Driftbourne's page

To me,
1. The Battle for Nova Rush was funer then SF1e starship combat.
2. It felt like being on a ship while the ship was being attacked, largely due to a sense of urgency to get things done because the ship was getting attacked.
3. It felt different from just exploring and having encounters on a starship that was not being attacked.
4. It felt like the ship wasn't just there to get you to the adventure location.
5. It felt like the ships that attack the ship you are on were not just a random encounter on your way from point A to point B.

Call it what you like. I feel it's a good example of whatever that is.

It being an archetype means it is no longer a viable character concept for any game that starts at level 1, and yeah it does sound like the capabilities you get will be minor because archetypes tend to not have any budget.

I worry for another oozemorph situation.

In Starfinder 2e organized play, you can now build characters starting at levels 1, 3, 5, or 7. I hadn't thought about it until you mentioned it, but starting at 3rd level would be a way to build concepts you want to start with an archetype. Although for an archetype meant to replace a whole class, it would be nice to have it available at the first level.

I'm a my cup is half full kind of guy, lets look on the bright side.

1. More blocks mean more games played.
2. GMs and players get more frequent breaks.
3. The missing stat blocks is eaisly delt with now that AoN has a feature that lets you download all the stat blocks for a scenario with one click as a single printer-friendly PDF or that can be used on a phone or tablet.
4. The shorter scenarios are easier to prep and set up at the table, with fewer maps and pawns to carry around at a convention. Even more important if you are GMing more than one scenario at a convention.
5. There are 10 normal blocks and 10 scenarios available from season 7, plus whatever is available for the start of season 8. That's enough scenarios to not have to repeat any.
6. I would imagine a chance to be the first to play scenarios for the new season would be very popular, which is likely why new seasons start at the largest gaming convention in the world.

These all seem like big benefits for running a large convention. Meanwhile, you can still play older scenarios in other places.

Driftbourne wrote:

I thought it was interesting that the Devs were saying that Nanocyte is going to be an archetype, that because of that, there was more they could do with Nanocytes outside of a class.

Well, a class has to have feats and features that both thematically cohere and also, like, actually function together as a build? An archetype can just have a grab-bag of appropriately-themed stuff after the dedication. Nanocyte-as-a-class would need to fit the shape of being a class, whereas Nanocyte-as-archetype can be more flexible.

Classes are also tied to one attribute; an archetype could free up what types of characters can use nanocytes by freeing up the class attribute requirement.

The devs were also talking about using nanocytes in new ways, like in equipment. I think with some nanocyte equipment and augmentations + the archetype, we can piece something together pretty close to the old class. Some nanocyte-flavored spells could help too, and would go well with the technomancer.

[Yes. Within relation to this topic, which is specifically "starship combat," and loosely how the SF2E "subsystems" kinda work. I'm not commenting on how fun the dungeon crawl is (which could quite frankly be a castle under siege with no difference other than flavor).

A good example of a sci-fi castle siege in a movie is the Battle of Yarvin. Earlier in the movie, rescuing Princess Leia and escaping the Death Star is a good sci-fi dungeon crawl.

I think if I tried to sell my players on a Starship fight adventure, but I'm the end included only one minute of interacting with anything outside of your own ship they'd feel disappointed by the end of it. They might still enjoy their time because starfinder is a fun game and we enjoy our fellows company, but the adventure itself will probably not be remembered as living up to the pitch.

Not sure how you play, but in general, I think there's a huge difference in opinions online based on how someone plays the game.

I play in organized play, I often don't even know who the players are 5 minutes before the game starts, so I'm not even thinking about having to sell anyone on the adventure. As a player, when I sign up, the only thing I'm checking is the level of the scenario and if I have played it before. Sometimes I don't even do that and just play a pregen if none of the characters I brought are the right level. I also play lots of replays as both player and GM. That's very different from having a home game and knowing what your player like or not.

Battle for Nova Rush is just one session long. If you wanted to try running Battle for Nova Rush, you could Just tell your players that they start as prisoners on a ship and have to get out. I played only knowing that, and came out thinking this is a great way to run starship encounters. When I read it after the game, I was shocked that it was only 5 pages long of game text. If it's not something that fits your group that's fine too.

I haven't checked recently, but the place I would check out is Starfinder Infinite, and DrivethroughRPG

https://www.starfinderinfinite.com/en/

https://legacy.drivethrurpg.com/browse.php?filters=1000588_0_0_0_0

When you play the scenario, you FEEL like you're on a starship in the middle of combat. You're frantically doing things to affect that combat

Bold text to highlight the point.

We just got some insight into Starships in Tech Core. Lots of interesting news in the video, but skip to 1:22 for starships.

STF CONline 2026 - Starfinder 2e Developer Panel .

It sounds like early inspiration for the new starship rules was influenced by the game Faster Than Light. I haven't played FTL, but it seems well-liked.
Why FTL Is So Awesome

I thought it was interesting that the Devs were saying that Nanocyte is going to be an archetype, that because of that, there was more they could do with Nanocytes outside of a class.

Thanks for posting that video. It touches on most of the major conversations on SF2e in the forums lately. (Tech Core, classes, and starship combat)

Now to go research how FTL plays.

My issue is the CSS in GM Core would be whole scenes that my group would find it very repetitive and unengaging, since you don't really have any agency or decisions in those. So if that's design philosophy was expanded to a whole session I think my players would stay away from SF2e in the same way the PF2e playtest caused them to be apprehensive of PF2e for a good while.

To turn a CSS into an entire session, you need to read Battle for Nova Rush as an example. The link to the free PDF is at the bottom of the description

I'm too tired to try to dig it up now, but someone on the forums took the time to convert all of Battle for Nova Rush into a single CSS stat block, which ended up being as long as the actual adventure if I remember correctly. Although I think it was interesting and useful to see it laid out that way. I think the best way is a combination of CSS for stuff going on outside of the ship or things that trigger over time as the bigger battle goes on, and the rest laid out as a normal adventure.

I have more thoughts on this, but I'm about to fall asleep.

Driftbourne wrote:

Did you run Dead Suns when it first came out?

Yup. I'm (very sincerely) glad that they improved the systems later. The original system really was pretty bad.

But I'm an example of why you have to get the rules at least reasonably decent the first time. Hope they succeed at it this time.

Something I really like about the one-session-long Starfinder Society scenarios is that if your character doesn't play like you thought it would, you can just make a new one for the next game. If you don't like ship combat or a certain theme, you can just skip those scenarios, and if you play a scenario you end up not liking, it's only one session.

Even if you prefer to play long APs, at the start of a new edition or game system, running some short scenarios to work out the bugs before making such a big time commitment to an AP might help.

The odds of them succeeding seem much, much higher to me if they playtest the new rules.

I'd like it if there were a play test too, I even started playing Armada and X-wing to get ideas for feedback during the starship playtest. But my conclusion was X-wing isn't good at being a TTRPG, and Starfinder is never going to outdo X-wing for tactical combat. There were some useful lessons learned, like focusing on a ship scale most useful to what your main goal is. For Starfindre I think that means focusing on Hero-Ship sized ships, and giant capital ships should be treated as moving cities and in battle played like a siege. For a hero ship to fight a capital ship, the map could even be the capital ship, and the PCs have to damage certain targets on the map.

There was lots of talk about ship combat during the fieldtest, before the main SF2e playtest, so Paizo got a lot of feedback despite not actually having a starship playtest. Unfortunatlly that section of the forums was removed after the playtest was over.

Battle For Nova Rush to me is the best way to run starship combat in Starfinder;

Totally agree with this. It was a blast to play and run

One reason I like The Battle for Nova Rush so much is that instead of the ship encounter being something happend on the way to someplace, the ship battle was the whole adventure.

Does Battle for Nova Rush use the gm core rules or something else? I found the gm core rules examples pretty agency-less and repetitive.

Battle for Nova Rush came out at Free RPG Day right before SF2e was launched. So it doesn't use the exact cinematic starship scenes, but you can see the influence, even though it doesn't use the CSS stat block. Instead of Star Wars, you're on the Millennium Falcon fighting off a group of TIE fighters, think of it as Star Trek, and you're the crew in a bigger ship while the ship is getting attacked.

The way I see cinematic starship scenes is that they are a framework for a starship encounter. To that, you can also add things going on in the ship, hazards, combat, anything you could do in a normal 3-action encounter mode, and on top of that, add tactical rules for the pilot, which is the part we are missing now.

The current CSS in the GM Core are set up as simple examples that should last as long as a normal combat or a complex hazard to chase. While The Battle for Nova Rush expands that to take up an entire session.

The other nice thing about CSS is that it is defined per encounter, which means new rules for ship combat can be created and used on a per-encounter basis. An example is having a new NPC on board could give you new crew actions.

I'm courious to see how the Gnarefuroids turn out like, although they first appeared in Mechageddon! as a creature, I think it's the first new ancestry that hasn't been playable before. I'm wondering what size they will be since the ones in Mechageddon! are gargantuan, I'm assuming they will be large. But it will be nice to have a new ancestry that can't be compared to SF1e or Pathfinder ancestries.

So I bought Guilt of the Grave World and Merder in Metal City for the character options, but since I've turned into a forever GM for Starfinder2e, I have no use for either the character options I don't have time for or adventures that can't be used in organized play.

I bring this up because I was just looking at Tales from the Vast, and I like adventure collections. I was wondering if there would be character options in the book.

Also, with 1-19 having been canceled, sanctioning something like Murder in Metel City could fill the Gap.

Driftbourne wrote:

That just leaves shipbuilding rules, which is one of the things SF1e did well.

pauljathome wrote:

Really? Either they substantially changed at some point or I vehemently disagree with you.

Did you run Dead Suns when it first came out? If so, you're missing over 150 pages of rules and options that came out in other books.

First improvement was the Character Operation Manual, which added crew actions and roles for classes that didn't have much to do in ship combat. It's only around 4 pages for ship related ruels, but it's a critical 4 pages for some classes.

The Starship Operation Manual is an entire book just on starships. Starship combat wasn't in a good place until this book came out.

I ran the first Starfinder AP and the shipbuilding rules (together with the ship combat rules) was the main reason we stopped playing starfinder after that AP.

So now you know why Staship Combat is not in the first books out for SF2e. Maybe it's because I play in Starfinder Society, but I've never thought of Starfinder as a Starship combat-focused game, despite having been in Starfinder starship combats. Most of the fun I have had in starship combat comes from roleplaying and not the combat itself.

Paizo also learned to make encounters more balanced and interesting, and also reduced how often starship combat came up, but despite the fact that I don't think Starfinder's strong point has ever been Starfinder's strong point.

Battle For Nova Rush to me is the best way to run starship combat in Starfinder; it works really well for a TTRPG for tactical starship combat. I play X-Wing. The Nova Rush ship is also a huge improvement over SF1e player ships; it's big enough to be a true base ship, by which I mean it's got room to carry mechs, tiny starfighters, and other vehicles. It's also big enough to run an entire game session inside of the ship, including combat.

My players discovered a "I win" button in the ship building rules. Always maximize your shields and

1) Ship combats will be slow and boring
2) But at the end your victory is all but guaranteed againstn any of the antagonist ships the AP threw at you

If the "win button" is what made the game boring, don't push it. Unfortunatly someone had to paint the win button red and make it oversized. The shield issues are well known, and it's not just the player's shields slowing the game down. Not letting shields regenerate can help to speed up combat. But when I refer to ship building ruels I mean how you pick each type of ship system from a list, how shields work in combat, I consider part of game balance. The starship rules we have so far in SF2e are using creature building rules for balance, is why I'm not concerned about needing to playtest. If it comes down to using creature building rules for balance, it's not like Paizo does playtest for creatures in an established edition.

Driftbourne wrote:

I wonder if it hasn't been covered yet because the season one meta plot involves The First Ones. One of the NPCs involved with the Deep Cultures Institute from Dawn of Flames has shown up in a season one scenario. Outside of the Pact Worlds, another sun is having issues, too, and the scenario gives the GM no explanation for it. So I suspect there is one or more sun-related mysteries Paizo doesn't want to spoil yet.

While they don't come right out and say it, the Critical Success for the Gather Information checks about the First Ones have repeatedly been a throwback to knowing about the Protocytes living inside a sun.

It seems to be strongly alluded, putting together the context clues, that the Protocytes are ressurecting the Vlakan sun while using First Ones technology, and this will turn out to be a later component to the First Ones invasion.

I found a way to have the NPC involved with the Deep Cultures Institute from Dawn of Flames to end up on Lajok, if you run 1-04, 1-02, and 1-10 in that order. The second time through running that series, I've switched to using an NPC I made up once I realized who the other NPC was in SF1e, just in case they show up officially again. 1-19 got canceled, I'm hoping that wasn't going to be the sequel to 1-10 or 1-06, both seem to be setting up something bigger.

I know I'm really disappointed that Tech Core hasn't had a release date yet, it's a sci-fi game, we need more tech first and foremost,

I like the delay, it's easy to explain in character as a supply chain issue as a result of the Drift Crisis, also in a science fantasy setting, not having all your tech options at the start of the game simulates advancement of tech over magic as we get new books. But my overly optimistic view would be easier to maintain if we at least had a release date.

Someone posted that an SF2e developer posted to Discord a few weeks ago that there will be no public starship playtest. Despite belonging to 10 Discord servers for Starfinder or Paizo, I could not find that post to verify it, probably because I can't find anything useful on Discord that's more than a few hours old.

Rolls a Will save to avoid going on an anti-Discord rant.

After seeing what you can do with cinematic starship scenes (CSS), I don't think there's much left to playtest. The only thing tactically missing from CSS is rules for moving the ship on the map. CSS encounters are balanced using creatures building ruels so not much to test with the math. For crew actions, we just need more of them. That just leaves shipbuilding rules, which is one of the things SF1e did well. The big complaint about SF1e starship combat was making it fun for the whole crew, and that it felt like a separate game. Everything we have seen so far, CSS and the battle for Nova Rush adventure suggest staships ruls are being built around existing rules and subsystems. Personally, I feel that Nova Rush was more fun than any SF1e combat I played in.

If you liked SF1e ship rules, they are almost competely compatable with SF2e since they are almost a completely separate game. The only adjustment needed is changing some skill names.

I think we were waiting until after Gen Con or the new Piazo store goes live. Now that all of that is done, is it possible to get Augustana Station Lodge (SFS2) stickied?

Our local in-person lodge is near a college, and some of our student players had looked for PBP games over the holiday break, but said they could not find where SF2e games are listed. I would have helped them or even started games for them, but I didn't even know they were looking until after they got back.

Leshys are my new favorite playable species. I'm playing a Finadar root leshy anti-tech superstition barbarian named Grounded Root. As a root leshy, their main motivation is to stand their ground! The last scenario I played in ended up in a nice forest, so I'm playing a different character next game so Grounded Root can stand their ground for a while longer.

I think one problem with having a Leshy iconic is that there are so many types of Leshy to pick from. But if I had to pick one, it would be Root Leshy, and I stand my ground on that opinion.

There are 2 or 3 other players with Leshy characters in our local group, so they still seem pretty popular. It doesn't hurt that the Leshy minis look great.

3) Paizo keeps releasing new class after new class but they almost never give options to already existing classes.

SF1e has way fewer classes than PF2e, but the SF1e classes got updates. I'd also be more interested in seeing more options for existing classes in PF2e as well.

Question: Do you play in home games or organized play? I only play in organized play, and I'm always having fun, but I don't play the same character each game or with the exact same party each week, so the game always feels fresh. I wonder if I only played one character all the time, if I'd feel different about the game.

___________

The thing I wish PF2e had is for hero points to have some kind of fail forward machanic. I've been in games where almost every hero point spent resulted in a lower roll, which feels really bad, especially for new players. Maybe something like every time you roll lower with a hero point, and fail because of it, you get the better luck condition, which adds +1 to your next hero point. Fail twice, and you have +2 better luck, up to a max of +3.

Another option for hero points is to make it so you can't crit fail.

The other thing I find odd in a game that often promotes teamwork is that the rule about stacking bonuses often gets in the way of teamwork. Maybe some kind of teamwork action or feat that lets you spend an action to stack a bonus of the same type, as long as all the bonuses of any type are not greater than +3

Reading this thread at all the class ideas, and given the new reality of tech core and their new year+ playtest cycle, it's a little wild to think that no matter what they pick to do next we might not see it until deep into 2027... maybe even 2028.

I know the main playtest for SF2e was year-long. I'm not aware that it has become the standard for all playtests. The public playtest for the tech classes was only a month long. I thought Tech Core might have been delayed for the Starship playtest, but apparently, it was posted on Discord that there would be no public Starship playtest, although I'd assume there is playtesting for it at Paizo.

We were not expecting the Absalom Station book, so Paizo may have other surprises as well. I suspect that the Absalom Station book might have been a project started in SF1e that never got finished due to the OGL mess. There might be other projects like that as well.

I think to get a Singularity, you might have to GM an infinite density scenario. To do so, you have to play all Starfinder scenarios simultaneously in 4 hours, and have everyone who plays Starfinder play in that game at the same time. At that point, the entire Starfinder fan base becomes a Singularity.

I like Akiton, and I'm intrigued by the return of the First Ones. The other reason I'm waiting to run the meta plot is that a lot of the PF2e players are still waiting for the Starbuilder APP. Once that is out, I'd like to try to play the meta plot straight through in order.

For the solo scenarios, I've been trying to see if I can push them to run longer than 2 to 3 hours; some I have pushed to 4.5 hours. For the meta plot, I'm thinking of doing the opposite and trying to run 2 scenarios back to back in the same session. I frequently have NPCs ask the PCs about their past adventures, and a lot of the players don't remember them very well, so hoping running the meta plot in order and as fast as I can will help keep it fresh in their memory.

I am a very picky brat of a child who never, ever, ever wants their carrots to touch their mash potatoes on the plate. I, personally, am so burnt out on traditional fantasy I don't want to interact with Pathfinder in anyway. I know I'm in the minority on that.

Yes, Starfinder 2e can absolutely be played as its own game, only using Starfinder books. The big question here is, are you playing in a home game or in organized play?

When talking about mixing the 2 games, the "official" terms the developers tend to use are "chocolate in your peanutbutter." Personally, I'd like to keep mashed potatoes out of my chocolate, but I may consider chocolate covered carrots.

Paizo kinda already made that call with the legacy fantasy races, elves, orcs, and such. I've been told they'll get a sci-fi make over later, and for now you just gotta get into Pathfinder's rules for them. You can see how that's a turn off for people who's first Paizo experience is Starfinder.

For the record, I'm very much a Starfinder First player and GM. I do play a little PF2e just because it helped make moving from SF1e to SF2e easier.

Starfinder has always been science fantasy. Most of the core legacy Pathfinder species were in the SF1e Core Rulebook, all of which got a makeover in SF1e. The decision to just use the Pathfinder versions of legacy species until they appear in a later SF2e book was to save space in the Starfinder Player Core and to make room for more SF1e species. Both the PF2e stats and the SF1e lore for the legacy species are online for free for people who can't wait for the Starfinder Galactic Ancestries book to come out.

Strafinder 2e is a new eddtion there's not a lot out for it yet, compared to SF1e or PF2e, so the advice people can give is either use PF2e content, which you can get for free, or wait. People are more likely to tell you about PF2e options because it's more intresting then just saying wait.

Since everyone can be a cyborg, I feel like Evolutionist's cyborg option is a little underwhelming, narratively speaking. Replacing that with the Nanocyte's nanobot swarm feels like a good way of making it a unique step above normal cybernetics.

I saw some of your other posts and realised how new to Starfinder you might be. I'm guessing you have not played SF1e? I'll try to add more context to my last reply.

In Sf1e, you could have 1 augmentation in each body system (Eyes, hands, brain, etc.) There were some ways to have 2 in some body systems. So in SF1e, you could have 12 or more augmentations. In Sf2e, the limit is only 4, although now you can have more than one in the same body system. So I'm hoping that classes like the Biohacker and Evolutionist could get more augmentations slots to get back where SF1e was, and because they fit the themes of the classes.

Nanocyte was its own class in SF1e. It feels very different from someone with a lot of body part cybernetics. After the Precog was merged into the Witchworper in SF2e, people started suggesting that the Nanocyte could merge into the Evolutionist. If that did happen, I don't think that a Nanocyte niche would replace the Mechanized niche. Although I can see how the Nanocyte could fit in the Evolutionist as a niche, my main concern is whether a sub-class has enough page space to do the Nanocyte justice.

Mechanized Evolutionists aren't trying to be a cyborg; being a cyborg is just a side effect of replacing body parts over time with augmentations until they become 100% machine. Being limited to only 4 augmentations doesn't get you there. Although the Evolutionists class uses augmentations, it's more of a side benifit then a main feature of the class. So if the Evolutionists were just about augmentations, it indeed would be underwhelming

A Nanocyte Evolutionist would eventually be nothing but Nanocytes, which could be cool.

Since everyone can be a cyborg, I feel like Evolutionist's cyborg option is a little underwhelming, narratively speaking. Replacing that with the Nanocyte's nanobot swarm feels like a good way of making it a unique step above normal cybernetics.

Characters in SF2e are now limited to 4 augmentations (with some exceptions for some types of basic augmentations), so my suggestion is to allow some classes like the Evolutionist to have more augmentation slots, so the full cyborg Evolutionist option is possible.

Starfinder Society Scenario #1-19 has been canceled, according to the recent blog post.
Couldn't resist saying that leaves a Gap between #1-18 and #1-20. The blog post claims it's due to a combination of production factors...

And now for a conspiracy theory...

I think one of the SF2e season one scenarios has 3 clues pointing to an event that happened during the Gap. That scenario ends suggesting there could be a sequel, and now we have a missing scenario and a Gap in the scenario numbering. I think we were getting too close to discovering something in the Gap, and the sequel scenario had to be canceled to hide the truth, or was lost to the Gap.

If you own both the hardcover and the PDF of "The Gap," you may have noticed that the PDF is 30 pages shorter than the hardcover book. Sf2e scenarios are around 15 pages, so I think #1-19 is the first of two scenarios that will go missing. We don't know when the second scenario will go missing, it could even be in season 2 or later, so let's call it #?-?? I can only assume the last 30 pages of the hardcover version of The Gap are the missing scenarios. I'd be happy to GM #1-19 and #?-?? If anyone is interested in playing them, but I'm not sure how ACP for them will work since the chronicle sheets are blank.

Nebulas sound cool, but I voted for Moons because it was easier to imagine what the symbol would look like. I thought starting with a crescent moon and ending with a full moon would be cool.

For the favorite scenario, it was hard to pick a favorite. I'm a sucker for a good first contact scenario; Mystery of the Frozen Moon really delivered on that. Honorable mentions go out to Rites of Rekindling and Magic in the Mist. All 3 of these were fun to run. I've run all 3 twice now. I've only been running the solo scenarios to save the meta plot for other GMs, so I can't comment on them yet. For the solo scenarios, I've had fun running all of them.

I think it would be fun if the Great Abslom Relay became a yearly event, if that doesn't happen officially, it's repeatable...

I've liked formians since 1e, I wish they had been given more lore. In most books in 1e formian lore and history seemed entirely nonexistent aside from a few specific events, and I've always wondered what's up with the formians. They used to be always overshadowed by the lashunta.

Are you referring to PF1e or SF1e? Formians originated in PF1e. In SF1e, they are in the book Interstellar Species, which gave each playable species in it 4 pages, most of which is lore.

it could also make sense to merge the SF1e biohacker, evolutionist, and nanocyte classes into a single SF2e class.

I'm not against that if each subclass can have a different key attribute.

If Biohacker is its own class, it's sub classes cold be the types of mad science.

What are some good examples of Biohackers in books or movies? and real life.

Netflix Biohacks comes to mind. The show deals with med students, but that's not what's going on. They are cently smart, but you could question the wisdom of what they are doing.

Biohacks trailer

Farscape S1 E9: DNA Mad Scientist is a good example of a Biohacker/Evolutionist.

DNA Mad Scientist

Spider from Johnny Mnemonic is a good example of a Dr/biohacker that also deals with augmentations.

Here are some modren real worlds examples. There's someone who sells kits for home genetic engineering to modify organisms for 30$
Meet the biohacker using CRISPR to teach everyone gene editing

Another video on the same guy
DIY Biohacking: Do(n’t) Try This at Home

Real-life biohackers and augmentations

Biohacker Michael Laufer recently had a 512GB drive implanted in his leg, which can store data, stream music or movies, and power a hot spot and mesh network. It's called the PegLeg, Biohacker Explains Why He Turned His Leg Into a Hotspot .

In this video, there is a real person with 33 implants, that's just a few more than the 4 we get in SF2e.
I Got a Chip Implanted in a Biohacking Garage

So hoping the SF2e biohacker is at least as strange as current real biohackers.

Sweet addition of second edition specific forums, would it be possible to add class discussion forums for the SF2E classes as well, pretty please?

Might be a good idea if the SF2e forums get more traffic. A lot of the SF1e sub-subforms would only get a post every month or so and not get any replies, which is bad when new players post there. I don't even check the sub-sub-forums anymore.

The Starfinder forums are slow enough, I wonder if it would look better to new players if it were just the general SF2e and the subforum for SF2e adventures to avoid spoilers in the general forum.

the genetic alteration and augmenting is more pigeon holed to the Evolutionist than the Bio-Hacker. It may happen where Evolutionist survives, and bio-hacker's niche becomes an Alchemist subclass, or class-archetype.

Extar Augmentations make sense for some Evolutionists' Niches as well, maybe even being the focus of that niche, but the process of making an Evolutionist using bio-tech Augmentations is a great example of Biohacking. A Biohacker subclass that lets you have extra bio-tech Augmentations is basically a Int baised Evolutionist. The difference is that the Evolutionist class features a focus on physical adaptation, and an augmented Biohacker would focus on mental adaptation while still being a support class using core Biohacker abilities.

I think Technomancer is another class that should have some way to access additional augmentations, either through a subclass or class feats.

Optionally, just having a general feat that allowed an extra augmentation would be good, or maybe even an archetype.

But Biohackers do it in a much more sci-fi way compared to the alchemist doing either mix drink or mix throw.

We lost a lot of the science part of science fantasy feel in SF2e when we lost the Life and Physical skills and turned into Lores. The Biohackers' fields of study bring back some science feel to the game. fields of study

SF2e already has a lot of options for area effects; anyone can use grenades, which can make everyone feel like an alchemist throwing bombs. The Biohacker works much more precisely with injection weapons.

I think a space gobin alchemist fits into SF2e just fine.

Sf2e limited the amount of augmentation you can have at one time. I was thinking that maybe some classes could have more augmentation slots, which would fit well if the biohacker had more biotech augmentation slots.

___

For some PF2e classes, I wonder if it would be better to have them only playable in SF2e with new subclasses that are flavored for Starfinder. The same could be true for SF2e classes used in PF2e. Even if not restricted, having new subclasses to fit the setting could be a good thing.

I am disappointed that Tech Core seems pushed back, because the game just does not have enough tech items to make the system sing. Sure, the augments and armour upgrades in Player Core are adding a lot of fun options, there simply aren't enough. I do appreciate that tactical starship combat rules are being ironed out, but I wish that was on a separate book instead of Tech Core.

I am disappointed that Tech Core seems pushed back, because the game just does not have enough tech items to make the system sing. Sure, the augments and armour upgrades in Player Core are adding a lot of fun options, there simply aren't enough. I do appreciate that tactical starship combat rules are being ironed out, but I wish that was on a separate book instead of Tech Core.

In a game built around crazy amounts of player options, more is always good, but I kind of like the amount of tech we have right now. The shortage could be explained by supply issues caused by the Drift Crash. As we get more tech over time, it kind of simulates the development of new tech in the game.

I also agree with Paizo's push to do more ancestries up front over more tech. You can always add new gear to an existing character as it comes out.

Meanwhile, here are some great items in the scenario chronicles. It helps that all the scenarios are repeatable in SF2e.

Xenocrat wrote:

Jenny said weeks ago on the discord she frequents there won’t be a ship public playtest.

It's cool Paizo decided to let everyone know they've changed their mind about having a ship playtest in such an easily accessible way.

Oh well, at least Paizo has a really good track record with quality on major mechanical systems they skip playtesting on.

Starship combat in SF1e was an almost completely separate subsystem; the only thing connecting it to the rest of the game was the use of skill checks for some actions. For SF2e, the Devs have said they wanted starship combat to be more in line with the core game. From what we have seen from Cinimatic Starship Scenes, that largly use complex hazards and creature creation rules for balance, the math and mechanics shouldn't need a lot of testing.

Do the same for mechs, and that would allow mechs and staships in the same encounter, or mechs that transform into starships. If the math is also balanced with vehicles, then you can add vehicles into the mix as well. At one time, the devs sounded like they were considering if mechs would also be in the same book; if they did decide to do that, that could explain the delay. Even if mechs are not in the same book, they may have taken time to figure out mech mechanics at the same time to make surethey work together. That's all pure speculation, hopefully we hear more on what's planned for the year.

It's sooner than waiting for a playtest that's never going to happen...

I used to try to follow Paizo on 10 different Discord servers. I hate the layout and UI of Discord. The only server I still use is the one for scheduling local games. Thanks for relaying the news.

I'm somewhat disappointed but not surprised that there won't be a public starship playtest. But having said that, I'm really impressed with the Cinematic Starship Scenes (CSS). I think they are way more powerful than many think. The only thing missing from them is the shipbuilding rules, an expanded list of crew actions, and tactical rules for the pilot to move the ship on a map. One thing that makes CSS so powerful and flexible is that you can write new starship or crew actions on a per-encounter basis.

So at this point, although I think it would have been fun for me to have had a public playtest, I'm not sure it's really needed anymore. Also, no play test means the book might come out soon, since we're no longer waiting for the public playtest to happen.

Driftbourne wrote:

Starfinder Galactic Ancestries comes out at the beginning of April. It has 21 ancestry options, not sure if that's 21 ancestries or also includes versatile heritage and Starfinder heritages for PF2e ancestries. I suspect this will be the most ancestries we get at one time in SF2e

Starfinder Absalom Station comes out around August. Has one SF1e ancestry and one new ancestry.

Ah I see, I had no clue that those were even a thing. I never saw anything about that on this website, maybe it's just because I'm on mobile. Do you know if it will be including content for/from pre-existing ancestries that are in other books already?

Galactic Ancestries was announced a while ago, but the Absalom Station book was just announced on Friday on the Paizo Live stream. Oddly, the Absalom Station book has a product page already, but it's not listed on the Starfinder Release Schedule.

The Stafinder developers, well over a year ago, has said the goal was to put out new ancestries as frequently as possible, usually 2 per AP or Book. The Galaxy Guide and Galactic Ancestries are the exceptions to try to get more ancestries into SF2e quickly. I don't expect Paizo to be republishing ancestries already published in SF2e, since that list will change frequently, and would take away time from working on new material for the game.

Meanwhile, all the ancestries are or will be in the Archive of Nethys.

Starfinder Galactic Ancestries comes out at the beginning of April. It has 21 ancestry options, not sure if that's 21 ancestries or also includes versatile heritage and Starfinder heritages for PF2e ancestries. I suspect this will be the most ancestries we get at one time in SF2e

Starfinder Absalom Station comes out around August. Has one SF1e ancestry and one new ancestry.

SarahDuck wrote:

The just anncounced Absalom Station book might have a bunch of NPCs according to the description: "An astounding array of foes and friends likely to show up on a space station."

I think for Starfinder, having NPCs in a book like this makes more sense than a dedicated NPC book. A galaxy of NPCs is too big to fit into one book, and you want new locations to feel unexplored, so it's better to include new NPCs as new areas are explored.

Something else worth noting, the next Novel was also just announced, "Assault on Absalom Station." coming out around the same time as the Absalom Station book.

For non-combat NPCs, I use the SF1e Deck of Endless NPCs. It's also a great way to add some species that haven't made it over from SF1e yet.

Starfinder Deck of Endless NPCs

I need to pick that up, looks great! There aren't enough Starfinder focused random tables out there. I recently picked up the book 'The Perilous Void' to try and fill that gap.

There is also a Deck of Many Worlds for SF1e, the only adjustment needed to use it with SF2e is that you might have to replace, adjust, or make up stats for the threat species (the deck just names the threat.)

Something else worth noting, the next Novel was also just announced, "Assault on Absalom Station"

The just anncounced Absalom Station book might have a bunch of NPCs according to the description: "An astounding array of foes and friends likely to show up on a space station."

I think for Starfinder, having NPCs in a book like this makes more sense than a dedicated NPC book. A galaxy of NPCs is too big to fit into one book, and you want new locations to feel unexplored, so it's better to include new NPCs as new areas are explored.

For non-combat NPCs, I use the SF1e Deck of Endless NPCs. It's also a great way to add some species that haven't made it over from SF1e yet.

Starfinder Deck of Endless NPCs

There is also a Deck of Many Worlds for SF1e, the only adjustment needed to use it with SF2e is that you might have to replace, adjust, or make up stats for the threat species (the deck just names the threat.)

For non-combat NPCs, I use the SF1e Deck of Endless NPCs. It's also a great way to add some species that haven't made it over from SF1e yet.

Starfinder Deck of Endless NPCs

I agree with both sides of things here: stuff from playtest, even if it doesn't CHANGE much, is usually expanded with more feats in the actual implementation.

That said, Nitro wasn't wrong about how confusing much of the playtest was because the SF2ePC wasn't out yet, and they used language that wasn't one-to-one with PF2e animal companions (which the drone seemed to be somewhat emulating).

Also, I believe Starship building and combat is something they said would be in the Tech book (I could be wrong). and I would imagine hacking rules, and info-sphere rules will also be in there, as well as a couple tech related ancestries.

I'd love to see Starship Rules in the tech book, since the missing classes and starship rules are 2 of the most common things cited as reasons for waiting to get into SF2e. If you put both of those in one book, we'd kind of get an SF2e launch 2.0 to help promote SF2e. If not in the same book, I hope that they come out within a month or 2 of each other. If, by chance, that is Paizo's plan, then we might be looking at Gen Com for that book to come out, since that would be the best time to repromote SF2e again.

Side note, I'd love to see the Machanic class have abilities that work with starships. Like being able to mount your turret to the starship.

Nitrobrude wrote:

AlanDG2 wrote:

What happened to the Mechanic class in 2e?

It's in the Tech Class Playtest and...is meh at best and drone at least is absolutely unusable at a certain point because referenced types, feats, features, etc don't exist. Like a lot of SF2e (and even PF2e) I'm finding, it seems like it was written by multiple people that weren't allowed to talk to one another.

Or it's simply still in playtest and has obvious kinks and issues that need to be worked out.

The public playtest ended just over a year ago Tech Class Playtest Completion.

The blog post says "These are just a few of the potential changes we’re planning to test out internally." A year seems like a long time for that, which makes me wonder what else is going to be in the book that they are still working on. The other big tech missing from SF2e is tactical starship combat and building rules. It's the beginning of the new year, so I hope we get some news on the ETA for the classes and starships soon.

I wonder if it hasn't been covered yet because the season one meta plot involves The First Ones. One of the NPCs involved with the Deep Cultures Institute from Dawn of Flames has shown up in a season one scenario. Outside of the Pact Worlds, another sun is having issues, too, and the scenario gives the GM no explanation for it. So I suspect there is one or more sun-related mysteries Paizo doesn't want to spoil yet.

We don't have an ETA yet, but the 2 classes should be in a book called Tech Core. Even in organized play, you can still use the playtest version until the full versions are out.

Download ink is near the bottom of this blog post Starfinder Tech Class Playtest.

There's a long list of needed forum updates. In the past, working on the new store was the reason given for not fixing them. Now that that is done, I'm hoping we'll hear soon about forum updates.

Besides the Errata page not being split up into SF1e and SF2e, the forums are not split up yet. Starfider needs more forum avatar art. The SF2e play-by-post lodge still isn't stuck to the top of the recruitment page, so it's hard to find.Augustana Station Lodge (SFS2).

At a minimum, as a quick fix, at least labeling the new errata as SF2e in the book title would help.

I think the next Paizo Live is this Friday. I'm hoping we hear what the plan is for the new year.