New Ancestries Stat Lines (Not a fight against the new stat system.)


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

I think that the developers are now kinda wishing that they had just not ever done 2 boosted stats, a free stat and a flaw. My guess is that if people really put up a fuss about it, it is more like the old ancestries will get errata'd away from having a flaw, rather than that we will see more ancestries in the future with it. The reason why is that I think that the developers would rather see ancestry choices being made about flavor and feats rather than around starting attributes.

If the biggest issue that your table is having with this change is that your players feel like their build ideas are impossible with the starting attribute array, it probably makes more sense at your table to just add one extra free attribute boost for every character, and not tie it to flaws at all.

I like this option. It grants 3 boosts from ancestry so Class =1, Background =2, Ancestry =3, and Details =4, and I like when the numbers line up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The thing is, PCs in PF2 are not average members of an ancestry. They are heroes on their way to becoming legends. PF2 doesn’t require every elf to be built up from the same starting attribute scores. Most pathfinder elves can tend to be a little frail, and that really has no consequence on how a player needs to build their elf character.

If you want to play a character with two 8 attributes, you absolutely still can! If that is a part of your character concept that is important to you and fits with the tone and expectations of your table, you still can play that character. The only thing that is different is that you cannot gain power in some focused specialization by taking on maluses that you probably are just thinking of as some kind of dump stat that isn’t an important part of your character, while potentially narratively covering that decision by doing something like talking with a stutter, or an accent that represents a lack of intelligence in your mind, or having your character stumble around.

If the point is simply having a more powerful character by being able to boost something important to your character concept, the the issue is that overall character build is missing one boost to you, especially if the point of the trade off is that these flaws will not really limit your character in play meaningfully. If limiting your character in a meaningful way is your goal, than the new rule about flaws still completely allows for it.

Edit: not replying specifically to perpdepog! We posted at the same time


Deriven Firelion wrote:

Very big boost for elves and dwarves. I never understood why elves had weak Constitution and Dwarves lacked Charisma.

I like elves and dwarves being a bit stronger than humans, so I'm good with it.

Elves were originally meant to be thin and light, aka a con penalty. This was further reinforced in Pathfinder by making them an alien race of space travelers that are more focused on the arcane and science.

Dwarfs in general have a brash personality and are bad at diplomancy. They can often be incredibly stubborn and systematic in their approach which while great for crafting and their dedication to goals, it's often frowned upon with social interactions.

* Reminder, this is what the average NPC elves and dwarfs are like, PCs can be whatever they want. Just like the average Goblin is a ball of chaos, or how the average halfling is quick on their feet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
One thing I would like in errata is that since a Fixed/Free array is never better than a Free/Free array is for all the Fixed/Free ancestries to get a traditional +/+/-/Free alternative.

Thar is pretty much exactly the point of the thread (just got waylaid with talk of optional flaws etc.)

That combination yields the best of old and new diversity.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

Very big boost for elves and dwarves. I never understood why elves had weak Constitution and Dwarves lacked Charisma.

I like elves and dwarves being a bit stronger than humans, so I'm good with it.

I'm torn on this a bit, myself. Because on the one hand, I do think stepping away from the bioessentialism aspect is largely good.

But on the other hand there's that part of me that has a visceral disgust at the idea of the world's strongest elf or strongest gnome or strongest halfling or strongest leshy being as strong as the world's strongest orc.

It's probably a reflection of my worst instincts, but never the less it hurts me on a spiritual level.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Deriven Firelion wrote:

Very big boost for elves and dwarves. I never understood why elves had weak Constitution and Dwarves lacked Charisma.

I like elves and dwarves being a bit stronger than humans, so I'm good with it.

Elves: you mean you can't understand why those knife-eared, twig people snap the instant a stout monster gets hold of them?

Dwarves: I could make a joke about collectivist societies, but I see no profit in it. There's also the option of them being more abrasive than the coarsest sandpaper you can imagine.

The Raven Black wrote:

Dwarves = Fixed CON

Elves = Fixed INT
Gnome = Fixed CHA
Goblin = Fixed DEX
Halfling = Fixed DEX

Elves should be Fixed DEX or INT so you can cover both wood and high varieties. Likewise Dwarves would be Fixed CON or WIS, Gnomes would be Fixed INT or CHA, Gobbies would be Fixed DEX or CHA, and Halflings would be Fixed DEX or WIS (for the more Tolkien inspired type rather than the spit Kender model).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
HenshinFanatic wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:

Very big boost for elves and dwarves. I never understood why elves had weak Constitution and Dwarves lacked Charisma.

I like elves and dwarves being a bit stronger than humans, so I'm good with it.

Elves: you mean you can't understand why those knife-eared, twig people snap the instant a stout monster gets hold of them?

Dwarves: I could make a joke about collectivist societies, but I see no profit in it. There's also the option of them being more abrasive than the coarsest sandpaper you can imagine.

The Raven Black wrote:

Dwarves = Fixed CON

Elves = Fixed INT
Gnome = Fixed CHA
Goblin = Fixed DEX
Halfling = Fixed DEX
Elves should be Fixed DEX or INT so you can cover both wood and high varieties. Likewise Dwarves would be Fixed CON or WIS, Gnomes would be Fixed INT or CHA, Gobbies would be Fixed DEX or CHA, and Halflings would be Fixed DEX or WIS (for the more Tolkien inspired type rather than the spit Kender model).

The single Fixed stats make literally 0 difference in pf2 now, so there is little point debating what should be what. It simply has now mechanical weight at all.


Temperans wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:

Very big boost for elves and dwarves. I never understood why elves had weak Constitution and Dwarves lacked Charisma.

I like elves and dwarves being a bit stronger than humans, so I'm good with it.

Elves were originally meant to be thin and light, aka a con penalty. This was further reinforced in Pathfinder by making them an alien race of space travelers that are more focused on the arcane and science.

Dwarfs in general have a brash personality and are bad at diplomancy. They can often be incredibly stubborn and systematic in their approach which while great for crafting and their dedication to goals, it's often frowned upon with social interactions.

* Reminder, this is what the average NPC elves and dwarfs are like, PCs can be whatever they want. Just like the average Goblin is a ball of chaos, or how the average halfling is quick on their feet.

Elves and dwarves were drawn from fantasy myth and novels. Nowhere in those stories did dwarves need to be gruff or elves frail. Near as I can tell it was an attempt at balance and differentiation from early on. Plenty of other traits differentiate each from each other. I'd rather a trained elf warrior be just as hardy as a human warrior or a diplomat dwarf just as charismatic with other traits differentiating the ancestries from each other. That is now done with feats. I'm good with that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
FormerFiend wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:

Very big boost for elves and dwarves. I never understood why elves had weak Constitution and Dwarves lacked Charisma.

I like elves and dwarves being a bit stronger than humans, so I'm good with it.

I'm torn on this a bit, myself. Because on the one hand, I do think stepping away from the bioessentialism aspect is largely good.

But on the other hand there's that part of me that has a visceral disgust at the idea of the world's strongest elf or strongest gnome or strongest halfling or strongest leshy being as strong as the world's strongest orc.

It's probably a reflection of my worst instincts, but never the less it hurts me on a spiritual level.

I played back when the game had stats based on gender. It was a mild addition to verisimilitude, but I don't see the point of verisimilitude based on race and gender in a fantasy game where a human-sized being is fighting dragons and giants on somewhat equal footing. In real life you have weight classes because of how much size matters between males, then toss in giants and dragons and no regular human is taking them on in hand to hand combat anymore than some guy is going to box a huge grizzly bear or a great white and win.

It's fantasy. Make what you want with minimal interference. If you want to be the legendary strong elf as strong as any orc, have at it.


Deriven Firelion wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:

Very big boost for elves and dwarves. I never understood why elves had weak Constitution and Dwarves lacked Charisma.

I like elves and dwarves being a bit stronger than humans, so I'm good with it.

Elves were originally meant to be thin and light, aka a con penalty. This was further reinforced in Pathfinder by making them an alien race of space travelers that are more focused on the arcane and science.

Dwarfs in general have a brash personality and are bad at diplomancy. They can often be incredibly stubborn and systematic in their approach which while great for crafting and their dedication to goals, it's often frowned upon with social interactions.

* Reminder, this is what the average NPC elves and dwarfs are like, PCs can be whatever they want. Just like the average Goblin is a ball of chaos, or how the average halfling is quick on their feet.

Elves and dwarves were drawn from fantasy myth and novels. Nowhere in those stories did dwarves need to be gruff or elves frail. Near as I can tell it was an attempt at balance and differentiation from early on. Plenty of other traits differentiate each from each other. I'd rather a trained elf warrior be just as hardy as a human warrior or a diplomat dwarf just as charismatic with other traits differentiating the ancestries from each other. That is now done with feats. I'm good with that.

its a long response:

Here is the way I see, there were some stories that had elf and dwarfs then Tolkien came along and made some pretty awesome stories, then people decided "hey why don't we make our own characters in this setting". But then you cannot just use the same setting cause copyright, so you make a new setting that uses the same races and similar themes and everyone can see "oh yes its like x stories". Are you going to say tolkien is bad for making a good story and that everyone else is bad for taking inspiration from that story?

As for "an elf warrior should be as hardy as a human warrior, etc", yeah an elf is not as hardy as a human but they are smarter, more dexterous, live for far longer, and have some innate magic. Yeah a dwarf is less charismatic, but they are tougher, wiser, live much longer, and are usually better crafters. The fact that a species is naturally better at somethings than another is not bad.

You have ants that can farm, ants that can weave, ants that have outrageous coordination, ants that are parasitic/enslavers, ants that explode, ants that have huge jaws, etc. Each of those species of ants exists within their colony with a variety of jobs and tasks. Are we going to say that we should get rid of all ants and just have 1 species of ants and let their job describe them? Of course not. So why should the same be done with different species in a game? An elf is not a human, so why should it have the stats of a human? A dwarf is not an elf why should it have the stats of an elf? A poppet is not an orc so why should those two complete and utherly different species have the same stats?

Don't get me wrong feats to differentiate culture, background, and profession are great. But that is not the same as Jaguar vs Tiger vs Lion vs Wolf.

TL;DR Just because different species can have the same professions does not mean that they are equally good at said profession. Let different species be different instead of just making them all from the same cookie dough and simple using a different cutter and frosting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread is explicitly not about criticizing the new +2/+2 option. Can we please move this discussion elsewhere before it spirals out of control?


Deriven Firelion wrote:
FormerFiend wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:

Very big boost for elves and dwarves. I never understood why elves had weak Constitution and Dwarves lacked Charisma.

I like elves and dwarves being a bit stronger than humans, so I'm good with it.

I'm torn on this a bit, myself. Because on the one hand, I do think stepping away from the bioessentialism aspect is largely good.

But on the other hand there's that part of me that has a visceral disgust at the idea of the world's strongest elf or strongest gnome or strongest halfling or strongest leshy being as strong as the world's strongest orc.

It's probably a reflection of my worst instincts, but never the less it hurts me on a spiritual level.

I played back when the game had stats based on gender. It was a mild addition to verisimilitude, but I don't see the point of verisimilitude based on race and gender in a fantasy game where a human-sized being is fighting dragons and giants on somewhat equal footing. In real life you have weight classes because of how much size matters between males, then toss in giants and dragons and no regular human is taking them on in hand to hand combat anymore than some guy is going to box a huge grizzly bear or a great white and win.

It's fantasy. Make what you want with minimal interference. If you want to be the legendary strong elf as strong as any orc, have at it.

Umm some bad examples there. People have fought bears and great whites and won.

Also because its a fantasy that you can have humans using magic and fighting dragons. That doesn't mean that you should make every single dragon the same and just change its color. Nor does it mean that every good needs to be the same just a different symbol. Nor does it mean that every creature needs to be exactly as capable as every other creature at exactly the same things.

The game used to have size modifier that made larger/smaller creature be in different weight classes. Those got remove for the sake of tight math, not to enhance the fantasy.

The game used to have large difference based on class. Those got remove for the sake of tight math, not to enhance the fantasy.

You are asking to get rid of ancestry stat difference. That is based on the tight math of the system discouraging anything but minmaxed, its not based on a wat to enhance the fantasy.

********************

If we continue the trend that because it is fantasy you must be able to do whatever you want, then you might as well get rid of the game rules altogether and start doing improv. This way there wont be any rule saying that your elf can't be stronger than the strongest orc, and the mice is also stronger than the strongest orc.


Kobold Catgirl wrote:
This thread is explicitly not about criticizing the new +2/+2 option. Can we please move this discussion elsewhere before it spirals out of control?

Sorry I was not trying to criticize it. I was responding about "why does X race have Y penalties".

I'll stop responding now.


Temperans wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
FormerFiend wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:

Very big boost for elves and dwarves. I never understood why elves had weak Constitution and Dwarves lacked Charisma.

I like elves and dwarves being a bit stronger than humans, so I'm good with it.

I'm torn on this a bit, myself. Because on the one hand, I do think stepping away from the bioessentialism aspect is largely good.

But on the other hand there's that part of me that has a visceral disgust at the idea of the world's strongest elf or strongest gnome or strongest halfling or strongest leshy being as strong as the world's strongest orc.

It's probably a reflection of my worst instincts, but never the less it hurts me on a spiritual level.

I played back when the game had stats based on gender. It was a mild addition to verisimilitude, but I don't see the point of verisimilitude based on race and gender in a fantasy game where a human-sized being is fighting dragons and giants on somewhat equal footing. In real life you have weight classes because of how much size matters between males, then toss in giants and dragons and no regular human is taking them on in hand to hand combat anymore than some guy is going to box a huge grizzly bear or a great white and win.

It's fantasy. Make what you want with minimal interference. If you want to be the legendary strong elf as strong as any orc, have at it.

Umm some bad examples there. People have fought bears and great whites and won.

Also because its a fantasy that you can have humans using magic and fighting dragons. That doesn't mean that you should make every single dragon the same and just change its color. Nor does it mean that every good needs to be the same just a different symbol. Nor does it mean that every creature needs to be exactly as capable as every other creature at exactly the same things.

The game used to have size modifier that made larger/smaller creature be in different weight classes. Those got remove for the sake...

What are you talking about?

Groups of humans using tools have fought these creatures and won as in killed them, but individual humans have mostly survived fights with these creatures absent using a gun.

I'm not talking some small brown bear. I'm talking a 8 or 10 foot tall brown grizzly bear or a 15 foot great white shark.

Huge grizzly Bears were at one time considered monsters. It took a group of people using tactics to take them down, not one guy in hand to hand combat.

You can even watch hunters nowadays looking for prey and they do not hunt tigers or lions alone using spears or melee weapons. Normal humans could not physically compete with these creatures, so not sure why you're making this ridiculous assertion.

A dragon is much, much bigger than either of these. A huge dragon would level a human fairly easy.


Temperans wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
FormerFiend wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:

Very big boost for elves and dwarves. I never understood why elves had weak Constitution and Dwarves lacked Charisma.

I like elves and dwarves being a bit stronger than humans, so I'm good with it.

I'm torn on this a bit, myself. Because on the one hand, I do think stepping away from the bioessentialism aspect is largely good.

But on the other hand there's that part of me that has a visceral disgust at the idea of the world's strongest elf or strongest gnome or strongest halfling or strongest leshy being as strong as the world's strongest orc.

It's probably a reflection of my worst instincts, but never the less it hurts me on a spiritual level.

I played back when the game had stats based on gender. It was a mild addition to verisimilitude, but I don't see the point of verisimilitude based on race and gender in a fantasy game where a human-sized being is fighting dragons and giants on somewhat equal footing. In real life you have weight classes because of how much size matters between males, then toss in giants and dragons and no regular human is taking them on in hand to hand combat anymore than some guy is going to box a huge grizzly bear or a great white and win.

It's fantasy. Make what you want with minimal interference. If you want to be the legendary strong elf as strong as any orc, have at it.

Umm some bad examples there. People have fought bears and great whites and won.

Also because its a fantasy that you can have humans using magic and fighting dragons. That doesn't mean that you should make every single dragon the same and just change its color. Nor does it mean that every good needs to be the same just a different symbol. Nor does it mean that every creature needs to be exactly as capable as every other creature at exactly the same things.

The game used to have size modifier that made larger/smaller creature be in different weight classes. Those got remove for the sake...

You ever play any other fantasy games? These kind of stat modifications are mostly a D and D-ism. The stat differences are not necessary and differentiation is easily shown through appearance and other factors like elves living a thousand years.

Your argument has no validity based on the source material. D&D and PF in no way mirror reality.

There are so many whacky things in D&D and PF, there is no argument to be had about "realism." You can't fire longbows as fast as they do in this game, though I have seen some fast shortbow shooters. Swordplay is far more sophisticated. And magic doesn't even exist.

So not sure why you are arguing these points other than to troll around even though you don't even play the game.

As someone that has been playing since the red basic set, I know how this game has gone more than most. I remember playing where race and gender had limited stat maximums. We never played with those then or the artificial level limits. It never impacted the game in any way.

These changes won't impact the game much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
The thing is, PCs in PF2 are not average members of an ancestry. They are heroes on their way to becoming legends. PF2 doesn’t require every elf to be built up from the same starting attribute scores.

But it does require every human to be now, unless you want random flaws.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

There is a reason I'm not trying to make an appeal to realism here. I could make an appeal to verisimilitude but I don't.think that's needed.

The argument that can do away with all that is that the +2/free ancestry paradigm does nothing under the new stat allocation system, while the +2/+2/-2/free ancestries do something mechanically meaningful and interesting.

From a pure game design perspective, committing to not printing more +2/+2/-2/free is a commitment to less character diversity and a shallower game overall.

No argument about how strong a gnome should be is needed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

My houserule for about a year and a half was that all ancestries got 3 free boost, 1 flaw, and the flaw can be put into one of the boost stats to make it functionally 2 free no flaw.

Amazingly, the game hasn't been shattered or flooded with elves or what have you; it just resulted in players picking the ancestry that excited them and mixing it with the class that excited them. The sacred balance of set ancestry boosts turned out to be an illusion, too; because weirdly, all of the stats are good. While I've observed a degree of cha and str dumping, there's been a tendancy for people who do dump these stats to feel the consequences of their actions pretty often; uncommon items are usually barred behind social checks (since they need to find them and the best way to do that is gather information), many conflicts can be avoided/made easier with cha checks, with some tasks being downright impossible without the help of others (like holding a city, fighting a siege, etc). Str comes in play a lot because my maps frequently make use of verticality and/or water, and while the DCs aren't usually overly difficult, str dumping does add a level of difficulty, while good str enjoys the ability to use the terrain.

While these obstacles can all be overcome with proper feats, gear, spells, dumping str or cha for minmaxing purposes comes with enough of a cost that it's not the default dump stat choice


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Alchemic_Genius wrote:

My houserule for about a year and a half was that all ancestries got 3 free boost, 1 flaw, and the flaw can be put into one of the boost stats to make it functionally 2 free no flaw.

Amazingly, the game hasn't been shattered or flooded with elves or what have you; it just resulted in players picking the ancestry that excited them and mixing it with the class that excited them. The sacred balance of set ancestry boosts turned out to be an illusion, too; because weirdly, all of the stats are good. While I've observed a degree of cha and str dumping, there's been a tendancy for people who do dump these stats to feel the consequences of their actions pretty often; uncommon items are usually barred behind social checks (since they need to find them and the best way to do that is gather information), many conflicts can be avoided/made easier with cha checks, with some tasks being downright impossible without the help of others (like holding a city, fighting a siege, etc). Str comes in play a lot because my maps frequently make use of verticality and/or water, and while the DCs aren't usually overly difficult, str dumping does add a level of difficulty, while good str enjoys the ability to use the terrain.

While these obstacles can all be overcome with proper feats, gear, spells, dumping str or cha for minmaxing purposes comes with enough of a cost that it's not the default dump stat choice

Paizo should proposition you for using this because it is just simply better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alchemic_Genius wrote:

My houserule for about a year and a half was that all ancestries got 3 free boost, 1 flaw, and the flaw can be put into one of the boost stats to make it functionally 2 free no flaw.

Amazingly, the game hasn't been shattered or flooded with elves or what have you; it just resulted in players picking the ancestry that excited them and mixing it with the class that excited them. The sacred balance of set ancestry boosts turned out to be an illusion, too; because weirdly, all of the stats are good. While I've observed a degree of cha and str dumping, there's been a tendancy for people who do dump these stats to feel the consequences of their actions pretty often; uncommon items are usually barred behind social checks (since they need to find them and the best way to do that is gather information), many conflicts can be avoided/made easier with cha checks, with some tasks being downright impossible without the help of others (like holding a city, fighting a siege, etc). Str comes in play a lot because my maps frequently make use of verticality and/or water, and while the DCs aren't usually overly difficult, str dumping does add a level of difficulty, while good str enjoys the ability to use the terrain.

While these obstacles can all be overcome with proper feats, gear, spells, dumping str or cha for minmaxing purposes comes with enough of a cost that it's not the default dump stat choice

Same here, pretty much. My group has 6 people - my brother and I take turns GMing on different days. We have experimented with the free/free/free/flaw array for about all of last year. With a few playtests, weird extra sessions and excessive "spare" character building, we went through quite a few characters. Two members are almost exclusively RP-focused, so they just took the original stats from the books. Three of us care quite a bit about optimization, but went almost exclusively with free/free. Only one of us made real use of the optional stat array to have flaws, sometimes for optimization reasons, sometimes not.

The only thing it changed for us was that we saw class/ancestry combos that we usually wouldn't see.


Karmagator wrote:
Alchemic_Genius wrote:

My houserule for about a year and a half was that all ancestries got 3 free boost, 1 flaw, and the flaw can be put into one of the boost stats to make it functionally 2 free no flaw.

Amazingly, the game hasn't been shattered or flooded with elves or what have you; it just resulted in players picking the ancestry that excited them and mixing it with the class that excited them. The sacred balance of set ancestry boosts turned out to be an illusion, too; because weirdly, all of the stats are good. While I've observed a degree of cha and str dumping, there's been a tendancy for people who do dump these stats to feel the consequences of their actions pretty often; uncommon items are usually barred behind social checks (since they need to find them and the best way to do that is gather information), many conflicts can be avoided/made easier with cha checks, with some tasks being downright impossible without the help of others (like holding a city, fighting a siege, etc). Str comes in play a lot because my maps frequently make use of verticality and/or water, and while the DCs aren't usually overly difficult, str dumping does add a level of difficulty, while good str enjoys the ability to use the terrain.

While these obstacles can all be overcome with proper feats, gear, spells, dumping str or cha for minmaxing purposes comes with enough of a cost that it's not the default dump stat choice

Same here, pretty much. My group has 6 people - my brother and I take turns GMing on different days. We have experimented with the free/free/free/flaw array for about all of last year. With a few playtests, weird extra sessions and excessive "spare" character building, we went through quite a few characters. Two members are almost exclusively RP-focused, so they just took the original stats from the books. Three of us care quite a bit about optimization, but went almost exclusively with free/free. Only one of us made real use of the optional stat array to have flaws, sometimes for...

Honestly, I would like to give this a try, looks like a decent middle point. Are you sure it is not too strong?


I'd probably do two free choices or three free choices with two flaws so there's a reason to sometimes stick with two boosts. But three-and-one has clearly worked fine for some groups already.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Love the new option for free/free since it opens up a ton of options. I do agree with others that I'd like to see future ancestries +/+/free/- rather than fixed/free. Fixed/free is sort of a headscratcher on why even call this out when free/free is an option. It doesn't seem meaningful at all.


Where can I find this new rule in writing??


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So PF2 has the following +Fixed/+Free Ancestries in parenthesis are their PF1 stat arrays (if applicable)

Fetchlings: +Dex/+Free (+Dex/+Wis/-Cha)
Kitsune: +Cha/Free (+Dex/+Cha/-Str)
Nagaji: +Str/+Free (+Str/+Cha/-Int)
Orc: +Str/+Free (++Str/-Int/-Cha/-Wis)
Tengu: +Dex/+Free (+Dex/+Wis/-Con)
Vanara: +Dex/+Free (+Dex/+Wis/-Cha)
Automaton: +Str/+Free (N/A)
Fleshwarp: +Con/+Free (N/A)
Ghoran: +Con/+Free (+Con/+Cha/-Int)
Goloma: +Wis/+Free (N/A)
Kashrishi: +Con/+Free (N/A)
Shisk: +Int/+Free (N/A)
Strix: +Dex/+Free (+Dex/-Cha)
Vishkanya: +Dex/+Free (+Dex/+Cha/-Wis)

Obviously the Orc one and Strix one can't be carried forward (PF2 Strix are already balanced against innate flight) and we'd need to come up with traditional +/+/- arrays for Automata, Ghroans, Goloma, Kashrishi, and Shisk but the rest seem reasonable to offer as an alternative to Free/Free.

It's possible that intelligence penalties are less troubling for bioessentialism reasons when +Free/+Free is always open as an alternative to every member of an ancestry.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Orc I'd possible make +Str, +CON,-Cha, free. Alot of their problems across multiple geopolitical regions is due to more relations with neighbours and lack of diplomatic leaders.


I am of the opinion that printing a fixed and free attribute with the new rules is pretty much a waste of ink.

But it's not that much ink so I don't think it's a sustainability issue.

personally I would prefer the default was either two boost or three boosts and flaw but I suppose I can't have everything.

This current arrangement still leaves best races for classes mixes. The mighty gnomes will remain the best bard/sorcerer's.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So PF2 has the following +Fixed/+Free Ancestries in parenthesis are their PF1 stat arrays (if applicable)

Fetchlings: +Dex/+Free (+Dex/+Wis/-Cha)
Kitsune: +Cha/Free (+Dex/+Cha/-Str)
Nagaji: +Str/+Free (+Str/+Cha/-Int)
Orc: +Str/+Free (++Str/-Int/-Cha/-Wis)
Tengu: +Dex/+Free (+Dex/+Wis/-Con)
Vanara: +Dex/+Free (+Dex/+Wis/-Cha)
Automaton: +Str/+Free (N/A)
Fleshwarp: +Con/+Free (N/A)
Ghoran: +Con/+Free (+Con/+Cha/-Int)
Goloma: +Wis/+Free (N/A)
Kashrishi: +Con/+Free (N/A)
Shisk: +Int/+Free (N/A)
Strix: +Dex/+Free (+Dex/-Cha)
Vishkanya: +Dex/+Free (+Dex/+Cha/-Wis)

Obviously the Orc one and Strix one can't be carried forward (PF2 Strix are already balanced against innate flight) and we'd need to come up with traditional +/+/- arrays for Automata, Ghroans, Goloma, Kashrishi, and Shisk but the rest seem reasonable to offer as an alternative to Free/Free.

It's possible that intelligence penalties are less troubling for bioessentialism reasons when +Free/+Free is always open as an alternative to every member of an ancestry.

Ghorans also have a stat array from 1e, +2 Constitution, +2 Charisma, –2 Intelligence

Unless you didn't include it because of the flaw to intelligence.


It looks like they included it, actually.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Okay strange they did it include it, but must have accidentally included in the ancestries that also would need a boost. Thanks for catching that


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Orc I'd possible make +Str, +CON,-Cha, free. Alot of their problems across multiple geopolitical regions is due to more relations with neighbours and lack of diplomatic leaders.

I feel like you could go a lot of different ways with Orcs so that's a discussion you should have with your table.

Like in my homebrew Orcs are +Str/+Int/-Wis because they are forceful both intellectually and physically, but are prone to making impulsive decisions. You could make a case that Orcs should have a +Cha bonus because they are potentially very intimidating.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Orc I'd possible make +Str, +CON,-Cha, free. Alot of their problems across multiple geopolitical regions is due to more relations with neighbours and lack of diplomatic leaders.

I feel like you could go a lot of different ways with Orcs so that's a discussion you should have with your table.

Like in my homebrew Orcs are +Str/+Int/-Wis because they are forceful both intellectually and physically, but are prone to making impulsive decisions. You could make a case that Orcs should have a +Cha bonus because they are potentially very intimidating.

Thats fair. I'd prefer an in ancestry way to get Intimidation training and Intimidating Prowess as a bonus feat to represent that aspect, but it is more clunky. I like your homebrew stat line a lot as well though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pixierose wrote:
Okay strange they did it include it, but must have accidentally included in the ancestries that also would need a boost. Thanks for catching that

Yeah, I meant to say Fleshwarps not Ghorans or Ghroans whatever those are.

In coming up with +/+/- arrays for the ancestries without a workable PF1 alternative all you really need to do is to come up with what the Flaw and the other Bonus is that thematically represents what else these people are about.

So I'd be curious to think what people's preference for bonuses and flaws for Orcs, Strix, Automata, Fleshwarps, Goloma, Kashrishi, Shisk. Off the top of my head I think I see a lot of Cha penalties, which I don't love: Goloma because they're physically unusual and their ground state is "anxiety", Fleshwarps because they live in the uncanny valley and make people uncomfortable, and Automata because "I've been alive for the past 1200 years with no one to talk to" thing.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Kashrishi I would Probably do something like +con, +wis(or cha), -dex, they seem a bit clunky in their official art.

Shisk I could see something like +int, +dex, -Con. They tend to live in isolated communities in a specific habitat I could see that leading to be ill adjusted in other environments that can be reflected in con, but then they kind of just follow Elves. Str would be another decent alternative I don't have a strong reasoning just that wisdom or charisma doesn't seem that an appropriate of a flaw for them.

TBH I am having a hard time and I don't envy anyone who has to do this themselves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You could also make it work for the people who want to play the Fixed/Free ancestries to create a custom +/+/- array by simply choosing what the other + and - are, possibly subject to some rules (like "you must have at least one mental and at least one physical score with a bonus.")

So one Shisk PC could be Int/Dex, another Shisk PC could be +Int then +Dex, -Con, and +Cha for the free boost , and another Shisk PC could be +Int then +Con, -Str, and + Wis for the free boost.

This might be too good though. Would humans with a +Free/+Free/+Free/-Free option be too good? I'm not that concerned about being a little bit too good if it's satisfying and leads to a variety of characters. The main thing that makes me like the new rule is that I've tried to make a lot of characters that first had to overcome the ancestry stat flaw (Gnome Barbarians, Dwarf Bards, Leshy Investigators, etc.)


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Unicore wrote:
The only thing that is different is that you cannot gain power in some focused specialization by taking on maluses that you probably are just thinking of as some kind of dump stat that isn’t an important part of your character, while potentially narratively covering that decision by doing something like talking with a stutter, or an accent that represents a lack of intelligence in your mind, or having your character stumble around.

I feel like this comment somewhat unfairly stereotypes people who enjoy playing characters with mechanical drawbacks.

It also skips over that it's entirely possible to be enough of a "roleplayer" to enjoy playing characters with flaws, but enough of a "powergamer" to feel ooky taking flaws for no reason. I'm certainly right there.

If I'm playing a character with low Wisdom, I'm not going to roleplay them as an airheaded caricature, but I am going to feel like I am seeing my character creation choices in play when they fail a Perception check. And that's a good feeling, in the same way that seeing your choices come into play when you succeed is a good feeling.

I look at character creation as something like a puzzle, with lots of moving parts and fiddly bits to put together to make something unique and mechanically interesting. But a "you are optionally worse for no reason" puzzle piece doesn't enhance the enjoyment of that, any more than a "you are optionally better for no reason" does.

Actually, thinking about it, I am realizing that I dislike the new flaw rules for the exact same reason I dislike how fixed/free ancestries interact with the new boost rules. "Obvious good" and "obvious bad" choices make the puzzle less fun.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I would have liked all races to get 3 Free and a Flaw from ancestry (They could even put the flaw in one of the boosts and essentially identical to having two free boosts).

Ah well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

One of the things that really bugs me about the removal of Voluntary Flaws is that, of the 100 or so characters I've made over the years, I have no (easy) way to know which ones used Voluntary Flaws and which ones didn't. So I can't even fix them to be compatible with the new updates.


I have some thoughts on this matter.

I'll start with the example of Elves. Elves are a staple of this style of fantasy, but with the lowest racial HP AND a Constitution penalty, it was foolish to try to play one. This seems to be a design failure. Many settings have Elves as extremely long-lived, perhaps even immortal, but that seems a joke when the system makes them the most fragile characters possible. If anything, I could see them being less physically strong than Humans, because they don't have the mass, but then, they don't have so little mass that they're basically Halflings, either. I think a no-flaw set is perfect for them, with perhaps a choice of Dexterity or Intelligence and one free - a Variable Fixed/Free model.

Dwarves are similar, if not so thoroughly affected. The existing fixed boosts are to Constitution and Wisdom, reflecting toughness and patience, but the penalty is Charisma. Why? Because they're gruff and not particularly charming, is the explanation we're given... okay. Is that what Charisma is, though? It does affect Diplomacy checks, sure, but also Intimidation, and then some affect on your magical ability as a Sorcerer, Divine Font as a Cleric, etc. Charisma, in this system, is supposed to be a matter of force of personality, and I've never seen a dwarf portrayed as lacking that. I can't think of an attribute that I would describe them as lacking, so yeah, I think they should have an attribute option without a flaw.

Gnomes and Halflings, though, are at a serious mass disadvantage when compared to Humans, to the point where it's asking a lot of the suspension of disbelief to have one of these equal the strongest Human in strength. It's part of the fantasy of playing a small Ancestry, in my opinion. If you want Halfling Barbarians in your game that hit has hard as an Orc built similarly, that's fine for your table, but for me, it's a bit too cartoonish. Flaws should still be a Thing, I believe the original model works best in this situation, and I like Voluntary Flaw or the newer model as optional rules for those whose preferences are not my own.

Goblins are an interesting case, because their flaw is to a mental attribute, but the explanation is of an impulsive, inattentive nature, which, to me, seems to fit the definition of a Wisdom penalty quite well, and also reflect the fantasy of playing a Goblin as I see it. I think that flaw is perfectly justified, and the original model works fine. On the other hand, if you view your character as an exceptional Goblin that doesn't match this concept, the idea of switching to a Fixed/Free or a Variable Fixed/Free model could work.

So yeah, just using the examples of the core ancestries, I think, in some cases, a Fixed/Free or Variable Fixed/Free option is preferable, in some cases viable, and in some cases odd. Having some options in the future would be the best choice, in my opinion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Uh loads of People played elves before the change. It wasn't foolish.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
So I can't even fix them to be compatible with the new updates.

What needs fixing?


Ravingdork wrote:
One of the things that really bugs me about the removal of Voluntary Flaws is that, of the 100 or so characters I've made over the years, I have no (easy) way to know which ones used Voluntary Flaws and which ones didn't. So I can't even fix them to be compatible with the new updates.

If you don't know for certain that they aren't compatible with the updates, then they're compatible with the updates & no one's going to go through the time & effort & energy to check the math otherwise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
So I can't even fix them to be compatible with the new updates.
What needs fixing?

Old PC's that used the old voluntary rule are illegal as the new version is different.

FormerFiend wrote:
If you don't know for certain that they aren't compatible with the updates, then they're compatible with the updates & no one's going to go through the time & effort & energy to check the math otherwise.

He keeps up a collection of characters that are assumed to be legal that people can use and/or mimic. As such, not being able to say is a particular one actually follows the rules is problematic to him.


It's only problematic if you mind circumventing the rules. Which I don't.

But, I suppose some people do get a little... particular, about such things, which, fair enough. Different strokes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
graystone wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
So I can't even fix them to be compatible with the new updates.
What needs fixing?

Old PC's that used the old voluntary rule are illegal as the new version is different.

FormerFiend wrote:
If you don't know for certain that they aren't compatible with the updates, then they're compatible with the updates & no one's going to go through the time & effort & energy to check the math otherwise.
He keeps up a collection of characters that are assumed to be legal that people can use and/or mimic. As such, not being able to say is a particular one actually follows the rules is problematic to him.

Quite right in every respect, graystone.


Well as my idol, the late, great Eddie Gerrero used to say, it's only cheating if you get caught.


Ravingdork wrote:
So I can't even fix them to be compatible with the new updates.

What needs fixing?

If you play PFS, all four possible ways to create a character are valid. And they've already said that any current characters will remain valid in the future.

If you aren't playing PFS, then your GM can choose the method. I can't see that the change stops anyone from playing any character created by any of the methods, old or new.

Unless of course, you've got a GM who is particularly fixated on adherence to every tiny detail, and refuses to follow PFS guidance.


Malk_Content wrote:
Uh loads of People played elves before the change. It wasn't foolish.

Lowest HP an ancestry could have, paired with a Constitution flaw, in a system where numbers are tight and combat is challenging. Elves were at a serious "staying alive" disadvantage before. It was a serious deterrent to playing an Elf. It's one thing to be okay with a character dying, but most players want to give themselves a fighting chance.


If Paizo isn't going to make ancestries with +/+/+/- anymore, they might as well errata the ancestries that have that option to only have +/+ because those ancestries could be seen as having quite the advantage now. most players will prioritize the value of that 3rd boost well over the disadvantage of the flaw, and those ancestries that have that have +/+/+/- now have an option that no other ancestry has or can hope to emulate: 2 boosts or 3 boosts.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
So I can't even fix them to be compatible with the new updates.
What needs fixing?
Old PC's that used the old voluntary rule are illegal as the new version is different.

Illegal for what?

51 to 100 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / New Ancestries Stat Lines (Not a fight against the new stat system.) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.