HolyFlamingo!'s page

Over on the Starfinder 2e subreddit, Justnobodyfqwl commented on how the newly revealed Space Pirate archetype looks unapologetically powerful and exciting in a way that's a noticeable break from how PF2e often balances its content. And I agree: the archetype rolls a better version of the level 7 Battle Cry skill feat into its dedication at level 2, grants a two-action stride and MAPless double strike at level 4, a combination of Nimble Dodge and Opportune Riposte at level 6, and an auto-heightening innate spell that you can sustain via striking at level 8. Wow!! And it's all done in the spirit of the fantasy with plenty of imagination and silliness on the side. It's delightful, it's fun, and it's STRONG.

Too strong, perhaps? I don't know--it's definitely busted for PF2's standards--but balance is relative. It's likely that the melee-oriented feats will be more difficult to take advantage of if most enemies would rather avoid you. However, if everything in SF2 has this kind of oomph? Then I think we're in for a real treat. Doubly so if enemies have the same level of mechanical swagger; I wanna see rockstar features like Broadside Charge and Pirate's Parry all over Alien Core. But if it's just this archetype, or it's just players with these toys, then SF2 could wind up with a very stale, lopsided meta.

Regardless, when I showed this archetype to my wife, she immediately started workshopping a character while dropping hints she wanted a pirate-themed campaign in the future. If that's not effective design, then I don't know what is.

What are your thoughts, gang?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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).

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?

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.

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 s+@@, 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 s~*! 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 g*&!+#n 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 s%+*, 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.

The little embellishments on the pain glaive have such art kid notebook energy. I am adopting this boy.

As someone who was a Player B in 5e but became a Player D for PF2, I'd like to try to reframe what D was saying/doing in a way that B might find more agreeable:

When somebody waits to pick last so they can plug compositional holes, it's usually because they want to be helpful to the party while also allowing everyone else to play whatever they want. This is good because they get the challenge of making a character that covers the right bases (fun!) while the rest of the party gets to make their dream characters (also fun!). Therefore, the hole-plugger is a force multiplier for the intuitive builders, as they make sure the game doesn't punish anyone for playing what they want to play.

As for the healing potions comment, the point isn't that healing potions suck. Rather, the point is that potions will lead to a different attitude and playstyle towards healing: players will be more self-sufficient as they can all heal themselves, but they'll have to time that healing carefully. This will make certain fights more challenging, but rarely impossible.

As for you, the GM, compensating for unbalanced parties isn't actually that difficult once you find all the struggle spots, but expect some rough patches as those spots make themselves known. You'll also want to talk to your players about whether they want to try to play through those struggles via creative tactics and problem-solving, or whether you should do your best to smooth them out on your end. Some people like the extra challenge, others find it annoying. Both are valid.

I've met Hillary a couple times in real life, but had no idea she'd authored a scenario. I should give it a read at some point!

Actually going back and fixing older content so it's not errata'd or powercrept out of existence is a huge win! Thank you so much for fitting it into the schedule, gang. Gonna roll up a strix Triggerbrand to celebrate.

I don't think beloved TTRPGs ever truly die. Look at the OSR scene! Tons and tons of people are still playing what is basically just more/tweaked AD&D.

Even without official publisher support, there are libraries upon libraries of homebrew and third party content. I think you could feasilbly keep playing PF1 for decades if you wanted without running out of goodies to explore. Like, sure, it sucks a little bit without a big publishing house officially sustaining the hype cycle and evolutionary arms race between player options and GM tools, but if said publisher is no longer doing stuff you like, why stick around? No point wasting time and money on stuff you don't enjoy.

You just need a group. Given how controversial PF2 is among more classically-oriented fans, I don't think getting one together will be especially hard. Hell, if you get sick of your fellow grognards, I'll bet Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous CRPG fans will make good new converts.

I don't think the issue is that minotaurs are way too strong. They're overtuned, sure, but the problem--IMHO--is that previous, conceptually interesting ancestries weren't given the same power budget. Like, why didn't we get this wild when fleshwarps were introduced, y'know? I feel like the correct balance point should probably a nudge below minotaurs, but definitely higher than, like, hobgoblins.

I'm convinced, Starfinder is not for me. After much thought, I don't believe I can tell the sci-fi stories I want to tell with any d20 system. It's all the levels, hit points and game balance that get in the way for me. Thanks for the discussion, it helped me realize I was trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. Now off to find a round peg.

Stars Without Number is a great all-purpose sci-fi system to start with, and the basic rulebook is free. Traveller is another classic, although I haven't played it myself.

What kinds of stories were you hoping to tell? Maybe I or someone else can help you find a better fit.

The thing that gets me about the "better tech should do more damage" discourse is that it totally ignores the genre space within which Starfinder operates: all of them. While its high percentage of D&DNA makes it a combat-heavy dungeon crawler at heart, it doesn't restrict itself to a specific tone/subgenre like Mothership or Lancer, and goes for as broad a toolbox as it can in order to let tables craft their own experience. Look at the adventure paths to see what I mean: the system can do Event Horizon one minute and pivot to Pacific Rim the next.

Cross-compatibility with Pathfinder opens up this genre space even more, allowing the engine to handle intentionally anachronistic delights such as He-Man, Samurai Jack, and Horizon: Zero Dawn. In stories like these, taking down a robot T-rex with a bow you slapped together from scrap five minutes ago is a thing that can and does happen, and it's both indulgently badass and just a little bit silly. And--given that the default mode for Starfinder is an anything goes, over-the-top sci-fantasy buffet, why wouldn't there be a handful of displaced princes and cavewomen raising hell with nothing but an especially pointy bit of metal? There are dragon CEOs and genies living inside the sun.

So, an optional rule that nerfs archaic weapons seems like the right way to go. Like banning magic and cranking up encounter lethality can help evoke the desperate and gritty feel of Aliens, including a switch to "turn off" sword and planet mode for the sake of emphasizing technological disparity and the need for better loot is a lovely option to have, just like how Dual Class and/or Free Archetype in PF2 nowadays cranks up player power levels for those who don't like the newer edition's more balanced, restrictive take on character building and miss the delightful chaos of first edition.

Of course, one could also make the archaic nerf default and make removing it the optional mode, so... why don't they? I think it's partially because of those tone and genre shenanigans I mentioned above, but also because I think there are two negative impacts on game feel. The first is that it opens up a lot of potential messiness over what does and doesn't count as archaic within SF2 itself, which could lead to a lot of jank in regards to monster design. This extra layer of damage reduction rules whenever the party encounters something with low-tech weapons and/or natural attacks not only slows down gameplay, but also invites a lot of compensatory design and wasted fluff on why this particular creature just happens to have diamond-tipped claws or whatever.

The second problem is that it locks SF2 into an antagonistic relationship with PF2 from the start. Imagine being a player or GM excited to port something over for a little bit of fun, but oops! Rules say it automatically sucks now, and you have to take an extra step to make it not suck. Sci-fi is just better than fantasy, idiot, and your stupid dragon will need special accomodations to compete. Yuck! Not a great sales pitch for the whole cross-compatability thing, you know?

WELL, DECK MY HALLS AND JINGLE MY BELLS! CHRISTMAS HAS COME EARLY!

While the "hidden until it swallows something" bit with the glass serpent is funny, I have a particular hatred of perma-invisibility, so I'll be eager to see how much of a difference revealing light makes versus brute force.

Self-destruct, though? That's a special treat just for me. I've had so much fun with exploding zombies in the past.

Taunt being kind of meh is something I'm seeing in a lot of places.

When I playtest these classes myself, I'll be sure to include more caster-heavy party comps. One thing I'm worried about is that guardians and commanders might not fit together very well in the same party, as both are martials who need other characters to do damage for them. So, running these guys with some "bad" party comps--or at least random ones--might help reveal some possible issues.

My biggest beef with alchemists was with how much extra work was required to get the class to function properly: you had to manage your reagents, manage the items made with your reagents, manage the party members to whom you'd given the items made with your reagents, manage the hand/action economy... It made Vancian casting look like finger painting. I'm hoping the process was streamlined in some way. So, a teaser for that would help me evaluate whether or not PC2's headed in the right direction.

I'm also really curious about bloodrager, since that was a PF1 favorite of a friend of mine. I hope it's able to hit the balance and feel sweet spot. However, I don't expect many spoilers for it since it's such a strong selling point for its sourcebook.

All that said though, TBQH I'm much more interested in SF2. I've gone full red-yarn-on-corkboard with that game. Absolutely obsessed.

Verzen, baby, I think 99% of your problems would be solved by running a dual class game, homebrewing away the "advanced" weapon trait, and allowing players to use different skills to overcome social challenges besides just the charisma-based ones. So, one official, alternative rule that already exists, one quick houserule fix, and one thing that has always been an option already. These aren't "new edition" fixes, these are "current edition a little to the left."

EDIT: Also, backgrounds follow an easy formula to allow you to make your own, so you don't have to feel beholden to the list or choose between flavor and optimization. A background (usually) gives you two attribute boosts, a lore skill, and a regular skill with a skill feat attached. There's no reason you can't just make something up, unless you're in an environment that forces pure RAW and limits player options (PFS).

I love how the first edition send-off adventure is just letting Jenny do whatever she wants. Keep living the dream, girlfriend!

Is the objection to the Munavri flavor based or mechanics based? I may be missing something offensive about them besides them being another group of Azlanti that didn't die off, but the mechanics were definitely an issue.

Mostly flavor, specifically relating to how it--like a lot of stuff in PF1 and early Starfinder--borrows from some objectively goofy yet unfortunately incredibly racist conspiracy theories (see: Hyperborea). Furthermore, having a "superior" form of human also goes against PF2's core design philosophies, both mechanically and politically.

I also just think it's a little icky that the only nice people in the Darklands are technologically advanced, magically enlightened humans whose beauty and paleness are explicitly called out. One of those things that's neutral within context of the fiction, but looks hella bad from a real-life lens, y'know?

Maybe a PF2 portrayal could pivot away from the unfortunate implications and add in some much-needed nuance, but I think it's cooler to focus on new, weird stuff rather than try to rehabilitate every inch of PF1's massive canon.

I heavily dislike the idea that being a more experienced player means having learnt all creatures' statblocks and using it to metagame.

Actually, I feel refraining from metagaming shows a truly experienced and thoughtful player.

I think I'm starting to smell a little roleplay-versus-rollplay debate sneaking into the discussion here, so I'm going to do my best to articulate my feelings without stepping on any toes. I think Pathfinder 2e's a more tactically-inclined game than not, and thus considerations about the roll-y side should take slight priority over the role-y side (which is honestly so lightly enforced by the mechanics that you could almost treat PF2 like a videogame if you wanted, which sounds gross and boring to me but some people really enjoy).

My personal stance on metagaming in combat is that expecting people to play "worse" in order for the game to work correctly is both unrealistic and unfair. I don't like the idea of putting a player into a situation where they feel like they have to do the "wrong" thing on purpose just to maintain the illusion of player-character separation; they should only ever do that if it adds to the fun, such as during a dramatic conversation or to give another player/character a chance to shine. I feel this way because I've seen a lot of players twist themselves into knots over whether or not they're "allowed" to put a bit of meta-knowledge to use, either because the GM was overly militant, or because they themselves were anxious about being a "bad" player.

I also think that a well-designed combat encounter should still be engaging even if the GM straight-up let you read creature stat blocks during the fight. There are more sources of tension and uncertainty than trying to determine whether or not something has a Reactive Strike, and while mystery and discovery are lots of fun--as are the moments when you learn something the hard way--it's not wrong to really lean into the sportier, pseudo-competitive side of PF2's combat. Plus, having the difficulty of a combat hinge on an RK roll or educated guess? Kind of lousy design, TBQH.

I agree that it's immature to try to speedrun an adventure, crack open a monster block in another tab, or spoil the ending of a whodunnit at the expense of everyone else's fun, and I think it's cool for individual tables to work out how much player-character separation is expected. Again, having your character "unknowingly" make a mistake can totally make the game better sometimes (not only is it great for drama, but some TTRPGs actually require mistakes as part of the gameplay loop), and letting newer players take charge and learn by doing is just good table manners. I'm also pretty sure basically nobody's out there memorizing monster blocks unless they're a GM.

But remember, 2e's a tactical game that expects the players to use their brains and teamwork to win. I don't think it's fair to demand certain people use less of their brains in order to play the game well. Also, the commander class is gonna attract a lot of people who think way too hard about combat tactics, and those people are probably more likely to know more than the average player "should." I don't want the class to be a bad fit for those people because half their features require they roll dice to remember whether or not werewolves are weak to silver, you know?

Actually, investigators and thaumaturges both do a pretty good job of adding extra goodies to RK checks so that even the most meta-gaming munchkin of all time can still have fun playing the class. I don't think I actually have to worry that much, lol.

I don't consider a commander shouting "they are tough but slow" to be meta knowledge.

Nothing about it requires the player to have read the monster manual. It's the character is studying the enemy to determine it's weakness.

Right, but what I'm arguing is that knowing or not knowing something about the monster as a player shouldn't be so heavily weighted into a class's power budget. Any RK-based feature should still provide some mechanical benefit for someone who already has relevant meta-knowledge, otherwise the strategic mastermind class is ironically a worse pick for a more experienced player.

Having just finished 1e's Distant Worlds, I think the reason teleportation is unreliable as a form of FTL is that the margin of error increases with the distance between the two points. Thus, the Drift makes for a much more useful transitive plane because it's neither entirely unrelated to the Universe spatially (like the elemental planes), nor is it a 1:1 mirror (like the First and Netherworlds).

So, let's say there's a place I want to visit that's two lightyears away. If I pop into the Plane of Air and fly for half a lightyear, that won't actually bring me any closer to my destination, because without specific portals magically tethering them together, points within the Plane of Air don't relate to points within the Universe. It's likely that my ability to emerge in the Universe close to where I want to be will depend on how far away from it I was when I left.

Now, if I did the same thing, but instead in the Ethereal plane, I would be closer to my destination... by exactly half a lightyear. So my ethereal jaunt didn't actually save me any time or fuel.

The Drift is special because my half-lightyear flight might actually correspond to two lightyears in the Universe (or more/less depending on its topographical complexities), so going through it actually does dramatically improve the odds that I'll wind up close to where I want to be when I exit the plane.

I think it's definitely possible for someone to reduce this teleportational accuracy problem enough that they can forego the Drift entirely--Aeon Throne spoilers, but the ancient Azlanti certainly did--but it's apparently difficult enough to do that Triune found the Drift's creation necessary (or at least incredibly convenient). As for why not just use the Astral plane instead, I imagine it's because Starfinder's authors wanted their own, bespoke hyperspace rather than be beholden to the rules of already established planes.