Finoan wrote:
I agree that that is unambiguously the case for PF2E. The Starfinder team could have (and probably should have) added explicit Large PC rules in Player Core, but chose not to. Pathfinder and Starfinder, while sharing core systems, are different games with different balance considerations: it seems plausible, for example, that the designers decided that the PF2E's approach to reach was unnecessary given Starfinder's greater emphasis on ranged combat.
I'm a little confused about how reach works for large ancestries in SF2E: in short, do large PCs have 10 foot reach, or not? Per Player Core pg. 418 (https://2e.aonsrd.com/rules/427-range-and-reach), "Your reach is typically 5 feet, but weapons with the reach trait can extend
So nothing definitive there. Similarly, the "Size and Reach" table on pg. 414 (https://2e.aonsrd.com/rules/407-size-space-and-reach) says the reach for a tall (bipedal) large creature is 10 feet (again, "typically"). In PF2E, large ancestries don't get extended reach unless given by another source (Howl of the Wild, pg. 9; https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=3270): however, no such rule exists in SF2E as far as I can tell. Two ancestries, the Sarcesian and the Shobhad, get feats which allow them to grant the reach trait to two-handed weapons as an Interact action (e.g. https://2e.aonsrd.com/feats/186-large-reach), similarly to how large reach was treated in PF2E. However, the Dragonkin gets a feat which suggests that large ancestries have innate reach (https://2e.aonsrd.com/feats/133-size-of-the-ancients): Size of the Ancients
Specifically, your reach extends by an extra 5 feet if you are a shipborn Dragonkin, which is medium. This leaves us with two scenarios:
The former seems more reasonable to me (that the 5 foot bonus is meant to compensate for a shipborn dragonkin's shorter natural reach). Under this reading, the Sarcesian and Shobhad feats are meant to widen the pool of reach weapons, rather than provide a proxy for Large reach. This may also explain why Dragonkin lack a "reach feat", since their signature weapon (the dragonlance) already provides it. Does anyone have additional insight? Am I missing or misinterpreting something?
Slithery D wrote:
I see the problem here, but I don't think they're going to errata this because specific trumps general. That said it does invite stabbing yourself with a dagger of Quieting as a way to cast spells discretely.
Am I the only one in this thread who thinks that gold as a separate XP track is a good thing and players shouldn't be penalized for accumulating and spending it? Leveling up in most classes means a couple choices a level, sometimes pretty obvious choices too. Choosing whether to upgrade your cloak or your weapon or get some fancy wondrous item is way more interesting than leveling. The unchained rules for scaling bonuses are even better because they free up the big 6 slots for interesting choices. (I've been using limited custom crafting for a similar effect.) The economy, weights and conversion of coinage and prices of items are terribly unrealistic, but they were only ever meant to restrict player access to items of excessive power. Baseline the game allows players to convert their wealth into lightweight trade goods of enormous cost (an example is wish diamonds) and back again with no loss. We've always played it that as long as you have a few pounds of encumbrance or extra-dimensional space you're covered for carrying your savings because bookkeeping that gets tedious fast. Hauling out a dragons horde can be interesting though. |