| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So having dropped out of the playtest relatively early on I've lost a bit of track of where Ancestries are now.
I read about the first major change where they broke each one up into a number of sub-ancestries but that still kind of seemed terrible to me.
Do we have any indication of what sort of Ancestry system will be shipping in the book?
Because the last version I saw is a complete deal-breaker for me with level 1 ancestries being anaemic at best and almost entirely irrelevant most of the time.
Bit of context: Me and my friends love playing some really exotic and strange creatures from time to time but always try to keep them somewhere near balanced with races from the core rulebook and various supplements as measuring sticks.
Races with crazy inherent abilities were not that hard to balance against the powerful core benefits of just regular humans in PF1e.
I’m not quite sure I see how the playtest human ancestry is anemic next to the PF2 human race.
PF1 humans get a +2 to one Ability, have a base speed of 30ft, get an additional feat and an additional skill rank, get common as their base language and get a second language if they have a high intelligence
PF2 humans get 2 free ability boosts (+2 to 2 abilities) have a base speed of 25, get an ancestry feat, choose a heritage that confers additional abilities (one of which is the skill rank from 1e,) get common and one additional language as their base languages and can get a third if they have a 14 or higher Intelligence, and then get additional ancestry feat at higher level.
They’re mostly the same
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stating the obvious, but we won't be seeing some of the more exotic races coming out near launch. But that's where it's a bit of good news. The new system is very modular and (to me, at least) feels very easy to homebrew ancestries with your friends at the table.
If you have a friend that just NEEDS to play an ifrit at launch, I see the way that ancestries have turned out (at the end of the playtest that is) to be very helpful in making that happen easier.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
ancestries are a concern, especially heritages that were introduced that seemed "off", or ancestries just ultimately not having too much built in.
I know we are getting substantial modifications to this in the final version, but it still remains an aspect of the game that I am pretty apprehensive about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How's the state of Ancestry feats specifically according to the most recent information we have?
Because the growing into your physiological traits part, by which I mean dwarf things we expect every dwarf to have from birth, is something that really just ground my gears.
Physiological diversity is such a fun thing in our campaigns. It really helps sell the fantasy and immerse us into a very different and strange world.
Because the growing into your physiological traits part, by which I mean dwarf things we expect every dwarf to have from birth, is something that really just ground my gears.
Which feats are you referring to specifically? All of the ancestry feats that pair with bonuses and abilities from 1e Dwarves are Level 1 Ancestry Feats - so there is no "growing into" them, it's just a matter of deciding which flavor you want.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stating the obvious, but we won't be seeing some of the more exotic races coming out near launch. But that's where it's a bit of good news. The new system is very modular and (to me, at least) feels very easy to homebrew ancestries with your friends at the table.
If you have a friend that just NEEDS to play an ifrit at launch, I see the way that ancestries have turned out (at the end of the playtest that is) to be very helpful in making that happen easier.
Honestly, to me they look like they're a lot harder to homebrew than in PF1. In PF1 you came up with a stat array and a few abilities and you're done. For PF2 you need to come up with a whole list of ancestry feats and some heritages.
How's the state of Ancestry feats specifically according to the most recent information we have?
Because the growing into your physiological traits part, by which I mean dwarf things we expect every dwarf to have from birth, is something that really just ground my gears.Physiological diversity is such a fun thing in our campaigns. It really helps sell the fantasy and immerse us into a very different and strange world.
As far as I know there hasn't been much revealed about what they've done beyond the 1.4 update that added Heritages. Basically the old Heritage Ancestry feats were broken off into their own thing, so when you pick an ancestry you also pick one of four (in the playtest) heritages for each ancestry and get the heritage ability along with your free ancestry feat at 1st level. It gave more at first level than the anemic original ancestries in the playtest, but not much. Ancestries still felt thin. And the heritages created a lot of new problems. A lot of the heritages don't feel like actual organic sub-groups of the ancestries and instead feel like they're just tacked on to fill a quota (which, apparently they are) like "Sharp Nosed Gnome" (apparently the default, the others all all exotic) or "Unburdened Dwarf". There's also weirdness of incentivizing supposedly rare groups being the new normal. So expect almost every gnome to be a svirfneblin or almost all elves to be cave dwellers, because those heritages give darkvision while the others aren't very good. It also creates exclusivity for traits that shouldn't be exclusive. Like goblins can either have sharp teeth, or be able to eat gross stuff, while both were really presented as the default before. Or dwarves used to get a resistance to poison and magic and the ability to not be slowed down by armor, now each of those three things are mutually exclusive to it's own arbitrary heritage.
So yeah, I'm not a fan of ancestries or heritages. But it doesn't sound like a lot has changed. There was one mention that you now get more at first level, but it's unclear if that was in comparison to the first version of the playtest and just refereed to the heritages, or if there is even more than was given in the 1.4 update.
Looks like you'll have to wait until the 4th for the stream (which may reveal more indepth ancestry changes) or for the release.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How's the state of Ancestry feats specifically according to the most recent information we have?
Because the growing into your physiological traits part, by which I mean dwarf things we expect every dwarf to have from birth, is something that really just ground my gears.Physiological diversity is such a fun thing in our campaigns. It really helps sell the fantasy and immerse us into a very different and strange world.
Jason talked about this specifically in the GaryCon PF2 seminar. The comment starts around 21:30. Here's a quick transcript:
Think of it this way. Your ancestry is like, the lineage of people that leads to you. The heritage is a, generally physiological heritage from that lineage.
So for example, the goblins have one that gives them a bite attack. You can't get that later—you don't suddenly grow teeth! . . . [Heritage] is the things that in first edition we would be like, yes, this is a feat that you can take but you must take it at first level because it doesn't make sense that you can take it later. So heritages are that.
And you also get an ancestry feat at first level. And all of the feats are generally cultural training in some way shape or form . . . None of those anymore are physiological in nature. I think there might be one exception to that, and that's the half orc one, which is one you still have to take at first level and that gives you full darkvision. You can't, suddenly, my eyes get better because I'm fifth level now. We got rid of that, that was weird.
(Edited to add specific cite/quote)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, to me they look like they're a lot harder to homebrew than in PF1. In PF1 you came up with a stat array and a few abilities and you're done. For PF2 you need to come up with a whole list of ancestry feats and some heritages.
This is really in the eye of the beholder. I've used the playtest rules to run a game with homebrew ancestries and have personally found it to be easier than creating new races.
In the case of critters from the Advanced Race Guide like tengu, it was just a matter of converting some racial traits to ancestry feats. Since this wasn't for publication, I didn't need a bunch of heritages or a laundry list of feats. A heritage that fit the PC and a handful of feats he might be interested in worked just fine.
The new ancestry model works really well when dealing with creatures that would have racial hit dice or power beyond normal PCs in 1st edition. I managed to make a quick and dirty dragon ancestry this way--she's just a dragon kid at 1st level, but she'll have basically all the traditional dragon abilities at higher levels.
I find the new ancestry system to be more flexible when it comes to homebrewing. It means I only have to create the stuff relative to the PC using the homebrew ancestry. If I have somebody who wants to be a tiefling fighter, for example, I don't have to convert over the bonus to Bluff and Stealth that they won't use. I also don't necessarily have to come up with 13th-level feats until the PCs get to higher levels.
All that said, I can see how some find it easier to have all racial traits in one package determined at the start of the game. The relative simplicity boils down to a matter of perspective. I can't definitely say that ancestries are easier to homebrew than races, but I would definitely argue that the ancestry system allows for more flexibility as the game grows.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Humans just felt underwhelming in the playtest because there were almost no 1st level general feats or 1st level class feats for them to pick from. Toughness and Fleet were the most prominent choices; that alone should tell you all you need to know. They should be fine in the full release unless the core feat lineup really is that underwhelming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, Ancestry Feats still make little sense to me even if they no longer include physiological traits.
You learn about your culture growing up and being immersed in your culture, not while traveling around adventuring. There is just as much logic for cultural Ancestry Feats to be treated like Heritages are.
It would actually make more sense to learn the Ancestry Feats of the other cultures you are hanging around with rather than your own unless you are hanging around members of your own culture while adventuring.
Hopefully the final version of PF2e really has those dwarfiest Dwarves I was expecting in the PT.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've always felt Ancestry feats should be race feats from PF1e, not repackaged 1E racial traits.
It makes much more sense to learn to do some of the things that legendary individuals of your species could do in stories as you level up. It makes less sense to gain modest boosts that others of your kind probably already have at level 1.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, Ancestry Feats still make little sense to me even if they no longer include physiological traits.
You learn about your culture growing up and being immersed in your culture, not while traveling around adventuring. There is just as much logic for cultural Ancestry Feats to be treated like Heritages are.
I disagree. It's not difficult to envision this—just the same as any other feat: a skill you spend your time training and perfecting while you adventure, culminating in a feat when you level up.
Happens to be that some of those are skills and abilities prevalent in your home society, that you continue to be interested in, and have background with, after you head out adventuring.
Not saying that it's going to be perfectly satisfactory for you or for anyone, or that it's the only way to handle it, but it's a reasonable enough game design choice to make
to differentiate and define the ancestries that's not such a strange and incomprehensible idea as some allege.
Now as for Ancestries feeling too thin at lvl 1, Jason has said they looked at that. So we'll just have to wait and see how that turned out and whether folks are satisfied once they play with it a while.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I'm kind of in favor of the idea of them starting with picking a heritage, and two racial feats at first level. With that in mind, I even consider the potential to spend 2 feats at first level which would give them a second heritage (as long as it isn't conflicting). That would seem to open up a bunch of options, allowing you to encounter a wider range of dwarves with more of the expected combinations of iconic attributes that we are used to imagining.
I kind of wished that base ancestries had more built in, and as WatersLethe mentioned, that Ancestry Feats were more of the Race Feats of P1. Perhaps 1st level Ancestry Feats could be equated to Alternate Racial Traits (and the standard traits that they replaced). But again, that makes you feel like they should start with more than one at first level. I love the idea of the Ancestry feats, within this concept as it does encourage them to, as they gain power, to reflect greater 'aspects' of their Ancestry. It just feels like they should be front-loaded more than it is.
I'd kind of felt like the Ancestry Feats should be more front-loaded than they came out with, alternating between Ancestry and General feats. I'd contemplated trying to swap general/ancestry feats at 3rd level, so that ancestry would matter more in lower levels, but honestly, that pushes back access to general feats. Unless we turned around and gave everyone a General Feat at 1st level, I don't like the idea of making almost everyone have to wait til 7th level to get their first general feat. With that in mind, my current thought is to give an extra Ancestry feat at 1st (making 2 default) and give another bonus ancestry feat at 3rd.
Although, lets be honest, your chosen heritage and 2 ancestry feats at 1st level, along with a general feat would be a good start. that could leave 3rd level in a position it could be switched from general to ancestry with only minimal game impact.
As pointed out, dragons change as they age, so I honestly don't have an issue with Physiological aspects to be included in Ancestry feats. They might need to have a trait, or simply a physiological prerequisite, so that it is easy to know what feats would not be available to an 'adopted' family member from a different ancestry.
Access to expertise with tail weapons might be an example for Kobolds. On simple option to just make them exotic weapons and allow all creatures with tail to access them as such could be an option. Otherwise, giving an ancestry feat allowing a kobold to utilize its tail to hold and wield a weapon seems reasonable, even though it would not be something that an adopted human child could learn. Maybe an addopted troglodyte might be able to however, so rather than making it have a physiological trait, just make the feat have a prerequisite of partial prehensile tail. (and then make sure kobolds start with that from their ancestry)
I am not completely against a half-orc who started with low-light vision over time develop the ability to get darkvision, since it is in deed a magical and fantasy setting. I will admit that find it harder to imagine that coming to pass if the half-orc didn't start with at least low-light vision at 1st level however. All that said, I can imagine some of the things making some circumstances like the above causing someone to lose their ability to see it as being consistent.
I am certainly hoping that they did more than just the small bit they did in the updates, to make the ancestries more significant at level 1.
But even if they didn't, there is probably some really simple ways to turn it up a tiny notch and have a workable house rule. It would just be a little sad if organized play had to feel watered down in respect to ancestry.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've always felt Ancestry feats should be race feats from PF1e, not repackaged 1E racial traits.
It makes much more sense to learn to do some of the things that legendary individuals of your species could do in stories as you level up. It makes less sense to gain modest boosts that others of your kind probably already have at level 1.
That's what I thought ancestry feats were going to be when they were first announced, and I was a little underwhelmed by what we actually got.
They said they're aware that ancestries are feeling a bit thin, though, so hopefully the final version will be more robust.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ancestry feats with heritages as a prereq. That would solve a lot of these weird "is it physiology/is it culture" debate, like Drow. If we get Drow as a Elf heritage, then you can make the Drow Noble magic thing as a ancestry feat with the Drow heritage prereq, so that you can have that iconic Drow thing that doesn't come in until later in life, and make it fit quite well. Now it's likely Drow will be their own race, but that might just mean Noble will be one of their heritages, in which the solution is the same.
New ancestries from Oblivion Oath: dwarf (death warden), gnome (chameleon), goblin (unbreakable)
I don't really know what these heritages are. But they sound like they might be a step up from the playtest heritages, which were very obviously tacked on.
Maybe Death Warden is a renamed version of the Stronghearted Dwarf from the playtest. The other two don't sound like renamed versions of playtest ones. Unbreakable goblins probably have some kind of durability bonuses, and Chameleon Gnomes, I'm not sure but maybe good with illusions, or maybe have skin and hair coloration that helps them blend into natural environments. That second idea would fit Lini, but doesn't match the character picture for the Oblivion Oath character.
|
I suspect the Dwarf thing is new, and likely an anti-undead thing specifically (Mark Seifter mentioned various anti-undead stuff found among PF1 Dwarves in response to it in the What Do We Know thread).
My first thought on Chameleon Gnomes is something to do with blending into other societies (something Halflings are even better at, but Gnomes are no slouches at), rather than some kind of physical chameleon thing, but I'm just speculating there.
I'm gonna wait and see. While I wasn't completely impressed with ancestries as they were, I don't dislike the idea. I also like shifting ancestry away from such a monumental choice early on. I want to see what the final version has to offer before I make a call, but I'm cautiously optimistic.
One thing I'm trying to invest some time in pondering now is, 'for home-brew world building: when is a custom ancestry, a custom heritage, a custom ancestry feat, or an ancestry-locked background" the better choice for RP/story telling.
One thing I'm trying to invest some time in pondering now is, 'for home-brew world building: when is a custom ancestry, a custom heritage, a custom ancestry feat, or an ancestry-locked background" the better choice for RP/story telling.
I've been playing with making a PF2 world guide for my Homebrew world with customized ancestries, heritages, and backgrounds and I've been really happy with heritages as a tool to differentiate sub groups.
I've only introduced a few heritage specific backgrounds though and only for the more isolationist cultrual groups. For the other ones even if they are written for a specific heritage I haven't been blocking it off (Ex: I have a group of fantasy Vikings but the Viking background doesn't require the Viking heritage since their culture is a little more open. In contrast the elven Noble background requieres you to be an imperial heritage elf)
One thing I'm trying to invest some time in pondering now is, 'for home-brew world building: when is a custom ancestry, a custom heritage, a custom ancestry feat, or an ancestry-locked background" the better choice for RP/story telling.
It depends on how integrated the Ancestry Feat is with Golarion.
Most of them could probably just be renamed in the case of a homebrew world, for balance purposes and ease of effort on the part of the GM.
For particularly out there options or setting specific stuff native to a personal homebrew, you're probably better off making something new if there's nothing suitable to match it. Mirror as best you can with other Ancestry Feats in terms of what it provides and try to select flavorful choices as opposed to flat benefits in the case of something brand new.
If you do create a homebrew one, you're probably going to have to make the full line as well though, which is a fair amount more work than say in PF1 adding an alternate trait. You could always do it later, but for upfront transparency to the player (so they can decide on investing) it's better to have anything tied to it done as well.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Unbreakable Goblin is a Con 10 Sorcerer with 16 HP, so it's probably a flat +4 HP at 1st level (and possibly more thereafter).
Just something I noted while getting caught up on the Oblivion Oath videos.
Jason told us (when Zel had an extra ability boost he wasn't supposed to have) that he hadn't checked the character sheets shown in the preview, so they could (and did) have mistakes. In the actual game, Qundle only has 12HP (6 from Sorcerer, 6 from Goblin and 0 from Con, as in the playtest).
|
|
Jason told us (when Zel had an extra ability boost he wasn't supposed to have) that he hadn't checked the character sheets shown in the preview, so they could (and did) have mistakes. In the actual game, Qundle only has 12HP (6 from Sorcerer, 6 from Goblin and 0 from Con, as in the playtest).The Unbreakable Goblin is a Con 10 Sorcerer with 16 HP, so it's probably a flat +4 HP at 1st level (and possibly more thereafter).
Just something I noted while getting caught up on the Oblivion Oath videos.
Ah. Interesting. I wonder what the heck Unbreakable does, then?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah. Interesting. I wonder what the heck Unbreakable does, then?Jason told us (when Zel had an extra ability boost he wasn't supposed to have) that he hadn't checked the character sheets shown in the preview, so they could (and did) have mistakes. In the actual game, Qundle only has 12HP (6 from Sorcerer, 6 from Goblin and 0 from Con, as in the playtest).The Unbreakable Goblin is a Con 10 Sorcerer with 16 HP, so it's probably a flat +4 HP at 1st level (and possibly more thereafter).
Just something I noted while getting caught up on the Oblivion Oath videos.
It is short for "Unbreakfastable" and indicates that monsters cannot eat you unless they've eaten a meal in the previous eight hours (because you would spoil their appetite).
Ah. Interesting. I wonder what the heck Unbreakable does, then?Jason told us (when Zel had an extra ability boost he wasn't supposed to have) that he hadn't checked the character sheets shown in the preview, so they could (and did) have mistakes. In the actual game, Qundle only has 12HP (6 from Sorcerer, 6 from Goblin and 0 from Con, as in the playtest).The Unbreakable Goblin is a Con 10 Sorcerer with 16 HP, so it's probably a flat +4 HP at 1st level (and possibly more thereafter).
Just something I noted while getting caught up on the Oblivion Oath videos.
Maybe a resistance to mind-control. An unbreakable will kind of thing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah. Interesting. I wonder what the heck Unbreakable does, then?Jason told us (when Zel had an extra ability boost he wasn't supposed to have) that he hadn't checked the character sheets shown in the preview, so they could (and did) have mistakes. In the actual game, Qundle only has 12HP (6 from Sorcerer, 6 from Goblin and 0 from Con, as in the playtest).The Unbreakable Goblin is a Con 10 Sorcerer with 16 HP, so it's probably a flat +4 HP at 1st level (and possibly more thereafter).
Just something I noted while getting caught up on the Oblivion Oath videos.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah. Interesting. I wonder what the heck Unbreakable does, then?Jason told us (when Zel had an extra ability boost he wasn't supposed to have) that he hadn't checked the character sheets shown in the preview, so they could (and did) have mistakes. In the actual game, Qundle only has 12HP (6 from Sorcerer, 6 from Goblin and 0 from Con, as in the playtest).The Unbreakable Goblin is a Con 10 Sorcerer with 16 HP, so it's probably a flat +4 HP at 1st level (and possibly more thereafter).
Just something I noted while getting caught up on the Oblivion Oath videos.
Presumably when used as a shield or melee weapon? Yeah, that tracks. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of ancestries, I wonder if they will also "fix" the uncharacteristic CHA pelalty for Tieflings (which was exclusive for 3.X, by the way).
And normalize Aasimars by giving them an appropriate penalty to something, or make all "planetouched races" as Human heritages by default as proposed long ago.
Plus, I anticipate how they would handle the Kitsune's extra tail tricks (most probably focus spells that scale with character level, though).
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be very surprised if Tieflings and Aasimar don't both wind up with at least the option of two floating bonuses and no penalty like Humans.
That could easily be because they're Heritages of Human, but I could also see them as their own Ancestries, or even as 'universal' Heritages selectable by any Ancestry with, like Half Elf and Half Orc, their own set of separate Ancestry Feats made available by the Heritage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd much rather be able to play an Aasimar Dwarf/Elf/Human/Goblin/Gnome/Halfing when Aasimar are produced than just playing an Aasimar and hand waving away the other part of your heritage that PF1 did. In fact that feels far more tacked on to me.
And in a way that further expands the Aasimar/Tieflings into more than what they were.
When you can create a flavor of Tiefling/Aasimar simply by what parent Ancestry you attach it to, you actually widen the space for them in a lot of ways.
And as long as the initial heritage is a little variable in terms of what is allowed physically (tail, horns, wings, halo) as a selection, you can then do "awakening" for those pieces later, or simply have ancestry feats support the heritage further (which would always be expected).
A Dwarf Aasimar and an Elf Tiefling sound like a lot of fun. Plus all the planar races (Fetchling yes please!).
...wouldn’t it be easier to just write a Tiefling ancestry with various heritages, and just a note saying ‘as part of the standard features, select another Ancestry your character is born from: you have access to that Ancestry’s feats”?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...wouldn’t it be easier to just write a Tiefling ancestry with various heritages, and just a note saying ‘as part of the standard features, select another Ancestry your character is born from: you have access to that Ancestry’s feats”?
I guess? But probably not substantially so. And you'd lose some of the granularity that would make it interesting, like a dwarf tiefling being less charismatic than a gnome, tiefling.
What about having... both? Just like half elves grant humans access to elven feats, have a full tiefling/aasimar ancestry, that represents a strong tie to the planar energies,with heritages relating to the various types of fiends and celestial and a detachable heritage that grants access to aasimar and tiefling feats and representing characters who are very much the race of their parents with a touch of planar energies.
What about having... both? Just like half elves grant humans access to elven feats, have a full tiefling/aasimar ancestry, that represents a strong tie to the planar energies,with heritages relating to the various types of fiends and celestial and a detachable heritage that grants access to aasimar and tiefling feats and representing characters who are very much the race of their parents with a touch of planar energies.
That would certainly be useful for making aasimar/tiefling characters who come from long-standing aasimar/tiefling communities. The interrelated options might be a tad confusing for some players, though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...wouldn’t it be easier to just write a Tiefling ancestry with various heritages, and just a note saying ‘as part of the standard features, select another Ancestry your character is born from: you have access to that Ancestry’s feats”?
I don’t really see how. A heritage that can be selected by any ancestry, basically an archetype ancestry, would require about the same number of feats as what you describe, but wouldn’t need basic ancestry features such as size, speed, ability boosts, etc.. All that would come from the base ancestry.
There’s a fair number of ancestries I’d like to see this way: Dhampir, Aasimar, Teifling, Skinwalkers, Ifrit, Half-Construct, really basically any “descended from” or “magical mishap” ancestry.
I can see a potential issue where you might have to choose between this and a normal heritage available to your ancestry, but if these were able to be selected as either your heritage OR your 1st level ancestry feat, that might work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There’s a fair number of ancestries I’d like to see this way: Dhampir, Aasimar, Teifling, Skinwalkers, Ifrit, Half-Construct, really basically any “descended from” or “magical mishap” ancestry.
I can see a potential issue where you might have to choose between this and a normal heritage available to your ancestry, but if these were able to be selected as either your heritage OR your 1st level ancestry feat, that might work.
I actually think allowing someone to opt in to a heritage feat later in some of these cases can make a lot of sense and add to character development.
Make a pact with a demon as a prerequisite, and select the tiefling heritage as well as whatever base heritage you have.
Ancestry archetypes is something could certainly fill that niche, and is a cool concept for allowing someone to alter their physical attributes and backgrounds if they don't want to just progress as a dwarf or elf.
Magic mishaps that cause this are certainly common in fantasy tropes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way the Lost Omens setting (and oh how I love how much easier that is to spell) does Drow might also qualify them as a prestige ancestry that requires you to be an elf or half-elf.
Aaaand now a purple skinned Seltyiel has flashed into my brain, so that’s enough Internet for now.
What about having... both? Just like half elves grant humans access to elven feats, have a full tiefling/aasimar ancestry, that represents a strong tie to the planar energies,with heritages relating to the various types of fiends and celestial and a detachable heritage that grants access to aasimar and tiefling feats and representing characters who are very much the race of their parents with a touch of planar energies.That would certainly be useful for making aasimar/tiefling characters who come from long-standing aasimar/tiefling communities. The interrelated options might be a tad confusing for some players, though.
There are no aasimar longstanding communities though. The child of two aasimar is not especially likely to be another aasimar. The birth of an aasimar seems to have less to do with genetics and more to do with divine providence. Yeah, you have an angel somewhere in your family tree, but when that gene stops being dormant seems entirely impossible to predict. I'm not sure if tieflings are the same way but I suspect so. Pretty sure that's how Oreads work for example.
Also, making aasimar both an ancestry and a heritage skirts dangerously close to the PF1 awful tendency of using the same name for multiple mechanical options, like Brawler being the name of an archetype for fighters, an advanced class, a rage power, and dangerously close to an armor enchantment as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about having... both? Just like half elves grant humans access to elven feats, have a full tiefling/aasimar ancestry, that represents a strong tie to the planar energies,with heritages relating to the various types of fiends and celestial and a detachable heritage that grants access to aasimar and tiefling feats and representing characters who are very much the race of their parents with a touch of planar energies.That would certainly be useful for making aasimar/tiefling characters who come from long-standing aasimar/tiefling communities. The interrelated options might be a tad confusing for some players, though.There are no aasimar longstanding communities though. The child of two aasimar is not especially likely to be another aasimar. The birth of an aasimar seems to have less to do with genetics and more to do with divine providence. Yeah, you have an angel somewhere in your family tree, but when that gene stops being dormant seems entirely impossible to predict. I'm not sure if tieflings are the same way but I suspect so. Pretty sure that's how Oreads work for example.
Hmm, I guess I've been taking undines as typical for what such races can do, even if ifrits, sylphs, and oreads generally choose not to.
Society: Undines define themselves as a unique race and are capable of producing undine offspring. While they remain able to interbreed with humans, they tend to keep to themselves, and form small, reclusive communities near bodies of water, or in some cases, floating settlements.
It would be weird if undines can breed true but ifrits, sylphs, and oreads can't.
Similarly, tieflings do form communities, if only off-plane.
Tieflings seldom see another of their own kind, and thus they usually simply adopt the culture and mannerisms of their human parents. On other planes, tieflings form enclaves of their own kind.
Admittedly it doesn't say outright that those tiefling enclaves include children who bred true, but I find it strongly implied, which in turn makes it likely (though not definite) that aasimar can breed true. I can't find anything relating to the subject in the AoN aasimar entry.
Something to keep in mind is that the Advanced Race Guide is not a Golarian sourcebook. What is true in the ARG isn’t necessarily a part of the core setting. This is largely true of ALL the RPG book line except the Adventurers Handbook.
There are two sources of Golarian specific info for Aasimars and Teiflings, the “Blood of Angels” and “Blood of Fiends” player companion guides. In BoA, they say there actually is one country where Aasimars are the dominant population, in Tian Jan. Meanwhile, there’s no equivalent for Teiflings, and in any area where Teiflings have the potential numbers to create a community of their own, there are exists a prevailing discrimination against them, except for in Absolom.
Something to keep in mind is that the Advanced Race Guide is not a Golarian sourcebook. What is true in the ARG isn’t necessarily a part of the core setting. This is largely true of ALL the RPG book line except the Adventurers Handbook.
I don't have many of the Golarion sourcebooks, but I've never noticed actual contradictions between their material and what's in the rulebooks. They just fill in details the rulebooks leave blank. Completion, not contradiction.
Do you have examples of stuff from the ARG or other rulebooks that is known to be false in Golarion?
The biggest example is probably the Villan Codex, where essentially All of the stat blocks are vague, general fantasy tropes rather than ones tied to the setting. Still useful, but finding where the Doomsday Cult, or the Slayers guild might exist in Golarian is an interesting thought exercise, especially since examples of both (that bear no particular resemblance to the ones in codex) DO exist in the setting.
Edit: Pathfinderwiki Policy on Canon talks a little about what I mean, particularly the first FAQ on that page.
The biggest example is probably the Villan Codex, where essentially All of the stat blocks are vague, general fantasy tropes rather than ones tied to the setting. Still useful, but finding where the Doomsday Cult, or the Slayers guild might exist in Golarian is an interesting thought exercise, especially since examples of both (that bear no particular resemblance to the ones in codex) DO exist in the setting.
Edit: Pathfinderwiki Policy on Canon talks a little about what I mean, particularly the first FAQ on that page.
I hated that book so much because of this... It had a lot of potential!
At least some of the character options were pretty cool.