Rotfell's page

Time line-wise of book releases, Tech Core is more in line with the Armory book, although the Tech Core is more like Tech Revolution content-wise.

Wouldn't suprise me, if the Tech Core will be basically a mix of both, a book with some technological options and rules and a bunch of tech items to round it up, as the Core is still lacking there for Science Fantasy feeling, and magic options can always be taken from PF2 in SFS and home games.

Seems very clear to me that's because, contrary to D&D4, PF1/2/SF1/2 has no concept of "attack vs. Reflex", nor the concept of a "Reflex DC" or "Attack DC".

Sorry to be that guy and put something else on top of it, but there is Reflex DC used in the system. Here the general rule. Now onto what uses it:

With disarming shot, we even have an attack roll vs reflex dc, therefore the reason of the decision lies elsewhere.
As a back-then vivid D&D4e player, I know how nice it was to have defenses, but I think the reason it was put the roll back to those who defend against such effects is for abilities that shifts the degree of success, which are baked in many characters and seldom any enemy creatures.
Also, it makes it clear: Attacks either hit or not (unless in very special cases where there is a failure element), while most saves use all 4 degrees of success. Treating Plasma Cannon like a fireball makes sense, so instead of adding yet another rule onto AoE-weapons, having them use some of the standard mechanics just makes so much sense.

Mostly for balance-related issues, as you don't want to replace skill checks with attack rolls, unless you have some kind of tax to pay (like how many skill feats allow you to replace one skill with another within a limited context).

It also makes some sense IRL, as long as you see skills also as knowledge in the field (which is often used in SF2, even if it isn't INT-based). Not every point that maximizes the damage is good to trip your opponent, especially considering their stance and weight distribution. It takes a lot of practice to know intuitively how to move your opponent's body to make it fall swiftly without beating them down until they have enough, and you have less than a moment to preceive it and act upon it.

Which comes back to why not replace STR with another attribute in this case, which is also the boomerang back to rules: Simplicity whenever posssible in rules most characters can use.

It's pretty deliberate. Has been topic since playtest and we got an official confirmation here, so we can assume that this stance hasn't changed.

The proficiency matters for soldiers (who can strike with weapons that don't strike), for everyone who wants to strike with automatic weapons (that can strike), and for everyone who wants some extra damage with weapon specialization.

Another question is whether you can be disarmed of a solar weapon? Wording is it is an "extension" of yourself, but it doesn't speak of whether you can let go of it. By a dumb RAW, you could argue you could drop it (and then pick it up), or grab something with the hand *after* conjuring it; contrary to SF1 it doesn't say AFAICT that it is unattuned and disappears in those cases.

Besides finnicky arguments, it may be important in two situations:

* What happens if you are disarmed? Similarly, what happens if you take the Disarm property with it and crit fail your attempt, can you let go of your solar weapon?

* It doesn't actually say it occupies the hand. That's not gratuitous rules-lawyering: the iconic SF1 solarian had the blade on his forearm and the SF2 Pathra Solarian has a glowing hand, leaving their hands apparently free or free-ish. The issue may well arise: What happens if you really need that hand, e.g. to grab a potion? There's no action to un-manifest it, and if it's Attune, it's harder than dropping a physical weapon.

From FAQ:

Can manifestations like solar weapons be dropped or disarmed?

Yes. When dropped a solar weapon becomes part of your solar mote and must be manifested by using the Attune action when you want to use it again.

This is rather direct. Btw, if you got the free-hand trait on it, it can't be disarmed as the trait says so.

From the class:

When manifesting your weapon, it appears in a free hand of your choice. If it has the free-hand trait, it can manifest in any hand. Your solar weapon is a martial melee weapon.

Here we have a rule that references other rules. I bolded a very important part here. As it is a weapon, it follows the normal rules for weapons. I do think there should be "that requires one hand to wield" put there or the normal weapon rules should be changed to "weapons require one hand to wield, unless it states otherwise" or so to be 100% covered rules-wise instead of 70% covered and 30% implied. ;)

Does anyone else wish SF2E added a fifth tradition called something like "digital" or "tech?" I want the magic holograms and comm unit spells to be saved for the Technomancer and Mechanic. When I play a Mystic, I want to contrast the tradition of magic against modern sci-fi technology. I wouldn't even mind a "tech Mystic" option existing either, just feels weird to be default. I guess it's so PF classes can steal spells easily without adding new PF rules for the new tradition. Still sucks though. Some of it is just flavor text that can be changed, so it's not a, like, super pressing issue or anything. It just feels like a weird choice.

While I can entertain such thought, it makes little sense narratively. The four spell traditions are basically sources and understandings of magic, as well how they interact with spirits, life, and the like.

Otoh, it makes sense that magic will have evolved to include technology, as it probably always had (detect metal was probably developed as people started their respective Iron Ages, or Summon Instrument that also wills a crafted item into existence, or Summon Constructs as it needs to have constructs that had to be invented to work in the first place).

So I think Technomancer should rather have class mechanics that tries to make sense of a deeper connection between items and spells and create specific spells via the focus spell mechanic to add to that.

There are some promising things in the playtest for that, but let's see where it goes.

You can do all three. "Any" means "all of your choice" in this context.

As much as I enjoy Void War (FTL like game)), I'm not sure how that would translate to SF2. In that you just need someone at each station and time your recharging weapons to all salvo at the same time. Otherwise board the enemy ship with teleportation, via tech or magic, or shoot your troops in a boarding drill. The latter option just turns it into a standard adventure, while the former I kinda struggle to see how that gets over the problems mentioned here.

Having roles on a ship that mirror what your class normally does feels like the easiest way to make it work so everyone has something to do regardless of build.
Adding a separate starship section to each class that gives them solid starting space could work, while trying to make a modular system that can fit every build and party comp sounds like a really high bar.

I hope it doesn't become some sort of draw a random hazard type of system because using skills to overcome hazards is rarely fun in my experience.

Because of the complexity of characters in SF2 (as there are so many moving parts), my thought would be to just use the base mechanics of each class (like aim, suppressing shot, spellcasting, etc.) and give them a starship action, often tied to a role. Then do the same to some skill feats, and then a list of general actions (here under the starship rider are some actions collected by CSS which would work as baselines for general crew role actions).

Answered in the FAQ: It's 1.

About whether Primary Strike takes Ammo or not:

When using an automatic weapon, the soldier does need to spend additional ammunition...

About what happens when you got less ammo than targets in auto-fire:

Only creatures up to half the ammo expended from the weapon need to roll Reflex saves. Which creatures are decided upon by the GM based on positioning and the weapon used, but generally they are the creatures that are furthest away.

I also don't get the hate on SF1e's Starship Combat, especially reading what came out after I quit running it. We're GMs really going, "oh you all explode now, game over." instead of disabling, surrendering, abandoning ship, etc? I think only once did I ever had a starship combat end in "TPK" and that was because it was a Halo: Reach style "survive until you can't" style finale mission to set up our next campaign.

As someone who ran it to the end, I will list some reasons that can rub ppl the wrong way:

* Character Tax: To be useful in starship combat, your party needed to be able to fill specific roles (like pilot), which in return created a strange sense of obligation for any dex character becoming the pilot as its role is strategical pivotal.
(I homeruled that in Starship Combat, you can replace the usual skill ability with your key ability instead, which opened more options in party lineup without feeling bad)

* No Character Synergy: It doesn't matter in the vanilla version what exactly your character is, it comes down to skill checks. TIMs (training interface module) tried to make character choices matter more, but they are kinda artificial and not that useful due to restrictions and such. In a sense, starship combat lacked classes and only some archetypes and classes gave bonuses to them. This should have been part of Starfinder's DNA back then to make starship combat feel more essential than tagged on.

* Easy Exploits: The bulding rules were subpar in balance. It was easy to make your starship much stronger than its tier suggested, which is why there are optional rules that forces a more balanced approach to building (which I also used at some point).

* Gunners' Pace: If we go by most scenarios of the Adventure Paths, it was a fight until being destroyed. Which means, game-wise the gunner is the only role that progresses the fight, as it's mostly about HP. This is why Victory Points in CSS are actually a nice addition.

* Lack of Consequence: It's good that usually a los in the AP-fights ended up with being boarded, but usually the consequences are barely noticeable, either by a lack of urgency or that winning didn't really prepared the party better for the upcoming.

It is in fact a 2-action activation. There may be several reasons for it, like:

* only one Interact to have access to 6 grenades (which you can choose to fire)
* only 2 Interact to get the next 6
* upgraded versions make grenades better (tracking and adding weapon upgrades for more critical effects, damage, ghost killer, etc.)
* throwing is more natural than aiming and shooting (and making use of that high range)

Btw, grenades still can bounce, so you can do some funny stuff with it. ;)

I really want bio hackers again I loved that class but it almost could be a class archetype of alchemist. It may be a case where the implementation would just be too similar. Then again they did mechanic and it has a lot of similarity to inventors.

At the moment, I'd use alchemist as a base and replace bomb proficiency with "inject-weapons", especially with the needler pistol in a monster stat. (would also add better action economy with injection weapons as a base feature)

Made a thread some time ago with this idea.

I think a SF2 Biohacker will probably diverge from it, especially since the alchemist without bombs is basically using the SF1 idea of inhabitors (poisons) and boosters (elixirs) already.
I wouldn't be suprised, if the booster/inhabitors are chosen as a base class, get some additional effect via class feats in addition to better action economy and making attacks and skill actions better.

Hi there. I made the first booklet before, now we're onto the second one. Had some free time during Christmas season, so not sure if I get to the next one in another month.

For those who wants to support me, leave a comment so that I don't think that nobody cares at all. :P

I made the .üdf with ScribeTools and this time I could include color and made the .pdf as a whole more usable.

Here we go, have fun!

PS. The Diaspora Strain .pdf will also be reworked, but want to include it with the whole package of all parts in a single .pdf in the end.

Hi there. I made the first booklet before, now we're onto the second one. Had some free time during Christmas season, so not sure if I get to the next one in another month.

For those who wants to support me, leave a comment so that I don't think that nobody cares at all. :P

I made the .üdf with ScribeTools and this time I could include color and made the .pdf as a whole more usable.

Here we go, have fun!

PS. The Diaspora Strain .pdf will also be reworked, but want to include it with the whole package of all parts in a single .pdf in the end.

Let's be honest here: Do you think that you will ever revisit the First Ones with that same group ever again? Because if you believe that you got enough other material to mess with, then do what you want.

What I like about the SF-Setting is, that it's written for RPG. It's meant to give some hints and settings and let GMs play with it afterwards.

If you are concerned, think about it as an alternate universe, it's SciFantasy after all.

Would love ships to have a structure similar to the characters. Just instead of ancestry, background, and class, we would have origin (if it's tech, biotech, crystal-like, etc.), manufactor, and classification.

Kingmaker 2e made the same with its kingdom, including granting feats for customization.

I also liked SF1's idea of TIM (Training Interface Module) that basically allowed character options to work into ship combat. While I would probably use only general features of classes and some skill feats there (to keep it sane), it does feel good to see the own character matter more in starship combat.

Firearms and guns aren't the same. Firearms are a weapon group, and guns are ranged weapons with either the analog or tech trait. So unless your gun is in the firearm group, the gunslinger don't apply their proficiency into it.

There are rules in the GM Core how an archaic firearm may be upgraded to get the tech trait here. Then you could use a gunslinger with the usual proficiency with a weapon that also qualifies as a gun.

If it's just about using guns, just take Operative. Gunslingers are made around firearms' rules, after all.

Hey there. I worked some weeks on it, but I converted the whole #10 to 2nd edition and want to share it with you (google drive), if you want to run it with your group. You won't be able to run it without owning the AP though.

I made the pdf with ScribeTools.

If you want to pay me, sure! I'll take comments of gratitude, corrections, and questions as payment! ;)

I hope you have fun when trying it.

Hey there. I worked some weeks on it, but I converted the whole #10 to 2nd edition and want to share it with you (google drive), if you want to run it with your group. You won't be able to run it without owning the AP though.

I made the pdf with ScribeTools.

If you want to pay me, sure! I'll take comments of gratitude, corrections, and questions as payment! ;)

I hope you have fun when trying it.

Dear Paizo team,

as a selfish wish of mine, I like to request to move a Starfinder NPC Core up in your release schedule. While you may think "Isn't Alien Core not enough for a while", truth is, that for many GMs having a large cadre of NPCs makes things much easier.

Like for me, who is currently converting an SF1 AP into SF2 and while borrowing from PF2 NPC Core can serve as a starting point, I'd really like to have stats for vidgamers, coporate agents, and the like on my hand without the time-consuming convertion (which may still come with special NPCs, but then I only have to add and remove some abilities most of the time).

Thank you for your consideration.

I wouldn't call it overtuned, but I still wouldn't do it. Mostly because of the narrative side of things. PF2 classes are "the old way" or "traditionally", therefore characters with these classes decided to learn almost archaic ways to engage with certain themes and it stands to reason, that the "pure casters" would continue with not wearing armor (unless they take a feat to circumvent it), as it's part of the "style".

It's Space Denny's. Having wings isn't that strange and the wings come with no usage cost (like energy or minutes per day), so I'd assume that most players will have them deployed all the time unless a special situation would make it unwise.

As someone currently converting Signals of Screams, here some of my guidelines:

Encounter Difficulty
SF1 and SF2 are different enough, that the encounters become less severe. Most moderate CR SF1 encounters become low level SF2 encounters, if you just replace the monsters with the same of the Alien Core. If you make all elite monster (and therefore raising the level by 1), the encounter should be around the same difficulty according to GM Core. Except low levels, that is.

Treasure
Starfinder 1st edition has a vastly different economy, as much of the equipment cost more than in 2e (while some items cost the same) and items are sold by only 10% of their market value instead of half their value.
So pure credit rewards are usually worth more. On the other hand, looting too strong loot from NPCs can also unbalance that. As I convert, I have the freedom to adjust here and there and just use the treasure by level table as a guideline.
If you like to do something on the fly, don't have NPC use upgraded weapons, cut a lot of the excess stuff you won't find in the current rulebooks, and adjust direct credit and UPB rewards while not really counting in the NPC loot.

DCs
SF1 uses 15 + character level x 1.5 (rounded down) as the base line for a moderate DC. Therefore whenever a DC is mentioned, it's rather save to check the old DC, use the prior formular to see how much it differs from the base line for the level and use the difference to adjust the SF2 DC by level (*GM core* 53).

Example If a DC 27 pops up at the level 7 part of an adventure, first calculate 15 + 7 x 1.5 (rounded down). That's 25, and the 27 is 2 points higher. DC by level is 23. So bump the 23 to 25 in that case.

I wouldn't recommend to use it all the time, as there are also Simple DCs that sometimes represent the better option (especially if the old DC is also at exactly 10, 15, 20, 30, or 40), but whenever I forgot to mention a DC or you find yourself in a situation where you need to invent stuff on the fly, you can use that approach and usually get it close enough to right.

Skills
Skills are especially challenging to convert, as SF1 and SF2 use different skill lists and not all skills have a direct transition. It also assumes that some different skills are used usually.

Use this list for quick conversions. Whenever a skill that is not profession is replaced by a lore skill, lower the DC by at least 2.

I often listed several skills whenever there is no direct counterpart. Try to allow all the different options. SF2 in general is more open about skill usage than SF2.

There is a special case of Life Science and Physical science, that has been mainly relegated to Lores that many characters won't have. Either make sure that you tell your players that these two will be useful to have in old adventures or use Nature (and Medicine in case of Life Science) as substitutes and lower the DC for the Lores instead.

I hope this helps.

Are you asking for 1st edition? It seems like it. Please make sure to state that next time, as 2e is the current Starfinder edition. ;)

In this case, yes, your assumptions are correct.

Just to make sure: Weapon Focus only benefits the attack roll vs. 5 (plus cover). Grenade Mastery would benefit the DC.

Just a status update. Still working on the conversion, got half of the first booklet done.

Also uploaded a new file for corruption (whops, reuploaded old one, now fixed. Changed the Eerie Perception feat to grant darkvision or even greater darkvision, as I used old SF1 conventions before.

You are absolutely right, weapon proficiency doesn't affect directly Area Fire or Auto Fire. This is intended (shown here [back from playtest]), as those weapons are less about the accuracy and more about how to make those AoEs more deadly, which classes with high class DC usually understand.

Yet features like Weapon Expertise will still affect the damage of those weapons, and therefore your weapon proficiency has an indirect effect. Or primary strike, when you are a soldier and you are actually making strikes while doing AoE.

Does the strike you roll from Primary Target do damage separately from the area effect or does it merely adjust the saving throw on a hit?

It does damage. Otherwise, it would state so, or would ask for an attack roll instead of a strike.

Usually, handle both items the intended way. We're talking in Rules Questions, not in house rules or homebrewing here.

I would use that for my home campaign mostly myself, as bombs were made with the intention of a primary target and some splash effect at best. However, I'd allow to use reusable grenade shells for properly crafted bombs.

PS does require ammunition, if the weapon that uses it requires ammunition. It has no rule to overwrite or circumvent the general rule.

Expend

This indicates how much ammunition is consumed with each ranged Strike you make with the weapon. Anytime the weapon is fired, the ammunition in its magazine is lowered by the number indicated. Other abilities might cite the use of expend as the amount of ammo required to complete the action.

Consumables are destroyed upon use, so technically you may be able to use a Primary Target strike, but then the grenade is done for and therefore nothing left to use the AoE with, which may be an interesting rule interaction. Not sure about that though.

Consumable

An item with this trait can be used only once. Unless stated otherwise, it's destroyed after activation. Consumable items include serums and magical consumables such as spell ampoules and spell gems. When a character creates consumable items, they can make them in batches of four.

Just a random thought, but going down that route was fun. PF2 Alchemist is almost like the Biohacker, as long as we exclude the bombs.

Now with Guild of the Grave World, we got a little weapon... the Needler Pistol (though it is missing statistics like what kind of ammunition and proficiency) of the Wight Scientist.
So if we treat needles as projectiles and replace the bomb proficiency of the alchemist with "injection weapons" instead, it's already possible to play a rather SF1-like biohacker, with elixirs and poisons for the Boosters and Inhabitors.

Of course, an actual Biohacker would probably diverse quite a bit I imagine, but I wouldn't be suprised if the alchemist (as a craft-oriented class) would serve as a chassis anyway.

Yeah, I totally just added something in my head when reading verdant. Too many systems with too many similar rules, I assume. Yup, Khizar need to breathe, therefore the petrified should better stay home until there is an armory book or such.

No Khizar needs to breathe due to their verdant rule, therefore 95% of what the environmental protection actually covers rules-wise is not needed. The only rules that may come in play is the minor bludgeoning damage and decompression in a vacuum, and whenever a rule gets specific, this part of the vacuum is never mentioned. It's only in the parts that could also be just fluff text (like "Every type of modern armor has built-in environmental protections which, when activated, protect you from the vacuum of space" just to go on about the breathing parts and never ever mentioning the damage anywhere).

The other issue is understandable, being born into having thick skin without ever learning how to use it efficiently seems horrifying. Same for plated vesk. What are the parents thinking!?
Those poor souls are driven into careers that take combat too serious. Without it, the blood-thirsting vesk may have followed their dream and become a florist instead, bringing joy instead of death to others...

RAW, you can't use overwatch for area fire, as other with primary target, there is no specific that beats the general rule written in there.
Including the unwieldy clause in the text may be simple future proofing (writing a rule in a way, with still non-existing rules/mechanics in mind).

To be fair, a lot of the soldier feats seem kinda wonky whenever it comes to area weapons, as the trait itself and the "you can only fire these weapons using area fire" often conflicts.

Made an adjustment in my working document. Instead of taking damage (and doomed), the target can become Drained 1 on failure or Drained 2 on critical failure if they don't want to increase their corruption.
First idea was to make it more in line of the mechanic (as RP were more healing reserve and healing is cheap in SF2, so counteracting makes sense), drained does come with bigger consequence for those who don't want to fall into the shadow, buahahahaha!

Also thinking about pushing the level by a lot to just have to make it rule-wise nigh impossible to counteract Shadow Corruption within the Signal of Screams AP (like level 15 or even just 20, as Dr. Gragant is *that* good at her work).

Hi there, I'm currently working on convert the SF1 Adventure Path Signal of Screams into 2e. When I'm fully done, I plan to make it public, but in the meantime, I will need some help here and there, or at least some more eyes.

Let's talk Shadow Corruption now. Here are the original rules. For the 2e version, I had some core ideas.

1.) Make corruption a condition with a value (to interact with other rules).
2.) Make manifestations akin to Archetypes, grouping them together
3.) Every even corruption value, the PCs will get a manifestation, using the Free Archetype rules as a basis
4.) Try my best to somehow rebalance the benefits and demerits into 2e, like cutting all "roll twice and use the better result", stuff about Resolve Points, etc.

I made a draft (Google Drive) and I hope you could help me to finish it, by giving some feedback. Most of the fluff text was copied from Nethys though.
I used https://scribe.pf2.tools/ for the formatting and stuff.

I also needed to add a feat, as there were only 15 manifestations and 16 seemed to be ideal. 4 Archetypes for 4 players, each having 4 feats and with the fifth, they get to be NPCs anyway. :P

Thank you!

Baarogue wrote:

where has Boost been clarified as single Strike only?

I don't know that it has officially, but primary target and various soldier feats is written in such a way that it makes it impossible for a soldier to apply boost to an area attack. So it seems likely that applying boost to an area attack if you've taken the soldier archetype and whirling swipe but haven't taken the primary target feat is an oversight.

Yeah, the "attack" part of the boost description is confusing there. Would it be "strike", all would be clear. For now, it would include any action/activity with the attack-trait.

For dedication soldiers: Normal soldiers "can" make a primary attack, they don't need to, so every soldier could decide to forgo the boosted strike for boosted AoE-damage instead.

So I halfway expect that the boost-trait gets the errata. ;)

STR is applied to the damage of Whirling Swipe.

The damage is not determined whether you do a melee or ranged attack, but by the weapon type.

Damage rolls for melee weapons and unarmed attacks typically add your Strength attribute modifier.

Melee damage roll = damage die of weapon or unarmed attack + Strength modifier + bonuses + penalties

That's why traits like "thrown" had some text added to it to specify the rules (turning the weapon to a ranged weapon to apply other rules to it, yet retaining the STR-mod to damage).

Area-Fire does not change the weapon type and all strange things (like melee weapon having no range) are covered by Whirling Swipes itself.

First sentence is just fluff (ingame explanation how things might work). Nimbus Block would state, if Nimbus Ward would affect the shield in any way. It only allows you to use Nimbus Ward as free action and Nimbus Ward states that *you* gain the resistance.

As I've finished writing a cinematic starship scene just now, I'm also looking forward to tactical rules, mainly because I can push some work towards the players then... :P

I think we could get 2026 even if we get the playtest at the end of the year. I think the math they used in CSS is fine, as it uses standard creature rules.
The real challenge would be to make general applicable actions for each starship role that don't use their entirely own rules, which was one problem of SF1 starship combat.
The only role that "progresses" the fight was gunner, after all, for most fights. The rest more or less only had the task to support their gunner and/or disrupt the enemy's, after all.

What I like about CSS is how you can also add victory points into the whole encounter to change the tide of battle, demoralize the enemy, or work towards objectives.

So having rules to build starships for CSS would already be very welcome, especially with different technologies. Especially on the GM side as well, as Azlanti Ships should have some specific traits/rules to show how much more they include magic into their ships, etc.

In PF2 a week of rations are 4sp, and as sp = credits for many cases, run with 4 credits when in doubt and outside organized play.

Tbh, I think it's just an oversight that they aren't included, as the camping set does have them included.

The solarian is my favorite class, I think having it my first SF-class in 1e did a lot.

I'm a bit sad, that the need for CHA is gone, but I guess Paizo really wanted a STR-based class to cover all ability scores in the Player Core. Just a bit of personal disappointment though, now onto my feedback on the class.

As usual, it's hard to analyze a PF2/SF2 out of context and it would need several SFS-sessions or adventure paths to get a feeling how the devs wanted the game to be played and therefore put the Solarian in good/bad-terms within context.
I can also think that a lot of PF2 bias is easily sneaking into one's judgment, as there are many small differences between the two games that can change a lot of how the game feels to play (like how weapon and armor upgrades can be easily changed and therefore parties can adapt to several situations at higher play with little trouble).

I try to get PF2 out of my brain, ignore the playtest (as this is what we got), and list some thoughts of the class.

• This class can fluently change between melee and ranged combat, as its signature ranged weapon doesn't need a hand to use.
  
• It only uses one action from going totally unprepared to fully usable (by calling all manifestations)
  
• It's the only SF class that has something like reactive strike from the get-go
  
• It adds to the vanilla Strike additional effects
  
• With the two modes, most feats and abilities are doing double-time
  
• That also means, this class has a treacherous high skill floor, as swapping between modes is always an action (though feats allows to do it while doing something else)
  
• Graviton rewards understanding of the battlefield and foresight
  
• Photon rewards risk management
  
• Using only one mode may seem easier, but limit feat choices and combat options
  
• Having the right mode for the moment takes some foresight and there is no emergency button to correct a mistake
  
• This class has the tools to be a great midrange combatant. Survivability, fluent change between ranged/melee, crowd control, mobility, and even some damage peaks.
  
• There are several feats that compete with higher level ones, especially as they scale by level (which is one benefit of having supernova and black hole as two different feats with their own cooldown)
  
• The lack of a subclass makes me want to create one via feats, but if I reject that urge, it can be a very versatile class that has great tools for many situations and good ones in basically every other.
  
• You need Solarian Crystals for flare and weapon, but whenever your main weapon gets a better one, you can put the old one in your secondary weapon
  
• The class lacks a intuitive playstyle, as it may have too many combat options, depending on the build. Be it picking up ranged enemies, chaining down melee enemies, going into the midst to clutter them all and/or explode into their face. All other class start with defining features (like get 'em, the network, aim, primary target, and the quantum field) which makes players wrap their ideas about these key abilities. The solarian gets a toolbox without a direction, and most of these tools are substitutes to already existing general items with just a little twist to them.
  
• Despite the high skill floor, I don't think it has a higher ceiling than other classes.
  

I could probably list more, and I could also list a lot of things I would have handled differently or would have loved to have (like having reforge solar weapon a single action that can be used every 10 minutes instead), but now to my feedback to the original question: Is the solarian undertuned?

If you look for damage, yes. If you look for field control, also yes. Yet it fits nicely with the other classes and if you can make smart choices in combat and during leveling, it does pack a lot of punch.

Thank you for your experiences. So if I summerize it, it'd be something along these lines:

• Free Archetypes are in general horizontal power, so in many cases they player have more options, but won't be outright better at what they do anyway
• be beware of the archetypes and options that do give more vertical power, like more HP due to multiclass resiliency feats or feats like acrobat dedication, which grants legendary acrobatics in the end
• having no restrictions on archetypes can encourage powergaming behavior
• in most cases, the game experience was better with FAs
• Introducing them later may be better when having players with little to no PF2

Thanks for your insights, I think I will probably include the FAs later in the campaign then, when the kingdom gets to lvl 2 (which should be PCs around lvl 5), and will try my best to find fitting ones depending on the leadership role of the PC and the kingdom (as a Thaumocracy may including spellcasting archetypes viable), though I'll try my best to steer away from multiclass archetypes whenever possible.

I will probably open another thread for feedback on concrete choices of archetypes later then.

You can have a familiar or pet, but not both. Because animal companions function much differently, you can have both an animal companion and a familiar or pet.

The cavalier's mount is a companion, same as the beast master's companion (as it's noted in the dedications). Yet the beastmaster's dedication circumvent that rule:

Contrary to the usual rules for animal companions, this feat can grant you a second animal companion. If you ever have more than one animal companion, you gain the Call Companion action.

But as we explore it further, you can only have one companion at a time. So unless both companions won't fulfill a specific niche, it's not as effective as you might think.

Only via Lead the Pack at 16th level, you can have two active companions at once.

Hello,

I'm about to start my first adventure path in PF2 (GMed some oneshots and I'm rather experienced in many other systems and do play in PFS sometimes), and stumbled upon the free archetype rule. Considering, that it'll be my first PF2 campaign, I lean towards to play as strictly as the rules to learn how they actually work, however...

I want to GM the remake of Kingmaker, and the idea to combine the kingdom's leadership roles with fitting archetypes makes me consider that stance, especially as this would enforce that the right PC is doing the job as they learn new abilities from it as the kingdom grows (using the kingdom level instead of the character level to see how many archetype feats they would get).

So before I decide, I want to learn your experience with the Free Archetype Rule, my more experienced PF2 players and GMs and how much it broke your games or made them better in your experiences.

Had a rule discussion with a player here (both lawyering ;)) and wanted to get more insight on this, as we will still play several Adventure Paths of Starfinder 1, and I couldn't find much about this topic and less that's definitive.

Here the ability first:

Inspiring Combo (Enhanced, Ex) - 2nd Level

You have learned to synergize your combat actions with acts that inspire your allies or adapt to the current tactical situation. As a full action, you can both make a single attack and use one envoy improvisation you know. The improvisation must be one you can use as a standard action, move action, or swift action. You choose in which order to resolve these actions. Once you use this ability, roll 1d10 and subtract your Charisma modifier; you cannot use this ability again for a number of rounds equal to the result (minimum 1 round).
(...)

Now let's assume the result of the roll is 1 round. Does that mean that this ability can be used next round again as in tactical rules it states:

When the rules refer to a “full round,” they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count on which they began. Thus, if a spell with a duration of 1 round is cast on initiative count 14, it ends just before initiative count 14 on the following round.

For me, it reads like it could be used immediately in the next round, but the "cannot" of the Inspiring Combo makes the player think otherwise. Any insight, official ruling I oversaw, or the like?