moosher12's page

Long as it's good. Like the Vigilante, Nanocyte does sound like the sort of theme that can meld well into any other main class.

If it gets a proper two-page spread, I think there's hope. It's cooked if it only gets one page though.

moosher12 wrote:

But here's the thing. If you miss Imaginary Weapon, just get Gouging Claw

Gouging claw is not on the occult spell list.

All my commentary here is from the point of view of Magi getting Imaginary Weapon, not Psychics.

If anything, my thoughts on the psychic itself are this. If Imaginary Weapon is so good that Conscious Minds other than The Tangible Dream are not being considered, that is already a sign that Imaginary Weapon either needed a nerf, or needed to be turned into a general psychic ability.

moosher12 wrote:

As The Raven black said, this has been the operation of things for a long time. Since 1E, even.

That might be the issue though - they are applying PF1 logic to PF2, but they are not the same. In FP1, resistances with very common but vulnerabilities were much much rarer. So a rare damage type is almost always an advantage. But in PF2, weaknesses to particular damage types is much more common - if not as common as resistances, then not far behind. More things resist Bludgeoning than Force, but more things also take extra damage from Bludgeoning than from Force. So it is no longer as pure an upgrade.

Without doing any in-depth analysis, I would guess Force is probably still an upgrade over Bludgeoning, due to incorporeals if nothing else. (It does still help against Incorporeal, right?) But I doubt it is enough of one to offset the reduced base damage, especially at higher levels.

It's essentially the everything attribute. Swarms? Force goes through. Incorporeals? Force goes through. Elementals? Force goes through. Fiends and Celestials? Force goes through. Lifeless constructs? force goes through. As far as I'm aware, the only thing that stands up to force damage is hardness. So as long as you are not playing a game that is mostly traps, force is a consistent answer to every other question you'll run into.

Everything else has a failing. Physical of course runs into physical resistances, elemental resistances are uncommon, but do happen. (One of my favorite Starfinder writing memes, for example, is Obozaya using a plasma doshko, but keeps running into creatures with fire resistance/immunity). While spirit can tackle all living creatures, it cannot tackle most constructs. But basically, if you've got force, there are almost no NPCs you cannot fight with it as a base attack.

Whether it has been practice doesn't change the fact it is a net nerf. Stop appealing to random things and engage with what's actually being said.

Enemies with bludgeoning resistance are fairly rare, so the damage change is rarely going to result in more damage, whereas the -2 per rank will matter every single time you use this spell. Going from poison to force would be a big deal, but going from an already rarely resisted damage type to force is not.

The spell did not need a nerf, the only problematic use was Magus, which got patched out anyway.

Mmhm, I'm sure the multitude of Resistance all Damage X (except force, ghost touch, spirit, or vitality; double resistance vs. non-magical) creatures I'm encountering as a player in Season of Ghosts is all in my head. or the multitude of swarms with Resistance bludgeoning x, piercing y, slashing z. Yeap, fairly rare. I'm sure you're having fun playing in campaigns where the only enemies are humanoids. But some of us are fighting monsters, which sort of tend to have resistances.

Yeap, definitely resistances that rarely came up when I ran Kingmaker and while studying Guilt of the Grave World. Nope, players do not expect to run into them.

Warp space was created for this. It has no additional action cost and does not reduce the damage.

It does not work with the amped version though.

Yes, but considering you have to spend a focus point to use Imaginary Weapon at range instead of getting a damage boost, that is admittedly pretty anemic. As you can only use it at range once per battle until you get more focus spells.

As The Raven black said, this has been the operation of things for a long time. Since 1E, even.

Compare your spell to similar spells, and to other spells of its intended level.

Unlike when pricing magic items, there are no formulae for how to correctly "price" a spell. The entire process is a matter of comparing the new spell you're creating to other spells and evaluating whether your spell is weaker, stronger, or about the same as that spell or group of spells. Designing a spell requires a firm understanding of all the game's rules, not just those related to spells. Furthermore, it requires an understanding of some unwritten game assumptions, most of which are discussed throughout this section.

Example: If you look at the spell list in the Core Rulebook, you'll notice that there isn't a 1st-level wizard spell that deals sonic damage. You may decide to design a spell to fill that niche, modeling it after burning hands, except dealing sonic damage instead of fire-perhaps you'd call it sonic screech. However, there's a reason there aren't as many sonic spells in the game: "sonic" as an energy type is a late addition to the rules, and very few monsters have any resistance to sonic damage because most monsters existed before "sonic" was defined as an energy type. Because there are fewer creatures with sonic resistance than creatures with fire resistance, sonic screech will almost always be a better spell than burning hands. That means if you introduce sonic screech into your game, you'll see savvy players selecting it instead of burning hands. If a new spell displaces an existing spell from the roster of most spellcasters, it probably means it's better than other available choices-and if it's so good that it's obviously the best spell choice, it's probably overpowered. Understanding the entire system of rules can help you avoid mistakes like this.

Tempering advantages like these are something Paizo has cared about for a long, long time. There is a reason force damage is found so sparringly.

The fact of the matter is, its damage output is consistent, and if anything, slightly ahead of normal cantrips due to the force advantage, therefore, it is balanced as a specialized ability.

Though as I said in my earlier post, I do agree that it should be relatively safe to grant Imaginary Weapon's new form a 2d4, +1d4 per rank 30-foot ranged option to the tune of Ignition. If it is going to act as a better melee ignition, why not go all the way and make it act as a better ignition. I know I'd love the idea of painting/miming a bow alongside a sword. But as a melee non-physical spell attack, the math checks out, and it is where it should be.

At the moment, the Math works out for cantrip levels. The cantrip to compare to is Gouging claw. Bludgeoning Imaginary Weapon was equivalent to a Gouging Claw. Both had an average of 9/13.5/18/22.5/27/31.5/36/40.5/45/49.5. Both were physical spells and likely to deal with resist. This was fine for the time.

Now, it was reduced to a 7/10.5/14/17.5/21/24.5/28/31.5/35/38.5, which matches the growth of melee Ignition, but with a much wider net due to its Force trait.

But here's the thing. If you miss Imaginary Weapon, just get Gouging Claw, it'll give you the same results, statistically. Actually, due to the bleeding danage, it should get you more precise numbers than old Imaginary Weapon, if not being able to reach those last fringe 11 points of potential damage, which would be pretty far along the bell curve anyway. You say 2-20, but the 20 is pretty optimistic.

Imaginary Weapon is now just a more powerful melee Ignition. It does the same damage, but is harder to resist. Old Imaginary Weapon was already equivalent numbers-wise with Gouging Claw on the average damage and equivalent with range. It was changed to magical damage and does cantrip melee magical damage consistent with other magic-damage cantrips, and if anything provides a rare damage type that no cantrip offers. The original did physical damage and cantrip physical damage consistent with other physical-damage cantrips.

Enhance Weapon spell should give Tracking like Enhance Body does. Right now the target weapon does not give a bonus to DC for Area Fire like an Advanced weapon improvement would.

Tracking is built into the spell. When a weapon is granted the Advanced, Elite, and Paragon descriptors, it automatically gains the appropriate Tracking trait. You cannot have, for example, an Advanced weapon, without its associated Tracking +1 trait. The description in the spell describes roughly what Tracking does, and the bonus to area attacks is implicit.

Now granted, adding a clarification would be useful, as it is not obvious. But the spell fortunately cannot deny the Tracking trait if it grants the Advanced, Elite, or Paragon trait. Else it would need to use language like, "It becomes an advanced weapon, except it only gains a +1 item bonus to attack rolls and increasing the number of weapon damage dice to two." for it to exclude the full benefits of tracking. By raw the rules are inclusive, and Paizo would need to phrase the text to be exclusive to not include the trait.

Unicore wrote:

They made it force damage and dropped it one damage die, and it is only one unique cantrip that never worked as a “bread and butter” combat spell (for the psychic). Its adjustment barely affects the psychic at all. If you want to be a blasty psychic you go oscillating wave. Shield is the powerhouse psi cantrip of tangible dream.

How does making it Force damage make up for the damage loss?

Not sure what the argument of it barely affecting the entire Psychic class is supposed to mean. That doesn't change that it's an unnecessary nerf and affects the people choosing that subclass or focus spell. That's like saying removing the bloodmagic effect from Elemental Bloodline "barely affects the Sorcerer at all".

Force damage is actually a pretty big buff, because there are very few, if any creatures, with resistance to force, while resistance to bludgeoning comes up with some regularity. Basically, in many campaigns, resistance to bludgeoning will inevitably be encountered, but resistance to force is near nonexistant.

At the very least, 2d6 force would make it in line with Ignition, what disappoints me is this. If it's gonna have the same damage as Ignition, I feel it should have an alternate 2d4 ranged force option at a 30-foot range.

I mean, Thaleon's Iconic Encounter even shows him with hovering Imaginary Weapons, and references that he "shot" the blade toward the woman as if it was a projectile.

(Though this is partially a selfish reason. Expedition 33 had earlier made me workshopping a mime, and naturally I ran into the Imaginary Weapon limitation, I resolved the ranged options with a reflavored Injury Echo, but the realization that Imaginary Weapon essentially does Ignition damage makes me honestly ask why it cannot also do Ignition ranged damage now.

But I do like the idea of miming, painting, etcetera-ing a ranged weapon in addition to melee weapons.

I am a very picky brat of a child who never, ever, ever wants their carrots to touch their mash potatoes on the plate. I, personally, am so burnt out on traditional fantasy I don't want to interact with Pathfinder in anyway. I know I'm in the minority on that. I am interested in Starfinder 2E because I was told it is it's own game, that just uses the same engine because it's a great one. So, when the bio-hacker discussion becomes "well, just use the alchemist from PF" I kinda have to tune out because I just don't want to see PF classes in SF. I'm sure it all checks out mechanically and narratively just fine.

As someone with their own food quirks, that's a way I can understand. Best I can say is, from what I'm seeing in Mechanic Mystic, I'd expect Biohacker to have overlap, but personally I hope Biohacker's pivot is toward being a medic. Their buffs and nerfs would be well suited. An emergency surgeon with a touch of mad science versus a Pharmacist with a touch of mad science.

As for tuning out PF content, it's certainly something you can do. But I've been reading SF1E books since the playtest announcement in release order. I'm currently up to Starship Operations Manual. I can give this warning. As Driftbourne said, Starfinder is science fantasy, not science fiction. The Core Rulebook contained the classic fantasy races in addition to the new science fantasy races. It had Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Half-Elves (now Aiuvarin), Half-Orcs (now Dromaar), and Halflings. The Character Operations Manual, which was essentially SF1E's equivalent to the Advanced Player's Guide or Player Core 2, and also the book that contained the Biohacker, contained the Esoteracist archetype, which made it canon that practitioners of old magic still were very much running around.

PF2E stuff may not be mainline in Starfinder, but it sort of still exists as a HEMA thing. Granted, if you're a GM, you yourself can ban PF content if you're the GM, but even if you're doing a pure Starfinder game, especially with players of PF1E, they might suffer without the inclusion of PF content. For example, there are a host of SF1E characters that can only be emulated by playing PF classes now. Archer and Blitz Soldier can only be represented by a Fighter, Wrathful Warrior Soldier can only be represented by a Barbarian, Magical Expertise Envoys can only be represented by a Bard, Ascetic Warrior and Qi Adept Soldiers can only be represented by a Monk, Hunter Soldiers could only be represented by a Ranger, Crusador Connection Mystics can only be represented by a Champion, Experimental Armor and Weapon Prototype Mechanics can only be represented by an Inventor (Though in this last one the Inventor was modeled after the Mechanic), and a host of other things.

Paizo clearly wanted to add the flavor of PF classes to SF, so they turned them into subclasses within SF classes. They were able to do this because there was no compatibility. But now that the systems are shared, any characters made that way will only be able to be represented via PF classes. Once one becomes Intermediate with SF1E, they start to see that a bunch of Pathfinder classes are alive and well in Starfinder. But it's not something you get to notice until you start looking at subclasses and archetypes. Their exclusion is not due to a lore choice, their exclusion is due to pagination limitations, because it was easier to add their most important stats to the most fitting Starfinder 1E class than to make them their own class (Fun fact, max spell level 6 was not due to decreased magic. It was actually because there was not enough room in the Core Rulebook for 9th-level spellcasting, that's why SF2E went back to full spell level). But now that compatibility is available and class scopes have been narrowed, those classes can branch off to be the full class.

Granted, if your introduction to Starfinder is Starfinder 2E, this of course would not be something you'd run into, but SF1E players will start to notice the limitations of staying only within Starfinder books.

To me, it's fine if the bio-hacker and alchemist overlap a little mechanically. They have similar motifs of mixing your own concoctions after all. The trappings of a fantasy apothecary making a healing potion and a sci-fi doctor making a super flu shot are different flavors of "magicless healer." Reflavoring mechanics might seem wasteful to a pathfinder player who wants new things, but I'm not interested in PF at all, only Starfinder.

You're right that there can be overlap, why I encouraged overlap, but assuming an Alchemist can only be a fantasy apothecary I feel is a bit of a discredit to the universality of the design. People are attaching to the specific names of items and the way the iconics are drawn. But if you take the raw mechanics, and put an iconic with a modern lab coat, someone reading the mechanics by itself probably would not notice the difference.

If a completely modern pharmacist can have the stats of an alchemist and function within the world.

I have a lot of D&D 5E friends. And they all tell me the same thing when I talk about concepts of scifi in D&D. I was of the opinion that D&D classes were poorly suited for scifi. I still partially think that, because they lack the skill compatibility and the training compatibilities. They always tell me the same thing, that it works when you reflavor it. One of the things I've learned GMing PF2E, and writing a compatibility guide for PF2E and SF2E as I am alike prepping to run a Starfinder game, though, is that PF2E classes have jumped over all of those shortfallings that I complained about with D&D. They have access to all the relevant futuristic skills, they have access to all the relevant futuristic guns and equipment. The D&D people are out there reflavoring their stuff and being happy. We Pathfinder/Starfinder people have access to classes that are even more compatible to scifi innately than D&D could ever dream of, and we're complaining about the fact the iconic is wearing knights armor and carrying a sword and shield, when he could just as easily wear aegis series armor and sport a rotolaser without a single home rule.

Erm, ackschualualy. Formians originated as a D&D creature.

Though that's probably why the lore is sparce. I have a similar issue where bugbears have very little Golarion lore, and it urks me, because I've been curious to see what it'd be like if they got the goblin/hobgoblin treatment.

As Kaid said, I think a good pivot for the biohacker is to make them an effective paramedic.

Essentially, giving them baked in abilities along the tune of the Lepistadt Surgeon and Medic archetypes, where they are just better at doing Medicine checks than the average class.

An (Al)Chemist, while they can be a doctor, is more of a pharmacist than a doctor. They make the medicine, but their THING is more about handing out the medicine rather than practicing emergency care.

In the name of seperating them from the alchemist, I'd probably suggest making them more martially inclined than an alchemist. Martial weapon proficiency as a default, able to get in the middle of the fight to attend to wounded people, while an alchemist would prefer to stay backline.

We can shift the scope away from bombs. Biohacker will certainly know some advanced chemical proceedures, so to feed into the concept, I'd suggest giving them the Alchemist's Alchemy class feature, and rename it to Chemistry. Let them focus on Medicinal items, but particularly, it might be worth bringing back Alchemical Crafting but as Chemical Crafting instead of serum crafting. Here's the problem. Serums are essentially Elixirs; both are non-magical drinkable consumables that produce similar brands of effects. A Med Patch has the exact same stats as an Elixir of Life, the only difference is it does not need to be drunk, and a hypopen is essentially an injectible elixir. The problem with Serum Crafting is Serum Crafting cannot make poisons, but can just make a smaller list of what are functionally elixirs. So in Starfinder, there is little incentive to get Serum Crafting over Alchemical Crafting because Alchemical Crafting will come with vastly more items to work with, not just within the scope of elixirs, but also adding the ability to craft bombs and poisons.

And to that end, I think adding a note that elixirs exist in Starfinder as serums, and to just swap the trait name, is worth exploring. Additionally, giving Serum Crafting the ability to craft poisons would be worth exploring, too. Since what is medicine but poison in the wrong dosage? (Though, you still run into the situation where Serum Crafting just gives two of what Alchemical Crafting gives, instead of one). That's a conundrum, I considered swapping bombs for creating potions and oils as serums too, but not sure if magic Crafting would be an apt thing to add. That's certainly a dev decision to factor. And while I personally feel any medic worth their salt would not ignore more arcane fields akin to Dr. Hojo, I can see why some would avoid it.

Lastly, if Biohacker has the Chemistry class feature, and a a result gets Vertsatile Vials, I'd reason its versatile vial can have a default function as either a poison or a buffing item with a minor difference in catalysts. Letting them provide a small boost when injecting into a friend, or a debuff and potential damage when injecting into an enemy.

TLDR: I think Biohacker should be shifted toward being a more martial Wis-based alchemist that emphasizes being a surgeon on the field alongside some free Elixir (which includes mutagens), Poison, and potentially Potion crafting, and having a special versatile vial that's tune to the themes of the old biohacker of issuing buffs and debuffs. I think they should get expansions to Treat Wounds/Disease/Poison that make them better than normal at those skills. And I think Elixirs should be redefined as serums, and that Serum Crafting should be buffed to compete with Alchemical Crafting by including medical items, serums (including former elixirs), poisons, and potentially potions (bare in mind the 2e definition of potion does not include Spell Amps, where Spell Amps work like PF1E potions, I mean like, PF2E potions).

Hear me out: bring back the ninja class. Leaf leshy ninja.

The problem is that "This chemical gives you claws." is already the sort of thing filled in by Mutagenist (Al)Chemist.

Player Core pg. 129

The Sniper Operative enhanced exploit has a loophole (and turns out to have had the same loophole pre-errata). If in the event a Sniper weapon is released with a reload of 2 or more, the ability would allow you to fully reload the weapon as a free action. Reload-boosting abilities carefully use the term "Interact to Reload." to emphasize that they only donate one action. But the phrase Reload alone insinuates that the ability can donate two, or even 3 actions toward a reload in the event a Sniper weapon is released that trades off more potent power for a higher Reload cost.

Granted, this is a non-issue if it is a hard mandate that snipers will never have a reload higher than 1.

On the note of tranq darts, I like the idea of a biohacker being able to switch their darts to nonlethal without penalty, like how a monk can choose lethal or nonlethal unarmed strikes.

Would reward choosing a biohacker for games where you like to capture enemies alive, rather than kill.

That was my thought too Kaid, in regard to both classes. So ultimately, what is the class fantasy (lore and/or mechanical) of the Bio Hacker? maybe we can imagine some ways it could be brought in?

Think of Hojo from Final Fantasy 7. You gave your allies buffs, and your enemies debuffs with a jab. They are basically a Pathfinder alchemist, but you're replacing bombs with a syringe gun.

Though on the note, they are essentially a mix between a chirurgeon and toxicologist alchemist with a splash of mutagenist. Problematically, you can already insert an alchemist in Starfinder and rename it to chemist pretty easily in SF2E and most of its elixirs basically function as Serums and can just be rebranded as a Serum expansion list. That will already fulfill a lot of the biohacker fantasy from SF1E, including the jabs as all you need is to give an (al)chemist a dart gun to give its elixir-serums and poisons that flavor if you include Fighter Dedication

So the hard part is the Mechanic/Inventor problem (where the Inventor was designed after the Mechanic, and the Inventor's core class features were actually Mechanic alternate class rules. And now that we have the mechanic as a playtest class, the original was essentially just an Inventor, so the new Mechanic had to be written to fill a seperate niche.) So we have the same repeat here where the 2e alchemist can already do a lot of what biohacker wants to do, so Paizo will likely try to make the biohacker fill a slightly different role than alchemist. I'd personally hope for something along the lines of a continued mix of serum and poison creation, but swapping bomb-crafting for dedicated Medicine enhancements, essentially letting them have an equivalent of the Medic archetype built in that lets them both pass out medicine, and be a really good non-magical surgeon.

Core Rulebook pg. 385-386

The Forge Drift Beacon ritual now includes too many Secondary checks after the errata. Recommended to reduce the Secondary Checks to Crafting or Technology Lore; Religion. Or some other combination of the three.

Galaxy Guide pg. 123

For the Xenodruid Dedication's Planetary Reincarnation feat, the errata removed the ability to add Breath of Life to your primal spell list. This means that if you do not already know Breath of Life, the feat will become inert.

Solution is to either restore the ability to learn Breath of Life, or to make Breath of Life a requirement to learn the feat.

Spoken like a true Hellknight of the Eclipse.

Tridus wrote:

never had enough of a soul to count as actual undead in the setting (so that followers of Pharasma and most of the Holy deities don't automatically kill on sight)

Curious, was this ever confirmed? I know many speculated that Pharasma et al might be chill with thralls, and that this may well be a reason why (I was in the trenches myself at the time) but to my knowledge it remains purely in the field of speculation. Besides which, given that existing fully-formed skeletons barely have...

For much of my career-though it must seem like ancient history to readers of this almanac-practitioners disputed whether summoned monsters were created facsimiles that lacked true life of their own, or whether they were being drawn from somewhere else: an alternate dimension, or a unique potentiality housing the thoughtforms representing the idealized concept of a creature. Though this debate is now settled, and modern scholars agree that summoning creates facsimiles, it illustrates the stakes: are the conjurer's inventions truly real, or is it only hubris that makes them imagine so?

But I think it is an important note to add that this is Secrets of Magic, a legacy book, that is about to be replaced with Impossible Magic, the book of this subject. And as far as I know, this isn't mentioned in any Core or Lost Omens books, unless it was mentioned in some Adventure or Adventure Path. So this is a case that it is canon until proven non-canon, but given that this was a treatise on Conjuration as a spell school, a concept that was scrapped in the remaster, there is a real chance these concepts could be retconned and replaced with another explanation with the release of Impossible Magic.

So I give everyone the advice I give all my players when dealing with Legacy and Playtest material. "Be prepared to change your assumptions with the official releases. The canon may stay the same, but it is not unlikely to change."

Considering that Summon Celestial is a Holy spell (and anathema to evil deities), Summon Fiend is an Unholy Spell (and anathema to goodly deities), and Summon Monitor includes that clause that your deity can restrict what Monitors you can summon, I have the feeling that the chance of closing the loophole is not insignificant. If summoning was a guilt-free facsimile, goodly deities would have no trouble with their priests summoning fiends.

I think I'd like to see something like:

1) ALL ancestries just get to add +1 to two stats. No exceptions. Rebalance them accordingly

This at least, is already an option available to all ancestries.

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