Which ancestries you think should be common in upcoming APG?


Paizo Products

51 to 62 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Definitely NOT a certain Kobold wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Oooh the riots that will start if Kitsune are uncommon.
If Kobolds end up uncommon you will see riots unlike any you have seen before!

But will anyone notice? They have to look down to see the riot and even if they do, they'll just assume it's those darn goblins... Ever since those goblins got common status all it is is 'riot this' or 'riot that'...

Definitely NOT a certain Kobold wrote:
Should we maybe steal all their silver and candles then maybe?

The correct reply to this is "You no take candles!". Any REAL kobold would know that... Are you sure you're not a funny looking goblin?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"You no steal copyrighted material. True dragons don't need no stinkin' softscale candles! We also don't need to steal silver since some of us are miners.... we're just reclaiming what is ours and was stolen from us in the first place!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

All ancestries that were considered 'always available' without a Boon at the end of PFS1 should be considered Common, and those that required a Boon and were not overpowered considered Uncommon.

With the exception of kobolds, who have the numbers and background to transcend to Common.

EDIT: This would make OrgPlay lives a lot easier and friendlier for those coming to PF2 from PFS1. It would also streamline the approvals process a bit as well as promote PF2 sales earlier.

This seems like the best way to handle things. And if this doesn’t wind up how the PFRPG shakes out, PFS should come out with their own common/uncommon/rare designations for society tables.

That’s how the rarity system is supposed to work anyways. Might as well set a good example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:

I would assume all non-core ancestries are at least uncommon, and rightly so.

On another note, it makes no sense in this system for an ancestry to be, for example, "uncommon in the Inner Sea but common in Tian-Xia." That is what the access keyword is for. This would be an uncommon ancestry with "Access: You are from Tian-Xia". It's that easy.

I'm not sure I fully agree though, because some races common in the Inner Sea Region are more rare in Tian Xia (and presumably some other regions too). I personally think using regional rarities makes sense. The new setting meta-regions could help; hobgoblins could be common in the Eye of Dread and Old Cheliax (because it borders Oprak) for example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Definitely NOT a certain Kobold wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Oooh the riots that will start if Kitsune are uncommon.
If Kobolds end up uncommon you will see riots unlike any you have seen before!

But will anyone notice? They have to look down to see the riot and even if they do, they'll just assume it's those darn goblins... Ever since those goblins got common status all it is is 'riot this' or 'riot that'...

Definitely NOT a certain Kobold wrote:
Should we maybe steal all their silver and candles then maybe?
The correct reply to this is "You no take candles!". Any REAL kobold would know that... Are you sure you're not a funny looking goblin?

But could a Goblin become a all powerful being? I mean probably could follow the same formula as me but a Kobold is known for it so HA!

Contributor

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that the "Common versus Uncommon" question is interesting regarding ancestries. On one hand, I think that being able to say, "This race is Uncommon" is a helpful tool for facilitating conversations between players and the GM regarding what sort of person that the player's character is. I feel like something akin to Perram of Know Direction's Special Snowflake cards would be good for that; each player can start the game with one thing that's uncommon.

That being said, another part of me isn't too fond of the idea that ancestries from different parts of the world could automatically be uncommon despite being common in those places. Like, the game doesn't give you any guidelines for, say, making halfling or elves uncommon if your game is in Arcadia, so it ends up feeling like the current system of allowances is A) focused on the Inner Sea Region without really telling us that and B) assumes that anything in the Inner Sea Region is common everywhere else in the world.

One thing that I think would do a great job of sort of lifting this problem is if the setting started telling us where things are common versus uncommon. Like, "These races are Common in Tian Xia: . All others are Uncommon. Races listed as Rare are rare here."


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm curious how they're going to handle this in the first AP that's set in a place where your less common ancestries are concentrated. They're probably setting the first couple in the main inner sea region since that's what they have the mechanics to support, with a few new ancestries under their belt they have the tools to set APs in places with significant non-core ancestry populations.

Or even if these things are thematically related. Like if you're setting an adventure near the gravelands that's about "taking the fight to the Whispering Tyrant" then you should be able to play an Orc, because the Orcs of Belkzen are at war with Tar-Baphon and their lands abut the gravelands.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm curious how they're going to handle this in the first AP that's set in a place where your less common ancestries are concentrated. They're probably setting the first couple in the main inner sea region since that's what they have the mechanics to support, with a few new ancestries under their belt they have the tools to set APs in places with significant non-core ancestry populations.

Or even if these things are thematically related. Like if you're setting an adventure near the gravelands that's about "taking the fight to the Whispering Tyrant" then you should be able to play an Orc, because the Orcs of Belkzen are at war with Tar-Baphon and their lands abut the gravelands.

As mentioned upthread,

Lost Omens Character Guide page 47 wrote:
While these ancestries are uncommon in the same way a magic item, a feat, or a spell is, an ancestry is something you choose at the beginning of the campaign. Specific campaigns might provide a list of uncommon ancestries that are particularly appropriate for that setting, such as hobgoblins in a campaign set near Oprak, or lizardfolk for a campaign in the Mwangi Expanse, and grant access to those ancestries. In other games, these ancestries are as available as your group desires them to be.

I believe an AP falls under "specific campaign" and that Paizo is likely to take their own advice when writing one. ;)

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Player’s Guides for APs being the perfect places for such a list :3


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

The default setting is Golarion, more specifically the Inner Sea, so I would like them to set Common and Uncommon according to what makes sense for the setting. ((Note, I don't want to start a discussion about Goblins, I'll just say they are anomaly for the moment)).

It is really just that simple, honestly.

Those who want to adjust those lists to better fit the theme of their campaigns are encouraged to do so.

APs and other adventures will adjust as is relevant for the particular adventure, just as we have seen over the last decade.

Now, as to the specific ones, personally I'd prefer to see anything beyond core to be Uncommon. But that is such an easy thing for me, as the DM, to do, that I am not worried about it.

Ultimately, I want James Jacobs to decide based on what he things makes sense for the setting.


Tectorman wrote:


Are you suggesting that a player seeking to play an elf or a human should have precisely the same reasonable expectation of having to negotiate with the GM for his character as another player seeking a so-called "uncommon" race? Because if there's one thing I can't fathom, it's the mentality of "all fantasy races are equal, but some fantasy races are more equal than others".

Depends! What are we taking about here? In general PFS play in the world or Golarion? Or are we talking about homebrew campaigns? If PFS I think it would be totally ok for a player to play an Elf, as the expectation for that race is already established by their campaign setting.

In my homebrew campaign, Elves are mostly xenophobic, and highly racist against pretty much all the other races... they view them as beneath them. The few races that are in their areas are kept as slaves. They have conquered a large region, and have wiped out some of the other races in those areas they have conquered.

So if I'm running a game in my own campaign, don't you think I would be within my rights to discuss with a player who wanted to play an Elf, what to expect and ask him what kind of character he's looking to play? (To see if it will fit in with the game I plan on running) While explaining the pitfalls he may encounter if we're playing outside Elven lands and Elves are looked upon by almost all other races as jerks/villains.

Just my two cents.

Lantern Lodge Customer Service & Community Manager

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Folks, please get back to the subject of the thread: Which ancestries you think should be common in upcoming APG?. Whether or not you personally feel like common/uncommon for ancestries is a idea that works for you is a topic for a different conversation. Thanks!

51 to 62 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Paizo Products / Which ancestries you think should be common in upcoming APG? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Paizo Products