Brew Bird's page

Due to a number of intersecting circumstances, I would like to cancel my Rulebook Subscription.

I'd also like to give my sincere appreciation to Paizo's dedicated customer service team, at what is certainly a difficult time. You folks keep things running, and deserve all the love!

My playgroup's been a bit busy this month, but we managed to get in a two-session playtest campaign. We hope to get in one more playtest session with different characters before things close, but here's a quick writeup of our thoughts so far:

I was GMing for a party of 3: a Sniper Gunslinger using an Arquebus, an Armor Innovation Inventor going for a melee build with a Dwarven War Axe, and a Swashbuckler just to round things out. All were level 7, with standard gear for their level, based on the "Character Wealth by Level" table.

The campaign only had 3 combat encounters. The first was a werebear and 3 werewolves, the second was by 2 Vrykolakas spawn, and the final encounter was a Vrykolakas Master. The first two encounters were one after the other in the same location, with only 10 minutes between them. The final encounter was effectively an ambush, but the party was freshly rested going into it.

The Gunslinger
It wasn't clear exactly how the tripod was supposed to work, so for the purpose of the playtest, I ruled that the tripod was something you set up in a square, and could then rest your weapon on it without any action cost so long as you stayed in that square. The gunslinger set his tripod up in the first encounter, but ultimately felt like spending the actions to move it wasn't worth it. He didn't really get a chance to deploy it in the final encounter.

Though the gunslinger player really dug the flavor of the class, he seemed frustrated with the clunkiness of the Arquebus. One shot per turn with PF2's fairly bounded accuracy made for enough wasted turns to be annoying (in his case exacerbated by bad rolls). Coupled with the relatively low damage on non-critical hits, and he didn't feel he contributed much in combat. Big critical hits were cool the few times they happened, and definitely felt right for a sniper, but I don't think he liked the price he had to pay for them. Maybe a little too much risk for not quite enough reward.

The fact that you still took a penalty shooting from prone with a firearm was also pointed out as an oddity, especially for a Sniper.

The Inventor
The Inventor player seemed to have better time. He was able to get off a Megaton strike in the first encounter, and found an opportune time to use Explosion in the second. He was hesitant to use an Unstable action twice in an encounter due to the high DC, but that's already been addressed. Overall, his Inventor played as well as any martial, but with enough tricks to feel unique.

One complaint I did get at the end of the campaign, however, was that the Inventor player felt the armor innovation was not particularly defensively impactful. He was never hit by energy damage, so the innovation amounted to little more than a free breastplate. He would have liked to see some first level modification options that were less situational.

Next Time
We're going to try for one more session before February 5th, though this time I'll be playing a PC (I've decided on a Pistolero Gunslinger). I'm looking forward to seeing how it stacks up against the sniper, and hopefully I'll have better luck with the dice than my friend did.

This came up in a game last night. If a gunslinger uses "Hit the Dirt" against a ranged attack, and their Leap puts them in the attack's next range increment, what happens? Does the enemy attack now take an increased range penalty? Or is the enemy attack roll still based on their initial space?

Upon read-through, and with a bit of mock combat, some notable issues with two abilities of the Redirection Faculty have become apparent.

Seeking Strike
Actually setting up Seeking Strike is a lot harder than it would appear at first glance. Because your cloud is relatively small, it's easy for an enemy to simply walk away from it, preventing Seeking Strike from being used.

Reconfiguring your cloud is possible, but that eats up the move action that Seeking Strike requires. What's more, in many cases, you are forced to move with your cloud so as not to cause it to end prematurely, meaning your whole turn is spent setting up your next turn's Seeking Strike, and you have to hope your enemy doesn't just move again.

It seems that Seeking Strike as written is only particularly useful when engaged in melee with an enemy, but in Starfinder, that's not a particularly common occurrence.

Bend Bullet
Bend Bullet is a cool ability, and I can think of lots of applications for it, but it's held back by Seeking Strike's limitations. It turns on when you use Seeking Strike, but does not seem to have any clause requiring you to actually target your nanites' focus. This means it's technically usable to snipe more distant enemies behind cover, but, because it still require some target to select for your nanites' focus, you run into the same limitations above.

This is further exacerbated by the fact that Bend Bullet only applies to weapons formed with your Gear Array. Because Seeking Strike also requires your Cloud Array, you're obligated to use your manifold arrays in order to use Bend Bullet. It's unclear if the effective Nanocyte level reduction has any impact on your Gear Array, but if it does, one would need to make their Gear Array their primary array to keep pace in damage. In such a case their Cloud Array would be even smaller, making it yet harder to use Seeking Shot.

A Final Observation
Overall, there seems to be a pattern in some (but by no means all) Nanocyte mechanics of significant restrictions and complexity for little payoff. I think the class would benefit greatly from a pass-over with the explicit goal of streamlining mechanics and bringing them into closer alignment with existing Starfinder paradigms. Conceptually, the Nanocyte is really interesting, but I think it's currently held back by mechanics that, while flavorful, ultimately make out to be solutions in search of problems.

I also hope none of this comes across as mean-spirited. That's not my intention at all! I really appreciate that Paizo continues to hold these public playtests, and my criticisms of the Nanocyte are by no means intended to be criticisms of the Starfinder team.

The Facial Reconfiguration knack seems really odd when compared to other options that affect Disguise checks. The fact that it can only reduce a specific DC adjustment seems like a needlessly clunky mechanic when most other disguise augmenting items and mechanics simply negate multiple DC adjustments completely. Further, while the quick disguise is nice, the ability overall seems to offer little else over a Holoskin, a very cheap item at level 6.

The 10th level knack Biometric Theft is likewise matched by a lower level item. The Doppleganger Morphic Skin, which has nearly the same mechanics, is a level 6 item, incredibly cheap with 10th level credits.

It would seem to me that these knacks ought to be dropped down in level. As is they don't seem worth taking when lower level gear provides roughly equivalent utility.

The text of Gear Array states that you begin play knowing 2 major forms, and that you learn a new one at 3rd level, and every 4 levels thereafter.

This conflicts with the number of known major forms listed in Table 1-1, which shows one more new form learned at 5th, and then a new form every 4 levels.

Which should we follow for the playtest? The rules, or the table?

This was brought up a few times during the initial release of the monster creation rules, but unfortunately not in time to get addressed in the final copy of the GMG.

What guidelines should you follow for setting the DC of a creature's ability that isn't a spell? The only guideline given in the Gamemastery Guide is for auras, but things like breath weapons or disease are never given any parameters for setting DCs (despite stating that such abilities should allow for saving throws).

I would like to cancel my Starfinder subscription for the time being. I sent an email request last week, but having not yet heard back, I figured it might be prudent to post the request here as well. Apologies if I’ve caused any unnecessary confusion.

Disappointed to see that the Vanguard's 'Flatten Bullets' ability made it through the playtest without its DC being adjusted. 10+1.5 x CR is the formula for skill checks, but scales too fast to be a fair save DC. The only other ability I can find that calls for a save defined by the ability itself is the Augmented's "Sustained by Science", which uses 10+CR. Is that what the Vanguard's abilities should be?

I was reading over the Investigator to help out a friend the other day, and we noticed something about the Combat Clue feat. Because it just changes how you can use the Clue In reaction, it seems to still be limited by Clue In's once/10 minute frequency.

A combat buff as a reaction is nice, but one that you can use at most once per combat doesn't seem worth a class feat. Was it really intended that the normal frequency limitation applies? You already have to successfully study your suspect in order to use Combat Clue, and against many enemies a successful study is not a guarantee, and the bonus never seems to be able to progress above a +1. To have a once/combat restriction on top of all the other limits makes the feat seem pretty inconsequential.

Starting a thread to record thoughts and notes from my group's playtesting experience. We've only done a bit of mock combat so far, but assuming schedules allow, we hope to do a lot more.

This "session" involved a 3 level 5 characters. A Goblin Swashbuckler, a Halfling Witch, and a fairly generic Human Fighter to round things out.

Swashbuckler
The Swashbuckler performed well in combat. The player liked the Panache mechanic, and how it encouraged some more interesting uses of his actions than just striding and striking.

We did run into the question of whether Parry weapons should provoke attacks of opportunity, something that should really be cleared up, especially now that we're getting a class who really wants to fight with Rapier & Dagger. If Parrying with a weapon is supposed to provoke, the Swashbuckler probably deserves some ability which allows it not to.

Witch
The Witch player wasn't super thrilled with the once/24 hours limitation on most hexes. He felt that, since hexes were already consuming focus, a second limitation on their use was overly restrictive. He did like the feel of the Occult list with the Witch though. "Very Witchy".

The player also praised the Patron/Lessons system. He felt it was a lot more mechanically interesting than PF1's patrons and their lists of bonus spells, and thought it would allow for some much needed freedom in mechanically representing one's patron.

The Greater Revelation feat is available at level 10, but the focus spells it can grant are listed as level 6. Should they be level 5? Or is the higher level by design?

Ranged Solarian Options! Huzzah!

Post-errata, there seems to be a general consensus that the Alchemist is still in need of attention. Paizo has clarified that there are still problems they're aware of that they haven't yet decided how to address, so in the mean time let's see if we can try to agree on exactly what the Alchemist's problems are.

This isn't necessarily meant to be a thread for proposing changes, but more for pointing out and discussing specific ways people feel the class falls short. Please be polite to both your fellow posters and the developers. We all have the same goal here, and that's making PF2 the best game it can be. Also, where possible, discuss your actual play experiences with the class.

I've been playing an Alchemist in a low-level PF2 game for a few months now, and I've definitely run into some obstacles.

Survivability
I'm playing an Elven Mutagenist, I picked the race with the hopes I could balance out the Mutagenist's low AC through high Dex and the Shield cantrip. With a bit of play, I'm beginning to think focusing on HP over AC may have been the better choice (and if anyone has had experience going that route I'd be eager to hear about it). Either way, survivability in melee (at least when using Bestial Mutagen) feels well below where it ought to be, in both the HP and AC department.

Action Economy
It's pretty common I'll feel a bit starved for actions in combat. If you keep your Mutagen in hand (or pre-buff) you can avoid your first turn being eaten up, but using situational alchemical items like elixirs of life always take at least 2 actions. The low hp of the class definitely warrants the occasional use of in combat healing, but elixirs of life are well below what a 2-action Heal can give, and cost twice the actions of Lay on Hands (though once you get Lesser Elixirs the healing is about the same)

Feat Taxes
The Alchemist is obligated to take certain feats just to keep using their base class features properly. Many of these feats feel more like they simply remove restrictions rather than open up new options.

Revivifying Mutagen seems like it's necessary at higher levels so you can actually end a long-duration Mutagen before taking a different one, otherwise you have to worry about suffering from multiple drawbacks simultaneously.*

Powerful Alchemy is necessary to keep Thunderstones and Tanglefoot bags scaling properly, otherwise there are a number of dead levels where their DC is far too low to matter, but you don't yet have access to the next tier. Unfortunately Powerful Alchemy only applies to items made through Quick Alchemy, meaning it's only worth making Tanglefoot Bags or Thunderstones during daily preparation at certain levels.

Calculated Splash isn't strictly a tax, but it is one of the rare examples of a class feat that gives flat number increases without any new options, which is something PF2 generally seems to avoid.

Enduring Alchemy seems necessary to get proper use out of Alchemical Alacrity, as there's no way to use 3 items yourself with only 2 actions. You can rely on allies to grab and use the items themselves, but that means you're asking them to use two of their three actions to apply your buffs to themselves, or all three of their actions if they have to move to be adjacent. No other buffing class requires their fellow party members to sacrifice a turn like that.

*As a side note, the rules are not particularly clear on what actually happens when you drink a second mutagen while benefiting from one already. The Mutagenist's Greater Field Discovery is very explicit, but the general rules only mention that Mutagens are polymorph effects, and should thus counteract each other, which raises more questions about how to handle the required counteract checks

I was looking through the divine spell list earlier and was surprised to find that "Implosion" is no longer part of it, now an arcane/primal spell when in 1st edition it was a Cleric exclusive.

I know there are a few spells which have expanded to other traditions since the previous edition (such as fireball now being available to Druids), though has anyone else found other spells that were available to a class in first edition, but are now no longer part of that class's tradition?

Looking over the Monster and Hazard Creation PDF, I came to the "Damage of Abilities" section. While it calls out area effects as generally requiring basic saving throws, it gives no guidance on how to set the DCs of these abilities. In fact, only auras are given DC guidelines, but none of the other abilities mentioned.

It's easy enough to reverse-engineer the process by looking at examples in the Bestiary, but having no guidelines within the Monster Creation rules themselves seems like a bit of an oversight.

While the Shakalta from AA3 are really interesting, I'm not sure I can think of a way to make a Shakalta character capable of keeping up with the average adventuring party.

For those who might not have seen the Alien Archive yet, Shakalta are energy beings formed from the joining of two souls. One way this is mechanically represented is the requirement that Shakalta characters must multiclass, and take an equal number of levels in each of their two classes.

Can anyone think of interesting builds following this restriction?

The only thing that I can think of off the top of my head is Technomancer/Mystic for a sort of Theurge flavor. It's helped out by the fact that Caster Level stacks between classes in Starfinder, but the delayed access to high level spells and abilities might still make for a character that leaves much to be desired.

I was doing some theory-crafting yesterday and noticed something unfortunate about Clerics of Irori. Because their favored weapon is the only weapon proficiency that ever advances, a Cleric with a Monk multiclass cannot take proper advantage of any of the Monk's style feats. Iroran Cleric's advance to expert with fists, but not all unarmed strikes, so their proficiency with things like crane wing attacks will always be stuck at trained.

While this isn't inconsistent with how the Cleric's proficiency works for other deities, it certainly feels like a flavor failure, and is another point to add to the ongoing discussion of the absence of unarmed proficiency increases in classes that seem like they ought to have them.

It seems to be common sentiment that the Alchemist's 3 research fields are not well balanced, with the Bomber field being generally a superior choice. I think the most egregious contributor to the imbalance, though, would have to be the Perpetual Infusions ability.

Being able to make free low level bombs is incredibly useful, and also interacts with feats such as smoke bomb or debilitating bomb, allowing you to throw an endless barage of debuffs. While the Chirugeon's free antiplagues and antitoxins let you immunize your party for free, and the Mutagenist's 2 free types of mutagens could be situationally useful (especially if you pick skill focused ones), in practice both amount to only a few saved reagents, and neither option has any feat synergy.

I'd like to suggest a change to Perpetual Infusions and its later enhancements: allow Alchemists to select Perpetual Infusions from any field's options. I think this would go quite a ways toward putting the fields on more equal footing, and would allow for more varied Alchemist builds.

There are some glaring issues with a few Alchemist abilities, most of which seem to stem from certain parts of the rules failing to be updated when other dependent systems changed from the playtest.

At level 13, The Alchemist's Mutagenist field gives you the ability to benefit from multiple mutagens at the same time, but the caveats seem to be based on the playtest version of mutagens, where drinking a new one would override the other while maintaining the drawbacks of both. In the final version of the rules, mutagens have no such language, instead functioning as normal polymorph effects with no mention of drawbacks from multiple mutagens persisting.

This leads to a new problem, though, as according to page 301, if someone comes under the effect of a new polymorph effect while already benefiting from one, the new effect attempts to counteract the second. This is straightforward with spells, but there are no rules to handle how an item attempts a counteract check. What modifier and proficiency bonus would you use for such a check?

The issue of items attempting counteract checks also comes into play with the Merciful Elixir feat. It specifies that the item itself attempts the counteract check, but does not explain what modifiers are involved. Even if the Alchemist is supposed to be the one making the check, it's still missing language about what sort of check to make. What modifier? What proficiency bonus?

So yesterday, Mark Moreland said the following regarding the new iconic that would be replacing one of the old ones for the Advanced Player's Guide:

What would you say if I told you that we've already illustrated the new iconic and you've all seen them? And no, we're not updating an existing NPC to iconic status.

We know that the Advanced Player's Guide is going to have 4 classes, the Oracle, the Investigator, the Swashbuckler, and the Witch. Of these, it's been confirmed that Feiya is not in the running to be replaced. That means we're getting a new iconic for either the Oracle, Swashbuckler, or Investigator. So who's it going to be? And where is this illustration we've apparently all seen?

My crack theory? The Swashbuckler and Gunslinger may have been merged into a single class with different paths, thus, our new Iconic Swashbuckler isn't even a new Iconic at all, it's Lirianne!

As has been the case in the past, when books manifest within The Orb's vision earlier than they do for other's, a thread is opened so that the sightless might query the All-Seeing. That is what is happening here! For those poor souls who have yet to see these new tomes (that is, the Core Rulebook and Bestiary), ask your questions below, but heed these rules!

1. There is no guarantee a question will be answered. Do not spam questions, though you might draw attention to it once more if it has gone more than a few days unanswered.

3. Waste no words beseeching The Orb! A simple "Thank You" or "Please" suffices if you insist on such courtesy, but The Orb has no patience for groveling. Ask your question and be done with it!

Now, go forth and ask below!

All answers will be hidden in a spoiler tag, so the precognition-averse need not worry themselves.

Also, if any dev feels this previewing goes too far, please let me know. I'll stop at once

My group finished our first playtest session about a week ago, with a 9th level Envoy, Solarian, Biohacker, and Vanguard. Here are some of our thoughts on the new classes:

Biohacker
Our Biohacker played an instinctive Biohacker, with +6 Wisdom. In combat, he was pretty effective. The confusion effect from the Pharmacology field allowed him to effectively take an enemy out of the fight for 3 rounds, and one of the enemies even killed itself with self-damage. The player noted that the limited number of injections didn't seem too bad, especially since they each lasted 3 rounds. He figured lower levels might run into issues without maxing out a primary stat, but at 9th with his high wisdom, the class was able to contribute effectively for the whole day of adventuring.

Being able to use wisdom instead of intelligence for many skills was neat. When using the "Treat Deadly Wounds" function of medicine, though, we realized that the Biohacker had no language to replace the intelligence based bonus healing from beating the DC by 5 with wisdom. Some future-proofed language might be nice, calling out that the ability score replacement applies not just to checks, but also to ability score-based effects that those skills might create.

Our Biohacker also noted that counteragents seems a lot more useful than restoratives, especially when using a ranged injection weapon to deliver them. Part of it was due to the accuracy disparity between shooting an enemy vs shooting an ally, and part was due to the relatively low impact of the restoratives when compared to counteragents.

Vanguard
We don't have a ton of feedback on the Vanguard, mainly because the class worked pretty well out of the box. Our Vanguard was appropriately tanky, and managed to pull off some cool combos with the Solarian. There was a concern with the strict level requirements for using a weapon with Entropic Strike would create some weird situations. Our Vanguard was using a Nanofiber Garrote (a level 7 weapon), but he was concerned that he'd have to buy the very expensive level 11 Vibrogarotte if he wanted to keep using the strategy come level 10.

That's it for now, we hope to get in one more playtest session before the end date.

This is pretty minor, but the mechanic's custom rig's ability to function as a comm unit came in really handy when I played one. It meant I had one less piece of gear to track, and made sure I had some basic computer functions always available (like a camera, infosphere access, and some note-taking ability).

Giving the custom scanner the abilities of a comm unit (or at least some capacity for upgrading) would be a nice little quality of life improvement.

Since there are almost always Alien Archive/Bestiary wishlists, I figured we should have a thread for gear people would like to see in the next item-focused book (Whether it's "Armory 2" or not).

There are still a few sci-fi staples I'm sorely missing. Like:
- A proper skyscraper-leveling power fist. A lot of the Overwatch cast is doable with the existing rules, but no weapon does the job of the mighty Doomfist Gauntlet. Maybe a gauntlet style weapon with the unwieldy property, allowing it to be a pseudo two-handed weapon?

- Cybernetic razor claws, for Molly Millions/Sally Shears fans.

- New bows/arrows

- A handheld shield, either a solid barrier, or some sort of force-barrier like the titan shield.

Those are a few off the top of my head. Anyone else?

Alright, time to actually give some proper play testing feedback. I should've done this sooner, but better late than never.
(Hopefully this is coherent. I'm pretty tired as I'm typing this up)

My group has never really played in Golarion, so we felt it more useful to see how well the game worked in a setting of our own design. Worldbuilding was easy enough in PF2, and the rarity system seems to be a good way to keep spells that might otherwise break the game from doing so. I definitely look forward to playing with the system to create interesting worlds in the future.

The Players

The group consisted of 4 people, I'll call them players "E", "D", "N", and "K".

E is the biggest role-player of the group, the kind of person who will make most of his character decisions based on flavor consideration. He played a Dwarf Barbarian, taking the fury totem. He was considering the giant totem, but decided it seemed wrong for a dwarf to idolize something taller than they are. He used a maul, going for a pretty cookie-cutter big-weapon barbarian build.

D has very specific taste, and likes to build characters that appeal to him both flavorfully and mechanically. He'll generally look through rulebooks for something to inspire him, then build something that appeals to his sensibilities. He loves to play evil or evil-leaning characters, and also likes "mean" mechanics, like debuffs and combat maneuvers that render the enemy unable to fight without killing them. Because the Monk is his favorite PF1 class, he decided to play one in PF2 for his first character. He went for a Strength-based build using a bo staff.

N enjoys the social aspects of the game, and enjoys role-play, but doesn't really care much about character building. With a bit of help from D, he made a Gnome Rogue, a switch-hitter with a short bow and dagger, and an out of combat focus on thievery.

K is the power gamer of the group. He loves to play powerful characters, but doesn't like cookie-cutter characters. Instead he likes to find atypical classes or concepts and make the most optimized version of them possible. I asked him to play an alchemist, since I was a bit worried about the playtest version of the class, and wanted to see someone really put what was my favorite PF1 class through its paces. He played a Goblin Alchemist, primarily focused on bomb-throwing (though he changed course a bit midway though, more on that later). I'll probably be talking about K's experience the most, since he gave me the most feedback by far.

Character Building

We started by building level 1 characters. E put his character together without too much trouble, and seemed to find the process enjoyable.

D forgot to include his level in his armor class calculation, which led to his monk being a bit flimsy for the first two sessions (he figured out his mistake by the end of thesecond).

N ran into a little trouble making sense of how skills were handled, but had no other issues.

K understood the system just fine, but realized mid-way through buying his gear that the alchemist basically requires the 2 bulk, 60 sp Alchemist's Tools in order to function. He wasn't too happy about this, as it meant he couldn't get the crossbow he wanted as a backup weapon (he could neither afford it nor carry it with his 10 strength). He was also unimpressed with the background system, since none of the bonus skill feats seemed very interesting or impactful.

Our group meets pretty infrequently (about every other week), so each session ended up being after a different update.

First Session (Update 1.1)

For the first session, I created a pretty basic dungeon crawl consisting of a few encounters of increasing difficulty. The encounters all ran pretty smoothly, and different enemy types definitely felt pretty distinct. D kept getting poisoned, which definitely hindered his character without making it unplayable or outright killing him. When the group got the final encounter, a showdown against a Zombie Brute, N ended up putting in the most work with his slashing weapon and sneak attack damage. E put in good damage, but due to his lower speed and lack of range or reach, he often found himself getting into the fight a little late. Some unlucky initiative rolls exacerbated the problem.

During preparation, K was unsure how many bombs he would need, and ended up spending all but 1 of his resonance points on making them. He got a couple of good critical hits with his bombs, and definitely felt he was contributing. What's more, he didn't even use up all his bombs, though he was being incredibly conservative with them. He also felt the need to wait until absolutely necessary to resort to quick alchemy, since he had only the single guaranteed use.

The table of DCs was real helpful for coming up with appropriate challenges on the fly, and I made pretty frequent use of it when the PCs wanted to try something unorthodox that I hadn't really accounted for.

Overall first impressions were good. While definitely different than PF1, the game ran pretty smoothly at first level, and encounters were challenging without being impossible.

Second Session (Update 1.2)

In the second session, the party went into the sewers of their home city, looking for a magical artifact that they learned was in an ancient temple buried beneath generations of city expansion. Everyone advanced to level 2 before the session started. The PCs encountered a pitfall trap as their first major obstacle, which led to a comedy of errors as they tried to figure out the best way to get the less agile party members safely across.

Next they came across a gang of goblins, which they dispatched without much trouble. D took some hefty hits, but managed to stay standing, while N stayed safe but far less effective sticking to his shortbow instead of engaging in melee. E did the most damage, and definitely felt like a barbarian with his massive d12+6 damage rolls.

K felt like he was being carried, suffering from below-average rolls, and tight combat environments not well suited to AoE weapons. He did help patch the party up with some healing elixirs, but ran out of resonance pretty quickly. He also wasn't too pleased with his elixirs costing his allies resonance too, since that ate into their ability to use the healing items they picked up as treasure. Similarly, the fact that his class features were resonance-powered meant he couldn't rely on healing pick-ups either, otherwise he would run out of his primary resource. It felt unfair to him that no other class had to choose between using healing items or being able to use their main class features.

About midway through the session, I ended up giving D some bracers of armor, hoping to bring his AC up a bit (he hadn't yet realized he was miscalculating yet. Not long after, the PCs managed some incredibly thorough searching and very high rolls, so I decided to throw them a magic weapon. In hindsight, this may have been a mistake, as it put the weapon's wielder (D) well ahead of the rest of the party damage-wise.

Running the goblin encounters didn't feel too different than PF1, but the pack of goblin dogs I through at them were surprisingly dynamic. The "Scratch" action allowed for some more interesting monster tactics than the goblin's basic move-attack-attack routine. I hope it becomes the standard for most monsters to have at least one non-attack action available to them.

The session ended with a small group of kobolds trying to ambush the PCs. Unfortunately for them, the party managed to see the kobolds beforehand, and ended up surprising them instead. After dispatching the kobolds, the PCs found themselves before a 3-way fork in their path. They decided to rest for the day, and tackle the fork in their path in the morning.

Session 3 (Update 1.3)
During preparation, K decided to focus more on healing items than bombs, since he was finding his damage pretty lackluster and the party was definitely lacking consistent healing.

Unsure of which path to go down, the PCs decided to investigate each one as best they could before making a decision. Unfortunately, each path went over a small waterfall, making backtracking difficult. They decided to tie a rope around the goblin (K), and lower him down over each waterfall in turn. The first one he went down landed him in a pool of quicksand (or quicksewage, really), where we realized the rules for quicksand didn't spell out what sort of action the Athletics check to escape was. I forget exactly what we decided on, but the encounter was pretty exciting, with K's goblin very nearly dying a grisly death.

Later on they decided on a path infested with Stirges. Their blood-draining mechanics made for a real interesting encounter, as having to avoid immediately killing an attached bloodseeker in order to avoid persistent damage forced reliance on atypical combat strategy.

After a social encounter with the goblin boss the PCs turned in for the that turned bloody and an ancient riddle door, I dropped the PCs into a randomized dungeon. Each PC was teleported to a room at random, where they faced a relatively easy encounter appropriate for 1 or 2 characters. After defeating the monster in the room, they were teleported to another random room that had yet to be cleared. We tracked the rounds of combat for each room simultaneously, so with luck, a PC who made short work of their room might be able to join in an ally's more difficult encounter mid-combat. This was a big hit with the players, and a lot of fun to run. None of the encounters were too challenging, save for the room the Alchemist ended up in. Up against 3 level 0 zombies, his already dwindling supply of bombs wasn't really able to do enough damage to take them down. Luckily the monk managed to find his way to the alchemist's room, and made pretty short work of them with his flurry of blows.

After this ordeal the PCs were in need of healing. N, having scavenged a healer's kit in one of the rooms, was able to to treat wounds without any trouble, leading to a bit of a paradigm shift for the rest of the session as full healing was now only a matter of spending enough time, rather than dependent on any limited resources. K found this funny, since his character's one meaningful way to contribute (healing), was now all but obsolete.

The final boss was a single troll, which turned out to be far easier for the party than I expected. K had a flask of Alchemist's fire left, and he managed to deal significant damage for the first time that night thanks to the troll's hefty weakness. The rest of the party were able to make pretty quick work of the troll by ganging up on it, and appreciated not having to worry about its regeneration thanks to the persistent fire damage.

After dispatching the troll, the PCs recovered the artifact they were after, at which point the campaign wrapped up.

Post-Campaign Thoughts
Overall I enjoyed GMing my first PF2 campaign. Though the playtest book requires an unpleasant amount of page-flipping (please clean up the layout in the final edition. A rule should not reference a section containing little more than a referral to yet another page number. Looking at you Counterspell), once I got the hang of how DCs were assigned, it was pretty easy to come up with appropriate challenges on the fly. I also really liked the way monsters ran. Definitely an easier and more dynamic experience than PF1. The rules for Encounter Mode hardly came up, and ultimately felt unnecessary to be spelled out in such specific terms. In a future playtest campaign we might put them to greater use, though.

I asked each of the players for their overall impressions of PF2 and the class they played once the campaign concluded. N had nothing to say, though everyone else seemed to really like the new action system.

D thought the monk definitely felt right, with lots of attacks and impressive mobility. He really liked being able to pick up a "style" early on in his career. In PF1, monks often had to spend their early levels on "necessary" feats like Power Attack or Weapon Finesse, or the many feat-tax prerequisites for some of the better styles, and couldn't actually use their chosen style until quite a few levels on. Curiously, he thought that the PF2 monk felt less MAD than the PF1 version of the class. With the tighter math, while higher ability scores couldn't get you too far ahead of the curve, lower ability scores couldn't leave you too far behind.

E enjoyed playing a Barbarian, he liked the feel of the class, and appreciated the totem giving the Barbarian a unifying theme, something the PF1 version lacked (at least in the CRB). He also didn't mind the bounded math, feeling that he didn't have to roll unreasonably high to contribute.

K was far less happy with the Alchemist. He felt the class was unpleasantly resource starved, and had poor action economy. 2 actions to use a limited-use attack that deals less damage than just swinging a weapon (which takes only 1 action) was not very fun. He said that it seemed that if you don't prepare most of your items at the beginning of the day, your resources won't last you long enough to survive the average adventuring day. Quick Alchemy felt way too expensive, since he only had so many resonance points left after putting most into the more efficient early preparation. He picked up Smoke Bomb, but ended up using it only once, as spending a resonance point for the ability rarely seemed to be worthwhile. The general consensus seemed to be that the Alchemist had too few uses of its alchemical items, and the items were far too weak to justify being so scarce.

Next Time

We're starting the next campaign today, at level 7. We're gonna try to do a bit of a healing stress test, like the one called for in the playtest adventure path. The party this time around consists primarily of casters, and K is once again playing an Alchemist, as he wants to see how the class fairs in a damage/support role at higher levels. I look forward to seeing how things go.

If a character successfully hits with Spelstrike Ammunition containing a spell that normally requires an attack roll, does that spell then prompt a second attack roll following the weapon attack? Or is the target simply affected as if they had also been successfully hit by the spell (like with PF1's spellstrike ability)?

As the title, the Demon Armor's horns work as a weapon with the Deadly trait, but there's no damage die listed for the trait. Based on the way most deadly items work, I'd assume it's a d10, but there isn't any textual basis for that.

As a side-note, is there already a thread for these sorts of minor oversights? Or are individual threads preferred?

A few rituals require targets to make saving throws, but there don't seem to be any rules for the DCs of those saving throws. Is it somewhere else in the book and I'm just missing it?

First thing's first, THANK YOU SO MUCH for dropping the term "Lycanthrope" as a catch-all. Calling all half-beast humanoids "wolf-men" always drove me crazy.

Second, how am I intended to run a PC or NPC being bitten by a werewolf? I assume the final Bestiary will have an actual template for handling that, but in the meantime, should I just replace the cursed character with the Werewolf stat block presented?

Could we get character sheets on a plain white background instead of this parchment?

The background on the provided sheets is printing out pretty messy.

As the title, is the absence of the irradiate feature from the Capital nuclear missile launcher by design? Or just an oversight?

So, according to the core rules:

You can’t voluntarily wear or hold an amount of bulk that is greater than your Strength score.

That's all fine and good, but since carrying capacity isn't modified by creature size, we can run into some weird problems. A few sessions ago, I had a player whose character was large, with 18 strength. He wanted to pick up and carry an unconscious ally. Now, the ally was a well built medium humanoid, and with all his gear I decided he'd be pushing 180 pounds. Since Starfinder does things by "bulk" rather than just weight, I needed to figure that out.

Further down on the page is the following

As a general rule, an item that weighs around 5 to 10 pounds is 1 bulk (and every multiple of 10 is an additional bulk), an item weighing a few ounces is negligible, and anything in between is light. An awkward or unwieldy item might have a higher bulk.

So that works out to this unconscious ally being 18 bulk, maybe even a little higher, since a floppy human is certainly unwieldy. The thing is, as written, my player can't carry him. He can't even lift him up, since that would exceed his bulk limit. A 12 foot giant with super human strength in peak physical condition can't lift or carry a human. Similarly, a horse ported in from Pathfinder would, as written, be encumbered by even a light rider.

Is this right? Is bulk just for gear, and lifting and carrying intended to be handled by common sense? What about the issue with larger or smaller weapons? Is a tiny doshko just as hard to carry around as a huge one?

Pathfinder had rules for these things, and they feel conspicuously absent in SF, especially when PCs of radically different sizes are something the game is built for.

As the title. I don't play in Golarion. On a scale of the 1E core rulebook, to Starfinder's baked-in setting, how hard will it be to use these rules for something outside Golarion? Will I have to rename a bunch of items and archetypes? Or can I still expect mechanics to be fairly setting agnostic? Will I have to pay for a chapter on a campaign setting that I'm not going to use?

Couple of questions about grenade arrows, which are sadly not super well explained in the CRB.

1. When attacking with a grenade arrow, does your weapon still do normal damage? Or does it only carry the grenade effect? For example, would a bow attack with a grenade arrow still do 1d6 P? (in addition to the grenade effect, of course)

2. Does weapon specialization apply to the damage from grenade arrows? Likewise with grenades launched from a grenade launcher. Does it apply because it's a heavy weapon? Or not, because it's a grenade?

3.Can a crossbolter with a usage greater than 1 fire grenade arrows? If so, how does this work? Does it fire 2+ grenade arrows at once? One grenade arrow but consume 2+?

The link to the Starfinder FAQ just directs me to the Starfinder homepage. Manually typing in paizo.com/starfinder/faq redirects me there as well.

Is Keskodai's letter missing? Or is there a problem with my PDF viewer?

Will the items and creatures released in APs ever find its way into a more "crunch-focused book"? I have no real interest in using pre-published adventures, but do want to have new items and races to play with. Unfortunately, I have a hard time justifying a $15 purchase when I'm going to use only a few pages. Will these options be reprinted in hardcovers eventually? Or be part of the official SRD?

The text of the ability says:

If you have a solarian crystal that changes the type of damage dealt by a solar weapon, you can use it to change the type of damage you deal with your sunbolt.

but Solarian weapon crystals don't change the damage type of your solar weapon, they just add additional damage and critical effects. Is it supposed to to allow you to add the damage from a weapon crystal to Sunbolt? Is it just a vestige of an older version of Solarian weapon crystals?

Do items that have charges include detachable batteries? For example, does a personal comm unit contain a detachable super-capacity battery? Or does the "capacity" represent internal power storage that can be recharged with batteries bought separately (as weapons with charges work in the Pathfinder Technology Guide), but not a removable battery that's swapped out for a new one when recharged?

Having just received a shipping notification, The All-Seeing Orb is willing to answer your questions about Starfinder. Keep in mind, only general information will be given (no actual mechanics or rules text), and this thread will most definitely contain spoilers. Not every question will necessarily be answered immediately, but hopefully most of you will walk away with an answer eventually. Ask away!

While not everyone's happy about everything we've learned about Starfinder (everyone has different tastes after all), the great thing about pen and paper RPGs is that the GM is free to change anything they don't like.

So what will you change about Starfinder when you start playing? Will you tweak it better resemble your Golarion? Adapt it for your own setting? Use the mechanics for another published setting entirely (Star Wars, Warhammer 40k, etc.)? Share your plans and ideas here! Though please keep this thread to discussing how you're going to change Starfinder. We've got other threads for discussing opinions about the game.

This question is a contentious one, and looking around on the forums, I see a different consensus on every thread. Simply put, if an archetype grants me the "Studied Target" ability of a slayer, does Studied Target grant an increase to the DCs of abilities from that class?

If the Studied Target ability gained from an archetype doesn't increase the DCs of the abilities of another class, does it affect the DCs of abilities gained through Slayer Talents that the archetype might grant?

Take the Nature Fang for example. Does the studied target increase the DC of your spells against the target? What about domain powers? If not, does it still work for the "Assassinate" ability, if taken as an advanced slayer talent at level 12?

Does Studied Target boost the DCs of extraordinary non-slayer abilities, like a Serial Killer Vigilante's "Death Attack", "Charming", or "Grisly Murder" class features?

When I add additional hit dice to an undead monster and its size increases, should I increase its Charisma in place of its Constitution score?

For example, let's say I'm advancing a Wraith to 16HD to create a Dread Wraith. Should I increase its Charisma score by +4 (as I would do the with the Constitution of an animal that went from medium to large) or leave it at 21?

I have a few questions regarding Druidic Herbalism from the Healer's Handbook

Do the "free" concoctions granted by Druidic Herbalism mean I don't have to cast the spell to make the concoction either? Or do I still have to prepare the spell I want to make a concoction of, and cast it as part of the concoction creation (as with Brew Potion), but I just don't pay any gold?

At 7th level, Druidic Herbalism lets you create what are effectively "extracts". Do these special concoctions count against your Wis/day free concoctions? If they don't, then is it intended that you can't make these "extracts" of spells of 3rd level or below? As written, it looks like it's sometimes cheaper to make higher level concoctions (which only require spell slots) than lower level ones (which require spell slots and gold).

Can you make these extract-like concoctions with spells higher than 6th level? Or are you limited in the same way an alchemist would be?

All in all, this is a cool option, I'm just having trouble figuring out some of the special cases.

From the Healer's Handbook

Do the "free" concoctions granted by Druidic Herbalism mean I don't have to cast the spell to make the concoction either? Or do I still have to prepare the spell I want to make a concoction of, and cast it as part of the concoction creation (as with Brew Potion), and I just don't pay any gold?

Also, at 7th level, Druidic Herbalism lets you create what are effectively "extracts", is it intended that you can't do this with spells of 3rd level and below? Do these special concoctions count against your Wis/day free concoctions?

If you can't make these extract-like concoctions with lower level spells, then it seems like you're expending more resources to create lower level concoctions than higher level ones. If you've expended your Wis/day free concoctions, you have to pay gold and spell slots to create lower level concoctions, and just expend spell slots to create higher level ones. The one balancing factor would be that the lower level concoctions persist as potions, whereas the higher level extract-like concoctions continue to occupy your spell slots like an infusion. Still, it seems like an unintentional asymmetry.

Can you make these extract-like concoctions with spells higher than 6th level? Or are you limited in the same way an alchemist would be?