WWHsmackdown wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

I'm thinking we'll be seeing more spirit damage like we see in the champion errata.

Man, I really hope not. The champion errata spirit damage doesn't work like 90% of spirit damage in the remaster, and is worse than the old alignment damage was too. If Paizo actually prints that I'll be sorely disappointed.

Are you saying remaster spirit damage is a bad system or errata champion spirit damage in particular is bad?

Unlike normal Spirit damage, which was a buff for these kinds of spells because they work with any living (and adjacent) creature, the Champion's features that grant spirit damage only work against the same creature types it did as before and the Sanctified creatures, that are a bit different than before. If they had the LE/NE/CE Tag, you would gain the extra benefits against, now they need to be sanctified, which isn't a given anymore (although it's still expected against extraplanar beings).

That is true for feats like Smite Evil/Good, meaning those feats for example are just as terrible as before, just in a different way. And I'm 100% betting that they just missed telling us that Aura of Faith and Blade of Justice have the sanctified trait or something, meaning they just work like before.

But for all spirit damage features, this just looks like a massive buff. Especially for evil Champions, who now actually have Divine Smite in more than name only and aren't useless against undead anymore. Because all those instances of spirit damage don't have the "against targets that are (un)holy)" limitation, meaning they work just like normal spirit damage. Aka, you now get your full damage against basically anything that isn't a construct.

Karmagator wrote:

The new playtest is monsters and encounters

Source?

Last Paizo Live. You can read a summary here. The relevant part is below the Envoy art.

short version: field test 5 will release in early May and will focus on encounters made specifically for SF2

The new playtest is monsters and encounters

We know that there will be at least one other field test, presumably in May. No further info.

Given how fragmented and out-of date the info from field tests is, I would highly recommend waiting until August for the actual playtest rules to do something like this.

I think there is a lot of value in giving melee options to many, if not all characters. It makes sense in-universe and from a story standpoint. We humans like our oldschool melee combat, so it shows up in fiction all the time. Even in sci-fi and especially science fantasy settings. It just helps us tell more stories. Just look at Star Wars and 40k for prominent examples. [Sidenote.... I just noticed that 40k is actually a science fantasy universe...]

Enemy design, encounter design, better ranged weapons, more vertical mobility and strong ranged support should be enough to encourage the ranged meta. And if people want to play off-meta, then that's good for them.

For the Envoy specifically, we probably have to worry the least. They noticeably have literally no weapon feat support at all. As far as we know at least. Your directives are so much more valuable compared to everything else you can do and to effectively do that, you need to be able to Strike many targets at will. I therefore don't think most people will be willing to bother with the constraints of melee weapons for slightly better but still poor damage and not much else.

But yeah, From The Front should get a few more additions. IMO it omits things that would make the gameplay much smoother and varied. "Make an Athletics check", as Sanityfaerie said, and "use a move action to move towards an enemy you can perceive". I mean, who doesn't love a good charge? It's even in the description, but not actually part of the Acts of Leadership.

Karmagator wrote:

What are you supposed to do when you are level 1 (where you'll probably spend a good 8-10 hours)? Or when you want any of the other feats at that level?

Good point! Obvious "not a designer" disclaimer, but I think having a few guaranteed directive drops via baked-in progression would really help there. Or possibly let the envoy take bonus class feats? That might be neat, if tough to balance.

Baked into the chassis like the Kineticist would probably be the ideal solution. With the same numbers, even. Two to start with. Then another at 5th and every 4th level after. They are still regular feats, so if you want more, you can take them like that.

That would allow for a good variety in gameplay, even early on, and feel like you can actually react to different situations appropriately. And its a proven concept, even.

Others have also suggested giving the envoy a second class feature to give them a little more oomph [...]

That wouldn't be a good idea. The Envoy already has a lot going on with its chassis. If they got more free directives plus the Get 'em save penalty change, that'd be enough for me.

Maybe drop Acts of Leadership down from 6th to 3rd or even 1st. Again, makes it more complicated, but that really seems to be the gameplay changer of this class. Before, all subclasses are rather same-y, but with that feature, you all of a sudden should see substantial differences. It seems like a waste to wait for level 6 for that.

---

Random thought: Envoy is the obvious class to get at least a few feats that boost Aid Another.

Definitely. One or two really impactful ones in the level 2-6 range should be enough. Something along the lines of Assisting Shot would make sense - do an action, get Aid as a bonus. Or a reaction like Fake Out where you can Aid certain rolls without spending an action first.

What you are saying is definitely correct. But if Get 'em is supposed to be situational, rather than your go-to "standard" directive that always mostly works, why is it the only one you get for free?

Because currently your only real alternative is at level 2 and you have to buy it.

What are you supposed to do when you are level 1 (where you'll probably spend a good 8-10 hours)? Or when you want any of the other feats at that level?

If you got the other directives for free like a kineticist gets impulses, then that would be alright, but the current system is rather like making a spellcaster pay feats for learning spells.

Staaaaarfiiiiingerrrrr~ (Goldfinger theme plays in the background)

Sorry, I couldn't help myself XD

Pronate11 wrote:

Finoan wrote:

Karmagator wrote:

even if the Bard is waaaay stronger.

I will mention that most of the community thinks that Bard is a bit overtuned. Mostly because of Courageous Anthem.

So I don't expect any classes to be created that match its power level. Certainly none that exceed it.

Well, you come across the problem that if one class is by and large just a worse version of a different class, why play the worse class. The envoy needs to be better in some way than the bard (and worse in others) for it to be played

It's gets to support the party bard style AND be a martial, thereby participating in the damage game. That's good enough for me. Plus there's the added benefit that envoys bard style support looks magnitudes more engaging to actually "play". I've never been a fan of bard bc the playstyle looks incredibly boring. Envoy is the final nail in the coffin: I'll never have to touch bard now

I mean technically yes. But with its key stat and (so far) complete lack of feats to support an actual aggressive playstyle, the Envoy isn't going to be that much of an improvement over a caster on the damage front, even if you just compare weapons. I mean, you'll still be better, especially since it doesn't look like we will have any casters with martial weapons to start, much less someone with the same gimmick as you like the Bard. But that's before the caster actually casts.

On the fun side, though, I'm 100% with you. Bard gameplay is very one-note to me (heh) and after a few levels it looks like the Envoy will be much more enjoyable.

Karmagator wrote:

Counterpoint: in practice, Get em is in conflict with far more than anything we have seen so far. Circumstance penalties are like 90% of what anything besides spells apply and off guard is by far the most common condition even before you factor in flanking. Feats, features, items, you name it.

That is before you even get into the bonus damage, which has even greater conflict potential.

Hm. Not to AC specifically, I think. Circumstance BONUSES, sure, but apart from off-guard--which is trickier to get in a ranged meta--penalties to AC are rare. Status penalties (from frightened, for instance) feel more common, as do circumstance/status bonuses to party member attack rolls.

It's usually directly or indirectly off-guard, not a separate penalty. Here is the major conflict potential I can already see at this point, purely in SF2:

1) Your party Solarian (who's still dedicated melee) or maybe Soldier invests in Athletics for combat maneuvers. Both Trip and Grab apply off-guard, so Get 'em becomes largely obsolete, as the grabbed/prone target is now a definite priority.

2) Someone is investing in Stealth, probably the Operative sniper (or hell, the Envoy themselves). Hide makes the enemy off-guard. Sure only for one attack (usually) and only for one person. But anyone running this style will probably be a party's major damage dealer, so "losing" your benefits for them is a problem.

3) Someone is investing in Deception for a Feint or Create a Diversion build. See 2, though I wouldn't be surprised if we saw upgrades on this front. Feint is basically guaranteed to see improvements, given that it is melee-only baseline.

4) Item-related stuff. For example, I'm sure we'll see at least one crit spec that mirrors either the sword or hammer/flail. For example, knocking the enemy prone very much seems like a fit for an explosive or launcher group.

5) Given that I see a lot of people interested in melee builds, it is far from unlikely that many parties will join the flanking train even with the ranged meta. It is just that good.

6) Invisibility cheese

All of these except maybe the last one (depending on your group) will be very, very common situations the Envoy simply has no answer for, in either its chassis or feats so far. Which is a real problem given that your directives are about 90% of your contribution in combat.

I'm not sure about all this "bonus damage doesn't stack" stuff. Could you provide a specific citation? Struggling to find it myself.

Get 'em provides a circumstance bonus to damage, it's not just additional damage. Pretty much every ability that increases your flat damage that you can get via a feat - which is quite a few feats - also does so via a circumstance bonus or at least does so in PF2.

Would runic weapons affect most weapons? Didn't they specify that tech weapons wouldn't work with runes.

Correct, anything with without the archaic trait doesn't allow runes. But I'm pretty sure we'll get an equivalent.

I will mention that most of the community thinks that Bard is a bit overtuned. Mostly because of Courageous Anthem.

So I don't expect any classes to be created that match its power level. Certainly none that exceed it.

I highly doubt that is the case and even if it was, the Bard was strictly buffed during the Remaster. So Paizo certainly don't agree with that assessment.

The overlap with flat-footed isn't even it for me. It's less of an issue with ranged being the norm. I don't think many parties are going to flank that much.

For me it's that Get 'em is basically a weaker version of Courageous Anthem and the Lead by Example effect conflicts with almost literally every feat ever that provides extra damage. And the Bard is a full caster on top of that. Especially at the early levels, you're really gonna notice that the Bard can do basically everything you do in combat - including use the same weapons with the same bonus as you - and then they can essentially end a fight with runic weapon on top of that.

The Envoy seems way more fun to actually play after a few levels, though, even if the Bard is waaaay stronger.

Wow what a joke. So what if I have no desire to want to play the pathfinder system, because of the disaster it has been. I just want to play starfinder. So now I have to shell out more money for books that I don’t want to playtest a game that I have some interest.

2E was not ready to come out and they released it. Starfinder desperately needs to be over hauled because it’s in a worse shape then 2E. When the best feats still reside in the core rulebook after 7 years.

All I have seen in the last 2-3 years is give us money money money for sub par mistake ridden books. I have very little hope for Starfinder 2E.

It’s obvious no one at paizo understands how full auto should work. And I was hoping in 2E it would have been corrected.

I get not having interest in a system. But calling PF2 a disaster and the "latest" books subpar when both are received very well by the community and new players alike and boast by far the highest sales Paizo has ever had... yeah that's nonsense by any metric.

Btw, how do you think automatic fire currently works?

[...]

Also, I said this in another thread, but in order to truly stay competitive, I think the soldier's gonna need a proficiency bump. As-is, the class who's supposed to specialize in weapons has the worst accuracy of any dedicated martial, specifically because it will always be at least one point behind in its primary "hit stuff" stat, except when using full auto/area fire. However, giving the resource cost of doing so (two actions and half a clip), that's not going to be the best option all the time. It similarly falls behind on AC due to its most viable weapons all being two-handed, so it can't use shields.

Now, giving soldiers legendary proficiency in both weapons AND armor at high levels would be a bit much. However, I think it's worth considering allowing players to choose: maybe somewhere in the mid-level range, they could get the option to bump proficiency in either their choice of weapon group or armor type. This would allow the soldier to become either hyper-offensive (like a gunslinger or fighter) or hyper-defensive (like a champion or monk), and thus able to cover both "heavy" power fantasies, just not at the same time. No idea if this would be broken or not (since Primary Target allows the soldier to basically ding the same enemy twice for free), but it's important to consider that in vanilla SF2, the soldier and operative will be the only two pure martials available. So, soldiers and operatives will have to cover more ground for those tables that DON'T port over PF2 stuff (which, I imagine, will be most of them). Hm, maybe legendary weapons for operatives, and legendary armor for soldiers? IDK, just thinking out loud over here.

At the very least, I hope soldiers get legendary proficiency in their class DC at some point. If they're going to be married to a specific two-action activity, they might as well be incredible at it.

It is far from perfect, but I think you are highly underestimating the last iteration of the Soldier we have seen. Because mechanically, that thing is a beast.

Let's start with offense. Your primary attack attribute is not DEX and regular shots are not your main tool either, they're a bonus. The Soldier is all about CON and automatic/area fire combined with Primary Target. There is some progression weirdness with the targeting property and DCs advancing slower and targeting solely Reflex DC has its own problems, so there is still some truth there.

However, even against a single target you get an attack at full bonus and one at (usually) -1, for two actions, both with a two-handed weapon. That is already good. This increases by 1 non-MAP attack against every additional target in your aoe. And ofc you still get half damage on a fail, which essentially no other martial does. On top of that already respectable damage you also apply suppressed, which slows down enemy movement substantially and provides effectively a +1 AC to the entire party against one or several enemies.

So good damage combined with a very good debuff, which makes for a formidable offense.

And defense-wise, you are a 10HP class with heavy armor, usually +1 due to suppressed and (usually) the largest HP pool in the entire game. And likely with abilities like Relentless Endurance from FT1, which further increases that durability. In short, an absolute unit. The devs weren't worried about it being too tanky for a good reason.

---

TL:DR to put all of that into perspective:

A tanky level 5 DEX Monk - considered to have high survivability - has 73 HP (8HP ancestry, +3 CON) and 24 AC. A completely normal lvl 5 Soldier has 78 HP and 24 AC (or effectively 25 with suppressed). Of course, the Monk is a whole lot more mobile and should have slightly better saves, but the Soldier shares its survivability somewhat, so overall you provide a comparable benefit to the team. And then the Soldier completely smokes the Monk in terms of offensive potential.

Seems to me like it stacks up quite well.

Well, I hope you'll get to play as well!

And yeah, it is great to speculate on topics like that ^^. In general, it is hard to believe that societies with significant access to magic wouldn't develop it like their lives depended on it. Because it would. Fantasy worlds are always filled to the gills with dangerous creatures roaming the land, evil empires hellbend on conquest and ancient threats awakening to destroy civilisation. Anyone who stagnates or doesn't weaponise the **** out of magic is like 20th century Belgium.

However, my GM's world is only in the very early stages of that and generally still going for a mixed vibe of medieval and renaissance, so getting your hand on the stuff is like trying to buy a main battle tank as a civilian. Meaning it isn't really an avenue I can explore, unfortunately.

I'm in the weird position that I will likely only ever get to GM SF2, never sit on the player side. So most of my experience with player options will have to come from PF2 compatibility, transferring classes and items into fantasyland. So I'd appreciate any ideas you have to make SF2 stuff fit in as much as possible ^^

Now, my PF2 GM's world is only a step below modern high fantasy like Warhammer Fantasy. Semi-modern tech like flintlock firearms, breechloaders, repeating crossbows and so on are common enough with some faction. Even some 19th century stuff like break-action shotguns in some cases. Alchemy is common as well. Magic isn't exactly rare, but true magical firearms (like star guns) are expensive and restricted, trending more towards level 10+. So while I have a lot to work with, just doing the easy "they're magic now" excuse for futuristic firearms isn't available to me.

So far I've had the following ideas:

1. ARs, MGs and similar high(er) capacity weapons can be represented as super-charged repeating crossbows, 2004s Van Helsing style (I've always loved that weapon :D). Maybe some super early repeaters. I don't think I can swing portable gatling guns, though XD

2. Pistols are converted into a variety of stuff we already have in PF2, but with some mechanisms/implements that make reloading faster. Like pepperboxes with breech blocks that you can swap out or handcrossbows with mags. This really only needs to make aesthetic and surface-level sense. Revolvers might be an option, but I'm not sure.

3. Grenades, grenade-launchers, flamethrowers etc are all alchemical or in some case magic, conceptually comparable to existing PF2 stuff. Just, you know, probably cooler and actually mechanically as useful as they should be.

4. Shotguns... are shotguns. Double-barrels are fine, though the stuff with a higher capacity needs some explaining. I'm not sure if revolver shotguns, Alof's "magazine" or actual pump-actions will make the cut.

6. Rocket launchers and Co. are a bit more... special. I'm currently thinking of adopting the spellgun idea, basically in-universe they aren't regular weapons but magic consumables that allow someone without magic to drop spells like they are hot.

That's where I'm currently at. Thoughts?

Will this be coming out in pdf?

Very interested!

Yes and it'll be free as well ^^

My body is ready :D

Just in case there was any ambiguity: Jenny just explicitly confirmed that there will be both a physical book and a free pdf.

Karmagator wrote:

DawidIzydor wrote:

I really want to play a few of Starfinder 1e adventures with the new mechanics, especially since I know a lot of players that know Pf2e and not a single one that knows Starfinder well to fix my mistakes. Sf2e will be close mechanically to Pf2e so switch should be easier

That sounds like a great idea. To the people who actually know SF1 APs/adventures, which one(s) would you highly recommend?

The first module of the first SF2 adventure path will be published at the same time as the new Starfinder 2nd Edition rulebook. That adventure path will be the easiest choice.

I know ^^. I'm thinking of the time of the playtest. As I understand it Paizo usually release a playtest adventure? We have a good year or so to fill and it's very possible that that single adventure won't last my group that long.

Converting a SF1 adventure path to play under SF2 rules is extra work. I did that with my first PF2 campaign. The plot of the first PF2 adventure path, Age of Ashes, was not the kind of campaign my players liked, so I decided to convert a PF1 adventure path to PF2 rules.

And that is the other potential problem. A lesser concern, as I'm pretty sure my group would love to play a "tour de Pact Worlds" - styled AP, as the starter ones usually are.

When talking with my players about which adventure path, one suggested picking one with most of its creatures already in the PF2 Bestiary. Thus, we played Ironfang Invasion in which the combat was against hobgoblins armies and wild animals. Hobgoblin Soldier and many animals were in the PF2 Bestiary. My first creature conversions required advice from other people on the Paizo forums. By the time the PCs regularly fought less common opponents, I had mastered converting PF1 creatures to PF2 rules by myself.

But if any GM decides to convert a SF1 adventure to SF2, the conversion will probably be similar to converting PF1 to PF2. My experience should come in handy, and I will write up a guide if anyone wants one.

The GM for my PF2 game went with a Curse of the Crimson Throne conversion, so we had a good mix of originals and (modified) bestiary monsters throughout. For a lot less work we both found replacing non-critical monsters with appropriate alternatives that you have "blueprints" for to be working very well. So I've got someone to help me already ^^

But that guide sounds like a good idea in any case. I don't know how similar the SF1 conversion will be to the PF1, but I'm pretty sure any aspiring converters would be thankful for any amount of help you can provide. If no-one else, then the PF1->PF2 conversion discord server would likely be very thankful.

I really want to play a few of Starfinder 1e adventures with the new mechanics, especially since I know a lot of players that know Pf2e and not a single one that knows Starfinder well to fix my mistakes. Sf2e will be close mechanically to Pf2e so switch should be easier

That sounds like a great idea. To the people who actually know SF1 APs/adventures, which one(s) would you highly recommend?

For my part, I'll try to run purely SF2 on the player side for the start of the playtest, provided my players find something cool they want to play. Mostly for feedback reasons, but also to encourage them to look at the game with fresh eyes, rather than just continue things from PF2. If one of them doesn't like any of the classes - I highly doubt that - then I'm sure we'll work something out, but that isn't the point I'd like to start at.

On the GM side, I'll absolutely steal everything cool that isn't nailed down. Probably spice up many of the monsters to include ranged options, unless the environment makes that unnecessary.

After the playtest, I'll see. It'll most likely depend on how well the two systems work together balance-wise after we have finished converting what we want. And ofc, what type of setting we want. I for one am pretty full-up on fantasy for a bit, I'd appreciate a change of scenery.

Karmagator wrote:

... stuff...

That would require granting the same to PF2E though. Which while I would not mind, feels a bit too late to do. I'm trying to make suggestions that are universal between PF2E and SF2E (as an ancestry feat limiter is something that can be issued as a special case for a specific ancestry, without having to modify all other ancestries cross setting).

Granted, I'm not opposed to granting SF2E such abilities, but only on the condition that PF2E gets errata'd to those abilities by default.

Ah, gotcha. Yeah, no matter what SF2 goes with, I'm pretty sure the PF2 ancestry design is very settled at this point. I'd love to see it and people probably wouldn't mind, I just highly doubt it would happen. AT most we'll get an optional rule or something.

But given that your ancestry is intentionally quite a bit less important in PF2 than it is SF, I don't think that approach will work well. The priorities are just so different, so working fully within the constraints of PF2 will lead to avoidable problems imo.

Also, I use Ancestry Paragon which seems to be exactly what you are suggesting.

Not quite. Ancestry Paragon, much like Free Archetype, is a bit too much for many people, so it should not be the default assumption. And in my experience, the biggest benefit is the additional 1st level feat, beyond that ancestries usually lack options or people tend to drift away from "that would fit my character" and into "hey, this option looks powerful".

All of this feels slightly academic, since Thursty has already said that this specific "lol androids breathe now" instance isn't necessarily something that they're seriously considering, and that it's maybe just a stalking horse, to gauge reactions.

This, pretty much. The last word on SF2 androids hasn't been spoken and given the strong (and very much understandable) pushback I would be surprised if we didn't see changes.

The short answer for changes of this kind: if it makes you immune to non-trivial aspects of the game, it'll almost certainly not make a return, at least not in the same form. That isn't a "fault" of going with the PF2 compatibility as quite a few of you seem to be convinced it is, that's a design decision that would likely have happened anyway. A near certainty from how the devs spoke about the problems during the stream.

That said, "non-trivial aspects" is the key here. And most effects of not needing to breathe or being resistant are combat very much trivial dangers. When literally every clothed character will have essentially the same benefits at level 1 at no additional cost, then there is absolutely zero mechanical reason to deny the Android that ability. And if that creates a "better" version compared to the PF2 version, then who cares. I'd like to invoke the "compatible =/= balanced" argument, because having a core ancestry like Androids feel right for Starfinder is frankly more important than that.

So Androids will hopefully end up not needing to breathe, but that won't make them immune to airborne toxins for example. Pretty much how I've seen skeletons and automatons being actually run, just that it is explicitly spelled out in the rules.

Karmagator wrote:

SF2 has an easier time including those more powerful ancestries in a party as well, so we might actually see some 1st party content related to that.

Aye, only problem is that while I like it, I don't think that'd assauge the insistence that ancestries be frontloaded with all of their abilities. Frankly though I have no idea to incorporate level 1 frontloading in a balanced way in the 2E system. And by balanced I mean "actually balanced," not a player saying, "no it's balanced, see when..."

From what I am hearing, the SF1 Society bans a lot of ancestries. Which means something about the frontloading in it's current state is not working if the ancestries are deemed too disruptive. So I do fear if similar upfront power levels were showed in SF2, those ancestries would be banned too. Basically, if the community wants all of the ancestries to be available for SFS, then giving them powers on level to their SF1 counterparts might not be the answer. The definition of insanity, after all.

What I am curious to see is how frontloaded powerful ancestries could be incorporated in a way that would not force bannings in the PFS and SFS.

Yeah, but tbf, I don't think these extra-powerful ancestries are even a genuine option under the SF1 design, exactly because it is so frontloaded. If tons of regular ancestries get banned, then these would be double-banned, because they would be massively overpowered even by SF1 standards. So that criticism falls flat, as all PF2 does is make them actually playable in the first place.

SF2 has an easier time including those more powerful ancestries in a party as well, so we might actually see some 1st party content related to that.

Man, it's hard to overstate how much I adore the way Ancestries work in PF2.

For me as a player, it's really the fact that what ancestry I am able to play comes down to RP and setting, rather than mainly mechanical considerations. Like, I can optimize a bit via my ancestry or atleast get some interesting mechanical interactions going, but my combat capability very likely won't change much if I pick the more fun option instead. And if I want more, the ancestry archetype concept has me (theoretically) covered, which finally allows ancestries at the table that have higher natural capabilities. Balance-wise at least :)

And as a GM... thank the gods for the rarity system. That makes it so easy to communicate to the players what the specific campaign can easily accommodate. Probably less of an issue in SF2, though.

I don't think the NPC/PC divide is confusing but it does highlight the actual problem.

-These abilities are amazeballs and meaningful and you should be happy with them.

-Then why don't the NPCs stick with the basic version ?

Because NPCs aren't PCs. They are not designed to stick around, they're (usually) one-offs and the antagonists, so many of the issues that apply to PCs don't apply to them. This mainly concerns immunities, higher resistances and insanely powerful two-action abilities, though.

When it comes to ancestry-specific abilities, NPCs rarely have more than a couple at most. Apart from immunities or really strong resistances, the rest is usually not very different from a level 1 PC. In SF2, that should be even more the case, as many abilities can now easily be bought (which seems to be a SF2 design goal) or aren't a problem anymore (movement types).

Perpdepog wrote:

I'm confused why gonzo and balanced are being presented as mutually exclusive

Because I'm seeing you have a cheekpouch... but not really. You have four arms.. but not really. You have wings... but not really. You're a skeleton robot... but not really.

It might be possible to put them together, but that would be exceedingly difficult and I'm not seeing it here.

That's because you are mixing up having something and it having the same mechanical impact you want. Feats don't cover trivialities or pure flavour, only mechanical advantages. And in PF2, if you want mechanical advantages, you have to "pay" for them. Which is the way if you don't want to end up with a whole lot of ancestries who are objectively superior.

Some Ysoki have cheek pouches, not all of them. You want your Ysoki to have cheek pouches and them to have a mechanical impact, then there are feats for that. So you really have cheek pouches, if you want them. And they work like cheek pouches, so I don't know what you are talking about.

The multiple arm preview version is already very, very strong. You absolutely have four arms, really. But your level 1 "fresh out of school" character just isn't good enough yet to perform what would be exceedingly difficult maneuvers with multiple weapons. Even accounting for those species being adapted to using more arms at a time doesn't get rid of the even greater biomechanical and cognitive challenges they would face. For a human, fighting effectively with two weapons is already niche and several times harder than just using one weapon. Saying that species with multiple arms should be innately a master at using 3 or more weapons at the same time is the same as saying that all humans should be innately masters at fighting with two weapons. There will almost certainly be ways to make that work, but you won't just get it for free.

Starfinder species will have fully unrestricted flight from the start. For example, the shirren as a heritage. We know that, so please stop bringing it up as a counterargument. Restricted flight in PF2 is merely a product of the melee meta.

And automatons are automatons. Just because you don't have the litany of immunities, which would make them completely overpowered, pretty much unplayable (immune to healing) and therefore banned at most tables, doesn't mean that they aren't automatons. What counts is that you can tell the story, not that you are identical to a monster stat block.

And thankfully PF2 is very lenient when it comes to suboptimal choices (except in a few very specific areas), so people like that don't (really) get punished either.

Karmagator wrote:

Driftbourne wrote:

Sharkbite wrote:

I would hate to feel like 95% of all species just got booted out of the Starfinder Society for some reason that rigidly follows the lines of race. "Look at all our diversity! We no longer allow most races to join us, but that Android is slightly different than this one."

How many species we have in Starfinder is one of my favorite parts of Starfinder, but it took Starfinder 17 books to get there. I feel like the developers know how important the overall number of species is to us. Even if the overall total ends up less, my prediction is we will get more playable species in SF2e sooner than we did in SF1e. The cantina feeling certainly has a critical mass to work, but I started saying I love how many species we have in Starfinder long before we hit 130 species in Starinder. We can't expect everything at once and we might not hit 130 but I think we will still get a good-sized party going at the Cantina.

We'll start with like 50 ancestries and about 12 versatile heritages, possibly more. Compatibility is already paying off.

That's a good point, although I doubt that will apply to organized play, but would love to be wrong.

For SF2, just taking the PF2 the ancestries would be essentially no problem, since there shouldn't be any balance concerns. Only some cultural things which don't always translate fully. So I would expect them to capitalize on that opportunity. It's more that most of them would be uncommon or even rare, which might be a problem - afaik you need to "pay" for those in SFS?

It's the other way around that will be much more restricted, for obvious reasons.

During the stream, Thursty even admitted that this particular feat was included specifically to gauge acceptance or as he put it "to see if people have strong opinions":D.

From the reaction, I'm pretty sure that this won't be an issue going forward XD

The idea that we need to remove species like Kalo from the game because "gas needs to matter" is ridiculous. Tfw space suits existing is considered too broken for a space opera rpg.

Which is why nobody said any of that. There are worlds of difference between not having blanket immunity and removing species.

Are gas dangers really that crucial to people's plotlines?

Given how Thurston (I think it was him at least) spoke about this point and diseases, as well as the plethora of tropes you see in fiction, it is at least important enough to not just brush aside like being able to walk around in space/ a vacuum.

It's the same thing as with undead PCs and immunity to negative/void damage. It sounds cool at first and is really cool a couple of times. But very quickly you run into the fundamental issue that in mixed parties, any encounter that has such elements is fundamentally different for the different players. One side largely checks out because they are not threatened, reducing engagement. The other gets all the attention once enemies realize they can actually hurt them, so for them the encounter is much, much harder. That's a clear lose-lose scenario.

At some point elements of realism have to take a backseat in favour of gameplay.

Yup, that's exactly the problem. There is no mechanical incentive to actually use more than a few of them and even many of those have an exceedingly short shelf life. In my group, we've had a couple and every time a basic weapon became categorically better within a level or two at most. Or started off that way... . It's only once you get into the really high level stuff (16+ or so) that this dynamic changes somewhat. Especially for the Gunslinger - star guns are easily the best ranged weapons in the game. But good luck getting one XD

As for boosting them, we have just started straight-up ignoring the "no property rune" rule. Most of these things simply don't add enough power to make this problematic. You have to be careful, though, I'm pretty sure in some cases that can get pretty spicy. SO even if you do that, the GM should keep an eye on things.

Apart from the vesk/android stuff I've put into the Field Test #3 thread, here's some info about SF2 that was given in the livestream:

- Over the coming weeks and months, they are looking to get together more livestreams and liveplay to show us what they are working on directly

- In March, we'll get the Envoy Field Test

- SF2 won't have stamina as the norm

- Technomancer is still a thing, but they can't tell us anything at this time

- They won't make too many changes to the setting due to the edition change. Most will be due to the several year time difference the base setting has experienced and to introduce some more nuance to some things. For example, not all vesk are battle-thirsty conquerors.

- There is in fact a current version of an ancestry with a 5ft base speed. SO that's a thing. Presumably Stellifera?

- Spell traditions are very adventageous for character design and necessary for compatibility, so that's what they went with. However, spell traditions don't really dictate how you cast spells, so there is still a lot of space for how you flavour your character.

- Means to allow for adventuring in space/vacuum/etc will be available to characters from level 1

- The playtest will focus on the rules. The setting will get its day in a major way when the game actually comes out.

- On the topic of compatibility, it was reiterated that the goal is for the rules to work together, which will happen. 110% compatibility on that front, apparently :P. But whether the options are actually balanced in the other system, that's gonna vary a lot and isn't an integral part of compatibility. SF2 will be its own system with its own internal dynamics. If you want to cross the streams, then the finer adjustments will be up to your table. [Which imo is the only way to really do this, so that's fine with me].

- The actual playtest will go all the way to level 20

- Augmentations will be a thing

The Field Test was discussed during Paizo Live yesterday:

Androids having the ancestry setup we see right now doesn't seem to be as hard-locked to the PF2 version as it might seem. While I think that it is a good idea not to just create Androids 2.0, I also want to see what the SF2 team think would be more suitable for Starfinder. To that end, I think it would be a good idea to create variant ancestry stat blocks that GMs can allow a player to opt into.

Skittermanders weren't in the FT3 survey, because then it would have been a battle for second place. Fair enough XD. Also, shirren were very close to being in FT3, vesk had 24% and shirren 23% (or something like that). Humans were dead last, no surprise about that.

They showed a picture of a vesk with the borai (undead) versatile heritage (at about 01:07:30 in the stream). That's one angry boi!

The barathu sniper, wrapping their tentacles around the rifle, was a great picture as well (at about 01:09:00 in the vid).

Edit:

The vesk 20ft speed with no inherent way to ignore penalties is less of a problem in SF2, as you can just buy a jetpack (fair enough). And guns are primary, so many players will need to move less anyway.

I'm not going to reply directly to this tone-policing but personally I don't think you can square the circle of "game that can stand on its own" and "100% compatible with Pathfinder 2e" without compromising something that will leave me saying "that's a great campaign setting splat, but it's missing what made Starfinder 1e unique".

Anyways, like I said, look forward to your playtest. Not really impressed by the SF hack for PF2e though. If that's all it is, I'll just keep my PF2e rules and use the SRD material.

That's not tone policing, that was just you being incredibly rude. As for the rest, well you can't please everyone I guess. Certainly not someone with that attitude...

I could also see a (magi)tech book that heralds in 2025 as the tech-themed year. The year could go all-in on Numeria, parts of Ustalav, possibly a small section on the previous misadventures in Irrisen, remnants of the Jistka Imperium and so on.

That would also be a great opportunity to get a strong tie-in with Starfinder 2e, meaning people who want to cross the streams have an easier time doing so. Nothing gets groups on board with adding futuristic content quite like an AP with futuristic themes.

Sanityfaerie wrote:

See that bit at the end? That's why everyone disagrees with you. Because you apparently think that balance is meaningless, whereas we're coming to it with a real appreciation of the benefit that it brings to PF2 as a game. Balance is something that PF2 does really well, and it's a big part of the draw.

PF2 is a game. Fundamentally, it's a thing that people play together to have fun. Having it be balanced is an important part of maintaining the kind of fun that PF2 supports - open, broad-based, and welcoming, where people of radically different skill levels can sit down at the same table and all contribute usefully to the same party.

In other threads, at other times, you've talked about how you have huge amounts of experience as a GM. I'm a bit surprised you don't know this stuff already.

Know stuff. Yes. That is the problem. I know differently. From experience.

Well, then your experience and that of the vast majority of people doesn't seems to line up. Just take 5e (and PF1, really), where it has long since become common wisdom that you don't play the game beyond the midgame, simply because the game system breaks at this point.

The experience is so different in fact that strong game balance is a core design principle of PF2. So your previous statement more or less says "PF2 is nonsense" by extension.

Interestingly, what the analog trait is trying to do is not easily accomplished using Venn diagrams. Like if my inner "analog" circle is 90% of my "weapons" circle is that a useful distinction? Isn't it better to draw a circle around the 10% and call it "foo?"

(And like honestly...this is software and information engineering 101...)

I literally told you the reason why a few posts before.

This discussion literally (and figuratively) has nothing to do with balance issues, perceived or otherwise.

You were the one who brought it up, so...

The Android ancestry feats are also very interesting. There's a number that rely on using nanites, and some even seem to "occupy" nanites; cf. Nanite Shroud, which says "while Nanite Shroud is active, you can’t use other feats that require the use of your nanites." But, it's not entirely clear which other feats require the use of your nanites. I'm a bit surprised that there isn't a "Nanite" trait to specifically call out those feats; this is the perfect use case for a "Nanite" trait, no? (Although, saying that out loud, having a "nanite" trait would feel very proscriptive for any presumptive future SF2e nanocyte class. And we certainly wouldn't want that..!)

Presumably, all feats that mention your nanites as being involved are affected.

But you are absolutely right, I would want to see a feat for that, just to make it absolutely clear and obvious at a glance. In play, I don't want to look through the entire description of several feats to get an answer.

If you called the trait "nanite" and left it without inherent rules, so just a reference trait, I'm pretty sure that would be ok for a future nanocyte class ^^

Question: if a Plated Vesk for whichever reason has a Strength modifier below +3, does that mean they're permanently saddled with -2 penalty to non-attack Strength and Dex checks?

Yes. Though tbf, you have chosen that life yourself in that case XD

I would also like to point out that the term "ancestry" was chosen very deliberately when the system was created. Because ancestry includes a whole lot more than just certain physical or mental characteristics. Especially ancestry feats have nothing to do with biology (or however your body works), but instead are purely cultural. It is a neutral term that covers everything.

"Species", in contrast, places a lot of emphasis on those physical characteristics. It isn't even remotely neutral.

For that reason alone you can be sure that Paizo won't budge on this. And ofc, it's simply not a good idea to have two terms for the same thing when you are going for compatibility.

Time to dig in!

Edit: Skittermanders will be in the full playtest, my body is sooo ready :D

Karmagator wrote:

Jacob Jett wrote:

I hope that archaic stays optional. Speaking from real-life examples, Kevlar might be relatively effective at stopping bullets but knives and and other sharp, pointy things (like arrows of all things) tend to slice right through Kevlar. So...

I also hope so and it seems quite likely. Because even when we assume that it would be realistic, it's certainly not fun for everyone. A lot of people will want their Barbarian with a big, low-tech axe or something. Not to mention the problems that would cause for monsters - when bloody Excalibur has problems causing damage, why don't the teeth of a wolf?

All in all, this way people who want this aspect can have it and the rest don't have to worry about it. Best of booth worlds.

There are weapons with the analogue trait assumably for this reason

But you would have to either entirely throw out PF2's nearly 300 weapons or make a little section about "upgrading" them with the analogue trait (which the optional rule will probably do). In which case you are just solving an artificial problem. And it doesn't solve the problem of monster claws definitely not being made out of modern materials.

I hope that archaic stays optional. Speaking from real-life examples, Kevlar might be relatively effective at stopping bullets but knives and and other sharp, pointy things (like arrows of all things) tend to slice right through Kevlar. So...

I also hope so and it seems quite likely. Because even when we assume that it would be realistic, it's certainly not fun for everyone. A lot of people will want their Barbarian with a big, low-tech axe or something. Not to mention the problems that would cause for monsters - when bloody Excalibur has problems causing damage, why don't the teeth of a wolf?

All in all, this way people who want this aspect can have it and the rest don't have to worry about it. Best of booth worlds.

AestheticDialectic wrote:

The damage on weapons is even the same, with the archaic rules doing the heavy lifting for how weapons of the future would shred through archaic armor, and how archiv weapons would barely do anything to futuristic armor

Iirc they're ditching the archaic rule.

It's still not finalized, but the currently the archaic trait is an optional rule, not baseline.

And the damage on weapons won't be the exact same, outside of using the same d4-d12 die sizes. SF2 ranged weapons are very likely to be considerably stronger than PF2 ones. Just as an example, in the first field test, the laser pistol's only downside compared to the repeating handcrossbow was 40ft range increments instead of 60ft. But it has a 1-action reload instead of a 3-action one and otherwise the same stats. And the laser pistol is a simple weapon, while the other is advanced.

Soon (tm)

I mean, I don't know why those classes wouldn't at least receive treatment in a sidebar. Why reinvent the wheel? (The fighter is "perfect" after all...) Ultimately it will be like the 4 million ton elephant in the room if they aren't addressed in some way.

I'm pretty sure we'll be getting a small section on using SF2 stuff in PF2 and vice versa, but I don't think it will be particularly detailed. There is simply not the space for that.

Putting an automatic rifle into a Fighter's hands sounds fine (and realistic) to me. Ditto a handgun into the hands of any of the rest of them. We already have firearms in the game so the only thing really missing at this time is defining what automatic/burst fire means.

That's the idea and Sanityfaerie isn't disputing that. But this is the SF2 CRB, not a Starfinder setting book for PF2. It will focus on SF2 as its own system, content compatibility is secondary at most.

And OP's point of, what will a notional Mystic do that Cleric/Druid/Psychic/Wizard/Witch (or the spontaneous casting equivalents to these) don't already do. My conclusion is that Mystic probably won't make the cut for jumping from SF1 to SF2. If it does make the cut, it's going to get some very radical reworking to make sure it does something very distinct from the others.

The Mystic has been explicitly confirmed as a core class already. You can see what is effectively an alpha version here.

Paizo learned from Gunslinger. Thaumaturge seems powerful but the class has built in self limits. Using Cha as their KAS, having light armor, only 16/+3 in their attack stat, really helps to limit Thaumaturge. Not to mention the fact they only get 8 hit points, a total of 40 hit points less then the other martials. They get the same as support casters/utility martials. Not including Gunslinger which i don't think is a good enough chassis but that's a topic for a different thread.

People also often forget that Exploit Vulnerability has several key weaknesses.

Damage from weaknesses isn't doubled on a crit, so the Thaum's damage output has lower extremes than that of other high damage classes.

Weaknesses also don't stack, only the largest one is applied. As such, when you face creatures with weaknesses that you can trigger anyway, then the ability becomes useless beyond the information. Which can happen quite easily with common weaknesses such as silver, fire, cold iron or adamantine. The info is still very good, but that leads to the ironic problem of the Thaum being at its weakest against the very creatures it's lore-wise supposed to fight, at least relatively to other classes. Because other class' damage boosters still work, for them weakness damage is just a bonus.