Ancestry and Class Surveys

PossibleCabbage wrote:

thflame wrote:

I disagree. ANYTHING should be an appropriate option for a PC. (Maybe with level adjustment.)

I'm of the opinion that any ancestry which can literally only be a single alignment is inappropriate. Like Pathfinder canonically has more non-CE Succubi than non-CE Drow.

even if we assume that, a few things stand out

1) some people don't play in Golarion. It is easy to change drows background in your home world, but it is harder to build a race mechanically if you are not a game designer. Certainly I easier to pick up Paizo 's vision
.

2) being always evil is not a problem for evil campaigns. Which some people play.

Drow is an inmensily popular race, because of certain guy with 2 scimitar. It is wise to give people popular things

I mean it is.

BUT aren't you losing something when copying the guy with 2 scimitars that's a horrible outcast of his race that's fighting the good fight to help put things to right when and where he can going against the sins of his people....

And then said race is just as good to evil as humans?

I suppose you can swap race to "OH My Town/city/house/family is SO evil so I fight against that temptation!" but I feel the 2 scimitar man wouldn't have been so popular. Who knows.

I mean, if we want to play good people who come from a horrible and regimented culture, who rebel against such... we can just play Chelaxians.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

thflame wrote:

I disagree. ANYTHING should be an appropriate option for a PC. (Maybe with level adjustment.)

I'm of the opinion that any ancestry which can literally only be a single alignment is inappropriate. Like Pathfinder canonically has more non-CE Succubi than non-CE Drow.

even if we assume that, a few things stand out

1) some people don't play in Golarion. It is easy to change drows background in your home world, but it is harder to build a race mechanically if you are not a game designer. Certainly I easier to pick up Paizo 's vision
.

2) being always evil is not a problem for evil campaigns. Which some people play.

Drow is an inmensily popular race, because of certain guy with 2 scimitar. It is wise to give people popular things

Perhaps one reason they didn't include drow, was because it's something they plan on doing regardless? Similar with Kitsune, which from at least one survey is more widely played than any other non-core race besides the aasimar and tiefling.

What options were there anyway? I Haven't finished the survey yet, I'm holding off until I play some of the ancestries that I've got in the pipeline but haven't run yet. I might not do these surveys until after the main playtesting is done and I've got my results for all 7 parts of DDD.

I figure Aasimar, Tiefling and Kitsune are all no-brainers for inclusion at some point because of their popularity. Drow isn't far behind. And a bunch of others are probably also something that should come sooner than later. Like Orc, Ratfolk, Catfolk, Tengu, Kobolds, Dhampir, Changling and the elemental races.

Heritage Feats are bad.

Here! Let's tax you a feat just to play the race you want to play!

Each non-human Ancestry has one heritage feat. Humans have two, and rumor has it will get more, presumably one for each ethnicity.

Make one heritage feat free. Then let the player pick another non-heritage ancestry feat at first level. Other rules on ancestry feats remain unchanged.

I mean, if we want to play good people who come from a horrible and regimented culture, who rebel against such... we can just play Chelaxians.

And yet I think I've only seen 1 player make a Chelaxian.

Probably because Human. Humans have some of the best stuff to make it good to pick but heck we're all human. Lemme play as something else....

wait we ARE all human right? There's no mad AI or lizard people form the moon here right?

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, if we want to play good people who come from a horrible and regimented culture, who rebel against such... we can just play Chelaxians.

And yet I think I've only seen 1 player make a Chelaxian.

Probably because Human. Humans have some of the best stuff to make it good to pick but heck we're all human. Lemme play as something else....

wait we ARE all human right? There's no mad AI or lizard people form the moon here right?

I'm not mad! Only disappointed.

I mean, if we want to play good people who come from a horrible and regimented culture, who rebel against such... we can just play Chelaxians.

You mean the only functional culture in the setting :p. Ok Cheliax is toned down from a real medieval/Renaissance society in some ways, and over blown in others, but it at least would likely not obliterate itself in civil war, as most of the others would, being that soft and merciful, hell the Borgias or Medici would own any other state inside a week, do a solid purge (auto-de-fe, hang draw and quarter, you know the drill) and have them on the path to long term survival and stability inside a month....

Drows = Melniboneans

Drows = Melniboneans

I don't see it, aside from being elven types and trafficking with demons.

Indeed. The open surveys are where you can tell Paizo whatever you want. For instance, I repeated my incessant requests that Half Orc and Half Elf no longer be limited to Half Human (this wasn't a category in the other survey). I also asked for Half Gnome, Half Dwarf, Half Goblin, and so on... But not Half...half...ling...because that's weird?

8 forgot to mention that as I was answering >. <

I think the idea is for this to open up, it's just hasn't yet to make the playtest simpler.

wait we ARE all human right?

Negative, I am a meat Popsicle.

wait we ARE all human right?

Are we talking physically or psychologically?

Because I'm certainly biologically human but I'm less sure I qualify by other definitions...

MerlinCross wrote:

wait we ARE all human right?

Are we talking physically or psychologically?

Because I'm certainly biologically human but I'm less sure I qualify by other definitions...

LICH!

Well, because Drow isn't a race. There's not going to be a Race of Drow, because Drow is a Heritage. Unless Heritage feats get ripped from the game in their entirety (which I don't want to see, because I'm excited to see what Human Heritage feats for the different ethnicities like Ulfen and Varisian look like) then when you want to play a Drow, you'll take the Drow Heritage feat on an Elf.

I would be vehemently opposed to this course of action, I already loathe it in regards to Halves. Having to pay a Feat Tax to play a semblance of a Ancestry you want is rather disheartening.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, if we want to play good people who come from a horrible and regimented culture, who rebel against such... we can just play Chelaxians.

You mean the only functional culture in the setting :p. Ok Cheliax is toned down from a real medieval/Renaissance society in some ways, and over blown in others, but it at least would likely not obliterate itself in civil war,

Uh, that's EXACTLY what they did.

Remy P Gilbeau wrote:

Well, because Drow isn't a race. There's not going to be a Race of Drow, because Drow is a Heritage. Unless Heritage feats get ripped from the game in their entirety (which I don't want to see, because I'm excited to see what Human Heritage feats for the different ethnicities like Ulfen and Varisian look like) then when you want to play a Drow, you'll take the Drow Heritage feat on an Elf.

I would be vehemently opposed to this course of action, I already loathe it in regards to Halves. Having to pay a Feat Tax to play a semblance of a Ancestry you want is rather disheartening.

Honestly I think they should have it that when you pick the heritage feat you are allowed to immidiatly pick another one from the list for the heritage.

Rob Godfrey wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, if we want to play good people who come from a horrible and regimented culture, who rebel against such... we can just play Chelaxians.

You mean the only functional culture in the setting :p. Ok Cheliax is toned down from a real medieval/Renaissance society in some ways, and over blown in others, but it at least would likely not obliterate itself in civil war,

Uh, that's EXACTLY what they did.

The city states had and survived civil wars, because everyone involved had enough brutal pragmatism to make actually taking and holding the place possible, a LG society would obliterate itself, it would be endless mindless factional slaughter, as no one has the pragmatism and savagery to actually RULE, LG is great in a saint, and terrible in a king.

Rysky wrote:

Rob Godfrey wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, if we want to play good people who come from a horrible and regimented culture, who rebel against such... we can just play Chelaxians.

You mean the only functional culture in the setting :p. Ok Cheliax is toned down from a real medieval/Renaissance society in some ways, and over blown in others, but it at least would likely not obliterate itself in civil war,

Uh, that's EXACTLY what they did.

The city states had and survived civil wars, because everyone involved had enough brutal pragmatism to make actually taking and holding the place possible, a LG society would obliterate itself, it would be endless mindless factional slaughter, as no one has the pragmatism and savagery to actually RULE, LG is great in a saint, and terrible in a king.

Wow there's a whole lot of wrong in there. Like, every bit of it.

Rob Godfrey wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Rob Godfrey wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, if we want to play good people who come from a horrible and regimented culture, who rebel against such... we can just play Chelaxians.

You mean the only functional culture in the setting :p. Ok Cheliax is toned down from a real medieval/Renaissance society in some ways, and over blown in others, but it at least would likely not obliterate itself in civil war,

Uh, that's EXACTLY what they did.

The city states had and survived civil wars, because everyone involved had enough brutal pragmatism to make actually taking and holding the place possible, a LG society would obliterate itself, it would be endless mindless factional slaughter, as no one has the pragmatism and savagery to actually RULE, LG is great in a saint, and terrible in a king.

Wow there's a whole lot of wrong in there. Like, every bit of it.

citaion needed. Like any evidence at all. The lost when someone harder, and crueler came along, that is what lets a medieval society survive.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

sherlock1701 wrote:

As long as we at least get a proper magus and inquisitor that mostly work the same way they do now.

So the risk of making an old class into an archetype or build or something less than a full class is that we run the risk of upsetting the people for whom that class was their favorite. I don't think we have to worry about that very much for the Cavalier.

Cavalier isn't a bad class. And it's a niche that should be filled. It's just that mounted combat is problematic in a game where dungeon crawls are a thing.

I'll confess I get tired of all the halfling cavaliers on medium-sized mounts running up and down the halls of dungeons, buildings, boats, etc.

Rysky wrote:

Rob Godfrey wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Rob Godfrey wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, if we want to play good people who come from a horrible and regimented culture, who rebel against such... we can just play Chelaxians.

You mean the only functional culture in the setting :p. Ok Cheliax is toned down from a real medieval/Renaissance society in some ways, and over blown in others, but it at least would likely not obliterate itself in civil war,

Uh, that's EXACTLY what they did.

The city states had and survived civil wars, because everyone involved had enough brutal pragmatism to make actually taking and holding the place possible, a LG society would obliterate itself, it would be endless mindless factional slaughter, as no one has the pragmatism and savagery to actually RULE, LG is great in a saint, and terrible in a king.

Wow there's a whole lot of wrong in there. Like, every bit of it.

citaion needed. Like any evidence at all. The lost when someone harder, and crueler came along, that is what lets a medieval society survive.

1) I probably could, but I have no interest in diving through the entire history of every civilization of our world.

2) We're not talking about our world we're talking about Golarion, where there's a bunch that completely laugh in the face of that thought process.

Rob Godfrey wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Rob Godfrey wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Rob Godfrey wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, if we want to play good people who come from a horrible and regimented culture, who rebel against such... we can just play Chelaxians.

You mean the only functional culture in the setting :p. Ok Cheliax is toned down from a real medieval/Renaissance society in some ways, and over blown in others, but it at least would likely not obliterate itself in civil war,

Uh, that's EXACTLY what they did.

The city states had and survived civil wars, because everyone involved had enough brutal pragmatism to make actually taking and holding the place possible, a LG society would obliterate itself, it would be endless mindless factional slaughter, as no one has the pragmatism and savagery to actually RULE, LG is great in a saint, and terrible in a king.

Wow there's a whole lot of wrong in there. Like, every bit of it.

citaion needed. Like any evidence at all. The lost when someone harder, and crueler came along, that is what lets a medieval society survive.

1) I probably could, but I have no interest in diving through the entire history of every civilization of our world.

2) We're not talking about our world we're talking about Golarion, where there's a bunch that completely laugh in the face of that thought process.

1) you mean that spiral of savagery broken by the end of Monarchical dictatorships? (Hell look at the last Monarchies and Dictatorships, still the most brutal places on earth)

2) yea sure you can have a god change human nature via mass mindbending to make a 'good'autocratic society function, but you end up with a nation of Stepford Smilers.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

dnoisette wrote:

thflame wrote:

Why weren't Drow an option for a future race? That would have been my number one pick, as my favorite character is a drow.

This, I kept looking for Drow and couldn't even believe it wasn't available when I could not even remember what some of the races on offer actually were.

Isn't the Golarion canon that Drow are inherently evil in that they have been tainted by Rovagug and in case they somehow get over being evil and are cleansed of the aforementioned taint, they cease to be Drow?

Doesn't really seem appropriate for a PC option.

I disagree. ANYTHING should be an appropriate option for a PC. (Maybe with level adjustment.)

Please don't add level adjustment. 3.5 and 1e still exist and have plenty supporting texts. The math of 2e is designed around being of a particular lvl to have math work out for appropriate challenges. Additionally, with multiclassing as it stands, there is no option to be X lvls of A and Y lvls of B, etc. This would be a larger than usual complication to a potentially simpler system.

The survey links to the open response portions of these surveys are now live. If there is something we missed or did not include in the surveys, these are a good way to let us know. Check the blog up above.

Thanks! This is a helpful addition. I'm sorry that most of what you'll get will probably be vitriol over your attempts to make a better version of a game we share a passion for.

As I stated over and over. My first impression on Ancestry gave me IMMENSE hope for what they could've been.

I was thinking that I would be able to pick feats that would enhance my character culturally and allowing the possibility of making characters raised by other ancestries just by making some choices, while having my biological features remaining the same as 1e or maybe even having them re-balanced to be more interesting and stronger (in the cases of the races that needed the boost).

Instead, we've got watered down versions of interesting races before and the ones less appealing just got even worse. Also, I love playing humans but Natural Ambition and General Training are way too insane compared to anything else in the game and it will only get better over time with new feats. So I suggest you guys start thinking of new solutions to this because in PF1e Humans were already too strong because of this. I would go as far as to say that is more reasonable to give 3 Free ability boosts and get rid of these two feats and change the necessary things from there.

Just to leave my thoughts here since the surveys didn't have the option.

Please, please. Reserve Heritage feat for hugely impactful things in the ancestry, Half-Elves and Half-Orcs is a very good direction but it makes no sense that you need to wait until level 5 to get your first half-elf feat, that's straight up taxing. Since I'm on this point already, give us at least 3 feats from the start and cut back the feats later down the line and if they absolutely must exist, then create new feats that enhance the ones you already got or things that give you plenty of new options, you know... Things that show your progress over time.

Ancestry can be the best part of the system, but they need a complete overhaul on implementation and evaluation of what they can and should do. Adding more depth to the biology and history of these new ancestries can give a lot of room for heritage and cultural feats.

Why can't they provide nonhumans with the same physical abilities, and in the interest of balance just give them less ancestry feats than a human; or, just keep it the same and give humans an extra feat or two? I very much dislike "growing" into the race you already are.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Marc Radle wrote:

That may be, but plenty of folks play Pathfinder but don’t use Golarion as thier campaign setting, so that should not be relevant. Plus, the Pathfinder rule set is not the same as the Golarion setting, so Golarion-specific rules really should not be baked into the core Pathfinder rules in any case

I believe one of the major changes for Pathfinder 2nd edition is that the core rules are no longer setting neutral. So things like "Clerics of philosophies" are right out. If you want to run a game in a setting which is not the default one, you will need to change some things.

But since the bestiary will almost surely have rules for building all sorts of nasty things using PC rules (for major antagonists who happen to be a specific type of thing), it'll be easy to lift those for PC rules without giving explicit PC support.

If Golarion Lore is a requirement for this system, then that's something that needs to change.

I'm fine with using your lore to give examples and design your APs, but it should not be automatically assumed that you are using Golarion lore when you play PF2.

Fortunately the VAST majority of players like and use Golarion, so this aspect will remain. Thankfully. Those who don't like it are free to pick and choose what they like.

Why can't they provide nonhumans with the same physical abilities, and in the interest of balance just give them less ancestry feats than a human; or, just keep it the same and give humans an extra feat or two? I very much dislike "growing" into the race you already are.

Every character should have three ancestry to pick right from the get go. Maybe more. But these feats should not be Heritage in the vast majority, mostly cultural stuff and learned skills your race naturally have a higher inclination (academic study, stealth, survival, etc).

Imagine what Heritage Feats could achieve? You could create variations of an ancestry within it just by coming up with a feat that give the new characteristics and can even swap the ones that this new variation don't have.Half-Elf and Half-Orc are a very good direction, but I actually think they should offer just a little bit more, maybe three choices from a bigger array of choices, this way when you're half-something you have one less cultural feat but it can still be worth it because you're getting new features and access to the Elves cultural feats and physical traits enhancements (all elves are good at hearing, all dwarves are resistant to poison, but only a few are better at it).

Of course, I'm not balancing anything, just giving my opinion to what could make this system very interesting for me, because I like creating unusual characters and having the opportunity to have a mechanical impact would be very welcome.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

The survey links to the open response portions of these surveys are now live. If there is something we missed or did not include in the surveys, these are a good way to let us know. Check the blog up above.

Thanks! This is a helpful addition. I'm sorry that most of what you'll get will probably be vitriol over your attempts to make a better version of a game we share a passion for.

Doubt it. All evidence points to the surveys giving mostly positive feedback. There's around 6 people who lurk this forum 24/7 and post in every thread about the same things over and over so it might seem like it's a lot of hate but eeh. I saw WAY worse when Pathfinder 1e was coming out.

I hated having to rate the power of the classes 1-12.

Like, yes, I think Paladin is fairly weak, I rank it below Fighter and Ranger in terms of Powerful. Though not much lower. I wish I could just rate them all on a scale of 1-10.

I am also having the issue that the survey is kicking me back to the start - right after the Cleric class in my case. Went back through the survey a couple times and it keeps kicking me there. :(

Seems there is a problem with the survey for classes.....Every time I get done with the Fighter, I keep getting sent back to the beginning.

Fortunately the VAST majority of players like and use Golarion, so this aspect will remain. Thankfully. Those who don't like it are free to pick and choose what they like.

How could they KNOW that? Do houserulers and those that create their own worlds register or something? I'm curious what metric you're using to come to the conclusion of "vast".

Seems there is a problem with the survey for classes.....Every time I get done with the Fighter, I keep getting sent back to the beginning.

The survey slowed down DRAMATICALLY after the fighter. It took a minute to load up the next page to monk and then for each page after that. It took a LONG time but I got through it.

I am also having the issue that the survey is kicking me back to the start - right after the Cleric class in my case. Went back through the survey a couple times and it keeps kicking me there. :(

We had a couple errors we had to correct this morning, which necessitated editing the survey and might have caused this error. Give it another try and let me know if it happens again!

shalandar wrote:

Seems there is a problem with the survey for classes.....Every time I get done with the Fighter, I keep getting sent back to the beginning.

The survey slowed down DRAMATICALLY after the fighter. It took a minute to load up the next page to monk and then for each page after that. It took a LONG time but I got through it.

It seems to be working now....I got sent back to the beginning at least 4 times.

Edit: Just happened again....so who knows.

Fortunately the VAST majority of players like and use Golarion, so this aspect will remain. Thankfully.

Very interested to hear where you get this data.

"VAST majority of players" is a pretty specific term and would seem to imply some sort of concret data to back it up ...

I feel like if you have decided to play in a different setting you have already also decided things like "well, our elves are different, you see" and it's not really Paizo's job to account for all of the different kinds of elves I want to have in my setting. Figuring that out is my job when I homebrew a setting.

I feel like if you have decided to play in a different setting you have already also decided things like "well, our elves are different, you see" and it's not really Paizo's job to account for all of the different kinds of elves I want to have in my setting. Figuring that out is my job when I homebrew a setting.

All you really need is design space within the ancestry feat structure to allow you to come up with appropriate ancestry feats for your new and different elves.

nogoodscallywag wrote:

Fortunately the VAST majority of players like and use Golarion, so this aspect will remain. Thankfully.

Very interested to hear where you get this data.

"VAST majority of players" is a pretty specific term and would seem to imply some sort of concret data to back it up ...

To be fair, I maybe... kinda get where they're coming from?

PFS is or was pretty popular(I have no idea just how many are playing I know my local stores run DnD leagues now). And I believe those game take place on Golarion.

The other point of note is the Adventure Paths. Which is supposed to be one of their better selling products(I keep seeing that but no data so sorry). All those books take place on Golarion and some of them might be hard to trasnplant into a home brew.

So I can see the correlation I believe but it also doesn't prove it.

Not a huge problem but, in the future, could we have an option at the opening of each section more like "I GM'd for this class" or "I had this class in my group"?

It just feels weird selecting the same option for play experience across the table as basing feedback solely on reading the book.

PFS is or was pretty popular

Even if we take PFS into account, how can we measure "like"? I know some people play PFS because it's the only group around and NOT because they particularly like the setting itself. So "the VAST majority of players like and use Golarion" seems a stretch unless they are using something other than PFS numbers.

I finished the ancestry survey...maybe I should have waited until I finished playtesting Doomsday Dawn, but oh well. I'll probably wait on the class one until we get a little further. I wish, though, that half-orc/elf had been a separate response field than human. As it was, I had to decide whether I was going to answer based on my half-elf from Part 1 or my human from Part 2, meaning that I didn't actually get to answer any questions about the human ancestry without the half- feats. Maybe I'll get space to do so in the open survey.

(By the way, anyone else notice that the "rate what ancestries you'd like to see" section said to rank three, but gave space for five? I picked five, so hopefully that's actually what was intended.)

I'd really rather not go back to the days of "all members of this mortal race/ancestry are 100% evil, no (or only 1 in a million) exceptions," as that has some...unpleasant connotations. So I'd be all for playable orcs, drow, and the like.

Remy P Gilbeau wrote:

Well, because Drow isn't a race. There's not going to be a Race of Drow, because Drow is a Heritage. Unless Heritage feats get ripped from the game in their entirety (which I don't want to see, because I'm excited to see what Human Heritage feats for the different ethnicities like Ulfen and Varisian look like) then when you want to play a Drow, you'll take the Drow Heritage feat on an Elf.

I would be vehemently opposed to this course of action, I already loathe it in regards to Halves. Having to pay a Feat Tax to play a semblance of a Ancestry you want is rather disheartening.

To be fair, with the current reactions to heritage feats I doubt they will make it to the official release without some significant changes. In my personal opinion, I'd prefer to see them get rolled into Backgrounds where they not only make more thematic sense, but already have the limitation of being selected at first level without needed a messy extra rule that heritage feats can only be picked as 1st level feats and not higher level feats like other ancestry feats.

Granted, this would mean that you'd probably need to allow for multiple backgrounds at character creation and rebalance their rules around that - but I'd be okay with that. Especially considering that having only one background currently feels a bit limiting in a way. Heck, the very first NPC met in Doomsday Dawn is described as, "an aristocrat and a scholar," and yet there is no way for a PC to have both the Noble & Scholar backgrounds at the same time.

dnoisette wrote:

thflame wrote:

Why weren't Drow an option for a future race? That would have been my number one pick, as my favorite character is a drow.

This, I kept looking for Drow and couldn't even believe it wasn't available when I could not even remember what some of the races on offer actually were.

Isn't the Golarion canon that Drow are inherently evil in that they have been tainted by Rovagug and in case they somehow get over being evil and are cleansed of the aforementioned taint, they cease to be Drow?

Doesn't really seem appropriate for a PC option.

For the record, this was retconned a while ago, though non-Evil Drow are still rare. There is a canon CG Drow of significant setting importance referenced in the Adventurer's Guide even, under the Lantern Bearers section (though admittedly she is a... particular case).

PossibleCabbage wrote:

dnoisette wrote:

thflame wrote:

Why weren't Drow an option for a future race? That would have been my number one pick, as my favorite character is a drow.

This, I kept looking for Drow and couldn't even believe it wasn't available when I could not even remember what some of the races on offer actually were.

Isn't the Golarion canon that Drow are inherently evil in that they have been tainted by Rovagug and in case they somehow get over being evil and are cleansed of the aforementioned taint, they cease to be Drow?

Doesn't really seem appropriate for a PC option.

For the record, this was retconned a while ago, though non-Evil Drow are still rare. There is a canon CG Drow of significant setting importance referenced in the Adventurer's Guide even, under the Lantern Bearers section (though admittedly she is a... particular case).

Yeah I'm not surprised Drow aren't in the "which ancestries next" list. Should at least get through the ones that are commonly going to be adventurers in the overworld before getting to the "one in a million" cases. Drow will likely appear in Bestiary anyways, but they shouldn't be a core race because that says "New players should have no problem playing this race". Also mad 5E promotes them as core too.

If anything, Tiefling is the one common and popular enough to warrant core.

Went through some of the class surveys and I'm a bit disappointed. There were no options to say things like "All of the feats on this tier are boring"

There also wasn't an opportunity to comment on the Paladin's new role as a babysitter.

Personally, I love playing Guardian types, but it would have been so nice, had they actually been equipped with competent tools for the job. The Retributive Strike is *not* the answer (and if it is, I wonder what the question actually was). PF1 mercies were closer to doing an appropriate job than the PF2 ones, as well. I *do* enjoy the spell point approach, which feels flexible and encouraging in emphasizing choice in the class builds.

magnuskn wrote:

The class survey resets to the first page after a few classes. You can go through the class pages again and your options have been noted, but when you get to the last page you already filled out, all your stuff is gone and it is a dice roll if the second time around it will take or you will get booted back again to the first page. I suffered through this from the Monk to the Ranger, but now I'm getting tired of going through dozens of pages only to get thrown back to the first one. Could this please get fixed ASAP?

That is very odd. We will look into the survey logic to see if there is a problem floating in there... otherwise we will have to kick this up to surveymonkey to fix. Can you tell us specifically where this happened and what occurred?

I had the same thing happen, as soon as I completed Paladin. Waiting did nothing, so after several minutes I gambled and hit refresh on my browser (Chrome), which progressed me with all data preserved to Ranger.

Yeah I'm not surprised Drow aren't in the "which ancestries next" list. Should at least get through the ones that are commonly going to be adventurers in the overworld before getting to the "one in a million" cases. Drow will likely appear in Bestiary anyways, but they shouldn't be a core race because that says "New players should have no problem playing this race". Also mad 5E promotes them as core too.

If anything, Tiefling is the one common and popular enough to warrant core.

Some of this is likely just related to carving out product identity. Like Paizo is happy to let the other guys have Drow and Dragonborn and not try to compete on that territory (Golarion is not Faerun or Krynn or Greyhawk or Eberron or w/e) and instead carve out territory for their own stuff.

I would much rather see the spotlight on anything other than "dark elves" personally (though I do like the 13th age interpretation where they're mostly just mopey because they'd rather be living underground.)

gustavo iglesias wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

thflame wrote:

I disagree. ANYTHING should be an appropriate option for a PC. (Maybe with level adjustment.)

I'm of the opinion that any ancestry which can literally only be a single alignment is inappropriate. Like Pathfinder canonically has more non-CE Succubi than non-CE Drow.

even if we assume that, a few things stand out

1) some people don't play in Golarion. It is easy to change drows background in your home world, but it is harder to build a race mechanically if you are not a game designer. Certainly I easier to pick up Paizo 's vision
.

2) being always evil is not a problem for evil campaigns. Which some people play.

Drow is an inmensily popular race, because of certain guy with 2 scimitar. It is wise to give people popular things

I mean it is.

BUT aren't you losing something when copying the guy with 2 scimitars that's a horrible outcast of his race that's fighting the good fight to help put things to right when and where he can going against the sins of his people....

And then said race is just as good to evil as humans?

I suppose you can swap race to "OH My Town/city/house/family is SO evil so I fight against that temptation!" but I feel the 2 scimitar man wouldn't have been so popular. Who knows.

To a lesser degree, you had the same thing happening with Minotaurs in the *Dragonlance* setting. Makes me wonder whether that is why that option was available under the future ancestries query.

I would much rather see the spotlight on anything other than "dark elves" personally

Same here as they aren't in my 'want to play' list though 1/2 drow and/or drow blooded elves could be interesting. But neither is goblin and we got those...