Born of Two Worlds

I don't like this overall, but I would be very disappointed if they did this to Changelings. Mechanically a lot differentiated them from humans and other races, and it would be hard to recreate them with an ancestry feat progression. I doubt they would let you have claws, the natural armor bonus, darkvision, and the hag trait all at level one.

Which is hugely disappointing, because that would be sweet. Please spare Changelings this weird half-race massacre (they were really only kind of a half race anyway, when you get down to it. More like the biological nymph stage of a hag.)

Changelings, Dhampirs and Skinwalkers would get really weird if you broke down their defining characteristics into feats, especially because these ancestry feats aren't something you can just take with a general feat by the sounds of it. I think it works for the Planar species a bit better tbh by giving them some progressing powers vs. a spell-like that may more not be useful as you progress.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Indeed, it's not "losing a feat" it's "Spending a feat to gain some advantages you would not have access to without taking this feat, perhaps most importantly the ability to choose between normally mutually exclusive lists for future choices".

Except that it's really more like Spending a feat to gain a fraction of the advantages your parents got for free.

Actually it's choosing an ancestry, which appears to be a little different.

Theshe wrote:

1of1 wrote:

So, are they still core races?

This isn't a barbed question, I'm just confused.

My interpretation is they aren't. They are now human+ options.

Seconded, they're pretty much a human feat choice. We're net -1 Core race vs. first edition.

I can very much see this being a way to read it. In fact that's how I can see it playing out for some people. Not "I am a Half elf" but "Do I want to pick up Half Elf?"

Turning it into a feat of some kind does let other races cross over into the "Half" club if they want, but this feels like a demotion down to just stats rather than character.

MadMars wrote:

I don't like this overall, but I would be very disappointed if they did this to Changelings. Mechanically a lot differentiated them from humans and other races, and it would be hard to recreate them with an ancestry feat progression. I doubt they would let you have claws, the natural armor bonus, darkvision, and the hag trait all at level one.

Which is hugely disappointing, because that would be sweet. Please spare Changelings this weird half-race massacre (they were really only kind of a half race anyway, when you get down to it. More like the biological nymph stage of a hag.)

Changelings, Dhampirs and Skinwalkers would get really weird if you broke down their defining characteristics into feats, especially because these ancestry feats aren't something you can just take with a general feat by the sounds of it. I think it works for the Planar species a bit better tbh by giving them some progressing powers vs. a spell-like that may more not be useful as you progress.

I suggested in another thread that maybe you could handle those kinds of things through a combination of racial feats and an archetype. The racial stuff gives the base abilities and the archetype allows for progression and specialization.

zeonsghost wrote:

MadMars wrote:

I don't like this overall, but I would be very disappointed if they did this to Changelings. Mechanically a lot differentiated them from humans and other races, and it would be hard to recreate them with an ancestry feat progression. I doubt they would let you have claws, the natural armor bonus, darkvision, and the hag trait all at level one.

Which is hugely disappointing, because that would be sweet. Please spare Changelings this weird half-race massacre (they were really only kind of a half race anyway, when you get down to it. More like the biological nymph stage of a hag.)

Changelings, Dhampirs and Skinwalkers would get really weird if you broke down their defining characteristics into feats, especially because these ancestry feats aren't something you can just take with a general feat by the sounds of it. I think it works for the Planar species a bit better tbh by giving them some progressing powers vs. a spell-like that may more not be useful as you progress.

I suggested in another thread that maybe you could handle those kinds of things through a combination of racial feats and an archetype. The racial stuff gives the base abilities and the archetype allows for progression and specialization.

I mean at that point are those races or sub classes?

Arachnofiend wrote:

It's a good excuse for them to never make a half-orc or -elf iconic, I guess.

RIP Seltiyel, Imrijka, Oloch, and Jirelle.

You know, 3 of those classes might have been obsolesced already. I'm less sure about Inquisitor.

It's been stated that the only iconics safe from replacement are the Core ones; even if they remade the Inquisitor there's no guarantee the iconic will be Imrijka. She'll probably get replaced by a human.

Honestly, it feels like the cart is being put before the horse, a mechanical approach that might be nice for certain things (like Aasimar) is being prioritized to be used in CRB even when it doesn't strictly add any value.

If I had to guess, it's to try out the feature in the playtest without actually having tiefling, skinwlkers, ect in the game yet. SO testing the waters with a mainstream option gives them the option to pull it back if needed for the 1/2 races while seeing if it'd work well enough for the oddballs.

EDIT:

So, are they still core races?

This isn't a barbed question, I'm just confused.

LOL The question is 'are they races at all'.

Excaliburproxy wrote:

zeonsghost wrote:

MadMars wrote:

I don't like this overall, but I would be very disappointed if they did this to Changelings. Mechanically a lot differentiated them from humans and other races, and it would be hard to recreate them with an ancestry feat progression. I doubt they would let you have claws, the natural armor bonus, darkvision, and the hag trait all at level one.

Which is hugely disappointing, because that would be sweet. Please spare Changelings this weird half-race massacre (they were really only kind of a half race anyway, when you get down to it. More like the biological nymph stage of a hag.)

Changelings, Dhampirs and Skinwalkers would get really weird if you broke down their defining characteristics into feats, especially because these ancestry feats aren't something you can just take with a general feat by the sounds of it. I think it works for the Planar species a bit better tbh by giving them some progressing powers vs. a spell-like that may more not be useful as you progress.

I suggested in another thread that maybe you could handle those kinds of things through a combination of racial feats and an archetype. The racial stuff gives the base abilities and the archetype allows for progression and specialization.

I mean at that point are those races or sub classes?

The issue is that things like Vampire and Werewolf have so many tropes and powers that they probably need to be both races AND subclasses (which is to say archetypes). Though honestly, the race feat part is kind of unnecessary in a mechanical sense. I just think that has a nice little bit of verisimilitude; that is to say part of the power you get is embodied in the KIND of creature you are (the race feat bit) and part of that power come from you developing that power further and/or bringing your latent powers undercontrol (the archetype bit).

Also, I am not sure what you mean by a "subclass". What does that even look like in 2E if not an archetype?

Hey there all,

Just checking back in on this thread as the mad dash to Gen Con continues here in the office. I can see that folks are passionately debating the finer points of this decision and that there are many calling these choices into question.

That is why we playtest.
...

I know that no promises are being made above. But I do feel reassured that you've read the discussions and are giving them due consideration.

That is why we playtest.

Remember, we are all on the same team here folks. You might not agree with some of the choices we have made, but we all want to work toward creating the best Pathfinder game that we can make.

Agreed.

And I really want to emphasize that I was and am excited about the idea of making half and modified races into 'archetype's that you can freely associate with any of them. I think that while I understood the concept of halfbloods being a mix of their parents in practice because they were listed as a separate option they came over the years to be something precious and unique.

For myself almost every starting character I assume half-orc and then build from there. It became a default option with it's own cultural assumptions. And its always been the only way to play an Orc PC in most of the games I've played in because so many DMs wont allow the grey/greenskins as part of the party.

From a mechanical perspective I can really see why the desire was there to make these a checkable option from one of the parent races, and since Golarion is human I understand using them as the parent of choice.

But because of years of practical separation it is as impactful as if we suddenly lost dwarves or gnomes. And because it is a playtest I want to make my voice heard so that an aspect that is familiar and dear doesnt get lost due to mechanical improvements.

Hopefully this is a clear explanation of the drivers I have.

Thank you for you and your crews continued and direct engagement and enthusiasm for this great IP you have developed.

For what it's worth, it always bothered me in PF1 that Half-orcs and Half-elves were races in their own right. They were just these two random races in the CRB that were never really supported from a thematic perspective, and never fit into the way the rest of the races were thematically.

While this may not be the right cost for it, I'm really glad that Paizo are aiming for, what is to me, a much more thematic, logical and systematic perspective for everyone who belongs to more than one race.

Do people think that having half-race as a background would be a better (relatively) way of doing this?

For example;
The Half-elf background could provide +2 to Dex or Int and access to both ancestry feat lines, plus the half-elf specific ones — but no free skill.
Then there is a half-elf ancestry feat that provides options like fast movement, low-light vision and the elven language.

The issue is that things like Vampire and Werewolf have so many tropes and powers that they probably need to be both races AND subclasses (which is to say archetypes). Though honestly, the race feat part is kind of unnecessary in a mechanical sense. I just think that has a nice little bit of verisimilitude; that is to say part of the power you get is embodied in the KIND of creature you are (the race feat bit) and part of that power come from you developing that power further and/or bringing your latent powers undercontrol (the archetype bit).

Also, I am not sure what you mean by a "subclass". What does that even look like in 2E if not an archetype?

So wait..., if I pick Dhampir as a race and level it, does that mean I have to cross class into Fighter now? Am I to assume that every actual Vampire doesn't take classes and are just full fledged monster stat blocks with progression?

That doesn't sound right to me. As for "subclass" well depending on how it's handled, picking one of those races then means putting points or even an archetype into it like you suggest. Which means they start creeping into Class Feats selections.

So you have this odd choice of "Do I put this into Fighter Feat or Werewolf Feat?". What I'm saying is if handled wrong this becomes either A) Race+Class rolled into 1 to the point we are playing full fledged Monster characters or B) A secondary class that we have to use Class feat points to upgrade even though it's a race.

Unless I'm misunderstanding it or explaining it poorly.

Hey there all,

Just checking back in on this thread as the mad dash to Gen Con continues here in the office. I can see that folks are passionately debating the finer points of this decision and that there are many calling these choices into question.

That is why we playtest.

I am not sure that any member of the team was fully satisfied with this solution for the Playtest rulebook, but it was one that justified some of the more optimized choices that could be made over the career of a character from having access to both parent's lists of ancestry feats. That had to cost something, but it is becoming clear that there is a, albeit early and based on incomplete data, sense that the cost is too high.

We are eager to see what the wider playtest audience thinks of this decision once the entire ruleset is released. Moves like this are high on the list of things we will be paying very close attention to over the next few months. If this thread is any indicator, I am sure we will be making a number of changes to see what we can do to improve the usability of the half-elf and half-orc.

Remember, we are all on the same team here folks. You might not agree with some of the choices we have made, but we all want to work toward creating the best Pathfinder game that we can make.

Well first and foremost, I'm fascinated by the comment that "I am not sure that any member of the team was fully satisfied with this solution for the Playtest rulebook", that really puts things in an interesting light.

On a more personal note though, stating for the record that most of my misgivings in this approach are based around things that wouldn't really come up in the playtest because it is generally based on the chokehold against future options. Namely literally anything you might want to give a Halfblood race but which would normally qualify as a "Heritage" feat, because (as stated before) this is completely cutting off halfblood races from accessing Heritage feats. As such, I sincerely hope you will at least consider the option of multiple Ancestry feats at level 1. And if that means some options *coughNaturalAmbitionAndGeneralTrainingcough* need to be toned down a bit or maybe given a level prereq, well, so be it if it means that the Halfbloods (again restating, some of my preferred races, I have severe personal stake in this) are not cut off entirely from an entire notable and useful class of feat.

I have to say, the solution I like best is that at level 1 you have to take a heritage feat (because you have genes, they have some effect on you) and you have to take an ancestry feat (you grew up in some culture, and picked up something from it.)

Just because it feels weird that some people will have genes but no culture and some people will have culture with no genes. Separating the two is great, but you need both to be a person.

Like it's kind of weird to get "from an early age I was trained in my people's ancestral weapons" ... at level 5.

So does that mean Half-Orcs and Half-Elves will be getting most of the benefits of humans? I'm all for that. Half-Elf was *alright* but Half-Orc was kinda just a crappier, slightly scary human that could see in the dark. Both could do with a bit of a lift.

The Sideromancer wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

It's a good excuse for them to never make a half-orc or -elf iconic, I guess.

RIP Seltiyel, Imrijka, Oloch, and Jirelle.

You know, 3 of those classes might have been obsolesced already. I'm less sure about Inquisitor.

It's been stated that the only iconics safe from replacement are the Core ones; even if they remade the Inquisitor there's no guarantee the iconic will be Imrijka. She'll probably get replaced by a human.

Given that Imrijka is one of the most visually distinct Pathfinder characters, doesn't have Damiel's squicky backstory, and has a major role in the current run of Pathfinder comics, that seems unlikely.

I have to say, the solution I like best is that at level 1 you have to take a heritage feat (because you have genes, they have some effect on you) and you have to take an ancestry feat (you grew up in some culture, and picked up something from it.)

Just because it feels weird that some people will have genes but no culture and some people will have culture with no genes. Separating the two is great, but you need both to be a person.

Like it's kind of weird to get "from an early age I was trained in my people's ancestral weapons" ... at level 5.

If they do go multiple Ancestry Feats at level 1 I personally kinda hope they don't go this route, for a couple reasons. One, it still kinda defeats the entire goal I'm hoping for, since the Halfblood feats are still Heritage feats, but also... even outside that there may be times when you might want to combine two Heritage feats (again, going off the idea of them introducing multiple feats at level 1) for an interesting character concept. I could get behind requiring at least one of your starting Ancestry Feats to be a Heritage feat to show the genetic influence, but I dislike forcing the other to be a non-Heritage feat because level 1 is the only chance you get to take Heritage feats.

Half-Orc was kinda just a crappier, slightly scary human that could see in the dark.

Ah... 1/2 orc was one of the best races in the game and IMO at the top of the race pile if your build didn't need an extra feat to get online. 1/2 elves are no slouches either.

Damiel's squicky backstory

Poor, poor Damiel. When will discrimination against mad scientists end?

I'm telling ya'll, Damiel and others will return when they do a proper Evil Iconics line-up.

He would've been better art for the Master Chemist than Not-Lini was. Especially with his background...

I sorta feel one possible solution to a lot of the problems people have brought up with ancestries would be to give humans two ancestry feats to start, and improve the other base ancestries to make up for it.

CraziFuzzy wrote:

edduardco wrote:

Wow Tuesday blog, that catched me unguarded.

Before I read the comments, I really want to congratulates Paizo for making half-bloods part of the Human ancestry. For a long time I've thought that half-bloods should be a template, the approach presented here covers that design space good enough. There is still hope for PF2 :)

If only it wasn't tied to Human... ;-) Me want's some Dworcs or Half-halflings.

Mmmm I don't know, I've never believed that all humanoids could interbreed between them, quite the opposite actually, for me racial interbreeding is a Human only characteristic, that is why one of the halves of half-bloods is always Human.

. Then where do all these weird sorcerer bloodlines come from?

edduardco wrote:

CraziFuzzy wrote:

edduardco wrote:

Wow Tuesday blog, that catched me unguarded.

Before I read the comments, I really want to congratulates Paizo for making half-bloods part of the Human ancestry. For a long time I've thought that half-bloods should be a template, the approach presented here covers that design space good enough. There is still hope for PF2 :)

If only it wasn't tied to Human... ;-) Me want's some Dworcs or Half-halflings.

Mmmm I don't know, I've never believed that all humanoids could interbreed between them, quite the opposite actually, for me racial interbreeding is a Human only characteristic, that is why one of the halves of half-bloods is always Human.

. Then where do all these weird sorcerer bloodlines come from?

Almost all of them are dragon/extraplanar/otherwise very magical.

But because of years of practical separation it is as impactful as if we suddenly lost dwarves or gnomes.

I'd argue that both half-elves and half-orcs probably have more fans than gnomes do...

Like it's kind of weird to get "from an early age I was trained in my people's ancestral weapons" ... at level 5.

Yeah, well, that aspect gets worse as you go along. Developing a defining trait of your species/race/ancestry makes some limited sense at the start of the game. Its weird at 5th. It's just bizarre at 9th, 13th and 17th (as shown on the character sheet from a while back, not any links).

But really, even level 1 is too late for a lot of this stuff. This isn't a feat you pick up in early adulthood and become half-elven with the start of your character your career. For narrative sense, race/ancestry needs to be a fundamental part of the character even in their background story before they became an adventurer. Same with culture, why its part of the character, or why they have a different one. That's pre-levels and pre-feats.

The half races really demonstrate how odd this ancestry feat idea is, but it applies to the others as well. Except possibly humans, since their key feats are basically the result of extra learning or training, and are tied tightly to being better at <adventuring class>.

I don't know if it's really necessary to have rules for PCs before they gain class levels, the simulation after all has never been all-encompassing (it's possible to walk exactly 6.5 feet, but not in combat in Pathfinder.)

I mean, I really like the idea behind feat-based ancestries, since it underlines essentially "you can't assume anything about somebody just because they're a dwarf, except that they're short and can see in the dark". Like "every single half-orc learns to use a Falchion" is a weird thing, in case your half-orc's parents were like half-orc fisherfolk who never hefted a weapon other than a gaffing hook or a harpoon. Separating the genetic traits from the cultural traits and letting people put together mechanics which reflect their own vision of their character's upbringing is all great.

But in PF1, creating a character can be really front-loaded because a lot of races (as an aside, I really look forward to getting to stop using that word) had a bunch of different alternate traits so you could spend hours figuring out how to best trade away defensive training, greed, hatred, stability, and stonecunning for your Dwarf character who grew up in non-traditional envirionment for Dwarves. So you want to minimize the amount of choices you have to make at chargen.

I guess this is one of the trickiest tightropes to walk for the new edition. I certainly don't mind character creation being involved, but I can't deny the appeal of "Chargen takes 5 minutes" in a game like this.

But in PF1, creating a character can be really front-loaded because a lot of races (as an aside, I really look forward to getting to stop using that word) had a bunch of different alternate traits so you could spend hours figuring out how to best trade away defensive training, greed, hatred, stability, and stonecunning for your Dwarf character who grew up in non-traditional envirionment for Dwarves. So you want to minimize the amount of choices you have to make at chargen.

With my group, this is by far the most celebrated part of the new ancestry feat system. Alternate racial traits were never banned in our group, but with a very few exceptions, they were almost never taken because it became a sudoku puzzle on trading off certain abilities, and making everything feats means that you get the benefits of an alternate racial trait system, but don't have to puzzle through "well this replaces abilities A and B, and this replaces Abilities B and C, but there's nothing that replaces abilities A or C alone that seems right, and ability B is actually the one that's least against my character, so..." I know I at least wish there was a little more differentiation at first level, but as far as the prevailing sentiment in my group, myself included, feats replacing features is by far a more welcome route.

I don't know if it's really necessary to have rules for PCs before they gain class levels, the simulation after all has never been all-encompassing (it's possible to walk exactly 6.5 feet, but not in combat in Pathfinder.)

I mean, I really like the idea behind feat-based ancestries, since it underlines essentially "you can't assume anything about somebody just because they're a dwarf, except that they're short and can see in the dark". Like "every single half-orc learns to use a Falchion" is a weird thing, in case your half-orc's parents were like half-orc fisherfolk who never hefted a weapon other than a gaffing hook or a harpoon. Separating the genetic traits from the cultural traits and letting people put together mechanics which reflect their own vision of their character's upbringing is all great.

But in PF1, creating a character can be really front-loaded because a lot of races (as an aside, I really look forward to getting to stop using that word) had a bunch of different alternate traits so you could spend hours figuring out how to best trade away defensive training, greed, hatred, stability, and stonecunning for your Dwarf character who grew up in non-traditional envirionment for Dwarves. So you want to minimize the amount of choices you have to make at chargen.

I guess this is one of the trickiest tightropes to walk for the new edition. I certainly don't mind character creation being involved, but I can't deny the appeal of "Chargen takes 5 minutes" in a game like this.

But isn't the end effect of all these ancestry feats pretty similar to selecting alternate racial traits? The main difference seems to be that you just get one. But you're still going to be going through a list (that will likely continue to expand with later books) and finding the best one for your concept.

And frankly, ancestry should be front loaded. It's in your history, not something you pick up later. The whole idea of getting most of your ancestry feats at higher level just makes no sense to me from a verisimilitude standpoint. I can see expanding on your ancestry, but not to the extend that most is determined after you reach adulthood and whack a lot of monsters. And I'm not sure a 5 minute chargen is really a great feature if it comes at the expense of being able to have the character you want. I do have to say the fact that almost all racial traits have been taken away and sold back by feats seems like it will result in ancestry being indistinct and bland until higher level.

I do agree that the cultural and genetic stuff should be separate. But a single feat doesn't really do a good job of allowing that. It requires an either/or approach.

With my group, this is by far the most celebrated part of the new ancestry feat system. Alternate racial traits were never banned in our group, but with a very few exceptions, they were almost never taken because it became a sudoku puzzle on trading off certain abilities, and making everything feats means that you get the benefits of an alternate racial trait system, but don't have to puzzle through "well this replaces abilities A and B, and this replaces Abilities B and C, but there's nothing that replaces abilities A or C alone that seems right, and ability B is actually the one that's least against my character, so..." I know I at least wish there was a little more differentiation at first level, but as far as the prevailing sentiment in my group, myself included, feats replacing features is by far a more welcome route.

Oh yeah, the trading of options was very problematic. There might be an alternate feat that really fits the concept, but comes at the expense of something else that also fits it really well. Archetypes had a similar problem where many traded away important class features for some very situational options. So I like the theory of feats, but the back-loading just doesn't work for me.

I did like Cuup's suggestion a few pages back. They suggested having a selection of base ancestry options each with a point value, and then you purchase them with a point budget you start with. This avoids the problematic trade-offs, keeps people from just grabbing all the most powerful traits and lets ancestry be more important at first level. It does break the whole "Everything is a feat!" trend. But featification shouldn't be a straitjacket, the point is for it to be the opposite and allow more customization. I think this could be combined with ancestry feats to expand on things and for options a bit more powerful than the basic ones.

But I guess some questions worth considering are:

- How many choices is it reasonable to ask someone to make at character generation?
- Is it a problem if some aspects of character creation require many more choices than another? Like if someone's class requires them to pick a single feat, can we ask people to make five choices as part of their ancestry? In doing this are we sort of saying that it matters more that "you are a dwarf" than "you were a tailor" or "you are a fighter"?
-Do ancestries need to give a lot of things? In PF1 they did, but in some other similar games they give very little beyond stats and a unique option.

I get that it's better to have people just select the options they want, instead of having people select the options they don't want, then further selecting what replacement traits they do want. But questions about "when" and "how many" aren't easy.

But I guess some questions worth considering are:

- How many choices is it reasonable to ask someone to make at character generation?
- Is it a problem if some aspects of character creation require many more choices than another? Like if someone's class requires them to pick a single feat, can we ask people to make five choices as part of their ancestry? In doing this are we sort of saying that it matters more that "you are a dwarf" than "you were a tailor" or "you are a fighter"?
-Do ancestries need to give a lot of things? In PF1 they did, but in some other similar games they give very little beyond stats and a unique option.

I get that it's better to have people just select the options they want, instead of having people select the options they don't want, then further selecting what replacement traits they do want. But questions about "when" and "how many" aren't easy.

This is fair, but I think the problem that I've seen comes not out of "how many options at character creation" but how much those options are or aren't a straightjacket for future options. In PF1e, for example, a single (or two or three if you were a fighter and/or a human) feat was a more difficult choice, because lots of builds took enough feats that you had to plan around that, at first level. If it's not that way in PF2e, then I can see having significantly more choices, but having an easier time in character creation, because those choices aren't necessarily going to be limiters in the same way on your future choices.

That being said, I can see your points on the degree that ancestries might overwhelm other options, like backgrounds or class at first level. I'd like to actually do some character creation under 2e before I necessarily 100% agree, but I can see that it could be a reasonable argument.

But I guess some questions worth considering are:

These are good questions. I approve of them.

- How many choices is it reasonable to ask someone to make at character generation?

A fairly small number. However, Ability Scores and Skills aside (which are both pretty straightforward), right now you make 6 choices total (Ancestry, Ancestry Feat, Background, Class, Class-based choice like Domains or Totem, Class Feat). I don't think upping it to 7 with a second Ancestry Feat is over the line.

- Is it a problem if some aspects of character creation require many more choices than another? Like if someone's class requires them to pick a single feat, can we ask people to make five choices as part of their ancestry? In doing this are we sort of saying that it matters more that "you are a dwarf" than "you were a tailor" or "you are a fighter"?

Classes can make a couple of choices in many cases (Totem and Class Feat for a Barbarian, for example). I don't think making Ancestry have as many choices as many Classes is a problem.

-Do ancestries need to give a lot of things? In PF1 they did, but in some other similar games they give very little beyond stats and a unique option.

Not a whole lot, but only one seems overly restrictive in most cases.

I get that it's better to have people just select the options they want, instead of having people select the options they don't want, then further selecting what replacement traits they do want. But questions about "when" and "how many" aren't easy.

I think it's not as hard as all that. My own criteria is 'They need to be able to take a Heritage Feat and one other thing' because anything else is kinda overly restrictive.

Using Ancestry Feats for mixed heritage make a ton of sense. I find the example of a half orc, half dwarf. I once tried to stat a race up in 3e with the intent to play one.

So much of Pathfinder 2e relies on feats. If any of the blogs have said it's been a while but does anyone know how often characters get feats?

I sorta feel one possible solution to a lot of the problems people have brought up with ancestries would be to give humans two ancestry feats to start, and improve the other base ancestries to make up for it.

Eh. Two ancestry feats at 1st level would be REALLY potent on a human, because they could take so many different things. I think to make it work you'd either need to limit it to a heritage feat (and have a generic human heritage for those who don't want to be halfies) or take away the human's ability to choose class and general feats. And if you do the former, it kind of raises the question of why not just give everyone another feat to spend on heritage at level 1.

I think the easiest thing to do would be to give the human an extra skill training or two at 1st level. That would also be pretty close to emulating the basic human package from PF1.

Using Ancestry Feats for mixed heritage make a great deal of sense. I look forward to being able to create aasimar elves and the like. We've talked about half elves, half orcs, and planetouched. What about dragon Ancestry feats?

So much of Pathfinder 2e relies on feats. If any of the blogs have said it's been a while but does anyone know how often characters get feats?

Back in PF1 I always though that the various elemental touched races would have been better realized as level 1 only feats (Ifrit, Oread, Sylph, Undine) as well as the Aasimar and Tiefling. Then you could have a fire Elf or Angelic Dwarf just as easily as the default human based ones.

So it's interesting to see something similar being done here with the half-heritages, even if they're being limited to humans.

If any of the blogs have said it's been a while but does anyone know how often characters get feats?

As I understand it:

-Do ancestries need to give a lot of things? In PF1 they did, but in some other similar games they give very little beyond stats and a unique option.

I get that it's better to have people just select the options they want, instead of having people select the options they don't want, then further selecting what replacement traits they do want. But questions about "when" and "how many" aren't easy.

For a bit of a note here, every time our group's had to introduce a new player to the game, we've had to help them with the vast majority of building a character. The innate complexity aligned with making a character has meant that most of the things that come with the race are simply forgotten - for instance, we're in book 3 of Hell's Rebels, and I don't think our dwarf hunter's ever applied his Hardy bonus, or even realized he has it.

Because of similar experiences, the current way that ancestries are being handled is nearly perfect for my group. I personally would prefer some expansion to what you could take at level 1 - an additional slot for a Heritage feat still sounds good - but even if it stays as it is now, I think we'd still be fine with it.

As I understand it:

-Class Feats at odd levels, some classes get one at 1st (martials) and some don't (casters.)
- Skill Feats at even levels, Rogues get them at every level.
-At alternating odd levels, general feats and ancestry feats. So you get an ancestry feat at 1st, a general feat at 3rd, an ancestry feat at 5th, a general feat at 7th, and so on.

Class Feats are actually at even levels (plus maybe one at 1st, as you note). Otherwise this is correct.

The other two things you get (both at odd levels) are Class Features (mostly spells for spellcasters), and one Skill Rank at 3rd level and every odd level thereafter.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

As I understand it:

-Class Feats at odd levels, some classes get one at 1st (martials) and some don't (casters.)
- Skill Feats at even levels, Rogues get them at every level.
-At alternating odd levels, general feats and ancestry feats. So you get an ancestry feat at 1st, a general feat at 3rd, an ancestry feat at 5th, a general feat at 7th, and so on.

Class Feats are actually at even levels (plus maybe one at 1st, as you note). Otherwise this is correct.

The other two things you get (both at odd levels) are Class Features (mostly spells for spellcasters), and one Skill Rank at 3rd level and every odd level thereafter.

Oh, so class feats are even (and plus 1st in some cases) and skill feats are odd (including 1)? Or do you get both on the same levels?

Oh, so class feats are even (and plus 1st in some cases) and skill feats are odd (including 1)? Or do you get both on the same levels?

You get both of those every even level (well, technically casters seem to skip their 12th and 16th level Class Feats).

Every odd level you get skills, class features, and either an Ancestry or General Feat.

The Sideromancer wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

It's a good excuse for them to never make a half-orc or -elf iconic, I guess.

RIP Seltiyel, Imrijka, Oloch, and Jirelle.

You know, 3 of those classes might have been obsolesced already. I'm less sure about Inquisitor.

It's been stated that the only iconics safe from replacement are the Core ones; even if they remade the Inquisitor there's no guarantee the iconic will be Imrijka. She'll probably get replaced by a human.

If they axe Imrijka I riot.

I like the idea of seeing Rysky solo riot.

Arachnofiend wrote:

The Sideromancer wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

It's a good excuse for them to never make a half-orc or -elf iconic, I guess.

RIP Seltiyel, Imrijka, Oloch, and Jirelle.

You know, 3 of those classes might have been obsolesced already. I'm less sure about Inquisitor.

It's been stated that the only iconics safe from replacement are the Core ones; even if they remade the Inquisitor there's no guarantee the iconic will be Imrijka. She'll probably get replaced by a human.

Given that Imrijka is one of the most visually distinct Pathfinder characters, doesn't have Damiel's squicky backstory, and has a major role in the current run of Pathfinder comics, that seems unlikely.

Yay!

Also Spiral of Bones is sooooooooooooo good, I highly recommend picking it up to everyone ^w^

I like the idea of seeing Rysky solo riot.

It’s not a pleasant sight :3

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I like the idea of seeing Rysky solo riot.

It’s not a pleasant sight :3

Nah, you won't be solo, I'm in. Imrijka is too cool to go.

I care less about some other Iconics, and would be fine with any and all of them switching Classes if necessary, but several are awesome and needs to stay (most notable, aside from Imrijka, are Quinn, Alahazra, and Feiya).

I can not see Paizo just not having any iconic half elves or half orcs. Jason said that there is still internal debate and disagreement about the best way to do these two ancestries. This tells me that they are passionate about them.

I can not see Paizo just not having any iconic half elves or half orcs. Jason said that there is still internal debate and disagreement about the best way to do these two ancestries. This tells me that they are passionate about them.

It tells me that different designers have different views on the subject; kinda like the Paladin debate. Paizo's a business which means in the end the people at the top get the final say. I will at least concede that it's far more likely for opinions to change on this issue than Paladin alignment.

Rysky wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I like the idea of seeing Rysky solo riot.

It’s not a pleasant sight :3

Nah, you won't be solo, I'm in. Imrijka is too cool to go.

I care less about some other Iconics, and would be fine with any and all of them switching Classes if necessary, but several are awesome and needs to stay (most notable, aside from Imrijka, are Quinn, Alahazra, and Feiya).

That really only makes it better Rysky flipping cars and burning buildings while deadman's trying to get peoples attention so he can calmly explain his side of things.