Changes to the Way We Make Changes

Tuesday, January 03, 2023

Welcome to 2023 everyone! With the Second Edition of Pathfinder now in its third year, the folks on the rules team are really thrilled to see how all of you are engaging with the game and telling thrilling stories of adventure with friends and family. Behind the scenes, we’re continuing to make the game as good as it possibly can be by creating brand new content and going back to make sure that our existing books are working the way we intended.

That means errata, and today we’re happy to announce several exciting changes to the Pathfinder Core Rulebook that make the game a little easier to play and bring certain aspects of it more in line with our current thoughts and sensibilities. But before I toss the blog over to Lead Designer Logan Bonner to walk you through some of the highlights, I want to take a moment to talk about some upcoming changes to the errata process itself!

In the past, our errata process has been tied to when we reprint books, so that you could make sure your print edition matched what was currently on store shelves. While this had its advantages, it often meant that changes were made quite infrequently. In addition, if a book didn’t see a reprint, it might mean that we never went in to apply a patch. The result was a process that just was not living up to our needs and desire to make sure you have a great game experience. So, we are changing the process.

Starting this year, we will release errata twice per year, once in the spring and once in the fall. Since errata will no longer be tied to reprints, it frees us up to cover errata issues from a wide range of products as well. We hope this will allow us to be a bit more responsive to your questions and any issues you might have spotted with the game, so keep posting your questions to Paizo.com. Your passion helps us make a better Pathfinder!

Alright, that’s enough process talk from me. I’m going to toss it over to Logan to take a look at some of the changes made to the Pathfinder Core Rulebook!


Pathfinder Second Edition Core Rulebook, featuring an image of the Iconics battling a red dragon breathing fire through a crumbling stone wall, on a red background


Core Rulebook Errata

Thanks, Jason! You might notice that Jason said spring and fall, and it’s not... either of those. This batch of errata is coming to coincide with the new fourth printing of the Core Rulebook. While typically any such errata will have already been covered under the new process, this one is playing catch-up. You’ll find all the errata on the FAQ page, but I want to give context and explanations for a few of the major changes.

First comes the most expansive change: alternate ancestry boosts. We’re implementing the option for you to choose two free ability boosts for a character of any ancestry. There have been many ongoing conversations in the gaming community and within Paizo about biological essentialism in RPGs. We think it’s time to address this issue and have added this universal option. This makes it clearer that ancestries aren’t a monolith, and adds more nuance to the world and a wider breadth of characters. To be clear: this is an alternative for all characters and campaigns, not a variant rule, since it’s expected to be in line with the power level of other options. If you have made or want to make a character using an ancestry’s printed options (such as a dwarf with a Con boost, Wisdom boost, free boost, and Charisma flaw), those options remain, and those characters still follow the updated rules. We started heading toward this adjustment in July and are very pleased to have this chance to implement it and bring it to the community!

The alchemist gets major changes to add more flexibility. This dovetails with new alchemy options coming in Treasure Vault, allowing more flexibility in choosing items for a research field instead of a narrow list. The largest number of changes are with the chirurgeon. An alchemist with this field can choose elixirs with the healing trait and can fully substitute Crafting for Medicine checks and proficiency prerequisites. Now that they can choose items that heal HP, we needed to add a limit for perpetual healing items to keep out-of-combat healing from careening out of control. As with alternate boosts, any alchemist you already made remains a valid character!

Most of the remaining changes are smaller improvements, like fixing an oversight on Simple Weapon Proficiency for clerics, making the horse animal companion work as intended, and having the soothe spell target “1 willing creature,” as suggested by Book of the Dead and the Blood Lords AP. We do, however, have one significant downgrade to talk about. The gnome flickmace was a bit overpowered. A one-handed reach weapon was stronger than we expected it to be, and it’s having more of an outsized reputation than a single weapon should usually have in the game. We’ve reduced its damage and added the sweep trait to bring it more in line with other flails. Its new stat line is Price 3 gp; Damage 1d6 B; Bulk 1; Hands 1; Group Flail; Weapon Traits Gnome, reach, sweep.

We look forward to seeing what new characters you make with these changes to the Core Rulebook!

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design

Logan Bonner
Pathfinder Lead Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Errata Pathfinder Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Pathfinder Second Edition
301 to 350 of 637 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkvramp wrote:
Alex Speidel wrote:
Incorporating this new batch of errata into PFS play will be addressed in Thursday's OP Monthly update, so stay tuned for that!
The errata is going to need its own tab on the site, within the community tab, and it needs to be more presentable, just like the first errata was, rather than just block blog posts. It allows for people to cleanly print off a copy if they only use print to update their rulesets, or collect PDFS, like they already are.

The full errata for the 4th Printing can be found on the FAQ page, which is on its own tab on the site. Go to the top, under Pathfinder > FAQ. Then on the page, select whichever errata you wish to look at based on book and printing.

This blog post even links to the FAQ page so you can see all of the details people are talking about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, this is actually really useful to me. My Elf Champion didn't need that little boost to her Int but absolutely could use the extra Con or else bump that Str to 18 while keeping the Bard multiclass.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
aobst128 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Unikatze wrote:

Really like the change to changes, it will enable a much more fluid and adaptable system. Specially for you're also making changes to APs and Lost Omens, which earlier ones had many errors that needed fixing.

I'm sure some people will not be happy with the ability score changes to ancestries, but you can still just say that's not how it works at your table and problem solved.

… it’s an optional rule.
It's not an optional rule. It's the new rule.
Quote:
To be clear: this is an alternative for all characters and campaigns, not a variant rule, since it’s expected to be in line with the power level of other options. If you have made or want to make a character using an ancestry’s printed options (such as a dwarf with a Con boost, Wisdom boost, free boost, and Charisma flaw), those options remain, and those characters still follow the updated rules.
It’s optional.
Right. It's an option for players but it's a given that GMs would have to decide they don't want which I suspect many will but if you're going by RAW, it's not an option. These are the new rules. I was thinking of that same quote.

Actually RAW, anything is an option.

The Core Rulebook, page 7 wrote:
The first rule of Pathfinder is that this game is yours. Use it to tell the stories you want to tell, be the character you want to be, and share exciting adventures with friends. If any other rule gets in the way of your fun, as long as your group agrees, you can alter or ignore it to fit your story.


LordeAlvenaharr wrote:
Could you give me a quick glimpse of how good an elf would be a thaumaturge with these new rules?

Build:

Elf (Ancient) Thaumaturge
16/10/12/10/12/18 or 16/10/14/10/12/16

Elf 1: Champion dedication, Nimble Elf
Thaum 1: Diverse Lore, tome implement
Thaum 2: Familiar
General 3: adopted ancestry (human)
Thaum 4: Champion archetype Healing Touch
Elf 5: unconventional weaponry (flickmace)
Thaum 5: weapon implement
Thaum 6: champion reaction
General 7: fleet
Thaum 8: sentinel dedication
Elf 9: Multitalented (psychic)
Thaum 10: basic casting
General 11: toughness
Thaum 12: expert casting
Elf 13: any
Thaum 14: esoteric reflexes
Thaum 15: amulet implement
General 15: canny acumen
Thaum 16: implement flight
Elf 17: any
Thaum 18: master casting
General 19: any
Thaum 20: miracle worker

And so at 1 you have heavy armor, universal knowledge, and 35 base speed. At 4, you have lay on hands and can drain your familiar for a second one (psuedo chalice implement) at 6 you have champion reaction (psuedo amulet implement). At 7 you have base 40 move speed boosted to 50 if you have a longstrider wand. By 9 you have scaling heavy armor and a utility focus spell. The rest is casting, extra reaction and flight.

If your gm lets you use ignore access to asp coil, use that instead, swap adopted ancestry and fleet, and take ageless patience for +2 circumstance bonus to skill checks when time doesn't matter (offsets the diverse lore penalty too).


5 people marked this as a favorite.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't judge any GM who chose not to allow the free/free option in their games. The new option objectively buffs a ton of ancestries and strips them of important balance points. It was not introduced for balance, it was introduced for versatility, and to address an aspect of the game many felt uneasy with.

Do I think the new rule's balancing issues are that big a deal? No. Am I going to allow it? Absolutely! I think the option is a net gain for all of us. But it is a valid balancing concern.


gesalt wrote:
LordeAlvenaharr wrote:
Could you give me a quick glimpse of how good an elf would be a thaumaturge with these new rules?

** spoiler omitted **

And so at 1 you have heavy armor, universal knowledge, and 35 base speed. At 4, you have lay on hands and can drain your familiar for a second one (psuedo chalice implement) at 6 you have champion reaction (psuedo amulet implement). At 7 you have base 40 move speed boosted to 50 if you have a longstrider wand. By 9 you have scaling heavy armor and a utility focus spell. The rest is casting, extra reaction and flight.

If your gm lets you use ignore access to asp coil, use that instead, swap adopted ancestry and fleet, and take ageless patience for +2 circumstance bonus to skill checks when time doesn't matter (offsets the diverse lore penalty too).

Wow! I confess that I found the build a bit "messy" and I would have to study each point, not to mention that I would have to find a plausible explanation for the point to convince my GM... I loved it! I don't give up Thaumaturge, but now I can play with several ancestries! Thanks! I can't wait for Pathbuilder to update with the new rules! Can you believe that in over 20 years, I've never played an elf? Ok, I once played drow City of Spider Queen, but we started at a high level...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkvramp wrote:
It allows for people to cleanly print off a copy if they only use print to update their rulesets, or collect PDFS, like they already are.

I really dislike the current format for presenting errata on the Paizo site. I'd much rather have a single PDF for each print product that contains all the clarifications and changes for that book.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kobold Catgirl wrote:

For what it's worth, I wouldn't judge any GM who chose not to allow the free/free option in their games. The new option objectively buffs a ton of ancestries and strips them of important balance points. It was not introduced for balance, it was introduced for versatility, and to address an aspect of the game many felt uneasy with.

Do I think the new rule's balancing issues are that big a deal? No. Am I going to allow it? Absolutely! I think the option is a net gain for all of us. But it is a valid balancing concern.

On the other hand, some players will judge GMs, potentially harshly, for houserules designed to make character creation harder or more restrictive, and that's perfectly okay too.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I guess? Actually, no, I don't agree. Like, it depends on the GM's reasons, but I wouldn't judge the GM as a person, I'd just have a different playstyle from them. Some people really like Pathfinder's tight balance and don't want to compromise it. I like older editions of D&D because the lack of options creates a fun challenge. We seriously need to stop being so judgmental of different ways of enjoying the game.

Especially in a situation where it's only a "house rule" as of yesterday morning. Like, I think most people are going to be thinking of this as a variant rule for a while. People still talk about Inspiration as an "optional mechanic", and that's been in 5e since release! :P

Mind you, if their reason is "a horse is very heavy", maybe it's a different story.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

current rules: Humans get two free boosts, non-humans get two specific boosts, one free boost, and one flaw, any character can take two flaws to gain one boost.
new rule: same or (alternative: any ancestry can get two free boosts and forego the "three boosts and a flaw" possibility). If you don't take the two free boosts alternative, you can take two flaws to gain one boost.

Have I got this right? Under the new rule can humans use the optional voluntary flaw rule?

Maybe I just don't understand how the new optional voluntary flaw rule works. In that case I hope somebody can explain it to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The voluntary flaw system effectively no longer exists. You can opt to take penalties, but the system gives no support for doing so beyond, "Sure, if you really want to, I guess."


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Oh, I get it. I think. You can, optionally, voluntarily take a flaw, but you can't take two flaws to get a boost any more. Is that it?

Not sure I'd view the current two flaws one boost as giving support for taking a flaw. <shrug>

Under the current rules, not including the voluntary flaw rule, you get 9 boosts total at character generation. With the voluntary flaw rule, you get 8 boosts. Under the new rules, not including the voluntary flaw rule, you get 9 boosts. With the voluntary flaw rule, you get 8. Not sure I see a big difference there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wait, am I confused? You should get ten with the voluntary flaw rule, shouldn't you?

- Two free from ancestry
- One from taking two Voluntary Flaws
- Two from backgrounds
- One from class
- Four for free

Unless you're counting Voluntary Flaws against Boosts, which is ignoring how important the customization is. You can't get an array like 8 14 8 16 16 14 without voluntary flaws, not as a human. The loss of versatility is the whole issue here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The new ability boosts options, and the change to voluntary flaw feel like such a big change. It almost feels like a pathfinder 2.5 or at least a new era of the game. The flexibility of character options has increased overall(even if there was a change that was a loss to customization). I wonder if in future errata we will see potential changes to classes based off of the fact that some choices were "legacy decisions" like the rogues weapon list.

I overall like the changes, I hope ancestries can still be published with varied or unique ability options. We have complex feelings towards the voluntary flaws, not quite sure how to feel about the change.

I like the flickmace change, feels even cooler now imo. and the change to the flickmace and the change to ability boosts, mean that Gnomes might actually be the premier flickmace users now.

Horizon Hunters

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I like every ancestry getting the option. Makes certain classes more accessible to certain ancestries without a bunch of extra steps. My halfling barbarian, for example, no longer has +Str +Dex -Int (+Dex +Wis +Str -Str; +Str -Int -Wis) and is instead just +Str +Dex. I really like it because it doesn't remove the stat options, as I do enjoy that mechanical difference between ancestries as well. A good compromise I feel.

I DON'T like getting rid of voluntary flaws for an extra boost. Not only does it actively remove options from a lot of ancestries (Human has been discussed a lot here, but also Orc, Tengu, Kitsune, etc.), but there are characters I have where the new double boost doesn't help. My dwarf wizard can be +Con +Int now, but he can't take +Dex +Con +Int -Str -Cha (+Con +Wis +Int -Cha; +Dex -Str -Wis). Might seem like a minor change, but that's potentially a big difference in the long run.

I'd say restrict it so you can only take either the double boost option OR the voluntary flaw option. Letting anyone take 3 free boosts and 2 free flaws is a little excessive, but only one or the other would allow Humans, Orcs, Tengu, etc. get 3 boosts, keep those fringe cases where double boost doesn't fit a character's goals available, and still open more options for the majority of ancestries. PLUS Human would still get something unique as the 3 free boosts 2 free flaws would work for them since the double boost is their standard anyway.

Or at least make the old voluntary flaw system optional if it can't be an alternative. I'm definitely keeping it as an option (for an ancestry's standard stat spread, as I described above) in my home games for sure.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Tapi Gadsoul wrote:
I'd say restrict it so you can only take either the double boost option OR the voluntary flaw option. Letting anyone take 3 free boosts and 2 free flaws is a little excessive, but only one or the other would allow Humans, Orcs, Tengu, etc. get 3 boosts, keep those fringe cases where double boost doesn't fit a character's goals available, and still open more options for the majority of ancestries. PLUS Human would still get something unique as the 3 free boosts 2 free flaws would work for them since the double boost is their standard anyway.

I do like this idea a lot as a proper old-fashioned compromise. "Why not both?"


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I just got the email saying the 4th Printing update to the PDF has been made available. I've been able to download both the Single File and Individual Chapter per File versions.

Thank you for making these available.


tharian wrote:

I just got the email saying the 4th Printing update to the PDF has been made available. I've been able to download both the Single File and Individual Chapter per File versions.

Thank you for making these available.

is there an option to have all errata in PDF or at least one PDF for each book covered?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
LordeAlvenaharr wrote:
tharian wrote:

I just got the email saying the 4th Printing update to the PDF has been made available. I've been able to download both the Single File and Individual Chapter per File versions.

Thank you for making these available.

is there an option to have all errata in PDF or at least one PDF for each book covered?

This is what it said in the email I received:

"We have updated the Pathfinder Core Rulebook PDF.

Download packages have been updated to the fourth printing.

If you wish to download the updated version, you may do so for free at https://paizo.com/paizo/account/assets."


4 people marked this as a favorite.

1) More updates is nice, please answer all our burning questions! (And thank you).

2) Alchemist getting more consistent is nice. Still wish that the class had a full overhaul cause man is it a mess.

3) Horse support only working on a charge seems excessive. But fine, its consistent with making companions/familiars worse.

4) Its nice that companion/familiar abilities that require a reaction grant the ability to use reactions. But honestly my question is, why not just let them have reactions period? What is it that you fear of minions being able to use reactions?

5) The whole "we will give everyone two free boost and remove ability flaw to avoid bioessentialism" seems like complete BS that only hurts the game. Not only does it go against stablished lore and characters, it makes it so that characters are even less customizable. The change seems like something done to appease random strangers than for the sake of the game. Specially when considering that the ancestry ability scores are not bioessentialism. A cat is different from a dog is different from a turtle, so why are you giving them all the same stat array? More over why are you giving everyone the same two free boost array while actively removing three free boost and 1 flaw, wasn't the goal supposedly to remove "sameness"?

Anyways the whole things sounds dumb and entirely arbitrary, while ignoring what should be actual differences between ancestries. Instead of fixing the game balance to allow more diverse builds, you are just making all ancestries have the same ability scores as humans; Which frankly just reads as worse than the thing you were trying to fix.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's important not to conflate the Voluntary Flaw change with the +2/+2 change. The +2/+2 change is entirely optional for players--it's meant to reflect members of a given species that break the norm. It opens up options and hurts no one.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:

GMs get criticized for their house rules all the time.

If you want to houserule character generation to make options more restrictive for your players you can, but you're opening yourself up for players being unhappy about that, which is fine for them too.

It's not criticism in general I'm concerned about. It's the type/quality of the criticism, and the accusations that type of criticism could lead to.

To be blunt, I'm concerned about GM's being called racist for deciding they want to use the older rules rather than the new ones, and the weight those rules are given by being a default alternative, rather than an optional one.

Especially if you're running an online game with relative strangers, you're likely to get some of the small percentage of Power Gamers and Rules Lawyers who will stop at nothing to get the stat bonuses they want, or will refuse to accept a modification of what is presented as the base rules, and anyone with that mindset and no morals will find it very easy to throw serious accusations around in order to bully a GM into changing things for them due to how linked with actual real world issues the changes are.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
I think it's important not to conflate the Voluntary Flaw change with the +2/+2 change. The +2/+2 change is entirely optional for players--it's meant to reflect members of a given species that break the norm. It opens up options and hurts no one.

Isn't that what Background, Class, and the 4 free ability boost were supposed to be? To me it just sounds redundant, specially when they tried to justify it by saying its to remove "bioessentialism". If they want to buff character creation to be easier for non-humans then just say that. There is no need for any of the other stuff.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I think we should avoid making balancing decisions based on the playstyles of people we don't want to play with anyway, and that includes weird hypothetical rules lawyers who use bad-faith accusations of bigotry to get an extra +2 to Constitution. That guy you made up sounds pretty unpleasant, and I will not be playing with him.

As a counterpoint, the benefit to making this a default rule is that GMs who genuinely do have ugly sketchy takes like "lizardfolk should be biologically stupider" will feel pressured to accept the new rules without making a fuss. It cuts both ways!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Wait, am I confused? You should get ten with the voluntary flaw rule, shouldn't you?

- Two free from ancestry
- One from taking two Voluntary Flaws
- Two from backgrounds
- One from class
- Four for free

Unless you're counting Voluntary Flaws against Boosts, which is ignoring how important the customization is. You can't get an array like 8 14 8 16 16 14 without voluntary flaws, not as a human. The loss of versatility is the whole issue here.

You're saying the flaws don't count. To me, that's nonsense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Of course they do! But you get to decide where they get applied. That's kind of the whole point--like I said, the versatility is the whole fun of the Voluntary Flaws rule. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The two flaw system is mechanically identical to point buy where you are end up with less points the more you min max to a specific area. Which is why that system is so popular, it literally does what Paizo is attempting to do with the universal +2/+2 without any of the harmful implications.

They could had made the two flaw system into an alternate rule instead of just optional and it would not have caused any issues. Heck they could had made it into a 1 flaw 1 boost, and made not have issues while adding a ton of versatility.


Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber
Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I think we should avoid making balancing decisions based on the playstyles of people we don't want to play with anyway, and that includes weird hypothetical rules lawyers who use bad-faith accusations of bigotry to get an extra +2 to Constitution. That guy you made up sounds pretty unpleasant, and I will not be playing with him.

As a counterpoint, the benefit to making this a default rule is that GMs who genuinely do have ugly sketchy takes like "lizardfolk should be biologically stupider" will feel pressured to accept the new rules without making a fuss. It cuts both ways!

Yeah. That's totally fair.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Also I am now really excited to play my lizardfolk inventor(A whole lot easier to make them now) who is also vegetarian(or at least mostly a fruit/plant based diet) like some lizards actually do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I'm so happy for lizardfolk. The Int penalty is an unfortunate holdover that I wish we could have left behind in PF2. A Dex penalty would have been interesting--you know, because they're lizards, they're physically a little sluggish. Maybe a Charisma penalty, if you wanted to imply that they tend to be kind of sheltered from growing up in small rural swamp communities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
it makes it so that characters are even less customizable.

Yes, adding more options players can use when selecting attributes somehow makes characters less customizable.

That totally makes sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Temperans wrote:
it makes it so that characters are even less customizable.

Yes, adding more options players can use when selecting attributes somehow makes characters less customizable.

That totally makes sense.

I meant in the "what ability scores ancestries have". Now all two stat ancestries are the same, and all 3 stat/1 flaw ancestries just become 2 stat ancestries. Yeah some characters got buffed, but its overall a net negative as a whole (including the removal of voluntary flaws for a benefit).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you. The swap between +2/+2 and +++/- is totally optional. It's for people who don't want to have to worry about flaws when they're building their character, or want to be able to pick the exact abilities that are right for their character. It's optional. No ancestries are having their original abilities taken away from them.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

mhm and it's not even a one or the other rule set. One dwarf player can keep their con, wis, dex flaw, and the character who plays their more sociable sister could be +2 cha, +2 wisdom if they wanted to be.(random example)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
Honestly, I'm so happy for lizardfolk. The Int penalty is an unfortunate holdover that I wish we could have left behind in PF2. A Dex penalty would have been interesting--you know, because they're lizards, they're physically a little sluggish. Maybe a Charisma penalty, if you wanted to imply that they tend to be kind of sheltered from growing up in small rural swamp communities.

I would not associate a lizard's sluggishness with a dex penalty given its based on temperature. A charisma penalty makes more sense, althought not because of swamp but for the same reason as Orcs aka being too brutish.

***************
* P.S. Also I always found it interesting that lizardfolk are more often than not closer to aligators/crocodiles and to humans than to lizards. So the name reptile-folk or crocodilian-folk would be technically more accurate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Orcs don't get a Charisma penalty. Lizardfolk aren't brutish, either--they are described in the text as extremely patient, traditional, and wise. I don't know where you're getting "brutish" from.

AONPRD wrote:

They know their history and value its integrity and privacy—if younger ancestries like humanity aren’t interested in learning from lizardfolk empires dating back to before the first human knocked two rocks together to make their first campfire, that’s fine with them.

...

You Might...

Demonstrate extreme patience, even when pressured to act.

...

Known among themselves as iruxi, lizardfolk are raised communally from the moment they break from their shells. They have an oral tradition stretching back thousands of years, brought to life through epic poems, evocative carvings, and ancestral rites performed among fields of fossilized bone. Lizardfolk are passionate astrologers with one eye on the future. If they seem slow to act, it is because their long history has taught them the value of patience.

Trope-wise, "lizards = slow" is a classic, even if scientifically it's actually based on temperature. And regardless, lizardfolk are constantly described as slow and methodical in the book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You guys misunderstood what I am said. I was not saying its one or the other. I am saying that the there is effectively less diversity because if you do pick two free boosts you are now just using the same stats as everyone else.

Mechanically, from an optimization point of view, two free boosts is now the default stat generation and its the 3/1 ancestries that are breaking the mold.

Idk how I can explain my thinking better than that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Orcs don't get a Charisma penalty. Lizardfolk aren't brutish, either--they are described in the text as extremely patient, traditional, and wise. I don't know where you're getting "brutish" from.

AONPRD wrote:

You Might...

Demonstrate extreme patience, even when pressured to act.

Known among themselves as iruxi, lizardfolk are raised communally from the moment they break from their shells. They have an oral tradition stretching back thousands of years, brought to life through epic poems, evocative carvings, and ancestral rites performed among fields of fossilized bone. Lizardfolk are passionate astrologers with one eye on the future. If they seem slow to act, it is because their long history has taught them the value of patience.

Trope-wise, "lizards = slow" is a classic, even if scientifically it's actually based on temperature. And regardless, lizardfolk are constantly described as slow and methodical in the book.

Were we not basing it on the animal counterparts (alligators and crocodiles)? :thinking: I was just talking thinking about how violent they could be with their death rolls, ambushes, and similar. As for the Orc charisma penalty thing, I briefly forgot PF2 Orcs don't have that penalty. Previously they did have that penalty because of that reason.

Still I would not describe them as having a flaw to dex because of being patient or cold blooded. If anything patience gives a Wis bonus, which they do have.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Giving the +2/+2 option is good. Removing the old voluntary flaw option is bad.

I feel future ancestries will all follow the +2/+2 model. Which is sad IMO.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
I am saying that the there is effectively less diversity

Yes, and I'm saying being able to pick between a regular dwarf and a dwarf with high charisma instead is objectively, unequivocally, not somehow "less diverse" than only having the first option.

Like it's just wrong on its face.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
You guys

Well, actually~

Temperans wrote:

misunderstood what I am said. I was not saying its one or the other. I am saying that the there is effectively less diversity because if you do pick two free boosts you are now just using the same stats as everyone else.

Mechanically, from an optimization point of view, two free boosts is now the default stat generation and its the 3/1 ancestries that are breaking the mold.

Idk how I can explain my thinking better than that.

I guess it just seems like a semantic issue to me. Like, the net amount of options has increased, and I would generally consider an ancestry's base ability array to be the default, not the +2/+2 option.

Temperans wrote:
Were we not basing it on the animal counterparts (alligators and crocodiles)? :thinking: I was just talking thinking about how violent they could be with their death rolls, ambushes, and similar.

Huh! I guess I can see how that's what you meant, but it's a weird leap considering the context. I don't really think of crocodiles as being "brutish", either. I also notice that orcs' and half-orcs descriptions have lots of mentions of how people often assume they're "dumb brutes".

Anyways, since lizardfolk are constantly described as "sluggish" and "slow to act", sometimes even to a fault, a Wisdom bonus and Dexterity flaw seems like a perfect fit to me. Charisma can work too, of course, but they're described as pretty artistic and creative, so I don't know if it fits.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the subject of lizardfolk intelligence, I found that their actual ancestry page flavor kinda suggested that they're more keen minded than what you would expect from something with an int flaw. Their reptilian minds would fit a charisma flaw more acutely. Gnolls are kinda the opposite too. They're deal feels more like a wisdom dominant culture rather than an intellectual one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dunno, I get the vibe gnolls are big on cunning and strategy, but not so interested in long-term planning. They're just having a good time outsmarting prey with their buddies.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:

So what did the Gnome Thaumaturge, Human Fighter, and Human Bard gain as a result of not using Voluntary Flaw?

Because as the post sits, it seems odd to me that you count being more minmaxed as a negative, but only focused on what you lost on the high end when critiquing the other characters.

Gnome Thaumaturge will gain INT and WIS. Honestly, I was happy with taking the risk of lower WIS in exchange of having a more well-rounded melee PC. It was a true decision, rather than automatically choosing the optimized allocation of boosting WIS (as the most important stat in the game).

Human Fighter gains CHA and again WIS. Here, I actually used the optional flaw to raise INT for the Magus dedication at level 2 for a big Nova ability once in a fight. It was yet again taking the deliberate risk of lower WIS for better CON.

So, really the opportunity for a strategic decision on boost allocation is gone. Which is a big negative to me.
This is also why I rate the more minmaxed elf as a negative, because it encourages knee-jerk power maximizing over well-considered risk taking.

Which IMO is basically the opposite of what I enjoy in PF2 philosophy.

The Human Bard will gain STR and INT. The impact here is less though. I preferred better DEX because he multiclassed as a Battle Oracle and the constantly flat-footed encourages taking any boost to AC. But being a Reach caster, he has a bigger variety of tactics at his disposal.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

SO here is my understanding of the Ancestry Stat change.

One can either...
* - Get two stat boosts to chosen stats ("free" stat), though each are to different stats

* - Use the Ancestry listed stats that give two denoted stat boosts, a boost to a chosen stat not already boosted by that anscestry, and a Flaw. (which could be boosted by the "free" boost)

Or play a human.

I never used the rule for voluntary flaws (Two for one? Yuck!!) but the other Ancestries having a one for one (Flaw for a free boost) is lost with the optional chosen two stats instead.

For me, it seems to be a choice of using the free boost to up another stat or choosing to change the normal boosts around while the normal free boost and flaw cancel out. (Like using the free boost to up the stat the flaw took down)

I do get the feeling that some of the changes (and forthcoming gutting) in the main brand RPG that this great game is based on has a heavy influence on making this slight change. I think this change is much better and gives the players the choices of old and new while keeping the legacy of the game intact.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:
I do get the feeling that some of the changes (and forthcoming gutting) in the main brand RPG that this great game is based on has a heavy influence on making this slight change.

Yeah, that's why they changed Race to Ancestry, cause DNDone got rid of it as well. Yep.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:

You guys misunderstood what I am said. I was not saying its one or the other. I am saying that the there is effectively less diversity because if you do pick two free boosts you are now just using the same stats as everyone else.

Mechanically, from an optimization point of view, two free boosts is now the default stat generation and its the 3/1 ancestries that are breaking the mold.

Idk how I can explain my thinking better than that.

Specifically, I think its that as a trade its a great deal-- you lose some diversity generated from trying to cope with less than ideal stats and from the basic idea of these types of beings as more intrinsically different.

But you gain a lot from validating combinations of ancestry feats and classes, before I didnt have much reason to pick a halfling as a greatsword fighter, but now that the stats are more permissive I can, and thats 'new' and 'diverse' because that fighter with halfling luck is very different than that Orc fighter with Orc Ferocity, which in turn is very different from a greatsword fighter elf with nimble elf for the turbo speed sudden charge.

So in practice, there's a lot more distinct fighters running around now because the stats arent deterring explorations of ancestry feats and heritage that were previously poison pilled by the stat reqs-- in that regard abil scores are very binary while feats and heritage are more nuanced and negotiable as seperators.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

In a game where saves can be a matter of life and death, the new free + free paradigm makes me finally consider ancestries with dex, wis, or con negatives. All in all a welcome errata

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
thaX wrote:
I do get the feeling that some of the changes (and forthcoming gutting) in the main brand RPG that this great game is based on has a heavy influence on making this slight change.
Yeah, that's why they changed Race to Ancestry, cause DNDone got rid of it as well. Yep.

I was referring to stat changes, not the name change done years ago in PF2. They botched that also, somehow making it worse than "race." Might as will call the character racial choice "thing" with the replacement they chose.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:
Rysky wrote:
thaX wrote:
I do get the feeling that some of the changes (and forthcoming gutting) in the main brand RPG that this great game is based on has a heavy influence on making this slight change.
Yeah, that's why they changed Race to Ancestry, cause DNDone got rid of it as well. Yep.
I was referring to stat changes, not the name change done years ago in PF2. They botched that also, somehow making it worse than "race." Might as will call the character racial choice "thing" with the replacement they chose.

In regards to your first part, I know, I was pointing out the silliness of the notion of people only making changes to ride DnD's coattails and people not choosing something better independent of that.

For the second.... wat?

1 to 50 of 637 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Changes to the Way We Make Changes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.