Question for the devs: why are none of the ancestries outside the core common?

[GM_3826]

This is something that has been on my mind ever since I looked at the Bestiaries and noticed that every uncommon ancestry was common there. This implies that the uncommon ancestries are widespread throughout the world, but for one reason or another rarely become adventurers. I can think of a handful of potential reasons for this to apply, but no real explanation. Is it because the rarity system for ancestries assumes that the PCs are non-evil and the game is set in Avistan? This is a good explanation for most, but then I look at ratfolk, who have four ethnicities native to Avistan (Belkzen Creepers, Druman Dashers, Numerian Tinkerers, and Ulfen Leapers), are usually neutral, and enjoy traveling and collecting bits and bobs. At that point, the only explanation I can come up with is that they don't fit the traditional conception of fantasy that is assumed by the core. Is this accurate, or is there some other explanation?

[Rysky]

It’s to keep the game to a basic standard, to go beyond that you just ask your GM, rather than just assuming you can play whatever.

[keftiu]

Those Rarity ratings are for the Inner Sea as a broad region, where you’re probably going to see a lot more Halflings than you do Androids. Rarity changes more at the local scale, to reflect local populations - this is from the Mwangi book, if you haven’t seen:

Quote:

To reflect the different cultural makeup of the Mwangi Expanse, GMs might consider adjusting the rarity of various applicable ancestries.

• Kobolds, lizardfolk, and orcs are considered common ancestries.
• Gnomes and goblins are considered uncommon.
• Certain uncommon ancestries with strong ties to Garund, such as catfolk, gnolls (page 110), and gripplis (page 118), can be considered common if the group and GM so choose.

It’s not that the Corebook ancestries are universal, it’s just that they’re the most widespread in the core of the setting (the Inner Sea); I’m willing to bet any Tian book is making Dwarves scarcer and Tengu abundant, for instance.

[GM_3826]

Rysky wrote:

It’s to keep the game to a basic standard, to go beyond that you just ask your GM, rather than just assuming you can play whatever.

I would believe that if it weren't for the fact that every class outside Guns & Gears is common, including six outside the core.

keftiu wrote:

Those Rarity ratings are for the Inner Sea as a broad region, where you’re probably going to see a lot more Halflings than you do Androids.

I mean, I mentioned up the part about localized rarity in the OP. I'm aware it exists. i'm just not sure why only the core ancestries are considered to be common in the areas the game "usually" takes place in. I specifically brought up ratfolk as an example because they seem to break away from that pattern-they dwell within the same area as the core ancestries.

[keftiu]

It might be about mass and relevance. Your OP notes four Ysoki populations in Avistan - contrast that with how many different lands are home to Dwarves.

It’s not just about an Ancestry existing in the Inner Sea, it’s about how widespread and known they are, and there’s not a lot of ratfolk legendary heroes across the land. The average village in Brevoy or Nirmathas knows what an Elf is, but the only person in town who’s ever seen a Gnoll is the old man who was a caravan guard in his youth.

There’s also the meta-level consideration. Given that most of them basically look like funny Humans (outside of Goblins), the corebook crew fit just about any campaign. A game of Taldor noble politicking or Ustalavic folk horror is going to feel very different from what most might expect if the party includes a Hobgoblin or Tengu, even if that character has an ironclad excuse in the lore. Rarity is arguably more tailored to this purpose than the lore one, there to mark which options fit in any stereotypical d20 fantasy campaign versus which are a little weirder.

[Squiggit]

I dunno, I feel like a Tengu would fit a lot better in either of those example scenarios than a traditionalist goblin does.

[GM_3826]

keftiu wrote:

It might be about mass and relevance. Your OP notes four Ysoki populations in Avistan - contrast that with how many different lands are home to Dwarves.

It’s not just about an Ancestry existing in the Inner Sea, it’s about how widespread and known they are, and there’s not a lot of ratfolk legendary heroes across the land. The average village in Brevoy or Nirmathas knows what an Elf is, but the only person in town who’s ever seen a Gnoll is the old man who was a caravan guard in his youth.

There’s also the meta-level consideration. Given that most of them basically look like funny Humans (outside of Goblins), the corebook crew fit just about any campaign. A game of Taldor noble politicking or Ustalavic folk horror is going to feel very different from what most might expect if the party includes a Hobgoblin or Tengu, even if that character has an ironclad excuse in the lore. Rarity is arguably more tailored to this purpose than the lore one, there to mark which options fit in any stereotypical d20 fantasy campaign versus which are a little weirder.

"Four Ysoki populations in Avistan"... versus two elf populations. There also explicitly aren't a whole lot of halfling heroes compared to other ancestries, and you already listed goblins as an exception to core ancestries looking like humans. That said, I actually acknowledged your last point in my OP, it just is a meta reason rather than a worldbuilding one, and what I'm really curious about is if there's a concrete in-universe explanation as to why ysoki, which are common as NPCs and found in Avistan in several places, are any more uncommon than elves, who only have two centers of population there and cannot bear to live among humans, or halflings, who are folksy types that traditionally shun the limelight.

[keftiu]

GM_3826 wrote:

"Four Ysoki populations in Avistan"... versus two elf populations. There also explicitly aren't a whole lot of halfling heroes compared to other ancestries, and you already listed goblins as an exception to core ancestries looking like humans. That said, I actually acknowledged your last point in my OP, it just is a meta reason rather than a worldbuilding one, and what I'm really curious about is if there's a concrete in-universe explanation as to why ysoki, which are common as NPCs and found in Avistan in several places, are any more uncommon than elves, who only have two centers of population there and cannot bear to live among humans, or halflings, who are folksy types that traditionally shun the limelight.

Huh? There’s much more than two populations of elves in Avistan; there’s the nation of Kyonin, of course, which is an Aiudeen elven nation, but there’s also the Ilverani in the Land of the Linnorm Kings, there’s the Mierani in Varisia, the Mordant Spire on the coast, a few spots where you find Aquatic Elves (they’re allied with Ravounel, I think?) and countless other smaller populations of Forlorn among other folk.

You also keep saying “Avistan,” but the Inner Sea includes a pretty respectable chunk of Garund, where one can find the three Mualijae nations and good numbers of the nomadic Vourinoi. Taking a view of the setting that stretches between Brevoy, Geb, the Land of the Linnorm Kings, and Vidrian as the four corners one massive region, as the Inner Sea is, I’m fully willing to believe that the CRB options are more universal there than the Uncommon ones.

[GM_3826]

keftiu wrote:

Huh? There’s much more than two populations of elves in Avistan; there’s the nation of Kyonin, of course, which is an Aiudeen elven nation, but there’s also the Ilverani in the Land of the Linnorm Kings, there’s the Mierani in Varisia, the Mordant Spire on the coast, a few spots where you find Aquatic Elves (they’re allied with Ravounel, I think?) and countless other smaller populations of Forlorn among other folk.

You also keep saying “Avistan,” but the Inner Sea includes a pretty respectable chunk of Garund, where one can find the three Mualijae nations and good numbers of the nomadic Vourinoi. Taking a view of the setting that stretches between Brevoy, Geb, the Land of the Linnorm Kings, and Vidrian as the four corners one massive region, as the Inner Sea is, I’m fully willing to believe that the CRB options are more universal there than the Uncommon ones.

Remember that the Mwangi Expanse is part of the Inner Sea region and has entirely different rarities. Gnomes and goblins are explicitly not common in the Mwangi Expanse. Additionally, in the Golden Road where you can find the Vourinoi, the Common language is not Taldane, but Kelish or Osiriani. The Mualijae and Vourinoi come from an entirely different cultural landscape than is assumed by the core.

As for your first point, the Ilverani are part of the Crown of the World, and the Mordant Spire is not part of Avistan proper, but rather an outlying island. Aquatic elves aren't even playable yet and could very well be uncommon. And there's no reason to believe that ysoki don't live among humans with as much frequency as the Forlorn. The Forlorn aren't a distinct ethnicity, but rather a phenomenon where elves that live among humans develop symptoms resembling clinical depression. So, if we're counting Forlorn, we have to count the similarly small communities of ysoki in major population centers. Extinction Curse has one.

[keftiu]

Why are you framing this as being about Avistan and not the Inner Sea?

[GM_3826]

keftiu wrote:

Why are you framing this as being about Avistan and not the Inner Sea?

Because, my point is, Avistan is the core setting. Taldane is Common even though it isn't in most of Garund, and the one set of guidelines we have for changing rarities was in Garund but still part of the Inner Sea. Rarities in the core are based on Avistan, not the Inner Sea region as a whole, even if official adventures have explored all of the Inner Sea region with equal frequency.

[keftiu]

GM_3826 wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Why are you framing this as being about Avistan and not the Inner Sea?

Because, my point is, Avistan is the core setting. Taldane is Common even though it isn't in most of Garund, and the one set of guidelines we have for changing rarities was in Garund but still part of the Inner Sea. Rarities in the core are based on Avistan, not the Inner Sea region as a whole, even if official adventures have explored all of the Inner Sea region with equal frequency.

This is incorrect. The core rulebook has a map of what it considers the Inner Sea - all 10 of the core Meta-Regions, including the three in Garund - the World Guide makes things as explicit as it could be.

Quote:

This book focuses on the Inner Sea region, the traditional heart of the Pathfinder campaign setting, which consists of the entire continent of Avistan and the northern third of the continent of Garund directly to the south.

The Golden Road, Impossible Lands, and Mwangi Expanse are part of the Inner Sea. The Mordant Spire live in the High Seas meta-region, likewise part of the Inner Sea. It's the Inner Sea region (all of the places connected by their proximity to the Inner Sea) for a reason; places linked by geography, trade, conquest, and common history. I have every reason to believe other Avistani nations and meta-regions would tweak Rarities some if they likewise got dedicated hardcover treatments.

[GM_3826]

keftiu wrote:

This is incorrect. The core rulebook has a map of what it considers the Inner Sea - all 10 of the core Meta-Regions, including the three in Garund - the World Guide makes things as explicit as it could be.

Please engage with my points. If the core setting is the Inner Sea region as a whole, and not Avistan, why is the Common language as noted in the core that of a limited portion of it? Even some parts of Avistan don't have Taldane as a Common language, and almost all of Garund doesn't.

[keftiu]

GM_3826 wrote:

keftiu wrote:

This is incorrect. The core rulebook has a map of what it considers the Inner Sea - all 10 of the core Meta-Regions, including the three in Garund - the World Guide makes things as explicit as it could be.

Please engage with my points. If the core setting is the Inner Sea region as a whole, and not Avistan, why is the Common language as noted in the core that of a limited portion of it? Even some parts of Avistan don't have Taldane as a Common language, and almost all of Garund doesn't.

You're the one telling me not to believe the clear, black-and-white text in multiple published books. Who's the one refusing to engage?

Taldane spread across the Inner Sea region for the same reason that Latin did when the Romans were all the rage and English has for the last 150 years; when an empire gobbles up a lot of territory, the people near or under them learn their language, as does anyone who wants to trade with them. Anywhere that's even been graced with a Taldan or Chelish boot on their necks (most of non-northern Avistan, parts of Rahadoum, several parts of the Mwangi Expanse) had to learn Taldane, as did any merchant out of any port in the Inner Sea that traded with any extension of them.

Taldane is the Inner Sea's default Common because lots of people speak at least a little of it, as a lingua franca and trade tongue, not because you're supposed to ignore the bottom half of the setting. The wiki even notes that it's drawn from Azlanti, Jistka, Kelish, and Varisian, so it's hardly some pure Avistani tongue.

[GM_3826]

keftiu wrote:

You're the one telling me not to believe the clear, black-and-white text in multiple published books. Who's the one refusing to engage?

Taldane spread across the Inner Sea region for the same reason that Latin did when the Romans were all the rage and English has for the last 150 years; when an empire gobbles up a lot of territory, the people near or under them learn their language, as does anyone who wants to trade with them. Anywhere that's even been graced with a Taldan or Chelish boot on their necks (most of non-northern Avistan, parts of Rahadoum, several parts of the Mwangi Expanse) had to learn Taldane, as did any merchant out of any port in the Inner Sea that traded with any extension of them.

Taldane is the Inner Sea's default Common because lots of people speak at least a little of it, as a lingua franca and trade tongue, not because you're supposed to ignore the bottom half of the setting. The wiki even notes that it's drawn from Azlanti, Jistka, Kelish, and Varisian, so it's hardly some pure Avistani tongue.

OK, let's stop this avenue of discussion here. We both refuse to see eye to eye on this topic and it's only tangential to the topic of this thread. I am not going to take your reasoning as an explanation as to why all non-core ancestries are uncommon, even if you disagree, so I'm going to wait to see if a developer has anything similar (or opposite) to say. This thread was a quesiton directed towards them in the first place.

[Mathmuse]

Common versus uncommon ancestry determines how much effort the character's backstory requires to explain the character's presence in a normal Inner Sea setting. And the exact setting matters.

Consider my PF2-converted Ironfang Invasion campaign. The first six characters were an elf, two gnomes, a halfling, a goblin, and a lizardfolk. They began in the town of Phaendar, described as "Population 398 (305 humans, 32 half-orcs, 21 dwarves, 17 half-elves, 28 other)." So none of the ancestries easiiy fit the setting, because their ancestries where in the "28 ohter." But elves lived near Phaendar, so moving the elf into town as a trainee of the local ranger was no problem. The halfling was an escaped slave from the nearby nation Nidal, working as a stable boy and goat herder for the local blacksmith. The two gnomes were travelers who had visited town often enough to make local friends. The lizardfolk had retired to the area from far away and lived alone upriver. He was considered strange whenever he visited town.

In the original PF1 material, goblins were an uncommon ancestry. Despite them becoming common in PF2, I left the setting as is, so the goblin needed an explanation. Phaendar had occasional raids from goblins and hobgoblins, and a goblin as a resident or a welcomed visitor would be out of place. Instead, ten goblins had arrived in Phaendar as refugees from the Ironfang Invasion. The local leaders gathered to discuss how to deal with the refugees. The local cleric wanted to give them sanctuary. The local ranger wanted to interrogate them about the invasion force. The local store owner wanted them run out of town. The local blacksmith wanted them caged.

The PCs all had an excuse to attend that meeting of the town leaders. The gnome druid PC was a friend of the cleric, the elf ranger PC was the apprentice of the elderly ranger, the halfling rogue PC was employed by the blacksmith, the goblin alchemist PC was among the goblin refugees, and the other two PCs had not shown up yet because their players could not attend the first session. They were assigned by the elderly ranger to scout to the east to see if they could spot the invasion. Thus, the party formed.

I like a solid foundation for my campaigns.

In general, if a dwarf, elf, gnome, halfling, full human, or half-elf human walks into a travelers' tavern, no-one in the Inner Sea region will be surprised. A half-orc could face some prejudice, but are usually accepted as adventurers, soldiers, or guards. The townsfolk have recently grown accustomed to seeing goblins in the streets as scavengers or lowly workers. These ancestries are common because they are common in most Inner Sea cities. And they were in the Core Rulebook because they are common.

But the uncommon ancestries: azarketi, catfolk, fetchling, gnoll, grippli, kitsune, kobold, leshy, ratfolk, tengu--are weird. They are seen as strangers from distant lands and attract attention. The other two uncommon ancestries, hobgoblin and orc, are more familiar but viewed as enemies until proven otherwise. The rare ancestries, such as automation, skeleton, and strix, are seen as monsters upon first sight. Fitting such odd people into the story, unless they are known adventurers beyond first level, takes work.

In my campaign, the goblin and lizardfolk dropped out. Later the party gained a tailed goblin (heritage from another continent), a leshy, and a catfolk. These PCs would not have fit into Phaendar, but the party was no longer in Phaendar. Thus, adding them was easier to justify. The tailed goblin and the catfolk were experienced adventurers who had traveled from distant lands and the leshy was a druid-awakened plant from the fantastical Fangwood Forest north of Phaendar.

[keftiu]

To reframe somewhat: what Ancestry could possibly even be Common in the Inner Sea that isn't already? It needs to be something that wouldn't raise eyebrows everywhere from a fishing village on Kortos to a Qadiran noble party or a Molthuni barracks, and I don't know that anyone else in the setting is as universal to the region as the CRB bunch. Who is as well-known to everyone as an elf or dwarf?

[Nefreet]

GM_3826 wrote:

I am not going to take your reasoning as an explanation as to why all non-core ancestries are uncommon, even if you disagree, so I'm going to wait to see if a developer has anything similar (or opposite) to say. This thread was a quesiton directed towards them in the first place.

keftiu happens to be about as knowledgeable regarding lore as any Paizo Designer, Developer or Contributor.

Their explanation so far has been pretty solid.

Why do *you* think these Ancestries are Uncommon, if you disagree?

EDIT: they're also obviously knowledgeable about Ninjitsu

[Unicore]

I think the decision to only have 6, predominantly land based ancestries be common is for mechanical reasons more than narrative world ones. GMs balancing 20+ ancestries for story building purposes can be a pretty big head ache. Most GMs want their players to be able to build in connections to their world and not have to deal with some ancestries that only have 1 at a higher level that may or may not fit with the campaign. Turning Ancestry into a “check with the GM” helps players avoid choices that might be rough for the specific adventure because ancestries get much less development then classes.

This way only 6 ancestries have to be balanced and written into every possible campaign setting, but there might be 10 or more that could work for any specific campaign.

Classes are so much more of an individual person choice it doesn’t take nearly as much work to let them be common by default.

[GM_3826]

Nefreet wrote:

GM_3826 wrote:

I am not going to take your reasoning as an explanation as to why all non-core ancestries are uncommon, even if you disagree, so I'm going to wait to see if a developer has anything similar (or opposite) to say. This thread was a quesiton directed towards them in the first place.

keftiu happens to be about as knowledgeable regarding lore as any Paizo Designer, Developer or Contributor.

Their explanation so far has been pretty solid.

Why do *you* think these Ancestries are Uncommon, if you disagree?

EDIT: they're also obviously knowledgeable about Ninjitsu

I've already outlined why I disagreed with keftiu's reasoning-that these creatures are common as NPCs and that several of them are found in the same regions as the core ancestries. My confusion is as to why these creatures are common as NPCs but not PCs, universally, without exception.

I think part of why we got into fisticuffs was my choice of words-maybe Avistan is not the "core" setting, but the core rulebook can't really exist in a vacuum and therefore has to use some part of a huge area like the Inner Sea region as a base, which is why Taldane is the Common language and why gnomes and goblins are a core ancestry but uncommon in the Mwangi Expanse. Again, there are several places in Avistan where Taldane is not Common, and it's not Common in just about anywhere in Garund. Maybe educated types everywhere in the Inner Sea region can be expected to know Taldane, but it's absolutely not a language everyone can be expected to know across the entire Inner Sea region. We're both using different parts of the lore as a basis for our arguments-our disagreement seems to come down to word choice. Again, I will acknowledge that official adventures have been spread pretty equally throughout the Inner Sea region, and no part of it is any more important than the other. But some adjustments can and should be made to the core if you're setting it outside Avistan, even if it's just "Taldane isn't Common, you speak Hallit/Kelish/Mwangi/Osiriani and can take Taldane as a +1 if you like." It's worth noting that, quite contrary to everyone speaking Taldane, the Player's Guide for APs in regions where Taldane isn't Common like Strength of Thousands, Quest for the Frozen Flame, Outlaws of Alkenstar, and Blood Lords specifically point out that it won't be all that useful and you should speak the Common tongue in the region the game is set.

That said, as I've previously noted, I'm actually perfect willing to acknowledge that these ancestries might not fit a more traditional fantasy game. That is a valid reason. What I'm looking for is an in-universe/worldbuilding reason-a Watsonian explanation, rather than a Doylist one. I can't think of a good one. Some of the things that make these uncommon ancestries unlikely player characters are things shared by common ancestries, and the thing that drew my attention to this question in the first place is that for some bizarre reason PCs are apparently more likely to encounter them then they are to be them. Knowing an azarketi sailor when you see one is a DC 16 check. A character that is untrained in Society has a 1/4 chance of knowing what they are when they see them if they take the time to try and recall what they may know about them. That's a pretty far cry from "you need to be a scholar or well-traveled to have any idea what this guy is." Yeah, you can up the DC, but is that because a character is any more unlikely to know them, or given that they're common for a reason, is the assumption that a random guy off the street would be unfamiliar with them way off base?

[Rysky]

GM_3826 wrote:

I would believe that if it weren't for the fact that every class outside Guns & Gears is common, including six outside the core.

Classes and Ancestries are two very different things so this comparison is irrelevant.

A PC is more likely to encounter a Succubus than play one, so I’m not sure the purpose of that line of thought.

What exactly is your question? It seems to keep nudging and moving.

[keftiu]

"If anything's going to be universally spoken across the Inner Sea region, it's Taldane" and "games that assume a more specific locale within the Inner Sea region use different, local languages for everyday speech" are two thoughts that can coexist and be equally true. Specific things override general ones, and "Taldane is the Common tongue for the Inner Sea" is the sort of generalization that happens when trying to summarize several dozen nations across a continent and a half, and the same is likewise true for Ancestries - Rarity is a broad rule of thumb when speaking collectively about a very, very large span of space.

Uncommon options are exactly what they sound like: the step above Common. People aren't going to run away screaming if an Amurrun or undisguised Kitsune steps through the door of the stereotypical tavern, but it's probably going to be outside of the Common norm, the sort of thing that would be noteworthy in most locales across the Inner Sea. Those tavern-goers might care less if they're in somewhere cosmopolitan like Absalom, and they might care quite a bit more in a paranoid Ustalavic hamlet, but on average for the whole region... they'll see more Halflings than Azarketi, and more Azarketi than Fleshwarps.

You're in the Watsonian mold, you tell me - who should be Common that isn't? What Ancestry is as likely to walk through that door, anywhere between Mechitar and Kalsgard, as a Dwarf?

[Nefreet]

GM_3826 wrote:

My confusion is as to why these creatures are common as NPCs but not PCs, universally, without exception.

Oh! That's an easy one for me.

You will commonly encounter a group of gnoll slavers, or an ysoki caravan, or a tribe of sewer kobolds, all as NPCs, because that's kind of what they're known for.

But you're much less likely to find individuals of those groups out adventuring as PCs. That's a more common occurrence for the Core Ancestries.

[HumbleGamer]

@GM_3826: Consider that the rarity system provides on the one hand limits in terms of mechanics and on the other hand provides a hint in terms of how "common" is an ancestry rather than another one.

For what concerns mechanics, the classic examples are:

- size increase
- flying

If the GM doesn't want to have to deal with either flying speed or size increase ( or even both of them ) they'd be able to easily deal with that becasue none of the base ancestries has those capabilities, and every uncommon / rare option is always and only up to the GM.

Common ancestries can be played without "gamebreaking" ( not necessarily, but it's an extra the GM couldn't like to deal with ) features that "might" be available with uncommon or rare ancestries.

Keep also in mind that depends the rarity, either flying speed and size increase will be available sooner or later

- Flying speed ( Common: Not available - Uncommon: Available by lvl 17 - Rare: Available by lvl 13 )
- Size Increase ( Common: Not available - Uncommon: Available by lvl 17 - Rare: Available by lvl 13 )

So, there's either the accessibility and the lvl you'll get that option to keep into account ( "I prefer not to give unlimited flying speed by lvl 13, but I am ok with it being permanent by lvl 17. After all the champion gets it by lvl 18", for example ).

For what concerns how common an ancestry is , well... that says everything. Some ancestries will be common in some parts of Golarion, uncommon in others and even rare in some.

But overall, you'll probably always find the common ones ( I am not really into Golarion lore, but I could understand that in some zones like Geb, living common ( common ancestries ) being would be not common at all.

A GM may feel unease to have weird ancestries to deal with ( they couldn't be accepted in town, and that would be an issue for urban adventures ), just to say one.

So, I'd keep in mind that some are more common than others in overall terms, but that depends the country the adventure is set, this may vary.

I'd also keep in mind that the group of heroes is unique, the protagonsit of the story, and that makes sense for it to have some peculiar characters. But it's a consideration of mine ( everything should be discussed with the DM, and because so you mileage may vary ).

At this point, I don't expect new common ancestries.
But, if things are going to change in terms of lore and world events, some ancestry might end up being common rather than uncommon.

But I don't expect something that complex.

[Captain Morgan]

It feels relatively straightforward to me based on settlement statblocks. Here is Otari for example:

OTARI SETTLEMENT 4
N TOWN
Diverse lumber town and trade port with a storied
past and its fair share of sinister secrets.
Government Mayor (elected leader)
Population 1,240 (60% humans, 8% halflings, 7%
half-elves, 6% elves, 5% dwarves, 5% gnomes,
3% half-orcs, 2% goblins, 4% other)
Languages Common, Dwarven, Elven, Halfling

Any given uncommon ancestry probably makes up less than 1% of this "diverse" town. Pretty much every settlement statblock in PF1 or PF2 I've seen has similar proportions, with the exception of things like Dwarven Sky Citadels and such.

Goblins really feel like an exception more for branding purposes than how often you run into them in settlements, though they are also a fecund species so there are a lot of them in the world in general.

To throw out a few more examples:

Port Peril Settlement 11
CN Metropolis
Pirate city and black-market capital of the Shackles.
Government Hurricane Queen (overlord)
Population 43,270 (65% humans, 10% half-elves, 8% half-orcs, 5% gnomes, 5% halflings, 7% other)
Languages Common, Kelish, Osiriani

Absalom Demographics 64% human, 11% halfling, 8% half-elf, 7% gnome, 5% dwarf, 2% elf, 1% half-orc, 2% other races

[Cyouni]

GM_3826 wrote:

I am not going to take your reasoning as an explanation as to why all non-core ancestries are uncommon, even if you disagree, so I'm going to wait to see if a developer has anything similar (or opposite) to say. This thread was a quesiton directed towards them in the first place.

Respectfully, if you refuse to accept anyone's answer except developers, then you're going to have a hard time in general interacting with the community.

[Captain Morgan]

Yeah, Paizo staff answering questions is the exception, not the rule. And this is speculation on my part, but if I was one of those staff members and I saw someone demanding an answer from me and not accepting extremely reasonable answers from the community... Well, I'd be even less inclined to bother.

[Captain Morgan]

How exactly are you defining "common as NPCs?" Because from the settlement demographics I posted that really doesn't seem to be the case to me. Is it just that they aren't given the uncommon tag in bestiaries? Because that's pretty easy to explain. Being common for a "monster encounter" is different than common in the general population. Trolls are common. Troll PCs are not-- they are in fact non-existent.

Heck, I don't think the common ancestries are even listed in the bestiary, are they? Outside of goblins.

Or as another point of comparison, look at uncommon focus spells vs uncommon regular spells. One means you get this by taking a specific feat or class feature, while the other just means ask your GM. Uncommon means vastly different things based on where it is used.

[Cyouni]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Yeah, Paizo staff answering questions is the exception, not the rule. And this is speculation on my part, but if I was one of those staff members and I saw someone demanding an answer from me and not accepting extremely reasonable answers from the community... Well, I'd be even less inclined to bother.

The other thing there is that a lot of Paizo developers were community members before becoming developers. The immediate ones that came to mind were Mark Seifter and Michael Sayre, for instance.

So trying to draw some imaginary line in the sand between "mere" community members and developers is a very silly line.

[PossibleCabbage]

There was an era on these boards where it was a mandate from Paizo executives that developers would spend time on these boards. Many devs had a bad time as a result, and having seen some of it I can't fault people for staying away even now.

[Mathmuse]

Captain Morgan wrote:

How exactly are you defining "common as NPCs?" Because from the settlement demographics I posted that really doesn't seem to be the case to me. Is it just that they aren't given the uncommon tag in bestiaries? Because that's pretty easy to explain. Being common for a "monster encounter" is different than common in the general population. Trolls are common. Troll PCs are not-- they are in fact non-existent.

Heck, I don't think the common ancestries are even listed in the bestiary, are they? Outside of goblins.

I looked through my copy of the Bestiary 1 to see when the Uncommon and Rare labels showed up on the entries.

The first Uncommon creature is Aghollthu Master, Creature 7. Before it come four planar Aeons (Arbiter, Axiomite, Kolyarut, and Pleroma) and two servants of the Alghollthu (Skum and Faceless Stalker). After it comes the rare Veiled Master, Creature 14.

The second Uncommon creature is Hive Mother, creature 9, a kind of Ankhrav. Before it (and after the Veiled Master) come four angels (Cassisian, Choral, Balisse, and Astral Deva), four animated objects (Animated Broom, Animated Armor, Animated Statue, and Giant Animated Statue), and the regular Ankhrav.

The third Uncommon creature is Banshee, Creature 17. Before it come two apes (Gorilla and Megaprimatus), three arboreals (Arboreal Warden, Awakened Tree, and Arborel Regent), four archons (Lantern Archon, Horned Archon, Legion Archon, and Shield Archon), and four azata (Lyrakien, Gancanagh, Lillend, and Ghaele).

The fourth Uncommon creeature is Greater Barghest. Before it come Baomal and the regular Barghest.

The fifth Uncommon creature is the Brain Collector. Befire it come Basilisk, two bats (Vampire Bat Swarm and Giant Bat), two bears (Grizzly Bear and Cave Bear), two beetles (Flash Beetle and Giant Stag Beetle), Bloodseeker, two boars (Boar and Daeodon), and three boggards (Boggard Scout, Boggard Warrior, and Boggard Swampseer).

The sixth Uncommon creature is Azure Worm, Creature 15, a kind of Cave Worm. Before it come two bugbears (Bugbear Thug and Bugbear Tormentor), Bulette, Bunyip, three caligni (Caligni Dancer, Caligni Creeper, and Caligni Stalker), four cats (leopard, lion, tiger, and Smilodon), Catfolk Pouncer, Cauthooj, and another cave worm (Purple Worm). After it is a rare cave worm (Crimson Worm).

Okay, I am up to page 59 and have reached a playable ancestry, catfolk, so that is enough examples. The catfolk preamble says, "A lone catfolk can be found anywhere in the world, but it’s rare to find a settlement beyond their traditional national borders."

These examples suggest that the Uncommon trait on a creature means that it is uncommon compared to others of its kind. We will find two dozen Ankhravs for each Hive Mother, two dozen Barghests for each Greater Barghest, two dozen Purple Worms for each Azure Worm. The Banshee is a spirit, the spirit of an elf who died by betrayal, so it is uncommon among haunting spirits.

Creatures lack a common label; instead, a lack of Uncommon, Rare, or Unique makes them common. But that commonality does not make them as common in the world as humans, elves, and dwarves. The Catfolk Pouncer is a common creature but catfolk are an uncommon ancestry.

My search on the keyword "Uncommon" also uncovered some uncommon poisons. The common Boggard Swampseer uses the uncommon Blue Dragonfly Poison, and the common Caligni Stalker uses the uncommon Black Smear Poison. How can these poisons be uncommon if regularly carried by common people? The answer is that Uncommon for a poison means how difficult it is to purchase in an alchemical market, and Common for a creature means how easy it is to find in its own habitat, which might be uncommon by human standards.

[JiCi]

They could add the regions where those ancestries are considered common though. For instance, kitsunes, tengus, vanaras, nagajis and wayangs are uncommon or rare in the Inner Seas, but mostly likely common in Tian Xia.

[Michael Sayre]

Cyouni wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Yeah, Paizo staff answering questions is the exception, not the rule. And this is speculation on my part, but if I was one of those staff members and I saw someone demanding an answer from me and not accepting extremely reasonable answers from the community... Well, I'd be even less inclined to bother.

The other thing there is that a lot of Paizo developers were community members before becoming developers. The immediate ones that came to mind were Mark Seifter and Michael Sayre, for instance.

So trying to draw some imaginary line in the sand between "mere" community members and developers is a very silly line.

We've also only got so much time in the day and most of it is dedicated towards making books happen, so we really do trust in the community to help answer the questions that a dedicated consumer or long-time player is just as well-equipped to answer as we are. Most of what I would have said on this topic was covered by community regulars within the first couple posts, so typically when I have a chance to browse the threads and I see something like that, I go "Ah, good, this question was answered appropriately, on to the next thing."