moosher12's page

Driftbourne wrote:

Starfinder Galactic Ancestries comes out at the beginning of April. It has 21 ancestry options, not sure if that's 21 ancestries or also includes versatile heritage and Starfinder heritages for PF2e ancestries. I suspect this will be the most ancestries we get at one time in SF2e

Starfinder Absalom Station comes out around August. Has one SF1e ancestry and one new ancestry.

Ah I see, I had no clue that those were even a thing. I never saw anything about that on this website, maybe it's just because I'm on mobile. Do you know if it will be including content for/from pre-existing ancestries that are in other books already?

The cover features a goblin (so space goblin heritage would likely come), a bantrid, and an Izalguun.

Additionally, Formians, moonflower leshies, Azrinarans (Void Elves, formerly drow, likely an elf heritage), and a playable ooze people are confirmed,

I think it's safe to assume at least the Pathfinder core races, Elf, Orc, Leshy, Halfling, and Gnome would be included.

I'm betting the Runesmith iconic is a (New) Thassilonian clockwork automaton, rather than a Jistkan automaton, given the class is the Runesmith. That might explain the aesthetic differences.

Awakened construct of Azlanti or Thassilonian origin would fit well.

Mild tidbit, but automaton has a unique definition in Path/Starfinder. It's defined as a robot chassis being piloted by a humanoid's soul via an Automaton core, so I doubt that would be the case, especially since it seems that they were not invented until post Earthfall. If it was not formerly human, it would not count as an automaton.

Now granted, automaton is an assumption. It might be an awakened clockwork or an awakened construct, or as someone else was hoping, a wyrwood, the way Battlecry! gave us the Jotunborn ancestry plus two classes. This might be two classes plus a unique construct ancestry.

That aside, a leshy would be cool, but not many opportunities to use a leshy, as it would most fit with say, an animist, a druid, or a mystic. If we dig into 1E classes, perhaps the shaman could do, but the shaman was mostly rolled into animist.

Though, they did reveal during the stream last Friday that a new character would be appearing in Operation Hellmouth as Valeros' daughter, and also revealed that some of the iconics in Godsrain became mythic. So part of me wonders if this is a narrative to open the gates for a new set of iconics in a potential PF3E. Valeros' daughter replacing Valeros the way Chk Chk replaced Keskodai. This could be an opportunity to bring in a leshy as say, a druid.

I hope they change magus by allowing us to pick spell lists...

This. I have heavy doubts it would be the case, but I'd want this so so much.

Added a new Errata thread in the Starfinder Second Edition board at https://paizo.com/threads/rzs7k7ld?Starfinder-2026-Errata-Suggestions. Please take further errata submissions there.

This thread is for errata suggestions for the errata patch following the Starfinder 2025 Winter Errata Patch. The old thread can be found at SF2E 2025 Fall Errata Suggestions (NO PLAYTEST CONTENT).

This thread is for released content only, not for any content from playtest documents, such as the Tech Core playtest.

This has to be the last major remaster right? SoM will be, as of feb, the last class book that hasn't had a major reprint. Maybe Rage of Elements but I'm pretty sure that's under the ORC so there's no need.

Rage of Elements is still OGL. If you have the book, turn to page 239. While it's designed for ORC balancing, it is still OGL, and cannot legally be used in ORC content by third party publishers (So if I was to write an adventure, I could not include a kineticist. I am pleased I will soon be able to include Magi and Summoners again).

But because Rage of Elements was designed with ORC balancing, it will not see major changes beyond applying the Summer 2024 and Spring 2025 erratas, and hopefully some more errata if necessary. Kineticist would not see a Remaster, as a result, just a few errata updates, if any.

So yes, the last major remaster would be within Impossible Magic. Rage of Elements is still a necessary remaster, but it's a fairly simple and minor one that would likely see less change than Guns and Gears got and Dark Archive will get, and is only contingent on Paizo running out of OGL copies.

Happy to see we've finally got a Second Edition board.

Is this thread for errata suggestions, or just to talk about the Winter Errata blog?

Sadly wyrwoods in the Monster Core 2 have a more wooden texture, while our iconic Runesmith has a more bronze metallic texture. Their helmet (head?) also closely matches the bell shape of the Clockwork Soldier in Monster Core 2.

Hopefully, the way Monster Core 2 brought back some legacy monsters that had unsure legality, like the mimic, maybe it could bring back some of the spells from D&D/PF1E that were in an unsure space, like Mirror Image, or Antimagic Field, now that lawyers had the chance to thoroughly check. If any of the spells can be brought back into modern 2E, that book would be a fine opportunity to do it.

I'm wondering if that Runesmith is an Automoton per se. They're obviously some kind of construct, but their design is so radically different from the Jistkan ones from G&G and Monster Core 2. It's entirely possible they're just from a different origin, but could it be like in Battlecry! that one of the new iconics in this book is repping a New Ancestry described therein? Clockwork? Cogsfolk?

Love the Lizardfolk, with the pointy-hooded cloak and the bone armor, Iruxi Necromancer really fits the lore. Was I kinda hoping Hell's Vengeance's Nyctessa would make a comeback? A little, but maybe she'll be a sample build.

(Also that Sketch Edition is CHAOS)

The construct really looks more like a clockwork than an automaton. Bestiary 3 from Pathfinder 1E used to refer to awakened clockwork servants on page 56. So there is precedent in 1E lore for a clockwork to be an intelligent character. That would be really cool if we could get an alternate fantasy construct race that does not have to be almost 10,000 years old. Not that Automatons are not amazing, just that that's a limitation that can narrow opportunities for character creation.

Or better yet: what if it was awakened construct? where different heritages paint different constructs?

Sans dark archive, I'm surprised how close I was. I'm relieved Magus and Summoner are finally confirmed for their remaster pass.

I read by the Golarion World park again while reading the GM Core, and it made me think

Starfinder Golarion World

This would be a Lost-Omens length book to the tune of Galaxy Guide or Galactic Ancestries. From a story point of view, such a book would cover just how much has been learned about Golarion from gathered snippets of memory plus archeological finds. (The map on pages 10 and 11 of the Galaxy Guide reveals that quite a bit was rediscovered about Golarion's geography to produce such a complete map). Such a book can take a format inspired by Rival Academies, as representatives of various departments explain different aspects of Golarion, say an expert on ancient magic, an expert in traditional crafting techniques, an expert in historical martial arts and warfare, among other subjects.

Mechanically, this would also be a perfect opportunity to go more in-depth with compatibility rules that the GM Core laid the ground work for, but was not quite exacting in.

This is where we can add "rennaisance faire" options for Starfinder classes, while adding scifi options to Pathfinder classes, as such an attraction would be the sort of place where historic reenactors might experiment with practicing old techniques while implanting some modern wisdoms, while alike taking the wisdom of the past and bringing it forward to modern kits.

Paizo is usually consistent about getting certain book-types out at certain times. Tech Core would be a core class book, which typically comes out on an August (or the last few days of July), coinciding with Gen Con.

So more than likely the ETA would be July 30, 2026, and if a Pathfinder book got such a priority over Tech Core (such as the Impossible book) instead of a dual-release, the book would come out by no latter than November is my estimate based on Paizo's release history.

So, I've been reading Era of the Eclipse and Guilt of the Grave World side-by-side.

In my head, I hear Zo! as Alex Rochon's Caine.

I'm not sure why Starfinder 2E's errata is in the 1E errata page (https://paizo.com/starfinder/faq), and not the 2E errata page (https://paizo.com/starfinderplaytest/faq). Having to jumble 1e and 2e errata feels like it'll just cause confusion down the line, especially for newer players.

Pathfinder 2E's errata page includes no 1E content, and I think that's a proper approach, it keeps things simple and straightforward.

Agreed. I mean, I like the aesthetic of the new store, but good aesthetics only does so much when what I was assuming was equal or more functionality, instead of, well, decreased functionality.

I miss product discussion and reviews.

Is it possible we could get any insight into why the impossible play test classes haven't been released yet, or announced?

Can you elaborate on what you mean by Impossible Playtest classes not being announced? My Playtest Document has the prototypes for the Necromancer and the Runesmith right in it.

So I'm going through the Starship Operations Manual for 1E, and it reminded me of something.

When we get tactical ship rules, I hope ship weapons actually get descriptions. That ship weapons were just flulff-less stat blocks felt oddly bare bones for Paizo. And I hope the 2E ship-weapons have PC weapon-style descriptions. (Also, because I tend to consume less scifi content, I'm not as innately versed in scifi weapon concepts, and having descriptions of what the weapons themselves do does a lot to help me understand the weapon, especially for the more scifi concept ones)

On top of this, if we get build rules to add modules to a Starship as a base of operations and home for the party, I'd love for Paizo at one point to grant optional rules to flex these rules into other vehicle genres.

For example, I'd like to see airships (Highwind from Final Fantasy 7), which would thrive in the Plane of Air, or in Orry. Sea vessels (Thousand Sunny from One Piece), which can thrive on Vesk 2. Submarines (Tuatha de Danaan from Full metal Panic) which can thrive on Kalo Mahoi, Vesk 2, or the Plane of Water. And land vehicles (Taranis from Fuga: Melodies of Steel) which can thrive on most any terrestrial planet.

Will add a +1 interest on NPC Core.

Though realistically, since we seem to know the lineup up until approaching Fall 2026 for Starfinder main books, we likely would not see an NPC Core until 2027 at the earliest.

Starfinder: LAST OMENS, the Remains of Lost Golarion

new ancestry options for Pathfinder Core ancestries like Orcs, Elves, Gnomes, Halflings, Leshies, and Goblins all living across the Pact Worlds.

Special class feats or class archetypes for Pathfinder classes to help them interact with the Sci-Fantasy world of Starfinder.

Supposedly the upcoming Alien Ancestries book will already give these ancestries, but I otherwise support this idea, and we can just swap those with even more classic Starfinder ancestry options.

I am just grateful that the points are being considered. No is a valid answer, after all. I appreciate the update that it is sure to come.

Lost Omens: Anastasia's Trove

Princess Anastasia was Russian royalty, surely she would have grown up experiencing various worldly luxuries. American, European, Asian.

Stasian Technology as it was developed in Golarion is one thing, but what I really want to see is what was brought back from Earth. The secret artifacts of high technology that are not quite of the sophistication of those found in Silver Mount, but advanced nonetheless.

What is this photo reel of a cartoon mouse? This glass bottle of a black liquid named cola. This 7-round semi-automatic pistol? Fancy that, a box you can speak into to transfer your voice is about to be invented.

I always thought of a magic staff as a special kind of magic weapon, like say a serpent dagger. With magic weapons, they get a special ability, and can get fundamental runes, but not property runes, as they already have a special ability. I think of a magic staff as functioning like these weapons in that it is a base weapon which can be upgraded with fundamental runes, and instead of getting property runes, has the ability to cast spells from. That's it's special specific magic weapon ability. Least, that's my logic. For staves to be entitled property runes, I think specific magic weapons would alike be entitled property runes.

Basically put, magic staves and specific magic weapons are in a similar space as being weapons that already have a magical effect, and therefore do not need additional effects.

Guilt of the Grave World is missing its Player's Guide link.

Fortunately I still have the link from before the site update that I had sent out to my players.

https://downloads.paizo.com/GuiltoftheGraveWorld_Players-Guide.pdf

Yeah right, Paizo would sooner release a book that adds guns.

Happy for the confirmation, but of course take your time. Thanksgiving is upon us, after all, so the workers should get their rightful moment to rest.

I'd like for when if you clicked on a blog post from the front page, it'd take you to the individual blog post instead of the main page for the paizo blog.

I'd like to see a return of the New Products and Coming Soon product lines on the store that mixed Pathfinder and Starfinder books. It was just so useful to at a glance to check what was new and what was gonna be soon.

As Title. At first I was wondering where to find the Player's Guides in general. It turns out the Pathfinder entries do in fact have their links within the page. But Guilt of the Grave World is missing its link.

Repeating point 1. The table is about more than just classes.

2, Pathfinder lore and Starfinder lore are not separate things. They are interconnected. Everything that exists in Pathfinder exists in Starfinder to some capacity. It is not a fail on Starfinder's part to mention Pathfinder elements, because Pathfinder is a part of Starfinder.

Also, don't assume just because something is not specifically named in Starfinder, it is not in Starfinder. All this shows is you didn't even read a lot of Starfinder 1E. The inventor exists in SF1E, because it was inspired by an SF1E option that preceeded it. The inventor is a 2E version of SF1E's mechanic that can choose between the Character Operations Manual's Experimental Armor Prototype and Experimental Weapon Prototype alternate class features, or a range-less variant of a Drone mechanic. All three of these precede the Inventor in release order. Starfinder Core Rulebook (2017), Starfinder Character Operations Manual (2019), and Guns and Gears (2021). The inventor was built from the mechanic.

So yes, the inventor as it exists now in 2E, did in fact have a mechanical equivalent in SF1E, capabilities that not even the current playtest of the mechanic have, and given how rarely 2E classes get alternate features, is very unlikely to ever have. So yes, there are SF1E characters that can ONLY be represented by a PF2E class when converted to an SF2E game. If you are converting an Experimental Prototype mechanic from 1E to 2E, your only option is currently, and will likely only be, Inventor.

Also, when you mention Fighter, it was also represented in SF1E as various Soldier fighting styles, namely Archer and Blitz. Did you know Barbarians were also a thing? (Wrathful Warrior Soldier). What about Bards? (Magical Expertise Envoys), Monk (Ascetic Warrior Soldier and Qi Adept Soldier), Ranger (Hunter Soldier). Paladin/Champion (Crusader Connection Mystic), etc, etc. The entire Esotericist archetype's description exerts that every form of old world spellcaster still had a number of existing practitioners. So yes, Pathfinder is an expansion to Starfinder, and vice versa.

And lastly, don't forget the final proof point which is, SF2E classes are designed specifically not to step on the toes of PF2E classes. Which means there are things SF2E classes are not allowed to do, even though SF1E classes could do it, because PF2E classes already do them. If Starfinder was meant to be a separate game, these sorts of things would not be factored in class design.

Firstly, these tables are useful for more than just class recommendations. They congregate the more refined advice throughout the book into a simple shorthand that makes for quick decisionmaking, and can quickly congregate potentially multiple pages of paragraph of not-always-needed text into a simple table segment no more than a couple of inches squared. I don't need recommendations of mechanical effectiveness as much as I need a measure of "Is the option recommended?: Very likely/likely/not likely"

Secondly, Starfinder will grow with time, Even if Pathfinder is not included, it'll eventually have options over the years. I don't think it's a stretch of an assumption that Paizo will not stop Starfinder at 8, or even 12. Always room for more, plus class books sell. Now whether Starfinder will be a 1 class a year or a 2 class a year game once it catches up to 1E's roster, time will tell.

Thirdly, Starfinder is compatible with Pathfinder, and includes Pathfinder content. Even Guilt of the Grave World asserts this as two of its 4 recommended ancestries are the dwarf and the orc, which will only be available in Pathfinder for quite some more months. Starfinder is proving itself willing to use Pathfinder as an expansion pack, and therefore, can make recommendations from Pathfinder when convenient, so Starfinder already is not a small game, and recommendations can be made around the mechanical effectiveness of specific Pathfinder options, as well, if a low Starfinder option list is an issue. For example, while Pathfinder classes might not need detailed paragraphs to explain their usefulness, they can still be included by placing particularly useful ones or unuseful ones under the table as a shorthand. In real play, Pathfinder stuff gets used. I already have one player who plans to be a mech pilot by way of being an Inventor, for example.

The Guilt of the Grave World Player's Guide does not include a Recommendation table. I'd like to see an inclusion of a Recommendation Table, as Pathfinder Player's Guides have, in future Starfinder Player's Guides.

I'm already running into problems where a player unfamiliar with Starfinder has no idea where to start, and the Guilt of the Grave World Player's Guide only giving 4 ancestry suggestions is not doing a lot for me to point them in the right direction.

I can forgive this for the Guilt of the Grave World Player's Guide, as it was an impromptu posting, and for Paizo releasing it despite it not being planned, I appreciate it. I just hope that future Player's Guides will carry on with these tables, as they give a lot of useful information, especially for newer players.

Very few weapons start with 0 upgrades, so it's safe to say that 90% of the time, a converted weapon would have 1 upgrade.

The aldori dueling sword would automatically gain the analog trait in losing the archaic trait. And it would have 1 upgrade slot by default, and gain successive upgrade slots as normal.

moosher12 wrote:

Starfinder Player Core pg. 437

The glitching condition is not clear as to the duration of the effect. Both the failure and critical failure effects impose the penalty without a duration (such as the end of the turn?).

The duration is quite clear.

"The glitching condition always includes a value. If you have glitching equipment and take any action involving that equipment, you must attempt a flat check to see what occurs. If you have the glitching condition, you must attempt this flat check at the beginning of each of your turns. The DC of the flat check equals 5 plus your condition value or the item's condition value.

Critical Success Reduce your glitching value by 1."

So we can see that Glitching is reduced by 1 every time you critically succeed at a flat check either when using glitching equipment or starting your turn while glitching.

I'm not talking about the glitching condition itself, I'm talking about its individual penalties. As its penalties are not throughout the affliction. They are instead triggered within the affliction.

The failure condition should still specify that the penalty is until the beginning of the next turn, or until the end of the current turn, as it leaves it up to GM interpretation as to whether reactions are affected.

There is also the option of saying it's until the next check, but if you're using a glitching item, that penalty would be until your next attempt to use the item, which can be one action (for potentially 3 checks a turn), or 5+ whole turns occuring before a check is attempted depending on how long it takes you to use the item, so as the penalty affects all checks, even ones unrelated to the item, nor does it include a clause that says that dropping the item removes these checks, this would theoretically create a situation where you have to spam uses of the item until it stops glitching, else face an indefinitely long glitching condition. Which raises a further question, are you allowed to spam uses of the item to quickly deal with glitching items like with Sickened? Is that an intended route or is that just the way things fell into place? Are you supposed to attempt once per turn? Or are you supposed to spam uses to diffuse the affliction quicker.

Setting an effect length also tells you whether or not you're allowed to repeatedly address the glitching condition for an item. If it is until the next check, you can attempt to unglitch an item up to 3 times, 4 times if the item can be used with haste. If it is until either the end of your turn, or the beginning of your next turn, then you can only attempt the check once per turn.

As you can see, yes, the glitching condition itself, has a clearly defined time to go away, but its individual penalties have an unspecified time when they come into play.

The problem here is, there are at least three ways to interpret this. You may pick one, but another GM may pick another, and neither is exactly wrong by raw because GMs are simply left to fill in the blanks, which is problematic.

I don't think one book would quite cover it, but I'd like it.

A starter place would be a slow roll out of melding Pathfinder classes into Starfinder and vice versa via society play, in which case, much of those rules would take place in a yearly society manual.

Once a few errata passes have been issued to smooth out Starfinder within its own, and data has been gathered for society play, a inclusion of Starfinder options for Pathfinder classes, and vice versa, would be the next logical step. It is at this point we can see about making a hybrid book. But problematically, Starfinder feels like it lacks a talking point so far.

Pathfinder of course can talk about Numerian and Stasian technology (people really keep forgetting about Earth-imported tech), but the problem with Starfinder is Pathfinder stuff does not even have to be anachronistic. It can just sort of be. Magic is simply so high, especially in Starfinder 2E, that most Pathfinder classes have a place, especially when the Starfinder Spell list is just the Pathfinder spell list but more. So unless Starfinder wants to talk about how Pathfinder's classes reside in the Starfinder scope as scifi classes, there isn't much setting lore to drop as there simply isn't anything special about someone who went to university to become a wizard the same way folks did in the olden days. But I suppose it's an option.

A book though, could take place at the end of this research cycle, congregating all the wisdom of live testing after a few years. Suppose it can be a sort of hybrid Core book, too. Adds flavored feats to most classes to add to the inter-support, goes into more detail on specific conversion rules. If it's a core book, can probably even include a class that applies to both Pathfinder and Starfinder in equal measure. Shifter/Evolutionist idea could be a good target.

Yeah, Starfinder is just sort of doomed to get a portion of what Pathfinder gets, even if they started at the same rate, unless Starfinder really does pick up some traction. The compatibility helps, I mean, it has me winding up to run Guilt of the Graveworld. But really the only reason I'm humoring it is because it's compatible enough, and if it was much more incompatible, I'd have entirely ignored it. But my next plan is Pathfinder, so. If I couldn't allow all Pathfinder classes and most Pathfinder ancestries, I'd have not bothered. A well-oiled conversion system is what it'll take to keep the Pathfinder 2E players coming back to using Starfinder stuff.

But for example, even if they started at the same pace, Pathfinder simply gets more. The Pathfinder Core Rulebook had 12 classes, with 4 more the following year in the Advanced Player's Guide. Starfinder began with 6 classes with only 2 more planned for next year. (But granted, if Starfinder began with 12 classes, that'd be problematic for coming years, as Starfinder only had 13 classes, reduced to 12 if we combine Precog and Witchwarper, which means if Starfinder began with 12, we'd have the entire 1E roster day 1, with everything the following years having to be entirely new. It's a valid strategy, as it gives Paizo a 3-year buffer before they have to figure out completely new classes)

Starfinder also does sort of make up for it by giving ancestries at a faster rate than Pathfinder, though.

I suppose a controlled rollout makes sense, the more I think on it, the more I realize that this year's season 1 is a good opportunity to get data for errata, so a limited rollout of Pathfinder classes in season 2 would not be bad if that's the idea, with an intention of eventually approaching a generous allowance of the classes that thematically can fit a few years in.

But all this is assuming that's actually the intention.

System bleed is also sort of the point. They are supposed to be compatible. Wouldn't call it compatibility if the systems weren't bleeding into each other. It's a feature, not a bug.

And in the end, it's just healthier for the game. Starfinder uses the Pathfinder system to bring in Pathfinder players. If Pathfinder players cannot do what they love, they'll just go back to Pathfinder and abandon Starfinder.

Do you want Starfinder to have a lot of books like Pathfinder, or do you want Starfinder to have a very small selection of books like it did in 1E? The reason for that is simple, it had to compete with people who played Pathfinder and would not touch Starfinder. They are absolutely right that people would only wanna focus on one game. Because if you make a situation where Pathfinder folk realize it's not actually meant to bleed together, you run into a situation where they are gonna pick one or the other. They'll just revert back to Pathfinder and leave Starfinder trying to gain its own following seperate from that, So better hope the Starfinder 1E players are happy with the state of 2E atm, or that Starfinder 2E is so good it'd have Pathfinder players wanting to jump over, because otherwise you're not gonna be starting with the best long-term numbers.

There are three or four times as many PF2 classes as there are SF2 classes. The result would be that people would go in interested in playing SF2, only to find that it's just PF2 2: Now Electric.

I see zero issue with this. It's not like the majority of the classes cannot exist. What, does the future have no commanders, inventors, investigators, kineticists, monks, psychics, rangers, sorcerers, summoners, and witches? They exist. I mean, the book even includes the Borrow Spell activity, an activity only usable by Magi, Witches, and Wizards. Not even the Technomancer had a mention of using the Borrow a Spell activity.

The systems do have different balance and assumptions. Dropping a reach weapon melee Fighter with a large-size reach ancestry into a fight designed around ranged enemies is just going to be a cakewalk in a way that standard martial progression off-stat melee Soldier won't be. Investigator's relatively inoffensive Studied Strike is a lot more of a menace when you hand them a sniper rifle. Thaumaturge gets weird once you move away from a "two hands" assumption. I don't believe that Paizo has the time to pore over all those PF2 classes and handle all the edge cases that are going to be a problem. People do also play stronger things more, so the broken edge cases would be over-represented.

Let the fighter shine. Besides, the easy fly will mean fliers can more easily just get out of range. As for the sniper rifle? You're saying that as if you cannot already hand an investigator an Arquebus with a scope in Pathfinder, which has a better range increment than a sniper rifle anyway. Not sure what you're on about for the two hands assumption, just grab a good pistol for the thaumaturge.

It's a means a lot of system bleed. Having Swashbuckler means certain skill feats must be in SF2. Having Alchemist means all the alchemy items need to be in the system.

I've examined every skill feat in SF2E, they are for the most part just copy pastes except for cases where an item atypical in Starfinder won't be mentioned in favor of a Starfinder equivalent. As for alchemy, alchemical elixirs are essentially serums. A medpatch literally has the exact same stats as an Elixir of Life, and Serums are essentially Elixirs to the point that I just ended up saying, "Relabel Elixirs as Serums" for personal games If a player has Serum Crafting, I let them craft Alchemical Elixirs as Serum equivalents as a result. Bombs are another matter, but I doubt it'd hurt anything. In the end it's just a less durable grenade. Serum effect logic already proves that Starfinder chemistry is just modern alchemy, so renaming an alchemist to chemist is really all you have to do to get compatibility. Even then, just because one class is troublesome to bring in, does not mean the classes who are not troublesome cannot be.

I expect a lot of GMs wouldn't want to deal with two games at once, even if it's the same underlying engine.

Valid, but see below

Overall, it seems like an experience that would give new folks a poor impression of Starfinder, and I'd expect a lot of posts complaining about how they should be separated again, at least for Society.

Well we're stuck with a a weird case of somewhat compatible but not compatible enough. Paizo really should have either chosen Fully Compatible or Not Compatible at All. Because frankly, trying to mix them together has been a multi-month project that sees no shortage of complaints on its own in this board. Either make it not compatible at all so I can stop caring about it and it can be in the same attention space as Starfinder 1E, or make it fully compatible so my workload can be reduced.

Maybe less GMs would be hesitant to deal with mixing if it was fully compatible. Especially when you realize after a thorough read of the system, the amount of changes you need to exercise for compatibility is simultaneously less than you'd think, but still requires a full front-to-back reading of the system to realize that in the first place.

Because for all the compatibility rules I've made, I've actually had to make much less rules than I expected going in. But it took reading the Player Core front to back and doing a side-by-side reading of the Pathfinder Player Core alongside it to come to that conclusion, currently doing a side-by-side reading of both the Pathfinder and Starfinder GM Cores, and so far, the changes are slim.

Wait, SFS won't let you use Pathfinder classes?! Like, I forgave the limited class variety in Starfinder because I always figured, "Pathfinder has it covered," especially when a design point of Starfinder classes is not stepping on the toes of Pathfinder classes. With that design decision, it made sense if players were being assumed to bring up Pathfinder classes into Starfinder.

I saw no need for a survival class, for example, because why not just play a Druid or Ranger and give them a gun?

But if you're actively forbidding Pathfinder classes, all that will result in is, well of course, the limited selection, but second, being forbidden from making Starfinder classes that fulfill these niches because Pathfinder has them, effectively locking potential classes out of Starfinder.

SFS really should just allow Pathfinder classes. (And PFS should allow *some* Starfinder classes that fit within the fantasy-steampunk framework).

Having a design philosophy that Starfinder and Pathfinder classes should not step on each others toes is simply not compatible with keeping them entirely separate in organized play.

The interesting thing is they actually are rather intelligent. Back in 1e, their intelligence was only 8 for a -1. Main issue was they fed on Aucturn's, now The Newborn's egg's, ichor, a powerful and addictive narcotic, which held them back so much they never cared for moving on from a more primitive tribal state and creating civilization.

I guess the loss of the ichor might have given them the clarity to try to integrate into society? Though honestly I didn't expect survivors, figured at first they would have gone extinct with Aucturn hatching. I guess there were some survivors, or it could be there were some sober traders who worked off world.

Huh, I was not expecting this. So I'm reading Starfinder GM Core, and there is a line that gives an example,

"For instance, while orocorans are a relatively common foe for adventurers to encounter in the Gelid Edge and are thus a common creature, in most settings they're still far less prevalent than humans or ysoki and would be an uncommon ancestry."

This seems to indicate orocorans, the ancestry of Aucturn, might get an ancestry in either the upcoming Starfinder ancestry book, or perhaps an adventure. I honestly never expected they'd get an ancestry at all, wonder if that's the case.

Ryangwy wrote:

Tridus wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

A PFS mission would most likely not entail executing civilians.

Definitely not. I picked something egregious deliberately. In normal PFS play anathema isn't much of an issue unless the player is leaning into it or someone is doing something wrong.

Conveniently, all the gods whose anathemas would make it hard to play PFS are banned (you know, the ones that want you to execute civilians)

This is a tangent, but there was some concern about skeleton PCs and clerics of Pharasma.

Arazni's Edict can be a problem, too. Genzaeri's anathema would often be unhelpful. The scattered nature of a series of one-shots makes Zjar-Tovan difficult unless you're passionate about doing whatever the society tells you.

That's just the allowed ones out of the 60 most common gods, let alone hundreds of others, or charity boons that allow semi-evil options like Razmiran Priest.

Starfinder actually had a solution to this, where Pharasmins aren't beholding to killing undead, (especially holding a mass genocide of Eox) if it's more trouble than its worth.

Your edict is to destroy undead, but if an undead is helping to contribute to the greater good, or is too much of a threat that you would not be able to survive the fallout, it's not anathema to leave it alive. In which case, you're encouraged to help them reach their final resting place if they're agreeable. And encouraged to not work with them beyond necessity. But if cutting them down on the spot would result in severe repercussions for you, such as your fellow team wanting to kill you, it's not anathema to let the undead live (for now). Though if the undead becomes unreasonable to deal with, such as if they create undead despite your warnings, it would then start to enter anathemic territory to continue to work with them.

The unfortunate thing is your party could still try to pressure you to put Soothe in your top slots, as it's still very potent healing.

It only has a slightly lower heal average than a 2-action heal spell.

*cough* ...Rahadoum... *cough*

(^_')=b

I guess that's what I get for taking the Dubious Knowledge feat during my last Birthday

Yes, Rahadoum, my bad. ^^;

Starfinder Player Core pg. 437

The glitching condition is not clear as to the duration of the effect. Both the failure and critical failure effects impose the penalty without a duration (such as the end of the turn?).

Starfinder Player Core pg. 431

The Implant Augmentation exploration activity still lists Augmentation Specialist as an optional prerequisite, a skill feat that used to be in the playtest, but was removed in the Player Core.