Which ancestries you think should be common in upcoming APG?


Paizo Products

1 to 50 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it would be kinda weird if orcs were uncommon when half-orcs, dwarfs, elves and goblins are common. There is major center of orc population on both Avistan and Garund and you can't claim that orcs are less accepted everywhere than goblins or half-orcs are :p

I'd think on same vein that it'd be weird if kobolds are uncommon while goblins are common since both have similar niche, both have pathfinder society membership, both have diplomatic tribes willing to work with humans, etc.

I think thought most people wouldn't agree with me that tengu should be common though, I mean, sure they are most common in shackles, but they keep showing up in every big city on avistan, they have been in land of linnorm kings, cheliax and varisia just to throw out few locations.

(complete sidenote: Are svifneblins, duergars and drow now ethnicity of gnomes, dwarves and elves instead of separate ancestries? Deep gnomes seems to be referred as gnome ethnicity and hollowborn make no mention of being able to pick drow ancestry feats, but latter two are listed in other ancestries pages. Then again it also lists planar scions who might be mechanically heritages in APG...)

But yeah, I hope Paizo doesn't go with "only core ancestries are common and every single other one is uncommon" since again, it wouldn't really make sense with certain comparisons. Heck, orcs were apparently considered for core book in 2e so it'd be extra weirder for them to be uncommon.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
I think it would be kinda weird if orcs were uncommon when half-orcs, dwarfs, elves and goblins are common. There is major center of orc population on both Avistan and Garund and you can't claim that orcs are less accepted everywhere than goblins or half-orcs are :p

Can you explain why one can't claim that orcs are less accepted than half-orcs everywhere, or at least most of everywhere?

(I do expect them to be common, I just don't think it would be bizarre for them to be uncommon.)

Contributor

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think Ratfolk should be common, especially in PFS.

Kobolds and Orcs should probably be uncommon; not because of population, but because of how frequently they become adventurers.

Catfolk should be common in Garund and uncommon everywhere else. So maybe just uncommon?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think every single ancestry to a one shouldn't have any more hoops to jump through just to play as than any other. Justifying "playing a kobold" or "playing a catfolk" should be just as difficult as justifying "playing an elf" (read: not at all). I mean, why and how does one ancestry just manufacture out of nowhere a fine print clause saying "for being interested in this ancestry rather than another, you automatically agree to an uphill battle to play your character that other players just never have to put up with, ever"?

Sometimes we're just dead tired of the only acceptable ancestries being "elf-dwarf-human-halfling" (and precious few others) time after time after time after time, as though human imagination just cannot expand beyond those few choices. I know I'm still waiting on an ancestry to see print that I might actually care about.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Make ‘em all uncommon, every non-core ancestry that doesn’t fall under “rare” for lore reasons. Then GMs will usually allow uncommon ancestries, and folks can play what they like. If we get a smattering of common ancestries- orcs, for example- then you’ll get more common-only games.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
I think it would be kinda weird if orcs were uncommon when half-orcs, dwarfs, elves and goblins are common. There is major center of orc population on both Avistan and Garund and you can't claim that orcs are less accepted everywhere than goblins or half-orcs are :p

Can you explain why one can't claim that orcs are less accepted than half-orcs everywhere, or at least most of everywhere?

(I do expect them to be common, I just don't think it would be bizarre for them to be uncommon.)

Well the goblins(they are also CE species with bad reputation whose reputation is slowly improving because of Whispering Tyrant) was the main one in that sentence, but half orcs mostly because while there are half orcs that look more like their human parent, there are really orcish half orcs. There is also that presence of half-orcs implies presence of orcs nearby.


I'm not sure what the nomenclature should be for the variation in rarity of various people's across the land. Like if we're playing a game in Casmaron, would geniekin be "common" or would you just have access to a geniekin character because of where the campaign is set?


Since the party members are the main characters of the adventure, what does it change if a race is common or uncommon?

As for orcs and kobolds, a party members is part of the 0.001% of those races who decides to become an adventurer.

A background could justify, or better "explain", anything.

Or are there rules related to uncommon ancestries?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the rules for uncommon ancestries are just "in general, ask the GM if this works for the game" with certain ancestries being called out as good choices for certain campaigns (because of where they are set.)

It's entirely possible that the GM will have a general policy of "a Nagaji in Cheliax? Everything's fine, really" but other GMs will want to keep the Dhampirs near Ustalav, the Androids near Numeria, etc.

If you think about it "check your character with the GM in session 0" is a much less onerous implication of rarity than "so, how do I get myself a Katana or the Teleport spell?"


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the rules for uncommon ancestries are just "in general, ask the GM if this works for the game" with certain ancestries being called out as good choices for certain campaigns (because of where they are set.)

It's entirely possible that the GM will have a general policy of "a Nagaji in Cheliax? Everything's fine, really" but other GMs will want to keep the Dhampirs near Ustalav, the Androids near Numeria, etc.

If you think about it "check your character with the GM in session 0" is a much less onerous implication of rarity than "so, how do I get myself a Katana or the Teleport spell?"

Yeah that's what i thought.

And everything then seems to lead to a reasoning like

"since it is common, then I am allowed to use it whether the DM decides"

If, as we agreed, given a campaign everything leads up to DM's acceptance.

I can't find a reason for worrying about the rarity of a heritage.

Sovereign Court

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

How many different threads and thread derails are we going to have on rarity? It is starting to get a bit old..

The Devs/Designers have already established that it is a tool for GM's to use (or NOT use) and explained in multiple threads , what their intentions of the system is and how you are free to ignore it if its not your cup of tea.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can see the argument for Orcs as Common and even agree with it, mostly, though I won't be heartbroken if they're Uncommon. Kobolds should likewise be Common, though again, I'm not invested enough in this to be upset if it's otherwise.

Everything else we've seen listed for the APG should be Uncommon.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Oooh the riots that will start if Kitsune are uncommon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I maintain my belief that rarity should have been dropped for region of origin, and this is just another thing that reinforces that belief. Doing things the way they've decided to do them means that some heritages aught to have been flagged which are not and there will continue to be heritages and ancestries that go unflagged due to poor editing or flagged due to laziness. A mandatory region of origin flag would have eliminated all these problems.

However, without dropping their system entirely, or writing a better one, they'd probably want to flag any race/heritage that is entirely subterranean or aquatic, has a fly, climb or swim speed, or has innate magic spells that are more than cantrips. A Focus on flagging heritages rather than ancestries would allow a more precise curation of available abilities without directly impacting ancestry selection.

Dark Archive

To be honest, this is less about game mechanics issue for me since if gm don't want to allow common ancestries that aren't in core book, they are gonna do that regardless of whether they are common or uncommon. Aka this thread isn't about rarity system and whether ancestry should be allowed for all campaigns :P This is all about keeping lore/flavor consistent with tags. So I'd think its silly if ancestries aren't common even if they really should be.

(you could actually argument that some of core ancestries(besides goblins) should be uncommon flavor wise, hence why it'd be silly if ancestries just as common as them are uncommon instead)

Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Oooh the riots that will start if Kitsune are uncommon.

I kind of expect them to be uncommon in the Inner Sea and common in the Dragon Empires. It would be pretty sweet if the PFS team kept the Season 3 "victory" of making Tian Xia races common for society players, though!

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Straight-up agree with Q.

100% of ALL non-Core Ancestries should be Uncommon and require GM approval or a PFS Boon to use. Flat-Out.

We should be encouraging players to communicate with their GM before a game, and this is the best way to do it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The idea of some ancestries (or anything else really) being common/uncommon by default gives the GM an indicator of the devs' default intention - even if you can make something normnally uncommon be common or vice versa, you at least know how you're diverging from the assumed baseline in that regard, as opposed to having to figure it all out on your own, with the system shifting all the burden onto you.

I imagine any kind of non-Inner Sea regional book will likely give advice on core ancestries' assumed rarity in the region in question - catfolk would likely be common in South Garund even if they might be uncommon in Inner Sea proper.

That said, I think kobolds and orcs should be common (though I can begrudgingly see the argument why they shouldn't be), though I'm unsure about catfolk and ratfolk - tengu should be probably uncommon however, as should all the heritages, with the possible exception of tieflings.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Jib916 wrote:

How many different threads and thread derails are we going to have on rarity? It is starting to get a bit old..

The Devs/Designers have already established that it is a tool for GM's to use (or NOT use) and explained in multiple threads , what their intentions of the system is and how you are free to ignore it if its not your cup of tea.

When Paizo publishes a rule that a significant number of customers don't like, you will see a near endless series of threads telling them exactly that. In those threads, you will see the inevitable response of those that do like the rules, telling the original posters they're wrong.

Rise, repeat.

This is a divisive topic, and it won't go away until and unless it goes away. Which it won't.

This isn't a matter of educating those who don't like the rule. It's not a matter of educating those who do. It's like McDonald's deciding to add mushrooms on the Big Mac. Some people are going to like it, some aren't. And there will be an endless stream of feedback from those who don't, asking that the burger recipe be reverted, mixed with people saying "just pick the mushrooms off." Nobody's right, nobody's wrong, it's just human nature to want to express one's self.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
Jib916 wrote:

How many different threads and thread derails are we going to have on rarity? It is starting to get a bit old..

The Devs/Designers have already established that it is a tool for GM's to use (or NOT use) and explained in multiple threads , what their intentions of the system is and how you are free to ignore it if its not your cup of tea.

When Paizo publishes a rule that a significant number of customers don't like, you will see a near endless series of threads telling them exactly that. In those threads, you will see the inevitable response of those that do like the rules, telling the original posters they're wrong.

Rise, repeat.

This is a divisive topic, and it won't go away until and unless it goes away. Which it won't.

This isn't a matter of educating those who don't like the rule. It's not a matter of educating those who do. It's like McDonald's deciding to add mushrooms on the Big Mac. Some people are going to like it, some aren't. And there will be an endless stream of feedback from those who don't, asking that the burger recipe be reverted, mixed with people saying "just pick the mushrooms off." Nobody's right, nobody's wrong, it's just human nature to want to express one's self.

Meanwhile I'm mildly annoyed by the derail (and not because I do like rarity system) since this thread wasn't supposed to be about whether you like ancestries having rarity system, but what ancestries you think should be common lore wise :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
Jib916 wrote:

How many different threads and thread derails are we going to have on rarity? It is starting to get a bit old..

The Devs/Designers have already established that it is a tool for GM's to use (or NOT use) and explained in multiple threads , what their intentions of the system is and how you are free to ignore it if its not your cup of tea.

When Paizo publishes a rule that a significant number of customers don't like, you will see a near endless series of threads telling them exactly that. In those threads, you will see the inevitable response of those that do like the rules, telling the original posters they're wrong.

Rise, repeat.

This is a divisive topic, and it won't go away until and unless it goes away. Which it won't.

This isn't a matter of educating those who don't like the rule. It's not a matter of educating those who do. It's like McDonald's deciding to add mushrooms on the Big Mac. Some people are going to like it, some aren't. And there will be an endless stream of feedback from those who don't, asking that the burger recipe be reverted, mixed with people saying "just pick the mushrooms off." Nobody's right, nobody's wrong, it's just human nature to want to express one's self.

So it is just a way to say

"Rules say they are common, so i can take it"

It is just a reason you can Pick to argue with a DM who would not let you play specific stuff.

Or else, seriously, feel free to propose a real scenario when a common/uncommon request could not be decided with a discussion between players and DM.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
K1 wrote:
Anguish wrote:
Jib916 wrote:

How many different threads and thread derails are we going to have on rarity? It is starting to get a bit old..

The Devs/Designers have already established that it is a tool for GM's to use (or NOT use) and explained in multiple threads , what their intentions of the system is and how you are free to ignore it if its not your cup of tea.

When Paizo publishes a rule that a significant number of customers don't like, you will see a near endless series of threads telling them exactly that. In those threads, you will see the inevitable response of those that do like the rules, telling the original posters they're wrong.

Rise, repeat.

This is a divisive topic, and it won't go away until and unless it goes away. Which it won't.

This isn't a matter of educating those who don't like the rule. It's not a matter of educating those who do. It's like McDonald's deciding to add mushrooms on the Big Mac. Some people are going to like it, some aren't. And there will be an endless stream of feedback from those who don't, asking that the burger recipe be reverted, mixed with people saying "just pick the mushrooms off." Nobody's right, nobody's wrong, it's just human nature to want to express one's self.

So it is just a way to say

"Rules say they are common, so i can take it"

It is just a reason you can Pick to argue with a DM who would not let you play specific stuff.

Or else, seriously, feel free to propose a real scenario when a common/uncommon request could not be decided with a discussion between players and DM.

If you want to play an elf, do you feel like it should just be expected that you should have to negotiate for it and potentially wear out your welcome each and every time? Because I for one know that I'm not signing up for that hassle just because I have what is somehow the unmitigated gall to prefer a so-called "uncommon" race over the something in the CRB.

In a game all about the imagination, why are measures that lead to "you're thinking too far outside the box, so let's correct your bad-wrong imagination" so celebrated?

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

So much salt from the "I want it all and I want it NOW!" crowd lately.

Seriously, if you aren't equipped/mature enough to have a conversation with your GM about what are appropriate Ancestry, Spell, and Feat options for the game you'll be playing, you're not ready to Role/Rollplay.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

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.


Tectorman wrote:
K1 wrote:
Anguish wrote:
Jib916 wrote:

How many different threads and thread derails are we going to have on rarity? It is starting to get a bit old..

The Devs/Designers have already established that it is a tool for GM's to use (or NOT use) and explained in multiple threads , what their intentions of the system is and how you are free to ignore it if its not your cup of tea.

When Paizo publishes a rule that a significant number of customers don't like, you will see a near endless series of threads telling them exactly that. In those threads, you will see the inevitable response of those that do like the rules, telling the original posters they're wrong.

Rise, repeat.

This is a divisive topic, and it won't go away until and unless it goes away. Which it won't.

This isn't a matter of educating those who don't like the rule. It's not a matter of educating those who do. It's like McDonald's deciding to add mushrooms on the Big Mac. Some people are going to like it, some aren't. And there will be an endless stream of feedback from those who don't, asking that the burger recipe be reverted, mixed with people saying "just pick the mushrooms off." Nobody's right, nobody's wrong, it's just human nature to want to express one's self.

So it is just a way to say

"Rules say they are common, so i can take it"

It is just a reason you can Pick to argue with a DM who would not let you play specific stuff.

Or else, seriously, feel free to propose a real scenario when a common/uncommon request could not be decided with a discussion between players and DM.

If you want to play an elf, do you feel like it should just be expected that you should have to negotiate for it and potentially wear out your welcome each and every time? Because I for one know that I'm not signing up for that hassle just because I have what is somehow the unmitigated gall to prefer a so-called "uncommon" race over the something in the CRB.

In a game all about the...

If you play a game you are with your DM and party. If you all agree on allowing stuff, then you don't need neither common/uncommon degrees nor rules.

Different is if somebody tries to Cling to rules, in order to get what he wants.

I am going to play a orc

No you are not. Because in the current campaign orcs are mostly seen as enemies, and you will be forced to stay out of cities, and as a party your friends will suffer from this situation too.

No, you can't force me not to play a orc, because it is marked as common race. So people are used to it.

And so on.

While on another scenario, with just communication.

Hey, what about Karl playing my mount? Maybe a little dragon or a shapeshifter who got stuck in his current form.

A dragon seems too much for a low lvl group of adventurers, but I am fine with a horse, a Wolf or something like that.

...

These are the only use for common and uncommon I see. A pretext to decide without needing any permission.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
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.

That's not quite how Paizo deals / recommends dealing with it, actually.

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.

Accordingly, the three uncommon races in that book do not have Access specified.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:

So much salt from the "I want it all and I want it NOW!" crowd lately.

Seriously, if you aren't equipped/mature enough to have a conversation with your GM about what are appropriate Ancestry, Spell, and Feat options for the game you'll be playing, you're not ready to Role/Rollplay.

Does that new gate keeping job of yours pay well?

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:

So much salt from the "I want it all and I want it NOW!" crowd lately.

Seriously, if you aren't equipped/mature enough to have a conversation with your GM about what are appropriate Ancestry, Spell, and Feat options for the game you'll be playing, you're not ready to Role/Rollplay.

Does that new gate keeping job of yours pay well?

Sassy today! The job of a GM is quite literally to determine what is and is not appropriate for their game. If that's controversial to some folks, I really don't know what to say to that.

Are you saying that all players should by default never have to run their character options past their GM before play? I simply cannot fathom your attitude as a player if you feel entitled to play literally anything and everything ever printed at an actual game-table without communicating with the person actually running the game.

That being said, I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with a GM openly stating "You can use whatever you like" for their game, I'm simply stating that the entitlement some folks have who are bemoaning their perceived loss via the inclusion of the Rarity system is mind-blowing to me. It's literally as hard as asking a four-word question and if people aren't equipped to handle that I'm not sure how they could ever handle an actual game.

"Are XXXX Ancestries available?"


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

So much salt from the "I want it all and I want it NOW!" crowd lately.

Seriously, if you aren't equipped/mature enough to have a conversation with your GM about what are appropriate Ancestry, Spell, and Feat options for the game you'll be playing, you're not ready to Role/Rollplay.

Spare me. The only difference between the player who wants to play an elf and can't deal with it maturely if elves aren't deemed appropriate and the player who wants to play a so-called "uncommon" race, can't, and similarly doesn't handle it maturely is that the elf player will likely never have to face that scenario and have his immaturity called out.

Themetricsystem wrote:
Are you saying that all players should by default never have to run their character options past their GM before play? I simply cannot fathom your attitude as a player if you feel entitled to play literally anything and everything ever printed at an actual game-table without communicating with the person actually running the game.

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".


Themetricsystem wrote:

Straight-up agree with Q.

100% of ALL non-Core Ancestries should be Uncommon and require GM approval or a PFS Boon to use. Flat-Out.

We should be encouraging players to communicate with their GM before a game, and this is the best way to do it.

I want them all uncommon so I don’t have to talk to the GM as often, so that “uncommon and common” is the easy default for online games and covers what most people want to play.


I think a lot of time the ancestry of a given character is a core part of the concept and the player comes to the GM with "Hey, I really want to play [whatever weird thing]" in most cases the GM is not going to say "no" without a really good reason (e.g. a Hobgoblin PC in Ironfang Invasion is a lot more work for the GM), or unless it's something truly weird (like a Kasatha or an Astomoi).

If the concept of your character is "a Cecaelia explorer who is a good-natured flibbertigibbet" You're probably going to get to do that most of the time if it's not singularly inappropriate.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:

So much salt from the "I want it all and I want it NOW!" crowd lately.

Seriously, if you aren't equipped/mature enough to have a conversation with your GM about what are appropriate Ancestry, Spell, and Feat options for the game you'll be playing, you're not ready to Role/Rollplay.

Does that new gate keeping job of yours pay well?
Sassy today! The job of a GM is quite literally to determine what is and is not appropriate for their game. If that's controversial to some folks, I really don't know what to say to that.

I just don't think anyone should be telling anyone else whether or not they are ready to roleplay. It's a personal decision.

Declaring such things on the official forum won't accomplish anything except to maybe scare off new players and GMs from the hobby. It's just not neccessary.

Liberty's Edge

I... disagree.

It's not a personal decision, it's the GM's decision. This topic has been beaten to death really and it's clear that many folks are clearly on one side or another of the topic, and some are indeed quite militant about it, so I'll just leave it at the following.

If someone isn't ready to follow the rules set our as the baseline by a given GM or even ask what those rules are... then I don't think cooperative storytelling games are the right hobby for them. I don't see how that is in any way controversial, it's like saying you should be understanding of players who want full-contact/tackle football and demand a change when they signed up for a touch game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Asking for ancestries is a drag; it’s like needing to ask about a class for me. I personally can’t start planning until I know what ancestry I’m going with. So, I want as few two-to-twelve hour delays before starting as possible. I don’t mind asking about spells and feats and items, but ancestries are core to my characters. So, I want it to be something that GMs answer in their initial post up front, because it’ll come up over and over.


Azlanti. Definitely Azlanti. And Androffans.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Azlanti are no longer a distinct ancestry, so no chance for that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
Asking for ancestries is a drag; it’s like needing to ask about a class for me. I personally can’t start planning until I know what ancestry I’m going with. So, I want as few two-to-twelve hour delays before starting as possible. I don’t mind asking about spells and feats and items, but ancestries are core to my characters. So, I want it to be something that GMs answer in their initial post up front, because it’ll come up over and over.

Agreed. I'd rather all the ancestries be common and have the DM decide what's uncommon/rare for his game vs the game doing that and the DM having to agree or disagree with that. Now he might have to make common ones uncommon [like goblin] while going the other direction with others.

Dark Archive

Is it really that much of bother to ask gm first before coming up with character ide-

Almost getting caught up in derail of the thread I made that got derailed :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
I think it would be kinda weird if orcs were uncommon when half-orcs, dwarfs, elves and goblins are common. There is major center of orc population on both Avistan and Garund and you can't claim that orcs are less accepted everywhere than goblins or half-orcs are :p

Can you explain why one can't claim that orcs are less accepted than half-orcs everywhere, or at least most of everywhere?

(I do expect them to be common, I just don't think it would be bizarre for them to be uncommon.)

Well the goblins(they are also CE species with bad reputation whose reputation is slowly improving because of Whispering Tyrant) was the main one in that sentence, but half orcs mostly because while there are half orcs that look more like their human parent, there are really orcish half orcs. There is also that presence of half-orcs implies presence of orcs nearby.

Not really. If you read into it, most half-orcs are actually the product of half-orc/half-orc pairings. It's just not what one 'sterotypically' thinks when they see a half-orc. There's a prejudice to assume it comes from an orc on human rape.

Previously the books have pointed out that Half-orcs have been a thing for thousands of years and breed just fine with each other, when they're not purposefully created by either side.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I think what a lot of people aren't seeing, or are choosing not to see is this...

It's not that people don't want to communicate with the GM, prior to making their character and what ever ancestry it may be. All players realize they're going to have to tell the GM what they're making/bringing before they start rolling dice.

The problem comes up, when GM's DO just blanket disallow things.
Some of you may not have faced it. If not. Good.
I can personally tell you it DOES come up. GM's being all 'Common races only!" or "Only one uncommon race to the group" The "Only One Chewie Rule" and variations on a theme. They see the distinction as much more cut and dryed. "Common=good" "Uncommon=TROUBLE" and just hand wave it and draw a line in the sand. They don't want to hear why your uncommon character could fit in. Why he might be where the game is set or what he brings to the game. They hit that 'Uncommon' designation like a wall and BOOM. Conversation -over-. I've seen players flat out thrown out of groups by just TRYING to get races approved. Not even in a 'bad' way, but some people are just so hide bound that they take it as a personal affront.

Now it's easy to go "Don't play with jerks like that" but it can be hard to find groups, that you can get to, play with, have time to do so, all at the same time, etc etc etc.

So... the result is, by naming some races uncommon they are being effectively barred from many games. Period. No debate allowed.

This isn't a matter of the GM thinking they won't fit. It's a matter of many GM's not even reading past the designation and therefore limiting a bunch of player and character options based on that single designation.

This is why the designation is important.

Yes I've read how it's layed out in the book. I'm telling you. With over 30 years of RP experience in my bag, --many gms don't care. If it's uncommon or rare it's simply disallowed. PERIOD--.

That said. One sort of needs to look at it and if it's 'worth' it to put in such designations and where those lines are drawn.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
CorvusMask wrote:
Meanwhile I'm mildly annoyed by the derail (and not because I do like rarity system) since this thread wasn't supposed to be about whether you like ancestries having rarity system, but what ancestries you think should be common lore wise :P

Okay. I think every ancestry should be common. It should be part of the standard player/GM negotiation that starts at any campaign to decide what is fun/appropriate for the story.

It's not possible for Paizo to accurately predict what will fit in my game.

Let me say that again: it's not possible for Paizo to accurately predict waht will fit in my game. Am I running a desert-themed campaign where an ice-elemental ancestry makes no sense or am I running an ice-age story where it makes more sense than a human or half-elf? Impossible to predict. EVERY choice is "ask the DM".

So while my answer parallels the "do you like the rarity system", it's only because reasons. I do not believe that lacking a rarity system implies "all is allowed"... I believe having a rarity system implies "this is NOT allowed", and I believe that implication doesn't work for me.

At our table, EVERY PC character sheet is sent to a DM as a proposal. "May I / should I play this?" That's our table.

At the general table, I maintain I don't see how published rarity makes sense with ANY ancestries. Items? Sure. I don't like it, but it makes sense. Spells? I don't like it, but it makes sense. Ancestries? No.

If Leshies don't fit in my everyone's-an-undead campaign, Paizo can't know that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
K1 wrote:
Or else, seriously, feel free to propose a real scenario when a common/uncommon request could not be decided with a discussion between players and DM.

At my tables we always, always discuss what the themes, settings, and starting assumptions are for campaigns. Everything is "common", but some things are just... not going to be fun or playable. To us, ancestral rarity is redundant and misleading, because Paizo can't know what is appropriate for whatever story we're telling. Items and spells are another story because they're so much less fundamental. But ancestry... I can't fathom a (functional) game that doesn't involve a pre-game GM/player discussion.

I believe Paizo has included rarity for ancestries to represent their relative commonality within Golarion, not for balance purposes.

Dark Archive

Anguish wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
Meanwhile I'm mildly annoyed by the derail (and not because I do like rarity system) since this thread wasn't supposed to be about whether you like ancestries having rarity system, but what ancestries you think should be common lore wise :P

Okay. I think every ancestry should be common. It should be part of the standard player/GM negotiation that starts at any campaign to decide what is fun/appropriate for the story.

It's not possible for Paizo to accurately predict what will fit in my game.

Let me say that again: it's not possible for Paizo to accurately predict waht will fit in my game. Am I running a desert-themed campaign where an ice-elemental ancestry makes no sense or am I running an ice-age story where it makes more sense than a human or half-elf? Impossible to predict. EVERY choice is "ask the DM".

So while my answer parallels the "do you like the rarity system", it's only because reasons. I do not believe that lacking a rarity system implies "all is allowed"... I believe having a rarity system implies "this is NOT allowed", and I believe that implication doesn't work for me.

At our table, EVERY PC character sheet is sent to a DM as a proposal. "May I / should I play this?" That's our table.

At the general table, I maintain I don't see how published rarity makes sense with ANY ancestries. Items? Sure. I don't like it, but it makes sense. Spells? I don't like it, but it makes sense. Ancestries? No.

If Leshies don't fit in my everyone's-an-undead campaign, Paizo can't know that.

That is more of meta reasoning than lore reasoning, but that is still on topic so thank you :D


2 people marked this as a favorite.
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!


I mean if APs and PFS seasons (or whatever they're called) specify "these uncommon ancestries are available to players", is "some popular things are uncommon" really going to be a problem?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not really. Kobolds are just always looking for an excuse to riot.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Not really. Kobolds are just always looking for an excuse to riot.

HOW DARE YOU! WE RIOT! *kicks over a garbage can*

Liberty's Edge

*sigh*

"This is why we don't get the nice things like respect or consideration. We can do better than goblins, even in riots... they'll be the nicest, most orderly riots you've ever seen. Kicking a can over doesn't do much except make noise. Kicking a can over that is loaded with three weeks of fish guts... now, that, that is how you start a riot..."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Should we maybe steal all their silver and candles then maybe?

1 to 50 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.