| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Goblins can be a playable race, then why not Tieflings, Samsarans, serpent folk and whatever else was allowable in 1e. They don't all have to be full races, some can very well variants (templates) of other races.
Tieflings are going to be playable in 2e in less than two months, and serpentfolk weren't playable in 1e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Goblins were also playable in 1e, though the stat array was more painful for people who had uses for stats other than dex.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Goblins were also playable in 1e, though the stat array was more painful for people who had uses for stats other than dex.
I think the only Ancestry thus far in PF2 that wasn't a playable Race in PF1 is the Lizardfolk/Iruxi, who had a couple of racial HD and a +5 Natural Armor bonus in PF1.
More will certainly follow, I'm sure, with the Sprite being the next one we know of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The types of leshies you could play in PF1 were more limited (just vine). Also I don't think Shoonies were a thing before we introduced them in Extinction Curse (admittedly they're sort of geographically isolated).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The types of leshies you could play in PF1 were more limited (just vine). Also I don't think Shoonies were a thing before we introduced them in Extinction Curse (admittedly they're sort of geographically isolated).
This is true, yes. I'd argue the leshy thing is mostly cosmetic, though, and I was specifically talking about things that existed as non-PC possibilities in PF1, not entirely new creations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the only Ancestry thus far in PF2 that wasn't a playable Race in PF1 is the Lizardfolk/Iruxi, who had a couple of racial HD and a +5 Natural Armor bonus in PF1.
Lizarfolk were in the PF1 Advanced Race Guide.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lizarfolk were in the PF1 Advanced Race Guide.
I think the only Ancestry thus far in PF2 that wasn't a playable Race in PF1 is the Lizardfolk/Iruxi, who had a couple of racial HD and a +5 Natural Armor bonus in PF1.
As an example of using the race building rules to convert an otherwise unplayable creature, yes.
Also, I've tried very hard to suppress those rules, stop making me remember them. ;)
Premier Event Coordinator
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How so? Nine of the ten published ancestries are PFS standard, and I reckon shoonies will be an option someday.
To say nothing of the upcoming APG or Ancestry Guide.
That’s a little misleading because most of what has been released so far is considered core content. They even said the initial core product run completes with APG. After that, material will become more optional and it is likely those ancestries will be some combination of not approved, delayed approval, gated through AcP, open approval.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lizarfolk were in the PF1 Advanced Race Guide.
I think the only Ancestry thus far in PF2 that wasn't a playable Race in PF1 is the Lizardfolk/Iruxi, who had a couple of racial HD and a +5 Natural Armor bonus in PF1.As an example of using the race building rules to convert an otherwise unplayable creature, yes.
Also, I've tried very hard to suppress those rules, stop making me remember them. ;)
*kicks the version of the rules I made for PF2 under the bed*
Oh, yeah, those were terrible, yes.
Actually I did something similar, in that they went "okay, we're just going to assign an arbitrary amount of points to the human stuff to make them exactly evenly 10. Cool? Cool."
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*kicks the version of the rules I made for PF2 under the bed*
Oh, yeah, those were terrible, yes.
It was the specifics I objected to, not the concept.
The first thing I did with those rules was try to make a Gnoll (+4 Str, +2 Con, -2 Int, -2 Cha, Darkvision...nothing special), and I discovered that the version with that stat line was nearly twice as expensive as the version with +4 Str, +2 Con, -2 Cha. So, the objectively worse version cost twice as much. Yeah, that's a bad rule set.
Actually I did something similar, in that they went "okay, we're just going to assign an arbitrary amount of points to the human stuff to make them exactly evenly 10. Cool? Cool."
Yeah, that was pretty terrible.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That’s a little misleading because most of what has been released so far is considered core content. They even said the initial core product run completes with APG. After that, material will become more optional and it is likely those ancestries will be some combination of not approved, delayed approval, gated through AcP, open approval.And even then, the list is incredibly limitedHow does PFS handle rare and uncommon ancestries anyway?Gotta buy them with points you earn by playing.How so? Nine of the ten published ancestries are PFS standard, and I reckon shoonies will be an option someday.
To say nothing of the upcoming APG or Ancestry Guide.
Maybe the list will be "incredibly limited" in the future, but at time of writing 9 out of 10 ancestries are PFS standard. I'd call that expansive, not limited.
Also, why do you assume ancestry options will be restricted? I honestly can't think of one reason Paizo's OP developers would do that.
|
Premier Event Coordinator
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, why do you assume ancestry options will be restricted? I honestly can't think of one reason Paizo's OP developers would do that.
Well, more than a decade of evidence plus first-hand knowledge of the people who make these decisions and their typical approach to the game and how the rewards program works. Is it possible they will just approve everything? Sure. Is it likely? No. At this point in the 1E release cycle everything was legal too. Then when more optional rules were released the PtB clamped down. Nothing they have done or said would indicate a sudden philosophical change in their approach. So, don’t be surprised when future material published after the APG is not openly sanctioned for play and many/most ancestries are either gated behind the boon program or banned entirely.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like some actual playable serpent-from-waist-and-lower-only entity. Like a non-Borges depicted Lamia (i.e. no lioness torso).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like some actual playable serpent-from-waist-and-lower-only entity. Like a non-Borges depicted Lamia (i.e. no lioness torso).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One weird design I've seen in a fantasy webcomic (can't remember where) was a race of literal snake people- as in completely limbless. However, as a culture, they had developed prosthetic that would give them a set of arms (how they developed this is another question entirely). The design was like a chassis going around the "torso", with thin, bird like arms attached to it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, why do you assume ancestry options will be restricted? I honestly can't think of one reason Paizo's OP developers would do that.Well, more than a decade of evidence plus first-hand knowledge of the people who make these decisions and their typical approach to the game and how the rewards program works. Is it possible they will just approve everything? Sure. Is it likely? No. At this point in the 1E release cycle everything was legal too. Then when more optional rules were released the PtB clamped down. Nothing they have done or said would indicate a sudden philosophical change in their approach. So, don’t be surprised when future material published after the APG is not openly sanctioned for play and many/most ancestries are either gated behind the boon program or banned entirely.
What's the PTB?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen comments that suggest they're one of few remaining "always Evil" ancestries in 2e, which is immensely disappointing to me for a couple reasons.
No, not I. But, I don't begrudge others having the opportunity, since I have the final say in my Golarion.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen comments that suggest they're one of few remaining "always Evil" ancestries in 2e, which is immensely disappointing to me for a couple reasons.No, not I. But, I don't begrudge others having the opportunity, since I have the final say in my Golarion.
From the whole of the discussion, I don't think they (or indeed, any group) are 'always Evil' (though fiends, undead, and certain aberrations like aboleths are close), I think Paizo is just more interested in exploring them as villains than heroes right now. That's a creative decision having to do with plotlines, not a statement on how the world works.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's the PTB?Also, why do you assume ancestry options will be restricted? I honestly can't think of one reason Paizo's OP developers would do that.Well, more than a decade of evidence plus first-hand knowledge of the people who make these decisions and their typical approach to the game and how the rewards program works. Is it possible they will just approve everything? Sure. Is it likely? No. At this point in the 1E release cycle everything was legal too. Then when more optional rules were released the PtB clamped down. Nothing they have done or said would indicate a sudden philosophical change in their approach. So, don’t be surprised when future material published after the APG is not openly sanctioned for play and many/most ancestries are either gated behind the boon program or banned entirely.
Powers That Be is my guess.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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'm very late to the party it would seem, but I stumbled upon this thread (which has been a fascinating read, by the way) while looking for a possible ancestry for Serpentfolk. I'm a big fan of snakes, cobras in particular, and wanted to throw in my two copper.
To answer your question, James, the aesthetics of a snake-themed ancestry are very important to me. Serpentfolk most closely match what I have in mind so they're a good place to start. The look of the Nagaji, on the other hand, is not one I particularly like. I'd also love to have the option of cobra hoods, coils instead of legs, and even multiple arms. A venomous bite, constriction, the ability to spit venom, or having a forked tongue to grant Scent would be interesting as well. I imagine this ancestry to be more sleek and nimble than iruxi.
Culturally, I'd want this ancestry to have something different from the current Serpentfolk culture, the gist of which I predicted before even reading a word of the lore. The "snakes are inherently evil" trope is a tired one, in my opinion. It's very one-dimensional. I'd love a snake ancestry heavily invested in art, mysticism, thaumaturgy, and medicine where wisdom and introspection are prized. When it comes to martial combat, warriors in this snake ancestry would prefer to study their opponent and make the perfect, crippling strike. If multiple limbs or coils are allowed, they'd be deadly grapplers as well. I imagine dexterity, wisdom, and charisma being important attributes to this snake ancestry (possibly strength for crushing/constricting if that's a thing).
Anyways, the above are just some thoughts. Regardless of what happens, it'd be nice to have an official setting where I can say, "Oh hey, the vast majority of snake people aren't automatically duplicitous and evil. Even better, I can play one!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo apparently has no intention of making serpentfolk a playable ancestry, but somebody else has recently done it!
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread being brought back is a good time to point out that one of Jatembe's Ten Magic Warriors was a serpentfolk, as revealed by Lost Omens: Legends! (which came out after this thread ended the first time)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread being brought back is a good time to point out that one of Jatembe's Ten Magic Warriors was a serpentfolk, as revealed by Lost Omens: Legends! (which came out after this thread ended the first time)
;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo apparently has no intention of making serpentfolk a playable ancestry, but somebody else has recently done it!
Oh, interesting! Has anyone used this implementation of the Serpentfolk ancestry, yet; worth the purchase?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’ve been shown some very cute Serpentfolk art from LO: Mwangi Expanse. They’re smiling and look friendly!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’ve been shown some very cute Serpentfolk art from LO: Mwangi Expanse. They’re smiling and look friendly!This would make more worried rather than less XD
"And they've invited us over for dinner! Said they'd plump us right up."
"Let me guess, there'll be a lot of their friends visiting afterward for a special event that you'll be dying to see?""OMG, how'd you know? And that's just how they'd phrased it. And something about their buddies promoting ambition, indulgence, might, and zeal."
"Umm... OMG may not be the right phrasing. More like Oh-Their-Gee."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
With murmurs of a potential softening of the stance on PC Serpentfolk coming out of PaizoCon discussions (I should note, nothing super official, and nothing tied to an upcoming product), I figured this thread deserved a mild necro!
How are folks feeling about the idea? Does knowing Nagaji and Vishkanya are coming later this year impact your thoughts on the matter at all?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll follow the lead of the developer. If the narrative intent of the serpentfolk is maintained (either the pcs being extreme special cases, or a cultural shift within the serpentfolk, or a reunderstanding of them is gained by the rest of Golarion) then that's the way forward
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we get an ancestry for serpentfolk my head canon/house rule as inspired by the other thread is going to be "there is exactly one heroic seprpentfolk. When they die, they are immediately reincarnated as a different serpentfolk who is also able to become a hero. This will continue until they fill their destiny at which point they will leave the cycle of souls and all serpentfolks will be free to become heroes if that's what they want."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would pretty firmly push back on anything that underscored Sekmin as all being evil. Making only one of them capable of being Good is denying all of them any sort of free will or agency as people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would pretty firmly push back on anything that underscored Sekmin as all being evil. Making only one of them capable of being Good is denying all of them any sort of free will or agency as people.
Would you say Shirren were people before they left the Swarm? It seems like personhood is based on the ability to make choices, and that might not be available for every serpentfolk for metaphysical reasons?
Like it seems like you could tell the story of the Shirren leaving the Swarm and becoming people, much like you could tell the story of whatever is afflicting the Sepentfolk coming to an end.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would pretty firmly push back on anything that underscored Sekmin as all being evil. Making only one of them capable of being Good is denying all of them any sort of free will or agency as people.Would you say Shirren were people before they left the Swarm? It seems like personhood is based on the ability to make choices, and that might not be available for every serpentfolk for metaphysical reasons?
Like it seems like you could tell the story of the Shirren leaving the Swarm and becoming people, much like you could tell the story of whatever is afflicting the Sepentfolk coming to an end.
Has literally anything prior established that the Serpentfolk are like that? The Shirren’s former existence as part of a hive mind is a foundation backstory detail for them, but it would firmly be a retcon for the Sekmin, who we know are well aware of having individuality and desires.
Creative Director
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's not one right way to integrate serpentfolk into a game, nor is there a wrong way. What we do with them as regards some day making them an ancestry option for PCs will, I hope, not lessen or water down their position as a significant villainous element in the Darklands, but let's try to remember that how folks want to portray them in their own games is up to them. Certainly pretty much ALL of what we've done with them so far leans in pretty hard to their roles as slavers, mind controllers, warmongers, and human-eating monsters.
A home game doesn't have to thread the needle of making serpentfolk something for everyone, which is a problem we'll need to resolve. I mentioned at Paizocon that I'd come up with a way to do both—to present rules for PC serpentfolk ancestries and retain them as a key and significant villian presence in the setting, but at this point that product exists only as an idea in my head. It's possible that someone else at Paizo in the future might instead run with this and do their own thing, or its possible we'll NEVER do a serpentfolk ancestry.
Personally, I see value in them as being mostly evil, since that both makes them a compelling antagonist and something for heroes to be heroic against, but also because that empowers the player who wants to play against type and play a non-evil serpentfolk. After all, in order to play against type, you need a type to play against.
In the meantime, let's be respectful about folks sharing their own ideas for their home games, please.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, I'd want a narrative reason for Serpentfolk to include non-evil ones other than free will/raised outside the nest. This should be easy, with "end of a curse on the species" being sufficient.
Second, I kind of dislike the notion of low level, PC-compatible Serpentfolk! It falls in the same terrain as making Minotaurs playable, in that there's a certain level of power involved in the concept itself that doesn't translate well into low levels. To fit in, such creatures would get so watered down to get there it's mere window dressing. Part of what make the Aapoph & Zyss so interesting are their distorted stats, poison, and in the latter's case, their abundant innate magic. None of those translate well, and wouldn't come online until late game (and likely in a weakened form).
Not sure what's to be gained beyond what a Nagaji (which I like) provides (or could provide if tied to an evil cult, etc.).
(All that got me thinking of "monsters as classes", though I can't see that on Paizo's list for years. Classes provide the bulk of PC power, so they might be the avenue for generating IMO more legit monsters PCs. Likely too narrow to do by individual type, but maybe there'd be broad swaths that could be covered? Hmm.)
|
Creative Director
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get the fear about making powerufl creatures PC ancestries, but in the case of serpentfolk, that's not an issue. I feel like they're easier to do than, say, the strix, who have to balance flight with lower levels. Part of this might be a side effect of having already played with serpenfolk PCs in previous games—they're one of the several PC ancestries available in my homebrew Unspeakable Futures game, after all (this is also where Pathfinder's androids and deep one hybrids came from).
I suppose it's also worth noting that Unspeakable Futures, while a d20 based game, does NOT have an alignment system. The lack of that makes inclusion of things like serpentfolk easier, since there's not a rules mechanic that sets those sorts of expectations.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Second, I kind of dislike the notion of low level, PC-compatible Serpentfolk!
The PF2 Aapoph Serpentfolk is level 3, while the Zyss is level 2. The highest-level Serpentfolk on AoN is level 8.
They’re not exactly a Mythic threat.
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Second, I kind of dislike the notion of low level, PC-compatible Serpentfolk!The PF2 Aapoph Serpentfolk is level 3, while the Zyss is level 2. The highest-level Serpentfolk on AoN is level 8.
They’re not exactly a Mythic threat.
Exactly.
And furthermore, those serpenfolk examples are for monsters, not PCs. The rules for PCs are different, and particularly in 2nd edition, what works for a monster shouldn't be considered "baselines" for them as PCs.
In 1st edition, the existence of "racial Hit Dice" and the underlying structure of the game that forced the same rules construction for PCs and for monsters made making PC options for anything from gnoll or lizardfolk on up very difficult. One of the main reasons we abandoned "racial Hit DIce" in 2nd edition is specifically to break that artificial barrier between what can and can't be a PC option.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be cool to have 2e ancestry rules for serpentfolk, but mostly because they have canonically been in a "not entirely antagonists" place for a while in my home campaign version of Golarion.
OTOH I also really like them as villains.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the matter of creatures with similar themes, I don't think we should be barring anything because they are similar. It's not about what makes them the same, but what makes them different that matters. As it stands, come LO: Impossible Lands, we will have 3 playable Plant people and 3 playable Constructs. They are largely apples to oranges, yes, so are Nagaji, Vishkanya, and Sekmin when compared in a way other than their shared snake motifs/theme. Even first edition had a veritable collection of Ancestries with similar themes.
I say give us as many playable people as your willing to give. I don't care if they are the difference between the Shoony being pugs and the Nooshy being bulldogs; I want em. Lol
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, one of the problems with having several different ancestries based on the same theme/motif is that not everything is for everyone. If you're a fan of plant people, you're in luck we're about to hit 3. But if you're a fan of aquatic people we haven't had any and if you want bug people then we've just got one. So if you go back to snake well or the plant well over and over and over again you're liable to annoy people who have no problems with those ancestries existing, they mostly would prefer they were something else.
Since Paizo is unlikely to print a book with like 100 different ancestries in it, the only reasonable way to go about it is "when you have a region book or a book on a specific theme, you do the ancestries found in that region or that fit that theme."
So you can do the Serpentfolk as a playable ancestry when you do a Darklands book, but I don't think there's any reason to do one before that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the Ancestry Guide was nothing but a big bomb of new Ancestries, and it was incredibly well received. A sequel sounds plenty reasonable to me, and gets Ancestries people want to them sooner than they can expect a book on Vudra, Arcadia, or the Darklands. We’d still be waiting for Androids otherwise.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
But if you're a fan of aquatic people we haven't had any
Don't Azarketi count? They are Amphibious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Second, I kind of dislike the notion of low level, PC-compatible Serpentfolk!The PF2 Aapoph Serpentfolk is level 3, while the Zyss is level 2. The highest-level Serpentfolk on AoN is level 8.
They’re not exactly a Mythic threat.
Exactly.
And furthermore, those serpenfolk examples are for monsters, not PCs. The rules for PCs are different, and particularly in 2nd edition, what works for a monster shouldn't be considered "baselines" for them as PCs.
In 1st edition, the existence of "racial Hit Dice" and the underlying structure of the game that forced the same rules construction for PCs and for monsters made making PC options for anything from gnoll or lizardfolk on up very difficult. One of the main reasons we abandoned "racial Hit DIce" in 2nd edition is specifically to break that artificial barrier between what can and can't be a PC option.
You guys are supporting my point. :-)
Yes, basic Serpentfolk are low-level threats, yet ones which have abilities & stats which one wouldn't find in low-level PCs. It'd take a long time to accumulate all of those abilities, to actually be a Serpentfolk. (Like many monsters they're akin to a Dual Class PC.)And yes, those stats are for monsters, which are the Serpentfolk that I like. Saying we can alter them to make them PC-compatible goes to the heart of my disdain: it'd rob them of what makes them special.
(And yes, I've had similar issues w/ other races too, and I say races because it precedes PF2's Ancestries which Paizo has done better with on this issue.)
Tied to that, I'd like new Ancestries to be more than just reskins (something which burnt me out quickly on Starfinder's options), but have enough substance one could build an RPing arc around social encounters in their culture. Without their villainy or distinct mechanics, I don't see much flesh left in Serpentfolk.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Aapoph has an unremarkable stat spread, a basic weapon attack, and a decent bite with an okay poison. The Zyss is the same, albeit with better stats and some occult casting.
I don’t know that there’s any sort of earth-shattering mechanical power fantasy for player Serpentfolk to fail to live up to. They’re on-par humanoid enemies.