moosher12's page

Maybe in a book like Galactic Magic, but unless there's a lot of updating to do from the SF1e Galactic Magic, I don't see it happening anytime soon, kind of like how there's only a few big changess to the Pact Worlds, so no Pact Worlds book to start, instead we are getting a book on Absalom Station which we never got in SF1e. Another book SF1e never got was a book on the planes, so that might be a better chance for something sooner on fiendish things, although not limited to just fiends.

Pathfinder side is certainly willing: D&D3.5E Gods and Magic (2008), PF1E Inner Sea Gods (2014), PF2EL Gods & Magic (2020), PF2ER Divine Mysteries (2024)

A change in edition has been enough of a reason before, least for Pathfinder Though all honesty, I don't think Starfinder would get a dedicated divinity book... Mostly because it still has to grapple with keeping Pathfinder continuity dubious so as not to lock out decisions Pathfinder-side. But it can at least use what was established in Starfinder.

So I think the best place to incorporate it in SF2E is in a Tech Revolution-Galactic Magic tempo, which is to say, Tech Core, and Magi(tech?) Core. Which could reasonably be a 2027 core book. This is a wild guess, so I am certainly not putting down any money on this one. But they already confirmed the next two classes won't be any SF1E classes, so I have a hope that a book to exemplify the fantasy in the science fantasy genre would follow the tech core, giving us classes that are largely magical, but not in a way that is necessarily Pathfinder, which would be a good place to drop in a lot of magitech items, as well as deity dossiers to talk more about the specific churches and functions and ideologies. Basically, if Tech Core is SF2E's Tech Revolution equivalent, perhaps a Galactic Magic equivalent can follow.

I love the idea, though at that point, I'd just want to go a step further and get a Starfinder equivalent of Gods and Magic or Divine Mysteries.

I mean really. I'm on Tech Revolution (great book btw) in my chronological 1E reading, and Galactic Magic is one book away, almost 5 years after Core Rulebook. I feel like I know very little about Starfinder gods beyond the most basic of notes, and getting that sense of comprehension that Gods and Magic and Divine Mysteries granted within 1 year of PF Core Rulebook and PF player core was simply very convenient for understanding.

Though if a wizard could already cast everything a technomancer could cast, it's already stepping on Technomancer's toes before it's even released. So I suppose making it an option for a wizard, while the Technomancer automatically gets it, while more pure classical wizards can choose not to do it, would actually give the Technomancer its own niche that a wizard has to buy into to participate in, instead of automatically getting the full benefits of. For example, for a wizard this could be an arcane thesis or a class archetype.

Considering that Player Core 2 didn't get any updates, it could be that Wolf Drag could be due the same sort of update. Like how man Player Core 2 feats with mature animal companions would be entitled to the enhanced movement opportunities, I'd recommend compiling your findings as a potential errata in the Fall 2026 errata thread for easier dev consideration.

Ah, thanks for the clarification then. All good.

I wouldn't mind a tech spell list on one condition: There needs to be multiple classes with the tech spell list, else it would sort of be a lot of space that only one class would benefit from. (Plus unless Paizo retrofits the whole list to the entirety of Pathfinder's spell list, that would become troublesome. As now players converting Pathfinder spells over will be unsure whether a new, applicable spell to the tech list applies. Because Pathfinder is unlikely to list whether it's spells would be in the tech tree, even if it's like, a perfect fit. Of course it's a no brainer for obvious spells, but it will put spells that are threading the borders of the list in a dubious "This GM allows it but this doesn't" scenario. Basically to me, it'd require a commitment on Paizo's part to address every spell on whether it is in the tech spell list, and then start adding whether it is on the tech spell list going forward in Pathfinder books, for it to be a smooth transition.

But ultimately it comes down to the question of. If a wizard in Starfinder is fully capable of casting the same spells as a technomancer, then the seperate spell list would not be needed, as it can just be arcane.

A wizard can walk out with a rifle and tactical gear, as if we were in a game of Tactical Breach Wizards, before casting fireball and lightning bolt, and hopefully doing some starfinder-isms like making a junk drone to help attack.

It's a weird call. The Technomancer was just a wizard in space with some more techy core abilities. It could do most anything a wizard could do spell-wise in 1E, least up to spell rank 6. But that leaves the question, with spell rank 10 unlocked in 2e, and the realization that the spell rank 6 was a page limit issue, and not actually a lore limitation, if both a wizard and a technomancer walk out of the arcanamirium as peers heading to lunch, of course the technomancer would know a spell like junk armor and junk grenade, but would the wizard also be capable of knowing the spell?

** spoiler omitted **

All my time I've never ran into that one. Can you please put a spoilered title of what book that's from? I'm curious to check it out.

That thread got so discouraging at times. The temptation came up multiple times to just hide the thread.

Kholo wasn't actually an ogl change. Kholo has been the cultural name since at least before ogl with the Mwangi Expanse, the way ysoki is used for ratfolk, amurrun is used for catfolk, and Iruxi for lizardfolk. Though I haven't read much 1E books on gnolls to know if kholo was used back then.

Unrelated: I always liked how Starfinder favored the cultural name ysoki instead of ratfolk. I hope PF3 embraces the cultural names, as it's always a shame to see so many players overlooking those names in practice.

I'm now picturing a werehalfling Jotunborn.

I've been mussing around with this one for years. It is very clear if you already cast spells you don't get benefits. But because Beast Gunner does grant those benefits, I home ruled Eldritch Archer to work more like Beast Gunner in my home games.

Battlecry! pg. 32-33, Draconic Codex pg. 220, Player Core 2 pg. 97, 188, 189, and 192, Quest For the Frozen Flame part 3, Burning Tundra pg. 78, War of Immortals pg. 107

With the update to animal companions who can get an action to use other mobility actions instead of , the Apocalypse Rider mythic destiny's Apocalypse Rider Dedication, Beastmaster Archetype's Mature Beastmaster Companion and Lead the Pack feats, Cavalier's Impressive Mount feat, Champion's Imposing Destrier feat, Commander's Battle-Hardened Companion feat, Drake Rider Archetype's Mature Dragon Companion feat, and the Mammoth Lord Archetype's Mature Megafauna Companion feat, all would be due the same updates.

Guns and Gears Remastered Edition pg. 134

This is not exactly a broken feature, but more just a consistency thing. Other post-remaster archetypes like Lion Blades and Aldori Duelists grant Additional Lore when their core mechanic revolves around a Lore skill. I feel that the Firework Technician Dedication should issue similar.

The Legacy Aldori Duelist and the Legacy Lion Blade also used the trained, or expert if already trained approach, before both being upgraded to Additional Lore in the Remaster version, which makes it feel like it was a Remaster overall buff. Which makes the Lack of additional lore on Firework Technician feel more like an oversight than a deliberate choice.

After finally reading the whole thing, I'd say I'm mostly content with it. Though I do feel Fireworks Technician should still get Additional Lore with Fireworks Lore, as that seems to be the remastered approach to things in general. Usually when a Lore is used as the core mechanic in an archetype, it gets the Additional Lore.

But I'm still glad that Fireworks Technician is finally functional.

This thread is for Errata Suggestions following the Spring Pathfinder Spring 2026 Errata Patch. toward the Fall 2026 season. The old thread can be found at Spring 2026 Errata suggestions thread

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

Huh, wonder why there wasn't a blog. Weird to just shadow drop it like that.

Earlier, I said I wanted to see a custom vehicle system. I didn't know 1E had one until reading Tech Revolution, I definitely hope we get a custom vehicle builder one day.

War of Immortals page 38

The Exemplar feat, Fish from the Falls Edge, encounters an edge case where folks are not sure whether it would work on someone affected by an effect like Disintegrate.

I suppose the real question would be how Fish from the Falls Edge interacts with Disintegrate in general. Because this is an important question to answer if the feat encounters that spell. I'll put in an errata request.

I'm also inclined to agree that the hazard kills the PC in a way the exemplar can't really help with, mostly because it's outright killing them, not reducing their HP to 0.

The trigger is that a creature would die, not that it's HP would be reduced to 0. So it at least matches the trigger conditions.

I agree with Claxon's interpretation as a fair compromise, though. The benefit is that it's a reaction, split second. And while the person would die, you could probably contrive that the divine force held the body together to keep it from turning to dust. Whether you deny the healing or not,

I'm reading Tech Revolution.

When Paizo finally releases powered armor, I hope the Infiltration Skin comes soon. I want to play a kobold in an Infiltration Skin disguised as a Medium-sized dragonkin.

And magical drives, with the Hellknights having access to Helldrives, for example, existed long before drift drives.

It was more expensive and exclusive than drift travel, yes, but it was also leagues more accessible than travel by gates and teleportation.

Second edition has let me and, I expect, many other players by being a 60% game with only 6 classes.

Starfinder 2E also has supplemental +27 classes via Pathfinder for 33 classes, plus 4 playtest classes. (see point 3). Many of these classes cover the multitude of subclasses and alternate class rules of 1E classes that existed to emulate Pathfinder classes, So those at least are covered.

The playtest featured all 11 but what happened?

The playtest only featured 6 classes.

So, over a year past the release and we're still waiting for the Tech Core to restore some of the missing classes, like the Technomancer, which I can't play cos it doesn't exist at present in second edition.

Enjoy

Space goblins were canonically an evolutionary offshoot of normal goblins as according to 1E books. But I feel they'd be a heritage. Mostly because it'd be easier to handle to let the new dominant heritage have access to all the normal goblin feats, then to have to give a whole new race a different list, because while you can reprint some goblin feats to the space goblin, you're not gonna have the page space to reprint them all, meaning that if it's a different ancestry, then it will lose access to all the uncoverted goblin feats, which would be problematic.

I'm also hoping that Azrinaran Elves get the same treatment as being a heritage.

(On top of Azrinaran Elves, I hope we get an Asana Elf heritage.)

if you're using Warp space for the range, you are not hitting 2 targets, at that point why even waste a feat and not do a ranged psi cantrip instead? A TP as an example would do the same damage but with double the range and better rider effects that a "warp space IW".

Yeah, this too. Allinall. Warp Space, while it's pretty useful for spells like Psychic's enhanced Ignition and telekinetic projectile, is not a very good improvement on Imaginary Weapon. It's too much cost for too little benefit.

Isn't Warp Space already giving the range increase ?

It's useful for the okay damage at range, but a focus point is a bit too expensive for a primary attack, especially when you're fighting any creature party level - 1 or below, which is to say, the grunts. So a lower damage, but at-will use is vastly more useful to me than moderate damage usable 2-3 times per 20-30 minutes. Because at this point, you're spending resources to cast a spell at range against creatures that do not warrant the expenditure.

If you only have Imaginary Weapon as an offensive cantrip, and you already used up both of your amps fighting at range (which is more likely than typical classes because Psychic only gives you 3 free cantrips to choose from), well now you have no choice but to throw yourself into melee if you wanna do it a third time. If the amp feat was unlimited use, I'd see it as answering the problem, but it isn't. And rightfully so, because it's a problem only for Imaginary Weapon, it also grants its buffs to Ignition and Telekinetic Hand, which are ranged cantrips that much better benefit from the weird angle. For those spells, it's a buff warranting a limited-use resource, but for Imaginary Weapon, it's less a buff, and more an expenditure to get basic functionality.

And frankly, a lot of the time consistent ranged chip damage is more useful to me than a limited use moderate damage. I'd like to at least fall back on chip damage when I run out of focus points against basic grunts I have no right risking melee with or wasting ranked spell slots on.

In the event there is ever a Worlanisi character, it should be voiced by Patrick Warburton.

This is just a hope, not really a prediction by any educated standard, especially since Guns and Gears did not follow such a pattern. But I'm hoping that the Dark Archive Remastered Edition release next Wednesday would coincide with the next errata pass. At the very least, it feels like it would be an appropriate time.

If I was to hazard a guess, it could be they worked the new book off of a raw file, and forgot to compress the images going into the Remastered version. I'd imagine if anything is taking up room on the file, it'd be the multitude of images.

With some time to digest, I had earlier arrived at two potential fixes to Imaginary Weapon that I feel might bring the spell to a more pleasant state. But they were pretty spread apart, so I wanted to gather them in one small place.

Essentially, there are two strategies to buffing Imaginary Weapon I found. The first is keeping its niche as a high-risk, high-reward melee-only cantrip that deals large amounts of damage, and searching for a form of equilibrium with the original version when fighting a creature with a resistance. The second is changing its niche to support a melee-ranged mixed usage to make the subclass more versatile.

1. The Melee-only buff would work as follows. You would keep the base cantrip the same, but buff the amped version. The amped damage would be increased such that it gained 2d6 + 1 per additional rank instead of 2d6. (Optionally, the base damage might also be increased from 2d6 to 2d6 + 1.) What this does functionally, is close the gap between the original Imaginary Weapon, and the new Imaginary Weapon, such that even for the amped version, the difference in the average damage between both spells is much closer to the expected resistances you'd find in monsters of appropriate level. It makes the spell feel like a nerf against the average monster, but feel like a buff against a monster with resistance.

2. The ranged buff would work as follows. Because psychics are 6 HP casters, and would normally prefer to be in ranged anyway, expanding their base attack to work at range is an alternate approach to compensate the lower overall damage. This gives psychics a valid basic spell they can use in any game as a primary weapon (even Starfinder), with the drawback of not having as much damage or range as Oscilating Wave's Ignition or The Distant Grasp's Telekinetic Projectile, but having the ability to ignore many damage types as a tradeoff. In addition to the basic effects of both the base and amped versions, you'd add a d4 version of the spell with a 30-foot range. Damage-wise, it will remain behind amped Ignition and both basic and amped telekinetic projectile in damage and range. range wise, it remains behind both basic and amped ignition, and basic and amped telekinetic projectile. Among the different psychic offense cantrips, it can create a new lower damage, lower range, but higher versatility niche.

As a last point, they'd still do the push effect on a critical, though allowing the push to be optional might also be worth considering.

I honestly cannot say which would be the better, as it is frankly a matter of preference. But I do agree that many complaints about the spell were valid. So these were ways I found to potentially fix the spell, if not officially, then at least in home games. I hope these change suggestions are useful to you all.

For Starfinder at least, we're only 6 months in after Player Core, which would be the proper release of 2E. And Tech Core is only expecting us to wait 12-14 months from Player Core.

As far as I can tell, that gnolls and kitsune were never mentioned on any streams. Most likely AI being AI and giving false info. The AI is also wrong, because Paizo would not have referred to kholos as gnolls for Starfinder 2E.

For the sake of likeliness. Kitsune I'd put on low likelihood, but not zero. Kholo on the otherhand, I didn't run into really, so I would not be surprised if they would not show up for some time. I doubt either of them would be in Galactic Ancestries, as I'd imagine Paizo would want to focus more on core ancestries and iconically Starfinder ancestries. Though, given the nature of Starfinder's cantina feel.

It does lead me to wonder. While it's nice getting one or two ancestries a base book, I wonder if Paizo would ever consider a Galactic Ancestries 2. There really are a lot of aliens to choose from in Starfinder, and just one or two per book would take awhile to cover them. Especially when covering Pathfinder ancestries.

Oh definitely, despite everything, I'm looking forward to Grey's return. I know my partner really wants to play one if given the chance.

Well, it's less the abduction itself, and more that the abductions of greys themselves are very invasive. People being captured in 'paralytic' abductions. Being sedated, stripped, experimented on, and left with new additions to their body they never asked for, as happens to the victim in this Iconic Encounter story. In the case of this, they are comatose, but otherwise, you typically have little to no memory of the ordeal when you survive according to the Alien Archive.

Abductions would probably still be there, but I would not be surprised if the nature of the abductions were taken toward a less dark route, with a more conventional horror aspect instead.

Yeah, I remember well, but that's the best source someone new to the Grey thing can really get at this point.

No reveals were needed, all information that was problematic could already be found in the Alien Archive entry featuring them.

More info of this old conversation can basically be found in this old thread

But essentially, an old Discord post from devs insinuated that greys had a real chance of being cut, especially since at the time, reptoids were confirmed cut, and Ikeshti's had retcons applied to their lore. So we were expecting greys would either be cut or get the Ikeshti treatment.

Didn't think of that. Yeah, that would be a convenient and appropriate place to put them. I hope the devs thought to do that. That'd be great.

The math and conversation about scaling only makes sense if we're talking about the amped version.

I think it is an incomplete view of the picture to ignore unamped. Because Paizo's logic of why the nerf happened the way it did is not within the amped version, but within the unamped version, you cannot understand what the logic of the nerf is without looking at the unamped version, and you cannot attempt to fix the nerf without acknowledging the differences in how both the amped version and the unamped version work.

Because what I have found is, the unamped change does have equity, while the amped change does not. But you cannot fix the amped version in a satisfying way without understanding why unamped is fine, but amped is not.

That's why I came to my answer. Unamped is fine, because force and physical are seperated in such a way that force overcomes resistance, and becomes more powerful against a resistant opponent than the original. So it gives the feeling of a nerf most times, but a buff against uncommon enemies. Amped is not fine, because there is no sensation of overcoming resistance, and it feels like a net loss. Therefore, raising the damage of force such that it can feel like an advantage over the old when encountering an uncommon creature with resistance is what it takes to get the spirit of the change.

Basically, both the new unamped, and amped versions of Imaginary Weapon need to feel like they are stronger than the original versions against resistance to feel like a more fair trade. And the only way to do that is to boost the damage of the amped version of the spell so that it is closer, but not equal to that of the original version. But close enough to become more powerful against appropriately leveled resistances.

It does not matter whether or not there is a point to talking about unamped. The point is, folks are looking at unamped, and unamped's math checks out, so you need to stress that it's where amped is concerned that the nerf is too far. If you keep leaving that out, people will not get the full message. You cannot explain yourself if the other person lacks the context you do, until you give them that context. If you are frustrated wondering why people don't seem to take to your points, that is why.

Also, bare in mind, some players actually will use the unamped versions of spells because they are at will, not 2-3 times per encounter strings seperated by 10-minute rests, or they might be using other amps, like warp space, or because they simply are out of focus points, and haven't had a chance to rest. You can question whether they are tactically sound for using such amps, but different players play differently.

I think many of us are assuming unamped though, Tridus. Which is something I don't see pointed out as often as it should be. That was the big barrier to my understanding of all of your points.

When we looked at amped, yeah, amped is better, and you can be much lower level than the creature and still do more damage with amped

When we look at unamped, there is a distinct advantage where the force shoots ahead of physical, and you need to be higher level than the creature for the old physical version to pull ahead.

Which it sounds to me like the nerf was done without fully paying attention to the scope on Paizo's part. In a vacuum, unamped has distinct advantages, but they are lost when you factor in the amped version. It sounds like a buff to amps damage would do more to close this gap.

Perhaps a +2d6 + 1 per additional rank, instead of +2d6 on the amped version of the spell could be a way to bring us closer to a more satisfying version of the spell/

The average damage for 2d8 + 2d8/rank is as follows
1(9)/2(18)/3(27)/4(36)/5(45)/6(54)/7(63)/8(72)/9(81)/10(90)

The average damage for 2d6 + (2d6 + 1)/rank is as follows
1(7)/2(15)/3(23)/4(31)/5(39)/6(47)/7(55)/8(63)/9(71)/10(79)

Average Spell differential
1(2)/2(3)/3(4)/4(5)/5(6)/6(7)/7(8)/8(9)/9(10)/10(11)

This would close the gap to where there is still an advantage where force matters, incentivizing the force, but increasing the damage for a midway between the original damage and the new damage. You can probably even reward the focus expenditure even more by being slightly more generous with a (2d6 + 1) + (2d6 + 1)/rank instead. Which would reduce the spell differential to 1(1)/2(2)/3(3)/4(4)/5(5)/6(6)/7(7)/8(8)/9(9)/10(10)

For the sake of easy reading, can we try to refer to amped IW and unamped IW, because I nearly corrected Pyrurge before realizing they were talking about the amped version.

But yeah, I'll concede, versus resistance, old amped Imaginary Weapon is better than new. Unamped, I think new is still better versus resistance, but Teridax does raise a valid point, that even if it is 1-3 times an encounter, opportunities to use it in melee are rare enough the limitation is not that much of a limitation.

it's 2dx per rank for the amped version of the cantrips not 1dx.

Yeah, I was calculating unamped for that post. Teridax's devil post with the stats didn't mention amps, so I didn't factor amps. A post before it might have, but I probably missed it.

The average damage for 2d8 + 2d8/rank is as follows
1(9)/2(18)/3(27)/4(36)/5(45)/6(54)/7(63)/8(72)/9(81)/10(90)

The average damage for 2d6 + 2d6/rank is as follows
1(7)/2(14)/3(21)/4(28)/5(35)/6(42)/7(49)/8(56)/9(63)/10(70)

Average Spell differential
1(2)/2(4)/3(6)/4(8)/5(10)/6(12)/7(14)/8(16)/9(18)/10(20)

Let's see, same creature...
Rank 2 is old 18, new 14 (difference 4), rank 3 is old 27, new 21 (difference 6), rank 4 is new 36, old 28 (difference 8), rank 5 is old 45, new 35 (difference 10, rank 6 is old 54, new 42 (difference 12)

To do more damage, you'd need a rank 3 spell (level 5). Against a level 7 creature, that's party level + 2 for 80 XP.

Yeap, you're right. Damage wise, it does pull ahead quite early with the amp. Crits will still be rare as above, but the numbers do look more right there. Thank you for explaining that bit. I was curious where it was coming from from. Normally you do good math, so I was wondering what I was missing.

I am curious about Teridax's math when evaluating the devils. When I did it, in most cases, at least where the devil had hardness, you had to be a higher level than the devil to overcome the difference in damage from resistance. And they also brought up the chance of a crit, but in many cases, you also had to be higher level, and sometimes by multiple levels, to exceed the 5% of needing a nat 20 to get the crit.

To keep things as brief as I can manage, as the full scope of these calculations would flood the page, I just picked the devil in the middle of his post:
Levaloch: Level 7, resistance 5. Net -2 damage on the new IW.

Old IW is rank 2 at level 3 (party level +4; 160 XP), rank 3 at level 5 (party level +2; 80 XP), rank 4 at level 7 (party level; 40 XP), rank 5 at level 9 (party level -2; 20 XP), and rank 6 at level 11 (party level -4; 10 XP)

The average damage for 2d8 + 1d8/rank is as follows
1(9)/2(13.5)/3(18)/4(22.5)/5(27)/6(31.5)/7(36)/8(40.5)/9(45)/10(49.5)

The average damage for 2d6 + 1d6/rank is as follows
1(7)/2(10.5)/3(14)/4(17.5)/5(21)/6(24.5)/7(28)/8(31.5)/9(35)/10(38.5)

Average Spell differential
1(2)/2(3)/3(4)/4(5)/5(6)/6(7)/7(8)/8(9)/9(10)/10(11)

Which means a rank 2 spell is 13.5 (old), and 10.5 (new) (difference of 3), rank 3 spell is 18 (old), and (14 new) (difference of 4), rank 4 spell is 22.5 (old), and 17.5 (new) (difference of 5), rank 5 spell is 27 (old), and 21 (new) (difference of 6), and rank 6 spell is 31.5 (old), and 24.5 (new) (difference of 7) (The hardness turned out to determine the difference required, on this note. Hardness 3 requires rank 2, hardness 5 requires rank 4, hardness 10 requires rank 9, and hardness 15 is simply insurmountable)

This means that for the spells to be equal, you need to cast the spell at rank 4, which means the devil is at party level. And to have the old spell exceed the new spell on average damage per round, you'd have to cast it at at least rank 5, in which case the creature would be a party level -2 mob which is only worth 20 XP at that point.

Teridax also brought up critical hits. Yeah, critical hits can exceed the damage at much lower levels, but you typically have to be higher level than the creature to exceed the 5% rate of a nat 20. Using the same creature, and %anydice%, we can find the percentage rate.

I did the calculations for a maximized psychic as well, assuming all boosts go into their chosen attribute at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20, and they have an apex item at level 17, and got a +4 bonus from level 1. For every point you'd be behind at a given level, remove a 5%.

1(7)/2(8)/3(9)/4(10)/5(11)/6(12)/7(15)/8(16)/9(17)/10(19)/11(20)/12(21)/13( 24)/14(25)/15(26)/16(27)/17(29)/18(30)/19(33)/20(35)

For the same creature, using a level 3-11 range, gives us
9/10/11/12/15/16/17/19/20

A levaloch has an AC of 25, you'd need to be level 8 against this level 7 monster (Party Level - 1; 30 XP) to have a 10% chance of critically succeeding with a maxed out psychic. Level 9(15%; 20 XP), Level 10 (25%; 15 XP), Level 11 (30%; 10 XP)

Compared to most other devils, you'll see similar results, that old IW does not exceed new IW until you're higher level than the devil, and that you don't gain more than a 5% chance of a critical success until you're higher level than the devil. Basically, by the time you're seeing old IW overcoming new IW specifically against devils, they are now a mob, rather than a boss. You can feel free to apply this to any other devil on the list. Most of them had similar results.

SROs are at least confirmed in GM Core.

I'd imagine they'd be folded into awakened animals. As for Greys, the big problem with greys is they had the Ikeshti problem of being a bit uncomfortable in theme at times. And as a result, there was a period where Paizo said they were unlikely to come back. So making them a more acceptable brand of evil will likely be their due.

The legacy spell is still a legal spell and if there’s some meaningful niche it fills you should keep it, like ray of frost over frostbite or shocking grasp over thunderbolt. But yea in this case produce flame is literally exactly the same as ignition but worse, so should swap it.

You're right. I misremembered the rule

https://paizo.com/blog/pathfinder-society-and-the-remaster

If a character option has been reprinted with the same name, use the new version as if it were errata. No additional retraining is necessary.

Example: divine lance has been reprinted with new Remaster-compatible rules. All PCs with divine lance must update the spell accordingly.

If a character option has not been reprinted, characters are free to use the option as previously printed, or to select it at any time.

Example: the produce flame spell has not been reprinted, but ignition takes its place thematically. Characters may learn either spell anytime they would learn a new spell, and could learn both spells if they chose.

Unicore wrote:

Gouging claw is useless against incorporeal creatures. The difference between IW doing physical damage with the force tag and just doing force damage is weird and maybe not a very big deal, but gouging claw has a much larger chunk of creatures that it is useless against. It is also not on the occult list, nor is Ignition. Psychics don’t get any melee cantrips by default so Imaginary weapon being one is useful to the psychic even if it is slightly behind a different tradition’s melee option for pure damage.

Gouging claw is on a spellheart - two actually, one of which is 55gp - so psychic can have it if they want it. Ignition is also on a cheap spellheart (well, produce flame is, but given that ignition is a strict upgrade and produce flame doesn’t have any purpose, you should probably be allowed ignition in this case)

Typically if a legacy spell is replaced with a remaster equivalent, you can safetly replace any legacy sub-inclusions of a legacy spell with the remaster equivalent. As far as the typical remastered game is concerned, Produce Flame no longer exists.

Yeah, 10% is still somewhat small, though enough to at least say that it is uncommon, rather than rare, but there are still a lot of encounters where it does not matter. I counted 48 encounters, but there are probably hundreds of encounters in the whole adventure path. A number I'd really rather not tally, so I think you'd understand that I keep that a vague statement.

And smart use of Recall Knowledge will of course let you evade it if you're willing to invest the action.

To me, it comes down to a personal decision. To some players, it's not worth it, and to some, it might be worth it. Not needing to bother with an action to Recall Knowledge, or to use RP opportunities to gather such data, might make it worth it to some, but not worth it for others. But I'm the type of guy who plays Monster Hunter using just raw physical damage to the complete ignorance of elements, and when the monster dies, it dies, lol.

But personally, I think points are being made that a tad more can be done to buff the new Imaginary Weapon to feel more like a fair trade. While in a strictly theoretical space, the math can check out for conditions, player feeling of those results is still important. If just force does not feel like enough to make up for reduced damage, maybe just force is not enough, and another buff would make it more palatable. I once listened to the Castle Superbeast Podcast where the podcasters had Edmund McMillen, creator of Super Meatboy, the Binding of Isaac and the upcoming Mewgenics, and he explained that sometimes, the math can be sound, but the game could still not feel right, despite the theory.

But, I'd not blame any GM for reverting it in their home games. Or better yet, allowing a psychic player to choose one or the other. I think in the meantime, homebrew side, letting players just choose which version they prefer would avoid a lot of strife, as if you're just a psychic, the math is fine within the psychic. They can just ban the old version for archetype, And if a psychic player would rather have the physical damage despite any advertised risks, more power to them. It's for the same reason that a wizard might choose Gouging Claw over Ignition. Gouging Claw does the best damage, if they want to pick that, they should have the right to. Sometimes, players just cannot mesh with certain concepts, you wouldn't want to hear my tirade on prepared spellcasting, and the only way to restore compatibility with the game is rule 0.

Watching the STF Conline, and apparently Breneris (the otter folk), Dwarves, Elves, Novians (mini suns?), Talphi (A molefolk on Vesk 4), and Orocorans are confirmed for Galactic Ancestries. Poppets are confirmed NOT there.

Greys are explained to be "Not yet, but popular." Which if some of you remember a few old threads about the greys, makes me wonder if they'll be getting an Ikeshti-style thematic makeover. They said they wanted to focus on alien species that are more uniquely Starfinder first, though.