Does anyone else want playable serpentfolk?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 229 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Can we do non-bipedal ancestries as a batch? We can do hypothetical snake people, centaurs, merfolk, and cecaelias all at once if we figure out how "nonstandard legs" works (for the cecaelias those are technically arms).

People in this thread want slithery folks, I know in the past a lot of people have been interested in centaurs, and I very much want my doofy octopus people back.

I think non-bipedal ancestries should work better in 2E, since extra limbs no longer provide mechanical benefits.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition Subscriber
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Can we do non-bipedal ancestries as a batch? We can do hypothetical snake people, centaurs, merfolk, and cecaelias all at once if we figure out how "nonstandard legs" works (for the cecaelias those are technically arms).

People in this thread want slithery folks, I know in the past a lot of people have been interested in centaurs, and I very much want my doofy octopus people back.

I think non-bipedal ancestries should work better in 2E, since extra limbs no longer provide mechanical benefits.

Except athletics maneuvers, really. I think you can do some wonky stuff with a shield and a bow or two-hander too.

Dark Archive

Okay found the youtube video :D Yeah serpentfolk in the bestiary itself are much more to my taste than the cover picture


Sporkedup wrote:
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Can we do non-bipedal ancestries as a batch? We can do hypothetical snake people, centaurs, merfolk, and cecaelias all at once if we figure out how "nonstandard legs" works (for the cecaelias those are technically arms).

People in this thread want slithery folks, I know in the past a lot of people have been interested in centaurs, and I very much want my doofy octopus people back.

I think non-bipedal ancestries should work better in 2E, since extra limbs no longer provide mechanical benefits.
Except athletics maneuvers, really. I think you can do some wonky stuff with a shield and a bow or two-hander too.

Eh, at most 1 better than an archer or two-hander that Multiclasses into a caster with the Shield cantrip.

ETA: Well, maybe some Specific Shield abilities could have interesting interactions.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Shinigami02 wrote:
Sporkedup wrote:
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Can we do non-bipedal ancestries as a batch? We can do hypothetical snake people, centaurs, merfolk, and cecaelias all at once if we figure out how "nonstandard legs" works (for the cecaelias those are technically arms).

People in this thread want slithery folks, I know in the past a lot of people have been interested in centaurs, and I very much want my doofy octopus people back.

I think non-bipedal ancestries should work better in 2E, since extra limbs no longer provide mechanical benefits.
Except athletics maneuvers, really. I think you can do some wonky stuff with a shield and a bow or two-hander too.

Eh, at most 1 better than an archer or two-hander that Multiclasses into a caster with the Shield cantrip.

ETA: Well, maybe some Specific Shield abilities could have interesting interactions.

Yeah. Plus I think removing the only downside to two-hander weapons would be an error.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
CorvusMask wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
B2 cover art for serpentfolk isn't actually to my taste since something about shape of head feels less serpentlike to me, but I haven't but my finger to it yet. Like it feels they have less of snout(to boop) and more of flat face like xulgath do maybe?
If you've seen it from the gaming gang preview, how do you feel about the interior art for them? Does it apply to those images as well?
What preview? I wanna see!

https://youtu.be/Oakh9p1NVDE?t=2 for the whole thing

Serpent Folk are at... https://youtu.be/Oakh9p1NVDE?t=1097

edit: leaving it up for anyone else, but oh yeah, I see that you see it now, lol

Scarab Sages

Sporkedup wrote:
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Can we do non-bipedal ancestries as a batch? We can do hypothetical snake people, centaurs, merfolk, and cecaelias all at once if we figure out how "nonstandard legs" works (for the cecaelias those are technically arms).

People in this thread want slithery folks, I know in the past a lot of people have been interested in centaurs, and I very much want my doofy octopus people back.

I think non-bipedal ancestries should work better in 2E, since extra limbs no longer provide mechanical benefits.
Except athletics maneuvers, really. I think you can do some wonky stuff with a shield and a bow or two-hander too.

I meant things like bonuses or immunity to being Tripped, like centaurs or anything lacking legs.

I doubt we'll see an ancestry that uses more than 2 hands in 2E.


NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Sporkedup wrote:
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Can we do non-bipedal ancestries as a batch? We can do hypothetical snake people, centaurs, merfolk, and cecaelias all at once if we figure out how "nonstandard legs" works (for the cecaelias those are technically arms).

People in this thread want slithery folks, I know in the past a lot of people have been interested in centaurs, and I very much want my doofy octopus people back.

I think non-bipedal ancestries should work better in 2E, since extra limbs no longer provide mechanical benefits.
Except athletics maneuvers, really. I think you can do some wonky stuff with a shield and a bow or two-hander too.

I meant things like bonuses or immunity to being Tripped, like centaurs or anything lacking legs.

I doubt we'll see an ancestry that uses more than 2 hands in 2E.

At least until they do a book with Numeria and bring back the Kasatha. Which, while that will be a can of worms, I'm looking forward to that day so we can get Androids back too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Androids are the ancestry I want most in 2e

Paizo Employee Creative Director

26 people marked this as a favorite.

On the topic of an android ancestry in 2nd edition (REDACTED BY THE WAIT FOR PAIZOCON ONLINE POLICE), so there's that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What a terrible thing for a dev to do


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do believe that may be my favorite post in the thread James.


James Jacobs wrote:
So... in hopes of shifting this thread's topic to a more positive light, I'd love it if folks talk about what they DO want in a snake-themed player ancestry. Not serpentfolk. Not nagaji. I want to know what it is about snake-themed PC ancestries folks want. Is it a sleek, serpentine body for your PC, perhaps one with no legs or even no arms? Is it the ability to use a poison bite? A forked tongue that grants scent? Links to real-world snakes? Or is it merely the desire to play a member of an ancestry against type thematically—the same sort of thing that's attractive about playing a good drow or a redeemed demon or the like?

I've always been kind of 'meh' on poison bite options. Because they usually require you to build just for that, since unarmed strikes have always been their own thing, and doesn't mix too well with other builds. Also, I think we have an overabundance of "Face" based attacks- it always seemed awkward to me for humanoids.

Maybe if the poison was used separately? Similar to the rogue poison feats?

I think I would prefer a focus on charm and intimidation, with possible occult leanings. Maybe grappling and powerful whipping of tails?

Oh. Reach build. Maybe as a single action ability that gives them extra distance for their AoO abilities. That would be a great use for a third action on a fighter.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm definitely on the side of snake-people without legs, love the idea of venom as a bite or as a ranged attack, maybe the ability to grapple with your body instead of a free hand, that sort of thing.


lemeres wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
So... in hopes of shifting this thread's topic to a more positive light, I'd love it if folks talk about what they DO want in a snake-themed player ancestry. Not serpentfolk. Not nagaji. I want to know what it is about snake-themed PC ancestries folks want. Is it a sleek, serpentine body for your PC, perhaps one with no legs or even no arms? Is it the ability to use a poison bite? A forked tongue that grants scent? Links to real-world snakes? Or is it merely the desire to play a member of an ancestry against type thematically—the same sort of thing that's attractive about playing a good drow or a redeemed demon or the like?

I've always been kind of 'meh' on poison bite options. Because they usually require you to build just for that, since unarmed strikes have always been their own thing, and doesn't mix too well with other builds. Also, I think we have an overabundance of "Face" based attacks- it always seemed awkward to me for humanoids.

Maybe if the poison was used separately? Similar to the rogue poison feats?

I think I would prefer a focus on charm and intimidation, with possible occult leanings. Maybe grappling and powerful whipping of tails?

Oh. Reach build. Maybe as a single action ability that gives them extra distance for their AoO abilities. That would be a great use for a third action on a fighter.

That's the great thing about Heritages, we can have both.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Not to be contrary but I kind of always liked how physically imposing Nagaji have been portrayed.

A lot of snakes are big and horrifically strong animals and I think a lot of that is lost when most fiction tends to lean on agile, clever serpents. The fact that Nagaji are very serpentine while also not just leaning into the traditional quick and scheming archetype is a plus for me.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
On the topic of an android ancestry in 2nd edition (REDACTED BY THE WAIT FOR PAIZOCON ONLINE POLICE), so there's that.

Nice!


Shinigami02 wrote:
That's the great thing about Heritages, we can have both.

I threw a bunch of ideas at the wall hoping something would stick. Are we talking about the poison?

You can take both poison options...but that doesn't mean you will use both. It is like an iruxi that takes the claw feats, and then he goes into a tiger stance monk (which covers most of the advantages of the claws anyway).

In this case, the class option is not restricted to a particular natural attack, and as a class feat tree, I feel it would have better damage scaling.


I mean more have a Heritage that leans into poison based natural attacks (e.g. bites, possibly with spitting as a feat), one that leans into Poison Use (though it's possible that poisoning weapons might just be a feat of the previous), one that leans into the Occult connections, one that leans into the grappling and tail attacks (possibly starting with reach, or granting it as a feat). Having all of them in a single character would be very feat intensive and also kind of all over the place, but they would be great bases for multiple Heritages.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
So... in hopes of shifting this thread's topic to a more positive light, I'd love it if folks talk about what they DO want in a snake-themed player ancestry. Not serpentfolk. Not nagaji. I want to know what it is about snake-themed PC ancestries folks want. Is it a sleek, serpentine body for your PC, perhaps one with no legs or even no arms? Is it the ability to use a poison bite? A forked tongue that grants scent? Links to real-world snakes? Or is it merely the desire to play a member of an ancestry against type thematically—the same sort of thing that's attractive about playing a good drow or a redeemed demon or the like?

Aesthetically speaking, more "monstrous" designs really reach out to me moreso than more humanoid ones. A sleek, snake-like body hits that mark, and the possibility of a legless ancestry (especially if the tail could function as a third limb of sorts) would be amazing.

Fangs, a strong feat tree for poisons, imprecise scent sense all sound good. Maybe a cold-blooded function that adapts to environmental temperatures (better with deserts, terrible with arctics). And definitely an imposing presence (intimation via cobra rattles, maybe?).

There's a lot of look forward to for a snake ancestry, for sure. And thank you so much for proposing the new topic!


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I was going to say all these things about "sleek" and "agile" and stuff like that but honestly Gorbacz totally outed me.

I just really want playable XCOM vipers. Like, seriously. Give me springy, cunning snakey-girls with poison fangs and an ancestry feat for crushing people in their coils as part of a grapple, and I will be all over that.

Dark Archive

Green Ronin's Freeport Companion has a PC-balanced version of Serpentfolk for Pathfinder First Edition, which shouldn't be too difficult to adapt over. It's the sleeker +Dex option, IIRC, but my book isn't at hand at the moment.

It seemed more geared as a monster where the class levels (usually in sorcerer or wizard) were more the 'meat' of the build, than the monster HD and supernatural and spell-like abilities (like a mind flayer or succubus), so that made it kind of a hop-and-a-jump over to being PC-ready anyway.

For the legless/armless option, I wouldn't mind someday having actual playable Naga. Not some fiddly little half-race, just juvenile members of the actual naga race (just with no racial HD and much reduced personal powers, because they have to go through some sort of molting/personal evolution to get that stuff, at conveniently higher levels, and in exchange for reduced class options/features/feats, when it doesn't impact play balance as much).

Gnolls are number one on my freaky anthro-race wish list, but serpentfolk and lizardfolk aren't far from the top of that list, as well! And aranea! Maybe some sort of other bug-people who aren't obvious thri-kreen, xixchil, aspis, phraint wannabes. Oh, it's a long list...

(Granted, with Nagaji, whom I'm not a fan of, and Vishkanya, whom I very much am, and want to know more!, it's not like we are starved for reptilian PC options.)


Ditto on the Xcom Vipers. I was leaning on the side of Serpentfolk should be playable up until I saw they're another human with an animal head deal.

It is kinda weird how Pathfinder has 3 snake races and they range from humans with snake-y traits to scalie human with snake head. Seems a little redundant, especially considering none of them have tails or are legless.

My top choices for Monstrous races are probably Lizardfolk (check), Xcom-Viper snake people, Kahjiit (check), and Dragonborn (or really, a dragon race, not even necessarily humanoid, but still medium sized and ready for adventuring). Elder Scrolls is definitely an influence on those choices, but what can I say :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really don't care for "dragon people" personally.

Silver Crusade

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I really don't care for "dragon people" personally.

Kobolds are better. And plushier.


Rysky wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I really don't care for "dragon people" personally.
Kobolds are better. And plushier.

I mean, of all my wants Dragonborn are kinda least on my list. I just like having breath weapons, and I would rather be a dragon race than a half-dragon. Feels a little too OC do not steal. Plus I've always been into the idea of sapient non-bipedal creatures, and dragons fit that bill pretty well in dnd.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rysky wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I really don't care for "dragon people" personally.
Kobolds are better. And plushier.

Darnit, Rysky, I'd managed to forget how desperately I want a kobold plushie until now. :P

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Chernobue plushie or riot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
RoastCabose wrote:
Rysky wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I really don't care for "dragon people" personally.
Kobolds are better. And plushier.
I mean, of all my wants Dragonborn are kinda least on my list. I just like having breath weapons, and I would rather be a dragon race than a half-dragon. Feels a little too OC do not steal. Plus I've always been into the idea of sapient non-bipedal creatures, and dragons fit that bill pretty well in dnd.

...I had totally forgotten half-dragons were a thing. I wonder if that will be a universal heritage at some point.

I don’t need them though, I’m just curious. We have kobolds, as Rysky correctly points out.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
MaxAstro wrote:
Rysky wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I really don't care for "dragon people" personally.
Kobolds are better. And plushier.
Darnit, Rysky, I'd managed to forget how desperately I want a kobold plushie until now. :P

Muahaha, the plushie goodness lives on!


cool snake things that could be used as character options:

cold blooded (fire resistance/cold vuln)
hypnotic stare/charm
bite attack (not all are poison)
poison (some damage/others stun/hold)
swallow whole
climb/swim speed
able to squeeze
scent sight
grab (or at least maintain a grapple after it's made without using hands)

Visual:
forked tongue
slitted eyes
scales
serpent body
hood

I could also see them having paths that are either very good at illusion magic.

Just thoughts.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The new art preview just made me want them more.


Rysky wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I really don't care for "dragon people" personally.
Kobolds are better. And plushier.

Well, PF1 Kobolds were pretty cool I guess.

keftiu wrote:
The new art preview just made me want them more.

Kinda same. The new art is really nice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
RoastCabose wrote:
Rysky wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I really don't care for "dragon people" personally.
Kobolds are better. And plushier.
I mean, of all my wants Dragonborn are kinda least on my list. I just like having breath weapons, and I would rather be a dragon race than a half-dragon. Feels a little too OC do not steal. Plus I've always been into the idea of sapient non-bipedal creatures, and dragons fit that bill pretty well in dnd.

...I had totally forgotten half-dragons were a thing. I wonder if that will be a universal heritage at some point.

I don’t need them though, I’m just curious. We have kobolds, as Rysky correctly points out.

Well, that's not quite fair, is it? Kobolds are quite distinctly undragon-like. They worship dragons, but are otherwise diminutive, cowardly, and don't have a breath weapon. As much as I like kobolds, and I love kobolds, they are far from dragon people. They didn't even have scales and strict association with dragons until like 3e, if I remember correctly. They used to be more dog like.

Regardless, I'm not really advocating for Dragonborn in Pathfinder. While I would thinks that's neat, and would love to see their ancestry feats and what not, they are ultimately a dnd property. I do want a "dragon people" in pathfinder, but I hope they're more creative then Dragonborn, who are pretty bereft of decent lore, imo.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

We have the Wyvaren.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RoastCabose wrote:

Well, that's not quite fair, is it? Kobolds are quite distinctly undragon-like. They worship dragons, but are otherwise diminutive, cowardly, and don't have a breath weapon. As much as I like kobolds, and I love kobolds, they are far from dragon people. They didn't even have scales and strict association with dragons until like 3e, if I remember correctly. They used to be more dog like.

Regardless, I'm not really advocating for Dragonborn in Pathfinder. While I would thinks that's neat, and would love to see their ancestry feats and what not, they are ultimately a dnd property. I do want a "dragon people" in pathfinder, but I hope they're more creative then Dragonborn, who are pretty bereft of decent lore, imo.

It is like saying pugwampis are werewolves.

Rysky wrote:
We have the Wyvaren.

They could serve in that role, but currently, they are rather....muddled right now.

As far as art direction goes, it has the unfortunate trait of inheriting a bit TOO much from kobold publishing history across different editions and writers. They get a mix of both reptile and dog like traits.

There is also the issue of wings, which is always an issue worth considering, at least when it is an option from level 1.


RoastCabose wrote:
They didn't even have scales and strict association with dragons until like 3e, if I remember correctly. They used to be more dog like.

The dragon link was in 3e, but they've pretty much always been scaly. The illustration in the 1e MM clearly showed them with scales even if the text didn't mention it, and the description in Basic D&D (the Mentzer version from 1983) describes them as having "scaly, rust-brown skin and no hair." Dog-shaped, yes, but still scaly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
RoastCabose wrote:
Well, that's not quite fair, is it? Kobolds are quite distinctly undragon-like. They worship dragons, but are otherwise diminutive, cowardly, and don't have a breath weapon. As much as I like kobolds, and I love kobolds, they are far from dragon people. They didn't even have scales and strict association with dragons until like 3e, if I remember correctly. They used to be more dog like.

3.0 premiered 20 years ago. New link or not, it is well established by now, including the entirety of the published Lost Omen's setting. I'm not saying to disregard the entire history, but for myself I'm more inclined to value the way they've been depicted in pathfinder, which includes a tie to dragons.

Edit: in fact, I'm a little disappointed they weren't just made dragons in this edition. The creature type rules largely no longer exist, so I could have seen them getting that trait instead of humanoid with no increase in power.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm comfortable with Kobolds as our Dragon-people so long as they get the support for that they need-- the winged kobolds are a big part of that, and maybe a feat to give them a breath weapon or something?

Dragonborn from that other game have always struck me as too generic a "dragon person" so I appreciate kobolds having the depth of somewhat conflicting niches.


Rysky wrote:
We have the Wyvaren.

Ooh, that's another ancestry I'd like to see. The ancestry system could do a lot to really flesh them out and they do a good job covering the brutish/imposing aspects of dragonicity that kobolds don't really do while still feeling a bit more than D&D dragonborn.

Dark Archive

The-Magic-Sword wrote:
I'm comfortable with Kobolds as our Dragon-people so long as they get the support for that they need-- the winged kobolds are a big part of that, and maybe a feat to give them a breath weapon or something?

I like the notion that in some worlds, kobolds may have some ties to dragons (such as one notion where they hatch in litters of 2 to 5 from unfertilized dragon eggs, which a female dragon lays a few of every year, whether they've mated or not, and the little blighters can breed on their own from that point) while in other worlds the kobolds might merely have a massive inferiority complex, *claim* to be related to dragons, and have used magic over centuries to adopt various draconic traits, so that, mechanically, they are no different from kobolds who *are* 'related to dragons.'

It could be fun to get all Schrodinger and leave it up in the air. Are the kobolds dragonspawn or totally deluded? The dragons aren't fessing up to the truth about it... (Indeed, if the dragon-egg-hatching thing, for whatever reason, no longer happens, and hasn't for centuries, most modern dragons might not even know the truth!)

Mechanically, I'd be inclined to have any kobold breath weapon be in keeping with their small stature. A 'red' kobold spits a glob of fiery phlegm that acts like alchemist's fire, for instance, he doesn't really 'breathe fire' in a 30 ft. cone for 6d6 or whatever (not even once / day). Add in some more minor stuff, related to the draconic abilities of their color, such as fire resistance equal to their HD/class level, or the ability to see through smoke (but not fog), or for a 'white' kobold to have similar cold resistance, and the ability to move unhindered across snow and ice (both not slipping on ice, and not having to move slowly through heavy snow), and they end up with some powerful racial advantages in their native terrains, but nothing that's quite as sexy as a serious breath weapon, or at will flight, or an aura of dragon fear.

I don't know why, but I never really got into the Wyvarans. (Or the Draconians of Krynn, or the Dragonborn of D&D. Although I was a total sucker for the variant Lizardfolk, the Poison Dusk, etc. back towards the end of 3.5.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Set wrote:
Gnolls are number one on my freaky anthro-race wish list, but serpentfolk and lizardfolk aren't far from the top of that list, as well! And aranea! Maybe some sort of other bug-people who aren't obvious thri-kreen, xixchil, aspis, phraint wannabes. Oh, it's a long list...

I mean, if we are talking bug-people, Anadi have literally been on my WANT list since before 2e hit shelves (thank you AP subscription). They are awesome, unique, entirely Paizo’s own thing, peacock spiders are adorable, Grandmother Spider is the best deity, and Garund seems to be an area of Golarion that is getting fleshed out right. That is a lot of things working in their favour if we are getting a Garund hardback somewhere down the road...

(Admittedly, spiders being a common phobia probably works hard against them, but one can dream)

Agreed on Gnolls too! I enjoy having them in every setting I play with and they aren’t always evil either. Plus hyenas are awesome!

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Playable Yeens and Spooders would be awesome.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Anadi and some sort of sapient ooze are high on my list.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think I’ve made “give us Anadi” and “give us Gnolls” threads before :p


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
James Jacobs wrote:

I do hear that folks are eager for a PC snake themed ancestry, and that will probably push nagaji closer to the top of the to-do list. While we do weigh customer feedback and requests when deciding what content we wish to produce, though, it's not the only factor that helps us make decisions. For serpentfolk, the 9 reasons above also come into play, for example.

As for drow, they are different for a few reasons.

1) Drow are very similar in appearance to humans, and even closer to elves, both already core ancestries.

2) There's a multi-decade tradition of non-evil drow; like it or not, Driz'zt has done more than any one other thing to popularize PC drow as options.

3) Serpentfolk have a long tradition in literature as being evil and antagonistic monsters.

4) Serpentfolk history and culture still has a lot of mysteries to explore in the context of adventures that feature them as adversaries.

5) The creative director of the campaign setting prefers serpentfolk as one of many types of creatures to be reserved as monsters rather than to "normalize" them by granting them PC ancestry status.

6) Nagaji are already our serpent-themed PC race, and I'd rather continue to explore them in that role rather than skip them over for something less appropriate. Note that this includes potentially reworking or standardizing their appearance, which we were kinda all over the place on in 1st edition, like catfolk.

7) If we made serpentfolk a PC ancestry, we'd have to soften their themes as villains, and we've done that enough already with numerous other ancestries in 2nd edition; for a game that focuses mostly on combat, it's important to maintain combat targets for heroes to fight against, and the less human in appearance things get, the easier it is to maintain the creatures as monsters.

8) Golarion's (and thus Pathfinder's) thematic focus on ancestries is on humanocentric creatures. The further one drifts from a human, the less likely it is that we'll open that one up to being an ancestry as a...

Ok, I'll play a Nagaji, but use a Serpentfolk mini and art on my character sheet.


James Jacobs wrote:


7) If we made serpentfolk a PC ancestry, we'd have to soften their themes as villains, and we've done that enough already with numerous other ancestries in 2nd edition; for a game that focuses mostly on combat, it's important to maintain combat targets for heroes to fight against, and the less human in appearance things get, the easier it is to maintain the creatures as monsters.

Eh? Your biggest bad, Tar-Baphon, is a human. The Runelords were all human. Lamashtu is a pregnant human woman. Asmodeus is a red human. Queen Ileosa is human. Areelu Vorlesh is human. Norgorber is human. Geb is human. Nex is human. Razmiran is human. Irovetti is human. Abrogail II is human. Unity was built by humans. Zura is a succubus who was, wait for it... a human Azlanti princess! And of course then there's Baba Yaga just for good measure, who not only is a human, but decided to just make a demon lord out of, you guessed it, a human.

Humans are by far the most numerous and successful villainous race on Golarion. Which stands to reason, considering that the only other race that compares are the algollthu... who basically made them.

It seems very weird to me to say it's easier to fight monsters that are less human when human is the number one enemy in most APs and easily the best overall choice for Ranger favored enemy.


Myrryr wrote:

Eh? Your biggest bad, Tar-Baphon, is a human. The Runelords were all human. Lamashtu is a pregnant human woman. Asmodeus is a red human. Queen Ileosa is human. Areelu Vorlesh is human. Norgorber is human. Geb is human. Nex is human. Razmiran is human. Irovetti is human. Abrogail II is human. Unity was built by humans. Zura is a succubus who was, wait for it... a human Azlanti princess! And of course then there's Baba Yaga just for good measure, who not only is a human, but decided to just make a demon lord out of, you guessed it, a human.

<snip>

Eh? What? There's a lot in this paragraph that's not strictly true...

  • Tar-Baphon: While he was once human, he is now a lich -> undead.
  • Runelords: Mostly true (Zutha was a lich).
  • Lamashtu: Is a demon & goddess, & I don't think was ever human.
  • Asmodeus: Is a devil & god, & was never human.
  • Areelu Vorlesh: While she was once human, she became a succubus -> demon.
  • Geb: While he was once human, he is now a ghost -> undead.
  • Norgorber: While he's assumed to have been human, there are bits of lore here & there that seem to hint that he might have been something else...
  • Unity: As you've said, he was built by humans, but that doesn't make him human.
  • Zura: While she was once human, she is now a demon (I don't recall her being a succubus, but that still wouldn't make her human).

All the others (including Baba Yaga, who is not a demon lord!) are/were human (iirc...), so your point applies to them.

*Also, I'm not sure that the Alghollthu(sp?) created humans - they certainly "uplifted" a specific group of them, but that's not the same as "creating" them.

The rest of your post (except for *) is... fine. Doesn't change what the Creative Director said, though...


Seventh Seal wrote:
Myrryr wrote:

Eh? Your biggest bad, Tar-Baphon, is a human. The Runelords were all human. Lamashtu is a pregnant human woman. Asmodeus is a red human. Queen Ileosa is human. Areelu Vorlesh is human. Norgorber is human. Geb is human. Nex is human. Razmiran is human. Irovetti is human. Abrogail II is human. Unity was built by humans. Zura is a succubus who was, wait for it... a human Azlanti princess! And of course then there's Baba Yaga just for good measure, who not only is a human, but decided to just make a demon lord out of, you guessed it, a human.

<snip>

Eh? What? There's a lot in this paragraph that's not strictly true...

  • Tar-Baphon: While he was once human, he is now a lich -> undead.
  • Runelords: Mostly true (Zutha was a lich).
  • Lamashtu: Is a demon & goddess, & I don't think was ever human.
  • Asmodeus: Is a devil & god, & was never human.
  • Areelu Vorlesh: While she was once human, she became a succubus -> demon.
  • Geb: While he was once human, he is now a ghost -> undead.
  • Norgorber: While he's assumed to have been human, there are bits of lore here & there that seem to hint that he might have been something else...
  • Unity: As you've said, he was built by humans, but that doesn't make him human.
  • Zura: While she was once human, she is now a demon (I don't recall her being a succubus, but that still wouldn't make her human).

All the others (including Baba Yaga, who is not a demon lord!) are/were human (iirc...), so your point applies to them.

*Also, I'm not sure that the Alghollthu(sp?) created humans - they certainly "uplifted" a specific group of them, but that's not the same as "creating" them.

The rest of your post (except for *) is... fine. Doesn't change what the Creative Director said, though...

The 'in appearance' is the biggest part of that. Asmodeus appears to just be a red human. He's not a Lovecraftian monstrosity. Same with the others. And being undead somehow makes you not-human anymore? Since when? I guess then that dracolich is literally identical to a human lich by that logic! No, he's human. He thinks like a human, acts like a human, looks like a human and is an a~*%+$# like a human. Same thing with Geb, Urgathoa, every single evil mummy pharoah from Osirion and the lich there too. Being undead doesn't make you not human, in fact, the point is that it makes you worse as a monster.

That's the entire point of this. The worst monsters are human or made by humans. By contrast, there's very few big AP enemies that wholly and completely disconnected from humanity... Hastur in Strange Aeons, the Algolthu in Ruins of Azlant, the drow in Second Darkness, the genies in LoF, Serpentfolk in Serpent's Skull, giants in giantslayer, hobgoblins in Ironfang, and Deskari in WotR. That's 8 out of 24. And of those 8, only the Algolthu, Hastur and Deskari do not appear human. Drow are just grey humans with pointy ears. Genies are red humans. Giants are big humans. Serpentfolk are humans with scales and fangs. And hobgoblins are grey/green short humans.

So it seems very weird to me to say that you want to make serpentfolk as enemies because they're inhuman and it's easier to fight/demonize inhuman enemies... and then most of our enemies are either explicitly human or humans with minor aesthetic changes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure that when we're talking about actual gods, they have a significant degree of control over "how they appear". Asmodeus most likely looks more human because most of his followers on Golarion are humans. If he's traveling to Castrovel for some reason, he probably puts on antennae.

At the very least, [a type of person] is going to see more of themselves in the god they worship, so in the diagetic art they're going to play up those commonalities.

151 to 200 of 229 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Does anyone else want playable serpentfolk? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.