Beyond that... grasping the concept of what Ancestry and Heritage actually are vs. What they are intended to be is even more frustrating. It reads like it is supposed to be a new thing, but feels like race but it's not race.
Hopefully they expand it and clean it up a bit.
Isabelle Lee wrote:
I did not doubt their existence. =)
But Vic presented a problem that a core concept change was supposed to solve, but what is presented in the playtest still echoes the problem... that is humans are treated differently than other races in regards to Ethnicities in the Core book.
Give it a break man
Give what a break, exactly?
If "Race" is too restrictive a term and we need a new, more accessible term that allows the designers to address problems in design, I'm all for that.
Now we have a new term, "Ancestry".
They changed everywhere where they would use "Race" and used "Ancestry" instead.
What changed? Well, now Racial feats are called "Backgrounds" so they can have an "A, B, C" acronym.
What about all the design problems?
I'm still seeing the things that Vic pointed out. Those design flaws are still there when they don't have to be.
Now that we have a new term and cool new acronym (I'll admit its a little goofy, but its growing on me) can we actually get the flaws that were pointed out fixed?
In other words, where are all of the ethnicities for the other
Why does the human Kellid ethnicity, humans that live in the Mountainous north, not have access to the Mountain Roots Ancestry feat if the point of using "Ancestry" instead of "Race" was to allow us to transcend racial lines and allow for multiple Ancestries from the same region type to have access to the same or similar Ancestry feats?
The reasoning behind the change is spot on. It's a new concept... they are presenting core aspects of character creation differently. I'll buy that AND spread it like gospel.
...but the execution of that vision is what is lacking. What is written in the playtest text is not as advertised. Let's throw "Race" by the wayside and actually make Ancestry something new and different.
I do not mind the "everything is a feat" approach... I really don't. I think it greatly simplifies things from a conceptual standpoint.
But there should be options tied to race, ethnicity, and culture. These core elements should be what we think of when we think of Ancestry.
What is vastly disappointing is that Vic identified a problem... lack of ethnicities in other races... but the Playtest does nothing to address this.
Vic Wertz wrote:
But we get no sun dwarf, no dark dwarf, no desert dwarf, no hill dwarf, no mountain dwarf...
Pathfinder Playtest 2e wrote:
But again, Humans are the only race to get this treatment.
I'm not seeing how replacing the word "Race" with "Ancestry" fixed anything if the same problem that Vic presented is STILL present in the playtest, and that is that only Humans, be it race or ancestry, have any varied Ethnicities.
I like the idea of "building" an ancestry. I am very much a fan of the level of detail that it allows for, but what are we building it from? Half-elves and half-orcs require human heritage, but where does that come from? The Human Ancestry, which gives you the human and humanoid traits. Ancestry is a synonym for heritage... so why not just say "prerequisite Human Ancestry"?
If Ancestry is supposed to address the problems Vic listed, then the playtest needs to reflect that and currently it doesn't. Account for the species, ethnicity, and other non-biological, cultural aspects. Right now, I look at the playtest and aside from the half-elf and half-orc, it FEELS like the word Race was simply replaced with Ancestry because the problems that the change is supposed to address still remain painfully visible.
That further muddies the waters as what is the proper term for an elf/orc hybrid?
Don't get me wrong... I am a BIG fan of this particular aspect from a capability standpoint and LOVE that it is included in the core concept of the game...
But we have dwarf ancestry, elf ancestry, human ancestry... what are the proper titles for the hybrids?
Vic Wertz wrote:
While I do greatly appreciate the explanation...
You folks wrote the books... why did Paizo include ethnicities (sub-races) under the Races chapter? Why did you not inject that same diversity into any of the other races?
Some aspects of a creature's make up comes from species. Semi-elastic skin vs. scales. Hair vs. Quills. Bi-pedal vs. Quadrupedal. Four arms vs. two arms. These are determined by the actual species (race).
Some aspects of a creature's make up comes from their ethnicity, cultural background, the genetic make-up of their ancestors, and their physical location on the planet. Things like ethics, customs, hair texture, skin pigmentation, religion, appetite / palate.
I guess I'm more confused as one blog post says it's simply a term replacement. It seems, however, that the core concept of what would be called "race", now Ancestry, has changed to include race, ethnicity, culture all rolled into one... instead of simply including ethnicity as a core concept.
I'll pose you the same question I posed to other folks... how are the differences between a Dark-elf going to vary from a Wood-elf in how they are quantified and will there be varying sub-cultures of Dark-elves or are Dark-elves the subculture itself?
I've used the search function and cannot find the specific reasoning for the change. I remember reading it but would like to review it again.
I'm quite convinced its the opposite, unfortunately.
Historically, race has been misrepresented as paraded around in lieu of ethnicity.
Race is not pseudoscience.
Society used the term incorrectly.
There were, last I checked, three different homid races that have existed on Earth. Calling scientific fact pseudoscience because society is too stupid to correctly use terminology is poor practice.
How does this impact the game?
Well, we now have terms that are more confusing. Ancestry and Heritage mean the same thing, but now in game, they are different.
So is that how they are quantifying sub-races now or does it happen in other ways as well?
This makes the most sense in regards to adopting a new term. But what do we call someone's culture now?
My ancestors are Cajun. My ancestry is Cajun. That's a distinct thing. My race is human.
If my ancestry is now human, what does this version of Pathfinder call the thing that used to be ancestry?
Because people new to the game will not know what the hell I am talking about when I say race.
I have to change because they fixed something that wasn't broken to begin with.
Fantasy games have always used race in a contextually correct manner, unlike society.
In the context of a fantasy roleplaying game, there is no "real life".
So again, why is the use of race in its proper context, in game, a problem?
No, it's not loose at all. Species is the subset of Genus. Genus = Type in Pathfinder... ie Humanoid. Species = Race and Ethnicity = Ancestry, Heritage, Culture, etc.
Also, who says a dwarf can't raise an orc.
If that were true, then humans would not have neanderthal DNA... which we do.
Interbreedability is possible between different species within the same genus.
Sorry OP. Ancestry is a better term as far as I’m concerned and better fits the stated goal in the book that RPGs are for everyone.
It's contextually incorrect. Omitting the word "race" seems like a play to pander to a specific, notoriously intolerant "of those that do not agree with us" crowd.
If Lore is unique from all other skills, segregate it. The character sheet just gives you two slots for Lore. It should get its own section because I'm going to have knowledge in more than two areas.
Do what Pathfinder 1e should have done and separate Knowledges from Skills.
Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, Diplomacy, Intimidation, Performance, Stealth, Survival, and Thievery (9) are ability based skills, while Arcana, Crafting, Lore, Medicine, Nature, Occultism, Religion, and Society (8) are knowledge based skills.
Have "Key" Knowledges... those listed above that are essential to adventuring and have Lore covered other "General" Knowledge topics such as Military Training, Competition Archery rules, and the mating practices of the Chelaxian Bugbear Tribes.
Allow for a specific number of topics + INT modifier, at each level of TEML.
Preface: I've only read a bit and haven't done character creation or played yet.
The whole "race is now ancestry" feels contrived. If anything, "ancestry" should denote sub-race, not your actual species.
I get it, you are trying to avoid the use of the word "race" because your company is PC and "inclusive" (my assumption, of course).
Ethnicity, Ancestry, Heritage, Culture... all these words refer to SUB-set of the Human Race in the English Language. If it's not Human, it's another RACE... if its a different type of Human... those are varying Ancestries. Taldan, Chelaxian, THESE are ancestries.
Are we going to have different ethnicities of a given ancestry? That sounds extremely redundant.
If anything, use "Species"... that would be a lot closer to being contextually correct.
All of this to say, Paizo... do what brought you to the dance. Take something that folks love and make it better while keeping it familiar enough to remain accessible. That's why Pathfinder worked.
From what I have read, it seems more foreign than familiar.
I'm referring to pg 306.
1. Valeros can approach position 1 with the Stride action without
2. If Valeros approaches this way to position 2, he triggers reactions
3. If Seoni Strides to position 3, she triggers reactions from the
It says triggering reactions... not necessarily AOEs so I'm guessing I just inferred that part and the converse would thus be true for monsters moving into threatened areas of PCs, in that their movement would also trigger reactions.
I'm looking to see why certain things changed from something that worked in PF1 to something else in PF2.
The reason I'm asking is this feels more like 3.5e to 4e rather than what I was expecting, which was 3.5e to PF.
So far my analysis of the rules has PF2 feeling more foreign than familiar... which is why I'm looking to ground that in the reasoning of the changes.
I'm not looking to hate on PF2 or anything like that. I want to like it.
So right off the bad, what appears to be all monsters getting AOEs if you so much as sneeze in a threatened square vs. just fighters on the PC side seems a bit lopsided in the reading of the movement rules.
Is this just a case of the example that was used or is this actually what occurs regardless of monster?
What am I missing / not seeing that I should be seeing?
You would be surprised.
I think I'll roll an assassin named "Obaky" and pretend I'm in the upper echelons of a mega guild and infiltrate another lesser guild and try and talk them into abandoning ship a year and a half before launch...
Oh and I'll do this while someone who used to use the pseudonym "Obakararuir" is at NTC and DOESN'T HAVE INTERNET ACCESS. Yeah, that will be real smooth and probably work like a charm.
Here is where the Catch 22 comes in.
They are already going to make positive contributions. Productive members of a volunteer society climb the hierarchy ladder faster than those who aren't productive.
If you reward those that are hard workers and deserving of promotion, you may promote those with hidden agendas.
It doesn't always necessitate extraordinary measures to safe guard extremely sensitive information. A lot of time, it's just dependent on the systems a particular game has in place. Decentralized guild banks. Measures that require 3 or more members of leadership to access.
To me, things like that aren't necessarily extraordinary. They're good protocol. Extraordinary measures would be encrypting plans that could only be accessed an hour before "go time" and over-nighting them to your key players on a thumb-drive.
The real kicker is the assessment of items classified as passive intelligence. Things that can be pieced together for value, but by themselves aren't really considered important.
I appreciate the clarifications. I would not expect any CC to simply tow the line in an alliance. My concern is with the two phrases that spell out your expectations in regards to voting power, as they seem to be contradictory.
"Prevailing" is not the same as "equal". Whereas "Equal" voting power seems acceptable, "Prevailing" seems less reasonable unless there was significant justification to merit it. Just so you understand where I was coming from.
Your clarification is again appreciated, I apologize if I came off as trying to trouble-shoot you.
Dak Thunderkeg wrote:
What level of control would the Kingdom exert over the Company as far as finances, leadership, direction, and politics are concerned?
If you could please elaborate on what you mean by prevailing vote. You wouldn't join an alliance in which there could be a possibility of the alliance deciding to do something contrary to the wishes of Aeternum is my understanding.