2e Wyrwoods / Construct Ancestries and Constitution

[keftiu]

In 1e (barring a certain racial trait, I believe), wyrwoods were treated as constructs, gaining both a host of resistances and lacking a Con score. I’ve never loved this sort of simulationist approach, and with 2e’s focus on slimming that down and making player options a little more digestible, I wanted to ask; would you adhere to the 1e modal for any construct Ancestries, or treat them like anyone else other than some relevant Heritages and other such things (maybe an Ancestry boon to Con instead, and an Ancestry Feat down the line for resistances, natural AC, DR, or what have you) in the name of simplicity?

It’s pretty clear where I stand, but I wanted input. I’m probably waiting to see how 2e leshies work before I start converting wyrwoods, but still!

[CorvusMask]

I would probably prefer ancestries of different creature types to have different base abilities than humanoids before ancestry feats are considered. Dunno to what extend though

[Perpdepog]

I'm in favor of having them fall in line with other ancestries, even if it means they don't quite have the full suite of construct/undead/what have you immunities. Starfinder does this and I really like it, swapping out immunity for +1 or +2 to certain saves.

I think that PF2 will likely follow this model as well, since they seem to be dropping some of the more cumbersome type-related traits from the prior edition. Nothing has an absent stat anymore, for example. Doing away with the swaths of bonuses and immunities based on type grants them more design space to play with monsters and ancestries in, opens up more possibilities for ancestries that don't unbalance the game, and thus lets more people play the character they want without having to worry about needing to be penalized for a mechanical advantage of their ancestry having to be balanced somewhere else.

[Garretmander]

Considering golems have a positive con modifier in the bestiary, I think wyrwoods will have a constitution score.