What Ancestries are you still craving?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 570 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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

Sounds like we're all on the same page then. :)


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

And which page would that be, for clarity's sake?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Lightning Raven wrote:
Rysky wrote:
4 arms are more balanced already than in P1 simply due to the change in Action Economy, you can hold more things yes, but you’re still limited in how much you can make use of it.

I would like to point out that Paizo is charging premium for any extra limb that can hold things. In fact, useless extra limbs that can barely open a door costs either a 5th level ancestry feat or a 10th level Psychic Feat with prerequisites.

I imagine that by this metric, anything with two extra arms that can hold items and wield weapons wouldn't be anything short of a capstone ancestry feat (17th level).

But, yes, I do 100% agree with your statement.

Missed this when it was current, but just putting out there that, having done analysis of ancestry feats, there’s a couple examples of stuff that an ancestry got for free or was selectable as a heritage was repackaged as a 5th level ancestry feat for a different ancestry. Not many, but there are more than one.

So limbs that allow interact actions but not weapons doesn’t seem outside the bounds for a base ancestry.


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


And which page would that be, for clarity's sake?

Nuance’dville.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

An Ancestry that was spawned out of The Slithering.

A proper slime/ooze Ancestry that exists on its own, can asexually reproduce by itself, and is NOT Humanoid. It should have handlike appendages, needs to eat, sleep, breathe, and can do nearly all of the normal things that a normal Ancestry can do.

Give it a baked-in Con bonus, four or five Heritages that offer individual resistances to Fire/Cold/Negative/Positive/Electricity/Acid as a baseline function that scales just like the many other Heritages that already do this.

Offer Ancestry Feats to grant them options to:
- Have an improved "Fist" (NOT a different Unarmed Attack, please) unarmed attack in some fashion
- Offer a flat check (fail on 1-14, succeed on 15+) to downgrade a Critical Success for an Attack scored against them to a normal Success
- Grants them an additional handlike appendage that can not be used to "wield" weapons or any other item that must be "wielded"
- Permit them to squeeze through any space that a Tiny or smaller size creature could fit.
- Absorb one Melee Weapon or Armor attached Talisman or Spellheart into their body in order to allow them a second functionally usable Talisman at any given time that is consumed and used as it normally would if it's attached to gear they are already wearing (in effect grant one free floating Talisman attachment that applies to whatever gear they happen to be wearing if applicable at all)
- Ignore all Intimidation Penalties versus Animals, Magical Beasts, or Humanoids who do not share a language with them
-


5 people marked this as a favorite.

What I would really love is for the various pathfinder specific ancestries to get a lot more miniature support (either through wizkids unpainted line or through reaper or something else).

For the ones that are generic fantasy/d&d things, or the ones that are really similar to humans you can make do, but for stuff like Anadi or Conrasu's or Leshies there aren't many options for miniatures.

I really love all of these awesome unique ancestries, but it is so frustrating if I am running a game with one of those ancestries in the party, the monsters and the rest of the party all have detailed miniatures I have painted representing them, but the one party member of one of those weird ancestries has to make do with one of those weird prepainted miniatures or a 2d pawn.

Acquisitives

4 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
Erik saying he'd also like Minotaurs is giving me the most distant gleam of hope for them one day.

I wouldn't mind seeing Starfinder-style Nuars, actually. After all, Nuar Spiritskin was medium rather than large, wasn't he?


8 people marked this as a favorite.

As a huge fan of the Anadi I would like to see more monstrous races that just want to be friends with everyone. Its easy to be edgy and grim but something genuinely heartwarming like Spider people that want to give big hugs is something I want more of. We can still have Golarion be a perilous place full of adventure but at least we can have a happy go lucky ancestry of people that want to make it a better place.

Also I want to run a game where every player is a shapeshifter or "half-something" (ie halfelves who wear cowls or tieflings who cover up their horns) type ancestry and all of them are pretending to be humans and ALL players think that the other players do not know their secret. It would be hilarious. "why hello fellow human, I also like cheese and putting things in my mouthflaps" So we need more shapeshifter type ancestries.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Drow have issues due to their backstory and history (as related via AP and PF1 lore) as a coded dog-whistle for bigots. Almost always evil, bodily horror/control issues, skin pigmentation, etc

always evil and skin aside, what on earth is mutilation and body horror a dog whistle for?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kekkres wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Drow have issues due to their backstory and history (as related via AP and PF1 lore) as a coded dog-whistle for bigots. Almost always evil, bodily horror/control issues, skin pigmentation, etc

always evil and skin aside, what on earth is mutilation and body horror a dog whistle for?

Ablism and shaming of those whose bodies don't conform to the normative standard, mostly. Also lifestyles that involve altering their bodies, such as tattoo enthusiasts, or those who have tattooing or similar bodily modification as part of their culture.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
Kekkres wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Drow have issues due to their backstory and history (as related via AP and PF1 lore) as a coded dog-whistle for bigots. Almost always evil, bodily horror/control issues, skin pigmentation, etc

always evil and skin aside, what on earth is mutilation and body horror a dog whistle for?
Ablism and shaming of those whose bodies don't conform to the normative standard, mostly. Also lifestyles that involve altering their bodies, such as tattoo enthusiasts, or those who have tattooing or similar bodily modification as part of their culture.

Not to mention the "traditional" idea of Drow being matriarchal and inherently bad because of it (oh noes, the men aren't allowed to be vote because they're men!) fulfilling a boogeyman role for misogynists.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Perpdepog wrote:
Kekkres wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Drow have issues due to their backstory and history (as related via AP and PF1 lore) as a coded dog-whistle for bigots. Almost always evil, bodily horror/control issues, skin pigmentation, etc

always evil and skin aside, what on earth is mutilation and body horror a dog whistle for?
Ablism and shaming of those whose bodies don't conform to the normative standard, mostly. Also lifestyles that involve altering their bodies, such as tattoo enthusiasts, or those who have tattooing or similar bodily modification as part of their culture.

... twisting people into deformed monstrosities is a dog wistle for ablism and anti tattoo/peircing??? Like i am normally pretty open to such things but i struggle to see how a culture using cruel mutilation as a form of punishment has any implication on intentional body modification one way or the other? and how is it ablest? most fleshwarps seem to be physically functional (assuming they survive at all) I mean i dont doubt they are deeply traumitized and mentaly scarred but ive always understood ablism to refer more to things on the phisical side, though feel free to correct me if im wrong


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Shirren_Human_Expert wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
Kekkres wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Drow have issues due to their backstory and history (as related via AP and PF1 lore) as a coded dog-whistle for bigots. Almost always evil, bodily horror/control issues, skin pigmentation, etc

always evil and skin aside, what on earth is mutilation and body horror a dog whistle for?
Ablism and shaming of those whose bodies don't conform to the normative standard, mostly. Also lifestyles that involve altering their bodies, such as tattoo enthusiasts, or those who have tattooing or similar bodily modification as part of their culture.
Not to mention the "traditional" idea of Drow being matriarchal and inherently bad because of it (oh noes, the men aren't allowed to be vote because they're men!) fulfilling a boogeyman role for misogynists.

are pf drow matriarchal? i thought that was more or less exclusive to forgotten realms


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Kekkres wrote:
Shirren_Human_Expert wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
Kekkres wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Drow have issues due to their backstory and history (as related via AP and PF1 lore) as a coded dog-whistle for bigots. Almost always evil, bodily horror/control issues, skin pigmentation, etc

always evil and skin aside, what on earth is mutilation and body horror a dog whistle for?
Ablism and shaming of those whose bodies don't conform to the normative standard, mostly. Also lifestyles that involve altering their bodies, such as tattoo enthusiasts, or those who have tattooing or similar bodily modification as part of their culture.
Not to mention the "traditional" idea of Drow being matriarchal and inherently bad because of it (oh noes, the men aren't allowed to be vote because they're men!) fulfilling a boogeyman role for misogynists.
are pf drow matriarchal? i thought that was more or less exclusive to forgotten realms

Yes PF drow are also matriarchal. It's a pretty weird take to say that's the reason that they're inherently bad. Especially considering there are other matriarchal societies in Golarion, like Holomog, that aren't evil which shows that has nothing to do with any inherent quality.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Kekkres wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
Kekkres wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Drow have issues due to their backstory and history (as related via AP and PF1 lore) as a coded dog-whistle for bigots. Almost always evil, bodily horror/control issues, skin pigmentation, etc

always evil and skin aside, what on earth is mutilation and body horror a dog whistle for?
Ablism and shaming of those whose bodies don't conform to the normative standard, mostly. Also lifestyles that involve altering their bodies, such as tattoo enthusiasts, or those who have tattooing or similar bodily modification as part of their culture.
... twisting people into deformed monstrosities is a dog wistle for ablism and anti tattoo/peircing??? Like i am normally pretty open to such things but i struggle to see how a culture using cruel mutilation as a form of punishment has any implication on intentional body modification one way or the other? and how is it ablest? most fleshwarps seem to be physically functional (assuming they survive at all) I mean i dont doubt they are deeply traumitized and mentaly scarred but ive always understood ablism to refer more to things on the phisical side, though feel free to correct me if im wrong

This one went over my head as well because neither mutilation nor body horror have anything to do with these topics. It doesn't even connect with real-world body modification or tattoos because we've already seen that those things are perfectly acceptable in Golarion.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
nephandys wrote:
Kekkres wrote:
Shirren_Human_Expert wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
Kekkres wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Drow have issues due to their backstory and history (as related via AP and PF1 lore) as a coded dog-whistle for bigots. Almost always evil, bodily horror/control issues, skin pigmentation, etc

always evil and skin aside, what on earth is mutilation and body horror a dog whistle for?
Ablism and shaming of those whose bodies don't conform to the normative standard, mostly. Also lifestyles that involve altering their bodies, such as tattoo enthusiasts, or those who have tattooing or similar bodily modification as part of their culture.
Not to mention the "traditional" idea of Drow being matriarchal and inherently bad because of it (oh noes, the men aren't allowed to be vote because they're men!) fulfilling a boogeyman role for misogynists.
are pf drow matriarchal? i thought that was more or less exclusive to forgotten realms
Yes PF drow are also matriarchal. It's a pretty weird take to say that's the reason that they're inherently bad. Especially considering there are other matriarchal societies in Golarion, like Holomog, that aren't evil which shows that has nothing to do with any inherent quality.

That has to do with their gaming origins, not specifically the Pathfinder version.

Their whole concept was equal parts fetish fuel and a setup where men could play the victim.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Drow never really felt like they fit well in Golarion and they typically feel like an artifact from the other game. Without some substantial retcons and reimagining, I think they should be left aside in general and doubly so as an ancestry.

I think doing a pulpy weird science ancestry from underground would be snazzy. Maybe with access to a limited borrow ability via ancestry feats. Just...not a reptilian species due to a laundry list of real world conspiracies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I like the Darklands but I wouldn't be sad if the Drow weren't there (or anywhere at all.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Seems to me like a lot of people are projecting.

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
And which page would that be, for clarity's sake?

Avoiding extremes.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I don’t mind Drow existing; I do mind them being pretty much unchanged for their D&D roots.

But if you want organized opposition from the Darklands, the Serpentfolk take my vote - and are a playable ancestry I want dearly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
keftiu wrote:
I don’t mind Drow existing; I do mind them being pretty much unchanged for their D&D roots.

I would not mind a bit of change myself. Classic D&D drow are, well, kind of tired.

I found the dessert dwelling, scorpion riding drow of Eberron to be a VERY interesting new take on old foes.

keftiu wrote:
But if you want organized opposition from the Darklands, the Serpentfolk take my vote - and are a playable ancestry I want dearly.

Bleargh!

I keep seeing serpentfolk brought up over and over again by players and developers on these boards. Why does everyone seem so fascinated with them? If anything they strike me as utterly boring and uninspired.

Also, the developers have already stated that playable serpentfolk is pretty much never going to happen. They're evil with a capital E.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
keftiu wrote:
I don’t mind Drow existing; I do mind them being pretty much unchanged for their D&D roots.

I would not mind a bit of change myself. Classic D&D drow are, well, kind of tired.

I found the dessert dwelling, scorpion riding drow of Eberron to be a VERY interesting new take on old foes.

Eberron actually has /three/ Drow cultures! The scorpion-revering nomadic hunters in the jungle, the elemental binders who worship primal fire, and then the ones underground who use shadow magic to fight an endless war against aberrations. They're also not all evil - and in fact, are usually the natives of the places pulp explorers are trying to plunder...

Quote:
keftiu wrote:
But if you want organized opposition from the Darklands, the Serpentfolk take my vote - and are a playable ancestry I want dearly.

Bleargh!

I keep seeing serpentfolk brought up over and over again by players and developers on these boards. Why does everyone seem so fascinated with them? If anything they strike me as utterly boring and uninspired.

Also, the developers have already stated that playable serpentfolk is pretty much never going to happen. They're evil with a capital E.

Snake people are inherently cool. Snake people who have a history that long predates humanity, revere a decapitated god, and have lots of psychic powers? Exponentially cooler. I want the chance to play an alien noble who sees themself as entitled to ancient glories and thinks we're all better off with that Aroden jerk dead.

Also, that's mostly just James Jacobs, and he's even shown some willingness to say "maybe that's just me." Paizo's commitment to not rehashing the old perils of racist, 'always Evil' races does kind of preclude them from going "except these guys though." I hope they do it someday.

We eventually got Gnolls!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd rather a more lamia/naga like version of the nagaji than adding serpentfolk. I don't mind what my snake people are called, but if they still have legs then I don't see the point, tbh.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The Serpentfolk are fascinating, and yes drawing from their Kull roots and yet going beyond those.

They are not yet playable not because of an Always Evil that does not exist but because some adventure or even AP seems planned that would not work as well if Serpentfolk Ancestry was a thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:

That has to do with their gaming origins, not specifically the Pathfinder version.

Their whole concept was equal parts fetish fuel and a setup where men could play the victim.

funnily enough, im not sure it started that way, the first time drow are mentioned, they are listed as a myth, a boogieman of the elves of this sociaty of anti elves living deep underground who where opposite elves in all things, white is black, up is down peace is war, trust is deception ect. and the first adventure they appear in took that as literally and thouroly as possible going through everything surface elves did and everything they are, and making drow the opposite, resulting in a society even more hilariously dysfunctional than most always evil cultures. a lot of the "backwards elf" traits where dropped after this initial version, and what was left was later refined into the modern drow via novels


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

IN ANY CASE, as of abomination vault, (and maybe before, im not sure) it is clear that most of the problems with the drow people are a result of their worship of and devotion to demon lords, which makes sense, as societies that worship demons end up barely stable and morally degenerate. But we have seen both with drow and Xugalith (sp?) that Individuals who leave or are raised outside of those societies have every bit as much personal and moral agency as any other humanoid.

Wayfinders Contributor

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Agreed. We even have an awesome Starfinder Venture Captain who is a drow. Although a lot of drow are involved in shady practices and arms dealing, drow are a player race in SFS that can be acquired with minimal ACP. They're just the people from the Pact Worlds that come from Apostae. If they can be non-evil people in the future, they sure as heck can be non-evil now.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think a certain dual-wielding male Drow soured the view on Good Drows for a very long time.

A bit like like the Not-Halfling thieves that should not be named.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
keftiu wrote:
I don’t mind Drow existing; I do mind them being pretty much unchanged for their D&D roots.

I would not mind a bit of change myself. Classic D&D drow are, well, kind of tired.

I found the dessert dwelling, scorpion riding drow of Eberron to be a VERY interesting new take on old foes.

Eberron actually has /three/ Drow cultures! The scorpion-revering nomadic hunters in the jungle, the elemental binders who worship primal fire, and then the ones underground who use shadow magic to fight an endless war against aberrations. They're also not all evil - and in fact, are usually the natives of the places pulp explorers are trying to plunder...

Quote:
keftiu wrote:
But if you want organized opposition from the Darklands, the Serpentfolk take my vote - and are a playable ancestry I want dearly.

Bleargh!

I keep seeing serpentfolk brought up over and over again by players and developers on these boards. Why does everyone seem so fascinated with them? If anything they strike me as utterly boring and uninspired.

Also, the developers have already stated that playable serpentfolk is pretty much never going to happen. They're evil with a capital E.

Snake people are inherently cool. Snake people who have a history that long predates humanity, revere a decapitated god, and have lots of psychic powers? Exponentially cooler. I want the chance to play an alien noble who sees themself as entitled to ancient glories and thinks we're all better off with that Aroden jerk dead.

Also, that's mostly just James Jacobs, and he's even shown some willingness to say "maybe that's just me." Paizo's commitment to not rehashing the old perils of racist, 'always Evil' races does kind of preclude them from going "except these guys though." I hope they do it someday.

We eventually got Gnolls!

Ill say again regardless of which way the wind blows on snake people in the end, I firmly believe some groups of golarion should be narrative tools and not PC tools. Warhammer fantasy has the skaven, dnd has mindflayers, and as of right now golarion has stuff like abeloths and snake people. You can add nuance through the use of npcs that don't conform to their culture but organizations diametrically opposed to society shouldn't be character options. I can't play a chaos cultist in rogue trader... theyre the great enemy. Now you can write a setting where there are no such organizations and all forms of opposition are grey and circumstantial, which is a good teaching tool against racism, but I'd rather have a setting with both (grey and black/white). I like that the whispering tyrant and his hordes are unquestionably evil and an existential threat to everyone. It's a cool piece of the setting. The more things like that we have, the more options I have as a dm in my stories. Anyway, that's my case against snake people. As much as I'd like to play a mindflayer in 5e... they eat brains. I guess we'll cross that bridge when book of the dead comes out so maybe I've been blowing hot air this whole post. Hmmmmmm, disregard all that then!!!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:

I think a certain dual-wielding male Drow soured the view on Good Drows for a very long time.

A bit like like the Not-Halfling thieves that should not be named.

I would argue Drizzt fans did far more damage, the most i can blame drizzt for is forcing animal companions and dual wielding when those where a drow thing and a magic item respectively, not ranger things. In any case i always think Elestree when i think good drow not avengers, not redeemers but a cathartic expression of personal freedom from people escaping from a cruel system of abuse.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
keftiu wrote:
We eventually got Gnolls!

If by eventually you mean “in PF1 and 3.5”.

I get your ambition, but I don’t think that particular example supports your argument very well.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
keftiu wrote:
We eventually got Gnolls!

If by eventually you mean “in PF1 and 3.5”.

I get your ambition, but I don’t think that particular example supports your argument very well.

Gnolls aren't a player option in PF1.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Tender Tendrils wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
keftiu wrote:
We eventually got Gnolls!

If by eventually you mean “in PF1 and 3.5”.

I get your ambition, but I don’t think that particular example supports your argument very well.

Gnolls aren't a player option in PF1.

Technically, they are an example of a race in the race builder, but they had no unique attributes, no support and not even a write up, just an example of how build points work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like options to allow for us to create our own ancestries possibly published alongside rules for ancestries so powerful they require a dedication feat to use and grant more abilities from that pool as well as the usual ancestry feats.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
WWHsmackdown wrote:


Ill say again regardless of which way the wind blows on snake people in the end, I firmly believe some groups of golarion should be narrative tools and not PC tools. Warhammer fantasy has the skaven, dnd has mindflayers, and as of right now golarion has stuff like abeloths and snake people. You can add nuance through the use of npcs that don't conform to their culture but organizations diametrically opposed to society shouldn't be character options. I can't play a chaos cultist in rogue trader... theyre the great enemy.

Your own examples disagree with you. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay has an entire book on playing Skaven. One of my favorite 3.5 books, Lords of Madness, had TONS of options for aberration-influenced player characters, including those with mind flayer bits. Rogue Trader had Orkz, Kroot, Tau, and Dark Eldar all playable, despite them being shoot on sight in the Imperium and the Dark Eldar being sadistic, evil bastards; its predecessor, Dark Heresy, had an entire book of heretical player options, and they made another game, Black Crusade, entirely about playing as Chaos.

I am going to forever say (pretty vociferously!) that evil Ancestries are a bad call, and keeping them out of player hands steers them towards being fraught, rather than being people with nuance. Pathfinder 2e has committed pretty hard to getting this right with orcs, goblins, drow, and so on… they don’t get to say “okay but these guys are all still okay for you to murder whenever.”


5 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
keftiu wrote:
We eventually got Gnolls!

If by eventually you mean “in PF1 and 3.5”.

I get your ambition, but I don’t think that particular example supports your argument very well.

I was talking about them being a playable Ancestry depicted with sympathy and nuance in 2e, actually. That said, they got a PC race treatment in 4e that was very well received and showed up in PF1’s Advanced Race Guide… folks like being a big hyena!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It's pretty clear to me that Aboleths shouldn't get the "PC ancestry option" and that's not so much about "powerful" or "not-humanoid" as "fundamentally alien mindset, you shouldn't get to inhabit one of these."

So why can't the latter also be true of a humanoid group of people as well?

Like I'm all for a snakey PC ancestry, but maybe the OG serpentfolk can remain fundamentally alien to a human mindset in a way that Elves, Poppets, Conrasu, Astomoi, Cecaelias, Leshies, Gathlain, Ghorans, Anadi, Yaddithians, Wyrwood, and Fleshwarps are not and we just have a snakey group of people that are more human-minded.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

It's pretty clear to me that Aboleths shouldn't get the "PC ancestry option" and that's not so much about "powerful" or "not-humanoid" as "fundamentally alien mindset, you shouldn't get to inhabit one of these."

So why can't the latter also be true of a humanoid group of people as well?

Like I'm all for a snakey PC ancestry, but maybe the OG serpentfolk can remain fundamentally alien to a human mindset in a way that Elves, Poppets, Conrasu, Astomoi, Cecaelias, Leshies, Gathlain, Ghorans, Anadi, Yaddithians, Wyrwood, and Fleshwarps are not and we just have a snakey group of people that are more human-minded.

The problem lies with the idea of "Always Evil, kill on sight even the babies" species.

What Keftiu wrote above is quite enlightening about the link between not-playable and Always Evil.

And now I want a playable Alghollthu ancestry.


Not all that opposed to the idea of more ancestries being done for PF2e, even for those that others would find questionable, although that did gives me this stray thought that it might veer things towards being more like PF1e where the monsters were constructed in a similar way to actual player characters- admittedly, there's prolly a contingent of folks who wouldn't mind such a thing at all....


5 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

It's pretty clear to me that Aboleths shouldn't get the "PC ancestry option" and that's not so much about "powerful" or "not-humanoid" as "fundamentally alien mindset, you shouldn't get to inhabit one of these."

So why can't the latter also be true of a humanoid group of people as well?

Like I'm all for a snakey PC ancestry, but maybe the OG serpentfolk can remain fundamentally alien to a human mindset in a way that Elves, Poppets, Conrasu, Astomoi, Cecaelias, Leshies, Gathlain, Ghorans, Anadi, Yaddithians, Wyrwood, and Fleshwarps are not and we just have a snakey group of people that are more human-minded.

The problem lies with the idea of "Always Evil, kill on sight even the babies" species.

What Keftiu wrote above is quite enlightening about the link between not-playable and Always Evil.

And now I want a playable Alghollthu ancestry.

How dare you tease me with Wyrwoods, PC! I want them back so dearly.

Raven has it, in that any Ancestry that doesn’t have PC playability has a massive bullseye on their back, and the idea of entire peoples being acceptable targets makes my skin crawl.

I quite like how the Azarketi have some options to be algollthu-touched. It does make me wish that Fleshwarps were a versatile heritage, though; I’d quite like a “I’m gross, messed up, and aberration-touched!” option everyone could take.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

Alghollthus won't be playable because they are large creatures with no hands (or legs) that are telepathic and have a genetic memory that allows them to remember everything all of their ancestors knew.

There might be a few neutral or even good aligned Alghollthus out there, but all of the other stuff still precludes them from being PCs.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm with keftiu on just kicking down the doors. I find always-evil (or always-anything) ancestries painfully boring.

On the alghollthus specifically, I could see a situation where a veiled master and its group are doing some experiments on other ancestries and their souls/minds. Something goes awry and now some number of alghollthu have had their essence or whatever corrupted (from their cultural view) with more familiar mortal minds and worldviews.

Call them mindmerged or something.

Credit: the basic idea for this is inspired by what Mark is doing for the Dragon Ancestries and their "I am become ADVENTURER" ritual.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think its fair to say that there are a number of reasons that an ancestory might not be player viable.

1) incompatable with most games) this might be stuff like mermaids, things that just do not function in any meaningful way in the average campaign and so spending resources to give them a write up that could be used on a useful ancestory is unlikely

2) too big) similer to the above, i think that while its possible we may one day get a large character, anything higher than that, like most giants are probobly cut off from us forever for simple battle map practicality reasons

3) body plan issues) things that have far to many, or no hands can be problematic, along with things that just do not interface with standard gear, my guess is that centaurs and winged races are about as big a deviation from the humanoid body plan as we will get

4) non standard indavidual agency) this one is a bit more spacific, but creatures that are either partialy controlled by outside forces or whos minds are not entirely their own would qualify, I know pathfinder has a few hive minds but i cannot think of any off the top of my head atm.

5) Lore reasons, Perhaps a people have extreamly low numbers that are all accounted for, perhaps they are in hiding or thought to be extinct, maybe they are phisically isolated in some way, these might appear in adventures where they are relevent but they simply do not exist in the world at large, an example of this might be the Shabti

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The one Ancestry we will never get is the one whose members will never be statted : Deity.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
The one Ancestry we will never get is the one whose members will never be statted : Deity.

I mean thats not really an ancestory so much as it is a status, if anything its a versitile heratage as anyone can theoretically become a deity


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kekkres wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
The one Ancestry we will never get is the one whose members will never be statted : Deity.
I mean thats not really an ancestory so much as it is a status, if anything its a versitile heratage as anyone can theoretically become a deity

Except, probably, Algollthu... another reason they shouldn't be PCs ;p


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
keftiu wrote:
I was talking about them being a playable Ancestry depicted with sympathy and nuance in 2e, actually. That said, they got a PC race treatment in 4e that was very well received and showed up in PF1’s Advanced Race Guide… folks like being a big hyena!

Also got a fair bit of a write up in the monster codex, including racial archetypes and feats, and in a couple articles. The pieces were there to play a Golarian gnoll if you wanted, though I’ll agree it’s even more supported in 2e.

My point was that it was never as much of a leap that gnolls would come into PF2 that serpentfolk represent.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Like I'm all for a snakey PC ancestry, but maybe the OG serpentfolk can remain fundamentally alien to a human mindset in a way that Elves, Poppets, Conrasu, Astomoi, Cecaelias, Leshies, Gathlain, Ghorans, Anadi, Yaddithians, Wyrwood, and Fleshwarps are not and we just have a snakey group of people that are more human-minded.

Which is what JJ explicitly said at one point, he would prefer to bring back a more nuanced and complete Vishyanka, including perhaps changing their appearance, than make playable serpentfolk.

All this said, the clear and persistent interest is definitely going to be something they keep in mind when they make decisions on what to bring into the game and what to exclude.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Vishkanya don’t do anything that makes Serpentfolk interesting, though. I’m here for their place in the lore, not because they’re snake-y.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
Vishkanya don’t do anything that makes Serpentfolk interesting, though. I’m here for their place in the lore, not because they’re snake-y.

In fairness to Vishkanya, they're mostly uninteresting because they don't have a history yet. They basically boil down to "look kinda like snakes, really like poisons." Even as a cultural touchstone that's pretty bare. I suspect they'd be much more interesting if they were written up as an ancestry.

Heck, since they have so little past going on, they could retroactively be written in as an offshoot of the Serpentfolk who diverged from the rest. There are, IIRC, three Serpentfolk sub-species at the moment, so it's not far from the realm of possibility.

151 to 200 of 570 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.