DrakeRoberts's page

Will the page be able to tell us if we already have a pdf in our downloads as it does now? Just making sure because preventing someone from accidentally buying it twice is important, and since the foundry code purchases are apparently issues because the store can't check against our owned digital content. Thanks!

You can’t use a zone trait action if there is already one applied to your quantum field, per the zone trait explained in the sidebar.

Can anyone explain to me how this is supposed to work? I get what happens when you cast it, but the subsequent rounds have me confused. Is sharing actions suppose to be like a summoner (where each action can be used by either individual), or are shared actions supposed to work like the initial casting (where both forms use the same action with different targets for a single action)? Does the heightened line about the parallel forms being quickened change your reading?

I too wanted to express some sadness? disappointment? that the Starfinder Society's penultimate(?) special is going to only be for new characters. I feel like with but one year left, we should be looking more towards tying up our character's stories, not starting new ones, shouldn't we? I realize that the highest tiers of Starfinder Society play have a tendency to bog down and thus not be great for specials, perhaps, but having this open for characters up to level 10 (or even just 8) would have been appreciated. It is what it is now, and I know the comment threads tend to be very put-down-ish to anyone responding unfavorably to a decision made by Paizo or OrgPlay, but I figure that there's no way for leadership to know our minds or make changes in the future if we don't let them know ourselves.

I personally find Angradd's anathema to be a bit... challenging: "Allow weaker evils to survive due to the presence of larger evils" Does this means that if a minion gets away when you're fighting the BBEG, then you've broken anathema? There are few campaign settings that I can think of where evil can be snuffed out completely or all at once. Adventurers, by necessity, need to prioritize (if they didn't, the campaign would have to be a complete railroad and not give choices), and often this is done by prioritizing larger evils to deal with first. I'm not exactly sure how this anathema is supposed to direct such choices? Does a cleric of Angradd take out the lesser evils first? Are they meant to smite anyone with a smattering of evil upon sight? Not to mention, of course, the complication that the Remaster did away with good/evil. Though, I suppose, changing it to Unholy (sanctified) may at least help define what is considered 'evil' when judging lesser evils. But the prioritization is still an issue, because often you can't stop ALL the evil.

DrakeRoberts wrote:

figuring out what feats, spells, etc have changed (and thus need to be updated on an old character) is going to be a pain without some sort of composed list of which things have now been “errata’d”.

This was posted above by someone else, but In case you missed it:

Pathfinder 2e - Remaster change spreadsheet .

It's still a work in progress but getting closer, but they actually show what the change difference is which is very useful.

Thank you, I HAD missed that!

I have two concerns about this process as well, though they aren’t as drastic as those of the OP. Firstly, I’m unsure how we’re to go live with rules changes beyond those documented in the PFS Remaster blog and PFS guide if we say this is core assumption and then there’s a delay before AoN gets it live. Secondly, figuring out what feats, spells, etc have changed (and thus need to be updated on an old character) is going to be a pain without some sort of composed list of which things have now been “errata’d”. Can we get such a list perhaps? It seems that with such changes needing to be made and AoN not being ready on November 15th, perhaps there should have been a bit of a delay built into the PFS adoption timeline? The obvious answer is that we’re all just here to have fun and people are going to get stuff wrong, and we’ll roll with the punches…. And yet we have the guidebook and rules for a reason, and the impossibility of that timeline for anyone that didn’t get an advance copy of the book is problematic and likely to result in frustration and confusion. I get it’s a bit late to change things now perhaps, but maybe we should at least file it away as a lesson to learn and remember in the future?

DrakeRoberts wrote:

Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion wrote:

DrakeRoberts wrote:

Talon Stormwarden wrote:

DrakeRoberts wrote:

It is my understanding that come Wednesday, only the healing potions in the enclosed chart are available for taking as freebie consumables (no more scrolls or other choices). Is that correct?

https://lorespire.paizo.com/tiki-index.php?page=pfs2guide._.Pathfinder%20Pr ovisions

Oh that's much better than what I thought I saw before (I was on mobile). Thank you.

Just so people know:

"The list is not showing up nicely on mobile" (especially with device / browser information) is helpful feedback in the Guide thread.

Fair, though in this case I think I was seeing the list in the one-page OrgPlay guide book, rather than a separate page too. I’ll need to see if there are two lists, because the one I was looking at first also didn’t have the unlife potions. Also usedul feedback, no doubt, but will require more delving (likely off-mobile) to nail down. Thanks for pointing out the thread though!

Currently there are two* lists. The old starting consumable lists. And the Pathfinder Provisions list that doesn't go into effect until tomorrow but which is up on the site so people can get a preview. It sounds like you got the starting consumables list. When we update the guide on Nov 15, there will only be 1 list.

*3 lists if you count the schools lists.

Sounds right. Thanks!

DrakeRoberts wrote:

Talon Stormwarden wrote:

DrakeRoberts wrote:

It is my understanding that come Wednesday, only the healing potions in the enclosed chart are available for taking as freebie consumables (no more scrolls or other choices). Is that correct?

https://lorespire.paizo.com/tiki-index.php?page=pfs2guide._.Pathfinder%20Pr ovisions

Oh that's much better than what I thought I saw before (I was on mobile). Thank you.

Just so people know:

"The list is not showing up nicely on mobile" (especially with device / browser information) is helpful feedback in the Guide thread.

Fair, though in this case I think I was seeing the list in the one-page OrgPlay guide book, rather than a separate page too. I’ll need to see if there are two lists, because the one I was looking at first also didn’t have the unlife potions. Also usedul feedback, no doubt, but will require more delving (likely off-mobile) to nail down. Thanks for pointing out the thread though!

DrakeRoberts wrote:

It is my understanding that come Wednesday, only the healing potions in the enclosed chart are available for taking as freebie consumables (no more scrolls or other choices). Is that correct?

https://lorespire.paizo.com/tiki-index.php?page=pfs2guide._.Pathfinder%20Pr ovisions

Oh that's much better than what I thought I saw before (I was on mobile). Thank you.

It is my understanding that come Wednesday, only the healing potions in the enclosed chart are available for taking as freebie consumables (no more scrolls or other choices). Is that correct?

DrakeRoberts wrote:

1) Characters from the Core 2 book that are created after November 15 but before Core 2 won't, by this, have a Remaster Rebuild to change themselves. This is a non-issue if they're granted specific free rebuilds when Core 2 comes out.

This one is already addressed.

Check the dates again. There is only one Rebuild option offered per character. But the range of date that it is available for extends past the release date of Player Core 2. So my Swashbuckler character can sit on the Remaster Rebuild until PC2 drops and then use the rebuild then.

What doesn't work - and the example given - is a Wizard character that uses the Remaster Rebuild immediately and then wants to use it again once PC2 comes out so that they can get a cool new feat that came available in that book.

Yes, but only characters made before November 15th get that rebuild (although they can use it until December 2024). My concern is for characters that are made AFTER November 15th but before the release of Core 2 that use classes that will be in Core 2. For example, if I make a barbarian in January 2024, then according to the post, that character will not have the free rebuild, and there will not be free rebuilds given out similarly when Core 2 comes out. So then will I need to use ACP to rebuild my Barbarian into the remastered chassis when Core 2 comes out? Or might we offer those characters a free rebuild when Core 2 happens?

I have 3 concerns:

1) Characters from the Core 2 book that are created after November 15 but before Core 2 won't, by this, have a Remaster Rebuild to change themselves. This is a non-issue if they're granted specific free rebuilds when Core 2 comes out.

2) I for one will miss the Pathfinder Training. It gave an extra bit of customization for my characters, and I would certainly want those characters already made but below level 5 to get their bonus feat, as I often count those in when planning my characters.

3) I'm a little wary on the Field Commisions keeping their bonus downtime but also getting items. It sounds like it would behoove everyone to transfer their characters into Field Commissioned people prior to Nov 15th. I'm not generally a huge fan of systems where there is one always-best choice.

I would like to say, that there is also a lot to like about the switchover guidelines above, and I appreciate that!

I've been biting at the bit to buy this PDF, but the graphics talk has me concerned. How bad is it? Are we likely to get a 'fix'?

I am excited about a new Pathfinder novel! I know finances are a thing, but as someone who consumes books by audio more than written word nowadays, it'd be amazing if a way was found to make audio versions of the last two Pathfinder Tales.

I believe Fao is also missing Lifelink.

This is the beginning of the end of the "free ride" for Archives of Nethys and Pathbuilder.

Perhaps. I guess that will depend in part on what’s covered under ORC, right?

Mocharaid wrote:

toErIpNid wrote:

VestOfHolding wrote:

You can't say something is automatically worse by the mere existence of something else without actually looking at it first. You need to actually be able to do the comparison. I'm asking for what you think of Demiplane's specific features.

Yes, I have. And the moment I saw price tags on the different source books, on top of the primer only giving users four classes to pick from, I knew I wasn't going to use it.

Demiplane's UI, utility, and aesthetics are fine, but there is no way I'm using it over Pathbuilder. That's what makes or breaks it for me. It's inferior in terms of price and what other alternatives can offer already. That's all there is to it.

I'm taking your advice and building test characters in both, side by side and I have to say, it's not making a good case for Demiplane, for me personally. The constant loading on Demiplane when you select something is especially annoying.

Gonna go ahead and mark your post as a favorite, because I at least greatly appreciate the good faith side-by-side testing and comparison. This is helpful feedback for Demiplane and others.

My problem with the comments I've seen from you here (and admittedly some others too, but you've been the most vocal), is the assumption that people saying the cost is too high are trying to get something for free. Or that their input isn't helpful feedback. But neither of those things are true. People are saying that this product is not worth it to them at this price point or with this pricing model. And that should be considered VERY helpful feedback for Demiplane, because if enough people have that opinion, then perhaps they would succeed better with a different pricing model. It does no good for them to price their product at what you or they think it is worth, if at that price they have a far more limited customer base than they might at a lower price point or with a different pricing structure. A company trying to make money needs to try to maximize its Net Profit per Sale x Sales Quantity. And if you really DO want to make sure that the developers are well fed, then you'd accept that the feedback being given about pricing might very well do that better than telling everybody to just suck it up and shut up if they don't like the current pricing. I haven't seen many people here not wanting this product or company to succeed. I've seen a number of people trying to help Demiplane understand what changes might help them reach a larger customer base and, in the end, best profit from their work.

What does this mean for kobolds, draconic bloodline sorcerers, etc.? Any new options for them as a result of this apparent shift of draconic focus?

Wow, the pdf is sooo cheap, it almost feels like stealing. I would expect (and support) the thing costing at least 20€, if not 25.

Please don't encourage such things. There are those of us who need to be a bit more thrifty and are already missing out on much of the Lost Omens line because that is the price point of those particular PDFs. We went from $8-$15 per pdf in PF1 ($10 for most large rulebooks) and similar pricing for Starfinder to $15 for core RPG books, and $25 for the larger (in quantity, I believe) Lost Omens line books. That's a fairly large percentage increase in budget costs, one that I personally haven't yet been able to reconcile. If you really are so keen to give them more money, I'm sure they wouldn't mind you buying another item (or a second copy for a friend). Thank you in advance. :)

How will this compare to the Alexa Starfinder game that released a while back?

Alison-Cybe wrote:

Quote:

“But it’s what my character would do!” is not justification for mayhem and disrespect.

So I just want to say Alex, thank you VERY much for incorporating this line.

I'd also like to echo it, through a megaphone, for everybody in the back.

I'm a 90s kid and came into TTRPGs via Vampire in that era, which is a game system which gained a following which very heavily emphasized what'd be considered PvP type of play - either by combat or social.

VtM and other games have their place. But that place is not Pathfinder Society tables (and I say that as someone who plays CN "I'mma thwart your plan to get my jollies" well, but only towards the enemies).

I don’t want to go off-rails here, but let’s leave the maligning of other systems out of this please? This is not a problem with systems, but with players, and one that I have encountered more times than I wish at Pathfinder Society tables. There is a time for role-playing and a time for acting in a meta-fashion, and the latter occurs when the former would spoil the fun for others at the table. Roleplaying games are a chance to mutually tell a story, with an emphasis on the “mutually”. Explore, report, and most importantly… cooperate!

For me, as a player dating back to at least PF1 season 3, if not earlier, the interactive specials have always been a highlight for me. While I’ve enjoyed the stories these last couple of years, they haven’t felt particularly interactive to me because I’ve played them online. For me, what makes these events great is the camaraderie of working together en masse towards a shared goal, with different groups each performing necessary tasks to help the whole succeed. The most successful interactives, in my opinion, are those where the low levels acted as the grunts making sure the foundation of the mission was taken care of, mid-tiers handled lieutenants and slightly more specialized assaults (or the relevant equivalent), and the few highest tables were there heroically y fighting off the BBEG or Final Armageddon, with all of the hopes and dreams of the rest of the society cheering them on and helping out by competently and efficiently handling their missions.

Such an arrangement always felt good to me, as part of a team, no matter if I was playing high or low. It made the interactives feel epic, and made them more than just a scenario with wide level ranges and a couple of oft forgotten buffing slips of paper being passed around. I played in an org-play L5R game once, and they also structured that way (only maybe more so), and by the end, we all (even myself as a first time player) were completed and watching the final two high tier tables with baited breath and cheers alnd gasps all around as they finished their epic battle.

I understand that interactives should aim to be great enticing draws for new players that help bond them to the community, and to realize that we aren’t just GMs and Players, but that we ARE a community. I also feel like interactives need to be kept Special. A time when favorite characters can be brought back into the community to feel part of the collective and encapsulate the same pride and connection to the society that drove people to have their characters become Venture Captains or First Seekers or other NPCs enshrined in our community’s lore.

Alongside these goals are two others. We need to keep specials manageable (both for running/organizing and writing/developing). Furthermore, given the relatively recent changes allowing replays of interactives at different tiers, I think having those tiers being more than just copies of each other with higher DCs and CRs to be desirable, making the replay value really count.

I believe, given all of this, that perhaps the earlier suggestion of having two non-contiguous tiers may be beneficial. The low tier should either be 1-4 or 3-6, as Level 3 pregens are still fairly accessible for new players. While 1-4 would be easier on new players, and require less pregens as people could just make new characters if needed, 3-6 would allow for the low and high tier tables to be a bit closer together, which may aid on the organizing side of things. The high tier will never suit everyone, and I would probably recommend still keeping the top of the tiers a bit below current expected max ranges, again to help with organizing. If both tiers have separate, important, and interrelated goals, then it will be important to make sure that there is at least one high-tier table in any given running of the interactive (not an issue for PaizoCon or GenCon, but potentially an ask on the smaller cons). So right now I’d probably say something like 1-4 and 7-10 for PF2 and either that or maybe 3-6 and 9-12 for SFS?

Anyhow, that’s my two cents. It helps keep down development load so that we quality can be maintained; it helps draw new players into not just the game, but also the community; it allows higher level characters to shine within the community and help act as the leaders that many of them are becoming in-game; and it helps reinforce the epic scale and cooperation that to me have always been the earmark of what makes the interactives truly special.

My impression has always been that things like Breath Weapon (and I think Compression, iirc?) that are mentioned in the polymorph base rules but not in the spell are unallowed in SFS. While I've never understood why this should be the case, it is the only interpretation I've seen that makes the second line of the Character Options exceptions make sense.

"Spells: the polymorph spell (page 145) is legal for play with the following exceptions:

-Other abilities (page 143) are never available.
-No ability that is not explicitly called out in the spell description can be gained from this spell.
-Players are required to bring the source of the polymorph with them AND have the forms prepared.
-Selected racial traits can only be selected from abilities listed in the “Racial Traits” sidebar for a race."

The only other interpretation for that second line that I've come up with is that it's referring to "other abilities" allowable by GM Fiat, but that's covered in the first exception.

Again, I'd love to know that I am wrong, so I'm up for other interpretations of what abilities (beyond 'other abilities') could normally be allowed by the spell, but are not explicitly called out in the spell description.

My apologies. I thought I was in the SFS forum, but I must have jumped over here without realizing it. Mea culpa.

My impression has always been that things like Breath Weapon (and I think Compression, iirc?) that are mentioned in the polymorph base rules but not in the spell are unallowed in SFS. While I've never understood why this should be the case, it is the only interpretation I've seen that makes the second line of the Character Options exceptions make sense.

"Spells: the polymorph spell (page 145) is legal for play with the following exceptions:

-Other abilities (page 143) are never available.
-No ability that is not explicitly called out in the spell description can be gained from this spell.
-Players are required to bring the source of the polymorph with them AND have the forms prepared.
-Selected racial traits can only be selected from abilities listed in the “Racial Traits” sidebar for a race."

The only other interpretation for that second line that I've come up with is that it's referring to "other abilities" allowable by GM Fiat, but that's covered in the first exception.

Again, I'd love to know that I am wrong, so I'm up for other interpretations of what abilities (beyond 'other abilities') could normally be allowed by the spell, but are not explicitly called out in the spell description.

Gear array seems to use your level only when determining your list of major and minor forms. If you use a Gear Array as your secondary array with Manifold Array, are you limited only to form gear that's on your known forms lists AND 4 levels lower than your class level? Or can you make any of your known forms as normal?

Ironically, I used the Discorporation Faculty in playtest, and plan to do so again. In the 2 scenarios I played, I used the ooze form (perhaps multiple times?) in at least one of them (can't actually remember the second game...). Discorporation seems interesting for people that want to be able to creatively get to places they shouldn't. You're in a lot of buildings, ships, etc. potentially, and such places have ductwork. This is perhaps harder to use in SFS, depending on the GM, but that was what I playtested with, and like I said, it worked there for the GM I had at least.

As for reactive spray, if you don't want to spend the surge, the cloud would still let you take a 10' guarded step on your next turn, perhaps setting you up for flank (for melee) or for getting away from a large melee attacker (if ranged), both of which are potentially useful for their particular fighting styles. Also potentially useful with certain knacks such as sensory/all-seeing nanites.

I definitely agree that there are other faculties that are more mechanically beneficial, but for RP and creative solutions/utility, I enjoyed Discoporporation.

You are describing Wis no Cha.

The oral and more instinctive knowledge are describe as wisdow. The charisma represents your emotional presence and your social abilities. That's why for many people wis also make more sense than cha.

That's why nature and religion are wis based.

Just remember of skills bases:
Intelligence is mora analytic and methodic that's why it's used for arcane and occult.
Wisdom is more sensitive and instintive and less methodic that's why it's used for nature and religion.
Charisma represents social and emotional abilities that's why is used for performance and society.

The universe isn't usually a sentient intelligence similar to human like creatures to you talk about it's rules and convince it. Usually just spellcasters use cha to change reality using their emotional capabilities but this is based in inner powers to do spectacular things (sorcerer) or to redirect outside forces that overwhelm them (oracles) or to using music/acts (bards) reverbereting them with reality. But it's too strange to a class that's specialized to use many trinkets (implements) that it has at hand choosing them based on each situation be based on charisma. If not why we have different implements at all? If you just need to convice the universe you just need to use a focus item of your preference and your emotional force does the rest.

Because part of convincing the universe is the stories, folklore, and superstitions of the Mortal Zeitgeist of belief. That's the entire point to the esoterica. That's why they can create custom weaknesses. And why they can trigger actual weaknesses, not with the appropriate weapon, but with the essence of that thing. Like hitting a vampire with a sword when you've wrapped the hilt with the chain of a necklace with a cross hanging on it. Such a contraption shouldn't mechanically do anything, but folklore and the general belief of the population is that crosses injure vampires, and the thaumaturge is able to channel that belief to power his weapon.

"Convince the universe" IMO is a thing more like a spellcaster do. Is a context far more closer to how a spellcaster like Marvel's Doctor Strange do or a "psychic" like Matrix's Neo do than a DC's Constantine who tricks using diverse itens and stratagems to exploit flaws from universe/creatures/spells do.

That's why the concept provided by Mark justifying CHA and the class mechanics who exploit flaws don't meet. The concept who thaumaturge class claims simply doesn't meets with what it does.

I don't know. What if it isn't convincing the universe? The idea is that SOMETHING should work, if only you knew what. If that's the case than a successful charisma-based Find Flaws represents the delving into stories, folklore, etc. Things that are spoken rather than written. Things that require less intellect and more social skills to acquire. More a reading of the Supernatural and Superstitions Gestalt. if you will. That interpretation is certainly in line with Dubious Knowledge being given as a by fiat feat, doesn't it?

Perhaps their Forgotten Lore was not dug up in some dusty old tome, but by talking to people, hearing their folklores and stories, etc? Perhaps their force of personality, the belief they put behind those fabled relics and remedies and superstitions is why they can benefit from weaknesses that others can't? But it is reasonable (from a fantasy/fiction standpoint), IMHO, for stories to hold a grain of truth, and for such stories to only hold power for those who truly believe them, and have the inner fortitude to enforce that will upon reality. Exorcisms in fiction settings, for example, often emphasize this.

Jared - What about this class is Ruth enjoying? What about it does she like? Also what level is she playing the class at? For me, the only really interesting part so far is the Adaptive Strike, which is loaded with flavor and gives an interesting mechanical twist to the class. I’ve certainly seen you say how she enjoys that part, and I understand why. But are there other aspects that she likes from this class that isn’t obtainable by basically any other character were they to have adaptive strike?

DrakeRoberts wrote:

It doesn't look like the EP empties at the end of combat, so movement stuff may still be usable, for example. That said, I'm unclear as to whether or not RP can be used for EP outside of combat.

Considering they also don't say that it clears when you sleep for the night, I'm assuming that this is an oversight, but clarification would be nice.

That's fair. I assumed it was an oversight at first, but the "Except where noted otherwise" part made me think perhaps it wasn't. But good point about the sleeping.

It doesn't look like the EP empties at the end of combat, so movement stuff may still be usable, for example. That said, I'm unclear as to whether or not RP can be used for EP outside of combat.

I see that characters don't need to follow OP rules for OP credit. Do other rules need to be followed for credit (such as table sizes)?

Had this working, but had to change my cart around. There were some page crashes. Now the code won't work for me.

So, I know this is an act of necromancy, but as I'm prepping Part 3, I thought it worth noting that I don't believe the Incutilis can use Step Up out of the water, as it cannot make 5-foot steps due to it's land speed of 5'.

I'm okay with the biometrics requiring level 10. I'm even mostly okay with the 3 talent investment. I agree with you about the class skill, and I appreciate the thorough analysis, QuidEst. I would add that the 2nd talent should fully negate penalties for the listed options (like holoskin) rather than just based on your constitution modifier. I also think that something like using Con instead of Cha for disguise at that point would make sense (your con being a measure of your nanite control). That also helps a nanocyte investing heavily in the disguise branch to compete a bit more with disguise based operatives who generally will be of higher charisma, as the nanocyte seems to want a lot of attributes. If you're investing 3/5ths of your talents through level 10 into disguise, you should be pretty solid with it by the end.

I think with the analysis it is important to compare what the requirements are for non-specific person mimicry. For the nanocyte it is a level 2 and a level 6 ability, and is done with a slight reduction of penalties (currently with a non-class skill) and an insight bonus. A holoskin is a relatively cheap level 2 item that gives you the ability with no insight bonus, but negates all penalties with the same associated changes. I'm not sure what the operative requirements for this are?

TLDR; A holoskin shouldn't be better than this class at doing the disguise thing all the way up to level 10. The level 6 talent needs to be better, and disguise needs to be a class skill.

I'm not concerned with using the ACP system for SFS reward boons. What confuses me is using ACP apparently to replace scenario boons. Losing scenario boons loses soooo much flavor and such from having played scenarios. It is wonderful to pull out mementos from past games that some players have the GMs make extra little 'flavor' additions to inventories and whatnots (such as PF1 players collecting Aspis Consortium badges). I for one will be VERY sad and disenchanted if we lose scenario boons. ACP for rewards makes plenty of sense... those boons are meta boons, related to nothing your character has done in game. But please bring back scenario boons!

If I am creating a 4th level nanocyte, what investment do I use for my level 1 forms?

Agreed. I like the feel, but not the execution. Have Disguise be a class skill. Have Facial Reconfiguration act like a holoskin + use Con for Disguise instead of Charisma. These changes would make the knack worthwhile and reinforce the cool flavor. Otherwise, it is far more effective to just buy a holoskin or put one in your gear array. I was all over these knacks originally, then realized these things and my new playtest version got rid of the knack in lieu of holoskin gear array to mimic the same flavor at a much more successful-to-use and cheaper-to-take option.

Yeah.... gotta say I’m not a fan of this idea, at least not on the surface with what info we have now. I absolutely love the fun of getting neat flavorful boons with my games. They feel in-character and meaningful. This banking points and purchasing via acp thing feels much more meta. What is the motivation behind this change.

Also, race boons from scenarios helped give the great cantina feel. It saddens me that we’ll need to go from “play a game” to “play a whole bunch of games” to get one.

Honestly what would be useful for SFS (and maybe just general higher-starting-level guidelines) would be a chart of "When picking forms at level X, assume your Investment is Y".

No, Garretmander, according to the clarification "In addition, when you gain your first nanocyte level, you can invest UPBs (or credits from your starting wealth as though they were UPBs) as part of the process of choosing major and minor forms."

Your first level, not your first 8. Now a ruling more consistent with the clarification would be that all your item forms would be limited to the 750 or so credits you could initially invest from level 1, but of course that won't give an accurate playtest of what a Nanocyte will be capable of at level 8 either. So I don't think the clarification was written with regards to starting at higher levels, nor is it sufficiently addressing the issue (which must be addressed before higher level nanocytes can possibly be accurately tested for SFS).

Quidest: I have seen that, but while it addresses the first level problem well, I don't think it addresses higher level characters. If I am starting a character at level 8, it doesn't make sense for all my forms to have a limit equal to my level 8 WBL based investment. I assume you would still have to choose forms that match Item Levels similar to what you would get if playing from level 1, but the values still wouldn't make sense.

If you're creating a Nanocyte starting at a level higher than 1 (be it for the SFS Playtest or a home game), how do you determine legal forms for your character? Normally while leveling you would have a current Investment value as you gained a level, and use that value to determine what forms you could choose. How does this work if a game starts at, say, level 4 or 8?

Perhaps, but a scenario in the wilderness isn’t really an issue. A level in the wilderness would be.

DrakeRoberts wrote:

I could see some possible changes:

1) When you re-invest, you get back the UPBs from the prior investment
2) Minor/Major forms can be retrained at each level
3) Minor/Major forms can be chosen with values higher than your investment (still can't make them until you raise investment) as long as your choices are in level cap

I feel like the last one is really important, as it is very awkward to have something in game ("I eat this item") have to be timed perfectly with something out of game ("I leveled up, so need to choose forms") in order to work out correctly. It also would help with generating a higher-than-level-1 Nanocyte (a problem I'm having atm trying to playtest), because when you do that there's no way to cleanly pick forms at intermediary levels because the only investment you have is from your starting credits. Therefore, for both mechanical and flavor reasons, I think 3 should be strongly considered.

Except it's extremely unsatisfying to have a character option that you "had" to pick (because it's ideal gameplay) but can't use until you meet arbitrary conditions (i.e. find a thinger that you can eat).

This is exacerbated because of the fickleness of loot drops. Some adventures have very few, and far between. How great would it feel to choose a gear item higher than your current investment, then not find anything that meets your requirement because you're running around an uninhabited jungle planet with no tech gear to loot?

I suppose, but how does that not become an issue in the current setup too? You're a tech-based character, I don't really have a problem with you being weak if you spend an extended time in a place with no tech, honestly.

I'm going with "damage from a significant enemy". I'm curious if you can spend a surge to make it grant concealment?

As for the point, even if not critting, it can trigger other powers and it sets you up for a 10' guarded step away from the enemy on your next turn.

So, I'm struggling to grasp the notion of a thrown unarmed strike. Mostly: do I need to recover it? I'm picturing it more like an unlimited ammo clip of thrown shards formed by nanites, but I'm not sure if this is correct.

I could see some possible changes:

1) When you re-invest, you get back the UPBs from the prior investment
2) Minor/Major forms can be retrained at each level
3) Minor/Major forms can be chosen with values higher than your investment (still can't make them until you raise investment) as long as your choices are in level cap

I feel like the last one is really important, as it is very awkward to have something in game ("I eat this item") have to be timed perfectly with something out of game ("I leveled up, so need to choose forms") in order to work out correctly. It also would help with generating a higher-than-level-1 Nanocyte (a problem I'm having atm trying to playtest), because when you do that there's no way to cleanly pick forms at intermediary levels because the only investment you have is from your starting credits. Therefore, for both mechanical and flavor reasons, I think 3 should be strongly considered.