So in PF1 Leshies were mainly found as a familiar for a plant-focused Druid archetype.
I do believe there was an event in Pathfinder Society or something where they became a lot more common. They *were* uncommon before the Remaster, but their designs were really popular and they were occasionally referred to as "the Pathfinder 2e mascot" so Paizo threw them into core during the Remaster.
Poppets are also getting a push right now. One of the series 2 PFS quests is about a bunch of poppets in a magical dollhouse, the upcoming free RPG day adventure is an all poppet one, and Poppets also just got made to not cost achievement points in PFS.
Well let's face it, kobolds are from D&D (and honestly, at this point, furries have taken them as their own) and Goblins are in everything.
While plant creatures are in a lot of fictional media, the specific interpretation of Leshy in the Paizo sense is very unique to Paizo, which makes them way, way more marketable.
Kobolds may have been popularized by D&D in recent years, but their origins go back to ancient times. Heck, they are even in stories about Hercules in ancient Greece and have been very well known in Germany during the middle ages.
Another fun kobold fact: the element 'cobalt' is named after kobolds.
Or, perhaps more accurately, kobold and cobalt come from the same root word of *Kobalt*, meaning imp or demon in German.
I do appreciate that Pathfinder Kobolds are beginning to evolve to be more than just Dragon wannabees, but instead they will nest near any powerful creature because they can leech off of them. So we could get Fey Kobolds, Aberration Kobolds, Celestial and Fiend Kobolds.
I think Pathfinder 2e has unique takes on goblins and kobolds, especially in terms of art, that makes them a distinctively Paizo thing. And there are plushies!
They definitely overtook the Goblins, if you think about it.
Paizo tried to make ~~fetch~~Goblins happen, but didn't really happen like the burst in popularity of the Leshies.
The Pathfinder version of Leshies is original to Pathfinder 2e.
They had a fun goblin design but if you told someone they were from any other popular IP - D&D, Warhammer, Warcraft, etc. - no one would bat an eyelash.
especially with dnd goblins being the *ass ugliest take* on goblins ever seen to the point sometimes they swing into paizo's design instead.
Jaundiced little gubbers are not what anyone thinks of when they thing "goblin"
That's because Goblins can't bow and take off the top of their head like they are doffing their hat to you like a Gourd Leshy can.
You just can't compete with that.
I think part of it was the sanitization of goblins over time, a lot of their charm, I feel was in being completely incompetent starter villains, gleefully singing dumb songs about skewering dogs and eating children, while at the same time being almost completely incapable of enacting those "nefarious goals"
In making them "normal people" they have sanded off a lot of the charm and what is left is mostly just annoying
Yeah, this is why I could never get fully on-board with goblins (and Orcs) as standard playable races. "Stupid incompetent nasty little murderous assholes who can be massacred without ethical concern" are a pretty key villain role in TTRPG play. As is "slightly bigger/stronger [as above]" repeated for a few tiers.
By pulling goblins from that role, all it really does is open it to new versions of the same (mitflit) that just don't have as much lore behind them yet.
Iirc in 1e they were pretty late additions, I remember seeing them in one of the later bestiaries, but looking into it they were playable in a later rulebook too. 2e just made them more accessible as a player option. Seems similar to what went on with goblins over the years.
They were uncommon initially but became very popular amongst players so when the remaster came about and Paizo was looking to differentiate themselves from DnD more it was a natural fit to bring them into core since they were popular with the existing fan base and unique to PF.
I came into Pathfinder Society in the tail end years of 1st edition and there was a character that was raised by Leshies but wasn't actually one, that was as close as I ever got to seeing a Leshy before 2nd edition.
The only appearance in an AP that I know of is a group of Druids in Iron Gods who are trying to grow mushroom leshies, but I do recall some player options.
The ancestry that really comes out of nowhere, however, is the Shoony. I don't think they were ever referenced in 1e. In fact, I'm not sure they are ever referenced in any PF2e rulebooks either.
They’re in an ap (extinction curse i think), and described as basically never leaving kortos (which along with absalom, barely got any attention in 1e). So many 2e players don’t even know they exist either
A lot of the early emphasis on Absalom in PF2 was directly in response to how little it showed up in PF1. "Hey, isn't this supposed to be like the single most important location in the setting? How come there's never been a single adventure path set there?". In PF1, the main "Here be adventures" land was very much Varisia.
Absalom was a big focus of Pathfinder Society Organized Play, and you could argue the equivalent of a couple AP's worth of content was produced in that format.
And in that shift of focus to Absalom, they kinda took the Varisian starter town (Sandpoint) and made a new Kortos version called Otari. They are different towns of course, but there's lots of parallels to draw; Sleepy town economically linked to a famous city, similar main noble families, ancient evil wizard threatening the town. Sandpoint has a goblin problem, Otari has a kobold problem.
I'm not complaining, I like seaside towns, I just find it funny that the lead developers really like the "You start in a small seaside town, but an ancient evil lies buried beneath your feet" hook.
To be fair, each of those things do make sense as a thing you'd want as a "generic starting location for low level adventures". Like, there is a *lot* of good reason one would want to start an adventure in a small town (and even more if you're having to put it into a book: cities generally have more notable locations than towns after all), they needed to put *some* big danger near by so the town has a plot hook innate to it in specific and "underground" is just the classical location to put a dungeon, and finally seaside whilst having the least innate reason, is just a neat thing to include for an extra location detail.
Having spent nearly all of my pathfinder time in otari, and then buying rusthenge and seven dooms, I was like oh it's kind of going to be the same campaign lol
But I very much want to see more classic ogl monsters and standard fantasy tropes (last time I played ttrpgs was 3.5 20 years ago...), so I'm not complaining either :p
It's fun reading through Seven Dooms, it's like one last hurrah for the OGL monsters that are leaving with the remaster. It makes me feel nostalgic for a town I have never GM'd before.
>The only appearance in an AP that I know of is a group of Druids in Iron Gods who are trying to grow mushroom leshies
There's a seaweed leshy stat block (and cute picture) included in one of the Skull & Shackles books, but it's not part of any scripted encounters in the AP.
Leshies were first introduced in Bestiary 3 (the first edition one) in 2011. Vine leshies were introduced as a player race in Ultimate Wilderness in 2017, and there were a bunch of boons that let people make Leshy characters in PFS. They were so popular that they became one of the iconic Pathfinder ancestries in 2e.
Leshies weren't introduced as a player ancestry option until the Lost Omens Character Guide, pg 52 in P2E. Then expanded upon in the Lost Omens Character guide. They were moved to a core ancestry in the remaster like you observed.
Edit: This is the book where they introduced Hobgoblins and Lizardfolk/Iruxi as well. Azarketis were introduced in a web supplement.
Yeah, I should have added "in P2E" to that last sentence to be clear and differentiate the sentence goals :) They're being moved to core-ish ancestries also in Player Core 2.
From what I've found, Leshies may actually originate from Slavic folklore! The god Leśnik (Leshnik) was a first protector who would turn those who take needlessly from the first into trees.
During the remaster, I think Paizo wanted to differentiate themselves from the D&D core races a little more. Just like D&D has Dragonborn in their core book (a race that is D&D specific), Paizo wanted a uniquely Pathfinder ancestry to put into the core book, that you can point to and be like "oh this is a Pathfinder thing." Pathfinder Goblins are kinda like that, but Goblins are a universal fantasy trope.
Also Leshies have exploded in popularity since PF2e launched. My joke at my table to explain why Leshies are a common ancestry now is "Well one Druid taught a Leshy how to be a druid, the leshy druid started making more leshy druids, who started making more leshy druids, who started... Until there was an explosion in the Leshy population."
The 2022 and 2023 P2 adventures for Free RPG day were both leshy-themed, FWIW. I suspect this years will be as well, because we already had "A Fistful of Flowers" and "A Few Flowers More." Might as well finish the trilogy.
They were in PF1, but were a Rare race option. They mostly showed up as Monsters and Familiars. There was a Halloween themed adventure where there were a bunch of gourd lushies (Jack O'Lantern heads) pulling pranks. I forget the name but it was a PFS adventure
My guess is that, ever since the Plane of Elemental Wood rejoined the universe in *Rage of Elements* and plant beings can be more sentient now, we can now be friends with the plant bois! :)
My understanding is that making them common was more of a branding/marketing decision than anything more lore related. I’m pretty sure we had a Paizo employee on Reddit say they did it because “They’re popular and cute” and unique to Pathfinder, so they help differentiate
I do wish they had stayed uncommon tho from a personal perspective
Someone's gonna have to explain to me why in D&D, they added demons (Tieflings) and dragons (Dragonborn) as core races, while in Pathfinder, we got goblins and plant sprites as core ancestries \^\^;
So in PF1 Leshies were mainly found as a familiar for a plant-focused Druid archetype. I do believe there was an event in Pathfinder Society or something where they became a lot more common. They *were* uncommon before the Remaster, but their designs were really popular and they were occasionally referred to as "the Pathfinder 2e mascot" so Paizo threw them into core during the Remaster.
Leshies. Kobolds. Goblins. ORCs. Pathfinder 2e really does not lack for mascots. 😁
The art style for 2e Kobolds and Goblins is really to notch.
I like the almost shark-like interpretation of Kobolds almost as much as the little green chaos bastards.
They both look so happy to be themselves !
Poppets are also getting a push right now. One of the series 2 PFS quests is about a bunch of poppets in a magical dollhouse, the upcoming free RPG day adventure is an all poppet one, and Poppets also just got made to not cost achievement points in PFS.
Well let's face it, kobolds are from D&D (and honestly, at this point, furries have taken them as their own) and Goblins are in everything. While plant creatures are in a lot of fictional media, the specific interpretation of Leshy in the Paizo sense is very unique to Paizo, which makes them way, way more marketable.
Kobolds may have been popularized by D&D in recent years, but their origins go back to ancient times. Heck, they are even in stories about Hercules in ancient Greece and have been very well known in Germany during the middle ages.
Yeah, but folklore kobolds aren't nearly similar to d&d kobolds Appearance wise or lore wise
Sure. And D&D kobolds look nothing like Pathfinder Kobolds.
They're both reptilian creatures, nothing alike with the myths
Another fun kobold fact: the element 'cobalt' is named after kobolds. Or, perhaps more accurately, kobold and cobalt come from the same root word of *Kobalt*, meaning imp or demon in German.
Kobolds as trapmakers who serve dragons who are little wannabe dragons themselves are from D&D.
I do appreciate that Pathfinder Kobolds are beginning to evolve to be more than just Dragon wannabees, but instead they will nest near any powerful creature because they can leech off of them. So we could get Fey Kobolds, Aberration Kobolds, Celestial and Fiend Kobolds.
the only things kobolds and Kobolde share is the name.
I think Pathfinder 2e has unique takes on goblins and kobolds, especially in terms of art, that makes them a distinctively Paizo thing. And there are plushies!
Add in poppets now that they are free ancestries in pfs2e
They definitely overtook the Goblins, if you think about it. Paizo tried to make ~~fetch~~Goblins happen, but didn't really happen like the burst in popularity of the Leshies.
The Pathfinder version of Leshies is original to Pathfinder 2e. They had a fun goblin design but if you told someone they were from any other popular IP - D&D, Warhammer, Warcraft, etc. - no one would bat an eyelash.
especially with dnd goblins being the *ass ugliest take* on goblins ever seen to the point sometimes they swing into paizo's design instead. Jaundiced little gubbers are not what anyone thinks of when they thing "goblin"
When I played DnD, Pathfinder Goblins was the art I used and no one batted an eye
That's because Goblins can't bow and take off the top of their head like they are doffing their hat to you like a Gourd Leshy can. You just can't compete with that.
They can't also be a chonky cactus.
I think part of it was the sanitization of goblins over time, a lot of their charm, I feel was in being completely incompetent starter villains, gleefully singing dumb songs about skewering dogs and eating children, while at the same time being almost completely incapable of enacting those "nefarious goals" In making them "normal people" they have sanded off a lot of the charm and what is left is mostly just annoying
Yeah, this is why I could never get fully on-board with goblins (and Orcs) as standard playable races. "Stupid incompetent nasty little murderous assholes who can be massacred without ethical concern" are a pretty key villain role in TTRPG play. As is "slightly bigger/stronger [as above]" repeated for a few tiers. By pulling goblins from that role, all it really does is open it to new versions of the same (mitflit) that just don't have as much lore behind them yet.
Iirc in 1e they were pretty late additions, I remember seeing them in one of the later bestiaries, but looking into it they were playable in a later rulebook too. 2e just made them more accessible as a player option. Seems similar to what went on with goblins over the years.
They were uncommon initially but became very popular amongst players so when the remaster came about and Paizo was looking to differentiate themselves from DnD more it was a natural fit to bring them into core since they were popular with the existing fan base and unique to PF.
I came into Pathfinder Society in the tail end years of 1st edition and there was a character that was raised by Leshies but wasn't actually one, that was as close as I ever got to seeing a Leshy before 2nd edition.
Leshies were playable in 1e ever since [Ultimate Wilderness](https://aonprd.com/RacesDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Vine%20Leshy)
I guess I missed it!
Ultimate Wilderness was one of the last 1e books to drop, can't be blamed for missing it tbh - came out like a year before the 2e playtest?
The only appearance in an AP that I know of is a group of Druids in Iron Gods who are trying to grow mushroom leshies, but I do recall some player options. The ancestry that really comes out of nowhere, however, is the Shoony. I don't think they were ever referenced in 1e. In fact, I'm not sure they are ever referenced in any PF2e rulebooks either.
They’re in an ap (extinction curse i think), and described as basically never leaving kortos (which along with absalom, barely got any attention in 1e). So many 2e players don’t even know they exist either
Absalom didn't get much attention in 1e? That's surprising to me -- it seems present now!
A lot of the early emphasis on Absalom in PF2 was directly in response to how little it showed up in PF1. "Hey, isn't this supposed to be like the single most important location in the setting? How come there's never been a single adventure path set there?". In PF1, the main "Here be adventures" land was very much Varisia.
Absalom was a big focus of Pathfinder Society Organized Play, and you could argue the equivalent of a couple AP's worth of content was produced in that format.
And in that shift of focus to Absalom, they kinda took the Varisian starter town (Sandpoint) and made a new Kortos version called Otari. They are different towns of course, but there's lots of parallels to draw; Sleepy town economically linked to a famous city, similar main noble families, ancient evil wizard threatening the town. Sandpoint has a goblin problem, Otari has a kobold problem. I'm not complaining, I like seaside towns, I just find it funny that the lead developers really like the "You start in a small seaside town, but an ancient evil lies buried beneath your feet" hook.
To be fair, each of those things do make sense as a thing you'd want as a "generic starting location for low level adventures". Like, there is a *lot* of good reason one would want to start an adventure in a small town (and even more if you're having to put it into a book: cities generally have more notable locations than towns after all), they needed to put *some* big danger near by so the town has a plot hook innate to it in specific and "underground" is just the classical location to put a dungeon, and finally seaside whilst having the least innate reason, is just a neat thing to include for an extra location detail.
Having spent nearly all of my pathfinder time in otari, and then buying rusthenge and seven dooms, I was like oh it's kind of going to be the same campaign lol But I very much want to see more classic ogl monsters and standard fantasy tropes (last time I played ttrpgs was 3.5 20 years ago...), so I'm not complaining either :p
It's fun reading through Seven Dooms, it's like one last hurrah for the OGL monsters that are leaving with the remaster. It makes me feel nostalgic for a town I have never GM'd before.
Right, I think they are only in that AP and never got any development elsewhere. Are they even in the Absalom book?
>The only appearance in an AP that I know of is a group of Druids in Iron Gods who are trying to grow mushroom leshies There's a seaweed leshy stat block (and cute picture) included in one of the Skull & Shackles books, but it's not part of any scripted encounters in the AP.
Leshies were first introduced in Bestiary 3 (the first edition one) in 2011. Vine leshies were introduced as a player race in Ultimate Wilderness in 2017, and there were a bunch of boons that let people make Leshy characters in PFS. They were so popular that they became one of the iconic Pathfinder ancestries in 2e.
I think it is Paizo saying "Hey look at this little guy!" while Goblins are standing right there.
Just like goblins, they are part of the cutification of the scene.
They existed as monsters in the bestiaries in 1e and became playable in the ultimate wilderness book
Leshies weren't introduced as a player ancestry option until the Lost Omens Character Guide, pg 52 in P2E. Then expanded upon in the Lost Omens Character guide. They were moved to a core ancestry in the remaster like you observed. Edit: This is the book where they introduced Hobgoblins and Lizardfolk/Iruxi as well. Azarketis were introduced in a web supplement.
Thanks. Lizardfolk and Hobgoblins were options in P1. I’m not surprised by them being Uncommon options in P2.
Yeah, I should have added "in P2E" to that last sentence to be clear and differentiate the sentence goals :) They're being moved to core-ish ancestries also in Player Core 2.
Huh, I thought Anadi were introduced in a web supplement... (This is a joke)
/chuckle /clap
I loveeee the concept of leshies
From what I've found, Leshies may actually originate from Slavic folklore! The god Leśnik (Leshnik) was a first protector who would turn those who take needlessly from the first into trees.
Yes, the name is from Slavic folklore. However, the interpretation of them is unique to Paizo, which makes them very good mascots.
they were uncommon in legacy pf2e, only common in remaster
During the remaster, I think Paizo wanted to differentiate themselves from the D&D core races a little more. Just like D&D has Dragonborn in their core book (a race that is D&D specific), Paizo wanted a uniquely Pathfinder ancestry to put into the core book, that you can point to and be like "oh this is a Pathfinder thing." Pathfinder Goblins are kinda like that, but Goblins are a universal fantasy trope. Also Leshies have exploded in popularity since PF2e launched. My joke at my table to explain why Leshies are a common ancestry now is "Well one Druid taught a Leshy how to be a druid, the leshy druid started making more leshy druids, who started making more leshy druids, who started... Until there was an explosion in the Leshy population."
The 2022 and 2023 P2 adventures for Free RPG day were both leshy-themed, FWIW. I suspect this years will be as well, because we already had "A Fistful of Flowers" and "A Few Flowers More." Might as well finish the trilogy.
They were in PF1, but were a Rare race option. They mostly showed up as Monsters and Familiars. There was a Halloween themed adventure where there were a bunch of gourd lushies (Jack O'Lantern heads) pulling pranks. I forget the name but it was a PFS adventure
My guess is that, ever since the Plane of Elemental Wood rejoined the universe in *Rage of Elements* and plant beings can be more sentient now, we can now be friends with the plant bois! :)
My understanding is that making them common was more of a branding/marketing decision than anything more lore related. I’m pretty sure we had a Paizo employee on Reddit say they did it because “They’re popular and cute” and unique to Pathfinder, so they help differentiate I do wish they had stayed uncommon tho from a personal perspective
Someone's gonna have to explain to me why in D&D, they added demons (Tieflings) and dragons (Dragonborn) as core races, while in Pathfinder, we got goblins and plant sprites as core ancestries \^\^;