Well, considering how different 1e and 2e are, it's not really an issue to convert it to 1e at this point, as 1e has something akin to a base chassis and the playtest did the only thing that will affect a conversion: A vision of the class.
Basically, use the mechanic as a base for BaB and class feature progression (call Mechanic Tricks then Hardlight Illusions), downgrade the spotlight (like how Get 'em didn't use to be a core feature for envoys in 1e) to either a hardlight illusion chain or something akin of a subclass.
The real problem usually is playtesting, as it's easy to miss the sweet spot in balance and miss some (sometimes basic) unintended interaction with other rules.
My idea would be to give roles more significance. When an ally follows their role the bonuses gets stronger and if an enemy follows the role, it's penalties would weaken.
Examples:
Action gives its 5ft speed bonus, but when it takes damage, it gains quicken 1 which can be used for a Step or Stride
Comedy: enemy gets -1 on reflex saves, but when it doesn't fail or critical fail a roll during its next turn, it gets -3 reflex instead (or clumsy 1-2, whatever fits)
I'd like to see a return to space horror, as we currently only have Signal of Screams for that. Maybe even mix it with fantasy horror, like part of the Swarm seperating via undeath and forming a new colony, unless the PCs can step up to that.
You are absolutely right in your confusion, which is shared by much of the community. Especially considering that the Player Core had different stats in its first printing, which may have been missprinted, but made more sense.
There the Shirren-eye was ay slightly worse weapon until elite, but then picked up, though Assassin Rifle had some sort of redeeming quality due to backstabber.
IMO, it needs another errata to give both weapons a niche. One for critical hits, one for better reliability.
I think, the debuffs without saves is what made the devs stop to give proper follow-ups play-wise. I think the envoy and its "Lead by Example" is a good comparison, where you not only give your buffs, but have a reason to follow up to them and make it feel right.
Casting roles gives the first (de)buff, but then it stops and you do a turn like everyone else.
Pin Down still has its usage, as it still is a debuff that you can apply to a creature which isn't your primary target. It only has your reaction as a cooldown and enemies will succeed often enough, so especially as a ranged fighter taking away 10 feet speed can work wonders (as often the higher level enemies will succeed more often, and making them primary targets can help, but only if you hit). So see it as an assurance and you'll be fine.
Quick Swap can be useful to get from your burst weapon to your line or cone weapon, the moment an enemy approaches. These are also the kinds of weapons you really like to make use of your Athletics to get them into better position to have more enemies in your AoE, therefore Burst of Strength shines in this regard.
First, there is a big case made by others for aquatic ancestries, but do whatever is better for you. I'll just weighs some pros and cons from the top of my head.
Pro-aquatic:
* easy to manage, as combat and other things are basically like everyone is flying
* it can be fun to think outside the box for GM-purposes to get hazards there and it's easier to get fantastical and whimsical as basic problems aren't there anymore
* depending on the technology there, non-aquatics don't lose much of an edge anyway
* easier to manage, as it's closer to what Starfinder 2 is designed around, therefore less need to write some subsystems that will actually help (as rewriting hexploration will become a nightmare the moment you realize that a ocean planet is three-dimensional and the party usually need 2 days to have one activity, even if you allow them to swim without exhausting themselves or count water as plains, if you count them as swamps, well... 6 days for one activity :P)
Contra-aquatic:
* Due to a perfect environment, aquatic ancestries are absolutely "normalized" and "unspecial"
* Non-aquatics in the party will feel constantly disadvantaged by their aquatic fellows to get even, even with the technology and other means, as those will use up slots (like upgrade slots, augmentations, spell slots, etc.)
* Survival aspect will fall much flatter, as hunting, harvesting, and gathering doesn't pose as much risk and work, unless everything becomes so hazardous, that it'd be easier and more merciful to hunt down the non-aquatics of the party and eat them than to let them even get outside their crashed ship
So I would probably look at what is important for me as the GM. If I want PCs to struggle and have problems all around they have to work through for several levels (and you got players with the patience for that), then non-aquatic is the way to go. Then maybe around level 5-6 give them some means like a swim speed to open up the world and grow out of the "basic means problems" to lead into more fantastical elements. If it's all about the fantastical elements, the experience of what may lie under the sea, then ask them to play aquatics and if someone actually wants to be non-aquatic, allow some early means to get there with the rest.
It's not on AoN, but pg 430 of the SF1 Core Rulebook states that the time for a message to get through the Drift is the same as the travel time.
So if the message can get through via Drift Lanes or are sent to Absalom Station, it takes just days, unless strong Drift Engines are used.
There was a SF1 ritual that cut the time in hours, but also has a 25 word limit (and is high level for SF1).
Answer to SFS: Suck it up until Paizo makes a boon or ruling to make it work. It's organized play, after all, so every rule is read and used tighter to work as a guideline for every GM.
Answer for Home Games: Do whatever vibes with your group.
Quote:
I am left with the impression that the archaic weapon heritages, and Close Quarters Soldier, were designed separately from each other.
I would go as far as to say that the "OK, we got the needed amount of cross-compability out there, said that the GM may need to consider some changes if necessary, and will now leave it at that, as in the past as in the future there will be too many cases that even trying to cover it will too much text. We seriously don't need to cover a PF-character slinging killer whales that might be converted to a SF-character whipping space whales ourselves, or to cover any little odd option we did in the Player Core just to clean up every bit of compatibility issue with our partner system, which is still another system in the end."-attitude have taken over.
Personal take: Gee, I wonder why weapons keep on evolving, as if they need to adapt to different kinds of fighting styles and warfare and old weapons are optimized to their thing and new weapons are optimized for other things. :P
You can't RAW. Here shows how important wording is in rules.
Saw it Coming doesn't allow you to draw a weapon, but to use "Interact to draw a weapon", which means it refers to the Interact action, not any action that is called Draw or any action that allows you to draw a weapon.
Tactical Hideaway Limb doesn't allow you to draw an item and use it, but to use its own Draw action and then add onto it.
If it would be allowed, the tactical hideaway limb would read like "When you use Interact to draw a weapon, if the item can be activated or otherwise used with a single action, you can use the item as part of the same action. For example, you Interact to draw a weapon, then Strike with that weapon."
Well, as I'm currently running my own conversion of Signal of Screams and had to do/modify most statblocks myself, I can't speak from experience, but if what OP says is true, this would certainly be a problem, as this would poke a hole into one of the best things I experienced with PF2 (and therefore also SF2): That encounters aren't guesstimates, but can be made quick and reliably, other than some other systems.
It's good to have encounters of different difficulties and some have to be hard to acquire it, to make the players feel like they *earned* it. Challenge is a spice of life, after all.
Why do we have simple/martial/advanced area weapons if proficiency isn't supposed to matter?
Because lacking any classification would lead to even more confusion and we already have cases where proficiency matters (like Primary Strike), it's just not the "base matter" of the weapon.
Squiggit wrote:
Why is the only class that can't use advanced area weapons properly the one class built around area weapons? If the proficiency is for niche protection this seems completely backwards.
In what capacity can another class use an advanced AoE better than a soldier?
Squiggit wrote:
Why are there advanced weapons with the performance trait if proficiency isn't supposed to matter?
To add the item bonus to the skill?
Squiggit wrote:
Why has it been so hard to get any discussion on it? I know there's a few comments scattered around the internet now, but people spent the whole playtest asking about it and the devs were weirdly evasive the whole time. This somewhat stands out because parts of the playtest were actually fairly well documented in terms of explaining certain ideas.
I see plenty of discussions, but in case you want to have a dev on it... did you try to contact them directly? I mean, I'm happy to spot a dev on a forum or a reddit to get what they say, but I certainly don't expect them and even they have the right to say "well, we said what we said and won't say more at this point".
Good to have some free conversions of The Diaspora Strain, The Penumbra Protocol, and Heart of Night from SF1e to SF2e out there in the wilds, Starfinder Rotfell. ;)
Thank you for your kind words. I'm probably done with GMing Diaspora Strain this week and already spotted several needs for corrections.
Starting converting Scoured Stars campaign (not the AP) soon.
In general it's assumed that each creature will take only once damage per round unless it's willingly doing something out of the ordinary, especially as these walls often lack saving throws.
Wall of Fire (assuming 1e):
Wall of Fire wrote:
The wall deals this damage when it appears and on your turn each subsequent round. In addition, the wall deals 5d6 fire damage to any creature passing through it.
So first damage when it appears. Then enemies have a chance to defend against it, which is why it deals its damage when you start your next turn again.
As "passing through" means usually "moving from one side to another", a creature that starts its turn in the wall doesn't get damage when it moves out, which is congruent to the usual design: You will get damage only once per round unless you do something out of the ordinary.
Getting a wall cast on you and you moving out is pretty much what to expect. Like almost every other effect lingering effect, there is a timewindow to do something to avoid more of it. In this case it's just a specific movement pattern instead of a save.
What would be out of the ordinary? Crossing the wall several times during your movement, for example. Usually, it's because of the own choice though, not a choice forced upon you.
Another would be teamwork, like one casting the wall and another pushing an enemy through it. This is the result of two turns of effort, so having two instances of damage is also to be expected.
To sum it up: You can argue your point, but I don't read the rule that way, so I would agree with your GM there, unless you get enough pushing power to get the enemy through the wall.
First, Whirling Swipe allows you to use the reach of your weapon (so 10 feet for a Painglaive for example), while the CC-Fighting Style is always 5 feet.
Second, Whirlwind Swipe is a feat that every soldier can take, in case they want a melee AoE if needed. However, they are not supposed to use other feats in combination, while CC-soldiers can use Shot on the Run to Stride and melee-AoE in two actions.
It seems a bit bulky and yes, it seems to double, but it doesn't. I would have probably also preferred other solutions, but this is what we have.
If I would see the whole boost trait as a problem will probably show with the SFS-scenarios and Adventure Paths, as these are as close as you can get to the game as the makers have envisioned it. If we get enough ideas how to not have whiteroom combat, then boost may not be meta. As long as combat remains a damage race with few interceptions, the numbers won't lie.
Boost can be a problem, as it's one of the few direct damage buffs there is in Starfinder 2e, and it adds already two damage dice with an advanced weapon.
And we're not talking about a small one like one damage per die, like backstabbing. Like moosher12 already said, the damage is also comparable with two attacks and therefore it's usually better (as there is no MAP involved).
It's basically emulating several class feats in PF2 like Vicious Swing with fewer downsides.
As it's now online and boosting was a SF1 mechanic, there are limited options to reign that in officially and many will be seen as what they are: Balance updates instead of errors that worked their way into the final product. May be needed for game health though, depends on what Paizo will stomp out later. Either reducing the boost dice of the current weapons or tacking some demerit to the trait (like -2 circumstance penalty to attacks while boosted or increasing the expand for each damage die [as SF1 also needed more charges for boosts], a cooldown, etc.) might work.
While I know that this is not appropriate as spellcasters are supposed to do less damage, I compared Ignition to the damage of a plasma caster used by an operative. It's definitely not as dry (as there are no upgrades or special actions like aim in there), but if you want to compare two actions that are spammable with each other and aims at AC, it might be a good starting point. The plasma caster has the same item level as the caster would need to get to the rank.
Oc there are also some critical hits to consider and I won't see it as anything else than a starting point.
Making boost 2 actions would also be an interesting thought experiment, but it would heavily limit its use with classes like soldier or operative who seem to be the ones who should use it more than others.
Today I finished the last conversion guide for Signal of Screams, #12 Heart of Night. As long as you own the original, you can converse it from 1st edition to 2nd edition now. Here are all 3 links, though I changed the formatting between each one (first one, I was new to ScribeTools, and thanks to Jerry123i I was able to make the third one look much more like Starfinder than Pathfinder).
I will finish GMing it, make some notes in-between for changes (and take everything you tell me into account as well), then I will make a mega-pdf. But it will be months away, as we're barely in Signal of Screams right now.
Today I finished the last conversion guide for Signal of Screams, #12 Heart of Night. As long as you own the original, you can converse it from 1st edition to 2nd edition now. Here are all 3 links, though I changed the formatting between each one (first one, I was new to ScribeTools, and thanks to Jerry123i I was able to make the third one look much more like Starfinder than Pathfinder).
I will finish GMing it, make some notes in-between for changes (and take everything you tell me into account as well), then I will make a mega-pdf. But it will be months away, as we're barely in Signal of Screams right now.
I also lament the lack of adventure kits, as it was a huge help when making one shots and the like (also a stable guideline for beginner players).
Solarian:
I would consider the skyfire armor due to its lack of upgrade slots, if sholashtu doesn't fit fine, Defrex Hide is another option. Or 5 credits more instead to go Freebooter (as Max dex only applies to AC not reflex and the AC stays the same and you ignore the check penalties with your STR anyway).
With Skyfire Armor or Freebooter, you're basically down to a few credits. Get a container first to carry your stuff and a hygiene kit to be socially acceptable, and you got the basics covered.
As a very athletic character, you may want to take the Climbing kit or the Autograppler. If you got Crafting, Maker's App is kinda nice to make more items during Drift Travel.
Soldier
Get the guns with the biggest AoEs to make your Fighting Style work for you. Go for the Stellar Cannon first, as burst-area is the easiest to use (as your position matter only for range) and the damage is good (in addition to training in martial weapons, which matters for Primary Strike). Go Defrex Hide until there is enough credits to go heavy armor. Then the Container and Hygiene kit. Then you could purchase a usable grenade shell for the future (as grenades can deal with damage types) though there isn't enough left for a grenade (maybe you can buy one and "lend" it to her though, as it won't break permanently with the shell).
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.
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:
Quote:
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.
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).
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:
Quote:
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)
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.
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.
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.
If you want to pay me, sure! I'll take comments of gratitude, corrections, and questions as payment! ;)
Some noticeable changes (for GMs only):
1.) Adjusted most rewards to better fit the SF2 economy. Many are low level items, so I used the selling value.
2.) Inserted a whole optional part to use a variation of the Influence System into the first part of the adventure (as Paizo may have done it if it were a 2nd edition adventure).
3.) Made the last bit of Part 3 a chase, so skipping the starship combat there. My idea was to make it a bit more organically, instead of somehow buttering in Kane in a fight and still the players that retreating is the smarter choice. I still converted Kane's stats.
4.) I changed Shadow Corruption to use a variant of the Free Archetype rule (so don't use it), using the Corruption Value instead of level to determine the number of feats. This is more streamlined than the original, but seems to be a good fit.
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.
If you want to pay me, sure! I'll take comments of gratitude, corrections, and questions as payment! ;)
Some noticeable changes (for GMs only):
1.) Adjusted most rewards to better fit the SF2 economy. Many are low level items, so I used the selling value.
2.) Inserted a whole optional part to use a variation of the Influence System into the first part of the adventure (as Paizo may have done it if it were a 2nd edition adventure).
3.) Made the last bit of Part 3 a chase, so skipping the starship combat there. My idea was to make it a bit more organically, instead of somehow buttering in Kane in a fight and still the players that retreating is the smarter choice. I still converted Kane's stats.
4.) I changed Shadow Corruption to use a variant of the Free Archetype rule (so don't use it), using the Corruption Value instead of level to determine the number of feats. This is more streamlined than the original, but seems to be a good fit.
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).
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.
skills table:
SF1 | SF2 | Note
--- | --- | ---
Acrobatics | Acrobatics |
Athletics | Athletics |
Bluff | Deception |
Computers | Computers |
Culture | Society |
Diplomacy | Diplomacy |
Disguise | Deception |
Engineering | Crafting, Thievery | Thievery for disarming traps, countermeasures, opening locked doors, and the like
Intimidate | Intimidation |
Life Science | Cooking Lore, Life Science Lore, Medicine, Nature | Cooking Lore to create foods, Medicine for drugs and poisons, Nature for bio organisms
Medicine | Medicine |
Mysticism | Arcana, Nature, Religion, Occultism | Depending on magic tradition
Perception | Perception | It's not a skill anymore
Piloting | Piloting
Physical Science | Nature, Physical Science Lore | There are also several Lores that represent one Science, like chemistry
Profession | Performance, Several Lores |
Sense Motive | Perception | Sense Motive is a Perception Activity now
Sleight of Hand | Thievery |
Stealth | Stealth |
Survival | Survival |
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.
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.
Player Core pg. 255 wrote:
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.
Player Core pg. 445 wrote:
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.
