Starfinder Playtest Errata: Wave 3

FAQ section missing :') Squee!

The thing that immediately jumps out to me is Solarian losing armor spec. Yes, light armor specialization was a bit of an issue on account of that not existing, and also despite getting a class feat for heavy armor proficiency they couldn't get heavy armor spec, but I really really don't think the Solarian's defense needed a nerf. This class did not need a nerf. Also the blog post is out but as of this comment the actual errata in the FAQ isn't, I'd love to check the detailed changes.

FAQ section missing :')

It can time for the site to cache. I've been tempted to set the FAQ to a few minutes earlier, but we don't want it to drop before the blog and sometimes it updates instantly.

The Manifold Evolution nerf seems a bit harsh too actually. I don't think it's a very fun trade-off to get worse feats for doubling down on the ancestry feat angle instead of just taking a single 17th level feat from something you've already chosen for Convergent Evolution. I get why allowing two separate 17th level feats from that is a problem but I don't like this solution.

Finally, the Radiation spell is finally useful.

I do think they should increase the baseline Radiation DC, tho. Like this, it's only indirectly useful as spell, because everything else uses the usual abysmal DC

Even with the changes to Restorative Recollection it still cannot actually be used to decrease your Stunned value since even if theoretically you got Stunned on your turn, the effects of the Stunned condition prevent you from acting.

It appears that Mind Skewer appears incorrect. It seems like it should be a basic Will save, but the spell is written like it's an attack roll spell (i.e. using terms like "Critical Hit"). Haven't seen that picked up, so am I misunderstanding the language of the spell?

Very exciting!

Does the mystic's vitality pool recover outside of combat (absent refocus?)

Can the mystic transfer vitality out side ov combat?

If the pool recovers outside of combat that is 400 hp every 10 minutes, so of course it refills when you refocus.

Oh hey, Paizo nerfed Hair Trigger! Who else is happy about that?
...I'm being sincere, just to clarify. Hair Trigger was broken. It NEEDED to be nerfed.

I LOVE a lot of these, but sniper still struggles because of the single shot rifles for very, very little upside in comparison to others. Hair trigger nerf is amazing though, it actually makes a lot of sense too! If only I could actually use it with Sniper reliably, it would be like keeping an enemy in my sight...

The Double Draw to Twin Draw change is a great highlight of one of SF2E's strengths. Double Draw was an awkwardly worded feat that was a straight mechanical upgrade, but mostly seemed like an unexciting feat needed to do something mundane. Twin Draw is simpler and easier to read, but manages to fulfill a clear fantasy while offering very enticing and useful action compression. I actually WANT to take this feat now!

I feel as if the best parts of SF2E are a lot less like Double Draw, and a lot more like Twin Draw. There feels like an active effort to make the feats feel more simple, powerful, and like they're actively fulfilling a class fantasy- and I hope that continues as the playtest continues!

Does the mystic's vitality pool recover outside of combat (absent refocus?)

Can the mystic transfer vitality out side ov combat?

If the pool recovers outside of combat that is 400 hp every 10 minutes, so of course it refills when you refocus.

I agree it should be more prominent but I'll highlight it here.

Life or death situations help strengthen your bonds with your allies. At the start of each turn in combat, when you regain actions, your vitality network regains 4 Hit Points

Besides that, there's nothing that stops you from using Transfer Vitality out of combat but that shouldn't be too much more busted than something like Lay on Hands. Not any more than Vitality Network already is, I mean.

Solarian DC scaling faster is nice but now I'm just wondering why not peg it to the same rate as caster DC scaling?

Solarian class abilities are a big part of their fantasy and it feels kind of weird for them to have a degraded DC at 7/8 and 15/16 and 19/20. Does anything happen at those six specific levels?

... At this point I'm also curious if we're going to ever start getting more major errata. I've been a little surprised at how incremental the erratas have been, these changes wouldn't look out of place as just a regular update to an already published book. I'm wondering when or if we might see any more experimental or dramatic changes.

Does the Operative cape is the one to use as a mat during the Starship combat?

Does the Operative cape is the one to use as a mat during the Starship combat?

same pattern yes but hexagonal tiles for future tech and invisibility is a theme in science fiction for some reason.

Solarian DC scaling faster is nice but now I'm just wondering why not peg it to the same rate as caster DC scaling?

Solarian class abilities are a big part of their fantasy and it feels kind of weird for them to have a degraded DC at 7/8 and 15/16 and 19/20. Does anything happen at those six specific levels?

... At this point I'm also curious if we're going to ever start getting more major errata. I've been a little surprised at how incremental the erratas have been, these changes wouldn't look out of place as just a regular update to an already published book. I'm wondering when or if we might see any more experimental or dramatic changes.

You know I was gonna defend this decision but I looked up Kineticist Class DC scaling and nope, they're tied with casters, dunno why Solarian isn't. I guess Solarian is a bit more martial-y? I feel like it would be a good idea to let you choose between a martial path and a "kineticist" path for your proficiencies though, a la Warpriest.

As for bigger errata the team has been a tiny bit of a broken record about wanting consistent feedback from this specific playtest. Really big shakeups would certainly compromise that. We're not getting a fixed Solarian this year, and I'm actually fine with that as long as it helps make sure Solarian (and the rest of the system) will end up more polished on release.

The thing that has me concerned is the final bullet points on what they've absorbed from the feedback though. Grenades are fine in my opinion but missiles definitely need work, that much is true. But also what about the lackluster damage output of ranged weapons compared to what is assumed by PF creature building, or area weapons being jank, or advanced melee weapons being nicher than niche, are those not being considered for a fix? Envoy getting better mid-combat Size Up support is very important, even Investigator gets that, that's a great thing to look into. But what about leadership styles feeling majorly underbaked and their skills support not meshing with Envoy's hard Deception/Diplomacy/Intimidation ternary support, is that not being looked at? Solar Shot and Disharmony being worked into something more usable is extremely big, and making the solar crystals interact with Solar Shot will hopefully do a lot to make it feel more congruent with Solarian's other options. But what about Solar Shield/Nimbus being bad, what about actual gap closers missing from the core chassis, what about every attunement benefit for every attuned option feeling undertuned, is all of that not being looked at?

That's on the areas of the game they even commented on, Soldier's KAS, 4 slot casters being too much, Piloting trained actions feeling restrictive, I get that it's a lot to fit into one tiny addendum on a fun blog post that's not even about this topic but they could at least acknowledge that the points they laid out are far from comprehensive. The team is clearly looking at some big and important problem areas to work on, and I'm not saying they're definitely oblivious to or ignoring all of this, but they haven't shown that they aren't either. And the last thing I want is for the next playtest to not have substantive improvements on half the issues of this one.

Also they still forgot to unnerf backpacks containers, I'm starting to think it's intentional, though why that would be I couldn't tell you.

I LOVE a lot of these, but sniper still struggles because of the single shot rifles for very, very little upside in comparison to others. Hair trigger nerf is amazing though, it actually makes a lot of sense too! If only I could actually use it with Sniper reliably, it would be like keeping an enemy in my sight...

After some thought, my biggest issue actually comes out to be: instead of adding stuff for the subclass to supplement/build upon Sniper weapons, it feels like they built all the weapons around the Sniper subclass. So it's really inaccessible for anyone else to use even at a rudimentary level.

For instance, one of my character ideas is to be a sniping Mechanic. I don't want to be as effective as a Sniper, but I'd like to have a reason not to just use a laser rifle. The fatal 1d10 is not worth the tradeoff of unwieldy and mag 1 reload 1 for anyone but a Sniper, *maybe*.

An entire weapon group shouldn't be built around a single subclass. The subclass should build upon existing options, like every other subclass does.

The Primary Target change is interesting: the "uses the same multiple attack penalty as your Area Fire or Auto-Fire action" bit was dropped, which helps make less pressing the question of what a saving throw ability with the Attack trait is supposed to mean. That could still use some clarification, though, since in Pathfinder the Attack trait is, without exception, used with abilities that require a check from the attacker. Is the save DC of Area Fire impacted by MAP, or does it only cause the turn's MAP to increase?

Primary Target could also stand to be given more structure, either by making it a free action with a trigger of "You use an Area Fire or Auto-Fire action" or by explicitly saying you can do it as part of the other attack (i.e., a subordinate action). Currently it is in a nebulous state of a thing you can do, somehow, that may or may not cost another action of some type.

Oh hey, Paizo nerfed Hair Trigger! Who else is happy about that?

...I'm being sincere, just to clarify. Hair Trigger was broken. It NEEDED to be nerfed.

I'm happy about it, for sure. It looks like a bit less of an auto-pick feat now, though it is still very potent and tempting for the majority of operatives. My hope is that this change makes it clunky enough that using it as a reaction, when balancing with your ammo count and needing to reload and move, makes it less of an I Win button and more tactical.

yay skittermanders, etc. "inactive" arms are no longer inexplicably paralyzed. At least partially

Even with the changes to Restorative Recollection it still cannot actually be used to decrease your Stunned value since even if theoretically you got Stunned on your turn, the effects of the Stunned condition prevent you from acting.

At least it's usable as a free action RK now.

Oh hey, Paizo nerfed Hair Trigger! Who else is happy about that?

...I'm being sincere, just to clarify. Hair Trigger was broken. It NEEDED to be nerfed.

Oh yeah, pretty happy with the direction, though I am not sure of the feat could not use another nerf as well.

I am pretty excited about the "not quite ready to act on yet" things listed, particularly the ones related to the Solarian, right how the disharmony options are not really all that attractive compared to others.

So, some of my fellow Solarians are upset to learn Solarians can't have Armor Specialization.

But show of hands, who here is glad to hear that Paizo is looking into fixing Solar Shot? Specifically, by giving it range increments and solarian weapon crystal support?!

Some notes on my side:

Some notes on my side:

Putting aside some very out-of-line comments, I do think it's fair to say that there may be some amount of a knowledge and culture gap between the Starfinder team and 2e, the system. It's not just about the team repeatedly missing how the stunned condition prevents Restorative Recollection from reducing stunned, it's also stuff like the Soldier piling on item bonuses to save DCs and degree of success flips to essentially bypass the dice and force certain outcomes (the Envoy has features that do this too), which I really don't think fits 2e all that well. I don't think it's a case of pointing fingers or insulting anyone's intelligence, as the Starfriends make amazing stuff, but I do think the team could benefit from having staff members at Paizo who've lived and breathed 2e for years look over their stuff and do a knowledge transfer, in order to reduce the silo effect.

Speaking of the Soldier, the new Primary Target bumping down the degree of success on the AoE save in addition to dealing its own damage (and completely bypassing MAP) looks like it will exacerbate the already excessive single-target damage output of an automatic weapon Soldier. I don't think this will necessarily make the Soldier more fun to play, especially as I don't think spending three actions making attacks each turn is terribly interesting, but it does look like it will make Bombard much less powerful and instead make Action Hero the best pick by default.

The Soldier is still missing greater weapon specialization as a martial class. It is not clear whether or not this is intentional.

Hair Trigger being restricted to the previous target of one's aim I don't think is actually a huge nerf: unless the enemy's dead or in melee range, they're almost certainly going to be making a ranged attack, casting a spell, or moving during their turn, and so will keep triggering that reaction. It is still going to provide a lot of MAP-free extra attacks in-between turns, far more so than Reactive Strike.

If...

Hi! Thanks for keeping your commentary respectful. Please don't assume that we aren't working closely with the PF2 Rules and Lore team; while this is our project, they have provided us with some invaluable feedback on several occasions and we have regular meetings with them to discuss design decisions and all manner of things. We are intentionally pushing the envelope with the playtest in some cases to see how far we can go. In the end, SF2 and PF2 will be different but compatible games.

Thanks again for your feedback! :)

That could still use some clarification, though, since in Pathfinder the Attack trait is, without exception, used with abilities that require a check from the attacker.

Ooh, ooh, I know an exception!

Tarpeius wrote:

That could still use some clarification, though, since in Pathfinder the Attack trait is, without exception, used with abilities that require a check from the attacker.

Ooh, ooh, I know an exception!

ಠ_ಠ

Hi! Thanks for keeping your commentary respectful. Please don't assume that we aren't working closely with the PF2 Rules and Lore team; while this is our project, they have provided us with some invaluable feedback on several occasions and we have regular meetings with them to discuss design decisions and all manner of things. We are intentionally pushing the envelope with the playtest in some cases to see how far we can go. In the end, SF2 and PF2 will be different but compatible games.

Is "pushing the envelope" why Restorative Recollection still doesn't work as written for the stunned condition, despite having its entire text replaced? Is it why the playtest released with bog-standard features missing from several classes that still don't seem to have been fully added back after several months and multiple waves of errata? Is it why ranged combat, despite being at the center of Starfinder, has received no additional general rules or mechanics to make it dynamic on a level comparable to melee combat in Pathfinder?

Forgive me for pushing back like this, particularly as you've had to deal with some genuine abuse on this thread, but I do think the criticism still stands. To be very clear, I don't think it's a bad thing for Starfinder to innovate with 2e's gameplay and do some things that wouldn't be done in Pathfinder: that is in fact what I'm here for. What I and others have been criticizing, however, are elements of the playtest and errata that seem less the product of intentional departure from Pathfinder's design philosophy, and more just genuine mistakes, oversights, and misunderstandings of certain rule elements that register as obvious to people who are familiar with 2e. It's great that you have a process in place to communicate with the Pathfinder team (though it sounds like you don't have anyone from there embedded in the Starfriends for this project), but when it takes this long for a playtest errata to rewrite the text for a rules element and the result still doesn't work as written, i.e. Restorative Recollection, I do think there is still room for this process to improve.

I don't think giving up 2 traits for a d10 Solar Weapon is a good trade considering Archaic Pathfinder 2E two-handed weapons generally dealt d12 damage with 1 trait or d10 with both reach and an additional trait, take the Greataxe it is d12 with sweep or the Greatsword it deals d12 and has versatile P. I don't seem the reason to give the Solarian a weaker 2 handed weapon. With how the Solarian is even with Errata Wave 3, Barbarian or any basic Pathfinder 2E martial that can wield a 2 handed weapon effectively will outshine the Solarian is turns of attacking.

The Restorative Recollection hit isn't fair, few on the PF2 side understands how Stunned functions under their rules, either. They did it again in War of Immortals, publishing a "stunned 1 for 1 minute" result.

I had a question about the plasma caster. It is described as a compact pistol, but it has bulk 2 and requires 2 hands to wield, and is not categorized as a pistol.

Is one of these two entries incorrect in some way? Is there a planned errata for this weapon?

I had a question about the plasma caster. It is described as a compact pistol, but it has bulk 2 and requires 2 hands to wield, and is not categorized as a pistol.

Is one of these two entries incorrect in some way? Is there a planned errata for this weapon?

To expand on this, the Starfall pistol is also described as originally being a kit-bashed plasma caster, and it is a 1 handed bulk 1 pistol.

This round of Errata created an error in the pregens.

The Witchwarper Pregen has Natural Ambition as an ancestry feat. The feat it shows selected is Quantum Pulse.
Quantum Pulse is now a class feature and so now the Witchwarper needs a new Feat.
What feat is suggested as a replacement?

Hello, petit message concernant Dae, le Solarien.

Il y a un soucis dans sa construction. Le Solar Weapon n'a jamais été pris en compte dedans et je me demande si il y a pas une erreur.

Au niveau 1, il n 'y aucun choix concernant celle-ci mais le Solar Shot est bien dedans.

Au niveau 5, idem ça n'est pas tenue en compte alors que cela fait partie du kit de classe.

J'espère qu'un des développeurs verra le message

Just to translate the previous post (don't shoot the messenger)

There is an issue in the solarian Pregen where the solar weapon is not into it
1st level : no information but Solar shot is decibed
the same with the level 5
----
I haven't checked the pregen sheet, but I know this is actually the case in foundry. I will contact the author to learn more about that

How does this change to Primary Target interact with last round's change to Whirling Swipe?

I haven't checked the pregen sheet, but I know this is actually the case in foundry. I will contact the author to learn more about that

Oh - I can answer this one, 'cause I too stumbled through figuring it out on Foundry - you need to find the Effect: Solar Weapon effect, and drag it onto your character token in Foundry. This will open up a window to choose your weapon's effects, which will then populate a solar weapon your Actions tab.

It's not a particularly intuitive way to handle this, and there's literally no guidance on this process anywhere that I found, so. I hope this is somehow improved in a future Foundry release.

Forgot to ask corresponding specialization of items for speciality crafting

I think I'm missing something with the second batch of errata. Their reference to the Sharp Teeth ancestry trait supposedly on page 44? I'm not seeing it at all. Is it an addition? Or do I have an early run hardcopy or something?

I think I'm missing something with the second batch of errata. Their reference to the Sharp Teeth ancestry trait supposedly on page 44? I'm not seeing it at all. Is it an addition? Or do I have an early run hardcopy or something?

Plenty have pointed this out (including myself), it's definitely supposed to be an addition to make it on par with Player Core 2's Ratfolk. Errata that needs errata, how novel

Is the soldier supposed to be missing greater weapon specialization? They get the basic version at the normal time, so it's rather odd its missing.

I've been running a Healer Mystic, and had a chance to compare Infusion to Heal recently.

Infusion: restores 1d6(+6) HP, heightens 1d6(+6), two-action range 30', two-action only affects members of my network

Heal: restores 1d8(+8) HP, heightens 1d8(+8), two-action range 30'. In PF2, a cleric feat will let you ignore enemies when you cast it.

To me, Infusion seems to be the equivalent of Font, and feels ... unnecessarily weakened. If it were 8s instead of 6s, I'd be happy. If the two-action range was 'in network range', I'd be happy. If it were both, I'd be ecstatic.

I'm not certain how Focus vs. Font limit plays out. Focus I'm limited to three/battle if I use no other focus spells. Font is limited to 4/5/6 per day (based on character level). Outside of mega-dungeon or other situations where you're time-limited, I think Font wins? I.e., if you're only having one combat/day, Font is better than Focus. If you're having multiple combats/day, then Focus is probably better?