I can't remember if it was a gnome or a halfling).

Wultram wrote:

Small weapons doing the same damage as mediums is a crappy rule

Who says small weapons exist? I'd expect small creatures to just use medium sized weapons with potential restrictions on which weapons they can use.

You could have at least read full message you were replying to. And small weapons should exist at least on a theoritical level, so we can deduce the even smaller size categories damage.

You could have at least read full message you were replying to.

Fair point. FYI: I read the first sentence and everything after the first paragraph. Apparently my brain decided to just skip most of the first paragraph. My bad.

small weapons should exist at least on a theoritical level, so we can deduce the even smaller size categories damage.

Given the focus on mathematical balance and monsters not using the same rules as PCs, I have a sinking feeling that monsters won't actually use weapon dice to determine their damage dice. So tiny creatures could literally use anything for their damage dice and the "tiny weapon" they're using is pure flavour. Hopefully I'm wrong.

I expect they will go the 4e/5e path and restrict small races from heavy weapons. If a Halfling's one-handed sword is functionally identical to a Human's short sword, why not call it a short sword in game mechanics terms? There's precedence for that; Tolkien's hobbits pick up some ancient human daggers that they use as swords.

If a Halfling's greataxe did as much damage as a Human's, that would in fact be rather weird.

So, looking at the online rules from the ARG for Dwarves (cos they're top of the list) there are a number of alternate racial traits that replace hatred, greed, defensive training, hardy, darkvision, stability or stonecunning. So far we've seen the stuff that you can't trade out. (Except darkvision).

Halflings alternate racial traits trade out halfling luck, fearless, or sure-footed.

I expect these are moving into background. Different ancestries might give different numbers of racial traits to choose between. Or the current racial traits might be expanded to more ancestries.

Wultram wrote:

Small weapons doing the same damage as mediums is a crappy rule

Who says small weapons exist? I'd expect small creatures to just use medium sized weapons with potential restrictions on which weapons they can use.

I think this was the case in D&D 3.0 at least. As far as I know, small characters were wielding one-handed weapons two-handed and light weapons one-handed. (But I'd have to re-read that to be sure.)

But the difference in damage between small and medium weapons is so small in most cases that making no difference at all is/would be a welcome simplification.