Pathfinder 2E Leshies Previewed From Lost Omens Character Guide

Leshies are another of the three new ancestries from the new Pathfinder 2E book. Nature spirits given form, these guys havecrafted plant bodies.

​

This small-sized race has 8 hit points, 25' speed, and gains sustenance from the sun. They have Constitution and Wisdom boosts, and an Intelligence flaw. They also have their own ancestry feats, including this one:

​

More info here.

 

[Lucas Yew]

They shouldn't call them leshies, though. A leshy is something completely different:

Leshy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Like others mentioned above, blame D&D for all these unsound re-imaginations of RL folklore figures. Such as the Lamia; what on earth had them end up with the lower half of a lion, not a proper snake?!

Edit: Well there's the Matriarch, I know, but I'd rather have them unified as a single snake half with human torso species...

 

[CapnZapp]

A lot of 2e's art has missed the mark for me. However, I do not have any issue with this art.

Although I really like Golarion as a setting, I dislike the "Muppet Show" vibe of all the weird races and tend to limit them in my games to core + by request. The anthropomorphic animal races are generally my least liked. I've specifically avoided buying Inner Sea Races.

Are you mixing up PF1 and PF2 now?

 

[CapnZapp]

Like others mentioned above, blame D&D for all these unsound re-imaginations of RL folklore figures.

You're the only one assigning blame, as far as I can see. All the others simply present the facts in ways that do not support your agenda. Cheers

 

[Aldarc]

I can't stop laughing at people saying this is jumping the shark. It never ceases to shock me how closeminded people think Fantasy should be. If it wasn't for Tolkien none of you would know what to do with yourselves

On the whole, fantasy does seem somewhat conservative in its imagination for what a fantasy world could be.

More a sci-fi trope really, although there are some overlaps. Usually in ‘fantasy’ plant people are usually Spirits of Fae rather than a race

I'm not sure if that generalization holds much water even in D&D-esque fantasy.

 

[billd91]

I... uhh... I feel very out of touch.

I'm thinking "they're jumping the shark" and yet the fans on the Paizo board are cheering.

Of course they're cheering. Leshies were some of the more creative monsters introduced in the Pathfinder Bestiaries (starting with Bestiary 3, I think) in PF1. And given Paizo's penchant for faerie creatures and their servants in various APs, they should be a good fit for Golarion as an ancestry.

If you feel out of touch, you probably didn't keep up with developments in Pathfinder over the years. Nothing wrong with that, but it's far from jumping the shark.

 

[zztong]

Of course they're cheering. Leshies were some of the more creative monsters introduced in the Pathfinder Bestiaries (starting with Bestiary 3, I think) in PF1. And given Paizo's penchant for faerie creatures and their servants in various APs, they should be a good fit for Golarion as an ancestry.

If you feel out of touch, you probably didn't keep up with developments in Pathfinder over the years. Nothing wrong with that, but it's far from jumping the shark.

Yeh, I agree. Its another example of Paizo and I heading in different directions. I seem to be taking some time to get through this conversion, hoping that something will click and I'll like it. I should probably just acknowledge and embrace the fact that isn't going to happen and focus on some other game. I won't be able to help my friend with his PF2 game, but he'll cope.

 

[Ravenbrook]

Kobolds aren't the same as folklore kobolds, either. D&D and other RPGs have interpreted folklore and mythological concepts in new ways since the beginning of the game. In the same way kobolds take some inspiration from the folklore origin while changing quite a lot about the concept, leshys seem to be taking the idea of a woodland defender and changing most of the rest.

Yeah, that's why I don't call these "dog people" (or are they reptilians?) "kobolds" in my campaign.

 

[RSIxidor]

Yeah, that's why I don't call these "dog people" (or are they reptilians?) "kobolds" in my campaign.

In early editions, they were more dog-like. They took on reptilian features until in 3rd they were stated to be reptilian.

 

[Tonguez]

In early editions, they were more dog-like. They took on reptilian features until in 3rd they were stated to be reptilian.

it was explained at one point that the original DnD kobolds were doglike but had scaly skin. However when the artist took that description away he came back with an image of something that was more reptilian (scaly skin) and thus was born the 'confusion'. 3e made the decision to link Kobolds to dragons and thus codified the 'reptile' (but are Dragons reptiles?)

 

[Ravenbrook]

it was explained at one point that the original DnD kobolds were doglike but had scaly skin. However when the artist took that description away he came back with an image of something that was more reptilian (scaly skin) and thus was born the 'confusion'. 3e made the decision to link Kobolds to dragons and thus codified the 'reptile' (but are Dragons reptiles?)

Maybe dragons, like dinosaurs, are actually birds.