Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Race Guide (OGL)

4.20/5 (based on 30 ratings)
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Race Guide (OGL)
Show Description For:
Non-Mint

Add Hardcover $44.99

Add PDF $9.99

Non-Mint Unavailable

Facebook Twitter Email

Get the most out of your heritage with the Pathfinder RPG Advanced Race Guide! Embrace your inner monster by playing one of 30 iconic races from mythology and gaming history, or build an entirely new race of your own. If classic races are more your style, go beyond the stereotypes for elves, dwarves, and the other core races with new options and equipment to help you stand out from the crowd.

The Pathfinder RPG Advanced Race Guide is a bold new companion to the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook. This imaginative tabletop game builds on more than 10 years of system development and an Open Playtest featuring more than 50,000 gamers to create a cutting-edge RPG experience that brings the all-time best-selling set of fantasy rules into the new millennium.

The 256-page Pathfinder RPG Advanced Race Guide includes:

  • New rules and options to help you customize all seven of the classic core races, including new racial traits, racial subtypes, and racial archetypes.
  • 30 exotic races, from mischievous goblins and reptilian kobolds to crow-headed tengus and deadly drow, each with complete rules for use as player characters, plus archetypes, alternate racial traits, and other options for maximum customization.
  • A complete and balanced system for creating an unlimited number of new races, mixing and matching powers and abilities to form characters and cultures specific to your campaign.
  • Tons of new race-specific equipment, feats, spells, and magic items for each of the races detailed!
  • ... and much, much more!

ISBN-13: 978-1-60125-390-3

Errata
Last Updated - 7/29/2015

Note: This product is part of the Pathfinder Rulebook Subscription.

Product Availability

Hardcover:

Available now

Ships from our warehouse in 1 to 5 business days.

PDF:

Fulfilled immediately.

Non-Mint:

Unavailable

This product is non-mint. Refunds are not available for non-mint products. The standard version of this product can be found here.

Are there errors or omissions in this product information? Got corrections? Let us know at store@paizo.com.

PZO1121


See Also:

1 to 5 of 30 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Average product rating:

4.20/5 (based on 30 ratings)

Sign in to create or edit a product review.

Probably one of my favorites...

5/5

All the new races and traits and feats and racial magic items really helped me flesh out my campaign world. The addition of being able to make your own race made me sing soprano. Excellent, excellent book for those who want to play a race that's completely outta the ordinary. Part of the reason I got this book is because in the core rulebook it says something like this: "only for more experienced GMs, having players play odd races can be rewarding and fun, but you have to be careful" etc. but doesn't give you a glimpse of the races or explain how they might effect a campaign world a certain way. Using this book, you can experience what it would be like to play a rare (and really cool) race. Being an Oread is awesome and probably one of the most exciting and fun experiences in my gaming career.

Awesome product, Paizo!


Too campaign-specific

2/5

The book is focused heavily around the PFRPG "host" campaign, with no clear instructions on how to extrapolate for other campaigns (we use the 3.0 Forgotten Realms setting). So in the end, most of this book is filler and not really very useful. Even the second printing tied the book more closely with the "home team" setting.

What little can be gleaned from the book is helpful, but it's not worth the hardcover price if your campaign is something other than the generic one sponsored by Pathfinder. I wonder why it is, that almost every "host" campaign seems like a patchwork quilt of several others, with most of the interesting stuff left out?


The ARG is how the ACG should of been

5/5

The Race Guide is how the Advanced Class Guide should have been set up- with clear rules and customization options to create your own class. Great book for players and GM's ready to venture out into some custom races.


Hit the sweet spot

5/5

I don't quite know what it is but this is one of my favorite Paizo products to date. Maybe it's the way the book is organized with each race with its own section. Maybe it's the swappable racial traits akin to class archetypes. Maybe it's the artwork, showing two to three examples of each race to demonstrate the variety within each species. Maybe it's the archetypes, favored class bonus options, notes on society and appearance, spells, feats. It just felt like icing on the cake to include a race builder at the end.


Exactly What my Campaign Needed

5/5

please excuse any typos.

so you're supposed to start off easy, right? go by the book, go by the campaign setting they give you. just stick to the six core races, and don't go overboard trying to invent stuff, right? well, I didn't exactly do that. I created a whole world from scratch, messed with the core qualities of numerous races, core races or otherwise, and on top of that, invented a pantheon and mythos which is completely incompatible with Golarion's. this is the first game I will ever GM. to be frank, I'm in trouble.

with that context, this book is a godsend, and I'm glad to have the freedom and ease of use this guide gives me. having a game world populated with multiple monstrous races (most of them completely reimagined), I needed to have a way to make sure the stats reflected the people. it breaks immersion to have a race with traits that quite clearly do not make sense for them. something that always bothered me with the core material is how race was treated: I found it restricted, stereotypical. clearly, the Pathfinder race system needs a little diversity, especially if your campaign isn't actually set in Golarion.

one clear example of the usefulness of this guide for worldbuilding and racial diversity is the Gnome trait "hatred". see, the rules state that the Gnomes have a deep-seated hatred of goblinoid and reptilian races, but in my campaign, Gnomes and Goblins hail from different corners of the universe, and logically, shouldn't even be aware of the other's existence. it simply wouldn't make sense for me to have a gnome character that's trained against a race they've never seen before in their life. thank god this guide has other plausible gnome traits that I can replace that problematic one with one with. not even to mention how the Ifrits, Oreads, Sylphs, and Undines had filled a gaping hole in my mythos. (though I was dissappointed to find that the Kobolds were still utter weaklings)

in another spur of greatness, I can already tell that my players, by now fairly intoxicated on the freedom I've given them, are going to love these new options. I can already see one of them deciding they want to go with one of the very comprehensive and imaginative archetypes, or choosing catfolk or kitsune instead of elf or goblin. the best part is, this book is so easy to figure out, so I am perfectly able to give them this freedom without puzzling over the rules for a month (like I embarrassingly did with the core rulebook).

trust me. if you're the kind of Game Master that doesn't like playing by the rules, and likes to do your own thing lore wise (like create a complete departure from the default setting), then this book is almost a necessity for you. for anyone else who likes the idea of monstrous PCs, you'll love this one.


1 to 5 of 30 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
251 to 300 of 1,448 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

I remember awhile back that they were thinking of racial abilities you get based on your character level but I not sure why they change there minds. But as for me I like the idea always have.


Sorry if this has already been addressed elsewhere, but I was wondering if this means that playable races for PFS play will expand beyond the core 7. If so, then YAY!
If not, then ;_;

I'll still probably get it. Seems to be too interesting to pass up even if some of the things are going to be closed.


I haven't heard about any updates for the races for PFS ether.


I'm with Mikaze, hoping that some slight differences from the humanoid form will be possible in the race creation section, like Snaketails instead of legs or an extra pair of arms. The former especially shouldn't be a cause for huge imbalances, all it would probably do is change speed and a few movement related rules and maybe need something to deal with magical footwear.


Ajaxis wrote:
Golden-Esque wrote:
Mournblade94 wrote:
You certainly could not call them Draconians. But I do not think that creating a race of Dragon Warriors can be copyrighted. I remember a cool Dragon article from the 80's before dragon lance came out, where you cast spells on a Dragon's Tooth, plant it in the ground and a Dragon Warrior formed.
Considering that the concept of planting a dragon's tooth into the ground and warriors popping out is directly from Greek mythology and is therefore a trope "Older Than Writing," you are in deed correct in that it cannot be copyrighted :).
I'd forgotten all about that. How about Spartoi ("sown" per the Wikipedia entry) as the race of dragon-men.

Spartoi already exist in Pathfinder as undead warriors that spring from teeth planted in the ground. The singular form is Spartolos and the creature is listed in the bestiary for the Council of Thieves AP. They're undead warriors that spring-up from "Spartoi Seeds," which are teeth stained by ash. While usually appearing as dragon teeth, spartoi seeds sometimes also take the form of serpent, wolf, or human teeth. Spartoi gain special bonuses to flanking and channel resistance by working with other spartoi. Their illustration makes them look more like undead Roman legionnaires than any kind of dragon men.

Since the Spartolos appeared in Council of Thieves, hopefully it will be in Bestiary 3.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Threeshades wrote:
I'm with Mikaze, hoping that some slight differences from the humanoid form will be possible in the race creation section, like Snaketails instead of legs or an extra pair of arms.

Interesting what some people consider a "slight change".

Changing legs to a snake tail shouldn't be possible for a humanoid. Snake tails should not appear on humanoids; that's for monstrous humanoids (four arms, too, probably), and I don't think changing creature type should be a bigger thing.


Merfolk are humaniods so having a snake tail is not that different.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Dragon78 wrote:
Merfolk are humaniods so having a snake tail is not that different.

Huh, you're right. I always thought that humanoids were supposed to be, well, humanoid. :)

The rules for the humanoid creature type say "A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a human-like torso, arms, and a head." Ah well, just usually, then.

For the monstrous humanoid type it says "Monstrous humanoids are similar to humanoids, but with monstrous or animalistic features." That makes me think that races like the merfolk should actually be filed in this category.


Zaister wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
Merfolk are humaniods so having a snake tail is not that different.

Huh, you're right. I always thought that humanoids were supposed to be, well, humanoid. :)

The rules for the humanoid creature type say "A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a human-like torso, arms, and a head." Ah well, just usually, then.

For the monstrous humanoid type it says "Monstrous humanoids are similar to humanoids, but with monstrous or animalistic features." That makes me think that races like the merfolk should actually be filed in this category.

Well the description also fits gnolls and lizardfolk, both now humanoid (as opposed to 3.5 where they were monstrous humanoids) the category got broader I guess.


Threeshades wrote:
Well the description also fits gnolls and lizardfolk, both now humanoid (as opposed to 3.5 where they were monstrous humanoids) the category got broader I guess.

In 3.5 gnolls were humanoid (gnoll) and lizardfolk were humanoid (reptilian)


HalifaxDM wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
Well the description also fits gnolls and lizardfolk, both now humanoid (as opposed to 3.5 where they were monstrous humanoids) the category got broader I guess.
In 3.5 gnolls were humanoid (gnoll) and lizardfolk were humanoid (reptilian)

Then it was 3.0.

Anyway the only major difference between a lizardfolk and a humanoid with a snaketail for legs or a merfolk is a pair of limbs, and that doesn't have to affect the rules any more than modifiying speed.


I remember Gnolls and Lizardfolk being classified as Humaniods since 3rd edition started, they were never Monstrous Humaniods.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The mechanical difference between Humanoid and Monstrous Humanoid is currently defined by what spells affect and Favored Enemy details, for the most part. The tails, wings, etc has shrunk to the level of Fluff, again, for the most part. All in all, I think it works better.


I still would love some options for serpentine lower body, fish, horse, lion, etc.

hooved feat would be nice.

Magical Beast, Dragon, and Aberration choices.

Silver Crusade

Hooved feet without requiring the race to not be humanoids would be great, as would, again, snake-tail/no leg options and other such support for stranger anatomy.

I'm really hoping the calls for that stuff in the playtest forum were taken to heart.


Yes but deffinetly have to be monstrous humaniod, aberration, or outsider to have tentacles. Well of course plants would have tendrils or vines.

The only tiny sized creature type I would play would be Fey, but having the option for other types would be nice for variaty's sake.


Dragon78 wrote:

Yes but deffinetly have to be monstrous humaniod, aberration, or outsider to have tentacles. Well of course plants would have tendrils or vines.

The only tiny sized creature type I would play would be Fey, but having the option for other types would be nice for variaty's sake.

Don't forget the star-nosed mole: Youtube star-nosed mole

They have tentacles on their noses.

Guessing there are also some other creatures of the animal type that have tentacles.

Of course I suppose that's less relevant if we're talking about player races. But if gnolls are humanoids, then star-nosed mole people could be too. Or Squid people.


Dragon78 wrote:
Yes but deffinetly have to be monstrous humaniod, aberration, or outsider to have tentacles.

Why is that?

What exactly makes you draw the line at tentacles?

Silver Crusade

Threeshades wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
Yes but deffinetly have to be monstrous humaniod, aberration, or outsider to have tentacles.

Why is that?

What exactly makes you draw the line at tentacles?

Have to ask the same question.

I'd really rather not force any race intended to be a player option out of the stock "humanoid" classification for a lot of reasons, many of which involve rules effects which don't make any sense for the flavor.

Besides, not every homebrew world is going to adhere to the same strict standard expectations. That and I don't really see this body type as being any more monstrous than a merperson.

To require a race to be of a specific type to qualify for tentacles is like requiring a race to be Fey in order to be Tiny, really.


Exactly. Why create artificial restrictions to certain things when they're not necessary?

It's not like we're asking for options to make something completely insane like a snake-tailed, winged zombie-pigman with 3 heads, 17 eyes and 8 tentacles for arms, merely the option to exchange one or two humanoid features for something else, which doesn't even have to be an inherent bonus but can come with both advantages and disadvantages, simply for more variety.


Options for one eye or more then two eyes.

Liberty's Edge

If I missed this, I apologize - I only skimmed through the six pages worth of posts and did not really follow the playtest much.

It seems like most, if not all of the playable races are of the less than CR 1 type. Has there been any discussion about how more powerful monsterous races can be a balanced, playable PC race? Obviously there is no more level adjustment ...


Marc Radle wrote:

If I missed this, I apologize - I only skimmed through the six pages worth of posts and did not really follow the playtest much.

It seems like most, if not all of the playable races are of the less than CR 1 type. Has there been any discussion about how more powerful monsterous races can be a balanced, playable PC race? Obviously there is no more level adjustment ...

One suggestion was in the playtest document and will likely be in the book.

Liberty's Edge

Azure_Zero wrote:
Marc Radle wrote:

If I missed this, I apologize - I only skimmed through the six pages worth of posts and did not really follow the playtest much.

It seems like most, if not all of the playable races are of the less than CR 1 type. Has there been any discussion about how more powerful monsterous races can be a balanced, playable PC race? Obviously there is no more level adjustment ...

One suggestion was in the playtest document and will likely be in the book.

Do you by any chance recall what that was?

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Card Game, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Marc Radle wrote:
Azure_Zero wrote:
Marc Radle wrote:

If I missed this, I apologize - I only skimmed through the six pages worth of posts and did not really follow the playtest much.

It seems like most, if not all of the playable races are of the less than CR 1 type. Has there been any discussion about how more powerful monsterous races can be a balanced, playable PC race? Obviously there is no more level adjustment ...

One suggestion was in the playtest document and will likely be in the book.
Do you by any chance recall what that was?

Depending on how many points you use to build the race, and your character level, there is an adjustment to the APL of the party so that more difficult creatures turn up.

One of the example races in the back of the playtest doc is the Frost Giant, so the system is pretty capable...


Marc Radle wrote:
Azure_Zero wrote:
Marc Radle wrote:

If I missed this, I apologize - I only skimmed through the six pages worth of posts and did not really follow the playtest much.

It seems like most, if not all of the playable races are of the less than CR 1 type. Has there been any discussion about how more powerful monsterous races can be a balanced, playable PC race? Obviously there is no more level adjustment ...

One suggestion was in the playtest document and will likely be in the book.
Do you by any chance recall what that was?

On Page 3 of the ARG playtest

Challenging Advanced and Monstrous Races
Because they have powerful racial traits and abilities, advanced
and monstrous races require greater challenges, especially
at lower levels. The basic guideline for accomplishing this is
to treat a group of characters with advanced and monstrous
races as a level or more higher for a number of levels based
on their total RP spent, using the following chart. When you
create encounters or adventures for the group, treat them as
the adjusted level instead of their actual level. For groups with
mixed power levels, average the RP and round the results to
the nearest multiple of 10.
____________________Level
RP __1–5 ___ __6–10_ _11–15__ __16–20_
20 (+1 level) (+0 level) (+0 level) (+0 level)
30 (+2 level) (+1 level) (+0 level) (+0 level)
40 (+3 level) (+2 level) (+1 level) (+0 level)


Didn't they have a sneak peek of the real cover?

Grand Lodge

Are we going to see additional favored class options, like what we saw in Advanced Player's Guide? Specifically, are we going to see an addendum to those rules to make up for the classes that came after that book was published, namely the Magus, Gunslinger, Ninja, Samurai, and Antipaladin?*

*Yes I know antipaladin was in APG.


Strife2002 wrote:

Are we going to see additional favored class options, like what we saw in Advanced Player's Guide? Specifically, are we going to see an addendum to those rules to make up for the classes that came after that book was published, namely the Magus, Gunslinger, Ninja, Samurai, and Antipaladin?*

*Yes I know antipaladin was in APG.

That was requested and is likely to be printed, but no guarantees at this point.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sick of Aasimar and Tieflings; I was hoping for Lawful and Chaotic plane-touched getting equal billing. Surely I can't be alone in this?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RedBeardSean wrote:
I'm pretty sick of Aasimar and Tieflings; I was hoping for Lawful and Chaotic plane-touched getting equal billing. Surely I can't be alone in this?

I wouldn't mind seeing those and a Neutral plane-touched as well.


Well, at least we are getting at least some sort of description for the various races. If I remember correctly, we did not get that kind of treatment of these races in 3.5.

Concerning something else, I will be playing a newly created Sylph air elementalist wizard in a new campaign. Did anything change concerning the abilities of the Sylph? Most importantly, does Air Affinity now help with being an air elementalist wizard (as it currently helps a sorcerer and a cleric, but not a wizard)?

Silver Crusade

I know there's going to be plenty of mechanics present for these races, but I wonder how much flavor is going to be there for the races getting the 6-page treatment, especially since it doesn't have to be bound to what's canon in Golarion. Could we see some interesting non-always-evil cultural details or suggestions for races like orcs, goblins, etc.?

Contributor

Mikaze wrote:

I know there's going to be plenty of mechanics present for these races, but I wonder how much flavor is going to be there for the races getting the 6-page treatment, especially since it doesn't have to be bound to what's canon in Golarion. Could we see some interesting non-always-evil cultural details or suggestions for races like orcs, goblins, etc.?

Hopefully a lot of flavor!

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 4

Well... it seems there's a lot more stuff to add the Ogerkin templete to.


Spiral_Ninja wrote:
RedBeardSean wrote:
I'm pretty sick of Aasimar and Tieflings; I was hoping for Lawful and Chaotic plane-touched getting equal billing. Surely I can't be alone in this?
I wouldn't mind seeing those and a Neutral plane-touched as well.

Trippo and ditto.

Grand Lodge

I believe the actual cover of the book is previewed in the back of the Pathfinder Society Scenarios just released.

Page 25 of #03-11
Page 25 of #03-12

~@~

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns Subscriber

The cover art is also in the newest Wayfinder #6


Will this book give us back things like "wood elves" or "forest gnomes" and the like?

Dark Archive

Lord Fyre wrote:
Cat Girls?

Bestiary 3 has it.


So how many pages are the base races getting?

Grand Lodge

Can't wait the book to come out.


Troy70 wrote:
Can't wait the book to come out.

Your not the only one.

I would like it now, but would prefer a well polished product than a half-baked one.


Gururamalamaswami wrote:
Will this book give us back things like "wood elves" or "forest gnomes" and the like?

Not as a separate subrace, but probably as Alternate Racial Traits. With the exception of the Drow, Paizo has done a good job at preventing subrace bloat (and even then, the drow are a classic subrace that are actually interesting. Wood Elves are just elves that live in the woods and have slightly different racial stats to make the min-maxers happy).


I thought wood elves were already discussed in Elves of Golarion?


With the addition of gunslingers in Ultimate Combat I would love to see the Giff make an appearance.


Thunderforge wrote:
With the addition of gunslingers in Ultimate Combat I would love to see the Giff make an appearance.

A Giff gunslinger with a brace of a half dozen pistols and a wide bore musket. Johdpurs and monocle required.

Silver Crusade

Leo_Negri wrote:
Thunderforge wrote:
With the addition of gunslingers in Ultimate Combat I would love to see the Giff make an appearance.
A Giff gunslinger with a brace of a half dozen pistols and a wide bore musket. Johdpurs and monocle required.

Don't forget your epaulettes!

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Giffs are WotC IP, so no go.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
Giffs are WotC IP, so no go.

So, folks can just create their own homebrewed race of pachyderm-like humanoids with a penchant for firearms and travel to otherworlds with an urge to conquer... four-armed Elephant Men of Mars... er, Castrovel... FTW! ;)

251 to 300 of 1,448 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Product Discussion / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Race Guide (OGL) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.