Why do so many people hate alternate ancestry boosts and ban them, not letting players use them to truly express their character?

[breithauptclan]

I don't know.

Gaming groups can houserule things to be the way that they want for their particular campaign or setting. That is the First Rule - which does go both ways.

The argument that I have heard the most is that having the free/free boost option makes ancestries too 'samey'.

I don't necessarily agree with that since it isn't introducing 'sameness' into the game, it is just moving it around. Previously the 'sameness' is that ancestries would gravitate to specific classes. Or at least avoid certain classes. For example, if you wanted to play a Dwarf Divine spellcaster, you options are Cleric. Maybe Fervor Witch if you are willing to play Witch. But you certainly wouldn't want to play a Dwarf Sorcerer or Oracle.

So that 'sameyness' was moved from ancestry-class pairings to ability score boosts.

And I think that was a good change, because Ancestries have a big pile of heritage and ancestry feat options available to make them not feel the same from one character to another.

-----

Anyway, I expect that this thread is going to cause nothing but arguments and fights.

Peace.

[OrochiFuror]

I don't really understand, everyone gets a free boost to make nearly any class/ancestry combo you want. Your other boosts represent physiological differences. You could call it a legacy thing, perhaps.

[breithauptclan]

OrochiFuror wrote:

I don't really understand, everyone gets a free boost to make nearly any class/ancestry combo you want. Your other boosts represent physiological differences. You could call it a legacy thing, perhaps.

This is discussing the ancestries that have an ability flaw. Such as Dwarf that has a Charisma flaw, or Poppet that has a Dexterity flaw.

And this is in regards to the change in 4th printing that allows any ancestry to replace the boost/boost/flaw from their ancestry with two free boosts.

There are gaming groups that will houserule ban the option to use the two free boosts. Which means that a level 1 Dwarf could never have an 18 starting Charisma, or a Poppet could never have an 18 starting Dexterity.

[Calliope5431]

Captain Relyk wrote:

Why do so many people hate alternate ancestry boosts and ban them, not letting players use them to truly express their character?

It is baffling how many people I encounter who not only hate alternate ancestry boosts but actively ban and disallow players to use them, forcing players to play stereotypes/monoliths instead of letting them have freedom to craft the character they want to play, and forcing them to play ancestry stereotypes like uncharismatic socially awkward dwarves or dumbass uncivilized Iruxi

Not to mention some people raise issues with locked unchangable ancestry boosts with things like biological existentialism

Discord Westmarches like [Broken Lands: Three Kingdoms](https://discord.com/invite/CKAhd38Wf4) and The Mysterious Island (run by tevelas on discord) force players to play stereotypes like socially awkward dwarves or unintelligent uncivilized iruxi

There was also [This guy](https://imgur.com/a/dWuckLm) who was arguing against Alternate Ancestry Boosts, and when I defended it I got downvoted

Not only this, but when I made a post like this on Reddit people kept arguing against alternate ancestry boosts: https://reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/s/vU6Qoifo5T

Most people I’ve met in D&D like Tasha’s Custom Origin rules

So why are there so many people against AAB in PF2e? Do people really think forcing players to make monolith characters is fun?

I use the word monolith a lot because in Paizo’s post discussing alternate ability boosts, Paizo said that ancestries aren’t a monolith, hence why they made that errata

Begging the question lol.

But yeah it's dumb and has gross racial implications even if it's not intentional. I houseruled flexible boosts back in like 2019 because I thought it smacked of eugenics.

Obviously it's not deliberate or fantasy racism but it's still discomforting.

[Ruzza]

That's a heck of a leading title with little room for discussion. Like, the most I can add to the conversation is... I have yet to see anyone ban alternate ancestry boosts? I run a Discord server with close to 20+ GMs and it hasn't come up once.

I probably also wouldn't put people that you've had discussions with on other sites on blast like that.

[WatersLethe]

Ruzza wrote:

That's a heck of a leading title with little room for discussion. Like, the most I can add to the conversation is... I have yet to see anyone ban alternate ancestry boosts? I run a Discord server with close to 20+ GMs and it hasn't come up once.

I probably also wouldn't put people that you've had discussions with on other sites on blast like that.

Good ole Captain Relyk.

[Calliope5431]

WatersLethe wrote:

Ruzza wrote:

That's a heck of a leading title with little room for discussion. Like, the most I can add to the conversation is... I have yet to see anyone ban alternate ancestry boosts? I run a Discord server with close to 20+ GMs and it hasn't come up once.

I probably also wouldn't put people that you've had discussions with on other sites on blast like that.

Good ole Captain Relyk.

It's sort of excessive yes.

[Mathmuse]

Ruzza wrote:

That's a heck of a leading title with little room for discussion. Like, the most I can add to the conversation is... I have yet to see anyone ban alternate ancestry boosts? I run a Discord server with close to 20+ GMs and it hasn't come up once.

I probably also wouldn't put people that you've had discussions with on other sites on blast like that.

Likewise, I recently started a mini-campaign with A Fistful of Flowers and A Few Flowers More and I told my players about the alternative ancestry rule, especially the new player who would find it simpler. In the end, he chose even simpler than that, because he selected a pregenerated character. However, the player who made the exemplar leshy Nightshade used the alternative ancestry boosts.

[Aaron Shanks]

Locked the thread for moderation tomorrow.