| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure you understand the concept of 'not a fight'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you clarify what you want here?
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you clarify what you want here?
The gripe seems to be that Dwarves can now choose between their old stat system (3 boosts and a flaw) and the new stat system (two boosts no flaw).
While ancestries like Orcs, Automaton, Kitsune, etc, get their bonuses 'superseded' by the change, because they're choosing between fixed/free and free/free.
So they want to see the fixed/free races get errata'd to have 3-stat ability boosts to give them the same dimension of options dwarves and elves have.
So something like an update giving Automatons Str/Int/-Dex or Kitsunes Dex/Cha/-Wis as a baseline alternative to the new option everyone has, since Str/Free and Cha/Free are now redundant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fixed/free ancestries honestly got a pretty tidy buff here. I'm pretty sure fixed/free has always been treated in ancestry balance as a penalty, which is why most of them have nice little extra benefits to balance it out (like fetchlings getting uber-darkvision, automatons being kind of bonkers, etc). Now that penalty's been negated, meaning they just get those extra benefits at zero "cost".
Humans are the ones who really suffer, because a trait that was balanced as an advantage has turned into a disadvantage where they're now less versatile in their abilities than most other ancestries.
I'm not making any huge hay about it, but I don't think buffing automatons is the way to go.
EDIT: Okay, I understand what you mean now. Yeah, I find this new direction frustrating. The free/free change is good, but this is the wrong way to apply it.
Oh, yeah, I do think that 1 set and 1 free is easily the worst of both worlds. It's boring and a non-choice at this point. It should be a rarity going forward, especially under the new rules--you know, what you do when nothing else quite fits but +2/+2 isn't the way. Have we heard confirmation that that's actually going to be the norm from now on?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It does seem odd to keep making fixed/free ancestries when anyone can pick free/free instead.
I guess the idea is that the fixed/suggested boost is a guideline for what the ancestry is most typically known to excel in, but I'd prefer wider mechanical variety by letting more ancestries choose between 2 or 3/-1.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, yeah, I do think that 1 set and 1 free is easily the worst of both worlds. It's boring and a non-choice at this point. It should be a rarity going forward, especially under the new rules--you know, what you do when nothing else quite fits but +2/+2 isn't the way. Have we heard confirmation that that's actually going to be the norm from now on?Twitter indicates they are going the worst of both worlds route going forward: https://twitter.com/paizo/status/1610544915548868608?s=46&t=EkOncmqUZlk Oz3vD2pIK5w
Why even bother printing the stat line for new races with 1 boost/1 free? Seems like pointless minutia at this point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I think that's the wrong move here. It pointlessly eliminates versatility and flavor for really no reason. I totally support the free/free option, I think it's a fantastic option that I would absolutely make use of, but I hate not getting to choose. It also feels really crummy with it only applying to new ancestries. Like, that's just going to make all new ancestries going forward feel a little bit less versatile than the old ones.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The phrasing seems to imply that I guess they just want it to be a guideline, like "here's the thing they're most known for/most typically good at"
But I would rather see the mechanical versatility of letting someone pick between 2 and 3/-1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a huge baby and bathwater situation. I don't know. I didn't have any complaints with the core of the change (except the Voluntary Flaw issue), but this bothers me.
Consider that we just published 5 new ancestries in Impossible Lands with 1 suggested boost, 1 free boost, and no flaws.
The implication here is that this is going to be the norm going forward. They are being a little coy, and I do hope that's because they're still undecided.
The free/free option is fantastic. It's a tiny powder keg being thrown into ancestry balance, don't get me wrong--like the problems with set/free ancestries getting a buff, the interactions with humans--but the "damage" it does is, well, tiny, and the benefits to customization are so massive they easily outweigh it. But now they're just removing options all across the map? I'm not a huge fan.
For those of us not on twitter, can you quote the tweet?
It's several tweets in a chain. You don't need to be on twitter to read, you just need to copy/paste link. Or tweet
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think they want all ancestries to be +/+/+/- or +/+
With the errata Dwarves are +Con/+Wis/+?/-Cha or +?/+?
While Orcs are +Str/+? or +?/+?
Meaning Dwarves have more stat options than orcs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dwarves get more options, but orcs get to ignore what was previously probably counted as a flaw that gave them "budget" for more benefits. Now orcs get those benefits for free. Losing out on options is a shame, though.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope we continue to see +++- ancestries in the future. I really like every ancestry having access to the ++ option, but if they stop doing +++- ancestries the net result of that will just be older ancestries being more versatile than newly printed ones.
And I definitely agree that printing fixed/boost ancestries at all in light of this change is decidedly odd.
My personal houserule is going to be treating fixed/boost as an intentional drawback, meaning those ancestries can't choose ++, but that will quickly stop being a reasonable houserule if fixed/boost is just the standard going forward.
Giving every ancestry the ++ option seems like it nicely resolves the concerns about biological essentialism; I'd hate to see Paizo go the extra step of not wanting to print ancestries with flaws anymore.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is clear now that ancestries with flaws in very important attributes have been improved greatly by this.
Example: Constitution for Anadi, Elf, Kobold, Shoony, and Dexterity for Poppet. These were important penalties which players often felt compelled to fill, and restricted certain concepts for these ancestries. Or forced them to be used with voluntary flaws. All these Ancestries will see more play.
Likewise any Ancestry that had one fixed and one other bonus. Automaton, Fleshwarp, Kitsune, Orc, Shisk, Strix, Tengu. Plus the latest 5 from Impossible lands Ghoran, Kashrishi, Nagaji, Vanara, Vishkanya. These all now have more options.
Every Ancestry has been materially weakened by the loss of the Voluntary Flaws rule. Many builds where prepared to make the trade off. Every mechanically skilled player will be disappointed by its loss. I can see the original rule being a common house rule. I hope the Paizo leaves it in as a variant rule.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want voluntary flaw system to land stayed the same.
In fact I'd like to hear why they changed it.
Did they feel that extra +2 was overpowered?
I often utilized it to make a weird build work. Now I don't have that option by raw
I didn't understand anything that was said here, and I don't want to, please don't try, follow the post, I just want to record that before I had a reasonable problem, after all, which ancestry will fit "perfectly" in the class I already have I decided, and I'm not going to change?!? Now all game ancestry fits!!!! Thank you very much for the "problem" Paizo!!!!
P.S 1 I love Darkvision, this is something I always look for!
P.S 2 I love humans only for Natural Ambition and other feats!
P.S 3 now dwarfs are more attractive to me...
P.S 4 I like +2/+2, but I don't see a problem with +2/+2/-2... too bad my GM wouldn't adopt the latter...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody here's complaining about the +2/+2 change, so no worries, Alvenaharr! We're talking about future ancestries potentially not being given full +2/+2/+2/-2 arrays as an optional alternative to +2/+2. :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And the fact that +2/+2/+2/0/-2/-2 array doesn't exist any more.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's better to let this thread focus on the issue of the new fixed/free arrays and let the other focus on Voluntary Flaws.
I'm pretty sure that the wave of ancestries that came with LO:IL was set before the errata decision. Wouldn't be surprised if we never see another set/free ancestry ever again. I would also not be surprised if we see these ancestries get errata-ed in the future so they get set/set/free/flaw stat arrays.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not what the tweet implies, but I hope you're right!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just saw the tweet. I don't know hot to interpret it tbh. Most likely it means no more +2/+2/free/-2 ancestries, but I could also see it as them being just on board with "suggested" arrays, as the original tweet puts it.
I like having the option of free/free, but I think it would be a shame if we don't get more ancestries with built-in penalties. They are just fun to build around.
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.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally really enjoy designing ancestries with the "old model". I think it's fun to work out which abilities make the most sense to tie to an ancestry--like, should a culture of wasp people celebrate learning and technical skills, or cooperation and social skills? Should they be naturally agile, or naturally strong? Frail or clumsy?
So, yeah. I think there's value to the old model, and I hope it doesn't really become "the old model".
Regardless, they aren't gonna errata away the old flaws. There's no way. That would break so many preexisting characters--it would be a catastrophe. Either they'll go back to the old model or they won't, but they aren't gonna go and remove elves' Dex/Con modifiers.
Not until third edition.
Really, if the rule from the first printing was "there are no innate ancestry ability scores, everybody gets two free boosts" I think that would have always been fine.
There's just something uncomfortable about bonuses and maluses being tied to "who your parents were." You lose a little bit of flavor (e.g. "Leshies are literally empty-headed"), but that's about it. It's very good that it's now painless to make a character in a class that wants two boosts entirely unrelated to what their ancestry got when the thematics of the ancestry might be what made you want to play the character.
More pressing is probably that they should probably look at some of the ancestry basic chassis, since if everybody is Free/Free then a Dwarf is -10 speed, +4 HP, and Darkvision instead of Low-Light versus an Elf.
Really, if the rule from the first printing was "there are no innate ancestry ability scores, everybody gets two free boosts" I think that would have always been fine.
There's just something uncomfortable about bonuses and maluses being tied to "who your parents were." You lose a little bit of flavor (e.g. "Leshies are literally empty-headed"), but that's about it. It's very good that it's now painless to make a character in a class that wants two boosts entirely unrelated to what their ancestry got when the thematics of the ancestry might be what made you want to play the character.
More pressing is probably that they should probably look at some of the ancestry basic chassis, since if everybody is Free/Free then a Dwarf is -10 speed, +4 HP, and Darkvision instead of Low-Light versus an Elf.
Dwarf thaumaturges?
I mean, it always felt bad to me to be swimming upstream to make a Dwarf who is a great storyteller, or a Dwarf who is a collector of magical esoterica, or a Dwarf who is cursed by the gods, or a dwarf with special blood because of that Cha Penalty. Since there's thematic reason Dwarves shouldn't have a strong tradition of bardic arts, collecting neat stuff, etc.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
More pressing is probably that they should probably look at some of the ancestry basic chassis, since if everybody is Free/Free then a Dwarf is -10 speed, +4 HP, and Darkvision instead of Low-Light versus an Elf.
They can't, really. It's not going to be balanced without overhauling literally every ancestry, and I don't think they're going to do that. +2/+2 isn't really meant to be balanced, which is fine. Balance wasn't a priority. It doesn't always have to be.
I don't fully agree on boosts/drawbacks being inherently problematic--like, we're talking about literally alien beings with totally distinct and often highly stylized cultures. There are going to be physical differences, and the option of a mental tendency can be fun* in representing the impact of that stylized culture or that alien mindset. Elves are space aliens who can outlive oak trees. Dwarves tend to live underground and live for hundreds of years, usually among their own kind. Gnomes are literal ex-fairies. I like the option of playing up those differences, or of getting to deconstruct them. I just think it needs to be an option, and not mandatory.
*I continue to hold that leshies are the only ancestry for whom a penalty to Int doesn't feel weird, but that's probably why Int penalties are rare nowadays. The lizardfolk thing is a little yikes.
I'm skeptical that there's even a meaningful balance issue to begin with. Paizo does not appear to have ever treated attribute bonus distribution as a balancing mechanic. Ancestries with theoretically worse statlines (from a min-max perspective) aren't counterbalanced with stronger core features.
Actually, a friend of mine was talking to Mark Seifter, and it sounds like attribute bonus distribution absolutely has been taken into account. In particular, drawbacks to "save abilities" like Constitution are considered more significant penalties. It's really neat!
Of course, I'll say again that I'm not super concerned about the balance issue. If that was the only issue, I'd have no problems here. It's an easy rule to treat as optional.
Boy, I had forgotten about the Leshys... that's it, one more that enters the "I will be your Thaumaturgo in AoA" arena (thinking about it, it's a funny scene, an arena where an elf, a leshy, a dwarf and a goblin are fighting ...)
The issue is that the way many players "play flaws" can lead to reinforcing and reiterating a lot of harmful sterotypes uncritically. If 3 boosts are necessary for certain character ideas, then that is a different issue entirely than whether giving certain ancestries a default flaw is a good idea.
From a mechanical perspective it was fun to find interesting combos, but that can be done with feats and heritages and not things that can encourage problematic behavior in players.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, maybe I'm the Gaming Grinch now, but I don't think we should build this game around the habits of the kinds of people we wouldn't want to play with anyways. Not when it means effectively discontinuing a mechanic lots of us really enjoyed!
I see your point, and I respect it, but I don't think I can agree with the conclusion.
I just want voluntary flaw system to land stayed the same.
In fact I'd like to hear why they changed it.
Did they feel that extra +2 was overpowered?
I often utilized it to make a weird build work. Now I don't have that option by raw
I feel you. The new universal ++ option is a godsend for me with how much certain +s or -s would put me off toward certain ancestries. The removal of the old voluntary system does surprise me considering how well it worked across different players and tables. The people who used it loved it and the ones that didn’t showed no hate. This is all anecdotal though.
It’s still a net gain for me, personally, even if I’m a bigger fan of the +++- spread. You won’t see me complaining if the old voluntary flaw system just suddenly came back though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, it's been a day, I've been hyperfixated on this for over twelve hours, and I've calmed down a bit. Still autistically obsessed, but, you know, in a calm way. I think we should slow down.
Sure, the Fixed/Free array is a little boring. That said, think about it this way: At least these ancestries' specials will be balanced with the +2/+2 in mind, since it's effectively the only option they'll have. That's probably a big reason for making Fixed/Free universal going forward. It makes balancing against the option a lot easier if you know it's, well, the only option. You can't say the same for the dwarves and fetchlings. I wouldn't wish that rebalancing puzzle on my meanest ex.
There are already so many ancestries in Pathfinder with nice, flavorful Boost/Boost/Free/Flaw arrays. How many more are we really waiting on? Wyrwoods? Maybe some aliens? I think we're okay, and I don't think we should give in to alarmism here.
We don't know anything yet. Maybe Impossible Lands was a one-time thing. Maybe Paizo's still experimenting.
There's a lot of discourse going on right now, and too much of it concerns hypotheticals. For now, I think it's best to just politely state our feelings on a hypothetical move to universal Fixed/Free, then move on. We don't know if it's even coming yet. No reason to get too excited.
Now, Voluntary Flaws, there's an issue worth starting flamewars ove
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's a pretty healthy way of looking at things!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really? That doesn't sound like me. Anyways, on to my thirteenth hour!
|
Fixed +/ Free + as the new base is extremely odd. Why not make 2 Free + the base ?
It does reinforce stereotypes about an ancestry, just without the obvious fixed malus thing. Which was actually a comparison point with Humans.
I wonder what the +++/- Ancestries we currently have would have been if Fixed + / Free +. I too think they will not errata those BTW unless a public outcry against fixed flaws becomes impossible to ignore.
My take on the Common Ancestries :
Dwarves = Fixed CON
Elves = Fixed INT
Gnome = Fixed CHA
Goblin = Fixed DEX
Halfling = Fixed DEX
Note that the latter could actually be Fixed WIS too to avoid having the same as Goblin.
Doing this makes me now think they will not go back to +++/- because it was yet another contraint on designing future Ancestries AND yet another design decision you had to justify and defend against fans who felt differently.
In the end, it is a rather small thing and also another slaughtered sacred cow with roots in an older era of gaming and not much traction to stay in future game designs.
Building a character around flaws may be fun for some of us longtimers, but most newcomers do not need the hassle.
Bleck. It's giving me 3.5 flashbacks. X3
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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.