| 21 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a lot I am excited about from what I have seen with plans for the new system, and but the one that really makes me feel like Paizo is headed in the right direction is getting rid of the term race, when designing a character. SOO much of the arguments about the inclusion of this ancestry or that ancestry feel rooted in an attempt to assert the centralization of race onto the world of Golarion, when if the most ardent arguers could see that the new system is going to be much more open to the different kinds of characters that players make up, which is, at heart, what really separates Pathfinder from other fantasy RPGs.
I understand that some people might be upset that one type of character will be easier to play from the beginning of the game than some other character concepts, but how long do we think it will be before there is a splatbook called "Ancestries of Golarion" that will standardize all the different kinds of characters you want to play. Th design team at Paizo is incredibly responsive to their players, even when that must be a real head ache. I bet if some of the players attacking the play test for including goblins started positively asking for the kind of ancestries they would like to see included as soon as possible, the fine folks at Paizo would take that into consideration and even consider making the Ancestries splatbook one of the first created.
Ancestries instead of race and ancestry feats instead of racial abilities will mean that my players can focus more on coming up with whatever character they want to play and the formula for introducing that character will be standardized and easy to expand. Showing us how that works with a creature that previously required some work, the goblin, was a great way to introduce that system. I can't wait to see what you all reveal with the next blog.
Thank you for taking the time to solicit feedback from your players. Even when we can be the most vicious of trolls.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dont see any improvement mechanically, just politically. Which is good for folks who were taking offense.
I dont see any improvement mechanically, just politically. Which is good for folks who were taking offense.
Mechanically, ancestry is a couple of attribute modifiers, some general physical description notes, and some suggested backstory and cultural information (all "fluff"). Finally it includes access to ancestry feats that can be selected over the course of character development.
Ancestry does not include 100 different starting traits and abilities that can be selected or traded or otherwise manipulated for mechanical boons or to make certain ancestry vastly more optimal for certain builds than others, right from level one.
That is a lot of mechanical stuff that just got ripped out of "race," making racialized elements of ancestry a far less significant aspect of character creation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's see how it plays out.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dont see any improvement mechanically, just politically. Which is good for folks who were taking offense.Mechanically, ancestry is a couple of attribute modifiers, some general physical description notes, and some suggested backstory and cultural information (all "fluff"). Finally it includes access to ancestry feats that can be selected over the course of character development.
Ancestry does not include 100 different starting traits and abilities that can be selected or traded or otherwise manipulated for mechanical boons or to make certain ancestry vastly more optimal for certain builds than others, right from level one.
That is a lot of mechanical stuff that just got ripped out of "race," making racialized elements of ancestry a far less significant aspect of character creation.
By the nature of the game, I guarantee there's going to be Ancestries better suited for certain builds than others. From their base stats, from their feats, or a combination of both. That's not going away.
And if the Goblin Blog is anything to go by, neither is the concept of Race either.
Ancestry seems to be Race, simply name-swapped. That your traits are now Feats doesn't make much difference, aside from (probably) not being available from level 1.
But we'll need the full playtest document to be sure.
I dont see any improvement mechanically, just politically. Which is good for folks who were taking offense.Mechanically, ancestry is a couple of attribute modifiers, some general physical description notes, and some suggested backstory and cultural information (all "fluff"). Finally it includes access to ancestry feats that can be selected over the course of character development.
Ancestry does not include 100 different starting traits and abilities that can be selected or traded or otherwise manipulated for mechanical boons or to make certain ancestry vastly more optimal for certain builds than others, right from level one.
That is a lot of mechanical stuff that just got ripped out of "race," making racialized elements of ancestry a far less significant aspect of character creation.
By the nature of the game, I guarantee there's going to be Ancestries better suited for certain builds than others. From their base stats, from their feats, or a combination of both. That's not going away.
And if the Goblin Blog is anything to go by, neither is the concept of Race either.
Ancestry seems to be Race, simply name-swapped. That your traits are now Feats doesn't make much difference, aside from (probably) not being available from level 1.
But we'll need the full playtest document to be sure.
I think the bigger thing is the ancestry feats. you can customize your race now beyond level 1, and not at the expense of combat or anything else, since they will be different pools
I mean, I am about 95% sure this came about because of the love for the Aasimar/Tiefling variant ancestries. You will be able to customize your race to your class to a far greater degree than before.
Although yes, I am sure some races will still be better suited to certain classes or roles, although hopefully the differences won't be as much.
Gaining ancestry feats as you level up seems a little weird, I didn't become increasingly British when I finished my degrees. Why does Merisiel gain new abilities about being Forlorn when she hits level 3?
Something like that already exists in PF1. There are feats like improved stonecunning, where you enhance certain attributes granted by your race. I imagine this is simply removed the opportunity cost allowing more flavorful options to be chosen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gaining ancestry feats as you level up seems a little weird, I didn't become increasingly British when I finished my degrees. Why does Merisiel gain new abilities about being Forlorn when she hits level 3?
I don't know, gues we'll have to see what they actually do, but it doesn't really sit well with me.
Then again, neither did most of the existing Racial Feats in PF1 so...
Gaining ancestry feats as you level up seems a little weird, I didn't become increasingly British when I finished my degrees. Why does Merisiel gain new abilities about being Forlorn when she hits level 3?Something like that already exists in PF1. There are feats like improved stonecunning, where you enhance certain attributes granted by your race. I imagine this is simply removed the opportunity cost allowing more flavorful options to be chosen.
Indeed, I've played in a couple of games where the GM just handed out "racial feats" for free because people otherwise wouldn't take them and most of them aren't powerful enough to justify taking at the expense of other feats, particularly on feat-starved classes.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanically I see no improvement over what already exists so far.
But I'm reserving judgement till the play-test is out there.
If it is actually just a nod to identity politics....I'm not horribly interested.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
All politics, when you get down to it are about identity. It's just that some people with the "correct" identities have the privilege of just calling it "politics."
Fact of the matter is that "race" is a pretty loaded term, and experts are increasingly dubious that it has any meaning beyond its cultural sense. "Ancestry" lacks similar baggage and is thus preferable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dont see any improvement mechanically, just politically. Which is good for folks who were taking offense.Mechanically, ancestry is a couple of attribute modifiers, some general physical description notes, and some suggested backstory and cultural information (all "fluff"). Finally it includes access to ancestry feats that can be selected over the course of character development.
Ancestry does not include 100 different starting traits and abilities that can be selected or traded or otherwise manipulated for mechanical boons or to make certain ancestry vastly more optimal for certain builds than others, right from level one.
That is a lot of mechanical stuff that just got ripped out of "race," making racialized elements of ancestry a far less significant aspect of character creation.
... wait what?
CORE pathfinder didnt either.
I dont see why you think ancestries wont grow each with more and more options.
Seems literally paizo basic 101 to me.
Add something, then keep incrementing. Even more the core ones.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ancestry as term avoids the negative baggage of race, plus the devs have already said that it not being race means they can make it as broad or narrow as they want for a given situation. An ancestry can be an entire race, but it also could be as focused as "this one oddball noble family in Cheliax." Not 100% sure whether that's good bad or neutral, but the idea doesn't bother me so far.
> Ancestry as term avoids the negative baggage of race
I don't think there's any baggage there, and certainly nothing negative. I assumed they were trying to, as you say, make it more broad or narrow, so you can map more things.
Granted I don't think anyone's really gotten too upset about it before within the context of PnP RPGs, at least not that I've heard of, but irl racism is kind of a hotbutton issue right now, so I can see why they would want to distance themselves from that.
Honestly probably has more to do with the improved flexibility of it than that anyway though.
|
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, so, let's examine this:
#1: Some people feel that race has negative baggage and prefer another term.
#2: Some people do not.
#3: Nobody seems to object to the term Ancestry (and it lets them do the ABC character creation thing, which is neat).
Given these three facts, shouldn't we go with Ancestry and agree that it's a good thing because it makes the people referred to in point #1 happy?
I mean, even if you disagree that race has negative connotations...shouldn't you be happy that other people are happier now at no meaningful cost to you?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, so, let's examine this:
#1: Some people feel that race has negative baggage and prefer another term.
#2: Some people do not.
#3: Nobody seems to object to the term Ancestry (and it lets them do the ABC character creation thing, which is neat).Given these three facts, shouldn't we go with Ancestry and agree that it's a good thing because it makes the people referred to in point #1 happy?
I mean, even if you disagree that race has negative connotations...shouldn't you be happy that other people are happier now at no meaningful cost to you?
I mean, if I think Race is perfectly fine, but Ancestry isn't, whose feelings win out? Mine, or the other guys'?
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if I think Race is perfectly fine, but Ancestry isn't, whose feelings win out? Mine, or the other guys'?
I've heard absolutely nobody object to Ancestry before this. Not even you, since this is phrased as a hypothetical.
Find me someone who does and we'll talk.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's worth noting again that Ancestry is going to be used for things besides just different races like elves vs dwarves. The developers have explicitly mentioned wanting to also use it for things like specific noble bloodlines and such. So simply by changing the name from Race to Ancestry, it opens up more design space. And that's worthy in itself.
I mean, I'm opposed to every aspect of it. It's going to make certain backgrounds "correct" for a given character, meaning that instead of feeling you need to play some set of whatever races (usually a pretty big percent of races) to be playing "optimally", you'll instead need some set with a specific background.
The other part I'm opposed to is what it means to races. My game worlds don't have whatever this ancestry concept is, as races don't have this level of crossfertility, so out the gate I'd have to houserule away core concepts of character creation. At least I assume that's what's going on. I'm not even clear on that yet, but if it is something about nurture versus nature, that's probably even worse IMO.
It's very likely that PF2 is just not something I can ever run, so unless the remainder of the rules are absolutely perfect, it will just become something I use for inspiration. Obviously, it's too early for me to make any calls, but I don't want ancestries, I want races.
I mean I imagine that there are lots of ways around this
1) Reflavoring the feats to fit
2) There will probably be a fair amount of ancestry traits that are general enough to work still with your own game
3) If your existing races are similar to some other races, you could probably just switch the races they apply to.
My biggest concern is, assuming that these feats are tailored to specific ancestries, it might be a lot harder to add new races to the game, since they would also need to have a fair number of ancestry traits to make them a viable option. Although I could see some ancestries allowing double dipping (you can take ancestry traits from orcs or humans if you are a half orc for instance, maybe), which might solve some of those problems.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Ancestry is neutral because it refers pretty much to "who were your parents, and who raised you" which allows us to throw a bunch of biological and cultural things in a bucket without worrying about which is which.
I mean, it's weird AF to think that "Dwarves hate goblins" is somehow genetic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if I think Race is perfectly fine, but Ancestry isn't, whose feelings win out? Mine, or the other guys'?I've heard absolutely nobody object to Ancestry before this. Not even you, since this is phrased as a hypothetical.
Find me someone who does and we'll talk.
I mean, I don't like Ancestry. I think Race is perfectly fine. Shorter, easier, and used by basically every fantasy roleplaying game out there.
I'm just not going to raise a fuss about it.
I think Ancestry is neutral because it refers pretty much to "who were your parents, and who raised you" which allows us to throw a bunch of biological and cultural things in a bucket without worrying about which is which.
I mean, it's weird AF to think that "Dwarves hate goblins" is somehow genetic.
Is it? Dwarves were created by Torag. Who's to say Torag didn't put in there some greenskin hate? We're dealing with a setting where very flawed beings (the Gods) have tried their hands at creating life, more than once.
Is it any surprise if some of those creations share the same prejudices as their creator?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, it's weird AF to think that "Dwarves hate goblins" is somehow genetic.
I ended up needing to ban Dwarves and Elves from my campaign because of their "Regardless of the culture or technology level, all elves are proficient with longswords and rapiers" thing.
I like the idea of ancestry (depending on how it is implemented) so long as I can do some mixing and matching — like having a damphir that can get elven weapon familiarity without having to jump through tons of hoops to do it.
Given a historical perspective dorfs hating gobos makes perfect sense. Early in the games history elves, dorfs, etc were basically one culture. The game has evolved beyond monoculture races, so mechanically speaking, ancestry does make sense to me now.
**I apologize for mentioning the political aspect of the name change. I should have known better.**
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate to sound snarky but probably should have seen this coming Paizo when you made the switch.
On topic, how does one balance the..., out there ideas.
"So I'm base human for this, but my grandmother was an elf/half elf whic allows or should allow me to use this oh and in my fathers side there was some freaky stuff so I classify as goblin for this. Oh and the goblin was half X too so I get that"
Eaiest way is a "No" but if there's ways of getting more Ancestry perks, and easier than Racial Traits now, from other races because of mixed parentage that might get confusing.
Never mind the diconnect I see of Sorcerers and their Bloodlines. So your family tree is this, but your bloodline is, different?
Mind you I'm trying to take a look at it from a more mechanics based point of view.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Feels like the word "Ancestry" is put in to make more of a board term of choices merely than just race.
So in character creation you still choose a race, but you also choose the sub variant and background of that race.
Forexample you choose to play Dwarf as your race, then next you play as a Mountain Dwarf or a Hill Dwarf, then the background of the character being a blacksmith or a warrior etc.
So it sounds like the term "Ancestry" is just the blanket term of this whole selection, or am i wrong in that assumption?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it sounds like the term "Ancestry" is just the blanket term of this whole selection, or am i wrong in that assumption?
I think that is the point that a lot of people seem to be missing. Human's have opperated under an ancestry system from the beginning of the game. Human was almost an invisible or irrelevant category, certainly from a narrative perspective, because the depth of a human's characterization had a lot more to do with which nation they came from, coupled with their background. Changing the entire system to give every character the same depth is a good decision.
It is also a really good thing mechanically to strip away the idea of racial traits and try to make more characters mechanically playable without having to sort through yet another subsystem of optimization.
For example: Hmm, My dwarf is going to be in a skyship campaign set in an elemental plane that is stuck in perpetual daylight, what of my racial traits can I swap out to optimize this character, leads to power discrepancies at the table that can easily be mechanically fixed by getting rid of the front loading that racial traits that rewards munchkin character design. Can ancestry feats be chosen over levels to gain those powers, sure, great even, let characters idiosyncrasies develop over play in response to the campaign setting they find themselves in. This is a very good application of universal design and modularity.
Personally, there are hundreds of ancestries that I have no interest in playing and would want to talk to players if they were insistent on playing one, but I am very glad to see that in the new system, the odds of people choosing this ancestry or that have much less to do with creating munchkin super characters that don't fit narratively into the adventure I am trying to run, because most ancestries are going to be broad and flexible, and not give as many arbitrary and difficult to balance powers to my players' characters right out of the gate.