Archetypes for specific Ancestries?

[Berselius]

Would anyone like to see Archetypes for specific Ancestries in 2e Pathfinder if there aren't any already? I honestly wouldn't mind seeing a 2e take on the Dhampir Kinslayer or Elf Treesinger.

[Lightning Sentinel]

I can kinda see why they did away with them, as most were just cultural and are covered under access and rarity.

That said, I like the ones in Battlezoo books and how they really leverage the unique physiologies and themes of the ancestries.

[QuidEst]

Yes and no. Do I want a kholo bonespeaker archetype or a kitsune magical tail archetype? Sure. But, I don't want an elven treespeaker or dhampir kinslayer archetype. Similarly, most people won't have a use for the ancestry archetypes I'd enjoy.

Folks would be better off with a generic osteomancy archetype for bone divination, or the Captivator archetype. I'd be better off with a generic plant caller archetype or a vampire hunter archetype. I think it's almost always better to take the concepts of an ancestry-based archetype and make it into something general.

We do have a few elven and dwarven archetypes already, coming from various APs, and I think there's one orc one. One of the elven ones could have been a very broadly useful diplomatic envoy archetype, but it's locked down to a specific type of elf without GM permission.

[Teridax]

IIRC, Battlezoo does this and it’s quite popular, so yes. Their archetypes tend not to focus on a specific cultural aspect of an ancestry, though, so much as amping up the abilities you’d expect from that ancestry using the power budget of class feats. If you were a dragon ancestry, for example, you could take the archetype that gives you extra-strong dragon feats.

[Tridus]

The problem with this is it becomes so specific that it's going to very rarely get used. We really don't need an Elf specific archtype, especially with how many ancestries get so little support as it is.

Devote some of that page space and effort into giving some more attention to the ones that don't get it, instead of even more niche stuff for the already supported ones.

[BotBrain]

I'm not the biggest fan of it for a couple reasons. One is it can really suck to have a cool archtype locked behind an ancestry (and while GMs can give fiat, this isn't always applicable), and two is I really dislike biological essentiallism in fantasy. I get it is part and parcel to the genre, but a lot of the pf1e racial archtypes were almost entirely cultural, and the limiting felt weird.

Now that being said, PF2e has experimented with them (See the highhelm archtypes, ostill host) and I like that they're uncommon with acess for that ancestry, as it retains the cultural and biological flavour without hard limiting it. More of that would be welcome.

[Scarablob]

I think the closer we'll get is the "Ostilli Host" and "Thlipit Contestant" archetype from Howl of the Wild.

The first one is clearly about a symbiotic relationship between a specific ancestry and the Ostilli, and it's noted that this ancestry get access to it even if the archetype is uncommon. It does specify that other ancestry can also bond with the slug (and thus access the archetype), but there is clear theming, and the fact that this is explicitely open to the Sukri but no other ancestry is as close as it get to ancestry specific.

The other is about a martial art of grippli fighting using their prehensile tongue, that was latter adapted by Iruxi using their prehensile tail. Not technically ancestry limited, but you need to have the physical attribute necessary to enter it in the first place (there's also other archetypes for characters with claw or wings).

These are I think a good middle ground between "clearly of a certain culture + relying on certain physical characteristic" without just ensuing a blanket ban on anything "out of the norm". Fleshwarp for example being able to have an appendage that they can use like the grippli use their tongue make sense, but would much probably have been excluded if Thlipit Contestant was ancestry locked, simply because the writters would probably have stopped at the most obvious ancestry instead of noting every edge case. Likewise if you want to consider that the Ostilli can only bond with exosqueletton, I somewhat doubt that insectile sprites, beastkin or even the possible Trox that might one day be released would have been included on the "possible ancestry for this archetype" if it was strictly ancestry locked.

[Justnobodyfqwl]

Yeah, I think the design space for "all ancestries with wings" or "all ancestries with a stretchy attack" is actually really slick. It allows for "class feats spent on doing My Ancestry's Cool Thing", but in very intuitive ways that work for multiple ancestries. It's very future proofed, too!

[Brinebeast]

I think a generic Ancestral Paragon Archetype would be useful. An Archetype that anyone can pick up and allows you to choose Ancestry Feats of your Ancestry in place of the usual Archetype Feats. I would also like it to provide the option to pick up multiple Heritages from the same Ancestry.

I would love an Ancestry Core type book. Something that helps trim down the space needed for each Ancestry. For example their would be a Flight Progression chain of Feats. Instead of needing to repeat the Chain for each flight enabled Ancestry, they can just say that the Flight Progression Chain is an option for that Ancestry/Universal Heritage. This then opens space for more unique Ancestry Feats.

[glass]

Berselius wrote:

Would anyone like to see Archetypes for specific Ancestries in 2e Pathfinder if there aren't any already? I honestly wouldn't mind seeing a 2e take on the Dhampir Kinslayer or Elf Treesinger.

I think an archetype should be locked to a particular ancestry if, and only if, it involves using a physical, biological feature unique (or nearly so) to that ancestry. Which is a high bar - as others have said, archetypes that rely on something common like wings can just say that.