HolyFlamingo!'s page

Universal replayability is a dream come true! Nonetheless, I'm right there with Lavabeing in hoping that each scenario has at least a little room for variation.

Stat blocks right in the text instead of way at the back should be nice, but I hope they're formatted nicely and don't spill over onto the next page. The coolest abilties tend to be at the bottom of the block, and if they wind up on a seperate page, I'm way more likely to forget about them.

I joined Pathfinder Society as soon as SF2 was announced, specifically to get familiar with organized play structure and running the 2e engine in-person. I'm rearing to go!

Because SF2e will share the "alternate ancestry boosts" rule with PF2e, any ancestry and class combo should be at least viable (if a little suboptimal). This means that I could play my favorite ancestry and class at the same time--shatori and vanguard, respectively--without nerfing myself into the ground. I'd love to see both adapted to 2e: shatori have enough interesting lore and mechanics to fill out a feat tree, and the vanguard with its entropy point minigame feels like it would function beautifully within the 3-action system.

But that's just​ my dream character, which doesn't matter to me too much as someone who prefers to GM. So, my biggest hope is for a robust catalog of interesting enemies, especially intelligent humanoids who can fill different combat and narrative roles, such as those found within SF1e's profressional/NPC families and PF2e's NPC Core. Weird alien monsters are cool (and I love how unique they are, compared to how much PF steals from folklore and D&D), but I need to be able to tell my war stories and urban mysteries. And I especially need statblocks across all levels: PF2e has this nasty habit of not printing enough high level material, so all parties get funneled into fighting the same dragons and fiends at high levels unless you're willing to participate in some pretty aggressive homebrew.

Basically, interesting player options mean nothing without equally interesting challenges for those players to face, and I honestly don't care that much for pre-written adventures, far preferring to make my own. I will pay all of the money for the Starfriends to inject six billion stat blocks directly into my veins.

SROs, holograms, maybe finally playable anacites... There are plenty of dope synthetics I'd love to see in that book.

Ivis and Katrina's stories were really inspiring. They really show how important it is to accept, support, encourage, and believe in each other.

I read both PF1's Distant Worlds (a delicious buffet of pulpy goodness) and SF1's Pact Worlds (which expanded Golarion's solar system by leaps and bounds while still preserving its history and pulpy soul), so I'm pretty excited to see the canon carried forward one more time. I'm also, like, really eager to compare the six new ancestries to their 1e versions and my PF2 favorites, just to see if I can get a nice taste of how the edition's gonna shape out.

The Black Lives Matter humble bundle in 2020. I'd dabbled a little before that--bought the PF1 beginner box to play with friends around 2014-ish, but didn't quite click with it--but something about 2e made sense to me. Stayed because the game did everything D&D did, but better, ESPECIALLY monster design! PF2 creatures are just so much more interesting from a tactical standpoint, and the encounter balancing tools actually work!

I'm glad to see Paizo continuing to support and uplift Black voices. Also, the Griot anthology looks really cool!

The OG technomancer got some beautiful updates in Starfinder Enhanced. I hope those updates make it into the core class concept for 2e, even though the technomantic talents will definitely need a rework both to fit within 2e's guidelines and divest from OGL spell schools. Being able to (de)buff other people's casting is so cool, and it's a largely open niche.

Also, I doubt we'll get either until much later in the edition, but the three alternate subclasses--divine tutor, drone technomancy, and junk technomancy--are so flavorful. Junk technomancy in particular sounds like a nice way to make a funny gish.

I have a personal little conspiracy theory that the runesmith and necromancer helped influence and were influenced by whatever the mechanic is turning out to be, as one spawns a mass of minions while the other enhances party gear. I have no idea whether it'll be a blend of these (and other) classes (like the envoy mashes up commander/investigator/bard/rogue), or if it--like soldiers and solarians--will be its own thing entirely.

These are all great changes that should make the game feel a lot smoother and more aggressive, which is awesome. Don't forget to buff the damage output of certain creatures to match the new weapon baselines, too!

Anyway, all hail Drip-Chk, our new fashion overlord. The bisexual ombre certainly makes him look less Asmodean.

These contributor spotlights are always a treat. I love supporting indie developers, artists, and authors whenever I can (and God knows mankind cannot live on freelance alone), so it's nice to be able to put a name to each work and follow up with their other projects.

Also, glad to see that Sayre has new projects to look forward to, and I hope things get better for his family.

He deleted his twitter and reddit accounts as well, and was not listed as a staff member on the "impossible" playtest.

Obviously, it's not our place to snoop--the dude's entitled to his privacy--but whatever happened probably wasn't great.

I hope Sayre's okay. Talent aside, he seemed like a really cool guy.

I wonder if the necromancer will get some cross-tradition spell poaching, a la the psychic and animist?

Okay, so prime takeaway seems to be that enemies aren't keeping up with players in regards to detection and mobility. Also Edna's riding the struggle bus with the solarian, but he's been posting about that elsewhere already.

I feel like I might wind up banning unlimited flight/invisibility in my own games, because they seem primed to create a really unhealthy relationship between the players and the GM. Like with any other cheese strat, either the GM puts up with it and watches game balance simply collapse, or counters it and makes all that player investment useless. Might be better to just pretend those options don't exist.

I wanna thank David for sharing the baykok with us. It made for a challenging encounter and lovely evening of spontaneous research afterwards (we just HAD to learn more!). Sometimes I have mixed feelings about turning other people's mythology into guys you can beat up, but other times I'm really touched by the pieces of themselves that each author and artist includes.

Julzakama has a couple appearances, I think: he calls the party to check in on them and give them a new adventure hook once circumstances cause the first to fall through, then shows up at the end for a cute little epilogue. He isn't exactly necessary, but if you cut him you'll have to find some other way to nudge the party into/through the sandbox section.

Is that the final cover? Because if so, the retro-inspired framing is good enough to make me consider going for these instead of a subscription.

Just like player characters, an NPC's cantrip rank is equal to half their level, rounded up.

The Starfinder 2e Galaxy Guide is set to release in May 2025, a few months ahead of the core rulebook.

Ooh! Making a stat block for Jean Jacket has been on my to-do list since I first saw the movie! I like how many different mechanics are cross-referenced in this write-up, as it makes it clear you know the system really well! I'm surprised you didn't do anything with JJ's "final form," though. Would that be better represented by a seperate stat block, or just swapping some abilities?

Teridax, it's likely that the sweeping weapon changes you'd like to see are going to take more time and effort than some mid-playtest errata drops. That said, I agree that I don't like the design approach of kneecapping gear, then creating a class to fix that gear. It narrows build possibilities a little too much, I think. Then again, the two major shooty-shoot classes being weird little offshoots of the historic gunslinger makes some thematic sense to me, so... I get how we got here, I think?

I'm surprised so many people are having trouble with chapter 2's organization. Having everything sorted by location made sense to me, as it's a sandbox where event triggers can happen completely out of order or not at all. Is it because everyone is so used to linear adventures from Paizo? Are people not reading the whole thing before running it?

After thoroughly enjoying some of Thursty's various nasties from Rotgrind, I'm really excited to get absolutely wrecked by whatever lurks in this adventure. Let's rock.

Something about the idea of mythic ancestries makes me feel squicky. It seems... I dunno... bio-essentialist? Eugenicsy? It just... flattens all these diverse cultures down and makes some of them inherently better than others in an even more exaggerated way than is expected for an RPG with mechanically differentiated species options.

On scaling: PC and enemy stats actually scale at about the same rate as each other, so a +1 at level 20 is just as valuable as a +1 at level 2.

One of my friends just starting running a WotR 2e conversion, so this is dropping just in time. I'm excited to see how these surprisingly simple tweaks (outside of the archetypes themselves, which we haven't seen yet) impact overall game feel.

HolyFlamingo! wrote:

Hold up, Perpdepog, did you say weapon dragons?

Behold, the face of the future!

Thank you for introducing me to robot dragon build-a-bear. My life is better now that I have this knowledge.

Hold up, Perpdepog, did you say weapon dragons?

There's a lot of discussion about player options for SF2, but not much about toys for GMs. Which is a shame, because a good roster of creatures is essential for any combat-heavy, crunchy RPG! So, tell me about your favorite SF1 monsters and miscreants and what makes them cool! Let's build our own dream version of the first 2e Alien Archive together!

For me, I really loved the various humanoid foes in Interstellar Species and Pact Worlds. They covered a lot of campaign roles and level ranges, meaning there was a fantastic selection of options for when you wanted to do something more social and less dungeon-crawly. I also think anacites are adorable, and think 2e presents some unique opportunities to bring forward their various solar-powered and networking abilities.

Monster-on-monster combat is a delight, enough so that I wish more people tried it (Jason Bulmahn's MAUL series--already linked in this thread--is a great example). I'd also suggest familiarizing yourself with skill actions, as those are the things players tend to forget or have the most questions about. Loot, too, takes some getting used to, as there's a lot of it, some of which is required to keep PC stats on track. It's still kind of a tricky spot for me, lol, and I've been running the same homebrew campaign for three years!

Replying to Teridax: I absolutely agree on needing baked-in, universal options for breaking people out of cover. Shootouts should not be boring; you need pressure and movement.

I can see your point on enemies having lighter HP totals proportional to how good they are at sniping (and that's a good balance point overall), but the monsters are what I'm here for as a GM, so I'm nervous about making that the primary solution. Like, it's not that creatures are too bulky, it's that all the SF2 weapons are either awkward or wimpy. I don't think there's any harm in tuning them to be a smidge stronger. This way, better tech would feel like an actual improvement, and anachronistic characters could still feel good, as they'd get to use them too.

Your point about not wanting operatives to outperform fighters is noted, as well. I think part of what helps in that regard is that operatives are pretty fail defensively, with worse saving throws, lower health, and fewer options should an enemy get into melee with them. And while it's true that, as you said, getting to them is not free, they'll probably have a really bad time against anything that survives long enough to do it. I also think it's important to note that operatives are only doing damage most of the time, as apart from Hair Trigger (which will likely be nerfed), they lack any lockdown or crowd control potential.

This has been a really enjoyable read. I'm glad that part 2 is turning out to be as fun in practice as it is on paper. Filing away your notes on too many enemy immunities for when I finally run this myself.

I mean, you could build a funny melee envoy if you wanted to. Lead from the Front gives you medium armor, so dex is less of a must. Get a fly speed and you can wrassle anything.

But yeah, I feel like choice of dex or strength would be much better than locking each martial class into a specific stat. Make a weapon trait that makes you aim with strength instead of dex for the heavies; it's much cleaner than whatever the hell else is going on.

I really like most of the suggestions here, except for decreasing enemy defenses. As a GM of both systems, I don't want my cool aliens to instantly fold against a barbarian. Increasing the damage output for everyone would probably feel a lot cooler.

Like, say we did actually reduce everyone's defenses, right? We'd still have the problem of rolling a 1 on damage, which feels wimpy regardless of how many HP the other guy has. Maybe add dex or half-dex back into damage as a special treat? Or something. Hell, anything to make them competitive with the stone-aged bows and arrows that still feel better to use most of the time, preferably other than a bunch of weird caveats baked into class design.

Casters needing dex is nothing new, but I feel like soldiers should at least be able to substitute strength for dex when wielding a two-handed gun or something. Hell, just make strength their key stat and give them intimidating prowess for free; it'd clean up a lot of the class's jank.

Yes girl go orc mode!!

Considering how many melee classes in PF2 have good gap closing options (barbarian, fighter, monk), I'm surprised the solarian doesn't. It's a weird oversight.

I think there's some definite validity to these criticisms. So much of the soldier feels like it's trying to make two jank ideas (area fire and base CON) work that it leaves little in the class budget for cooler stuff.

Since others have already talked about narrative anchoring, I decided to tackle this question by putzing around with the game's math.

As The Raven Black said, level is a simplified abstraction of combat prowess. There is a predictable range of numbers that go with each level that tells us how good a given creature is at killing dudes and avoiding death. The abstraction isn't perfect--in published adventures, big picture consistency is often thrown out in the name of nailing the correct situational feel--but thanks to the encounter building guidelines and actual play experience, we can pretty easily extract a "rule" for what level says about overall power.

The rule is as follows: something two levels higher than something else is twice as powerful. We can see this reflected in XP values, as every two level jump between creatures results in double the XP, suggesting these creatures are doing twice the work within the same encounter. Put another way, one guy at level 8 can take on two guys at level 6 in a fair fight (and four guys at level 4, and so on).

A commoner, the most basic type of guy in the world, is a level -1 creature, which is equal to one minus two. This means that, at level 1, your typical PC--with smart tactics and a bit of luck--could fight two completely average guys at once and win. Her presence on the battlefield is worth twice that of a random, average dude. By level 7, she will be worth 16 average dudes, and over a thousand by level 19.

I know it's kind of silly to reduce level down to how many guys you could take in a fight, but that's precisely what it's measuring on the GM side, so why not? It lets you guesstimate the kind of jobs PCs should be doing based on how many normal guys it would take to accomplish the same. So, at level 1, a PC adventurer is twice as efficient at solving your giant rat problem (and half as likely to get killed) as your neighbor Jim would be. Get a group of 4 of them, and they're removing rats with the efficiency of Jim's entire household (including the in-laws).

In Chapter 2, there's no map of1 Little Akiton. Has there ever been one? I'm okay with making one myself (and feel like I have to just so I don't lose track of all the locations/NPCs/hooks), but it'd be nice to have a place to start.

Oop, contemplatives stealth-confirmed!

That means of the six ancestries available in the upcoming Galaxy Guide, we know four of them: contemplatives, kalos, dragonkin, and astrozoans. I wonder who the remaining two will be?

Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, but wasn't this supposed to come out today? It's listed as "unavailable."

It is frustrating that some people read a statement like “Wizards are weak and could use some additional help” to be “Wizards don’t deserve help unless they are utterly worthless”. It’s a very strange mentality.

Wizards having things they are currently good at doesn’t detract from the other problems with the class.

Also, this thread is falling into the trap of overcharging the Wizard for the concept of prepared casting when it’s not exclusive to the Wizard.

The Wizard has one additional 1 spell slot per level compared to other prepared casters. This spell slot is restricted to those spells found within their curriculum. Their flexibility is better but no longer so-much better than other prepared casters.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure nobody would complain if wizards got some buffs (and I'm surprised Paizo's been digging their heels in about it for so long). The question is, which buffs? More/better focus spells? More forgiving spell prep? More unique feats? Some kind of extra, passive oomph a la dangerous sorcery? Something's missing from the class, I feel.

Since Paizo is apparently "listening to your feedback on the potential impact of these licenses on community tools and websites," I want to add my voice as another person who would donate my books and move on if it became difficult and/or impossible to openly create community tools or run a podcast/YT channel. Paizo's games are as popular as they are due to their ease of access. That access is possible through the hard work of dedicated fans, not the company itself. Don't do a Games Workshop.

>Clarification that you cannot use lethal grenades and missiles non-lethally

I love this community.

Lord Fyre, I think that thread is a great idea. I'm not actually opposed to games requiring skill and having learning curves, and do wish more people were willing to meet the system where it's at rather than get mad about having to (gasp!) strategize sometimes. I just don't think people who are having a really bad time are necessarily helped by being told they're doing it wrong, and feel for those players whose idea of having fun as a wizard is different from Paizo's.

AAAetios, you have correctly identified that "casters bad" is a vibes-based problem: a well-played caster is just as helpful to the team as a well-played martial. Hence why I have suggested a vibes-based solution that focuses on pacing, player behavior, and feel more than hard mathematical fixes. Like, if your wizard is doing fine, they don't need a refund, right? But if it's a really long adventuring day, the wizard is being detrimentally conservative with their spells, or a pivotal encounter would just feel bad with an empty tank? You can just... patch some slots in. The entire point is to meet the table where it's at in the moment rather than make any permanent changes.

I quit reading this thread about halfway through because I got tired and frustrated, so I apologize if anything I say here is redundant. I also apologize for the harsh tone, but again: tired, frustrated, need to get it out of my system.

I am deeply, deeply disappointed in this community. This game has been out for five years, and yet the needle has not budged at all. The majority of caster discourse is still one side saying "casters bad," and the other side going "nuh-uh." Worse, there's still this weird expectation that complaining loudly enough will somehow make Paizo fix the problem (they won't; we're several splatbooks, multiple errata passes, and a total system overhaul deep into PF2 now, so any warts are here to stay), while the other side can't seem to offer much other than a handful of (occasionally helpful) git guddisms. The fact that we've had five years to experiment with homebrew solutions and have come up with next to nothing is shameful. We can do better than this.

So I'm gonna do my best to push the needle in the right direction, because I'd like us all to get back to having fun with the game, please.

Anyway, the problem with casters ultimately comes down to one mechanical element: spell slots. They feel weak because, despite having much higher peaks in power than martials, they can't hit those peaks very often, and if they shoot for the peak and miss... well, tough luck, I guess. Slot's lost either way. This feelsbad hurdle's just too tall for lots of players, even though plenty of others can hop right over it, no problem.

So how do we get over the hurdle? There are probably multiple ways--SuperBidi's scroll meta being one of them--but they all have their strengths and weaknesses. Some players just hate consumables, for example, and I don't think forcing someone to adapt a playstyle they dislike is the ideal path forward. But I think Bidi's on the right track: additional slots translate to less cautious casting, meaning casters get to hit their peak more often. They aren't punished as hard for misplays or bad luck because the cost is no longer as steep, so the overall feelsbad is reduced.

So... why not just give casters more slots? I think this one's tricky, too, as messing around with the game's core mechanical assumptions can have surprise consequences that most GMs don't have time to hunt down via playtesting. However, like scroll shopping, it probably works fine under the right circumstances, and a few GMs even include extra slots as an optional side rule to pair with ABP in order to run a near-lootless game.

But again, messing with the math feels weird enough that it, too, presents a hurdle. Ideally, we want something that doesn't change any core rules assumptions or require players to give up on their class fantasy. We want cheap, easy, and preferably on-the-fly so it can be applied as-needed in order to fit the pace of the adventure.

Which brings us to my proposed solution: just refund the dang slots when it feels right. Treat slot refreshment the same way a videogame treats health pack drops, or the way stories treat miraculous second winds or sudden bursts of inspiration. Boss coming up? Refresh. In an especially soothing/magical location? Refresh. Player proposes a cool, yet risky maneuver involving channeling energy through a mysterious interdimensional portal? Refresh gated behind a skill check. Slot refreshment is a great pacing tool that more people should use, and basically the easiest way to reward hardworking players by letting them go sicko mode. And the narrative justifications for it are endless! You can just do whatever! It's fine! You can also pointedly not do it when you want players to really feel the attrition, much like how you can turn other resource tracking on and off depending on your campaign's needs.

TL;DR: Just giving people their dang slots back when it feels right is much easier than expecting everyone to play according to Paizo's mysterious and arcane intentions (or for Paizo to suddenly change what those intentions even are). I'm not bold enough to say this is the only/ideal solution, but it is the easiest to experiment with and adjust on the fly. I'd love to see more people try their hand at problem-solving, too, and again apologize if someone's already brought this up because I got too cranky to read the whole thread.

You and EarthSeraphEdna are insane. How do you have time to do these?

Anyway, my only criticism of your setup is that just sending in one aeon guard is kind of lame. So much of their kit depends on being able to gang up on targets. It makes sense that they'd be pretty miserable flying solo. I definitely agree that guns need some kind of damage booster, though. Maybe a dex version of propulsive?

I think feeling locked into the same routine every round is s valid concern for soldiers and envoys, but I'm also curious if part of the problem is having one person control 4 PCs. Edna has a very specific style of play, you know?

Re: Player B's concerns with being told they're playing badly, I think that's valid (kudos to Bluemagetim for looking out for them). Bossing other players around is always uncool.

However, I don't think that's what's happening here? Instead, I think B is afraid that the "fun" way to play and the "right" way to play are too different, and is trying to protect themselves from knowing too much so as to not ruin the freedom they have to play how they want.

Speculation and projection ahead because I Used to Be That Guy.

For some people, meta knowledge can become kind of a cognito-hazard. Once you know your build sucks, you can't unlearn that knowledge, and thus have to bear the burden of knowing there was a "better" option every time you choose to lean into your flavor/fantasy instead. Same thing with moment-to-moment actions: if you care about being good at the game, it can be hard to play bad on purpose. It's also just a bummer to have to fight an uphill battle because you and the devs disagree on how your character is supposed to work. Just trying to exist in the space feels fundamentally oppositional. It sucks.

Now, the solution could be to just not care. Like, unless you're playing with Derevin Firelion, you probably don't have to optimize to have a good time. The average homebrew campaign or pre-written adventure is forgiving enough that the entire party can honestly be a bit shit, and the gap between "ideal" play and just winging it is narrow enough that one can generally afford to bumble. GMs can adjust, it's fine...

... Except it isn't, right? Not when this is a team game, so your own bad choices negatively affect the rest of the squad. Not when you can't turn off your competitive instincts and thus hate looking bad next to the guy who knows what he's doing. Not when your cool idea doesn't work because the devs hate fun or whatever. Not when you know the GM is going easy on everyone specifically because you can't compete. As much as you might try to stop giving a shit and just have fun, there are so many things dragging you back into caring about the meta. It's miserable! Even getting a taste of it is miserable! So, ignorance might actually be your only line of defense against having a bad time!

In other words, fear of performance pressure and incompatible expectations makes you scared to learn the meta. And it's kinda valid? Like, a lot of the b$%%#ing about illusion of choice and martial supremacy comes from discovering those expectations and consciously feeling that pressure for the first time. A YouTuber recently quit running PF2 because he felt he had to become an expert with the system in order to have any fun with it, which was just too much work to be worth his time. It may be that Player B wants to avoid all that anxiety, and is worried that Player D just talking about the meta will be enough to set it off.

So, how do you get over that? For me, two things really helped me develop and maintain a certain degree of chill. The first is pretty obvious: remember not to take the pretend elf game so goddamn seriously. Like, we're all playing this just to kill time, right? None of this matters beyond entertainment value and social bonding, so I don't need to beat myself up over missing out on a hypothetical 15% damage increase. Derevin is not going to break into my house and force me to stop playing an alchemist, and my group likes having me and my funny elixirs around.

The second thing was letting go of my expectations and meeting the game where it's at. I don't need to be scared of knowing how things work. In fact, a little extra knowledge about the ups and downs of alchemists might actually make managing my jank-ass character easier! At least if I know my to-hit's a bit shit, I can play around it, right? Besides, the game is the way it is because somebody else thought it would be more fun that way, and getting to know someone else's tastes is always kind of interesting, even if I don't ultimately agree.

But that's, like, assuming a whole lot about Player B's psyche. Maybe they just find mechanical discussions tedious and don't want all the meta wank to get in the way of good character roleplay, lol.