Changes to the Way We Make Changes

SuperBidi wrote:

Unicore wrote:

The issue that is largely being ignored in these discussions is that having an attribute flaw is largely being treated by players as something to make as meaningless as possible to the character narrative, or else represent at the table in often cringy ways. Deciding to play a character who has a low value attribute that changes the way the character is played should not be a part of the mechanical power building character fantasy.

Most players do not want to think deeply about what it means for their character to have an 8 in an attribute. They are fine with it literally meaning that their character takes a -1 to certain checks that that character largely tries to avoid making, or have one less skill or can cary a little less, but thoughtfully playing out a character who has a meaningful attribute limit is not what you see in any online discussion about what ancestry to select for your character.

Attribute Flaws are a bad way for players to get more specialized characters. If three boosts feel essential to having the spread of character builds you want in your game, this is a very different issue than what build diversity is possible in the game now. Every character can still have any attribute at 8 for the narrative character reasons that make “build diversity” a thing.

I vastly disagree. The fact that "some players" don't care about their stats in the way they roleplay their character doesn't mean that stats mean nothing to a lot of other players.

Removing the ability flaws has a very direct effect on available stat spreads and as a result will affect the type of characters you can play from a roleplay point of view.

No it doesn't. You can still take an 8 or even 2 in any attribute that you want for roleplaying reasons. The only real difference is that there is no way to get that extra boost. That is the only change in these rules. If players suddenly stop taking any flaws in their characters because their is no mechanical benefit for...

How is it better to make roleplay less meaningful? Roleplay absolutely should not be removed from mechanics. The whole point of RPG's is to have the two tied together. Voluntary Flaws were great because they encouraged people to make better RP characters by giving them a small benefit for doing so.

If you want a little more in another stat, then you probably need to put something to an 8. Now you can explain why your character is bad in that stat, and you have a good reason to make that decision.

Mechanical storytelling shouldn't be removed just because some people don't mind ignoring their stats. I mean... you're ignoring your stats anyway for RP, so why can't we have our boosts from flaws for the folks who prefer it?

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.

Except problem not solved if future Ancestry design changes to align with the new rules. Suddenly, since 1 set 1 free ancestries are literally pointless stat-wise, there's no reason to print those statlines anymore, even though they are nice to have for folks who use legacy rules.

If Paizo just keeps ancestries the same and generally remembers that some folks still like the old method, then no problem. But considering they completely removed the old method... I wish I could be more confident.

Unicore wrote:

What really is the difference between an 8 in charisma vs a 10 in charisma for any character that doesn't use it for a casting stat?

Unicore wrote:

If you played the character differently having a 10 instead of an 8, we have bigger fish to fry that has to do with arbitrary conceptions of what the numbers mean and the limits we're imposing on ourselves in a roleplaying context.

I really don't know what to answer, I find that these sentences just make no sense. Yes, I like my character sheet to be as close as possible to the character I play. So I make a difference between 10 and 8 Charisma, between +0 (average) and -1 (bad).

That second quote was not me!

My point is that it is not a mechanical consideration for the vast majority of players to worry about the difference between an 8 and a 10 in charisma. If you don’t train those skills and are not a caster, your character trades away nothing taking a hit there. STR is nearly in the same boat and INT is very marginally more relevant, maybe. So the difference between just three ancestry boosts and three ancestry boosts and a flaw is often irrelevant to the mechanical build of the character. Unless that flaw comes in on a save stat or a key attribute. Why is it good for the game to encourage players only to narratively consider the consequences of being 5% behind the norm of what we imagine strength, intelligence or charisma to mean, but not really dexterity, constitution or wisdom?

You could voluntarily flaw charisma down to 6 or 4 and you are not mechanically changing anything about your character that will come up in game. If you haven’t trained social skills, by level 5 your attribute bonus starts becoming irrelevant to checks you are not trained in. “Flaws” representing certain kinds of imagined character limitations are dangerous when “boost an important stat and the come up with what you imagine a less charismatic or less intelligent character trait that you will act out at the table.” Especially when that will mean we see more players trying to act out these traits only because they want to get access to an archetype earlier, or get a slightly bigger boost somewhere else in the game.

Deciding your character is going to act anti-socially, or take risks that other players don’t feel comfortable having to cover for can very easily be disruptive behavior in a collaborative game. Incentivizing character development that runs counter to the expectations of other players for what kind of story is being collectively told is a dangerous design space to begin with, especially if it flirts with adopting harmful stereotypes about what a “flawed character” looks like.

Personally, I am fine with thoughtful flaws being played out in the games I play. It makes characters interesting and different and it doesn’t really matter if those flaws are tied to attributes or not. But the decision to move away from having mechanical trade offs for slight attribute penalties in a game that really represents a pretty gonzo, over the top character power fantasy makes sense to me. PF2 is not the game to play to explore the nuances of what it means to have very minor differences in ability scores in anything close to a real world context. + to level alone makes the very idea of an 8 dex character “clumsy” something subjective only to the rest of the party, not the world around them

The most interesting heroes are those that overcome their flaws and weaknesses like Rastlin, Dresden, and Geralt, to name a few.

I have never seen Geralt be anything other than badass.

I'm quite pleased with most of the new changes, as well as many of the reasons given for them. However, I don't get the "biological essentialism" reasoning behind the ability score changes, nor do I believe that change to be a particularly good one. It makes the player options far too homogeneous, and appears to actively punish certain player choices.

Logon Bonner wrote:

There have been many ongoing conversations in the gaming community and within Paizo about biological essentialism in RPGs.

Really? That's the first I've heard of it. Would you please link a few sources to said conversations (as well as a clear definition of "biological essentialism") for those of us curious to learn more?

Unicore wrote:

What really is the difference between an 8 in charisma vs a 10 in charisma for any character that doesn't use it for a casting stat? If you are not going to train social skills, even starting with a 12 or 14 in CHA becomes useless to your character by level 4 or 5. Is an 8 in charisma really more than just your character being slightly unlikable? I think people tend to over exaggerate flaws very often, often to the point of making choices that could make a lot of other players uncomfortable.

The "Big Dumb Fighter" for example. Is an 8 instead of a 10 really a meaningful difference in how the character should be played? And is it fair for a player to make that narrative decision without talking to the rest of the table about it before hand? Having a character who decides they have to "do the dumb" thing, because their character has an 8 in INT instead of a 10 is not good for the game.

I'm getting really tired of walking on egg shells all the time for fear of other players and GMs wanting to tell me how to play my character.

Unless it's disruptive, people can bugger off with that form of gatekeeping mentality.

I'm here to have fun and to promote fun by playing a game. Not to stress out or stress others out over the mere possibility of stepping on a social stigma landmine.

Hmmm... I'm agreeing with you here. The only answer is that this must be a sign of the apocalypse! ;)

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.

That accusation would be absurd.

TlalocPendragon wrote:

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.

That accusation would be absurd.

I agree. But then what is the accusation by removing the old rules wholesale?

Adding an optional variant rule for tables who don't like Ancestry choice being tied to stats and to address the bioessentialism 'thing' would be an uncontroversial move. But completely subverting the old rules with no way to revert back carries the implication that there is something wrong with the old rules.

I don't think it's fair to claim 'balance' reasons, since the old rules were balanced just fine and I don't think there's much shift regardless. So one is left to wonder what is being insinuated that makes the old rules so bad that they need to be completely, universally subverted.

But then what is the accusation by removing the old rules wholesale?

Why does there have to be an accusation in it?

tstplsignr wrote:

But then what is the accusation by removing the old rules wholesale?

Why does there have to be an accusation in it?

I mean... because of what I said? If both rules for doing stats are valid (which you and I seem to agree they are) then there would be no problem in leaving both rulesets in the game as RAW, with one of them simply being a variant.

But that isn't what happened. The old rules were both subverted (2 free boost can't be turned off) and removed (voluntary flaws that expanded character diversity previously, and the more important change) with no way to opt back into them outside of unofficial homebrew (which doesn't really count because you can homebrew anything you want).

So.. again.. by not leaving it to player/GM choice, there is very much an implication that the old rules are wrong/bad. Intentional? Maybe not, but implied nonetheless.

Just saw this on the news!

At the end of the day, what's happened is that humans are no longer automatically the best choice for everything always and ancestries with a save flaw are no longer inherently inferior.

You can now choose between perfect stat arrays with any 3boost/1flaw (where the flaw is in str, int or cha) or free/free ancient elf with their superior speed, bonus feat and strong ancestry feats. Humans also have a tiny niche somewhere with general feats enabling scaling heavy armor on anyone through level 2 sentinel and half-elf multitalented ignoring prerequisites.

Ultimately, it means more ancestry choice at the top end at the cost of humans no longer combining perfect stats with great feats. You will be seeing more adopted ancestry (human) and aasimars since most ancestries have anemic feats and heritages, human is almost entirely poachable and aasimar provides LLV/DV and flight feats.

Though I wouldn't complain if more things got buffed instead of every errata/balance patch being a series of nerfs. Has anything ever been buffed post-release aside from the alchemist?

Edit: and the bad ancestries with this one

At the end of the day, what's happened is that humans are no longer automatically the best choice for everything always and ancestries with a save flaw are no longer inherently inferior.

You can now choose between perfect stat arrays with any 3boost/1flaw (where the flaw is in str, int or cha) or free/free ancient elf with their superior speed, bonus feat and strong ancestry feats. Humans also have a tiny niche somewhere with general feats enabling scaling heavy armor on anyone through level 2 sentinel and half-elf multitalented ignoring prerequisites.

Ultimately, it means more ancestry choice at the top end at the cost of humans no longer combining perfect stats with great feats. You will be seeing more adopted ancestry (human) and aasimars since most ancestries have anemic feats and heritages, human is almost entirely poachable and aasimar provides LLV/DV and flight feats.

Though I wouldn't complain if more things got buffed instead of every errata/balance patch being a series of nerfs. Has anything ever been buffed post-release aside from the alchemist?

This ignore that preference for the old rules might entirely be stylistic. I prefer using Voluntary Flaws to make things like Halfling Barbarian work because, in my opinion, it's more interesting for the game. Balance/meta has nothing to do with it, I just find the old rules more interesting, as do others. So why shouldn't they be a valid ruleset alongside 2 free boost no flaw boost?

The reason to give players an option to go Free/Free instead of +/+/-/Free is that when you were trying to make a character of a certain class you would be funneled to certain ancestries or have to swim upstream using the voluntary flaws system to improve your KAS.

I know this because I have played a Gnome Barbarian, a Dwarf Bard, and a Leshy Investigator. In each case I would have happily gone Free/Free.

This ignore that preference for the old rules might entirely be stylistic. I prefer using Voluntary Flaws to make things like Halfling Barbarian work because, in my opinion, it's more interesting for the game. Balance/meta has nothing to do with it, I just find the old rules more interesting, as do others. So why shouldn't they be a valid ruleset alongside 2 free boost no flaw boost?

Given that one of the whole selling points of the system is balance and a more gameist approach, I'm pretty sure balance/meta does, in fact, have something to do with it. The flickmace nerf is literally right there in the same update citing concerns about its power and reputation.

tstplsignr wrote:

This ignore that preference for the old rules might entirely be stylistic. I prefer using Voluntary Flaws to make things like Halfling Barbarian work because, in my opinion, it's more interesting for the game. Balance/meta has nothing to do with it, I just find the old rules more interesting, as do others. So why shouldn't they be a valid ruleset alongside 2 free boost no flaw boost?

Given that one of the whole selling points of the system is balance and a more gameist approach, I'm pretty sure balance/meta does, in fact, have something to do with it. The flickmace nerf is literally right there in the same update citing concerns about its power and reputation.

Uhm?

The flickmace nerf is not connected to the ancestry changes.

Both versions of ancestry stats are effectively equally balanced in different ways. Some people prefer the old way of balancing.

Just because PF2 is game-y doesn't mean every single preference people have in the rules is for the sake of balance. That's just silly.

The reason to give players an option to go Free/Free instead of +/+/-/Free is that when you were trying to make a character of a certain class you would be funneled to certain ancestries or have to swim upstream using the voluntary flaws system to improve your KAS.

I know this because I have played a Gnome Barbarian, a Dwarf Bard, and a Leshy Investigator. In each case I would have happily gone Free/Free.

Some people would rather use characters that had to go the voluntary flaw route. To some people that extra bit of work is appealing. No reason both sides can't have their preferred rules.

Ed Reppert wrote:

tstplsignr wrote:

But then what is the accusation by removing the old rules wholesale?

Why does there have to be an accusation in it?

I mean... because of what I said? If both rules for doing stats are valid (which you and I seem to agree they are) then there would be no problem in leaving both rulesets in the game as RAW, with one of them simply being a variant.

But that isn't what happened. The old rules were both subverted (2 free boost can't be turned off) and removed (voluntary flaws that expanded character diversity previously, and the more important change) with no way to opt back into them outside of unofficial homebrew (which doesn't really count because you can homebrew anything you want).

So.. again.. by not leaving it to player/GM choice, there is very much an implication that the old rules are wrong/bad. Intentional? Maybe not, but implied nonetheless.

I think you're reading into this way more than is actually there. First off, from the sidebar on page 26 of the latest CRB: "You always have the option to replace your ancestry’s listed ability boosts and ability flaws entirely and instead select two free ability boosts when creating your character." IOW, the old specific boosts and flaws option is still in the rules. It is not the case that a player must choose two free boosts. As for "can't be turned off", any GM can turn off (or turn on) any rule he wants to.

The optional ability flaws rule was changed from "take two flaws to get a boost" to "take a flaw". the net effect on overall stats is the same -- one less total boost at character generation. Granted you can no longer use this rule to get a boost. That's not so terrible --- and it doesn't imply that the old rule was bad or wrong.

I think they just didn't want to make +Free/+Free/+Free/-Free/-Free an option, particularly since the rules for "can you stack boosts/flaws" were cumbersome and applied only to this specific situation.

The current rule is simply "any time you apply multiple attribute boosts to your character, you cannot choose the same ability score twice."

The old rules were both subverted (2 free boost can't be turned off)

That's incorrect, 2 free boosts is specifically described as an alternative. Nothing stopping you from making a dwarf with their original boosts (or any other ancestry).

tstplsignr wrote:

Ed Reppert wrote:

tstplsignr wrote:

But then what is the accusation by removing the old rules wholesale?

Why does there have to be an accusation in it?

I mean... because of what I said? If both rules for doing stats are valid (which you and I seem to agree they are) then there would be no problem in leaving both rulesets in the game as RAW, with one of them simply being a variant.

But that isn't what happened. The old rules were both subverted (2 free boost can't be turned off) and removed (voluntary flaws that expanded character diversity previously, and the more important change) with no way to opt back into them outside of unofficial homebrew (which doesn't really count because you can homebrew anything you want).

So.. again.. by not leaving it to player/GM choice, there is very much an implication that the old rules are wrong/bad. Intentional? Maybe not, but implied nonetheless.

I think you're reading into this way more than is actually there. First off, from the sidebar on page 26 of the latest CRB: "You always have the option to replace your ancestry’s listed ability boosts and ability flaws entirely and instead select two free ability boosts when creating your character." IOW, the old specific boosts and flaws option is still in the rules. It is not the case that a player must choose two free boosts. As for "can't be turned off", any GM can turn off (or turn on) any rule he wants to.

The optional ability flaws rule was changed from "take two flaws to get a boost" to "take a flaw". the net effect on overall stats is the same -- one less total boost at character generation. Granted you can no longer use this rule to get a boost. That's not so terrible --- and it doesn't imply that the old rule was bad or wrong.

Not so terrible to you. Voluntary Flaws was my favorite mechanic for ability scores, and it was entirely removed for basically no one's benefit. They could have left it as a variant rule and caused no issue, but decided it needs to be removed whole-sale.

And yeah, the GM can turn off whatever they want. They can homebrew whatever they want, too, so it's pointless to talk about things in those terms, at that point the game is whatever you want.

tstplsignr wrote:

The old rules were both subverted (2 free boost can't be turned off)

That's incorrect, 2 free boosts is specifically described as an alternative. Nothing stopping you from making a dwarf with their original boosts (or any other ancestry).

The problem is they removed the old way of building characters with an ancestry flaw. Before, you could get around having that -CHA by taking a couple flaws. That makes your character (very very slightly) worse overall than a character who didn't get a CHA flaw. Still, some people preferred using Voluntary Flaws to get around that issue, but that option is no longer available.

Squiggit wrote:

tstplsignr wrote:

The old rules were both subverted (2 free boost can't be turned off)

That's incorrect, 2 free boosts is specifically described as an alternative. Nothing stopping you from making a dwarf with their original boosts (or any other ancestry).

The problem is they removed the old way of building characters with an ancestry flaw. Before, you could get around having that -CHA by taking a couple flaws. That makes your character (very very slightly) worse overall than a character who didn't get a CHA flaw. Still, some people preferred using Voluntary Flaws to get around that issue, but that option is no longer available.

Okay, yeah, I agree voluntary flaws should have stayed, but what you said in the quoted portion was that you were being forced to take the 2 free boosts, which is inaccurate.

tstplsignr wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

tstplsignr wrote:

The old rules were both subverted (2 free boost can't be turned off)

That's incorrect, 2 free boosts is specifically described as an alternative. Nothing stopping you from making a dwarf with their original boosts (or any other ancestry).

The problem is they removed the old way of building characters with an ancestry flaw. Before, you could get around having that -CHA by taking a couple flaws. That makes your character (very very slightly) worse overall than a character who didn't get a CHA flaw. Still, some people preferred using Voluntary Flaws to get around that issue, but that option is no longer available.

Okay, yeah, I agree voluntary flaws should have stayed, but what you said in the quoted portion was that you were being forced to take the 2 free boosts, which is inaccurate.

Yes but point is the two are linked. By removing Voluntary Flaws they made the 2 free boost rule necessary if someone wants to max out a stat they have an innate flaw in. Which is to say, by RAW, trying to stick with recommended statlines at your table for stylistic reasons will significantly reduce build diversity.

I get that the 2 free boosts were meant to substitute for voluntary flaws, but obviously some people don't like that for a variety of reasons. That leads to the ultimate point: It's not fair to say "Just don't use the alternative" when the alternative people don't like is mandatory for a lot of builds. Not liking the 2 free boosts and ignoring them leads to the absolute worst of all possibilities, so it's not really fair to treat it like a valid option for folks who don't like it. They just end up playing a worse game.

It's not fair to say "Just don't use the alternative"

It's absolutely completely fair. If your complaint is that you do not like the alternative, you can just not use it. That is 100% a valid option.

Trying to take it away from people who do like it is just policing how other people build their characters, which is pretty s&%#ty.

tstplsignr wrote:

It's not fair to say "Just don't use the alternative"

It's absolutely completely fair. If your complaint is that you do not like the alternative, you can just not use it. That is 100% a valid option.

Trying to take it away from people who do like it is just policing how other people build their characters, which is pretty s!!%ty.

I agree

They should give voluntary flaws back

I'd be okay with the voluntary flaws system if it could not be combined with the "replace your ancestry's array with +Free/+Free". But this really seems like the sort of thing you can just do with house rules.

I'd be okay with the voluntary flaws system if it could not be combined with the "replace your ancestry's array with +Free/+Free". But this really seems like the sort of thing you can just do with house rules.

I don't even think that's necessary, I mean, the +2/+2 ancestries weren't barred from voluntary flaws before.

Summary:

The errata is live: paizo.com/pathfinder/faq

The 4th printing of the Pathfinder (2e) Core Rulebook should start shipping next week.

PDF update process: It will still be updated if/when print products are reprinted. (So the PDF for the Core Rulebook should update soon.)

This is currently a Pathfinder, not a Starfinder process.

Thanks for playing Pathfinder!

Here's a question, is there any discussion of the big attribute change being implemented in Starfinder as well at some point?

Exactly. There's little to no point in playing humans anymore.

Sounds like a lack of imagination.

Ravingdork wrote:

Exactly. There's little to no point in playing humans anymore.

Sounds like a lack of imagination.

Humans were already a minority at many gaming tables (at least at all the ones I frequent); this will make them all but extinct.

And it makes sense; why play a human when you can play any other race with more free abilities (such as darkvision or increased speed), and then poach the occasional human feat that you might have wanted anyways?

I kind of wonder if Paizo is doing this, at least in part, to boost sales of new books with exotic ancestries.

Humans were already a minority at many gaming tables (at least at all the ones I frequent); this will make them all but extinct.

Who cares about what happens at a gaming table or two in America? I don't.

For once I agree with Gorbacz. Half of my characters are Humans (and that's certainly the reason I'm pissed about the removal of voluntary flaws).

TOZ wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Exactly. There's little to no point in playing humans anymore.

Sounds like a lack of imagination.

Humans were already a minority at many gaming tables (at least at all the ones I frequent); this will make them all but extinct.

*presses X to Doubt*

*presses X to Doubt*

Right. I mean. Every gaming table I see is surrounded by humans. Including I. your .fellow. human.

bluff: 1d20 - 2 ⇒ (14) - 2 = 12

TOZ wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Exactly. There's little to no point in playing humans anymore.

Sounds like a lack of imagination.

Humans were already a minority at many gaming tables (at least at all the ones I frequent); this will make them all but extinct.

And it makes sense; why play a human when you can play any other race with more free abilities (such as darkvision or increased speed), and then poach the occasional human feat that you might have wanted anyways?

Ridiculous. Do you understand how incredible Human feats are?

- Adapted cantrip
- Cooperative nature + Soul
- Natural ambition
- General training
- Unconventional Weaponry
- Clever improvisor
- Multitalented

Versatile Heritage is a solid and unique heritage as well, which many use to enable builds or qualify for an archetype that wouldn't normally be able to at level 2 (for example Bastion bards).

You make "poaching feats" sound super simple but Adopted Ancestry is a general feat, a significant price to pay, and one where the desired ancestry feats come online a bit later.

Not only are there mechanically sound reasons to play a human, but they are still one of the stronger ancestries in the game.

I kind of wonder if Paizo is doing this, at least in part, to boost sales of new books with exotic ancestries.

Uncommon is a thing for a reason. No one is forcing your GM to allow any of these ancestries in their games.

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.

WoAWoOOOOoooOOOOOOOooOOOOOooOOOOOOooOOOT

As for mechanical reasons to play humans: Natural Ambition, Natural Skill, General Training, Clever Improviser. Human ancestry feats are some of the most versatile and powerful in the game.

Most people I know rank humans as the strongest ancestry by a large margin. This change hardly influence that.

Their feat support is that strong. I very much welcome this change. I had to jump through hoops to make basic (and pretty mediocre) concepts work before, and now I at least can.

You try making a gnome str based inventor with the old array.

To be fair; I've wanted ability scores divorced from ancestries for ages. I find them a boring way to represent an ancestries uniqueness. And rather people consider it munchkin-ry or not, playing an ancestry that has a - in your KAS feels bad.

There's a reason you often see certain ancestry/class combos. Player chars are supposed to be the exception to the rule. Let me make my gnome barb or whatever without punishing me needlessly.

If we're going to be equalizing all the ancestries stat choices to address biological essentialism, except for the handful that now has the advantage of three boosts over everyone else apparently, why are we also not equalizing their HP? So now my sprite can be as strong as an orc but it can't have as many Hitpoints?

There ARE biological differences between real world species of the same size and weight. Some species are stronger than others, some are quicker, some are quieter. Corvids ARE more intelligent than lizards. It isn't discriminatory to recognize these things. Especially not in a fantasy game where a spider-person has a venomous bite, but humans don't. Or where goblins can bounce like a rubber ball, but a halfling would go splat. The game has so many heritages and feats based off the biology of different species of humanoid, but we aren't going to address those? Many heritages and feats based of heritages make them physically or mentally better than others at certain things. Is that not biological essentialism? That's not problematic? Why divide ancestry feats up by 'ancestry' at all?

How is it not any more problematic that some ancestries get Darkvision for free at level 1 while humans have to wait until level 5 and spend both of their ancestry feats to get it AND be from the Nidalese ethnicity (or equivalent in their respective campaign) AND be blocked from other ethnic feats? Why does the elf have the highest land speed potential?

So we're okay locking some things behind biology but not stats? I'll never be as fast as a dog, or as stealthy as a leopard or able to hold my breath as long as an otter.

It's such a weird decision to make to achieve their stated goal of addressing biological essentialism because have they really addressed it at all? More so, did it need to be addressed?

I'm not saying biological essentialism should be a factor in deciding the stat options ancestries have, but I am saying that avoiding biological essentialism shouldn't necessarily be a factor either, at least not with such as broad a stroke as they have done here.

You make "poaching feats" sound super simple but Adopted Ancestry is a general feat, a significant price to pay, and one where the desired ancestry feats come online a bit later.

If you use Deep Backgrounds, you can get Adopted Ancestry with your background. There are also heritages that grant it and some have 5th level ancestry feats that grant it and a 1st level ancestry feat and 1st level ancestry feats that grant it.

That second quote was not me!

Sorry, it was the Magic Sword. But you were saying nearly the same thing.

My point is that it is not a mechanical consideration for the vast majority of players to worry about the difference between an 8 and a 10 in charisma.

From a mechanical point of view, the old voluntary flaws rule was giving you a +2 to your third attribute at the cost of a -2 to your fifth and sixth attributes. Mechanically, it was pretty inconsequential, I've never seen the voluntary flaws rule advocated powergaming wise. So I think you're on the hyperbole when you imply that the gain is interesting mechanically.

Especially when that will mean we see more players trying to act out these traits only because they want to get access to an archetype earlier, or get a slightly bigger boost somewhere else in the game.

From my experience, when a player uses the flaws rule only for mechanical reasons, they just don't act out these traits by considering that "8 is not much different than 10".

Deciding your character is going to act anti-socially, or take risks that other players don’t feel comfortable having to cover for can very easily be disruptive behavior in a collaborative game.

That's a table issue completely unrelated to voluntary flaws. If a player is bothering the table with the way they play their character, whatever the reason, it has to be talked out. And I've known a lot of unflawed characters that were played in a very flawed way.

Personally, I am fine with thoughtful flaws being played out in the games I play.

That's Stormwind Fallacy. Choosing a flaw for mechanical reasons doesn't imply that the player is not choosing the flaw thoughtfully.

PF2 is not the game to play to explore the nuances of what it means to have very minor differences in ability scores in anything close to a real world context.

Why? There are tons of flawed heroes out there, why should it be bared from playing?

Doug Hahn wrote:

You make "poaching feats" sound super simple but Adopted Ancestry is a general feat, a significant price to pay, and one where the desired ancestry feats come online a bit later.

If you use Deep Backgrounds, you can get Adopted Ancestry with your background. There are also heritages that grant it and some have 5th level ancestry feats that grant it and a 1st level ancestry feat and 1st level ancestry feats that grant it.

So? There are often many ways and optional variants (like the one you mentioned) to achieve goals in PF2e; it's a strength of the system. Nonetheless, it's disingenuous to act like "poaching" is easy/simple to the level that human ancestry is no longer viable.

The overall point is more important. Humans are still really damn good.

It's such a weird decision to make to achieve their stated goal of addressing biological essentialism because have they really addressed it at all? More so, did it need to be addressed?

Paizo made quite a big leap from slavery to biology. Who knows what they might remove from the game next?

So now my sprite can be as strong as an orc but it can't have as many Hitpoints?

A 20cm tall Sprite is hitting with a Greataxe for exactly the same damage as 120cm tall Ratfolk, but you never had a problem with that.

Especially not in a fantasy game where a spider-person has a venomous bite, but humans don't. Or where goblins can bounce like a rubber ball, but a halfling would go splat. The game has so many heritages and feats based off the biology of different species of humanoid, but we aren't going to address those?

It's not a view I hold but I think I've spotted a difference.

Some people equate better and better. If you are mathematically stronger faster smarter wiser you are just better. This gets equated to better in an ultimate/moral sense...Which is what people really want to avoid

A +2 is just BETTER than a +0 which is just better than a -2. Bouncing vs. a venomous bite vs a feat are fundamentally incomparable. There isn't any implication of better and there really can't be.

Unicore wrote:

That second quote was not me!

Sorry, it was the Magic Sword. But you were saying nearly the same thing.

Unicore wrote:

My point is that it is not a mechanical consideration for the vast majority of players to worry about the difference between an 8 and a 10 in charisma.

From a mechanical point of view, the old voluntary flaws rule was giving you a +2 to your third attribute at the cost of a -2 to your fifth and sixth attributes. Mechanically, it was pretty inconsequential, I've never seen the voluntary flaws rule advocated powergaming wise. So I think you're on the hyperbole when you imply that the gain is interesting mechanically.

Unicore wrote:

Especially when that will mean we see more players trying to act out these traits only because they want to get access to an archetype earlier, or get a slightly bigger boost somewhere else in the game.

From my experience, when a player uses the flaws rule only for mechanical reasons, they just don't act out these traits by considering that "8 is not much different than 10".

The people who act out these traits are those who want to play them. They may be bad players or whatever, still, I don't see why you would force them not to play a character with a flaw. That looks like a strong limitation on playable characters if you can only play flawless ones.

Unicore wrote:

Deciding your character is going to act anti-socially, or take risks that other players don’t feel comfortable having to cover for can very easily be disruptive behavior in a collaborative game.

That's a table issue completely unrelated to voluntary flaws. If a player is bothering the table with the way they play their character, whatever the reason, it has to be talked out. And I've known a lot of unflawed characters that were played in a very flawed way.

Unicore wrote:

Personally, I am fine with thoughtful flaws being played out in the games I play.

That's Stormwind Fallacy. Choosing a flaw for mechanical...

Both 8 and 10 are bad charisma in the practical sense of "I should not be making this check if I have a choice" so im still unclear on what roleplaying distinction you're getting from a 5% shift in a numerical abstraction of intangible personal magnetism.

Wizard Level 1 wrote:

Especially not in a fantasy game where a spider-person has a venomous bite, but humans don't. Or where goblins can bounce like a rubber ball, but a halfling would go splat. The game has so many heritages and feats based off the biology of different species of humanoid, but we aren't going to address those?

It's not a view I hold but I think I've spotted a difference.

Some people equate better and better. If you are mathematically stronger faster smarter wiser you are just better. This gets equated to better in an ultimate/moral sense...Which is what people really want to avoid

A +2 is just BETTER than a +0 which is just better than a -2. Bouncing vs. a venomous bite vs a feat are fundamentally incomparable. There isn't any implication of better and there really can't be.

Which honestly is weird because the only people who care about that are either the people who don't care about being reasonable in the first place, or people who care way too much about it being "poor representation". Everyone else could not care less if a character is slightly stronger in one stat than the other as long as it remains balanced. They have not really cared for 30+ years given how old this hobby is.

So why make balance changes based on the opinion of the extremes?

Both 8 and 10 are bad charisma in the practical sense of "I should not be making this check if I have a choice" so im still unclear on what roleplaying distinction you're getting from a 5% shift in a numerical abstraction of intangible personal magnetism.

Mechanically.

Well either way, I hope errata being bit more common means that it doesn't take too long for us to get more errata on the ancestry flaw thing :p That or every ancestry having 3 bonuses one flaw option.

Wizard Level 1 wrote:

The most interesting heroes are those that overcome their flaws and weaknesses like Rastlin, Dresden, and Geralt, to name a few.

I have never seen Geralt be anything other than badass.

Badasses can (and should) have flaws and weaknesses.