unverified's page

I personally like the idea of using a feat to enable hybrid ancestries, if only because it opens up the possibility of nonhuman hybrids with actual differing features (such as the plane-touched of nonhuman ancestry). However, I strongly dislike it being implemented with so few ancestry feats (gained as the character levels -- obviously, the lists will be added to as the game gains sourcebooks). This lack of ancestry feats hurts all ancestries (making them bland and same-seeming at low levels), but devastates the hybrids. Sure, giving up a feat for better versatility makes sense, but only if you have enough feat slots to make that versatility mean something. Obviously, the simple answer is to add some ancestry feat slots; this has benefits across the board (especially when more ancestry feats are added to represent the old alternate racial traits and old racial feats), and if necessary could even be parceled out (perhaps adding a second level slot) instead of completely front-loading them.

I agree that the half-elves and half-orcs deserve their own ancestry write-up pages, but keep in mind that this is a >huge< playtest where space is such a concern that only four of the multiclass archetypes were able to be presented. It is likely that the current "footnote" approach is only a space-saving method, or at least we can hope.

What I'd really like to see is, in addition to the Half-Elf and Half-Orc feats for humans, a Half-Human feat for elves and orcs (and Orcs as a core race, if only to support this) to represent half-elves and half-orcs that more resemble their nonhuman parent than the human one.

Adding orcs as a core race has a couple of benefits; the first is (of course) making it easier to do the half-orc option without having to add the Orc ancestry feats as an "add-on" to the human side.

The second is less tangible; it makes a stronger argument for the inclusion of a "half-human" heritage feat for elves and orcs (which could be generalized later) to represent half-elves and half-orcs that favor their nonhuman parent more than the human one.

I like the concept of ancestry feats handling alternate racial (ahem, ancestry) abilities, which is [I presume] a large part of why Paizo shunted off the existing ones into feats. However, the scarcity of ancestry feats does more than just dribble out "starting abilities" over the course of twenty levels...

1) It makes ancestry almost meaningless at low levels. With so few ancestry abilities at low-levels, there's very little difference between ancestries with *different* attribute bonuses - how are ones with similar ones going to feel any different. The ancestries lose a lot of their flavor with so few options at low level. With only one Ancestry feat at level 1, the ancestry choices are incredibly bland at low levels.

2) Presumably, they will add more ancestry feats as the game progresses (the old racial feats from the Advanced Players Guide and the Advanced Race Guide, as well as ones that replace the old "alternate racial traits"). With so few ancestry feat slots available, this will make it so that flavorful feat choices like Stonecunning will inevitably get shelved and never used in favor of ones that provide less situational bonuses. Moreover, you may seldom even get to take these more other choices because you are so feat-starved...

3) As others have mentioned, this is also unfair to hybrids and half-breeds, who must give up a feat just to select their ancestry; while I like this idea as a means of making it easy to make other hybrids (such as elven tieflings or the like), this makes such choices less viable; while giving something up for versatility is fine, giving up such a large amount of your total abilities makes that versatility almost meaningless. Also, we need a >HALF-HUMAN< feat as a counterpart, to make half-elves and half-orcs that favor their nonhuman parent more than the human one. (and Orc as a standard choice to make that meaningful).

Front-loading extra feats (either +2 at level one, or +1 and level one and another at level two) would definitely do a >LOT< to restore some of the diversity to the ancestries and make them interesting beyond nostalgia and personal bias. Perhaps an additional solution would be to allow General Feats to be used to gain Ancestry Feats (unless I've missed a rule that already allows this).

Squeezing means –4 penalty on attack rolls and a –4 penalty to AC. I guess that's a good limitation. A lot of foes at this level are similarly sized!

I'd also say there's a probably a fair argument that even with perfect maneuverability on its flight there might not be enough room to engage an enemy with the claws on its feet (and still attack the same foe with its arms).

Not to mention the 7' tall, 3' wide doors...

Now, to get back on track. I propose the ninja chooses at first level Cha or Wis as its ki stat. I don't believe this is unreasonable.

If you did this for the ninja, it might make sense to have the same option for the monk; tying it to the concepts of yin and yang;

Wis = Serene/"dark"/cool yin chi/ki
Cha = Emotional/primal/fiery yang chi/ki

Of course, this is more from a flavor standpoint than a mechanical one, given the monk's dependence on Wis I doubt the reverse would see much use, but the concept does explain the Wis/Cha dichotomy in the use of the ki pool.

Quickest counter to this eidolon? The 8' ceiling.

Also, the point seems to be moot...

page 6 of the Ultimate Combat Playtest states:

"While the gunslinger utilizes these rules, the following are
only included in the playtest so that you can play the gunslinger.
These rules are final and not open for playtest." (emphasis mine)

Guns are far more armor-piercing than any muscle-powered weapon, which is why historically, they put the final nail in the coffin for heavy armor. The attack v. ranged touch AC adequately reflects this. While it might not be "balanced" against other weapons, guns *aren't* balanced against other weapons. This is why we don't use swords any more.

Whether or not supernatural creatures should have additional protection against these new *physical* weapons or not, SR is not the way to go. Spell resistance is resistance against magic. That is a simple, and can easily be explained in-world. SR protecting against "ranged touch attacks" cannot be explained in the context of the world without being too abstract or bizarre.

"I have a mystic protection that protects me from magic and from ranged items that merely need to touch me." "You mean, if someone throws a rock at you to get your attention, it has to beat your SR?" "Um..."

Also, I'm not sure why drow should be resistant to guns. Not everything with an SR has wondrous defenses.

Probably a better way to go about this (if you absolutely must have it) is to create a new feat: Technological Resistance - the possessor of this feat can apply their natural armor AC to ranged touch attacks of a technological nature.

That said, there are more flavorful ways of evening out the "problem." Monsters might go pro-active against gun-users. Nothing says "guns are bad" like a breath weapon attack from ambush. Red dragons, especially might enjoy the explosions gunpowder makes, and even the metallic dragons might view gun-toting characters as shifty and potentially evil.

Non-intelligent monsters have the fey and druids to champion them. Want to use a gun? Don't count on druidic healing...

And guns and gunpowder might be illegal in cities... or require lots of expensive licensing and taxes for anyone that brings explosives into a city (this can include alchemists as well).

And don't forget that PF guns are new, experimental, and more-or-less prototypes (hence the expensive cost they're saddled with). Having to go on a quest to find upgrades or having to do everything by hand should have a place in any gunslinger adventure. Yes, guns are powerful, which is why they "won" in the end, but there was plenty of resistance to early firearms.

And technically, what won everyone over in the end was (for all practical purposes) that ranged touch attack.

If you're worried about everyone playing gunslingers, just play up the negatives... or use it to build a whole new campaign around. But trying to balance guns against other weapons is likely to seem unrealistic, and may well alienate some of your players.