Field Test #3: That Cantina Feel

Oh sorry, I didn't realise you were following up on a previous thought or whatever. All I saw was

Aside from flight, multiple arms, and size: large - which have been addressed already - are there really all that many Starfinder ancestries that have special features?

and I thought

It is regrettable that you were not made aware of the option and that it ruined your impression on PF1E though. Your GM should have put in more effort to find that the entry existed assuming you had brought it up at your table.

You're missing the point. let me take another whack at it.

The problem is not in the advertising or presentation, or knowledge.

The problem is that if an ability is so weak it does nothing that, to me, is the same as it not being there.

While Both ysoki (Starfinders lovable space rats) and ratfolk (pathfinder 2's warren dwelling sewer rats) technically HAVE an ability called cheekpouches, the version that ysoki have (a swift action to store or take out at level 1) actually changes the action economy on some things. IE spell gems. or stolen objects or picked up macguffins.

The pathfinder 2 version requires 3 feats and being level 9 before it really becomes usable.IE, before it really has mechanical effects. Which to me is the same thing as being Real (in an imaginary game...) before then it's like people are saying, a human in a costume. If something functions no differently than a fanny pack, then the cheek pouch is visually there in a game you don't see and its written on your character sheet in a space that it's not used.

And you can say - its like that because- or - it has to be that way- ...and NONE , nadda, of that changes the fact that I don't prefer the game that way. In some ways pf2 has a lot of things that are like all of starship combat, I'm annoyed because it tried to trick me with the illusion of choice but didn't deliver.

While Both ysoki (Starfinders lovable space rats) and ratfolk (pathfinder 2's warren dwelling sewer rats) technically HAVE an ability called cheekpouches, the version that ysoki have (a swift action to store or take out at level 1) actually changes the action economy on some things. IE spell gems. or stolen objects or picked up macguffins.

See, now I feel like you are moving the goalposts. First it was just that Ysoki don't get cheek pouches. Now it is that Ysoki get cheek pouches that don't improve the action economy.

Which is ignoring the differences in action economy between the two systems - that you don't have a 'swift action'. That has already been upgraded for everyone. Including Ysoki. So PF2 Ratfolk absolutely can pull something out of their cheek pouches for a swift action at level 1.

See, now I feel like you are moving the goalposts.

A big turn off for me For PF1 was seeing that while ratfolk technically HAD cheekpouches, in game it was flavor without mechanics. IE it functionally didn't exist. I'm seeing a lot of the same thing here.

That goalpost is firmly planted and your accusations of dishonesty are objectively baseless.

So PF2 Ratfolk absolutely can pull something out of their cheek pouches for a swift action at level .

Anyone can take anything out of the gear kit for one action. You are proving my point.

moosher12 wrote:

It is regrettable that you were not made aware of the option and that it ruined your impression on PF1E though. Your GM should have put in more effort to find that the entry existed assuming you had brought it up at your table.

You're missing the point. let me take another whack at it.

The problem is not in the advertising or presentation.

The problem is that if an ability is so weak it does nothing that, to me, is the same as it not being there.

While Both ysoki (Starfinders lovable space rats) and ratfolk (pathfinder 2's warren dwelling sewer rats) technically HAVE an ability called cheekpouches, the version that ysoki have (a swift action to store or take out at level 1) actually changes the action economy on some things. IE spell gems. or stolen objects or picked up macguffins.

The pathfinder 2 version requires 3 feats and being level 9 before it really becomes usable.IE, before it really has mechanical effects. Which to me is the same thing as being Real (in an imaginary game...) before then it's like people are saying, a human in a costume. If something functions no differently than a fanny pack, then the cheek pouch is visually there in a game you don't see and its written on your character sheet in a space that it's not used.

And you can say - its like that because- or - it has to be that way- ...and NONE , nadda, of that changes the fact that I don't prefer the game that way. In some ways pf2 has a lot of things that are like all of starship combat, I'm annoyed because it tried to trick me with the illusion of choice but didn't deliver.

As a brief lore lesson: Pathfinder ratfolk are also called Ysoki. It even states this in the Advanced Player's Guide. Ysoki is the ancestry name, and ratfolk is a colloquialism. (I question if you've done anything more than light skimming at best in regards to what you are complaining about, because this is literally stated in the first sentence of the ancestry). Additionally, PF ysoki are not necessarily sewer rats. If anything, they are associated with being quite clean and well-groomed. Do some live in sewers? Yes, but in world, that assumption would just be a stereotype that is not representative of the majority of the ancestry, as it is a heritage, not universal. (Again, I question how much you actually looked at the Ysoki.)

To the mechanical point: The first feat basically lets you hide anything in your mouth. You could hide a dagger, a coat pistol (or really any conceal-carry sized gun if SF2E thinks to add those), a hand crossbow, or a javelin. This can be smuggled into a sensitive encounter where you were patted down to be disarmed for a negotiation. Additionally, it has many uses for stealing and general smuggling. Not only that, no one can steal the item from you using the Steal action, because it's in you. Which means you can carry important items in a way that's about as safe as it gets for being on your person. This is a lot of abilities innate to this Level 1 feat.

Then the Level 5 feat basically grants you the Quick Draw feat for items stored in your mouth.

Level 9 just upgrades from a small pistol to a full-sized weapon or even a rifle.

Level 5 is already enough to make for a brilliant thief, infiltrator, or diplomatic enforcer.

That it's not usable until level 9 is frankly just false. These are objectively mechanics.And these mechanics do have their applications. That you could not discern these applications is a player-side problem, not a system problem.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

While Both ysoki (Starfinders lovable space rats) and ratfolk (pathfinder 2's warren dwelling sewer rats) technically HAVE an ability called cheekpouches, the version that ysoki have (a swift action to store or take out at level 1) actually changes the action economy on some things. IE spell gems. or stolen objects or picked up macguffins.

See, now I feel like you are moving the goalposts. First it was just that Ysoki don't get cheek pouches. Now it is that Ysoki get cheek pouches that don't improve the action economy.

Which is ignoring the differences in action economy between the two systems - that you don't have a 'swift action'. That has already been upgraded for everyone. Including Ysoki. So PF2 Ratfolk absolutely can pull something out of their cheek pouches for a swift action at level 1.

Also this. Move, Standard, Swift Action is 3 actions.The 1E system and the 2E system are the same, the 2E system is just more flexible, making the swift action worth the same as a move action or a standard action.

So Stride, Interact to draw item from cheek (swift action), and Strike with item. You're already accomplishing the same thing as the SF2E economy Ysoki grants you. If anything, the standard SF2E economy just let you move and draw, or move and attack.

Factoring this, the 5th level feat turning it into a free action DOES MORE than SF1E would allow you to do. As the SF1E Ysoki only grants you the three actions, while the 2E ysoki lets you now do 4 things in a turn.

At this point, you're asking why the SF2E system won't let you do at level 1, what the SF1E system would not even let you do up till Level 20. Unless I am missing something, and the SF1E Ysoki granted a fourth action.

Finoan wrote:

See, now I feel like you are moving the goalposts.

A big turn off for me For PF1 was seeing that while ratfolk technically HAD cheekpouches, in game it was flavor without mechanics. IE it functionally didn't exist. I'm seeing a lot of the same thing here.

That goalpost is firmly planted and your accusations of dishonesty are objectively baseless.

Quote:

So PF2 Ratfolk absolutely can pull something out of their cheek pouches for a swift action at level .

Anyone can take anything out of the gear kit for one action. You are proving my point.

"A big turn off for me For PF1 was seeing that while ratfolk technically HAD cheekpouches, in game it was flavor without mechanics."

PF1E. You were also talking about PF1E in the original post, not PF2E.

SF1E Cheek Pouch: Ysoki can store up to 1 cubic foot of items weighing up to 1 bulk in total in their cheek pouches, and they can transfer a single object between hand and cheek as a swift action. A ysoki can disgorge the entire contents of his pouch onto the ground in his square as a move action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity.

PF1E Cheek Pouch: Some ratfolk have developed stretchy cheek pouches that they can use to hold and carry small loads up to 1 cubic foot in volume and 10 pounds in weight, such as light weapons, potions, scrolls, and similar objects. Such a ratfolk can transfer a held object to his cheek pouches or extract an object from his cheek pouches as a swift action. As a move action that provokes an attack of opportunity, the ratfolk can instead massage all of the items held in the cheek pouches onto the ground in the square it occupies. As long as the ratfolk has at least one object in its cheek pouches, its speech is difficult to understand, and it has a 20% spell failure chance when casting spells with verbal components. This racial trait replaces swarming.

On top of things, the PF1E and SF1E cheek pouch abilities are basically the same. Unless your original post was a typo, and you actually meant to say "PF2"? Because if you still mean PF1. Well, they are functionally the same, so your statement would apply to SF1 as well.

Finoan wrote:

See, now I feel like you are moving the goalposts.

A big turn off for me For PF1 was seeing that while ratfolk technically HAD cheekpouches, in game it was flavor without mechanics. IE it functionally didn't exist. I'm seeing a lot of the same thing here.

That goalpost is firmly planted and your accusations of dishonesty are objectively baseless.

Quote:

So PF2 Ratfolk absolutely can pull something out of their cheek pouches for a swift action at level .

Anyone can take anything out of the gear kit for one action. You are proving my point.

Was the PF1 bit a typo? Because if not, talking about how PF1 had no mechanics for cheek pouches and then talking about PF2 having mechanics for them but not enough for your likening (the ability to hide things in your mouth is very much a mechanic, as is the ability to draw them as a free action at level 5) is moving the goalposts

(I question if ....

He said to the person that's made multiple lao shu po holy symbols...

Here's the answer. I'm aware of that and thats WHY i spelled out the difference and how I was going to use the terminology so i didn't have to specify starfinder ysoki vs. pathfinder ysoki for the entire post.

These are objectively mechanics

They do not act as a mechanic any differently than just having pockets or a bandolier. It does not matter what the system lets me do, it matters what the cheek pouches let me do in a system compared to someone without cheek pouches.

You could hide a dagger, a coat pistol (or really any conceal-carry sized gun if SF2E thinks to add those), a hand crossbow, or a javelin

So can anyone that isn't naked. Which is my entire point. Thank you for demonstrating it. The cheekpouch is only there as a matter of flavor and doesn't DO anything mechanically.

you're not responding to my points. You're just launching baseless insults at me because I had a critique of a system.

Was the PF1 bit a typo?

Whoops! Yes. Sorry. (this is also why i was doing the ratfolk/ysoki thing because i am BAD with acronyms and numbers)

They do not act as a mechanic any differently than just having pockets or a bandolier. It does not matter what the system lets me do, it matters what the cheek pouches let me do in a system compared to someone without cheek pouches.

I don't think you quite get what I mean. An item in your mouth would be considered neither worn nor closely guarded. It's a tier of equipment of its own that makes it completely immune to Steal. A bandolier or pocket does not grant this.

So can anyone that isn't naked. Which is my entire point. Thank you for demonstrating it. The cheekpouch is only there as a matter of flavor and doesn't DO anything mechanically.

you're not responding to my points. You're just launching baseless insults at me because I had a critique of a system.

It's one thing to give someone a pat down, but your average NPC won't think to tell everyone to open their mouth. I mean, they can, but that's a level of paranoia that's often immersion breaking if it is not interspersed.

Though in your defense, I would say adding a +1 or +2 circumstance bonus to Stealth checks to Conceal such items would be a great bonus to cement in the usefulness. I'd personally apply an Easy modifier to the Perception DCs of casual guards in vanilla for such, though.

Then the Level 5 feat basically grants you the Quick Draw feat for items stored in your mouth.

Factoring this, the 5th level feat turning it into a free action DOES MORE than SF1E would allow you to do. As the SF1E Ysoki only grants you the three actions, while the 2E ysoki lets you now do 4 things in a turn.

While I agree that the cheekpouch is fun and not useless, I still need to correct you on something: teh 5th lvl feat is a free action stow, NOT draw.

While I agree that the cheekpouch is fun and not useless, I still need to correct you on something: teh 5th lvl feat is a free action stow, NOT draw.

And well... They will be in Player Core 2, so I guess we still need to wait to see if the remaster change anything on that front.

My bad, thank you for the correction.

Oh sorry, I didn't realise you were following up on a previous thought or whatever. All I saw was

Finoan wrote:

Aside from flight, multiple arms, and size: large - which have been addressed already - are there really all that many Starfinder ancestries that have special features?

and I thought

"my (and my deep love of gonzo species) time has come" :D
'Cause, if you were, say, one of those "Only PF2 people" and were wondering what all is out there in SF1 land, then you'd have come to the right person!

The "love of gonzo species" I think really sums things up well. It seems PF2e players are looking at the playtest as Blancefinder and Starfinder players are looking at the playtest as Gonzofinder.

Cantinafinder might be another good term for it too.

Starfinder players have to accept the SF2e is using PF2e core rules but PF2e players need to realize the Starfinder meta especially when it comes to species is not going to be the same PF2e meta. It likely won't be as gonzo at first level as we are used to in Starfinder, but all efforts should be made to push it in that direction as far as possible.

For people that only play PF2e and don't understand just how gonzo Starfinder species get or how it just all works I recommend giving it a try before trying to box it in. One of the greatest things about Starfinder is just about anything fits into the setting without feeling out of place. The Pathfinder setting fits in Starfinder just fine, but the Starfinder setting is MUCH LARGER than the Pathfinder setting, both in size and diversity.

For people that only play PF2e and don't understand just how gonzo Starfinder species get or how it just all works I recommend giving it a try before trying to box it in. One of the greatest things about Starfinder is just about anything fits into the setting without feeling out of place. The Pathfinder setting fits in Starfinder just fine, but the Starfinder setting is MUCH LARGER than the Pathfinder setting, both in size and diversity.

Great point. I'm barely starting to read the SF1E core rulebook to see if I can understand more on the SF players side. My only regret is it'll probably take me a month or two to feel somewhat fluent in it to truly understand their meta versus PF1E and PF2E.

Driftbourne wrote:

For people that only play PF2e and don't understand just how gonzo Starfinder species get or how it just all works I recommend giving it a try before trying to box it in. One of the greatest things about Starfinder is just about anything fits into the setting without feeling out of place. The Pathfinder setting fits in Starfinder just fine, but the Starfinder setting is MUCH LARGER than the Pathfinder setting, both in size and diversity.

Great point. I'm barely starting to read the SF1E core rulebook to see if I can understand more on the SF players side. My only regret is it'll probably take me a month or two to feel somewhat fluent in it to truly understand their meta versus PF1E and PF2E.

To catch up quickly just read the species descriptions on AON that's what Starfinder players care about the most, we already know the core rules are changing.

For the record, all my Starfinder players went with races that were easily recognizable and evoked solid roleplaying hooks.

I've seen/played/gm'd:

Android x3
Ysoki
Lashunta x3
Elf
Brenneri (Otterfolk)
Uplifted Bear
whatever the wolffolk were called
Dwarf
Skittermander
Shirren
Vesk
Pahtra (Catfolk)
Goblin
Human
Ghoran
Sarcesian (Reskinned as an Angel)
Svartalfar

For the most part, if it wasn't easy to immediately grok, they weren't interested.

So far, my players have created (SF1) PCs using the following species:

Android
Astrazoan
Borai (human)
Brenneri
Draelik
Dragonkin
Drow
Dwarf
Gnoll
Gray
Half-Orc
Human
Ifrit
Pahtra
Ryphorian
Shatori
Skittermander
Suli
Uplifted Bear
Vesk
Ysoki

I'm confused why gonzo and balanced are being presented as mutually exclusive, particularly when it sounds like both sides have already found the middle ground they're happy with, sidebars.

Like, PF2E contains the ability for someone to shoot themself across a battlefield with a black powder musket like a cartoon character or catch a bullet in their firearm/crossbow to fire it back at someone; gonzo is most definitely not off the table here.

I'm confused why gonzo and balanced are being presented as mutually exclusive

Because I'm seeing you have a cheekpouch... but not really. You have four arms.. but not really. You have wings... but not really. You're a skeleton robot... but not really.

It might be possible to put them together, but that would be exceedingly difficult and I'm not seeing it here.

particularly when it sounds like both sides have already found the middle ground they're happy with, sidebars.

Wow. No. The boards to not permit the sort of language to fully express how much I hate seeing a non answer presented as an answer. The rules aren't in effect unless the players and dms both agree on them and things that are sidebarred tend to be ignored by organized play and home dms alike.

Perpdepog wrote:

I'm confused why gonzo and balanced are being presented as mutually exclusive

Because I'm seeing you have a cheekpouch... but not really. You have four arms.. but not really. You have wings... but not really. You're a skeleton robot... but not really.

It might be possible to put them together, but that would be exceedingly difficult and I'm not seeing it here.

That's because you are mixing up having something and it having the same mechanical impact you want. Feats don't cover trivialities or pure flavour, only mechanical advantages. And in PF2, if you want mechanical advantages, you have to "pay" for them. Which is the way if you don't want to end up with a whole lot of ancestries who are objectively superior.

Some Ysoki have cheek pouches, not all of them. You want your Ysoki to have cheek pouches and them to have a mechanical impact, then there are feats for that. So you really have cheek pouches, if you want them. And they work like cheek pouches, so I don't know what you are talking about.

The multiple arm preview version is already very, very strong. You absolutely have four arms, really. But your level 1 "fresh out of school" character just isn't good enough yet to perform what would be exceedingly difficult maneuvers with multiple weapons. Even accounting for those species being adapted to using more arms at a time doesn't get rid of the even greater biomechanical and cognitive challenges they would face. For a human, fighting effectively with two weapons is already niche and several times harder than just using one weapon. Saying that species with multiple arms should be innately a master at using 3 or more weapons at the same time is the same as saying that all humans should be innately masters at fighting with two weapons. There will almost certainly be ways to make that work, but you won't just get it for free.

Starfinder species will have fully unrestricted flight from the start. For example, the shirren as a heritage. We know that, so please stop bringing it up as a counterargument. Restricted flight in PF2 is merely a product of the melee meta.

And automatons are automatons. Just because you don't have the litany of immunities, which would make them completely overpowered, pretty much unplayable (immune to healing) and therefore banned at most tables, doesn't mean that they aren't automatons. What counts is that you can tell the story, not that you are identical to a monster stat block.

I guess, as a composure of my feelings on the matter. I GM’d a lot of PF1E before I moved onto PF2E. I used to run very powerful races. The home rule I used was 20 RP build-your-own-race (The idea was to be allowed to play monstrous races, but giving the basic races a little something extra in an attempt to feel balanced). The result was interesting, and my powergamer players loved it. Though I and the other players not so much. Even had a player want to leave over the effectiveness of their character versus the others, and the feeling of expectation to be more meta to keep up. I myself struggled to make interesting encounters. As when your race gives you abilities that are too good out the gate, your typical enemies have to have coincidentally, and what felt like immersion-breakingly good preparation and foresight. All of the encounter-building advice was out the window, because it simply did not apply.

We played with concepts of a vampire, a diminutive pixie, a satyr, and a harpy.

I eventually realized I was no longer really having fun with the ruleset. It got old quick. Of course, you want the players to win, but at this point it was no contest. They were never threatened, and I had to spend a lot of extra time trying to buff entries from the bestiaries trying to make them stronger to still feel too weak. And any attempts to try to nerf things would always be met with “What good is a pixie without the full pixie dust”, “what good is a satyr/harpy without the song,” “Of course it should have full DR. It wouldn’t be a pixie otherwise,” and so on, and so forth. Of course, this was from level 1, because that’s how 1E’s racial system works for both games. Then, the players always said the same thing, "Don't worry, it's balanced."

I don’t know. For players, it works, and is fun. Many of these ancestries feel like a big power fantasy, and it’s great for them. But I don’t think they understand how it feels for GMs to interact with such PCs. It frankly feels to me like these players expect the ancestry to get every implicit power out the gate, and would be offended if a GM ever dares suggest that maybe a power is a bit too strong for the given level of play, and might be disruptive to the intended game.

We are already seeing it now in this thread, the offense at the thought that maybe an android might need to breath, and the fear that every alien race from Starfinder 1E will be anything less than full-power out the gate. That feeling that every race should get every immunity and every implied strength at once, or it is trash and just a “cosplay.” Meanwhile, I don’t think I am the only GM looking at these arguments, and is honestly considering whether they would ban certain ancestries as a whole if they were unlocked.

Personally, I am happy with the direction of the 2E system, at least it lets me opt in to this insanity and turn the knobs up as I can manage myself. I can keep one setting at All the knobs are at 10, and I can choose which ones to crank to 11. I am glad that 2E has the rarity system, and that players have to ask me for Uncommon and Rare entries. I am happy that when I use the encounter builder system, it works. It feels like the intended difficulty.

I know it’s not always the favorite thing of the player, but the GM is a player too. GMing is not easy. I would like to make a quote from the PF1E Game Mastery Guide.

The power gamer…expertly manipulat(es) the rules to create engines of destruction that few of her companions (or enemies) can match.. The standard monsters from various rules supplements stand no chance against her unless they’re many levels higher than the rest of the group. While the power gamer likely sees her actions as merely playing the game to the best of her ability, her proficiency makes creating challenging encounters for the entire party very difficult…

In such situations, the first thing to do is to take a look at the rules in question. As a GM, you should reserve the right to vet new rules content from any source before it is allowed in your game, and if some of the power gamer’s abilities are based on rules you don’t approve of or house rules you hadn’t thought through entirely, you can change them.

When people start making massive essays on east post, it becomes really hard to keep up with thread.

Anyhoo, I haven't commented on my feelings on multiple pairs of arm thing so I'll do it now: I'd honestly prefer more type of "you can only wield one heavy weapon at time regardless of number of arms" type balance than "we have to make sure you have only two active arms when balancing heavy weapons".

Like I get the idea of "what if big gun is balanced around with shooting and reloading taking all there actions, if you had six pairs you could shoot it three times per round instead of reloading!" but I kinda feel like balance should be on equipment rules side and not arm rules if that makes sense.

When people start making massive essays on east post, it becomes really hard to keep up with thread.

Anyhoo, I haven't commented on my feelings on multiple pairs of arm thing so I'll do it now: I'd honestly prefer more type of "you can only wield one heavy weapon at time regardless of number of arms" type balance than "we have to make sure you have only two active arms when balancing heavy weapons".

Like I get the idea of "what if big gun is balanced around with shooting and reloading taking all there actions, if you had six pairs you could shoot it three times per round instead of reloading!" but I kinda feel like balance should be on equipment rules side and not arm rules if that makes sense.

I agree, and it's an easy to solve problem too; "This weapon has the Unwieldy quality. Attacking with such a weapon is a Flourish action, meaning it can be done once per turn."

There is that more you have these kind of "PCs need to be level 9 to be able to do it, but NPCs can do it since from level one" things, more you are going to confuse GMs and players. Like, I haven't seen any of NPC monsters with multiple pair of arms have "active pair" rule.

Like, if two handed weapons are really designed with assumption that players can't be wielding multiples of them at same time, have that rule be part of equipment wielding rules itself. So kasatha wielding two heavy weapons doesn't really have any benefit over two armed character. And honestly advantage of four one armed weapons vs two of them is rather minor and comparable to characters with multiple unarmed natural weapons.(except unarmed characters just need to one item to boost all of them rather than upgrade multiple weapons at same time)

Its why I mentioned that issue shouldn't be "how to make characters weak to breathable poisons when they all should have inbuilt gasmasks in their fancy future armor", its that writers should instead use things like acid mist or nanite clouds when they want to use "gaseous weapons" <_<

That's because you are mixing up

There's no mix up. Its an RPG. If it doesn't DO something it doesn't exist. Worse, you're going from show don't tell to tell one thing but show another.

You'll functionally become your species in 9 levels, after many campaigns are over and at best halfway through the campaign, is completely at odds with the idea of a species ability. Is there room for expanding on an already existing ability? Sure. But AFTER it's functional, not to get it to functionality.

Your constant, and I mean CONSTANT insults, gas lighting, and passing the buck are not covering up the lack of substance here. Mathematicians answers and technically correct do not make for satisfying mechanics or functionality when you actually want to use something.

CorvusMask wrote:

When people start making massive essays on east post, it becomes really hard to keep up with thread.

Anyhoo, I haven't commented on my feelings on multiple pairs of arm thing so I'll do it now: I'd honestly prefer more type of "you can only wield one heavy weapon at time regardless of number of arms" type balance than "we have to make sure you have only two active arms when balancing heavy weapons".

Like I get the idea of "what if big gun is balanced around with shooting and reloading taking all there actions, if you had six pairs you could shoot it three times per round instead of reloading!" but I kinda feel like balance should be on equipment rules side and not arm rules if that makes sense.

I agree, and it's an easy to solve problem too; "This weapon has the Unwieldy quality. Attacking with such a weapon is a Flourish action, meaning it can be done once per turn."

You really don't want to mention Flourish there, it causes weird interactions that you then have to clarify. There is also no need, you can achieve the same thing by adding "You can only use one unwieldy weapon per round." before the existing rules text.

When people start making massive essays on east post, it becomes really hard to keep up with thread.

Well, some points require elaboration. That's just how it is.

There is that more you have these kind of "PCs need to be level 9 to be able to do it, but NPCs can do it since from level one" things, more you are going to confuse GMs and players. Like, I haven't seen any of NPC monsters with multiple pair of arms have "active pair" rule.

Well, obviously you haven't seen it, we have seen like a handful of SF2 monsters. When the multiple arms rule is introduced, then it will affect both NPCs and PCs alike. Both use the same general rule set, that's not something monsters can just ignore without specific abilities.

I also don't see how NPCs and PCs having different abilities is confusing, that's no different from two characters having different abilities or NPCs being built different.

Karmagator wrote:

That's because you are mixing up

There's no mix up. Its an RPG. If it doesn't DO something it doesn't exist. Worse, you're going from show don't tell to tell one thing but show another.

That's a complete fallacy. I present you 5e and like hundreds of rules-light RPG systems. Even PF2 has pages on dealing with stuff people want to do that they don't have a feat or feature for. That's if you even need it, which ancestries typically don't.

You'll functionally become your species in 9 levels, after many campaigns are over and at best halfway through the campaign, is completely at odds with the idea of a species ability. Is there room for expanding on an already existing ability? Sure. But AFTER it's functional, not to get it to functionality.

Literally the only case so far where that is true in PF2 is flight, which, again, isn't an issue in SF2. Having all the bells and whistles and being functional to the point where it doesn't impact the story you are trying to tell are not the same thing.

I also don't see how NPCs and PCs having different abilities is confusing, that's no different from two characters having different abilities.

And yet some people are arguing that characters having different immunities is not fair to OP.

Karmagator wrote:

I also don't see how NPCs and PCs having different abilities is confusing, that's no different from two characters having different abilities.

And yet some people are arguing that characters having different immunities is not fair to OP.

Those are two completely different topics. One is balance and player engagement, the other is accessibility. The edit I made - "or NPCs being built different" is also clarifying that.

I don't think the NPC/PC divide is confusing but it does highlight the actual problem.

-These abilities are amazeballs and meaningful and you should be happy with them.

-Then why don't the NPCs stick with the basic version ?

I also think we should point out that Mariliths and Calikangs in pathfinder 2e none had special arm pair rules <_< That's what I mean with confusion, is arm pair a general rule that applies to npcs or just pcs?

I don't think the NPC/PC divide is confusing but it does highlight the actual problem.

-These abilities are amazeballs and meaningful and you should be happy with them.

-Then why don't the NPCs stick with the basic version ?

Because NPCs aren't PCs. They are not designed to stick around, they're (usually) one-offs and the antagonists, so many of the issues that apply to PCs don't apply to them. This mainly concerns immunities, higher resistances and insanely powerful two-action abilities, though.

When it comes to ancestry-specific abilities, NPCs rarely have more than a couple at most. Apart from immunities or really strong resistances, the rest is usually not very different from a level 1 PC. In SF2, that should be even more the case, as many abilities can now easily be bought (which seems to be a SF2 design goal) or aren't a problem anymore (movement types).

I also think we should point out that Mariliths and Calikangs in pathfinder 2e none had special arm pair rules <_< That's what I mean with confusion, is arm pair a general rule that applies to npcs or just pcs?

Such rules are usually driven by PC options. If there are no PCs that can do it and it is purely about balance, then you usually don't need a rule. PF2 has no multi-armed ancestries, so no rule exists in PF2. Monsters manage it by being a premade package that is balanced as that entire package. For example, the marilith can do its multiple swords things and that's that. There is no "two-handed weapon and shield" issue or anything to worry about.

A multi-armed rule would be almost certainly be part of the general hand-rules, so would apply equally to everyone. It would be strange and quite pointless to exclude NPCs. If you want to exclude a few specific ones, you can just give them an ability that does it.

I don't think the NPC/PC divide is confusing but it does highlight the actual problem.

-These abilities are amazeballs and meaningful and you should be happy with them.

-Then why don't the NPCs stick with the basic version ?

For NPCs that were built off of Ancestries, NPCs based off a race DO stick with the basic version within their respective system.

For Ancestries that were built off of NPCs is the issue. The creature was designed as an NPC first and an Ancestry second. So, in an attempt to make the creature playable, a given creature might require modifications to be playable. Which is why you get the "PC has amazeballs ability, but the NPC version is even more amazeballs." Devs want the ability to still feel good and significant, just not as good as the NPC gets it because disruption.

For example, when SF2 comes around, all of the ancestries that are ancestries first, their Alien Archive entries will largely reflect their limitations. Judging by PF2E bestiaries, the ones that don't have a class tend to have maybe one or two extra abilities to emulate having a class, typically a hyper-focused custom class, and are not necessarily ancestry feats (Basically look at the NPC codexes of the systems, like in the PF2E Game Mastery Guide. They are all humans that don't actually have normal classes, but they all have custom classes that emulate a fixated theme like being a baker). A good portion of these entries also tend to be higher than Level 1.

I feel like there is a contradiction there, but its moot point either way since I still think it should be dealt with in equipment rules than in ancestry rules anyway and thus handle issue with four, six or even eight arms.

Like all of the shenanigans with hand rules come from items being balanced in terms of how you choose to use two hands to make use of them. If you don't prep in advance, you need to use about two actions to spend consumable. If you have two handed weapon, you need to spend third action to take hold of your weapon again.

It makes sense that they are wary of character with 8 arms using six of them to hold potions to save actions from pulling them out (even if using six potions is kinda expensive both action economy and money wise already), but I feel like issue here is that to prevent minor advance in action economy, they aren't reworking item rules to be hand neutral. It might be too late to rebalance consumables with idea you can pull and use one in same action since they clearly want standard frequency to be "one consumable per round, two if you prepared in advance", but my main issue is that none of the hand rule shenanigans address the silly image of skittermander with shotgun and four serums in each of the remaining arms.

Like it actually incentives it, you are actively not making use of your full potential if you have six arms and four empty hands since its not like you can make use of them to pull items out of your backpack without spending action to activate pair first. Its always more cost effective to make sure each of your hands is "equipped", otherwise using one of your extra hands to pull item would be in total of two actions. Active pair rule might eliminate benefit of running around with three rocket launchers, but you can still do so, its not like doing so makes you clumsier if your encumbrance can handle your bulk.

TLDR: it'd be just simpler to restrict usage of items than usage of limbs.

(I'm starting to understand why original D&D had rules for how fast you can chug potions)

Yeah, the consumable usage train has left the station ages ago, I don't think there is budging coming from that direction.

But is the "shotgun plus 4 stims" scenario you are describing really a problem? As you said, that kind of setup is very expensive in terms of resources and severely limited by the action economy. And in the vast majority of cases its complete overkill, because you don't need more than one or two of those at most. So I would expect most people to have two hands for their weapon(s), two with consumables and two free for manipulation stuff. And I think the first two are fine, after all having more hands should actually do something. The free hands are a lot more spicy to me.

For the rocket launchers, it's an action either way - Interact to swap two items (the old launcher and the new) or swapping the active pair of hands. At most you get around the 2 bulk worn items limit or avoid an AoO and that's it.

I think the issue is much more in weapons, shield-type items and free hands. Solving that via item restrictions is a whole lot more complicated and would likely be scattered all around compared to solving it via hands.

TLDR: it'd be just simpler to restrict usage of items than usage of limbs.

Equipment-side limitations would not be bad. Honestly, I don't even feel having multiple limbs unlocked would be that disruptive. It's the same number of interact actions to draw, and the same number of actions to use the item, you just have a better cache of items to work with. And once you run out, you gotta spend a lot of actions to refuel.

I know in my games, I've had a player request to be a four-armed android. I made it a Level 1 Ancestry Feat. This was before the Starfinder Field test came out, and I didn't really have problems with it. I just let the arms work as arms realizing the action economy put enough limiters on it to work on its own, so I let the arms be unlocked for my case. When SF2E comes out, I'll probably apply this as a home rule, but that's for my table, and unless I start to see things getting too funky, which frankly I currently doubt.

For others reading this, I should probably establish. I am not against having high-powered ancestries. I often let my players run higher powered ancestries. I run Ancestry Paragon because I feel default ancestry feat allotments are a bit too limited for my tastes (Which grants 2 ancestry feats at level 1, and 1 ancestry feat every 2nd level thereafter), and have accomodated a lot of requests for customized ancestry feats to feed specific niches, like having four arms on an android, or having an elf that is innately psychic, with an ancestry feat tree that grants them touch telepathy, the next feat with broadcast telepathy, and a 3rd 5th level feat of two-way telepathy.

Heck, as a quality-of-life home rule, I made it to where a single interact action lets you do one-reasonable activity per hand, such as drawing two weapons, drawing a weapon and a shield, or drawing a weapon and opening a door, if you have 3 or more arms, it applied to all arms. And I made adding a hand to a weapon a free action with the manipulate trait, so it could still provoke a reactive strike.

I just am in the belief that these are not and should not be the baseline. This is a space for GM's to opt in, and that GM's should feel safe to say no to unwanted material, to be in the balanced, relatively safe space, and when a GM realizes it works for their table, they can turn certain limiters off. Because granted, I am aware I might see shenanigans. But at least I foresaw the shenanigans and can attempt to prepare for it better. And if one of the toggles doesn't work as well as I thought it would, I can just return to baseline and say "It wasn't as good as I thought it'd be."

CorvusMask wrote:

TLDR: it'd be just simpler to restrict usage of items than usage of limbs.

Equipment-side limitations would not be bad. Honestly, I don't even feel having multiple limbs unlocked would be that disruptive. It's the same number of interact actions to draw, and the same number of actions to use the item, you just have a better cache of items to work with. And once you run out, you gotta spend a lot of actions to refuel.

I think I know what you are saying in principle, but I think there's a lot more to consider. That better cache of items can easily break the balance in a major way, after all.

For example, one of my (sadly) backup characters is a Twisting Tree Magus. The subclass' whole thing is that it uses your staff as a weapon and basically has a free hand on demand. However, your staff is never going to be as good as a proper two-handed weapon. A fully unrestricted four-armed character could wield a better two-handed weapon, the staff and still have a hand free at all times. So that would invalidate a large part of my subclass' usefulness and give them a vastly improved version of an 8th level feat on top of that.

Besides such cases, you are absolutely right. In some cases there is very little difference between the two. When someone just wants to use four swords for the vibes or something and I trust my player not to abuse something later, then as a GM I'd have little issue with just allowing it.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

It is regrettable that you were not made aware of the option and that it ruined your impression on PF1E though. Your GM should have put in more effort to find that the entry existed assuming you had brought it up at your table.

You're missing the point. let me take another whack at it.

The problem is not in the advertising or presentation.

The problem is that if an ability is so weak it does nothing that, to me, is the same as it not being there.

While Both ysoki (Starfinders lovable space rats) and ratfolk (pathfinder 2's warren dwelling sewer rats) technically HAVE an ability called cheekpouches, the version that ysoki have (a swift action to store or take out at level 1) actually changes the action economy on some things. IE spell gems. or stolen objects or picked up macguffins.

The pathfinder 2 version requires 3 feats and being level 9 before it really becomes usable.IE, before it really has mechanical effects. Which to me is the same thing as being Real (in an imaginary game...) before then it's like people are saying, a human in a costume. If something functions no differently than a fanny pack, then the cheek pouch is visually there in a game you don't see and its written on your character sheet in a space that it's not used.

And you can say - its like that because- or - it has to be that way- ...and NONE , nadda, of that changes the fact that I don't prefer the game that way. In some ways pf2 has a lot of things that are like all of starship combat, I'm annoyed because it tried to trick me with the illusion of choice but didn't deliver.

As a brief lore lesson: Pathfinder ratfolk are also called Ysoki. It even states this in the Advanced Player's Guide. Ysoki is the ancestry name, and ratfolk is a colloquialism. (I question if you've done anything more than light skimming at best in regards to what you are complaining about, because this is literally stated in the first sentence of the ancestry)....

Loving the cartoonish visual image of a Ysoki pulling a rifle out of it's mouth.

That's some Hammerspace shittery.

I'm confused why gonzo and balanced are being presented as mutually exclusive, particularly when it sounds like both sides have already found the middle ground they're happy with, sidebars.

I'd rather have species be more powerful out of the gate than have sidebars. The main reason I'm not big on sidebars is: Organised Play.

As others have said, I'd rather have powerful options balanced against the existence of multiple arms (i.e. one big gun that takes multiple actions to fire, or has the Flourish / Open / Unwieldy trait, to prevent the skittermander from firing it three times) than multiple arms balanced against the existence of powerful options (i.e. "you have four arms, but only two of them are 'active' at a time.")

Loving the cartoonish visual image of a Ysoki pulling a rifle out of it's mouth.

That's some Hammerspace shittery.

Every item can only be 1ft max in every dimension, unfortunately, so very few rifles would fit. You probably do better, though, and pack in 10 folded SMGs or pistols.

Perpdepog wrote:

I'm confused why gonzo and balanced are being presented as mutually exclusive, particularly when it sounds like both sides have already found the middle ground they're happy with, sidebars.

I'd rather have species be more powerful out of the gate than have sidebars. The main reason I'm not big on sidebars is: Organised Play.

A lot of my Starfinderating is Org Play, and by necessity Org Play needs to have a consistent set of rules; so sidebars and house rules are of no help in a shared sandbox.

As others have said, I'd rather have powerful options balanced against the existence of multiple arms (i.e. one big gun that takes multiple actions to fire, or has the Flourish / Open / Unwieldy trait, to prevent the skittermander from firing it three times) than multiple arms balanced against the existence of powerful options (i.e. "you have four arms, but only two of them are 'active' at a time.")

You can balance the launchers on the side of the launchers, no problem.

But that is extremely unlikely to replace the arm-rules. One, you likely would have to do that for every category individually, which might cause a real mess. And two, "powerful options" doesn't start at the rocket launchers. It already starts at the most basic weapons and extends to many, many item categories beyond. Not to mention feats and features. You simply can't for example heavily limit all two-handed weapons for everyone on their end, just because a few ancestries might cause shenanigans with them. Balancing it on the hands side is really the only reasonable way to approach that problem in its entirety.

Loving the cartoonish visual image of a Ysoki pulling a rifle out of it's mouth.

Starfinder has portable one use vehicles, Just add water. MY ysoki operative yoinked a motorcycle from her cheekpouch for a rescue mission.

You simply can't for example heavily limit all two-handed weapons for everyone on their end, just because a few ancestries might cause shenanigans with them. Balancing it on the hands side is really the only reasonable way to approach that problem in its entirety.

I still don't buy that every two-handed item needs to be re-balanced and re-evaluated because of kasatha, or skittermanders, or whatever else. I remain unconvinced that "a human with a 2H greataxe" is fine, but "a kasatha with a 2H greataxe and a shield" is broken. But we're re-treading old ground at this point, so. Shrug.

Perpdepog wrote:

I'm confused why gonzo and balanced are being presented as mutually exclusive, particularly when it sounds like both sides have already found the middle ground they're happy with, sidebars.

I'd rather have species be more powerful out of the gate than have sidebars. The main reason I'm not big on sidebars is: Organised Play.

A lot of my Starfinderating is Org Play, and by necessity Org Play needs to have a consistent set of rules; so sidebars and house rules are of no help in a shared sandbox.

As others have said, I'd rather have powerful options balanced against the existence of multiple arms (i.e. one big gun that takes multiple actions to fire, or has the Flourish / Open / Unwieldy trait, to prevent the skittermander from firing it three times) than multiple arms balanced against the existence of powerful options (i.e. "you have four arms, but only two of them are 'active' at a time.")

I agree to add to your comment on organized play.

I wonder with Starfinder having a smaller player base if there is a higher percentage of players playing organized play. Organized play is the only reason I've been able to find Starfinder or Pathfinder2e games. at least in my experience, I've never been in an Organized play game that had a character in it over 6th level and my highest level character is only 4th level.

In Starfinder part of the reason is I play play-by-post and it can take 4 to 6 weeks to finish a 4-hour scenario. For Pathfinder2e I played in live games but the group only met 2 times per month. Also, we switched up characters a lot depending on the needs of the party, especially when trying to accommodate new players. I find this more true in PF2e than in because having a balanced party seems even more important than in Starfinder. Also, in organized play all the scenarios only take one session to play, so if you know what scenario is coming up next I might make a new character to fit its theme or choose my older character that best fits, or just make a new character to play a new species or ancestry that just came out, or because it's cold outside that day and I wanted to play species with fur.

Our local Pathfinder2e PFS group disappeared last year due to a lack of players. Our VC said the group lost 85% of its players when PF2e came out So locally at least I don't see SF2e helping.

Might help if you only play one character to get to a high level in organized play, but with so many fun species to play in Starfinder, it is fun to switch around a lot.

If you want to take full advantage of the cantina feeling in Starfinder change characters often.

But is the "shotgun plus 4 stims" scenario you are describing really a problem? As you said, that kind of setup is very expensive in terms of resources and severely limited by the action economy.

I kinda assumed that was the bigger problem to put in rule text because it wouldn't be too complicated to say "you can't wield weapons with two hands AND raise shield at same time". Like I assume in active pair rules, you can't "raise shield, switch active hands to hands with two handed weapon, strike!" and retain shield bonus.

Like if you want to prevent character being able to do dual wield or have two handed weapon and free hand for free hand abilities without interacting with interact action economy, there are other solutions than "designate active pair of hands". Like duelist one hand free for parry abilities could just say you can only wield one weapon actively.

(I kinda assume main thing they want to prevent is wielding multiple heavy/slow reload weapons)

I think the appropriate way to do some of Starfinder's more gonzo species is to split the really out-there stuff across ancestry feats.

Since a GM is free to increase the number of ancestry feats you get (e.g. the official ancestry paragon) so this would result in both balance (since a regular-degular human would also get the same number of ancestry feats) and gonzo (since you're allowing a character to do all of the stuff whatever feats you've written do).

In PF2 it's relatively normal for games to run with the "Free Archetype" variant which essentially doubles the number of class feats you get, and class feats are the most impactful ones in the feat hierarchy. You could genuinely run a game with like "triple ancestry feats" and the biggest hurdle you would have is that some ancestries just don't have enough feats printed for them yet.

Just got done with a learners encounter. Had a player that wanted to play a crocogator. Decided it'd be fun to test the Vesk on it (instead of beastkin or reflavored lizardfolk). So far it went well, they played a Vesk Fighter with the Vesk Language swapped to Iruxi. Didn't feel much different than say an orc in function. On the compatibility end, for the few encounters, it didn't feel disproportionately powerful, which is a good sign. But this was a one-shot to show the mechanics

The proper test will be when we give it a marathon run in Menace Under Otari in two weeks.

I think the appropriate way to do some of Starfinder's more gonzo species is to split the really out-there stuff across ancestry feats.

Since a GM is free to increase the number of ancestry feats you get (e.g. the official ancestry paragon) so this would result in both balance (since a regular-degular human would also get the same number of ancestry feats) and gonzo (since you're allowing a character to do all of the stuff whatever feats you've written do).

In PF2 it's relatively normal for games to run with the "Free Archetype" variant which essentially doubles the number of class feats you get, and class feats are the most impactful ones in the feat hierarchy. You could genuinely run a game with like "triple ancestry feats" and the biggest hurdle you would have is that some ancestries just don't have enough feats printed for them yet.

You could have triple ancestry feats at home, but not in organized play.

You could have triple ancestry feats at home, but not in organized play.

Ancestry paragon is not official it's optional as are most of the rules in the Gamemaserty Guide, which generally means that they are not allowed in organized play. Not sure if Ancestry Paragon falls under meta, but if it did and was allowed in SF2e organized pay that would be great.

Ancestry Paragon would be official, just optional. Official would be anything released in a 1st party book. An unofficial rule would be one from a third party book. I apologize for the small semantic, but you are otherwise right, definitely would not touch organized play, but would be great if it did.