survey and races you want to see.


Ancestries & Backgrounds

51 to 67 of 67 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gorbacz is just too embarassed about his favorites to share... ;-)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

I went with

Aasimar (loved these guys all along)
Tieflings (if we have Aasimar's we have to have Tieflings and vice versa. It drives me crazy when they include one but not the other).
Tengu (We need these guys)
Ratfolk (just...because)

and...yes...I chose

Dhampyr. I thought they'd be more popular, but apparently not?

Scarab Sages

Tieflings
Lizardfolk
Kobold

I can't remember What else I picked.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Kobold
Tieflings
Lizardfolk
Aasimar


I haven't done the survey yet, I'm kind of waiting until I've got more experience in the playtest. Can someone post a list of the possible options? I'm seeing a lot from the comments here, but I'm curious if there are some that aren't showing up here. Was there a "Something else" option?

And obviously Flumphs and Half-Flumphs need to be high on the list. Also, Flumph iconic, or I riot. :)

But seriously, I'm actually a bit torn what I'll pick when I do this survey. Ratfolk are probably going to be my top pick, I just love those guys. I want Aasimar and Tieflings too, but I might avoid them to go with less obvious options. Aasimar and Tieflings are just total no-brainers to include early on and I have a hard time seeing them not be some of the first out, so I might do some strategic voting to give some of the other choices some love. That might be against the spirit of the survey though.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Dhampyr. I thought they'd be more popular, but apparently not?

I agree they're awesome, and appropriate for new PC race.

I imagine Geb background would be perfect for Iconic (probably hates vampires there, yet perfect welcome is hard to find elsewhere).
Maybe a Neutral Cleric with ability for dual Pos/Neg Channel (needing Deity with Pos+Neg... Nethys?) could be good fit... Maybe even Wizard Archetype with Nosoi Familiar?

I'll imagine Iconics for all my other picks:

Ratfolk: Great Alchemist, maritime trader/smuggler background (Pirate Archetype?) would be unique amongst Iconics and convenient to place them in many locales.

Gillmen: Classic Golarion, mysterious character always with question if they are "sleeper" agent of Aboleth, an Investigator-like type might be good, maybe a Rogue with Polymath Bard Archetype? Or Mesmerist...

Fetchling: Planar angle here, and Cold Resistance might make Crown of The World or other "Northern" background relevant. Spirit Totem Barbarian could be good, or maybe Ranger with Sorceror Archetype? "Magus"?

Lizardfolk: I was on the fence with Changeling for this one, but a different take on Druid feels like it could work here (Wild/Storm?). Or Shaman...

Sovereign Court

Orc, Catfolk, Vishkanyas , Hobgoblin, and Lizardfolk. Yeah, where is our Nagji!


Doktor Weasel wrote:
Can someone post a list of the possible options?

Sorry, I only jotted down what I picked. It WAS a surprisingly large list that you picked 5 and rated those in preference.

Doktor Weasel wrote:
Was there a "Something else" option?

No, which was kind of a bummer.

Doktor Weasel wrote:
Flumphs and Half-Flumphs need to be high on the list. Also, Flumph iconic, or I riot. :)

Flumphs make me smile. :) 1/2 flumphs make me curious on the mechanics of how you could possibly end up with one...

GreyWolfLord wrote:
Dhampyr. I thought they'd be more popular, but apparently not?

I've seen very few people play them and then only with a specific build type to support their need for negative energy healing.


graystone wrote:
1/2 flumphs make me curious on the mechanics of how you could possibly end up with one...

Same way you end up with half-dragons or half-of-a-lot-of-other-things - judicious use of polymorph effects.


graystone wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Dhampyr. I thought they'd be more popular, but apparently not?
I've seen very few people play them and then only with a specific build type to support their need for negative energy healing.

Although new Medicine healing isn't tied to Positive/Negative (nor is Alchemical Healing), which already gives them baseline healing for whatever that's worth.

Alot of people do tend to base decisions on old mechanics though, regardless if poll explains that doesn't matter (like Archetype poll).


Quandary wrote:
Although new Medicine healing isn't tied to Positive/Negative (nor is Alchemical Healing), which already gives them baseline healing for whatever that's worth.

Well they put out the survey AFTER medical healing but not before saying resonance in in flux so for the survey healing would have been a real concern.

Quandary wrote:
Alot of people do tend to base decisions on old mechanics though, regardless if poll explains that doesn't matter (like Archetype poll).

Well it's hard to NOT look back while making choices as we have no other way to look really as the current mechanics may change so the old way is a far more stable place to base you decisions on.


graystone wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Flumphs and Half-Flumphs need to be high on the list. Also, Flumph iconic, or I riot. :)
Flumphs make me smile. :) 1/2 flumphs make me curious on the mechanics of how you could possibly end up with one...

I hear there are a lot of documentaries on the subject coming out of Japan.

Cheap hentai jokes aside, I have actually kind of wanted to play a Flumph. My GMs would probably let me too. How to handle item slots has been one thing stopping me along with equipment in general. And a few other things in the rules are kind of based around a humanoid layout. Plus the constant fly speed might make me feel a bit like I'm cheating. The Kineticist write-up has mentions of hands or "prehensile appendages" which really made me think of playing a flumph again. Although my kineticist was a Caligni. Maybe a flumph monk could be fun. A paladin might be a bit too weird, how well can they really use a sword anyway? But I do love the concept of the tentacled horrors from beyond the stars, who are actually really nice people. Desna and flumphs are the two exceptions to the rule of the Dark Tapestry being all horrible.

graystone wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Dhampyr. I thought they'd be more popular, but apparently not?
I've seen very few people play them and then only with a specific build type to support their need for negative energy healing.

I've seen a few in play too. But yeah, the negative energy requirement is a problem for them I suspect they'd be more popular without it. Half vampire is cool, needing an entirely different source of healing just for you is a problem. I think it's one of the cases where the mechanics have made a race less popular than it might have otherwise been. Based on the forums, it seems like there's a lot of Kobold fans, but their stats were utter garbage in PF1. If they weren't an obviously inferior choice mechanically, they might have been played more. Aasimar are kind of the opposite, I think they're played so much mostly because they're superior stats instead of the flavor. I know most games I'm in seem to have one or two aasimar. But tieflings are still more popular according to the survey I saw, so flavor does win over power sometimes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
I have actually kind of wanted to play a Flumph.

Back in 2E they had an ecology for them and monastic ones could cast cleric spells and had a chance to speak common. ;) [dragon 246] Their spells use only somatic gestures.

Doktor Weasel wrote:
How to handle item slots has been one thing stopping me along with equipment in general.

I think turning things into rings type items to wear or wand/rod type items to hold on tentacles works ok. They have a 'bite' too so something can be done with that.

Doktor Weasel wrote:
The Kineticist write-up has mentions of hands or "prehensile appendages" which really made me think of playing a flumph again.

I think they could easily count as having a 'free hand' for things like that.

Doktor Weasel wrote:
Dhampyr

Yeah I agree. With a different set of mechanics, it could be much more popular. Push the 'daywalker' vampire vide and have viable healing options and I think it'd be a cool addition.


I am simply hoping they are making a ruleset for making a monster into a PC.
D&D 5e is mostly good, but I absolutely hated, detested, despised, and reviled one thing about it:
"All PCs have to be humanoid." -- Wizards of the Coast, 2014
This one atrocious flaw in 5e's design is one I hope is not being repeated here.
If it exists and can speak, I should be able to play it in a campaign of the appropriate level.
I may sound harsh, but I simply choose not to entertain foolish notions of what a PC should "have to be" in any context. If they wish to ensure PCs have options, then they should ensure that PCs can be created from monsters.
Unfortunately, as of yet, Paizo has done nothing to allay my fears, and if nothing else comes of this post, please please PLEASE let someone consider why I picked pathfinder over 5e in the first place: not being stuck as some boring humanoid character.
EDIT: Goblins do not count.
I mean dragons, angels, fey, beasties, anything that isn't humanoid in creature type.


graystone wrote:
FormerFiend wrote:
I would have picked cylopses before any of them, personally.
I do admit, I'd love to see a minor cyclops giant PC race. I made one back in 3.5 and I quite enjoyed playing with them. ;)

I'm a huge fan with what Paizo did with cyclopses, they're definitely one of the more intriguing parts of the setting in my opinion.

And they're our best option for a "not-goliaths" race and I love goliaths.


Personally I didn't focus too much on mechanics for my picks. Orcs were my top pick because orcs are my favorite fantasy race; I absolutely hate the orc racial stats for PF 1e; +4 str with -2 to all mental scores is absurd and that array needs to be thrown in the garbage where it belongs for 2e.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I confess, I kind of never want to see a "PC playable cyclops option" because the incorrect plural drives me nuts (It's "Cyclopes", not "Cyclopses").

51 to 67 of 67 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Ancestries & Backgrounds / survey and races you want to see. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Ancestries & Backgrounds