What Ancestries are you still craving?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

751 to 800 of 1,337 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Automatons are Axis "inhabitants", no? These were made by Aeons and Inevitables ages ago, so I get why they have their own heritages.

Celedons can be made by... any deity. You can have Besmara's pirate ship , Shelyn's models or Adabbar's bank security force. Now, whether or not those were made by humans hasn't been revealed yet, but I could see celedons being an ancestry, an extremely customizable one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
JiCi wrote:
Automatons are Axis "inhabitants", no?

No. They're a creation of the Jistkan Imperium (and its last surviving citizens).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Celedons would be an interesting choice.

I do think you'd need to modify/retcon the whole, apostasy results in soul death, thing.

If nothing else I'd be interested in having them updated to 2e as monsters because I had a vague sense of wanting to incorporate them into a campaign I wanted to run.

And on that note I'd be specifically interested in celedons of dead gods.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It feels like a pretty trivial reflavor to do an Aasimar Automaton, but I’ll freely admit to not knowing anything about Celedons.

I am glad that they aren’t a “generic” construct Ancestry, though - PF2 is a game for Golarion, and that specificity is my favorite part of the entire game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've got mixed feelings about the specificity. I like having tools available to me to build my own worlds & settings more so than playing in someone else's sandbox and having a story dictated to me.

On the other hand, pf1e did often struggle with threading that line. Their version of orcs wasn't something you could take into another setting & make more in line with an elder scrolls or warcraft conception of orcs. Their version of ogres were, well. We've discussed that ad nauseam. They're very clearly based on the Golarion conception even in books that are nominally setting neutral.

So, I suppose I'm glad they picked a lane, at least. Trying to have it both ways didn't quite work.

Though while we're on the subject of, an ancestry directly connected to/crafted by the gods, I'd like to take another chance to cheerlead my suggestion for the nephilim. Versatile heritage would be my pick but if just made out to be an ancestry they could fill that large sized niche we were talking about earlier.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FormerFiend wrote:
I do think you'd need to modify/retcon the whole, apostasy results in soul death, thing.

Why? it's not tagging on anything real-world this time. Having a bit of "no really, you have no choice" given that seems like interesting story fodder without the downside. It even makes sense given their creation and their purpose.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Can I play a treecat? :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
Can I play a treecat? :-)

Seems like those would be more a Starfinder thing than a Pathfinder thing, really. Their two big schticks were "heavyworlder" and "psionic". Aside from that, they were just cats with six legs.

That said, if you take Beast Eidolon with Shrink Down, you can get something that acts pretty darned close.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:
FormerFiend wrote:
I do think you'd need to modify/retcon the whole, apostasy results in soul death, thing.
Why? it's not tagging on anything real-world this time. Having a bit of "no really, you have no choice" given that seems like interesting story fodder without the downside. It even makes sense given their creation and their purpose.

Well not because of an ethical quandary more so because of a practical one in terms of player choice; there's a contingent of players who will be turned off by having to believe in a god.

Though I suppose the counter to that would be, "well this Ancestry isn't for you, then" in the same way that they'd need to play an oracle instead of a cleric.

Though again on a personal level the story I'd like to tell with something like a celedon would be exploring the idea of a celedon of a dead god like Aroden or members of the Azlanti pantheon & how they grapple with the death of their gods. That's a less interesting story if the answer is "they suffer soul death either as soon as it happens or when someone informs/convinces them it happened".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, seriously.

"This ancestry is all about profound and unswerving devotion to a deity"
"I want to play one as an atheist."
"Could we perhaps interest you in one of our other ancestries?"

As far as the dead gods thing... I don't think that's necessarily the case. Like, it doesn't have to matter that the world thinks they're dead. You can still keep the faith. You can still offer devotion. You can still follow the rituals and practices. Indeed, to my mind, that's part of the point of a Celedon - that they are a people who will serve with unswerving devotion no matter what - because if a god has been struck down in some profound way, then any effort to bring that god back into existence would almost have to start with "don't ever let the light of that god's faith gutter out entirely."

Like... I could totally imagine a Celedon summoner, whose eidolon is a tiny fragment of their dead god that they've managed (by dint of extreme effort) to worship back into some semblance of life, and who is on an epic quest to raise them back to the heavens once again... or if your dead gods aren't quite that dead, then you might have Celedon Fervor Witches who are managing to connect to their dead deity through pact magic, again in the hopes of once again raising them from the dead. Mortals can be resurrected, after all. Why not gods?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Creating a sapient being and then designing it so that if it ever begins to sincerely doubt you will spontaneously and inextricably be reduced to a mindless husk strikes me as profoundly evil.

So that should reasonably heavily limit what deities even have them, which makes them a bit problematic to turn into an ancestry as written. "Devoted servant of Asmodeus" automatically limits the number of campaigns you could even join pretty heavily.

If they could legitimately have a crisis of faith that would make them more flexible and create more interesting stories that could be told, so I'm not sure it'd be all that bad to change how they work (and as far as I can tell, they don't really have much of a presence anyways so it wouldn't be a massive shift in the grand scheme).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

Creating a sapient being and then designing it so that if it ever begins to sincerely doubt you will spontaneously and inextricably be reduced to a mindless husk strikes me as profoundly evil.

So that should reasonably heavily limit what deities even have them, which makes them a bit problematic to turn into an ancestry as written. "Devoted servant of Asmodeus" automatically limits the number of campaigns you could even join pretty heavily.

If they could legitimately have a crisis of faith that would make them more flexible and create more interesting stories that could be told, so I'm not sure it'd be all that bad to change how they work (and as far as I can tell, they don't really have much of a presence anyways so it wouldn't be a massive shift in the grand scheme).

I would consider creating before designing to be an act of incredible stupidity, more than anything.

Celedons are divine tools and guardians that lose their purpose and become a liability of they lose their faith. When a god can't trust anything else, this is a sensible choice, and assuming it lacks a soul - which it appears to - then there's no harm done, from the divine standpoint. It's a high-level automaton.

If you can't join a campaign as an inherently devoted servant of Asmodeus, maybe don't try to play one. If you want a character with the potential for a crisis of faith that they survive, maybe play something else.

I mean, I'm not convinced that celedons should be a PC race, because they have inherent purpose, but if they must be, then they should be Rare, and the circumstances under which it might or might not be appropriate to play one should be laid out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They aren't explicitly stated to have souls - I'm using the term "soul death" to convey a loss of identity, as what they're explicitly stated to have is 'sentience', and the actual effect of the situation is that they lose their int score & special abilities & continue on as mindless automatons.

Though the fact that they are sentient, are capable of having - apparently legitimate - faith, and can have an opinion on the result of losing said faith - they're described as considering it a kinder fate than living in apostasy... that would imply to me that they have souls. They're capable of some measure of free will & self awareness.

But yeah I'm not necessarily sold on them as a playable ancestry & I'd agree with the idea of them being a rare ancestry if the decision was made.

But the fact that we can have this debate about them does sway me towards "it would be a good idea if handled right", because they can be used to contemplate questions of divine ethics like this. It's good story fodder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I still hope for Locathah, these goofy fishes were my favorite 5e race and what I miss the most from that game besides the swarmkeeper. Azarketi are kinda boring, and a reflavoured azarketi beastkin is just not satisfying, they don't really get fishy feats/heritages and the wrong ability boosts. Locathah are cool and unique because they're 100% fish and 0% mammal.

Also a plasmoid/ooze ancestry, but at least we will get one from battlezoo next year.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Sekmin would be nice to have, perhaps in a future Darklands book. Beyond that, I'm still craving the remaining Tian-Xia ancestries, and I'd like to have Merfolk one day, though they aren't a priority.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What about a brownie as a sprite heritage?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
What about a brownie as a sprite heritage?

In general, that seems like something you could get in your one-week ration pack, but as a member of one of the sprite heritages your portions will be sized accordingly, so it will be a very small brownie.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FormerFiend wrote:

They aren't explicitly stated to have souls - I'm using the term "soul death" to convey a loss of identity, as what they're explicitly stated to have is 'sentience', and the actual effect of the situation is that they lose their int score & special abilities & continue on as mindless automatons.

Though the fact that they are sentient, are capable of having - apparently legitimate - faith, and can have an opinion on the result of losing said faith - they're described as considering it a kinder fate than living in apostasy... that would imply to me that they have souls. They're capable of some measure of free will & self awareness.

But yeah I'm not necessarily sold on them as a playable ancestry & I'd agree with the idea of them being a rare ancestry if the decision was made.

But the fact that we can have this debate about them does sway me towards "it would be a good idea if handled right", because they can be used to contemplate questions of divine ethics like this. It's good story fodder.

Wouldn't it the first time they changed an ancestry, no :P ?

Automatons were man-made, but their heritages felt like actual variants. For Celedons, they could still be man-made (what construct isn't?), but go for different materials, which would be in-line with deities and their philosophies. For instance, a nature deity would favor organic materials, while a war deity would go for sturdier alloys.
- Flesh: life, death, science, magic
- Clay: art, protection
- Stone: earth, nature
- Iron: war, combat, forge
- Wood: nature, seafaring, druidic traditions
- Bone/Carrion/Fossil: necromancy

Both the faithless punishment AND granted power could be reworked into a feat, granting a powerful divine ability, but any severance causes a backlash.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What construct isn't? Celedons. They're crafted directly by the gods. That's their whole point. The whole tie-in with divinity is their entire reason to exist as an ancestry in the first place. If you're going to throw that out, there's no reason to have them at all.

Like... what's the point of adding them, but then making them blander? You're taking an ancestry that could have fundamental differences with some real, compelling kick behind them and just turning it into yet another "human in funny pants and hat" ancestry. It's not like we're short on those as it is.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I've really warmed up to Centaurs, as part of a wider fondness for Avistan's northern climes - they have really interesting places as indigenous peoples of both Varisia and Iobaria, and one group in PFS has been adopted into a Sarkorian clan, so there's ample space for Centaur PCs. I'm cheering for anyone who has good reason to make for playable Shamans, while the thought of a Barbarian with trampling hooves definitely has an appeal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Like... what's the point of adding them, but then making them blander?

I don't think anyone suggested that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel it's a fundamental disagreement that Sanityfaerie & I are going to have on the subject of celedons; in their view, taking away the death of identity on loss of faith gimmick makes them blander, by default. Where as I feel leaving the door open to explore the question of what happens when a being defined by faith loses it to be the more interesting option.

I suppose it's worth bringing up that it's something of a moot argument in the sense of, either way I imagine that it'll be a flavor ribbon rather than an actual mechanic. 1e had a mechanic for what happened when they lost their faith, but no criteria for how that was decided beyond DM discretion.

I don't know if the idea of a race that can just kamikaze the enemy by the player announcing "My character has a crisis of faith and stops believing in their god!" would work, and I certainly don't like the idea of the dm being able to arbitrarily decide they don't like how the player is rping the character being able to say "your celedon has lost faith & they explode" any better.

And I also don't like the idea of putting a set criteria by which we are to determine whether or not a character has faith in a deity. Certainly alignment, edicts & anathemas play into whether or not a divinely empowered spell caster is in line with their patron deity enough to be receiving spells, but celedons don't appear to work that way; it's personal faith, not alignment with the deity's actual beliefs, and people are able to twist, contort, and rationalize a lot of things to maintain personal faith even when acting wildly out of step with it.

Anyway, centaurs. Yeah, count me in for centaurs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
FormerFiend wrote:
/snip (about celedons)

Celedons would need to be reworked, but there's little difference between a race created by Gods and a race created for Gods. I mean, arent' elves and dwarves created by their respective patron deties :P ?

I could see the first Celedon being created by a deity, but the rest fabricated, or "procreated", on their own. Maybe the normal celedons are faithbound, but the variation available as an ancestry has no faith, because it's a blank slate. Maybe "faithbinding" becomes available at middle age.

FormerFiend wrote:
Anyway, centaurs. Yeah, count me in for centaurs.

I see this more as a versatile heritage, with feats to select your lower half ;)

That or the base lower half is keyed to the base ancestry. For instance, if it's a catfolk, then the half is leonine, similar to a wemic. If it's a kobold, then it's draconic, and so on.

Wayfinders Contributor

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Ooh, I love the idea of being differerent types of centaurs - reptilian, lion, horse could all be different heritages or lineage ancestry feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
Ooh, I love the idea of being differerent types of centaurs.

The issue is that... how do you make it fit in all XD ?

Centaurs themselves can be humans and elves on top of DIFFERENT equine bodies. Back in the days, there were centaurs based on horses, donkeys, mules and zebras... and that's JUST for your typical humanoid/horse centaur archetype.

Wemics are tauric lions, but then you can spread it to all kinds of felines, such as tigers, cheetahs, leopards and panthers.

Nagajis recentyl introduced a lamia-like heritage, but THAT CAN BE EXPANDED to cobras, constrictors and rattlesnakes.

Grigs are available for sprites, but what prevents Paizo to add other insects?

I could go on and on, but given the possibilities, a centaur / tauric heritage would need more time in the oven to be effective and complete :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think I'd go with centaurs as the base ancestry & heritages to determine their lower half rather than centaurs as the heritage.

Centaurs are their own thing moreso than fleshwarps are & they got their own ancestry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
Ooh, I love the idea of being differerent types of centaurs - reptilian, lion, horse could all be different heritages or lineage ancestry feats.

I mean, Cecaelias are octopus-centaurs, but you probably put all the damp ancestries together in one book (along with Locathahs, Merfolk, Tritons, etc.)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I would push back on the “everything tauric is a Centaur” idea, if only because the main horse-y Centaurs have already built up a really firm place in the lore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FormerFiend wrote:

I think I'd go with centaurs as the base ancestry & heritages to determine their lower half rather than centaurs as the heritage.

Centaurs are their own thing moreso than fleshwarps are & they got their own ancestry.

Good idea :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the first centaur-esque thing we get anyway is going to avoid the basic problems with centaur PCs:
- is not large
- does not occupy a nonstandard number of squares
- can climb ladders
- is not generally awkward in a society built for medium bipeds.

All of these are problems with centaur PCs, not unfixable problems, but ones you would want to figure out before you make this an option. Starfinder has all sort of large people you can play as, but that's in a game where melee reach matters less and spaceship corridors are sized for materiel and cargo not necessarily people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How about taking inspiration from Starfinder?

I could see an insectile ancestry with 6 limbs, with the 2 middle one either doubling as arms (for wielding items) or legs (for extra speed).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Consider for a moment that one of the established locations for centaurs in the inner sea is Kaer Maga, a city that by all rights should be obscenely difficult for them to navigate, but paizo just hand waved it with "they manage"/"they adapt".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It’s worth saying that Luis seemed very optimistic about Large Ancestries in his Reddit AMA.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unrelated to that.

I wonder if a planar scion-esque heritage with the gimmick being that they've been touched by the Great Old Ones and/or the Outer Gods would work. Gazni doesn't quite scratch that itch right now though I suppose some feats could be added to it.

Though I suppose fleshwarp also has some overlap & can cover what I'd want from this idea with a little reflavoring.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, we do have an entire PLANET being a Great Old One (Aucturn) :P

A scion or an actual aberrant inhabitant could work ;)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

An aberration Versatile Heritage and a mutant Versatile Heritage are both things I'd absolutely welcome. Fleshwarps being both mashed together into a standalone Ancestry isn't how I would've done it, and I do hope there's room for one or both as VHs down the line.

Forever craving Book of the Dead, but for aberrations - they've always been the best d20 baddies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FormerFiend wrote:
I feel it's a fundamental disagreement that Sanityfaerie & I are going to have on the subject of celedons; in their view, taking away the death of identity on loss of faith gimmick makes them blander, by default. Where as I feel leaving the door open to explore the question of what happens when a being defined by faith loses it to be the more interesting option.

I can sort-of see where you're coming from, except that I feel like... if they can lose faith just as easily as anyone else, then they're kind of not defined by their faith. That whole "defined by their faith" thing just becomes a hand-waved description that doesn't actually have any weight behind it.

Basically, I'm interested in the stories around someone who is defined by their faith, coming from a people who are defined by their faith... and if there's nothing mechanical that ties them to their faith above and beyond what everyone else gets, then that's just really not a thing.

I suppose that "soul death. Game over" is a pretty extreme case. I suppose that it might be reasonable to run it somewhat like the gnomes with bleachlings, though. Like, almost all Celedons who lose their faith will suffer soul death. Those few who don't get frobbed over to a "faithless" heritage, and have to deal with both the fact that they've turned from their god and the fact that they managed to survive the process. That's the sort of thing that could allow both kinds of stories to be told.

For the suicide bomber thing... I could actually see "forswear your god, wink out of existence, and explode, thus snuffing out your own soul entirely" being something that, done in a moment of extreme need, might be a kind of cool moment. At that point... I'd probably make it a PC decision (and/or possibly some sort of saving throw) whether they go straight-up not-coming-back dead or drop unconscious for the next 24 hours and then wake up as one of the Lost.

I'd also make the damage something like 1d4/level with a basic save versus class/spell DC, so that it wasn't so subject to abuse.

Quote:

I suppose it's worth bringing up that it's something of a moot argument in the sense of, either way I imagine that it'll be a flavor ribbon rather than an actual mechanic. 1e had a mechanic for what happened when they lost their faith, but no criteria for how that was decided beyond DM discretion.

I don't know if the idea of a race that can just kamikaze the enemy by the player announcing "My character has a crisis of faith and stops believing in their god!" would work, and I certainly don't like the idea of the dm being able to arbitrarily decide they don't like how the player is rping the character being able to say "your celedon has lost faith & they explode" any better.

And I also don't like the idea of putting a set criteria by which we are to determine whether or not a character has faith in a deity. Certainly alignment, edicts & anathemas play into whether or not a divinely empowered spell caster is in line with their patron deity enough to be receiving spells, but celedons don't appear to work that way; it's personal faith, not alignment with the deity's actual beliefs, and people are able to twist, contort, and rationalize a lot of things to maintain personal faith even when acting wildly out of step with it.

I'll admit that the mechanical side of it is potentially problematic. I'd mostly suggest that it should be player choice, make id explicitly possible for them to forswear their faith (and probably die) in order to reduce the likelihood of shenanigans that way, and then make the entire thing rare with the idea that any GM who didn't expect that their player could play such a thing properly could just say "no". Something like that.

Possibly if you forswear or lose faith in the way that knocks you out and changes your heritage, rather than the way that kills you, you don't get the pretty soul explosion effect. Regardless, I think it could be made workable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Merfolk


I'd settle for evil versions/ancestries...
- Drow
- Duergar
- Spriggan
- Derro (which would fit for Halflings)
- Kuru
- Caligni
- Deep One hybrid
- Boggard
- Reptoid
- Syrinx
- Bugbear
- Serpentfolk
- Xulgath
- Wyvaran
- Wayang
- Ogrekin

Dude, we have hobgoblins, gnolls, lizardfolks, orcs, reflections, kobolds, fleshwarps, skeletons and strix, all of which are commonly known as evil-aligned, yet they were all made available for PCs.


I'm one of the loudest cheerleaders for playable Sekmin (Serpentfolk), have made some noise about Wyvarans, and been won over to wanting 2e playable Kuru... but why are poor Wayangs in the "Evil Ancestries" list? D:


1 person marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
I'm one of the loudest cheerleaders for playable Sekmin (Serpentfolk), have made some noise about Wyvarans, and been won over to wanting 2e playable Kuru... but why are poor Wayangs in the "Evil Ancestries" list? D:

They look demonic and shadow magic isn't really good-aligned most of the time ^^;


One more thing: I'll gladly take a Hobgoblin heritage that matches the PREVIOUS design from P1E.

Seriously, why did they change them from muscular human-like beings with orcish/gobloinoid features to elongated goblins again?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:

One more thing: I'll gladly take a Hobgoblin heritage that matches the PREVIOUS design from P1E.

Seriously, why did they change them from muscular human-like beings with orcish/gobloinoid features to elongated goblins again?

So that they weren't super close to 5e's visual design for Hobgoblins, and cleaved closer to their lore-related Goblin kin (who are an iconic enough design that they're essentially Pathfinder's mascots), rather than looking completely unrelated.

It's a smart change, IMO. The 2e designs for Kaoling characters are infinitely more interesting than "red-skinned evil samurai guys" from 1e.


Honestly I hate the 2e/starfinder look for hobgoblins. It's just silly but not in an endearing way like how the goblins look - full disclosure, I'm not a huge fan of the look on regular goblins.

I understand the whys, in terms of carving their own brand identity. And it doesn't bother me too much in that it's a cosmetic thing that I'm free to ignore in my head & just get artwork from elsewhere.

I'll note that they very specifically don't draw Azaersi with the new look. Her looking badass, intimidating, & dignified trumps internal consistency, I suppose.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure the topic has come up before, but the Drow have some real potential. Or, to be more specific, I trust Paizo to turn them into something really interesting.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
Oh man, that'd be fun! I'd love to play a mimic who defaults to the standard treasure chest disguise even though they know it doesn't fool people anymore because "it's an ICONIC look!"

I know that I am late to the discussion on this, but a Mimic ancestry would be such fun. Maurice was an NPC of mine that showed up in PF1 games, and now in PFS we have Biglock the Mimic as a recurring character. Huzzah for mimics and other aberrations as player ancestries!


Maurice the Mimic wrote:
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
Oh man, that'd be fun! I'd love to play a mimic who defaults to the standard treasure chest disguise even though they know it doesn't fool people anymore because "it's an ICONIC look!"
I know that I am late to the discussion on this, but a Mimic ancestry would be such fun. Maurice was an NPC of mine that showed up in PF1 games, and now in PFS we have Biglock the Mimic as a recurring character. Huzzah for mimics and other aberrations as player ancestries!

Battlezoo are doing a full mimic ancestry next year, if you are fine with 3rd party content.

Dark Archive

Alas, my player keeps on insisting on going to Pathfinder Society games... Battlezoo will just be out of my reach as a viable option! However, I will have to keep it in mind if we play another Adventure Path and kooky content is on the table.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Karmagator wrote:
I'm pretty sure the topic has come up before, but the Drow have some real potential. Or, to be more specific, I trust Paizo to turn them into something really interesting.

My Drizzt Do’Urden days are long behind me now, but I think there’s a lot to like PF2’s Drow. Nocticula’s faith and protean cults are both really interesting additions to the mix, while the options opened up by Versatile Heritages are *very* exciting.

I’ll be happy to see them, whenever they do come over.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Maurice the Mimic wrote:
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
Oh man, that'd be fun! I'd love to play a mimic who defaults to the standard treasure chest disguise even though they know it doesn't fool people anymore because "it's an ICONIC look!"
I know that I am late to the discussion on this, but a Mimic ancestry would be such fun. Maurice was an NPC of mine that showed up in PF1 games, and now in PFS we have Biglock the Mimic as a recurring character. Huzzah for mimics and other aberrations as player ancestries!

Yeah! I just encountered Biglock in Pathfinder Society Scenario #4-07: A Most Wondrous Exchange! They're a fun character.

751 to 800 of 1,337 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / What Ancestries are you still craving? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.