_Alexander's page

There is some flavor text that can be interpreted either way. My impression is that they just didn't think about this when they wrote the class. Rules as Written, I don't see any reason why you couldn't do it. If you can't use two weapon ikons on one weapon, then logically you would also be limited to using one body ikon, and only one body ikon, which I don't think is intended.

I disagree with those who say that you shouldn't be allowed to do it because it's too complicated to explain to new players. First, as I said above, the same argument would then apply to body ikons, and they do specify certain body ikons as being housed in different aspects of the same body. (For example, Gaze Sharp as Steel and Skin Hard as Horn). Second, this class is supposed to be RARE, if someone has that much difficulty understanding the class, maybe they shouldn't be playing a rare class.

In my own games I would treat the different ikons as being different aspects of the same item.

For example, in a weapon, one ikon may be centered in the hilt, and one ikon may be in the blade. Only one aspect/ikon can be active at any one time, and any ikon feats can only be applied to that one aspect/ikon. Lore wise, perhaps you found two war shards and crafted a weapon with them, using one to make the hilt and the other to make the blade. These shards provide different bonuses depending on which is being activated.

This seems like an easily understood explanation for why one item can house two ikons, but an ikon feat only works when its singular ikon/aspect is activated.

I don't really understand why they errata'd smite the way they did. It is essentially useless now and it really didn't have to be. Spending an action to gain the extra spirit damage would not have been OP. I would have made it spirit damage with the holy/unholy trait, it still wouldn't have been OP in my opinion, and it would have kept the flavor of smite evil/good.

I agree with others that sense evil should end up like the bard soulsight, sense the presence of holy and unholy. I'm not sure it deserves to be a level 8 feat, seems a little niche, unless you're in a campaign that has a lot of holy or unholy creatures there are better level 8 feats.

A number of the remaining PF1 classes are hybrids, I doubt we will see them because they don't seem to be doing hybrid classes. Hybrid is being taken care of by the archetype class feat feature.

I would love to see a full martial shifter. I could see something along the lines of one action to shift a body part, shift fully with two actions. Class feats would give you access to different forms or different benefits depending on your form, maybe also some fighter feats like attack of opportunity. I don't think they will give it to us since we have shift focused druid and animal barbarian. Although these options don't full scratch that itch, at least for me, and it sounds like for many others as well. The developers may also be a little gun shy, the pf1 shifter was not a success story.

Well I love PF2e and the three action economy, but I hope we don't lose the feel and uniqueness of Starfinder in the rush to make it compatible.

For one thing currently Starfinder has more limited magic, only up to 5th level spells. For another right now we use stamina and RP points in Starfinder. I understand that there are Pathfinder variant rules for this, but Starfinder is built around it, including class abilities relying on use of RP. I can already see how they are trying to change Soldier so it doesn't overlap with Fighter, and I'm not sure I like it. Fighter isn't designed to use technological weapons, and now Soldier is only designed to use AOE weapons.

There is a lot to gain here, but also a lot that could be lost.

Very cool