What Ancestries are you still craving?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 424 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

2e is now a couple years old, and has been really spoiling us with Ancestry options so far - but what’s missing? Are there any obvious holes or 1e favorites you’re hurting for?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Ooze.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I’m hoping we can get back Wyrwoods and Lashunta, though the relative obscurity of both does hurt them. Wyrwoods would make for a killer inclusion in an Arcadia book - I loved the art of the Xopatli ones in Tyrant’s Grasp - and and they give a nice flavor of playable construct that still feels very distinct from Automatons and Poppets. Lashunta are tough to justify on Golarion proper, but with the Psychic class incoming, I’d love to see our friends from Castrovel come back, and playing a rebel against their sexist culture would be so fun!

For new arrivals, I’d be ecstatic to see Minotaurs get some love; they’re iconic creatures, I love Ancestries that get stereotyped as monsters, and they give a good pop of Hellenistic flavor. Seeing more of Nuar Spiritskin’s story would be a delight! I’d also really enjoy an insect Ancestry - Formians from Castrovel would make me happiest, though I am curious about the Klinkois briefly mention in Guns & Gears - to help scratch some of the ‘weird fantasy’ itch, and I know a lupine/canine Ancestry would make a lot of people happy; maybe the Adlet from 1e, if we spend some time somewhere cold?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Physicskid42 wrote:
Ooze.

The old 3.x Forgotten Realms book on the Underdark had an ooze-related people called Slyth that I liked!


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Giants or a giant-adjacent Ancestry is sorely missing. Don't have any "big guy" ancestries at the moment.

More Versatile Heritages would also be nice.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Adlet
Minotaur
Harpy
Samsaran
Lashunta
Ooze(maybe as a versatile heritage that can take the shape of its ancestry. Similarly to the Ooze vigilante from 1e. Or was that a 3p product I'm having trouble rememvering)

Would all be nice as well as any other surprises.

I would love to see more fey options, especially something like a Satyr/Faun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
Physicskid42 wrote:
Ooze.
The old 3.x Forgotten Realms book on the Underdark had an ooze-related people called Slyth that I liked!

I’d like an ooze ancestry and I’d like some sort of shifter class in the future with an ooze sub class just so I can push my gooey powers to the limit.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Physicskid42 wrote:
Ooze.

Ooze?

Yours.
Oo else would she be askin'?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Large ancestries seem like the thing people want explored and paizo has been open about looking into it. I would like minotaur and centaur.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd really like to see Rougarous show up, and some kind of ogrekin/half-ogre. The last could be a versatile heritage I'd think.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pixierose wrote:

Adlet

Minotaur
Harpy
Samsaran
Lashunta
Ooze(maybe as a versatile heritage that can take the shape of its ancestry. Similarly to the Ooze vigilante from 1e. Or was that a 3p product I'm having trouble rememvering)

Would all be nice as well as any other surprises.

I would love to see more fey options, especially something like a Satyr/Faun.

Thank you for reminding me how much I want Samsarans to come back! I adore them, as an old 4e gal with a weak spot for Devas.

A fey planetouched is an obvious hole I’d love to see something fill. Luis Loza’s actual play has some called Waybound that I’d be very glad to see sneak into a book someday.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

From PF1... I want uh, Wyvaran. Yeah.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Nagaji and Vanara!


5 people marked this as a favorite.

drow


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
drow

Aren't those covered under the Cavern Elf Heritage?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

From the ones already present in the setting, I'd like to see centaurs, vanaras, minotaurs, and maybe caligni and ghorans. If they do a Lost Omens High Seas that could be a neat place to introduce locathahs, tritons, sahuagin, etc.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Darth Game Master wrote:
From the ones already present in the setting, I'd like to see centaurs, vanaras, minotaurs, and maybe caligni and ghorans. If they do a Lost Omens High Seas that could be a neat place to introduce locathahs, tritons, sahuagin, etc.

I can't help but wonder if we'll see our plant friends back in a hypothetical Impossible Lands book - they're from Nex, after all.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Golurkcanfly wrote:
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
drow
Aren't those covered under the Cavern Elf Heritage?

They can be simulated with it, but IIRC James said that they were not Drow, which would be mechanically distinct.

On that note I'd like to see the Darklands ancestries come back, particularly Caligni, which started to really come into their own with 1E's Cradle of Night, and the Munavri, which would feel way less front-loaded with features with 2E's modular feat design. Also, I just like underground stuff.

If large ancestries are on the table I'd also like to see Dragonkin come into the game, particularly if they came with a series of ancestry feats that built off the partner bond mechanic.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Wayang, so that Purnama may once again live. I would also love to see Mortics and Caligni.

I also kinda want Charau-ka as an ancestry. They are a prominent group in the Mwangi and are way less weird than a lot of ancestries we already have.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
From PF1... I want uh, Wyvaran. Yeah.

They'll most definitely lose the 1st level flight speed, though. Are you sure you can withstand the pain and cringe from that...?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

From PF1
Cecaelia
Drow
Merfolk
Reptoid
Samsaran
Wyrwood
Wyvaran
Yaddithian
Other, maybe a harpy or a minitaur.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Minotaur
Duergar
Mortic
Ghoran
Nagaji
Wyvaran
Rougarou
Munavri
Drow
Vanara

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't really call Lashunta obscure since they're a Core Race in Starfinder :3

I'd love to have playable Mortics as well.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean I thought there were dozens I wanted, but then Poppets came out and I realised that I'm set for life.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Lucas Yew wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
From PF1... I want uh, Wyvaran. Yeah.
They'll most definitely lose the 1st level flight speed, though. Are you sure you can withstand the pain and cringe from that...?

It is what it is so yeah.


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

Here is my list of the PF1 races that have not been converted either by Paizo or by any 3rd party published that I am aware of:

Adaro
Astomoi
Caligni
Cecaelia
Deep One Hybrid
Gathlain
Ghoran
Green Martian
Grindylow
Kasatha
Kuru
Lashunta
Locathah
Merfolk
Munavri
Nagaji
Orang-Pendak
Reborn Samsaran
Reptoid
Samsaran
Shabti
Syrinx
Triaxian
Triton
Trox
Vanara
Vishkanya
Wayang
Wyrwood
Wyvaran
Yaddithian


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, duh.

I want playable Serpentfolk. I know James Jacobs is opposed, but I’d love the chance to get inside an ancestry with such a long history and such an alternate perspective on humanity. Plus, I think they have a lot of psychics!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Davido1000 wrote:
Large ancestries seem like the thing people want explored and paizo has been open about looking into it. I would like minotaur and centaur.

Would you be okay with Medium Minotaurs? Starfinder has them (named for a prominent Minotaur who lives in Absalom, back in Pathfinder times) and I’d be perfectly content doing the same in PF2.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

As my avatar shows, the ancestry I miss more is Drow, with Samsaran as a far below second interest. Large options would be nice, specially Minotaur.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Mortics are at the top of my list for sure.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
I want playable Serpentfolk.

Oh, forget this one. Yeah, add that to my list. ;)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Alaryth wrote:
As my avatar shows, the ancestry I miss more is Drow, with Samsaran as a far below second interest.

You must really like being blue :p

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It might be interesting to have a book focusing on ancestries that "break the bounding box" of regular ancestry design.

Kasatha: make more than 2 hands work in a way that's nice to have but not OP
Minotaur: make large creatures work (because the extra area control, reach, and OTOH fitting in a standard dungeon aren't a given)

etc.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Minotaur, Nagaji, Stheno, Locathah, Vanara, are all appealing to me, along with Centaur.

Oh, and Mortics are really interesting, would they even be an ancestry? Or a versatile heritage?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Rather than new ones, I am still trying to understand what a conrasu is, how does it move and how does it is perceived by paesans and normal people.

Right know it seems a strange walking coat hanger, and I think no existing creature could have an idea of his anatomy ( I don't even know how a rogue would be able to stab that thing ).

The few already existing images complicated things rather than help.

Is anybody else feeling the same that we need "more detailed" ancestries sometimes?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Large ancestries can be nice, but I fear they would be the go to ancestries for melee characters. Extra Reach is just so strong...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Large ancestries can be nice, but I fear they would be the go to ancestries for melee characters. Extra Reach is just so strong...

Well, this topic has been already introduced and solved in different ways with the Beastkin heritage:

- Rare access ( depends on DM allowing the player to use it or not. For example, not giving it to a min maxer player but allowing one which likes to roleplay and do flavor stuff to benefit from it ).

- Level accessibility ( lvl 13 is the level required to have the permanent large size, since it's rare. Uncommon lizardfolk gets it by lvl 17. Common ones don't have any of these ). Same goes for flying stuff ( pixie and strix by lvl 13, and all uncommon ancestries by lvl 17. Common ancestries don't have any ).

- Clumsy ( being large comes at a huge cost. Being clumsy. Which is, in this 2e, really a strong debuff ).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
keftiu wrote:

2e is now a couple years old, and has been really spoiling us with Ancestry options so far - but what’s missing? Are there any obvious holes or 1e favorites you’re hurting for?

I always thought something with a serpentine body like Captain Sarigar (https://alienlegion.com/roster.html) would be cool. I didn't play 1e so I don't know if it was ever an option there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My top list would probs be:

Ooze
Gathlain
Kasatha
Triaxians
Lashunta
Serpentfolk
Wyrwood
Another plant ancestry (conrasu is great, but it has very specific flavor that doesn't mesh for my players who want something closer to a dryad in feel)

Basically, I like fae and aliens :p

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alchemic_Genius wrote:

My top list would probs be:

Ooze
Gathlain
Kasatha
Triaxians
Lashunta
Serpentfolk
Wyrwood
Another plant ancestry (conrasu is great, but it has very specific flavor that doesn't mesh for my players who want something closer to a dryad in feel)

Basically, I like fae and aliens :p

Ghoran?

And yessss I will forever hate Sprites for taking away Gathlain’s spot.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Physicskid42 wrote:
Ooze.

Although we do not have the ooze ancestry/heritage the The Slithering give us the Oozemorph archetype. I still think Paizo miss the opportunity to put it as versatile heritage instead of archetype.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Ghoran?

And yessss I will forever hate Sprites for taking away Gathlain’s spot.

I'd prefer they didn't have the int hit in this edition, but ghoran would def work.

I actually like sprites, and I dont feel their existance prevents the existance of gathlains. With sprites being dex/int, and their art featuring letter opener 2h sword, they kinda have more of a borrowers kinda feel, while gathlains have a distinct nature symbiosis theme


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Now that we're getting Mark's take on a true dragon ancestry I don't have any new ancestry I truly yearn for.

I'd like to see:

Lashunta
Kasatha
Brenneri (otter people, for a player of mine)
Svartalfar


2 people marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:
Physicskid42 wrote:
Ooze.
Although we do not have the ooze ancestry/heritage the The Slithering give us the Oozemorph archetype. I still think Paizo miss the opportunity to put it as versatile heritage instead of archetype.

Oozemorph doesn't really get the feel though; oozemorph feels more a supernatural curse that you're turning into a strength through force if will rather than an actual ooze. It does get some stuff, but it's very much like to see things like non vision senses, grapple support, etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HumbleGamer wrote:

Rather than new ones, I am still trying to understand what a conrasu is, how does it move and how does it is perceived by paesans and normal people.

Right know it seems a strange walking coat hanger, and I think no existing creature could have an idea of his anatomy ( I don't even know how a rogue would be able to stab that thing ).

The few already existing images complicated things rather than help.

Is anybody else feeling the same that we need "more detailed" ancestries sometimes?

Yes, I'd prefer deeper dives.

I disliked the Starfinder Cantina feel with so many exotic species it all became a blur, much of it a shallow veneer of variety because there was no underlying personality or lore for a majority of them. If there isn't enough culture to build an important RPing scenario around, there's little gain to adding them to PF2, IMO.
There are some Ancestries left that do have such development from PF1, yet it also seems we're inching closer to letting in hollow options beyond their image.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Castilliano wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:

Rather than new ones, I am still trying to understand what a conrasu is, how does it move and how does it is perceived by paesans and normal people.

Right know it seems a strange walking coat hanger, and I think no existing creature could have an idea of his anatomy ( I don't even know how a rogue would be able to stab that thing ).

The few already existing images complicated things rather than help.

Is anybody else feeling the same that we need "more detailed" ancestries sometimes?

Yes, I'd prefer deeper dives.

I disliked the Starfinder Cantina feel with so many exotic species it all became a blur, much of it a shallow veneer of variety because there was no underlying personality or lore for a majority of them. If there isn't enough culture to build an important RPing scenario around, there's little gain to adding them to PF2, IMO.
There are some Ancestries left that do have such development from PF1, yet it also seems we're inching closer to letting in hollow options beyond their image.

To be fair, any Ancestry in PF2 has to have a bunch of feats and heritages which do A LOT for telling some of the story of the ancestry on their own. Starfinder races were extremely shallow.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The way Mark has furthered the development of the actually monstrous ancestries is very interesting to me. As in actually monsters or at least usually NPC-only things like full celestials Not just the actual mechanical undercarriage adjusted for player use, but actually going into the problems such an options poses in a group environment and in-lore explanations to make all of this practical. In particular, the fact that player options should follow the general theme, but don't necessarily need to strictly adhere to every single detail and the cultural impact that has - non-evil chromatic dragons for example. Or sentient oozes. Thankfully the upcoming undead ancestries/archetypes are already a big step in that direction.

The most radical and interesting idea for me when following that line of thinking is a redeemed fiend converted by Nocticula. Being able to do that would be amazing.

So to make a long story short, as long as we are taking such bold steps beyond the relatively normal ancestries, I'm game for nearly anything.


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

Some kind of oozelike ancestry
Some kind of symbiotic ancestry (basically Trill ripoff)
A manifested spirit or prana ghost

Aastomoi
Yadithian
Stheno
Nymph - dryad, naiad, lampad, hesphid
Kovintus - nerha, bree, yoro, weg
Munavri
Caligni
Ghorun

These would all be cool to see but I think a Lost Omens book or something similar which expands on and gives more feats and options to existing ancestries would be helpful as well


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Karmagator wrote:

The way Mark has furthered the development of the actually monstrous ancestries is very interesting to me. As in actually monsters or at least usually NPC-only things like full celestials Not just the actual mechanical undercarriage adjusted for player use, but actually going into the problems such an options poses in a group environment and in-lore explanations to make all of this practical. In particular, the fact that player options should follow the general theme, but don't necessarily need to strictly adhere to every single detail and the cultural impact that has - non-evil chromatic dragons for example. Or sentient oozes. Thankfully the upcoming undead ancestries/archetypes are already a big step in that direction.

The most radical and interesting idea for me when following that line of thinking is a redeemed fiend converted by Nocticula. Being able to do that would be amazing.

So to make a long story short, as long as we are taking such bold steps beyond the relatively normal ancestries, I'm game for nearly anything.

I think redeemed fiends are fine if you have an important (and exceedingly rare) npc like noticula but every single outsider having the capacity to change their nature when they are an explicit manifestation of that particular nature makes them a little less interesting for me. I'd feel like it's more of a color swapped mortal that lives on a different plane than a being of concentrated emotion of a particular type. If I wanted a redeemed fiend or a fallen angel I'd play trifling or aasimar respectively bc free will and self determination is still very much important to a being that's only half outsider.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WWHsmackdown wrote:
Karmagator wrote:

The way Mark has furthered the development of the actually monstrous ancestries is very interesting to me. As in actually monsters or at least usually NPC-only things like full celestials Not just the actual mechanical undercarriage adjusted for player use, but actually going into the problems such an options poses in a group environment and in-lore explanations to make all of this practical. In particular, the fact that player options should follow the general theme, but don't necessarily need to strictly adhere to every single detail and the cultural impact that has - non-evil chromatic dragons for example. Or sentient oozes. Thankfully the upcoming undead ancestries/archetypes are already a big step in that direction.

The most radical and interesting idea for me when following that line of thinking is a redeemed fiend converted by Nocticula. Being able to do that would be amazing.

So to make a long story short, as long as we are taking such bold steps beyond the relatively normal ancestries, I'm game for nearly anything.

I think redeemed fiends are fine if you have an important (and exceedingly rare) npc like noticula but every single outsider having the capacity to change their nature when they are an explicit manifestation of that particular nature makes them a little less interesting for me. I'd feel like it's more of a color swapped mortal that lives on a different plane than a being of concentrated emotion of a particular type. If I wanted a redeemed fiend or a fallen angel I'd play trifling or aasimar respectively bc free will and self determination is still very much important to a being that's only half outsider.

OTOH: I think entire groups of sapient entities being ultimately unable to decide how to act is incredibly boring. Different strokes. I would much rather completely end alignment or, as a compromise, completely remove alignment as a characteristic describing ancestries (including pure outsiders).

1 to 50 of 424 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 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.