Field Test #3: That Cantina Feel

I am kind of not excited by what I see here sadly. I was really looking forward to SF2e but for me these feel as conservative as PF2e ancestries. I hope they don't use the term ancestry, its a weird term and as much as species isn't great for androids, its still better than ancestry (which doesn't even make sense in PF2e since each ancestry does not have a common ancestor it was a weird pick to replace race (also a bad term) with. I hope they revert to using species, its matches the Starfinder feel more.

Still surprised Vesk and Iruxi are different species. I was kind of hoping they would make a more flexible approach to species in Starfinder, it would make more sense to have species descriptions and heritages and each species have a bunch of traits associated with it, e.g. reptilian, multi limbed, tailed etc. that way feats could have 1 or more traits and apply to multiple species without having to be reprinted and slightly renamed. Its the same problem a lot of ancestry and heritage feats have. How many ancestry feats in PF2e just equate to giving darkvision? It would be far better if there was 1 darkvision feat, I feat for ancestries that can all get wings for 1 minute than a higher level feat for permanent wings. For Starfinder it would make it much faster the bring out ancestries.

Other than that the conservative and super limited power for these feats (for the most part) make me feel like species will (mechanically) be as boring a choice that ancestry is in PF2e. I would much prefer they really make ancestry feats shine on a power budget level the same as class feats.

Still surprised Vesk and Iruxi are different species. I was kind of hoping they would make a more flexible approach to species in Starfinder, it would make more sense to have species descriptions and heritages and each species have a bunch of traits associated with it, e.g. reptilian, multi limbed, tailed etc. that way feats could have 1 or more traits and apply to multiple species without having to be reprinted and slightly renamed. Its the same problem a lot of ancestry and heritage feats have. How many ancestry feats in PF2e just equate to giving darkvision? It would be far better if there was 1 darkvision feat, I feat for ancestries that can all get wings for 1 minute than a higher level feat for permanent wings. For Starfinder it would make it much faster the bring out ancestries.

Unlike in Pathfinder 1E, Pathfinder 2E's ancestries are a lot less generic, each one tied to a specific culture in the setting. I don't see a problem with making Iruxi and Vesk different. Both have a different feel to them, and promote a different playstyle. Are they both reptilian races? Yes. But counterpoint. Humans and Dwarves, as well as elves and halflings. Visually very similar, and as far as differences in biology, the only real difference that cannot be emulated is vision. A vesk would look at a Human and a Dwarf and probably assume they were the same race, asking why Humans and Dwarves are not just under the humanoid ancestry.

TLDR. Just because all reptiles look the same to me, don't make them the same.

I would also like to point out that the term "ancestry" was chosen very deliberately when the system was created. Because ancestry includes a whole lot more than just certain physical or mental characteristics. Especially ancestry feats have nothing to do with biology (or however your body works), but instead are purely cultural. It is a neutral term that covers everything.

"Species", in contrast, places a lot of emphasis on those physical characteristics. It isn't even remotely neutral.

For that reason alone you can be sure that Paizo won't budge on this. And ofc, it's simply not a good idea to have two terms for the same thing when you are going for compatibility.

Herald of the Redeemer Queen wrote:

That said, was hoping that since Androids are being actually created in Starfinder timeline, was hoping to see an option for them to emulate non-human Ancestries, especially non-Medium ones.

I want to tackle this comment, because it has come up a few times. The team is VERY excited at the possibility of doing more with the "android chasis" but also don't want to complicate the Core Rulebook design too much. That being said, there's been a fair amount of hype for us exploring "Xenometric Android" as a potential versatile heritage in some future products. :)

Seems like a great opportunity for a Starfinder analog to the Mixed Ancestry versatile heritage. A science fantasy setting would have many more ways to create hybrid creatures.

Personally I was hoping for Lifeform as the term, but I get compatibility is a major priority and common terminology whenever possible makes sense with that goal.

So I’m unclear on protocol.
If we have comments, should we leave them here? Should we wait for the play test? Should we hide them under spoilers?

Question: if a Plated Vesk for whichever reason has a Strength modifier below +3, does that mean they're permanently saddled with -2 penalty to non-attack Strength and Dex checks?

Question: if a Plated Vesk for whichever reason has a Strength modifier below +3, does that mean they're permanently saddled with -2 penalty to non-attack Strength and Dex checks?

Yes. Though tbf, you have chosen that life yourself in that case XD

I will admit, my initial reaction to the community voting for Androids and Vesk was :\ We had the chance to see how bonkers SF2 ancestries could be (Barathu, I choose you!) and we voted for...androids and vesk? Both Core species in 1e, and one of them already existing in PF2? Yeah, okay, really, this is fine, but - think bigger, you pepperonis XD

...but, honestly, the vesk entries are super cool. Love how flavourful and evocative a lot of the ancestry feats are. Plus, as a big fan of vesk saints (shameless plug :D), it's pretty cool to see that concept being introduced as a pillar of Veskarium society, and having mechanical support no less, right out of the gate!

The Android ancestry feats are also very interesting. There's a number that rely on using nanites, and some even seem to "occupy" nanites; cf. Nanite Shroud, which says "while Nanite Shroud is active, you can’t use other feats that require the use of your nanites." But, it's not entirely clear which other feats require the use of your nanites. I'm a bit surprised that there isn't a "Nanite" trait to specifically call out those feats; this is the perfect use case for a "Nanite" trait, no? (Although, saying that out loud, having a "nanite" trait would feel very proscriptive for any presumptive future SF2e nanocyte class. And we certainly wouldn't want that..!)

Vesk Weapon Familiarity mentions doshkos but I dont see any doshkos listed in any of the playtest.

Seconded - was hoping a vesk preview would include some sweet sweet doshko action! I guess they have to save something for the Playtest :D

Question: if a Plated Vesk for whichever reason has a Strength modifier below +3, does that mean they're permanently saddled with -2 penalty to non-attack Strength and Dex checks?

Rules as written, yes.

Teridax wrote:

Question: if a Plated Vesk for whichever reason has a Strength modifier below +3, does that mean they're permanently saddled with -2 penalty to non-attack Strength and Dex checks?

Yes. Though tbf, you have chosen that life yourself in that case XD

When your pecs are so big, you're encumbered by your sheer brawniness. Honestly an amusing problem to have.

The Android ancestry feats are also very interesting. There's a number that rely on using nanites, and some even seem to "occupy" nanites; cf. Nanite Shroud, which says "while Nanite Shroud is active, you can’t use other feats that require the use of your nanites." But, it's not entirely clear which other feats require the use of your nanites. I'm a bit surprised that there isn't a "Nanite" trait to specifically call out those feats; this is the perfect use case for a "Nanite" trait, no? (Although, saying that out loud, having a "nanite" trait would feel very proscriptive for any presumptive future SF2e nanocyte class. And we certainly wouldn't want that..!)

Presumably, all feats that mention your nanites as being involved are affected.

But you are absolutely right, I would want to see a feat for that, just to make it absolutely clear and obvious at a glance. In play, I don't want to look through the entire description of several feats to get an answer.

If you called the trait "nanite" and left it without inherent rules, so just a reference trait, I'm pretty sure that would be ok for a future nanocyte class ^^

So... what I'm seeing...

- Androids indicate that it is possible for ancestries to have built-in drawbacks now. That's nice. Possibly we'll eventually see some heritage flaws as well

- Androids get... +1 to saves vs diseases? Oh well. We kind of knew that that kind of dilution was coming.

- Ancient (Warrior) Androids are honestly somewhat disappointing. There are no situations where their heritage does not become obsolete eventually, and if they decide to go into a serious martial class they get nothing from it. Admittedly, this isn't exactly the fault of the SF2 devs.

- By contrast, Mod Fanatic and Networked look like they have some real potential.

- The majority of the rest of the android heritages get "a skill and a skill feat" other than the Renewed android, who gets that and a nifty benefit about being slightly less likely to die. So... I guess the heritages aren't really being balanced all that hard against one another?

- Vesk weapon familiarity again gets the oddity where uncommon Vesk weapons get treated as one tier lower for proficiency purposes, but doshko do not. So... the fact that the doshko has become relatively common across the universe means that you don't know how to use it as well? Perhaps its popularity with other ancestries has made it uncool, so you don't practice it as much?

In general, though... I'm seeing a bit of straying from PF2 orthodoxy, but otherwise there's a lot of stuff here that would fit in as a PF2 ancestry, rules-wise. There's the occasional reference to tech stuff, but the envelope-pushing is as yet quite limited.

I suppose that's to be expected for the first book, though. Getting the core of the system out the door int eh first place is a heavy lift. It's reasonable to not want to revolutionize All The Things at the same time, and the acknowledgement that ancestries can have flaws is nice. It makes more things possible later.

So... what I'm seeing...

- Androids indicate that it is possible for ancestries to have built-in drawbacks now. That's nice. Possibly we'll eventually see some heritage flaws as well

- Androids get... +1 to saves vs diseases? Oh well. We kind of knew that that kind of dilution was coming.

- Ancient (Warrior) Androids are honestly somewhat disappointing. There are no situations where their heritage does not become obsolete eventually, and if they decide to go into a serious martial class they get nothing from it. Admittedly, this isn't exactly the fault of the SF2 devs.

For the record, Constructed, Emotionally Unaware, and the Ancient Heritages are compatibility ports from Pathfinder 2E. These are likely not going to change, as that would require changing Pathfinder 2E's version to match, otherwise it would not be compatible.

The only difference between Pathfinder 2E's and Starfinder 2E's android is the Androffan language was replaced with one free language, and a few more Starfinder-style ancestry feats were added, in addition to the Pathfinder ancestry feat list. The Memory Recovery, Quickened Processor, Machine Saboteur, Synthetic Speech, Memory Matrix, and Nanite Form feats were added, and 4 new heritages were made, otherwise keeping complete access to all of the other pathfinder feats not listed in this document.

Okay I guess I’ll leave my comments here:

I just read the android so far, so this is what I saw:

Under Polyglot, it says, “If you select the Multilingual feat, you learn three new languages instead of two.”
Is this instead of the two languages you get as Polyglot or from Multilingual? This matters since you can take Multilingual multiple times.

I was disappointed the one upgrade slot wasn’t part of the Ancestry and that you would need to take a certain Heritage to get it. I would have all androids getting the slot for free, and they get one armor upgrade as part of the Heritage.

In Internal Compartment, 3 actions to store an object seems like a lot.

Strange that in Android Lore that you become trained in Thievery. To me it doesn’t seem to fit.

I agree that there should be a nanite trait. Seems like the point of traits is to cut down on repetitive wording like this.

That’s all, I hope this was the right place to leave these comments. I’m gonna read the Vesk now.

- Androids get... +1 to saves vs diseases? Oh well. We kind of knew that that kind of dilution was coming.

The basic stat block is the exact same as PF2, kinda has to be as they said in the intro.

- The majority of the rest of the android heritages get "a skill and a skill feat" other than the Renewed android, who gets that and a nifty benefit about being slightly less likely to die. So... I guess the heritages aren't really being balanced all that hard against one another?

I'm pretty sure that has always been the case here and there, even in PF2. And I mean, Dubious Knowledge is a rather double-edged sword, so I think this particular example is ok.

- Vesk weapon familiarity again gets the oddity where uncommon Vesk weapons get treated as one tier lower for proficiency purposes, but doshko do not. So... the fact that the doshko has become relatively common across the universe means that you don't know how to use it as well? Perhaps its popularity with other ancestries has made it uncool, so you don't practice it as much?

I'm quite certain that "you treat any of these that are martial weapons" etc. is intended to refer to the doshkos as well. After all, they are one of those (previously mentioned) weapons and everything else would be pretty weird.

- Vesk weapon familiarity again gets the oddity where uncommon Vesk weapons get treated as one tier lower for proficiency purposes, but doshko do not. So... the fact that the doshko has become relatively common across the universe means that you don't know how to use it as well? Perhaps its popularity with other ancestries has made it uncool, so you don't practice it as much?

From what I'm reading, if Doshko is an advanced weapon (As it seems to be in SF1), it'd be treated as a martial weapon instead of an advanced weapon, meaning you don't have to be a fighter (The only class between PF2E and SF2E so far to have Advanced Weapon Training at Level 1) to use it without taking the Weapon Proficiency Feet (I am assuming SF2E will have the same feat). Basically, if you take Vesk Weapon familiarity, you as a Soldier would be able to use it out the gate, whereas someone without the feat would take a penalty.

It says "For the purposes of proficiency, you treat any of these that are martial weapons as simple weapons and any that are advanced weapons as martial weapons."

Under Polyglot, it says, “If you select the Multilingual feat, you learn three new languages instead of two.”

Is this instead of the two languages you get as Polyglot or from Multilingual? This matters since you can take Multilingual multiple times.

Firstly, you get 2 bonus languages from Polyglot.

Then, if you take the Multilingual feat, which gives you another 2 languages, you would instead get 3, or 4 if you have Master proficiency in Society, or 5 if you have Legendary proficiency.

This would be cumulative with initial two.

I'd interpret that the bonus languages from the Multilingual feat would be multiplied by each time you take the Multilingual feat.

I was disappointed the one upgrade slot wasn’t part of the Ancestry and that you would need to take a certain Heritage to get it. I would have all androids getting the slot for free, and they get one armor upgrade as part of the Heritage.

As for the Mod Fanatic. The reason for that is because Pathfinder 2E does not have upgrade slots. Bare in mind this is a Pathfinder 2E ancestry with extra feats and heritages to make it more Starfinder like. You can always petition your GM to make that a home rule though, or do it yourself if you are a GM.

I would also like to point out that the term "ancestry" was chosen very deliberately when the system was created. Because ancestry includes a whole lot more than just certain physical or mental characteristics. Especially ancestry feats have nothing to do with biology (or however your body works), but instead are purely cultural. It is a neutral term that covers everything.

"Species", in contrast, places a lot of emphasis on those physical characteristics. It isn't even remotely neutral.

For that reason alone you can be sure that Paizo won't budge on this. And ofc, it's simply not a good idea to have two terms for the same thing when you are going for compatibility.

The diversity of physical characteristics in Starfinder is MUCH greater than in Pathfinder ancestries which are mostly just slight variations on bipedal humanoids. Ancestries and Heritages are generally past tense terms. Thanks to the Gap we tend to look more to the future in Starfinder. In Pathfinder your cultural Heritage might be very important to your character, in Starfinder pop culture could be equally or more important to a character. Personally, I think that beyond character creations unless your species evolves over time, Ancestries should just be cultural feats after 1st level. Cultural feats might even be a better name for them in Starfinder.

Compatibility-wise I don't see a game getting stopped to look up the difference between species and ancestry, since it's something you only chose once at character creation. Unlike the rules for attacks of opportunity which are different between the 2 games, this gets really confusing when playing both games at the same time, that's the kind of rule that has to be 100% compatible. Species or Ancestries, the term doesn't matter as much as the structure of them needing to be the same between the 2 games.

Personally, I prefer species for Starfinder Ancestries sounds too much like Pathfinder in space to me.

Karmagator wrote:

I would also like to point out that the term "ancestry" was chosen very deliberately when the system was created. Because ancestry includes a whole lot more than just certain physical or mental characteristics. Especially ancestry feats have nothing to do with biology (or however your body works), but instead are purely cultural. It is a neutral term that covers everything.

"Species", in contrast, places a lot of emphasis on those physical characteristics. It isn't even remotely neutral.

For that reason alone you can be sure that Paizo won't budge on this. And ofc, it's simply not a good idea to have two terms for the same thing when you are going for compatibility.

The diversity of physical characteristics in Starfinder is MUCH greater than in Pathfinder ancestries which are mostly just slight variations on bipedal humanoids. Ancestries and Heritages are generally past tense terms. Thanks to the Gap we tend to look more to the future in Starfinder. In Pathfinder your cultural Heritage might be very important to your character, in Starfinder pop culture could be equally or more important to a character. Personally, I think that beyond character creations unless your species evolves over time, Ancestries should just be cultural feats after 1st level. Cultural feats might even be a better name for them in Starfinder.

Compatibility-wise I don't see a game getting stopped to look up the difference between species and ancestry, since it's something you only chose once at character creation. Unlike the rules for attacks of opportunity which are different between the 2 games, this gets really confusing when playing both games at the same time, that's the kind of rule that has to be 100% compatible. Species or Ancestries, the term doesn't matter as much as the structure of them needing to be the same between the 2 games.

Personally, I prefer species for Starfinder Ancestries sounds too much like Pathfinder in space to me.

I'm not sure if you play Pathfinder 2E, but there are many examples of Ancestry feats that are not cultural from level 5 onwards. Look at gnomes, automatons, leshies, androids, tengus, anadis, and I can go on. An Advanced Targeting System is not a cultural feat.

There is a sizable number of ancestry feats that are based purely on genetics. There is also a sizable number that is based purely on culture. That's why Adopted Ancestry only allows that which is enabled by culture to be taken.

As a side note, go figure Starfinder would be Pathfinder in space, the game that literally swapped out Path with Star.

I want to just say that I love expanding ancestries to include more details about them. I enjoy learning about their cultures, beliefs, and expectations because I love to play my characters either leaning into or going against those as the basis of my rping. Just more details are always appreciated and I personally think the strategy of making sure there are more ancestries in every release is a good way to approach the volume that existed in SF 1e.

Don Hastily wrote:

Under Polyglot, it says, “If you select the Multilingual feat, you learn three new languages instead of two.”

Is this instead of the two languages you get as Polyglot or from Multilingual? This matters since you can take Multilingual multiple times.

Firstly, you get 2 bonus languages from Polyglot.

Then, if you take the Multilingual feat, which gives you another 2 languages, you would instead get 3, or 4 if you have Master proficiency in Society, or 5 if you have Legendary proficiency.

This would be cumulative with initial two.

I'd interpret that the bonus languages from the Multilingual feat would be multiplied by each time you take the Multilingual feat.

I did interpret this the same way. I think you’re right.

The diversity of physical characteristics in Starfinder is MUCH greater than in Pathfinder ancestries which are mostly just slight variations on bipedal humanoids.

I think you're underselling how weird things have gotten with Pathfinder 2e. Like you can play a poppet that is a literal quadruped or whatever this is, the rules just assume that you're basically as capable as a bipedal humanoid (i.e. you can hold two items at once.) This is gamist rather than simulationist, but ancestries that are supposed to be holding more than two things will be specifically enabled to do so with their rules text which will explain how this works.

But the thing to keep in mind is that PF2 ancestries are much less front-loaded than races/species were in the past, the basic intrinsic things about you have to be able to fit in the sidebar that has HP, size, speed, etc.; one heritage; and one ancestry feat. So don't expect SROs to start out immune to bleed damage, disease, and poison (I mean, Skeleton PCs aren't in PF2) just resistant to it which they can invest a later feat into being extra-resistant.

The long and short of it is that the system is arranged to try to prevent specific ancestries from being the absolute best choice for a given character, so that players can put together the combinations they want without mechanical pressure to optimize by being a specific sort of person. This is, IMO, the right way to do it.

That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if "ancestry paragon" becomes as popular a variant in SF2 as "free archetype" is in PF2. The very nice thing about the guts of the system is that the number of feats you get is mostly calibrated to avoid overwhelming new players with choices, for experienced groups you can just give out more feats without breaking anything.

I mean, Skeleton PCs aren't in PF2

Actually, Skeleton is an Ancestry from Book of the Dead.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, Skeleton PCs aren't in PF2

Actually, Skeleton is an Ancestry from Book of the Dead.

I was referring to how, per the Book of the Dead rules, the Skeleton ancestry has the basic undead benefits which do not convey things like immunity to disease, poison, and bleed damage.

A thing people are going to need to get used to I guess is that PF2 strongly breaks between "PCs" and "antagonists". An enemy SRO can be immune to bleed damage, because they are a robot, but a PC SRO is going to need to figure out some vital fluid they would be leaking that would cause problems if that leak persists.

I was referring to how, per the Book of the Dead rules, the Skeleton ancestry has the basic undead benefits which do not convey things like immunity to disease, poison, and bleed damage.

A thing people are going to need to get used to I guess is that PF2 strongly breaks between "PCs" and "antagonists". An enemy SRO can be immune to bleed damage, because they are a robot, but a PC SRO is going to need to figure out some vital fluid they would be leaking that would cause problems if that leak persists.

Ah, I see now. Thank you for elaborating your point.

And quite true. Honestly I like the break. While players sometimes chafe at it, it means I as a GM don't have to worry about whether my player becoming a lich will be too disruptive on a mechanical level.

I'm not sure if you play Pathfinder 2E, but there are many examples of Ancestry feats that are not cultural from level 5 onwards. Look at gnomes, automatons, leshies, androids, tengus, anadis, and I can go on. An Advanced Targeting System is not a cultural feat.

There is a sizable number of ancestry feats that are based purely on genetics. There is also a sizable number that is based purely on culture. That's why Adopted Ancestry only allows that which is enabled by culture to be taken.

As a side note, go figure Starfinder would be Pathfinder in space, the game that literally swapped out Path with Star.

I do play both Starfnder and PF2e, and I like both, I like the idea of them being compatible, and plan to mix them for homebrew. But there is more to Starfnder than just a name change from Path to Star, and those differences matter to some of us. I will go where the Stellifera are. How often do you get to play a Diminutive creature with a 5-foot land speed, and multiple ability flaws in Pathfinder2e?

Sanityfaerie wrote:

- Vesk weapon familiarity again gets the oddity where uncommon Vesk weapons get treated as one tier lower for proficiency purposes, but doshko do not. So... the fact that the doshko has become relatively common across the universe means that you don't know how to use it as well? Perhaps its popularity with other ancestries has made it uncool, so you don't practice it as much?

From what I'm reading, if Doshko is an advanced weapon (As it seems to be in SF1), it'd be treated as a martial weapon instead of an advanced weapon, meaning you don't have to be a fighter (The only class between PF2E and SF2E so far to have Advanced Weapon Training at Level 1) to use it without taking the Weapon Proficiency Feet (I am assuming SF2E will have the same feat). Basically, if you take Vesk Weapon familiarity, you as a Soldier would be able to use it out the gate, whereas someone without the feat would take a penalty.

It says "For the purposes of proficiency, you treat any of these that are martial weapons as simple weapons and any that are advanced weapons as martial weapons."

I suspect that doshkos are going to be martial weapons. The Advanced Weapon category means something different in SF1E than it does in PF2E; Starfinder's advanced weapons are more like a blending of Pathfinder's martial and advanced weapons.

Driftbourne wrote:

The diversity of physical characteristics in Starfinder is MUCH greater than in Pathfinder ancestries which are mostly just slight variations on bipedal humanoids.

I think you're underselling how weird things have gotten with Pathfinder 2e. Like you can play a poppet that is a literal quadruped or whatever this is, the rules just assume that you're basically as capable as a bipedal humanoid (i.e. you can hold two items at once.) This is gamist rather than simulationist, but ancestries that are supposed to be holding more than two things will be specifically enabled to do so with their rules text which will explain how this works.

But the thing to keep in mind is that PF2 ancestries are much less front-loaded than races/species were in the past, the basic intrinsic things about you have to be able to fit in the sidebar that has HP, size, speed, etc.; one heritage; and one ancestry feat. So don't expect SROs to start out immune to bleed damage, disease, and poison (I mean, Skeleton PCs aren't in PF2) just resistant to it which they can invest a later feat into being extra-resistant.

The long and short of it is that the system is arranged to try to prevent specific ancestries from being the absolute best choice for a given character, so that players can put together the combinations they want without mechanical pressure to optimize by being a specific sort of person. This is, IMO, the right way to do it.

That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if "ancestry paragon" becomes as popular a variant in SF2 as "free archetype" is in PF2. The very nice thing about the guts of the system is that the number of feats you get is mostly calibrated to avoid overwhelming new players with choices, for experienced groups you can just give out more feats without breaking anything.

I tend to play around my species more than class so Ancestry Paragon would be great for me, if I ever find a game that doesn't use organized play limitations.

I do play both Starfnder and PF2e, and I like both, I like the idea of them being compatible, and plan to mix them for homebrew. But there is more to Starfnder than just a name change from Path to Star, and those differences matter to some of us. I will go where the Stellifera are. How often do you get to play a Diminutive creature with a 5-foot land speed, and multiple ability flaws in Pathfinder2e?

Yeah, I've gotta admit those options are not likely for PF2E. I once allowed a character to play a pixie sized down to Diminutive size in a PF1E campaign, so I think I can see the vibe you are going for.

PF2E's best equivalent is probably the Sprite ancestry. Which is only considered Tiny because PF2E grouped Fine, Diminutive, and Tiny into one size category, being Tiny. So Diminutive would be there, but you'd be looking at a normal land speed and a normal attribute spread.

The P/SF2E system does not look like it will accommodate much in the way of attribute minmaxing, as it seems to be baked out of the system.

On the one hand, this is good, because it cuts down on crazy builds. That Pixie was a nightmare to deal with. On the other hand, it does prevent a lot of wilder cool stuff with being small from coming to light. It's a weird balance, because the pixie was still awesome, it was just very difficult to build an encounter where they ever felt threatened because the benefits were still too good when the penalties didn't matter enough.

I notice a thing.

The Vesk have natural weapons. They have natural weapons so hard that they have a heritage that's all about getting more of them

I'm guessing that SF2 is not going to be making heavy use of runed handwraps.

If I'm playing a Vesk who's really into playing claw/claw/bite games and not in an PF2 crossover game, do I have any standard way to keep my natural attacks viable as levels go up and weapons get better?

For that matter, what if I'm playing one of those vesk with built-in armor? Are PF2-style armor runes going to actually show up in the SF2 core rulebook?

I tend to play around my species more than class so Ancestry Paragon would be great for me, if I ever...

I definitely would recommend it. I run Ancestry Paragon plus Free Archetype in my game. If you ask me, it really makes the Ancestry feel like a mini class, and the fact that it also matters on a mechanical level just made for a lot of excitement for playing different Ancestries around my table.

I must say, looking over the Android, I am very happy that the Android is just a PF2E Android with extra options more thematic to SF2E. It gives me the confidence that this really is being designed with intercompatibility in mind.

Personally, I dislike that element. But its mostly because the base PF2E android I didn't realize was so... penalizing in PF2e. The Diplomacy and performance and charisma penalty is just not right thematically for a number of our android representations.

Also, the fact that the sense motive doesn't have a "tradeoff" - our androids are both bad at reading people as well as being hard to read - the sense motive penalty should have been offset by a bonus to lie (and other instances of Sense Motive DC usage) as well.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, Pathfinder already has ancestries that don't have parents or even relatives: poppets, skeletons, leshies, etc.

But I don't think having one-for-one substitutions replacing fantasy word for SF word or vice versa is really a problem, since the point of using the same basic rules is not so that specific characters are interchangeable. Like if they wanted to rename "Thievery" as "Security" and "Craft" as "Engineering" that would be fine, so I'm fine with either Species or Ancestry.

There's also another fact to consider. 5e changed their terminology from "race" to "species". So yeah, can't have that in the ORC.

5e did not. OneD&D did. Which isn't OGL. And we're also not using their definition of Species. They don't have ownership of a common dictionary term being utilized for its understanding of a common dictionary term.

There's also the fact that we used Species for our ancestries before they ever announced that.

I notice a thing.

The Vesk have natural weapons. They have natural weapons so hard that they have a heritage that's all about getting more of them

I'm guessing that SF2 is not going to be making heavy use of runed handwraps.

If I'm playing a Vesk who's really into playing claw/claw/bite games and not in an PF2 crossover game, do I have any standard way to keep my natural attacks viable as levels go up and weapons get better?

For that matter, what if I'm playing one of those vesk with built-in armor? Are PF2-style armor runes going to actually show up in the SF2 core rulebook?

I'm guessing that Battlegloves will become the "tech" variant of handwraps while they maintain their status as the "magic" variant.

I'm also presuming we might get more interesting options as well, like explosive fists, and cryo fists, and such that would augment unarmed options.

I notice a thing.

The Vesk have natural weapons. They have natural weapons so hard that they have a heritage that's all about getting more of them

I'm guessing that SF2 is not going to be making heavy use of runed handwraps.

If I'm playing a Vesk who's really into playing claw/claw/bite games and not in an PF2 crossover game, do I have any standard way to keep my natural attacks viable as levels go up and weapons get better?

For that matter, what if I'm playing one of those vesk with built-in armor? Are PF2-style armor runes going to actually show up in the SF2 core rulebook?

I don't think we have enough information for that. If I would hazard a guess though, they would probably use the Weapon Upgrade system to act as a replacement. Probably special tech gloves or tail sleeves or something. But considering the Mystic's Spell Allotment table, I think it's reasonable to assume that SF2E will have a lot more magic than SF1E did, so it might be reasonable to assume that Handwraps of Mighty Blows might be more readily available.

Also, the fact that the sense motive doesn't have a "tradeoff" - our androids are both bad at reading people as well as being hard to read - the sense motive penalty should have been offset by a bonus to lie (and other instances of Sense Motive DC usage) as well.

I think the tradeoff is supposed to be that Androids are Constructed. a +1 circumstance bonus to one set of things, and a -1 circumstance penalty to another set of things. The tradeoff is there, but both halves are divided into two separate ancestry features.

Additionally, you can swap the default attribute boosts and flaws with two free attribute boosts if you don't feel they mesh with your specific character concept. This is something you can do with any ancestry.

Driftbourne wrote:

I tend to play around my species more than class so Ancestry Paragon would be great for me, if I ever...

I definitely would recommend it. I run Ancestry Paragon plus Free Archetype in my game. If you ask me, it really makes the Ancestry feel like a mini class, and the fact that it also matters on a mechanical level just made for a lot of excitement for playing different Ancestries around my table.

I got one PF2e character that if they had Ancestry Paragon plus Free Archetype and a normal Archetype, they could skip having a class altogether. On the flip side, I think the evolutionist class in Starfinder might play better as a versatile heritage or spices graft, or maybe even an affliction.

Driftbourne wrote:

I do play both Starfnder and PF2e, and I like both, I like the idea of them being compatible, and plan to mix them for homebrew. But there is more to Starfnder than just a name change from Path to Star, and those differences matter to some of us. I will go where the Stellifera are. How often do you get to play a Diminutive creature with a 5-foot land speed, and multiple ability flaws in Pathfinder2e?

Yeah, I've gotta admit those options are not likely for PF2E. I once allowed a character to play a pixie sized down to Diminutive size in a PF1E campaign, so I think I can see the vibe you are going for.

PF2E's best equivalent is probably the Sprite ancestry. Which is only considered Tiny because PF2E grouped Fine, Diminutive, and Tiny into one size category, being Tiny. So Diminutive would be there, but you'd be looking at a normal land speed and a normal attribute spread.

The P/SF2E system does not look like it will accommodate much in the way of attribute minmaxing, as it seems to be baked out of the system.

On the one hand, this is good, because it cuts down on crazy builds. That Pixie was a nightmare to deal with. On the other hand, it does prevent a lot of wilder cool stuff with being small from coming to light. It's a weird balance, because the pixie was still awesome, it was just very difficult to build an encounter where they ever felt threatened because the benefits were still too good when the penalties didn't matter enough.

Stellifera have ways around the size and speed but doing so without the con -2 and str 4 flaws would make them OP.

Meet the Stellifera...
Stellifera .

They don't have ownership of a common dictionary term being utilized for its understanding of a common dictionary term.

Yeah, Hasbro would never sue for saying "Humans, Vesk, and Shirren are different species" any more than they would sue a Star Trek RPG for saying "Humans, Romulans, and Klingons are different species" or a Babylon 5 RPG for saying "Humans, Minbari, and Centauri are different species."

moosher12 wrote:

Driftbourne wrote:

I do play both Starfnder and PF2e, and I like both, I like the idea of them being compatible, and plan to mix them for homebrew. But there is more to Starfnder than just a name change from Path to Star, and those differences matter to some of us. I will go where the Stellifera are. How often do you get to play a Diminutive creature with a 5-foot land speed, and multiple ability flaws in Pathfinder2e?

Yeah, I've gotta admit those options are not likely for PF2E. I once allowed a character to play a pixie sized down to Diminutive size in a PF1E campaign, so I think I can see the vibe you are going for.

PF2E's best equivalent is probably the Sprite ancestry. Which is only considered Tiny because PF2E grouped Fine, Diminutive, and Tiny into one size category, being Tiny. So Diminutive would be there, but you'd be looking at a normal land speed and a normal attribute spread.

The P/SF2E system does not look like it will accommodate much in the way of attribute minmaxing, as it seems to be baked out of the system.

On the one hand, this is good, because it cuts down on crazy builds. That Pixie was a nightmare to deal with. On the other hand, it does prevent a lot of wilder cool stuff with being small from coming to light. It's a weird balance, because the pixie was still awesome, it was just very difficult to build an encounter where they ever felt threatened because the benefits were still too good when the penalties didn't matter enough.

Stellifera have ways around the size and speed but doing so without the con -2 and str 4 flaws would make them OP.

Meet the Stellifera...
Stellifera .

The stellifera do not have a str flaw 99% of the time. their size, str, speeds, and inability to breath air are almost entirely flavor. Nothing is stopping them from being in SF2

Driftbourne wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

Driftbourne wrote:

I do play both Starfnder and PF2e, and I like both, I like the idea of them being compatible, and plan to mix them for homebrew. But there is more to Starfnder than just a name change from Path to Star, and those differences matter to some of us. I will go where the Stellifera are. How often do you get to play a Diminutive creature with a 5-foot land speed, and multiple ability flaws in Pathfinder2e?

Yeah, I've gotta admit those options are not likely for PF2E. I once allowed a character to play a pixie sized down to Diminutive size in a PF1E campaign, so I think I can see the vibe you are going for.

PF2E's best equivalent is probably the Sprite ancestry. Which is only considered Tiny because PF2E grouped Fine, Diminutive, and Tiny into one size category, being Tiny. So Diminutive would be there, but you'd be looking at a normal land speed and a normal attribute spread.

The P/SF2E system does not look like it will accommodate much in the way of attribute minmaxing, as it seems to be baked out of the system.

On the one hand, this is good, because it cuts down on crazy builds. That Pixie was a nightmare to deal with. On the other hand, it does prevent a lot of wilder cool stuff with being small from coming to light. It's a weird balance, because the pixie was still awesome, it was just very difficult to build an encounter where they ever felt threatened because the benefits were still too good when the penalties didn't matter enough.

Stellifera have ways around the size and speed but doing so without the con -2 and str 4 flaws would make them OP.

Meet the Stellifera...
Stellifera .

The stellifera do not have a str flaw 99% of the time. their size, str, speeds, and inability to breath air are almost entirely flavor. Nothing is stopping them from being in SF2

Yeah. Honestly if you ignored the strength thing entirely, it wouldn't change them all that much, and it would also close a funky loophole that allowed a foot-long cuttlefish to be the brawniest species in the game.

just to note though as automaton player in pathfinder 2e, it breaks the roleplaying fantasy when I have to make disease rolls and can't stuff myself in a box and etc fantastic construct flavored things :'D

Like... Its really boring there isn't any fun flavor to playing a construct

Another option is to use the Custom Mixed Heritage option to make Human a versatile heritage.

On top of Adopted Ancestry and allowing Custom Mixed Heritages, I made the Halfling ancestry feat, Cultural Adaptability, a universal ancestry feat that any ancestry can take as a home rule. (Though I also run Ancestry Paragon, so the rule was more made to prevent my players from running out of Ancestry feat options that interest them).

But you're free to make human feats available. Personally I'd be wary of making human feats universal for free, that it would hurt the benefits of being human, though, but if it works at your table, go for it.

Making it a versatile heritage would mean everyone but humans effectively lacks a heritage. The point is to give all players non-mono-culture non-stereotype options for their ancestries.

Human might suffer slightly as a result, but I'd prefer that then being restricted by ancestry so severely as PF2e.

just to note though as automaton player in pathfinder 2e, it breaks the roleplaying fantasy when I have to make disease rolls and can't stuff myself in a box and etc fantastic construct flavored things :'D

Like... Its really boring there isn't any fun flavor to playing a construct

The Ancestry is built like that to prevent a percentage of GMs from banning the ancestry due to its advantages.

The good thing is, your GM does have an override power, as referenced by the Basic Undead Benefits from the Book of the Dead, and the natural Fly Speed rules from the Ancestry Guide. Both say the GM has the discretion to override these limiters if they think they can work with it. So it would be easy to override the limiter on the automaton with your GM's permission.

If your GM would still disallow the override, that means they probably would not have let you play an automaton in the first place if it was designed with construct immunities baked in.

Making it a versatile heritage would mean everyone but humans effectively lacks a heritage. The point is to give all players non-mono-culture non-stereotype options for their ancestries.

Human might suffer slightly as a result, but I'd prefer that then being restricted by ancestry so severely as PF2e.

There is one home rule I granted my players that I felt was relatively balanced. I created it for an automaton player who wanted to have spent several years integrating into a dwarf society before the game, to explain how they could have acquired the respect to have a clan pistol made for them.

The rule was simply, you could take the Adopted Ancestry Feat at Level 1, BUT, it was prepaid. The moment you got your first General Feat, typically at Level 3, it was pre-dedicated to Adopted Ancestry, so you would not gain another General Feat until the next cycle.

I do fail to see why PF2E is restricting though, especially in comparison to PF1E and SF1E, where you just get a short, vague statblock with limited variability, as well as zero options to go beyond the single race/species' options.

just to note though as automaton player in pathfinder 2e, it breaks the roleplaying fantasy when I have to make disease rolls and can't stuff myself in a box and etc fantastic construct flavored things :'D

Like... Its really boring there isn't any fun flavor to playing a construct

Are you playing in a Society game? Because if not, then the only thing preventing you from having those cool benefits is GM fiat.

PF2 is written in such a way as to minimize scumbag behavior and/or turbo minmaxing from anyone at the table, due to how Society's drop-in play environment often results in total strangers of vastly different skill levels all playing together. Thus, fairness comes first, and flavor second. However, if you're with a group of people you trust, it's okay to remove some of those safety features.

I know "just houserule it" isn't really a satisfying answer, but the system isn't your boss. It's a toolbox, a framework, and maybe even a co-author if you want to personify it a little, but it only has as much authority as you and your friends are comfortable giving it.

just to note though as automaton player in pathfinder 2e, it breaks the roleplaying fantasy when I have to make disease rolls and can't stuff myself in a box and etc fantastic construct flavored things :'D

Like... Its really boring there isn't any fun flavor to playing a construct

I think there's plenty of fun flavor in being able to shoot lasers from your eyes or having touch telepathy, two things an Automaton has access to right from level 1.

I think the design principle is that if a GM has designed a specific scenario to present a challenge, you want a PC potentially being able to completely circumvent the challenge because of what choices made at chargen.

Like "you're going to have to navigate an environment where you can't breathe the air" is an appropriate challenge for a low level party (higher level people will have gear or magic that solves this problem). So you don't really want to let people get "I don't have to breathe" for free with their ancestry.

Of course a GM *can* on a case by case basis rule "you're a robot, you can survive in the vacuum of space" so one PC gets their time in the spotlight to walk around on the hull of the spaceship, or w/e. But this isn't something that should be enforced on a systems level.

Taken another way, it's conceivable that "you are a nonstandard form of life, but you still have some of the same restrictions as standard forms of life" as a sort of RPing/Worldbuilding prompt. Like maybe your android is subject to disease because diseases empowered by Urgathoa also have a spiritual component. Maybe your SRO can't survive in a tiny box for months at a time because they overheat or their servos lock up when they go long period without use.

Ravien999 wrote:

They don't have ownership of a common dictionary term being utilized for its understanding of a common dictionary term.

Yeah, Hasbro would never sue for saying "Humans, Vesk, and Shirren are different species" any more than they would sue a Star Trek RPG for saying "Humans, Romulans, and Klingons are different species" or a Babylon 5 RPG for saying "Humans, Minbari, and Centauri are different species."

Hasbro would never, except for early 2023, when they tried exactly that to leverage their market dominance over the TTRPG space. I never say that people would "never" do something once they've already proven they would.