Anyone else feel that this is moving in a direction that’s actually more restrictive instead of less so

[AlephZer0]

I feel like these changes make all PCs into glorified humans. All-humanoid PCs is bad enough, thanks very much but I think I’m going to pass on your new edition unless this change is not just dialed back but scrapped entirely and rethought.
First of all, most racial traits have to be acquired as feats. WTF?!
Second, even the name implies trying to make PCs more similar to one another. “Ancestry” has a much more distant and unimportant feel than “race” which makes me think they’re trying to push all the uniqueness of a PC into classes. This is a terrible idea. It doesnt work. 5e D&D proves very clearly that making fewer options for races (I’m not even going to deign to use the new term they’ve conjured up) makes a game that’s interesting the first time you play it and then quickly becomes a bore. Please, please, PLEASE don’t make the same mistake Wizards of the Coast made. Please.

[The Once and Future Kai]

AlephZer0 wrote:

First of all, most racial traits have to be acquired as feats. WTF?!

First, I think they've made a misstep here (as of Update 1.4). I believe that Ancestries should start with a stronger base before customizing through Ancestry feats. The current Heritage options are mostly lackluster (Gnome being the notable exception).

I'd prefer something like...
Base Ancestry - The iconic abilities
Heritage - What was called "Subrace" in 3.5/Initial Templates
Ancestral Feats - Template abilities/PF1e Racial Feats

That said... I think the new system has the potential to allow for incredible diversity and that it needs to be seen as a replacement for Level Adjustment/Templates/Racial Feats. That's not clear from the playtest materials but it seems like a clear design intent to me. I wish that they'd included Half Dragon as a Heritage to showcase this.

Also, as I've said before, I welcome Aboleth as a playable Ancestry.

AlephZer0 wrote:

Second, even the name implies trying to make PCs more similar to one another. “Ancestry” has a much more distant and unimportant feel than “race” which makes me think they’re trying to push all the uniqueness of a PC into classes.

I totally disagree. I love the new term, it fits the Fantasy genre perfectly, and ABC+4 is great for character generation. The new system needs work but I think it elevates and emphasizes Ancestry. It opens up a wealth of new character options...but unfortunately doesn't showcase that in the playtest (e.g. Minotaurs, Aasimar Halflings, Centaurs, Dhampir Elves, etc).

AlephZer0 wrote:

This is a terrible idea. It doesnt work. 5e D&D proves very clearly that making fewer options for races makes a game that’s interesting the first time you play it and then quickly becomes a bore.

I haven't played 5e but it's strange to claim that the playtest this has fewer options (than, say, the Pathfinder First Edition Core Rulebook)... There are a mountain of options for each Ancestry and that's only going to increase as more materials are released. However - the complaint that I've heard from others and agree with is that many of the current Ancestry options are lackluster.

AlephZer0 wrote:

(I’m not even going to deign to use the new term they’ve conjured up)

Don't be petty.

[Edge93]

One of my favorite things with the new system is the idea of higher-level ancestry feats, I've always liked the idea of unlocking secial ancestral abilities as you gain might and PF1 kinda lacked that IMO (There were racial feats but I never saw a lot I liked all that much, though I think the Sylphs had some cool ones and the Dwarf functionality with Cleave could be cool I suppose). Elf Step is my favorite current example of this. Though I hope we get more like Boulder Roll and Superstition that are actually actions we can take.

[nick1wasd]

I do feel like this new round of updates is a pigeonhole, but that's because out of all the options, only 3 or 4 choices are interesting/mean anything, so the options presented before us are so underwhelming that we'd only pick the ones that just leave us... whelmed. I think that if they padded the numbers of a few and made it feel more even instead of "half elves are Ubermench because reasons" then it'd feel a lot better. I also think the racial feats being separate from heritages is a fascinating idea, but what they've done far is rather "meh". If they added feats exclusive to a heritage, or interact with them in different ways would add a lot more dynamic I think. But that's just me

[Cantriped]

I am happy with most* of the Heritage elements of the 1.4 Update. Sure they're individually lackluster... Everything in PF2's Playtest is pretty underwhelming individually; it's an inevitable result of combining tight-math with choice-glut.

*:

I'm confused why Humans get shafted on their weaponry expertise. Unconventional Weaponry is somehow both horrifically abusable, and a really obvious feat tax. Yet Paizo not only left it as is, but built a feat atop it that spotlights just how bad it really is. For reference:
It's abusable because you can use retraining rules to acquire this feat which does nothing other than give you permission to buy a given ancestry's uncommon weapons, buy said weapon(s) and likely some extras just in case, and finally retrain the ancestry feat back to whatever you actually wanted or use during adventures. Nevermind that anybody can be Adopted by members of that Ancestry instead; thereby gaining access to their much better weapon familiarity feat chains (which actually grant proficiency).
It's a feat-tax because once you've got the weapon in hand it has no further effect beyond being the prerequisite for Unconventional Expertise. Worse, you still need to become proficient with the chosen weapon somehow; which will generally require investing yet another feat. Since if you were a character class that started out proficient with decent weapons, you'll become an expert with them eventually anyway (and thus don't need an expertise feat anyway). Again, you might as well just be Adopted instead, at least it's a tax with a better pay-off.

[RazarTuk]

Yes and no. This is more notable with classes, but I think it applies to ancestry as well. Feat-based progression should be easier to balance and more customizable, but it can also be difficult to do well. As an example with classes, they locked archery feats behind Fighter and Ranger, which implies you're playing other classes (like the Paladin) incorrectly if you want to use a bow.

Similarly, ancestry feats should open up interesting design space, especially if they split off culture into a separate set of feats (e.g. Weapon Familiarity). But as we've already seen, it's easy to overvalue certain feats and create odd situations, like how half-elves were virtually indistinguishable from humans or elves until level 9 at first.

[Crayon]

I don't know, I think I'd prefer if they dropped the mechanics from Ancestry all together and made it a purely aesthetic choice.

It's simpler, makes more sense, is more balanced, and presents more character options.

[Lady Melo]

Crayon wrote:

I don't know, I think I'd prefer if they dropped the mechanics from Ancestry all together and made it a purely aesthetic choice.

It's simpler, makes more sense, is more balanced, and presents more character options.

Pretty tough when you have races that for story reasons have innate differences, biology, or special abilities and all the NPCs have these and the PCs have no access to such things, or if NPCs also do not get it, it feels very flat and setting voiding to strip all those traits from things that did have them considering they are maintaining the same world.

[Skull]

Lady Melo wrote:

Crayon wrote:

I don't know, I think I'd prefer if they dropped the mechanics from Ancestry all together and made it a purely aesthetic choice.

It's simpler, makes more sense, is more balanced, and presents more character options.

Pretty tough when you have races that for story reasons have innate differences, biology, or special abilities and all the NPCs have these and the PCs have no access to such things, or if NPCs also do not get it, it feels very flat and setting voiding to strip all those traits from things that did have them considering they are maintaining the same world.

Just realised that he poor NPCs all need to have these choices made too. This sounds like a lot of admin that no one asked for.

I still think all races need to have their racial abilities. Heritage and ancestry feats should be there to add extra flavourful options, or simply to advance existing abilities.

[Crayon]

Lady Melo wrote:

Crayon wrote:

I don't know, I think I'd prefer if they dropped the mechanics from Ancestry all together and made it a purely aesthetic choice.

It's simpler, makes more sense, is more balanced, and presents more character options.

Pretty tough when you have races that for story reasons have innate differences, biology, or special abilities and all the NPCs have these and the PCs have no access to such things, or if NPCs also do not get it, it feels very flat and setting voiding to strip all those traits from things that did have them considering they are maintaining the same world.

I'd argue that 90% of biological differences can be handled by the player using existing mechanics by simply taking Ancestry into consideration when making other choices - Do Elves really need +Dex, and Int and -Con and then have subraces that subvert it? Why not just rule that differences between them and humanity are negligible and let the PC allocate the scores how they want?

Other stuff like Ancestral weapons don't make any sense either except maybe as a cultural trait which then raises the question of why different human cultures don't follow similar rules. Other stuff like low-light vision can be made General Feats and made available to anyone who would benefit like miners or thieves as well.

[Dracala]

I'm personally going to be combining the Races of PF1, with the PF2 Races, so I can have a nice baseline and Ancestry Feats.

[Ludovicus]

Cantriped wrote:

Everything in PF2's Playtest is pretty underwhelming individually; it's an inevitable result of combining tight-math with choice-glut.

This is one of the sharpest one-sentence diagnoses I've seen.

[Snowblind, Snarkwyrm]

Ludovicus wrote:

Cantriped wrote:

Everything in PF2's Playtest is pretty underwhelming individually; it's an inevitable result of combining tight-math with choice-glut.

This is one of the sharpest one-sentence diagnoses I've seen.

I don't know, I am a big fan of...

Quote:

I never feel more powerful than when I'm casting Heal in 2e, precisely because I actually accomplish what I'm trying to do.

[Tridus]

Snowblind, Snarkwyrm wrote:

Ludovicus wrote:

Cantriped wrote:

Everything in PF2's Playtest is pretty underwhelming individually; it's an inevitable result of combining tight-math with choice-glut.

This is one of the sharpest one-sentence diagnoses I've seen.

I don't know, I am a big fan of...

Quote:

I never feel more powerful than when I'm casting Heal in 2e, precisely because I actually accomplish what I'm trying to do.

I had no idea the impact that would have when I wrote it. :D

[Voss]

RazarTuk wrote:

Yes and no. This is more notable with classes, but I think it applies to ancestry as well. Feat-based progression should be easier to balance and more customizable, As an example with classes, they locked archery feats behind Fighter and Ranger, which implies you're playing other classes (like the Paladin) incorrectly if you want to use a bow.

Similarly, ancestry feats should open up interesting design space, especially if they split off culture into a separate set of feats (e.g. Weapon Familiarity). But as we've already seen, it's easy to overvalue certain feats and create odd situations, like how half-elves were virtually indistinguishable from humans or elves until level 9 at first.

Actually, no. It's always, always going to be more difficult to balance, as you have to balance not only every choice, but every combination of choices. Especially in terms of the future (which will almost inevitably be splat books jammed with tons more feats), there is all sorts of potential to Voltron half-a-dozen individually terrible (for example) fire related feats into some fire-causing juggernaut.

This is made _even more_ difficult by the fact that the different piles of feats inexplicably interact with each other under specific circumstances, but in different ways. You can turn an ancestry feat into a general feat, but a general feat only unlocks the _option_ to take someone else's ancestry feats.

And this isn't just a problem for when players intentionally try to break the system. It's quite possible to end up with unintentionally good (or bad) interactions just picking things organically (or even randomly)

It wouldn't be quite so bad if there weren't so many feat silos, but the utter complexity of the system makes for a lot of balance problems. For example, weapon & armor proficiencies occupy the relatively worthless general feat silo, but can be bypassed fairly easily with a class feat by wandering into multiclass dedications. This has an opportunity cost that is high or low depending on how good or bad your particular class feats are at that level.

[Malk_Content]

Voss wrote:

RazarTuk wrote:

Yes and no. This is more notable with classes, but I think it applies to ancestry as well. Feat-based progression should be easier to balance and more customizable, As an example with classes, they locked archery feats behind Fighter and Ranger, which implies you're playing other classes (like the Paladin) incorrectly if you want to use a bow.

Similarly, ancestry feats should open up interesting design space, especially if they split off culture into a separate set of feats (e.g. Weapon Familiarity). But as we've already seen, it's easy to overvalue certain feats and create odd situations, like how half-elves were virtually indistinguishable from humans or elves until level 9 at first.

Actually, no. It's always, always going to be more difficult to balance, as you have to balance not only every choice, but every combination of choices. Especially in terms of the future (which will almost inevitably be splat books jammed with tons more feats), there is all sorts of potential to Voltron half-a-dozen individually terrible (for example) fire related feats into some fire-causing juggernaut.

This is made _even more_ difficult by the fact that the different piles of feats inexplicably interact with each other under specific circumstances, but in different ways. You can turn an ancestry feat into a general feat, but a general feat only unlocks the _option_ to take someone else's ancestry feats.

And this isn't just a problem for when players intentionally try to break the system. It's quite possible to end up with unintentionally good (or bad) interactions just picking things organically (or even randomly)

It wouldn't be quite so bad if there weren't so many feat silos, but the utter complexity of the system makes for a lot of balance problems. For example, weapon & armor proficiencies occupy the relatively worthless general feat silo, but can be bypassed fairly easily with a class feat by wandering into multiclass dedications. This has an opportunity cost that is...

I don't see how this is more of a problem than PF1 everything has to be compared to everything. And that didn't work out well.

[Voss]

3.x (and therefor PF) races were largely fine and worked out quite well. The rare outliers were easy to spot.

The PF1 race problems came with... all the mix and match pieces. Each became little more than a min/max tool for stats and the most advantageous racial traits, exactly like PF2.

[Malk_Content]

Voss wrote:

3.x (and therefor PF) races were largely fine and worked out quite well. The rare outliers were easy to spot.

The PF1 race problems came with... all the mix and match pieces. Each became little more than a min/max tool for stats and the most advantageous racial traits, exactly like PF2.

Ah I see what you mean. I will say part of the reason it broke in PF1 is that mix and match racial traits were not considered in the core balance of the game from the get go like they are in PF2. They were a mod added in later.

PF1 also had the issue where you mix and matched LOTS at level 1. Traits had uneven costs (you can swap better and worse traits for different things) and you could swap out most of them for any given (core at least) race by its end point. In contrast PF2 feats (i.e trait equivalent) have the same cost as each other (Ancestry feat choice) and you pick them up slowly over time. That is far easier to balance.

[Voss]

Is it though? Because I look at the ancestry feats and it's really obvious which ones are good and worth taking and which ones will be neglected by the majority of players. (with a side order of specific ones that are useful for specific builds)

The speed of acquisition doesn't affect the balance. It makes character creation easier for a new player, but that's it.

As it stands, I see the exact same balance problems for the current state of PF2 as the end of PF1. Many things are obviously better and some things Voltron together with other feats and class abilities to create meta-monstrosities. Others can just be left on the table.

[Malk_Content]

Not all options being equal isn't the same as unbalanced in my book. So long as an option could serve a purpose it is fine for it to be generally less useful. Even picking the weaker ones your aren't going to end up with a character in a wholly different tier than someone who picked the stronger ones.

That wasn't the case in PF1 in which there are quite obviously various combinations that can put you in a different league to someone making poorer choices.

[Voss]

So you agree they aren't equal, and some are less useful, but it's somehow different from when feats weren't equal and some were less useful.

I... don't get it?

[Malk_Content]

Voss wrote:

So you agree they aren't equal, and some are less useful, but it's somehow different from when feats weren't equal and some were less useful.

I... don't get it?

Its a matter of scale. In PF1 the scale was so huge that it caused game play problems. In PF2 there seem to be various protections against that.

Now it could still be a problem. Sure. But we are moving from a paradigm were it absolutely provably was, and thus at worst PF2 can fall into the same trap.