Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Race Guide (OGL)

I just picked this up today. Lots of great stuff. But how come the pic of the female dwarf on page 10 she does not have a beard? ;)

I just picked this up today. Lots of great stuff. But how come the pic of the female dwarf on page 10 she does not have a beard? ;)

Two words: James Jacobs

I just picked this up today. Lots of great stuff. But how come the pic of the female dwarf on page 10 she does not have a beard? ;)

She was shaved for being a harlot, the shame of which drove her into adventuring. Obviously.

In D&D 2E, the majority of female dwarves used to shave, if I remember well.
So it was in my own homebrew campaign world, where minor dwarves had to shave too, because the beard was a sign of virility and "beardless baby" was a spiteful phrase. Obviously, one of my characters decided eventually to be a feminist she-dwarf and rivendicate her right to keep a beard just like a man... XD

In D&D 2E, the majority of female dwarves used to shave, if I remember well.

So it was in my own homebrew campaign world, where minor dwarves had to shave too, because the beard was a sign of virility and "beardless baby" was a spiteful phrase. Obviously, one of my characters decided eventually to be a feminist she-dwarf and rivendicate her right to keep a beard just like a man... XD

You mean that nonsense did not start with the LotR movies? O_O

Hello every body, seeking for some advice

I'm building races of my own that are plant based, and as wonderful this book is (and trust me I find it very awesome), there are still some thing that even with all the traits proposed that are difficult to evaluate points value speaking.

My two concerns are a trait that would give the equivalent of light-fortification (what rank would it be and how much would it cost?)
and the other is a weakness, the effect is that if the creature spend more than 24h without seeing the sunlight, it is sickened until it spend a certain period of time sunbathing

Well any advice is welcome, and I will gladly lend a hand if anybody want an advice or opinion on something

See yah

In D&D 2E, the majority of female dwarves used to shave, if I remember well.

So it was in my own homebrew campaign world, where minor dwarves had to shave too, because the beard was a sign of virility and "beardless baby" was a spiteful phrase. Obviously, one of my characters decided eventually to be a feminist she-dwarf and rivendicate her right to keep a beard just like a man... XD

For a moment I thought that I had actually stumbled upon a word in my native language that I didn't know -- which is incredibly rare -- but no. Wiktionary (by way of WordWeb) told me that "rivendicate" is Italian, and a quick Google search told me that it basically means "claim".

Could anyone here explain to me how the, "Advanced" Ability Score Modifier is rated at 4RP. How in the ether is +4 bonus to Int, and +2 bonus to all physical attributes, and a -2 to Char(This is an example these points could be spread around as you like.)worth a measly 4 Race Points, based on it's comparative strength to other abilities it should cost a absolute minimum of 10. For that matter how is Spell Resistance, Greater worth 3. I'm struggling to contain my frustration with this product...

Could anyone here explain to me how the, "Advanced" Ability Score Modifier is rated at 4RP. How in the ether is +4 bonus to Int, and +2 bonus to all physical attributes, and a -2 to Char(This is an example these points could be spread around as you like.)worth a measly 4 Race Points, based on it's comparative strength to other abilities it should cost a absolute minimum of 10. For that matter how is Spell Resistance, Greater worth 3. I'm struggling to contain my frustration with this product...

I think it is balanced by its prerequisites - advanced or monstrous.

Off course they could have made traits with these prerequisites more expensive so they only can be selected for races with an certain amount of points.

I don't think that the way they chose to do it is bad - there almost no traits that really are expensive. The selection for a new race is not so much limited by the points you have but by the kind of race you are creating.

More "powerful" races do not have the same amount of traits as the "lesser" ones with the difference that these are more expensive, they simply have more traits that have prerequisites that simply "cannot" be selected races with a lower power level.

I like that - because otherwise, if you had one expensive feat like +4 to one stat, +2 to all other for 10 rp you simply could do a standard race with 10 points that only has that one trait.

Anyone else find it funny that half-elves can take "Ancestral Weapons" to gain proficiency with firearms?

Yeah, but why would they have the Centaur have Advanced Strength, if they don't need it to get the same Strength as the creature they're trying to replicate?

Because 15 to 16 is the average strength of a centaur, not 9 to 10. The +6 gives centaurs a range strength range of 9 to 24 which would be in line with the 3.5 rules for converting stat bonuses and penalties from the monster entries. Every stat in the Bestiary is considered to be average for the "species" in question.

Anyone else find it funny that half-elves can take "Ancestral Weapons" to gain proficiency with firearms?

For a half-elf living in Alkenstar, I'm sure that firearms could pass for "ancestral weapons." :-P

Breaking news: Races in PF are not balanced. Now, who would have expected that?

Plus, the race builder is doing an adequate job at "GM thinks of a race, let's see how powerful it it".
It does a much worse job at "So, let's create a powerhouse race and pretend it's balanced".
It was never intended, and will not yield any usable results as a design-your-character's race for players.

Bardess wrote:

In D&D 2E, the majority of female dwarves used to shave, if I remember well.

So it was in my own homebrew campaign world, where minor dwarves had to shave too, because the beard was a sign of virility and "beardless baby" was a spiteful phrase. Obviously, one of my characters decided eventually to be a feminist she-dwarf and rivendicate her right to keep a beard just like a man... XD

For a moment I thought that I had actually stumbled upon a word in my native language that I didn't know -- which is incredibly rare -- but no. Wiktionary (by way of WordWeb) told me that "rivendicate" is Italian, and a quick Google search told me that it basically means "claim".

...ops. :p

Fredrik wrote:

Bardess wrote:

In D&D 2E, the majority of female dwarves used to shave, if I remember well.

So it was in my own homebrew campaign world, where minor dwarves had to shave too, because the beard was a sign of virility and "beardless baby" was a spiteful phrase. Obviously, one of my characters decided eventually to be a feminist she-dwarf and rivendicate her right to keep a beard just like a man... XD

For a moment I thought that I had actually stumbled upon a word in my native language that I didn't know -- which is incredibly rare -- but no. Wiktionary (by way of WordWeb) told me that "rivendicate" is Italian, and a quick Google search told me that it basically means "claim".

...ops. :p

That's why I can't become a real PF freelancer yet. I still make too many mistakes in translation.

You do so well that I didn't realize that you were translating until I checked a word I didn't know. I think that you're good enough with English to let an editor catch any mistakes, just as no native speaker is perfect either. Good luck! :)

Fredrik wrote:

Bardess wrote:

In D&D 2E, the majority of female dwarves used to shave, if I remember well.

So it was in my own homebrew campaign world, where minor dwarves had to shave too, because the beard was a sign of virility and "beardless baby" was a spiteful phrase. Obviously, one of my characters decided eventually to be a feminist she-dwarf and rivendicate her right to keep a beard just like a man... XD

For a moment I thought that I had actually stumbled upon a word in my native language that I didn't know -- which is incredibly rare -- but no. Wiktionary (by way of WordWeb) told me that "rivendicate" is Italian, and a quick Google search told me that it basically means "claim".

...ops. :p

That's why I can't become a real PF freelancer yet. I still make too many mistakes in translation.

Heh, I just love the sound of 'rivendicate'. I think I'll adopt it in my own writing.

"My line has been corrupted. I left to give my siblings the clear line to the Barony, but now I must rivendicate my birthright."

remember to conjugate the word properly Matthew!

Assuming it's not a case of false roots, it seems weird that a word composed of riven ("tear asunder") and dicate ("proclaim") means "to claim."

Seems like it should mean "to give up the claim", but that's abdicate...

remember to conjugate the word properly Matthew!

“English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.”

Removed some back and forth bickering and responses to said bickering. If you'd like to repost your opinion on the product, feel free to post a review or start a thread about specific elements of the product you would like to discuss.

"Rivendicare" comes from "ri" (back) and "vendicare" (avenge), meaning claiming back by force something that you consider rightfully yours and wrongly stolen.

Picked up the PDF today.
Overall not bad. I do agree with one of the reviews stating abit too many on the weird races. I havent had the time yet to look at everything mechanically so I'm not sure about balance issues yet, it is a splatbook though so I'm sure there are some.

One thing worth mentioning is the art and the direction Paizo is going with it recently. In the first two chapters of the ARG the art is good, after that it's hit and miss with the water color looking pics (Duergar, Changeling, etc) being miss and the overly Darksiders/Anime look being much worse(Merfolk, Trox, Gathlain, Kasatha, Wyrwood, Wyvaran, etc).

On the positive side, Targete's Ratfolk pic is awesomeness personified, as was the artist of the Vanaras, Kitsune, and Grippli.

I'm not saying the other artists are bad, just that the style of art doesn't fit with me and it's just one opinion. Another example, the art in Halflings of Golarion was a huge disappointment for me (I dismissed it as a rare fluke until the ARG), yet the art in the Tiefling book was excellent.

I'm also not saying everything has to be WAR art either, again, it's just that some of the newer artists don't feel very Pathfinder-y to me. YMMV of course, I'm just airing an opinion or two.

Art wise I would say...
Dwarf-Good
Elf-Good
Gnome-Not Bad
Half-Elf-Good
Half-Orc-Good
Halfing-not all that great
Human-Good
Aasimar-mixed
Catfolk-No comment
Dhampir-Mixed
Drow-I like my Drow with grey skin
Fetchling-Still like the Bestiary 2 best
Goblin-Hard to get these guys wrong
Hobgoblin-Mixed
Ifrit-Good
Kobold-not bad
Orcs-OK
Oread-OK
Ratfolk-Very Good
Sylph-Good
Tengu-Good
Tiefling-Mixed
Undine-Good
Changling-not bad but the Art from AP#43
Duergar-Good
Gilmen-Good
Gripli-Awesome
Kitsune-Awesome
Merfolk-OK
Nagaji-Not Bad
Samsarans-Awesome
Strix-Not Bad
Suli-Awesome
Svirfneblin-Good
Vanara-Awesome
Vishkanya-Awesome
Wayang-OK

I Like this book, it has already given me a few of the main things I wanted from it. However...

A few things have been overlooked. And I'm not sure if other books have addressed them or not. The main thing I'm referring to is things like magical beast player characters, which is something a few of the more... *ahem* lighthearted role-players would probably try a few times. And while one trait could get one close to figuring how they would work (quadruped), there is an absence of information on some of the other traits (Such as armless being omitted. Or more frustratingly, Legless in the race builder section, as Mermaids and such are covered in the book to have the trait but it is not given a Race point value or even listed in the builder.)

Of course, if one resorts to a cartoon style approach to it, where animals with hooves can manipulate objects as if they had hands or with their mouth/Tail; such concerns evaporate due to manipulation of logic... Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing probably depends on what kind of player group one is working with.

Also, The expanded race examples in the race builder section, is Somewhat incomplete; Missing a number of races.

All in all though, it is a great resource for those looking to expand their Pathfinder campaign's world, so long as one is flexible enough to figure out a few compromises when you go beyond its intended scope.

Eric Hinkle wrote:

MMCJawa wrote:

No dog humanoids, although I think there have been hints that something like the Cynocephali exist in Golarion, and one of the Paizo bigwigs has suggested that such a creature is likely to get statted up one of these days.

Ooh, I think I'd like to see that. Especially if they decided to give them a small nation of their own and go with the whole 'Kingdom of Macumeran' or whatever the heck its name was from those old medieval books.

Ah nifty. We'll wait patiently for that then, as well as muck about with the race builder stuff in the meantime. Thanks!

I have seen no evidence of this just yet. However, I can point out another product (of mine): Races of Omarka 1 The canitians are a diverse dogfolk race... and at some point, I will have the time to update all of these with their Racial Points breakdown, as well. This is 3PP, not Golarion-specific, but if James Jacobs says there shalt be dogfolk, then it's worth having a leg up..... So to speak. :S >.> ....Oh dear, there is just no way to fix that pun.

I was just curious if the developers could comment as to why Ferocious Tenacity was nerfed so hard. It's first appearance in Orcs of Golarion made it strong enough to save yourself with, the current version doesn't seem capable of doing so.

I'm just glad I'll be able to play gnoll at first lvl. Even though for a race that is based on an animal that eats carrion and has bone cracking jaws, I feel they really do need a bite attack and something to boost con or fort saves in general...but I can do that now and tweak away, and still keep them a fair and balanced race.

Thinking about making a half/anthro unicorn race as well.

I'm just glad I'll be able to play gnoll at first lvl. Even though for a race that is based on an animal that eats carrion and has bone cracking jaws, I feel they really do need a bite attack and something to boost con or fort saves in general...but I can do that now and tweak away, and still keep them a fair and balanced race.

Thinking about making a half/anthro unicorn race as well.

In case you're interested in looking to 3rd party publications for ideas, there's one from Alluria Games' line Remarkable Races titled "The Anumus" that might provide ideas for both of those races.

Even though for a race that is based on an animal that eats carrion and has bone cracking jaws, I feel they really do need a bite attack

Same with goblins, kobolds, orcs, half-orcs, ogres, bugbears, etc. The 3.X and PF art draw them with crazy amounts of nasty teeth, and none of them seem to have a bite attack option. I'd give most of those races a bite attack. (And, for kobolds, maybe even wee little claw attacks, too!) I don't think anyone told Scott Fischer that Ogres weren't gonna have a bite attack when he drew them...

Due to the build of their mouths/snouts, kobolds and gnolls should probably have better than average bite attacks, compared to orcs, goblins, half-orcs, etc.

Same with goblins, kobolds, orcs, half-orcs, ogres, bugbears, etc. The 3.X and PF art draw them with crazy amounts of nasty teeth, and none of them seem to have a bite attack option. I'd give most of those races a bite attack. (And, for kobolds, maybe even wee little claw attacks, too!) I don't think anyone told Scott Fischer that Ogres weren't gonna have a bite attack when he drew them...

Due to the build of their mouths/snouts, kobolds and gnolls should probably have better than average bite attacks, compared to orcs, goblins, half-orcs, etc.

And yet a race with a smaller overall muzzle has a bite attack. (Kitsune)

So yeah PC gnoll should have one as well. I'm saying add Bite and Advanced Con, and carrion sense. That makes them equal to the RP of a dwarf.

I have to save after obsessing over this book, I can see where there will be need for expansion on some of the traits that are a bit more complicated (multi leg/ additional traits that may not be yet listed by some races). As a resource for building a campaign or even giving players more options, I think it allows one to come up with some relatively balanced alternatives and the freedom for the DM to make even more interesting encounters.

Even with a few possible areas that can be elaborated on, I think the best thing about this book is it gives reasonable ratios, and allows players who may like specific races to build on that race, if there is a question of point balance. In addition I think it would ultimately fall back on a DM if they allowed an increase or alteration to points to say have a party with points all in the same range as say the 1 person who decides to be an aasimar.

As far as races which may in the original design of this book not have particular traits which would seem inherent (bite/natural attacks or otherwise) I would say it would be within reason to allow it (assuming the point increase to do so, stays within relative rations to the party.)

Overall I think it gives both players and DMs even more ways to create story, enhance concepts, and allow for some extra fun!

I don't know if I'm the first to mention this, I just find it hilarious that, according to this book, dwarves are an advanced race and not a standard race. Of the core races, the dwarves are the only ones who cost more than ten points to build (they cost eleven, according to the charts in the back). It's also funny that goblins cost more to build than hobgoblins, if you ask me (I know, nobody did, but it's fun to dream).

I don't know if I'm the first to mention this, I just find it hilarious that, according to this book, dwarves are an advanced race and not a standard race. Of the core races, the dwarves are the only ones who cost more than ten points to build (they cost eleven, according to the charts in the back). It's also funny that goblins cost more to build than hobgoblins, if you ask me (I know, nobody did, but it's fun to dream).

In regards to the dwarves, you are not the first. I made that same comment when us subscribers were spoiling content to people. :)

I personally take that particular point as a big red flag that says, "Hey, we're giving you guidelines, but ultimately use your common sense, GMs." It is not a system that players should be allowed to use except in the most specialized of situations.

I take it to mean that dwarves are the best race. Because they are. 8)

... And while one trait could get one close to figuring how they would work (quadruped), there is an absence of information on some of the other traits (Such as armless being omitted. Or more frustratingly, Legless in the race builder section, as Mermaids and such are covered in the book to have the trait but it is not given a Race point value or even listed in the builder.)...

This is my main issue with the book. One of the primary reasons I picked it up was to make a Quadruped with no arms (basically wanted to create Red XIII from FF7) however there doesn't seem to be any way to even approximate that kind of race. There is a serious lack of any way of creating Non Humanoid races.

I realize that is more complicated than humanoids, but that was kind of the point of this book! Anyone can reskin an existing race, move a few things around, and turn an Elf into a Drow. At least enough for most campaigns.

So far the way I've seen it is under 20 RP it's a fine race for starting at level 1, everything is bit more for RAWR! Monsters.

I have yet to be disappointed by a Paizo product, and I must say this is one of the most useful books in the series for DMs. I do have a few questions that I don't remember seeing answered in this thread.
The first is whether there are any plans to expand the race maker? I've built around 20ish races already, and intend to convert more, but I'd like to see more options and how much they'd cost.
The second question is a balance issue I'm curious about. Why does getting a +2 in a skill cost 2 points? It seems to me that it would balance out as a 1 point ability when you compare it to other 1 point abilities, like getting two class skills versus getting a specific bonus feat (like skill focus) being two points. I'm sure there's a reason, I was just curious what it was.
Either way, amazing book! Keep up the amazing work.

I have yet to be disappointed by a Paizo product, and I must say this is one of the most useful books in the series for DMs. I do have a few questions that I don't remember seeing answered in this thread.

The first is whether there are any plans to expand the race maker? I've built around 20ish races already, and intend to convert more, but I'd like to see more options and how much they'd cost.
The second question is a balance issue I'm curious about. Why does getting a +2 in a skill cost 2 points? It seems to me that it would balance out as a 1 point ability when you compare it to other 1 point abilities, like getting two class skills versus getting a specific bonus feat (like skill focus) being two points. I'm sure there's a reason, I was just curious what it was.
Either way, amazing book! Keep up the amazing work.

Just one thing to keep in mind, the race builder is a tool for comparison. Nothing more, nothing less. It breaks down the point costs of the races already in the game and gives them a score so that you can use those core races as guild lines in building your own races. In the long run, using the points by themselves is not the correct way to use the system; using the points combined with references like previously existing races is how you should go about crafting a given race.

For example, even if you only spend 10 points, if you build a race that has everything a Barbarian would ever want in their racial starting package, that's probably not a balanced race. Every other race has something about it that attracts members of other classes.

What I'm trying to say is that while an expansion on the race building rules would be lovely and I certainly would not turn down an Advanced Race Guide 2, the rp values are only there for comparison and in the long run you as the GM have complete control over what kinds of races you are building. You don't "need" more rp options so much as you think it would be convenient to have more options.

Actually I am a little surprised no 3pp has jumped on this and made a expanded list of racial traits yet.

Actually I am a little surprised no 3pp has jumped on this and made a expanded list of racial traits yet.

Sadly, that's not in my domain right now. :(

*Goes back to writing more 7th level Spirits for Pact Magic Unbound, Vol. 2*

Actually I am a little surprised no 3pp has jumped on this and made a expanded list of racial traits yet.

Yep I think it would sell very well.