Field Test #3: That Cantina Feel

Honestly ancestry archetypes sound like a good way to incorporate really powerful ancestries. Too much capability for a base ancestry? just make an archetype expansion with the base ancestry as a prerequisite.

If a GM does not want the ability to bite into their player's classes, they can just use the Free Archetype optional rule.

It's an interesting thought at least. It's a way to pour more power in, but only within the constraints of "stuff you can buy with a class feat spent in an archetype". At the same time... well, that does go further than "stuff you can buy with an ancestry feat". In particular, archetypes are allowed to do things that are more directly useful to specific classes and builds... like how the wrestler is actively useful to those who might like to build certain kinds of grappling specialist. So it could be a way to make certain ancestries more capable at certain niches of certain classes.

Thus far we haven't seen anything like that out of PF2 because PF2 leans hard into the philosophy of "everyone should be able to do everything." If you have an archetype that's based on an ancestry, then only people of that ancestry can use it. if you instead make in an archetype that can be used by everyone, then everyone can use it. It's the same reason why they don't do all that much with the kind of focused class archetypes that could really twist old classes in new and interesting ways... and when they do produce class archetypes, they tend to be significant reductions in overall effectiveness. The easiest way to make sure that something doesn't break balance is to hit the "make it suck" button... and if you're going to make an archetype that only a small fraction of the players out there will ever use, then you maybe don't want to have to spend a lot of time and effort on making sure that it doesn't break the balance, right?

Now, for all of my recent complaining here, I really do think that PF2 is an awesome game. There's a reason why I'm on these boards, and not on the boards of any other RPGs. It's just that this particular topic keeps hitting the parts that I find frustrating about the system.

So I guess that what I would want to say to the SF2 devs on this matter is... if you're not going to do it right, then don't do it at all. A class archetype or set of ancestry feats that take class feat slots or whatever that breaks the game is obviously a big problem, and you should clearly avoid that... but one that avoids that issue via liberal use of the "make it suck" button is still a net loss. If you have to nerf an archetype or a set of feats or whatever hard enough that there is no build or scenario where it's worth taking, then just don't bother making the thing in the first place. Save yourself the wasted dev time and save us the disappointment.

If you can go into it with that attitude, then I would absolutely welcome any forays into attaching class feats to ancestries that you might see fit to indulge in. That could be pretty cool... and if following that rule means that you never actually do this thing, then I totally understand.

Thus far we haven't seen anything like that out of PF2 because PF2 leans hard into the philosophy of "everyone should be able to do everything." If you have an archetype that's based on an ancestry, then only people of that ancestry can use it. if you instead make in an archetype that can be used by everyone, then everyone can use it. It's the same reason why they don't do all that much with the kind of focused class archetypes that could really twist old classes in new and interesting ways... and when they do produce class archetypes, they tend to be significant reductions in overall effectiveness. The easiest way to make sure that something doesn't break balance is to hit the "make it suck" button... and if you're going to make an archetype that only a small fraction of the players out there will ever use, then you maybe don't want to have to spend a lot of time and effort on making sure that it doesn't break the balance, right?

So far our closest equivalent is the Vampire, the Ghost, the Ghoul, and the Zombie. Though those are less advanced ancestries, and more advanced versatile heritages.

So I guess that what I would want to say to the SF2 devs on this matter is... if you're not going to do it right, then don't do it at all. A class archetype or set of ancestry feats that take class feat slots or whatever that breaks the game is obviously a big problem, and you should clearly avoid that... but one that avoids that issue via liberal use of the "make it suck" button is still a net loss. If you have to nerf an archetype or a set of feats or whatever hard enough that there is no build or scenario where it's worth taking, then just don't bother making the thing in the first place. Save yourself the wasted dev time and save us the disappointment.

This is a player suggestion, not one I've heard the devs musing. Though as you can see, I was cautioning that this approach, while I myself find it fair and a good way to greatly enhance the ancestry, knew that on the other side of the pond, it would not quite be appealing to Starfinder players that prefer the 1E racial model.

I am not sure if SF1 had one, but PF1 had a race building engine that codified racial traits into having scores, and races as having budgets. I recall the recommended RP budget to grant people was like, 10. When many races presented in the PF1 system, and by what I've read of SF1 races, would likely have exceeded those numbers. When I would ban races with 16 or more RP, that would ban 29 races, with the highest RP score being the Duergar Tyrant at 47 RP

Ultimately, I don't mind simply not bothering to port ancestries that were simply too good. But it feels like a lose-lose. Players will be annoyed either way. Either they get the ancestry but it doesn't do everything, or they don't get it at all. Either way, Paizo will get flak.

Were on page 7 of that debate and that's just in this thread. I'm not a fan of 9th level cheek pouch abilities. .

There's definite design space for something making it extra and not just trickling functionality in over multiple levels. Like say at that point you've gotten the trick down for keeping an open null space chamber in your cheek pouch...

Wow... so... There are a lot of people very passionate, and I'm going to say it's probably because I'm not as educated in design, but...

I don't mind that SRO's and Androids would only have resistence to bleed and stuff. they can have other liquids that leak and have similar effects. and it makes it more balanced and fair so there isn't a "Right Answer". I still want to play a little beep-boop friend.

Yeah, I think the Archetype is the way to go with some, like the Entu Symbiote. Or a versatile heritage.

I'm just really excited to see what they do. Especially with the new feats they add. Kind of why I was a little disappointed with Field-Test 3 as they didn't feel that different from what we had seen before.

Wow... so... There are a lot of people very passionate, and I'm going to say it's probably because I'm not as educated in design, but...

It's not about being educated in design. It's about how much you care about simulationism. Some of us care a lot about whether or not the stories in the background and the way the world works line up and are consistent. We want the world to have a consistent set of "laws of physics" that could be known by the characters and that one could derive truths from, make plans accordingly, and have them work as intended.

The idea that an SRO that travels out of an airlock without a suit would suffocate and die is really unsatisfying for those of us who Really Care about such things. Like... it's a robot. We have robots doing stuff out in outer space all the time. The idea that they'd somehow die to a gaseous neurotoxin is even worse.

...but that's not everyone. A lot of folks don't care about those things so much. Some folks care some, but have had bad enough experiences with things that the current system prevents that they're willing to just accept it and move on if it means that they never have to deal with whatever their personal Horrible Thing is.

I am not sure if SF1 had one, but PF1 had a race building engine that codified racial traits into having scores, and races as having budgets. I recall the recommended RP budget to grant people was like, 10. When many races presented in the PF1 system, and by what I've read of SF1 races, would likely have exceeded those numbers. When I would ban races with 16 or more RP, that would ban 29 races, with the highest RP score being the Duergar Tyrant at 47 RP

Ultimately, I don't mind simply not bothering to port ancestries that were simply too good. But it feels like a lose-lose. Players will be annoyed either way. Either they get the ancestry but it doesn't do everything, or they don't get it at all. Either way, Paizo will get flak.

Yeah, and if they're going to get shouted at either way, it may as well be the way that also gives people stuff, since some people will also be happy with that stuff.

moosher12 wrote:

I am not sure if SF1 had one, but PF1 had a race building engine that codified racial traits into having scores, and races as having budgets. I recall the recommended RP budget to grant people was like, 10. When many races presented in the PF1 system, and by what I've read of SF1 races, would likely have exceeded those numbers. When I would ban races with 16 or more RP, that would ban 29 races, with the highest RP score being the Duergar Tyrant at 47 RP

Ultimately, I don't mind simply not bothering to port ancestries that were simply too good. But it feels like a lose-lose. Players will be annoyed either way. Either they get the ancestry but it doesn't do everything, or they don't get it at all. Either way, Paizo will get flak.

Yeah, and if they're going to get shouted at either way, it may as well be the way that also gives people stuff, since some people will also be happy with that stuff.

Absolutely. I'd frankly rather my players have a nerfed and balanced option than no option at all.

I mean, heck. One of my new players, I'm letting play an anthropomorphic behemoth from Final Fantasy. I basically just advised them to reskin an Ifrit/Naari Amurrun. Is it gonna do everything a behemoth does? No? But the tools are still there to get much of the flavor across, and the player is loving the concept they are getting to play one at all.

moosher12 wrote:

I am not sure if SF1 had one, but PF1 had a race building engine that codified racial traits into having scores, and races as having budgets. I recall the recommended RP budget to grant people was like, 10. When many races presented in the PF1 system, and by what I've read of SF1 races, would likely have exceeded those numbers. When I would ban races with 16 or more RP, that would ban 29 races, with the highest RP score being the Duergar Tyrant at 47 RP

Ultimately, I don't mind simply not bothering to port ancestries that were simply too good. But it feels like a lose-lose. Players will be annoyed either way. Either they get the ancestry but it doesn't do everything, or they don't get it at all. Either way, Paizo will get flak.

Yeah, and if they're going to get shouted at either way, it may as well be the way that also gives people stuff, since some people will also be happy with that stuff.

Eh... if we assume that the amount of stuff is constant, it might be better to leave out the stuff that's going to have to be nerfed too badly. Like, whatever species it is that got Large and extra arms and something like two or three other things. Better to spend those ancestry-production ergs on aliens who aren't quite so egregiously overboard to start with, you know?

Like, for me? I don't actually want overpowered ancestries. I like the fact that PF2 is well-balanced. I just wish there was space for gonzo creatures that got actual solid rules support for actually being gonzo in there as well, rather than rules that just sort of vaguely allude to it. I want ancestries that get all of these random wacky features... and still aren't any more powerful at the table in any sort of real way than the rest of the party.

Eh... I want a lot of things.

Perpdepog wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

I am not sure if SF1 had one, but PF1 had a race building engine that codified racial traits into having scores, and races as having budgets. I recall the recommended RP budget to grant people was like, 10. When many races presented in the PF1 system, and by what I've read of SF1 races, would likely have exceeded those numbers. When I would ban races with 16 or more RP, that would ban 29 races, with the highest RP score being the Duergar Tyrant at 47 RP

Ultimately, I don't mind simply not bothering to port ancestries that were simply too good. But it feels like a lose-lose. Players will be annoyed either way. Either they get the ancestry but it doesn't do everything, or they don't get it at all. Either way, Paizo will get flak.

Yeah, and if they're going to get shouted at either way, it may as well be the way that also gives people stuff, since some people will also be happy with that stuff.

Eh... if we assume that the amount of stuff is constant, it might be better to leave out the stuff that's going to have to be nerfed too badly. Like, whatever species it is that got Large and extra arms and something like two or three other things. Better to spend those ancestry-production ergs on aliens who aren't quite so egregiously overboard to start with, you know?

Like, for me? I don't actually want overpowered ancestries. I like the fact that PF2 is well-balanced. I just wish there was space for gonzo creatures that got actual solid rules support for actually being gonzo in there as well, rather than rules that just sort of vaguely allude to it. I want ancestries that get all of these random wacky features... and still aren't any more powerful at the table in any sort of real way than the rest of the party.

Eh... I want a lot of things.

Have you read up on the Battlezoo stuff?

I'm not sure if this would be a good compromise, but one way you could probably create the "Gonzo" ancestry that might be balanced might work as follows: what if it had the important stuff frontloaded, but pre-committed it's future ancestry feats in exchange?

Basically you have an ancestry with every mandatory ability from level 1, BUT, depending on the level of the abilities, it was denied a number of ancestry spell slots, like, a given ancestry might have Level 5 tier native abilities, but it would not get its first ancestry feat until Level 9. Some ancestries might just have no ancestry feats to offset particularly potent abilities.

Additionally, PFS and SFS might bar the species from any game under a certain level, but allow it on games over that level, with each ancestry listing it's recommended level threshold before it should be allowed in a normal game, but any GM can override to add to a level 1 campaign if all players consent.

The Core Idea is that it starts strong, but does not grow until other ancestries have caught up to it, and during this period where it is considered ahead of other ancestries, it is barred from official play. But once other ancestries catch up, it is allowed.

I am currently under the assumption the Pact Worlds is your equivalent to the Inner Sea, i.e. the territory where most adventures take place).

Time for a Starfinder setting lore lesson.

1: Absalom Station is Starfinder's City of Absalom, we even have the star store still.

2: Golarion is missing, gone, no one knows what happened to it. or how it was replaced by Absalom Station. The closest thing we have to Golarion is a theme park called Golarion World in another star system.

3: The Gap: The events between Pathfinder and Starficer have been erased from history.

4: The Pact Worlds has the same planets covered in Distance worlds in Pathfinder 1e, It's the home solar system of both Patfinder and Starfinder. Although many adventures start there and some happen there, but in Starfinder we travel outside the Pact Worlds MUCH more often than you would leave the Inner Sea region of Pathfinder. Getting to another star system can be as simple as the GM saying you arrive in the new system. Note it can be more complicated if the GM wants it to be. You might have issues traveling the Drift and end up lost in a 3-part AP before you get back on course. But either way, it's commonplace like driving to the grocery store is today.

5: The Veskarium, is a second fully developed solar system in Starfinder found in the book Near Space. Near Space all so covers 20 other planets in other star systems. That doesn't cover planets from APs or in the Vast or Drift. Pathfinder covers smaller areas in greater detail than Starfinder does, but Starfinder is spread throughout an entire galaxy covering more area than Pathfinder. In Starfinder we get around.

6: There are areas of the galaxy much larger than the Pact Worlds controlled by the Swarm or the Azalanti Star Empire. Unlike the planet of Golarion in Pathfinder, Starfnder will never run out of space for new locations. If Golarion is a kitchen sink, Then Starfinder is a galaxy full of kitchen sinks.

Time for a Starfinder setting lore lesson.

Much appreciated. I was only already aware of points 1-3

Have you read up on the Battlezoo stuff?

Merely gazed upon it from afar. I like what I've heard about it, but I don't want to spend money and get all excited about it unless I can somehow find a campaign that would allow it, and available campaigns are very thin on the ground for me.

Though... I'll admit that the bit of the Dungeon ancestry that I saw off of the April Fools publication felt a bit hollow. They did some pretty interesting stuff in there, but I kept feeling like the need to keep things balanced prevented them from making the ancestry that they really *wanted* to make. Perhaps the full publication helped with that.

Driftbourne wrote:

Time for a Starfinder setting lore lesson.

Much appreciated. I was only already aware of points 1-3

It's likely the Pact Worlds would be the standard for wants rate or not but that might change some in SF2e because of the new drift lanes appearing.

I'm just really excited to see what they do. Especially with the new feats they add. Kind of why I was a little disappointed with Field-Test 3 as they didn't feel that different from what we had seen before.

The community picked the "normal" options for this Field Test and the core options in general are always more conventional, so that's to be expected. The devs were a bit disappointed that they couldn't show off the crazy stuff they cooked up ^^. But don't worry, we'll get to that in a few months at most.

To add more context, I meant making some of the ancestries that were banned into having archetype expansions instead to be playable in PF2E. Not to bring in new ancestries that were not already species in SF1

Basically: The species you were not allowed to play in SF1 was brought to SF2. The species itself was nerfed, but now you can spend class feats to get an archetype that brings it up to full power, maybe even beyond it.

To where the player would say: Can't I just have all of the SF1 abilities from Level 1?

Ah, ok! I looked up a couple dozen of the banned (or at least not allowed) SF1 races and the vast majority wouldn't even need an ancestry archetype. There were a few who might need one (e.g. Alkalians), but in most cases they could be added with fairly minor changes/conversions. The rest I've seen (that wouldn't need an archetype) might lose one ability for the level 1 version. This would be solved with the "two starting ancestry feats instead of one" solution from the other thread. Speaking from long-term experience, that would be a good idea in general.

That said, many will probably be uncommon or rare due to both the setting (they're from a section of a planet somewhere in the galactic armpit) and possible disruptiveness. It'd still be a lot better than before, but not ideal for the SFS crowd.

It's not about being educated in design. It's about how much you care about simulationism. Some of us care a lot about whether or not the stories in the background and the way the world works line up and are consistent. We want the world to have a consistent set of "laws of physics" that could be known by the characters and that one could derive truths from, make plans accordingly, and have them work as intended.

So I guess the question is whether it is more important that this fantasy world with different laws of physics matches ours or is consistent for all players.

The idea that an SRO that travels out of an airlock without a suit would suffocate and die is really unsatisfying for those of us who Really Care about such things. Like... it's a robot. We have robots doing stuff out in outer space all the time. The idea that they'd somehow die to a gaseous neurotoxin is even worse.

Yes, we have robots that work in a vacuum all the time... because they were specially designed to work in a vacuum. Most technology, including most robots on earth, would not work in a vacuum and those poisonous chemicals could be quite corrosive, or conductive, or otherwise bad to be in close proximity to heat sinks and other technology... y'know. almost like it was toxic to them.

...but that's not everyone. A lot of folks don't care about those things so much. Some folks care some, but have had bad enough experiences with things that the current system prevents that they're willing to just accept it and move on if it means that they never have to deal with whatever their personal Horrible Thing is.

No, I just understand that "Simulating the real world' is not the only, or primary, or even among the highest concerns of our devs. Their higher concerns revolve around building a balanced system for all of us to have fun in.

And, as they have said multiple times, if you want to home rule it your way at your table, then that's how it works at your table, they are happy to see us iterate on their rules. But they have to build what works best for the most people.

WatersLethe wrote:

Have you read up on the Battlezoo stuff?

Merely gazed upon it from afar. I like what I've heard about it, but I don't want to spend money and get all excited about it unless I can somehow find a campaign that would allow it, and available campaigns are very thin on the ground for me.

Though... I'll admit that the bit of the Dungeon ancestry that I saw off of the April Fools publication felt a bit hollow. They did some pretty interesting stuff in there, but I kept feeling like the need to keep things balanced prevented them from making the ancestry that they really *wanted* to make. Perhaps the full publication helped with that.

The dungeon ancestry is probably enough of a peek for you to get the general vibe of the non-dragon ancestries. You would probably feel similarly with the rest.

I like what they've done with bringing gonzo ancestries (like mimic, dungeons, and intelligent weapons) into playability, and that's pretty much as far as ancestries on their own can go in PF2. Lots of others are quite happy with them as well, but if that's not enough for you that's fair.

I get the sense that to satisfy the Gonzo-ness you and others are looking for, SF2 should *really* lean into Ancestry based Class Archetypes.

The Dragon ancestry gives a Class Archetype, and two regular Archetypes. The Class Archetype trades out things that Ancestry alone could never touch in order to get real Dragony. Proficiency in weapons and even the ability to use held magic items get traded out for baseline, level 1 good natural weapons and scales. The martial and caster dragon archetypes let you build on your ancestry's baseline stuff as well, and you can go to level 20 without taking a non-dragon class feat if you want.

The dragon ancestry stands head and shoulders above the other Battlezoo ancestries for me because of that support.

For Stafinder 2e, they could even group ancestries with similar-themed-gonzo-ness into class archetypes that grant similar abilities with the same trades. They could also make regular archetypes with big pools of abilities that you can buy as you level with requirements like "having wings" or "have at least 4 arms".

From what I am hearing, the SF1 Society bans a lot of ancestries. Which means something about the frontloading in it's current state is not working if the ancestries are deemed too disruptive.

Power/disruption rarely has anything to do with it. (Trox and SRO excepted, probably.)

They are largely banned because it doesn't make sense for every rando species that has been published in AP backmatter (with a note that they exclusively live on a planet recently contacted by some random ship) to suddenly join the Pact Worlds' based Starfinder Society in large numbers because the players find them cool, novel, or powerful.

So newly introduced species are only allowed in SFS after they've been around for a while to narratively make sense (e.g. when published this species was barely known, two years later the SFS has done missions there and the Pact Worlds has established diplomatic and economic ties, so now they're allowed in SFS with a boon or eventually even without one). Requiring points to buy into them after they've been around a while also avoids weird waves of half the playerbase creating new characters all of the same species because it's the latest meme favorite.

But in Starfinder rarity might be different in each star system, so could get complicated.

The way this looks in practice is generally the rulebook makes a vague aside to "different things might have different rarities in different places" (the example in the Pathfinder CRB is a katana being common in Tian Xia), while a setting book will talk about where a people mostly live in their entry, and a player's guide for an AP will include a chart that breaks player options (including ancestries) into "strongly recommended", "recommended", and "appropriate" categories with the understanding that everything else is in the "talk to the GM/maybe for a different story" category.

Which is kind of how you have to do it, since there's an impulse you find in players in this kind of game to, given a premise, want to play the absolute weirdest or most difficult kind of character to marry to the plot, and sometimes this works fantastically but it always requires extra work from the GM so it should be something that's only done with the GM and the player are working together.

So I guess the question is whether it is more important that this fantasy world with different laws of physics matches ours or is consistent for all players.

There's a surprising number of axis and consideration with how fake physics interacts with the players and the fake physics and the real physics. There's a whole slew of weirdly contradictory and interacting considerations, and no perfect answer.

No game is going to be so comprehensive that the players aren't going to have to extrapolate to known reality at some point. Like, humans don't phase through stone and don't go backwards in time. You don't need to tell players that and you don't have the word count. If we were writing a game about humans for quantum superimpositional beings then we'd have to remind them.

As a work of fiction, you have show and you have tell. A common bit of writing advice is show don't tell. Its not bad as an ideal but I think each has its place. But when you tell one thing and show another it gets really obvious.

If you TELL me that I'm a robot, but what you show me is that I still get space rabies from the space rat, the sniffles from the space cold, and explode like a puny meat bag when thrust into the harmless vacuum of space...(wait.. i'm literally being hurt by nothing? What...?) then you're showing me the opposite of telling me.

But as a game you want a variety of options and a variety of meaningful choices, and you DON"T have that if some choices are better than others. Its one thing in star trek if Data is always immune to the disease/radiation/whatever messing with the puny human crew and gets to be the hero, but in an RPG someone is PLAYING those vulnerable meatbags and they're going to feel bad for that decision if they keep getting punished for it. You can't just put "the ineffable value of the human experience" on a characters sheet and be done with it. You'd better enumerate that value with some bonuses.

That is VERY hard to do while maintaining game balance. But I think starfinder would benefit from a different concept of balance than pathfinder just because species is a bigger part of the genre.

Starfinder 1 gear makes that very possible without upsetting the balance too much. In pathfinder being unable to survive in space or a gas filled mine without a 4th level life bubble would be a big deal, but in starfinder it's only relevant if you're naked without the enviroprotections on your armor you pick up for 100 credits at Space Mart. A species with wings changes pathfinder, but in starfinder EVERYONE flies from level 5 on.

...and explode like a puny meat bag when thrust into the harmless vacuum of space...(wait.. i'm literally being hurt by nothing? What...?)

Just as an aside, in space there's lots of radiation and no atmosphere. They have to specifically design electronics to be shielded from radiation, and to have complicated thermo-regulation features that shed heat through radiation.

Example: Play a game on your PC while it's in a high-end vacuum chamber.

Exactly, an LCD screen in a vacuum is going to rupture, heat will build up, etc... etc... It would make sense for androids and SRO's to need specific gear for surviving in the vacuum of space.

Also, as we have SEEN from the last few years, not all filtration is equal. So it would make sense if some enviro-suit filtration is better at filtering than others.

Yup as long as I get to play a robot I'm fine with whatever sibebar information explains why I need an atmosphere/ 8 hours of inactivity/ how foreign objects or chemicals mess with my internals. Just gimme cool feats for modding myself out and interfacing with tech like the wifi android

You can try to justify some things as having some effect on the robot, but if you've justified everything having the same effect on the robot you're back to human in a funny suit.

In starfinder or pf 1 you get a small list of things right out of the bat. So the androids disease/poison resistance and ability to sun bathe outside the airlock and darkvision/lowlight vision or whatever people swap them for are all little things. But its 5 or six little things and 1 or 2 big things. None of them will individual come up very often but collectively something on the list is going to come up fairly often. I don't often stand up from prone or get knocked off kilter or need to tumble through an opponents space but it's fairly common i need to do one of those.

The PF2 model is you pick one of those things and then you likely grow the ability up but not out. Unless you've built around that thing it comes up much less often.

So I take it you disapprove of Automatons, Skeletons, and the various undead archetypes since you don't have complete immunity to a lot of things?

The dungeon ancestry is probably enough of a peek for you to get the general vibe of the non-dragon ancestries. You would probably feel similarly with the rest.

I like what they've done with bringing gonzo ancestries (like mimic, dungeons, and intelligent weapons) into playability, and that's pretty much as far as ancestries on their own can go in PF2. Lots of others are quite happy with them as well, but if that's not enough for you that's fair.

I get the sense that to satisfy the Gonzo-ness you and others are looking for, SF2 should *really* lean into Ancestry based Class Archetypes.

The Dragon ancestry gives a Class Archetype, and two regular Archetypes. The Class Archetype trades out things that Ancestry alone could never touch in order to get real Dragony. Proficiency in weapons and even the ability to use held magic items get traded out for baseline, level 1 good natural weapons and scales. The martial and caster dragon archetypes let you build on your ancestry's baseline stuff as well, and you can go to level 20 without taking a non-dragon class feat if you want.

The dragon ancestry stands head and shoulders above the other Battlezoo ancestries for me because of that support.

For Stafinder 2e, they could even group ancestries with similar-themed-gonzo-ness into class archetypes that grant...

I think a lot of the Battle Zoo stuff are great examples of making powerful creatures playable or impossible-sounding ideas work like the dungeon ancestry, and could be used in Starfinder2e. But Stellifera just needs to be a less-than-tiny fish in a water bubble to be interesting. It's gonzo enough at level one to be a fun challenge to RP without ever gaining new or improved physical feats. A Trox on the other hand I can see as being too powerful up front and needing to break up its abilities over level and many of those could have logical reasons to work that way.

Personally, I think in a perfect world Starfinder would have skipped 2e and just gone to 3e when Pathfinder did. PF2e isn't really 2e it's the 1e of a completely new system, a lot has been learned since it was released. Making Both games compatible while moving both to 3e would have let the developers take the best of both systems and also use the lessons learned from PF2e. But the OGL mess happened and that's the world we have to deal with.

So I take it you disapprove of Automatons, Skeletons, and the various undead archetypes since you don't have complete immunity to a lot of things?

Some of those are a little immersion breaking yes.

Zoken44 wrote:

So I take it you disapprove of Automatons, Skeletons, and the various undead archetypes since you don't have complete immunity to a lot of things?

Some of those are a little immersion breaking yes.

Skeleton drinks a bottle of poison and only gets a +1 circumstance bonus to saving throw, despite spilling the contents all over the ground because they lack organs that could hold the poison.

SROs have come up a lot in these conversations. All droids in Star Wars could fall under SROs with the use of heritages. I would currently suspect an astromech would be able to survive in space, vulture droids certainly survive in space too. Once a society has been living in space for a long time, a lot more things are built to survive space. Do we have to buy a new com unit every time a ship loses pressure in a ship battle?

Androids with heritages and a versatile heritage could easily cover all biomechanical types of androids. Automations I see as magical/mechanical and SROs cover purely mechanical. SROs don't need the versatile heritage like androids do. These 3 categories of species/ancestry are all created by design which means there are unlimited variations possible just by using heritages, and ancestry feats. This brings up the question is there anything constructed they couldn't cover?

A lot of y'all are talking about androids, SROs, and other ancestries as if there hasn't already been seven years of Starfinder. In Starfinder, androids, SROs, and whatever else don't need to breathe nor do they suffer the normal environmental effects of being in a vacuum because that's what the currently published rules say. Like, literally, that's what it says.

So, the issue isn't "come up with real-world physics to demonstrate why androids should be susceptible to vacuum-borne badness, for verisimilitude" (also: looool you can't, this is Starfinder*).
The issue is "demonstrate why this established ability from 1e should change." What is the motivation, and does it outweigh the 'damage', if you'll permit, that is done by changing an outwards-lore-affecting ability of a bunch of ancestries? So far, I haven't seen a great answer to that.
And this doesn't even touch on the other can of worms changes like that bring up: will the setting acknowledge that a bunch of species just changed overnight, diegetically? If so, how? Did Oras wake up one morning, choose violence, and say "f+&+ all y'all non-organics" and smite them with the gift of lungs? I'm not sure that every little change needs a diegetic explanation, but big enough things do. I dunno where that line is, exactly, but "a bunch of ancestries that used to be fine in vacuums, no longer are" feels close to that line.

(All of this feels slightly academic, since Thursty has already said that this specific "lol androids breathe now" instance isn't necessarily something that they're seriously considering, and that it's maybe just a stalking horse, to gauge reactions. Which, honestly, from where I'm sitting...I don't know if I can take another *checks watch* 19 months of these. It feels like I need to be on here on pg 8 of these comments advocating for "stuff in the spirit of SF1," or else all the audience & devs will see are the PF2-only crowd, whose thoughts and opinions do not seem to align with the current Starfinder enjoyers'.)

(Actually, I'd like to ask: do I need to be out here on Page 8 saying androids shouldn't lose breathless? How much decision making is being based on the internet rage machine 'The Discourse'?)

* It's Starfinder, there's some plausible in-universe explanation to rationalise practically anything XD You say they need to shed heat in a vacuum; I say they use magical perfect superconductors to relay electricity (or even some other strange esoteric thing!) without generating heat. You say corrosive gasses eat internal bits, I say non-reactive polymer super-meta-material. You say the cosmic background radiation would corrupt their hardware and software, I say there is no CMB in Desna's Path because Sarenrae, Desna, and Ibra love us (and we love them <3.) And so on, and so on.

PF2e isn't really 2e it's the 1e of a completely new system, a lot has been learned since it was released.

I mean, it kind of is by popular convention. D&D 5E is seperate game from D&D 4E, and D&D 4E is a seperate game from 3E, from 2E, from 1E, etc, etc.

PF1E is PF1E, and PF2E is PF2E. PF2 Remastered is PF2.1

The Starfinder a lot of people seem to be asking for is SF1.1, not SF2.

Back when PF2 came out, people were asking why PF2 could not just be PF1.1 instead. (I shamefully admit I was one of those people, then I tried PF2 and was wondering why I resisted it so much)

The issue is "demonstrate why this established ability from 1e should change." What is the motivation, and does it outweigh the 'damage', if you'll permit, that is done by changing an outwards-lore-affecting ability of a bunch of ancestries? So far, I haven't seen a great answer to that

Frankly would probably just get silently phased out with people being asked to accept it. Same way a GM can just tell the players to "Bare with me and just accept the fact your team's fighter is now a swashbuckler" I mean, Pathfinder 2E is likely not gonna put much into answering the questions as to why chromatic and metallic dragons stopped meddling in the affairs of humans, or were even suddenly changed from one type of dragon to another, or why ninjas and slayers are no longer really a thing. Why do elves now need to sleep for 8 hours instead of meditate for 4 hours as the 3.5E Elves of Golarion book stated?

Sometimes retcons happen, and not every retcon has to be justified with an in-world explanation. Is it frustrating? Yeah. But is it worth writers spending time trying to explain away every retcon when they could just be writing quality new material? Probably not.

Moosher12, that's not an answer to the question I asked.
I asked, "why make the change?"
You say,

Sometimes retcons happen, and not every retcon has to be justified with an in-world explanation.

But I'm not asking what in-world motivation will be given for the change; I even said, "I'm not sure that every little change needs a diegetic explanation."

Moosher12, that's not an answer to the question I asked.

I asked, "why make the change?"
You say,

moosher12 wrote:

Sometimes retcons happen, and not every retcon has to be justified with an in-world explanation.

But I'm not asking what in-world motivation will be given for the change; I even said, "I'm not sure that every little change needs a diegetic explanation."

I'm asking: why is this retcon happening?

So, the issue isn't "come up with real-world physics to demonstrate why androids should be susceptible to vacuum-borne badness, for verisimilitude" (also: looool you can't, this is Starfinder*).

The issue is "demonstrate why this established ability from 1e should change." What is the motivation, and does it outweigh the 'damage', if you'll permit, that is done by changing an outwards-lore-affecting ability of a bunch of ancestries? So far, I haven't seen a great answer to that.
And this doesn't even touch on the other can of worms changes like that bring up: will the setting acknowledge that a bunch of species just changed overnight, diegetically? If so, how? Did Oras wake up one morning, choose violence, and say "f@%# all y'all non-organics" and smite them with the gift of lungs? I'm not sure that every little change needs a diegetic explanation, but big enough things do. I dunno where that line is, exactly, but "a bunch of ancestries that used to be fine in vacuums, no longer are" feels close to that line.

Do understand that even though you "are not asking for an in-world motivation," this reads a lot like asking for a motivation for the retcon, and to my answer to uppend, the answer is simply because, "they feel it works better within the scope of the SF2 system after playtesting."

You asked for a motivation, and how it outweighs damage. You used an example of inworld species suddenly changing overnight. And you still said that "big enough things do (need an explanation)."

I'll admit, I should have said "motivation" instead of "in-world motivation" but my point stands.

SF2 is not beholden to the state of play of SF1, the same way PF2 was not beholden to the state of play of PF1. It is a separate system, and the balance is ultimately being considered in how it interacts within the new system, over how accurate it is to the old. If people want to behold the balance to SF1, they are looking at SF1.1, not SF2.

Granted, they might be wrong in given decisions, and playtesting will reveal it. If it does not work in the end, I'd rather it be fixed. But that depends whether the frustrations are actually that unfun in the long run. PF2E Playtest's Magic Item rules for example, that was just bad. The attempt to make recovery rolls also deal extra dying score depending on your wounded condition? Also bad. Think we're all in agreement those are fair points to walk back.

An ifrit/naari not having complete fire immunity, but having fire resistance, an ysoki not being able to stuff their cheeks as a free action, or an android being a biological machine that needs to breathe, eat and sleep does not sound very glaring. (Also PF1E's android had these same requirements)

I'm asking: why is this retcon happening?

It appears that species are being designed with the PF2 paradigm in mind, that you have one ability by sub species type and the occasional ability added as you level. As opposed to sf or pf1 where species get 4 or 5 ish things where something small like breathless would fit.

I'm interested to see how much more psychic spell casting they can put into lashunta over 17 levels. Them, shirren, and barathu seem like they'll be the wildest of the core ancestries

I'm interested to see how much more psychic spell casting they can put into lashunta over 17 levels. Them, shirren, and barathu seem like they'll be the wildest of the core ancestries

I'm personally looking forward to seeing what they do with grays. With ancestry feats being able to pile up over play it might be possible to get a much more robust form of the phasing ability.

WWHsmackdown wrote:

I'm interested to see how much more psychic spell casting they can put into lashunta over 17 levels. Them, shirren, and barathu seem like they'll be the wildest of the core ancestries

I'm personally looking forward to seeing what they do with grays. With ancestry feats being able to pile up over play it might be possible to get a much more robust form of the phasing ability.

I could see that becoming a reaction with a flat whatever number miss chance eventually having a recharge of every 10 minutes instead of con mod. It could also turn into scaling resistance instead of a miss chance. I hope they get a feat for farm animal lore ......for all the cows, pigs, and farmers they abduct

All of this feels slightly academic, since Thursty has already said that this specific "lol androids breathe now" instance isn't necessarily something that they're seriously considering, and that it's maybe just a stalking horse, to gauge reactions.

This, pretty much. The last word on SF2 androids hasn't been spoken and given the strong (and very much understandable) pushback I would be surprised if we didn't see changes.

The short answer for changes of this kind: if it makes you immune to non-trivial aspects of the game, it'll almost certainly not make a return, at least not in the same form. That isn't a "fault" of going with the PF2 compatibility as quite a few of you seem to be convinced it is, that's a design decision that would likely have happened anyway. A near certainty from how the devs spoke about the problems during the stream.

That said, "non-trivial aspects" is the key here. And most effects of not needing to breathe or being resistant are combat very much trivial dangers. When literally every clothed character will have essentially the same benefits at level 1 at no additional cost, then there is absolutely zero mechanical reason to deny the Android that ability. And if that creates a "better" version compared to the PF2 version, then who cares. I'd like to invoke the "compatible =/= balanced" argument, because having a core ancestry like Androids feel right for Starfinder is frankly more important than that.

So Androids will hopefully end up not needing to breathe, but that won't make them immune to airborne toxins for example. Pretty much how I've seen skeletons and automatons being actually run, just that it is explicitly spelled out in the rules.

Kishmo wrote:

I'm asking: why is this retcon happening?

It appears that species are being designed with the PF2 paradigm in mind, that you have one ability by sub species type and the occasional ability added as you level. As opposed to sf or pf1 where species get 4 or 5 ish things where something small like breathless would fit.

There are a lot of reasons, but I don't think that is one of them. Breathless - in a slightly more limited form - would be essentially cosmetic, so there should be no problem with just throwing it on there. In general, most PF2 ancestries get the same 3-4 starting number of abilities that SFS legal species get. 5 ability ones technically exist (poppets and maybe more), but existing ancestries simply don't require as many, so there aren't many.

Androids are biomechanical so I don't mind if they breathe or not. Resistance but not immunity would likely be a good compromise, or ancestry feats to improve resistance or gain immunity. Call it an ancestry feat but for an Android, it feels more like a modification or upgrade. But SROs I see no reason why they would need to breathe.

cooling either processors or a reactor chamber

Or it could be an exhaust system for their energy system.

Androids are biomechanical so I don't mind if they breathe or not. Resistance but not immunity would likely be a good compromise, or ancestry feats to improve resistance or gain immunity. Call it an ancestry feat but for an Android, it feels more like a modification or upgrade. But SROs I see no reason why they would need to breathe.

Yeah, there are some limits to what people will accept, even if - like you demonstrated Zoken44 - you can find a plausible explanation for it. An entirely robotic ancestry keeling over from lack of oxygen is definitely one of those limits.

As for androids, I'd be of the same opinion if it wasn't established that SF androids all have more of the "mechanical" than the "bio" aspect. So them not having to breathe as the standard makes more sense from a lore perspective.

---

As a sidenote, I still can't get over how good the art of the more machine-like android on page 3 of FT3 looks. Unlike the "human with glowing circuts" design, this one - minus the plants - is absolutely my vibe.

Sanityfaerie wrote:

It's not about being educated in design. It's about how much you care about simulationism. Some of us care a lot about whether or not the stories in the background and the way the world works line up and are consistent. We want the world to have a consistent set of "laws of physics" that could be known by the characters and that one could derive truths from, make plans accordingly, and have them work as intended.

So I guess the question is whether it is more important that this fantasy world with different laws of physics matches ours or is consistent for all players.

Sanityfaerie wrote:

The idea that an SRO that travels out of an airlock without a suit would suffocate and die is really unsatisfying for those of us who Really Care about such things. Like... it's a robot. We have robots doing stuff out in outer space all the time. The idea that they'd somehow die to a gaseous neurotoxin is even worse.

Yes, we have robots that work in a vacuum all the time... because they were specially designed to work in a vacuum. Most technology, including most robots on earth, would not work in a vacuum and those poisonous chemicals could be quite corrosive, or conductive, or otherwise bad to be in close proximity to heat sinks and other technology... y'know. almost like it was toxic to them.

Sanityfaerie wrote:

...but that's not everyone. A lot of folks don't care about those things so much. Some folks care some, but have had bad enough experiences with things that the current system prevents that they're willing to just accept it and move on if it means that they never have to deal with whatever their personal Horrible Thing is.

No, I just understand that "Simulating the real world' is not the only, or primary, or even among the highest concerns of our devs. Their higher concerns revolve around building a balanced system for all of us to have fun in.

And, as they have said multiple times, if you want to home rule it your way...

Could you please not try to spin our position to make it look bad while pretending that you're trying to understand? Please? I'm not out here dumping on you for caring about what you care about, and honestly, it's kind of rude.

No. It's not about having it fit the real world. It's about having it show some internal consistency, and having the world behind it make sense. Sure, the idea that some SROs are not vacuum-proofed is reasonable. The fact that they can't be vacuum-proofed with a bit of effort (like, say, a level 1 feat) isn't really. The fact that they'll die to a neurotoxin makes no sense at all. The fact that SROs in general had been happily handling the vacuum with no problems and then suddenly aren't is a tch odd, and it kind of undermines the "of course robots have problems in a vacuum" argument. If non-PC SROs still have no problems in a vacuum but somehow becoming a player character means that you need oxygen that gets pretty darned weird.

Now if there's an explanation of how the world is supposed to work under the hood that makes sense of that, then it would be Real Nice. Battlezoo's Dragon ancestry actually gave us one of those, and it was a little janky, but that kind of thing can help a lot. Of course, if it's "one rule for PCs, another rule for everyone else" then it should be an explanation that has "PC" as a thing that actually exists in the universe and explains how they rocket up from being weak and fragile to being the most powerful people in the area over the course of (in some cases) weeks. They might not want to crack the seal on that one.

So no. The fact that vague handwaving can sort of justify some of this if you don't look too hard is not sufficient.

...and yes. I'm keenly aware that simulationism isn't particularly high among the goals of the PF2 devs. That has been made obvious. Indeed, I already said as much myself, further up the thread. They care about balance first, then inclusivity, then simulationism gets whatever scraps might be left over after the others have eaten their fill.

I don't even expect that the SF2 devs will necessarily be all that different. I'm mostly here trying to make sure that the position in favor of simulationism gets coherently presented and considered at all, in the hopes that it can wind up as a somewhat less distant third.

As for "you can always houserule it"... no. No I can't. Not unless I'm running my own non-SFS game I can't. Also, that answer is pretty seriously disrespectful.

I think the PF2 model of a species having one cool defining thing is the roadblock here.

If most species have a bunch of little things, you can balance that against SRO's being immune to the universe as one big thing, with maybe a drawback that they can't get moral bonuses and no 3rd level species feat or something. You have multiple points you can move around on, like a spider.

But with the model being one big thing to start with that balance becomes much harder, like standing on one leg. you're in the one position where it works or you're not, you can't be a little weaker here and a little stronger there.

cooling either processors or a reactor chamber

Or it could be an exhaust system for their energy system.

Although necessary if there is a heat source in an android or SOR, any atmosphere could be used for heat exchange. That could get dangerous if the atmosphere is explosive, acidic, or corrosive. A liquid cooling system might be better and more efficient and could explain why they might need to drink liquids. I wouldn't drink with an Android or SRO if they are filling up on radiator fluids. This could be a reason why Androids and SROs might bleed or leak when damaged too. I suppose eating could be a method of heat exchange too, in which case Androids and SROs would prefer cold foods, that could even be a way of cooking food.

If you're going for realism the vacuum of space causes lots of cooling issues for androids and SROs but also for starships which should all have some form of hear exchange.

Radiators In Realistic Sci-Fi .

you know what all this argument regarding "simulationism" reminds me of? All the people who don't want to allow fire arms in their home games because they're "Not historically accurate".

When firearms are older than plate armor, and studded-leather armor isn't a real thing.

My point being that There is no real reason why SRO's need to remain immune to space. No more reason than there was to make them immune before. It was a choice, one the devs have pointed out made a clear unbalanced game state, decreasing fun, so they are taking steps to fix it here.

Oh, you can't home brew it away in your own home game? Why? Let me guess, like me you've only ever played star finder with SFS. I sympathize

And I'm sorry that game balance and inclusivity (which contribute the most to fun) being higher priorities than simulation-ism offends your sensibilities.

Sorry I "Spun" your point last time by quoting you directly.

Oh, you can't home brew it away in your own home game? Why? Let me guess, like me you've only ever played star finder with SFS. I sympathize

No you don't. Don't tell that lie. Your lack of sympathy drips off of everything you say.

I gotta ask, though... what are you fighting against? You like the way PF2 works as-is. Fine. I'm out here trying to work out ways where we can get some more/better simulationism in without damaging the things that the PF2 system was built to provide. Why do you hate that? I mean, the way that you basically attack it from every angle you can find suggests that you hate it (or fear it) pretty badly. So... how do the things I'm saying threaten you? I've been trying to tell my story. Please, share yours.

I think we're hitting two design constraints for ancestries in 2e: