I have a idea for a Gnoll who looks more wolf like and the reason is his father was a Rougaru who met his mother while they were both hunting a werewolf who had caused a lot of deaths and trouble in the area. The DM is allowing it but I'm just curious if this is even possible. Maybe its normally not but perhaps fate/a god or whatever got involved.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think questions about "who or what can interbreed with something" are best handled at the table on a case-by-case basis.
In terms of mechanics, you probably want a Gnoll with the Beastkin versatile heritage.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
We haven't heard of anyone of mixed Kholo heritage before, but if your GM has already approved it, then I think you're in the clear. I think the amount of published, canon Rougarou lore for Pathfinder could probably fit on a single piece of printer paper.
The nerd in me wants to note that hyenas aren't canines; they're distant cousins to mongooses, and categorized as 'feliform' (cat-like) mammals taxonomically.
We haven't heard of anyone of mixed Kholo heritage before, but if your GM has already approved it, then I think you're in the clear.
I would agree with that. As far as I know it is currently homebrew, but there is nothing wrong with that.
I have heard rumors that Aiuvarin and Dromaar are only the first of the mixed heritage options. But currently we don't have mixed Kholo... yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We haven't heard of anyone of mixed Kholo heritage before, but if your GM has already approved it, then I think you're in the clear. I think the amount of published, canon Rougarou lore for Pathfinder could probably fit on a single piece of printer paper.
The nerd in me wants to note that hyenas aren't canines; they're distant cousins to mongooses, and categorized as 'feliform' (cat-like) mammals taxonomically.
This is like when I like to tell people birds evolved in the Jurassic before t rex even existed and that birds lived along side the non-avian dinosaurs up until the end Cretaceous extinction event. Or also like how I like to tell people that pterosaurs are not dinosaurs, or that the closest living relative to dinosaurs is actually the crocodilians, because birds *are* dinosaurs
We haven't heard of anyone of mixed Kholo heritage before, but if your GM has already approved it, then I think you're in the clear. I think the amount of published, canon Rougarou lore for Pathfinder could probably fit on a single piece of printer paper.
The nerd in me wants to note that hyenas aren't canines; they're distant cousins to mongooses, and categorized as 'feliform' (cat-like) mammals taxonomically.
The group already has a beastkin so I can't be one. Otherwise I would of just been a Beastkin with something like Orc or whatever as the base but he never ever turns into an Orc and he'd call himself a Rougaru since they aren't an actual race yet. But Gnolls are the next closest thing.
We haven't heard of anyone of mixed Kholo heritage before, but if your GM has already approved it, then I think you're in the clear. I think the amount of published, canon Rougarou lore for Pathfinder could probably fit on a single piece of printer paper.
The nerd in me wants to note that hyenas aren't canines; they're distant cousins to mongooses, and categorized as 'feliform' (cat-like) mammals taxonomically.
This is true but are Pathfinder Gnolls really "just humanoid Hyena" or something more? They aren't Hyena who become Gnolls through some horrific transformation like they are in most D&D worlds. (The only exception I can think of where they don't come into existence like that is Eberron).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is true but are Pathfinder Gnolls really "just humanoid Hyena" or something more? They aren't Hyena who become Gnolls through some horrific transformation like they are in most D&D worlds. (The only exception I can think of where they don't come into existence like that is Eberron).We haven't heard of anyone of mixed Kholo heritage before, but if your GM has already approved it, then I think you're in the clear. I think the amount of published, canon Rougarou lore for Pathfinder could probably fit on a single piece of printer paper.
The nerd in me wants to note that hyenas aren't canines; they're distant cousins to mongooses, and categorized as 'feliform' (cat-like) mammals taxonomically.
That "horrible transformation" lore is mostly a 5e thing, I believe; the author of Eberron wrote an article about player character Gnolls for 4e's base setting... and that's how I wound up playing one as my first PC, ever!
But no, the Kholo (you can thank WotC's OGL stunt for the Gnoll name going bye-bye) are a born people like any other. Lost Omens: The Mwangi Expanse has the best portrait of their current lore, though Player Core 2 will give a broader overview of them once it releases.
The group already has a beastkin so I can't be one.
Why is that a rule?
Edit: A houserule, to be more specific. Why is this houserule in existence at your table?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean Aiuvarin and Dromaar Kholo are a thing already, not to mention Kholos who are planar scions might have a genie or outsider for an ancestor. A different mix is also quite plausible.
My guess would be one Rare max in the whole party for each step (here : Ancestry + Heritage).The group already has a beastkin so I can't be one.Why is that a rule?
Edit: A houserule, to be more specific. Why is this houserule in existence at your table?
That would at least explain why no one is up in arms about "That player is already playing a Human with Versatile Human heritage, so now I can't."
But that still doesn't explain why this houserule is in effect. Why is the entire party collectively limited to one Rare build option... and how do they choose fairly which player gets to have it?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My guess would be one Rare max in the whole party for each step (here : Ancestry + Heritage).The group already has a beastkin so I can't be one.Why is that a rule?
Edit: A houserule, to be more specific. Why is this houserule in existence at your table?
That would at least explain why no one is up in arms about "That player is already playing a Human with Versatile Human heritage, so now I can't."
But that still doesn't explain why this houserule is in effect. Why is the entire party collectively limited to one Rare build option... and how do they choose fairly which player gets to have it?
I could see it as a way to avoid the improbable party full of Rare creatures that most people do not even know of and thus have a very low probability of ever meeting each other, even less so become an adventuring party.
For the last point, bribery.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That would at least explain why no one is up in arms about "That player is already playing a Human with Versatile Human heritage, so now I can't."
But that still doesn't explain why this houserule is in effect. Why is the entire party collectively limited to one Rare build option... and how do they choose fairly which player gets to have it?
I get that this is likely you just "asking" a question to voice your dislike of the idea but I will engage it in good faith.
In my groups the party can have two uncommon or rarer characters, one of which can be rare. This is for thematic reasons and to stop the walking menagerie effect and has been extremely effective at doing so.
The way we determine who gets what is an effort assumption, in my campaign material I specify that I expect more effort/study/integration regarding uncommon options and even more regarding rare. The group as a whole then decides on who gets the slots.
I also reserve the right as GM to allow more if people have worked together or just put in enough effort that I am convinced it won't negatively impact the campaign experience and immersion.
And as a final note I tend to alter rarity when it comes to different geographic regions or campaign themes.
Honestly though, since implementing the rarity rule it has never come up as an issue. Where as prior I had a few players who would basically try on something "weird" as a costume and either make it a meme or have it be entirely meaningless. Worst case scenario is where one player would choose something and put effort into planning and knowledge, and another would hear about it during character creation go "cool" and not put any effort in and drag the tone of both characters down.
Amusingly this was something I came up with for the group in 5e (hence the using of race in my examples), since it had common races, uncommon races and I chose to describe everything post phb as rare.
I get that this is likely you just "asking" a question to voice your dislike of the idea but I will engage it in good faith.
That is actually appreciated. I will fully admit to using Socratic Questions. Mostly because they are less aggressive and can be engaged with as just questions.
You and The Raven Black both mentioned reducing the menagerie effect of everyone picking Rare things and thus making it feel like such things aren't actually rare in the setting.
Which can make sense.
Especially if some of the players are doing it only for meme value.
The drawback of that is that we end up in cases like this where someone has an interesting concept for a character that they can't play because someone else already has the limited Rare option.
Also, from the sound of it there is a lot of wiggle room to it in practice. When the idea is distilled down to just the rule it feels like you are trying to fix a player and social interaction problem by adding rules - which rarely works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DM is running Alkenstar. I was told they already had a beastkin and didn't want to double up. Shrug.
The group is rather weird. I'm a Gnoll who looks more like a Wolf person. There is a Skeleton Witch, a beastkin and Some guy whose mutated. There's a Goblin DM NPC/PC too but only until I can play.
The group already has a beastkin so I can't be one.Why is that a rule?
Edit: A houserule, to be more specific. Why is this houserule in existence at your table?
Probably to help provide some variety in the party. If this kind of detail is going to be used narratively, then it might get awkward since different characters have the same story beat.
Do you for them to have the story beat at the same time? One after the other so they each get their own focus? But then the rest of the party might be a bit tired of getting the same story beat twice in a row.
Example- two dhampir characters, each with their own individual vampire dad. It might mean two quest chains in a row where you deal with someone's vampire dad.
Now there are ways around these problems, but they need effort and coordination, or else you are going to get a "we are wearing the same thing to prom" situation.
Example- you can have the sibling dhampirs that share a vampire dad. Thus, the story beat is shared.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The group is rather weird. I'm a Gnoll who looks more like a Wolf person. There is a Skeleton Witch, a beastkin and Some guy whose mutated. There's a Goblin DM NPC/PC too but only until I can play.
A Gnoll Aasimar's wolf-like appearance might reflect their Idyllkin lineage (aka Agathion ancestors).