moosher12's page

Golarion is supposed to be Earth-like on all elements except specific geographical layout. So it is safe to assume that Golarion's temperature conditions would be the same on a similar Earth biome at the same latitude as a given location on Golarion.

The Website Dungeonetics has a bunch of useful tools that I use for running the game (such as name generators, and a Calender), but the most important one for this case is they have a table of points of interest and their coordinates by latitude and longitude assuming Golarion is earth-like.

The link to this table is: https://dungeonetics.com/golarion-geography/cities.html

Then you just pick the closest point of interest to your area of play, track down its latitude, find a position on Earth close to that latitude with a similar biome to your area of play, and you'll be set.

Great news! I hope Psychic gets a spell slot boost.

moosher12 wrote:

Speaking of Galaxy Guide... *inhales* AZRINARAN ELF HERITAGE WHEN?!

I'll be honest, I struggle to imagine how that would work outside time-travel scenarios.

While Azrinarans may not exist as we know it, House Azrinae is very much a contemporary elven family in Pathfinder, as they existed as a drow house for some time. The simple choice is making them a family of Cave Elves who would eventually become Void Elves.

As Fabios said. Kineticist feels like it shines best when you're mixing and matching, but when you want to stay within a single element, it can at times feel like you don't have enough interesting options for the amount of slots you have to fill. I don't think it's a problem with the kineticist as a whole, I think it's just a problem with page count. Don't get me wrong, there are a LOT of kineticist abilities to choose from. But it's like having spells. More options is simply better.

As one example, wanting to play a pure air kineticist can be troublesome, especially when you actually only want air. No electricity, just air. And I'm sure folks that want to be pure electricity will encounter the counter-problem that they have to cut the choices almost in half to fulfill the fantasy they are going for. You're rich in options if you're trying to be a storm kineticist, but not so rich when you want to be specifically an aerokineticist or an electrokineticist to the exclusion of the other.

I don't see where on your citation of the Galaxy Guide that don't exist anymore, only that displaced druids from Golarion joined the Xenowarden's.

The point would be to know if druids existed on Castrovel, Akiton or elsewhere in the Galaxy or only on Golarion in PF2? What happen when a druid leaves Golarion to go on another planet?

It may be that a druid is more tied to it's planet, but it would be more for beast/plant based druids.

Unless it is an error in the writer's writing, the sentence does not say the loss of Golarion has anything to do with the displacement of druids.

Hundreds of displaced druids joined after the Gap, when the Wildsong language was erased (the Green Faith survived through silent ritual).

The displacement is "when the Wildsong language was erased", not "when Golarion was lost." Which is to say that the loss of the Wildsong language displaced druids.

A definition of displaced: remove (someone) from a job or position of authority against their will.

Therefore, the lack of Wildsong makes it to where former druids are no longer able to act the job of a druid using this definition.

Further, it goes on to say that the Green Faith survived. The Green faith being a philosophy often worshiped by druids, but did not itself make for a druid as you did not need to be a druid to adhere to the Green Faith. There was enough room on the page to say "the green faith also survived" to make it inclusive, but the writer did not use it. This results in the connotation that "unlike druidic practices, the green faith survived."

The reading is clear to me. That's why I hope HolyFlamingo is right, because I actually really want to be wrong in this case.

I hope you're right.

It wears too many hats right now and should be split into rarity and disruptiveness, and rated common to rare, and no risk to danger of campaign derailment.

100% agree there. A second disruptiveness measure would be very welcome. To add, when I tried Battletech, there is a 3rd meter to consider, legality. Battletech had a rarity and legality measure. Between the three, that'd be a lot of good information.

I think you made a bit of a mistake with your lore interpretation, moosher12: something being mysteriously lost isn't supposed to be a hard ban, but a hook. What happened to Wildsong and the druidic orders that spoke it? What if someone (say, one of the player characters) was working on restoring this lost language? What are the challenges to re-establishing a druidic tradition when so much knowledge about the practice has been forgotten? Questions like this are great for background flavor and adventure creation. Have fun with it!

To answer your question:

Xenowardens began as a conservation society on Castrovel founded at the advent of space travel. Hundreds of displaced druids joined after the Gap, when the Wildsong language was erased (the Green Faith survived through silent ritual).

Basically the lore says that the Wildsong language was altogether erased, and that druids were displaced from being druids.

But I do like your approach overall, and I'll definitely consider your way if I get posed the question. I should say that I don't want to ban druid in a Starfinder game. But it definitely feels like this is their intention, which is frankly not a decision that I like.

I can't imagine that Wildsong not existing would be a reason to ban the druid class. For one thing, how often has anyone even spoken Wildsong in their games? That's a genuine question, because it's happened in my games a grand total of zero times. I've always seen the language as more of a flavor ribbon than anything else.

I was asking myself the question on whether druids need Wildsong. And it raises the question. Is Wildsong just an extra thing for druids, or is Wildsong what druids hedge their powers off of? Like a prerequisite. As the blurb above says, the loss of wildsong displaced druids, where only the Green Faith survived. And they had to find a new source of power in being a mystic or some other form.

If you're allowing Pathfinder Classes, then there's no reason to not allow a druid

There's also the fact that classes aren't really diegetic in the setting, at least not normally. Someone could have the cleric class, for example, but be referred to as a priest, rabbi, friar, magus, or whatever religious title you'd care to use. Same goes for the other classes, like druid. I'm sure someone can practice prepared primal magic but not consider themselves a druid, even if they do many of the same things.

Perpdedog makes a good point. But that was thing thing for me. a Cleric can be a cleric. an investigator can be an investigator. The Esotericist archetype in 1E established that traditional practitioners like wizards and witches would still be a thing, though more rare and niche in their distribution among more modern needs. A fighter might exist as a cqc expert or Starfinder's equivalent of a HEMA practitioner, and a ranged fighter would have some thematic overlap with an operator. A ranger could remain a hunter, a rogue has overlap with the sneakier operators, alongside a focus on using poisons, a monk remains a monk, etc, etc. All the other classes can retain all of their thematic implication even in the Starfinder timeline with zero need for reflavoring. All the modern tools of Starfinder are just additional options for these classes. Druid becomes the odd one out because they are the only one implied to no longer be allowed to exist altogether. Not a niche and little used art, but one who is simply no longer able to work. Toward Justnobodyfqwl, if it was not for that blurb of information, the druid would be fine alongside all the rest, as it was fine until that blurb.

Why is it taking you longer to get up to speed with a setting than it did to outline it in the first place? The initial phase of the contest ran from June 6th to June 21st, then the 11 settings shortlisted submitted 10-page drafts for their pitch by the end of August, with the 3 finalists chosen in mid-October. From there, there was a 100-page draft was made by the 3 entrants, and the winner from these was chosen in early February 2003. So, at most 6 months to write an entire 100-page setting document, and it takes you a third of that just to read it?

No shade your way, but you seem like you like to take your time with things in a way most typically wouldn't.

It's an understandable question. Some folks just have to work a little harder to read. In the end, I know the Pathfinder world and setting very in depth. Definitely better than any of my players atm. But it was a lot of hard work and likely thousands of reading hours that I've poured into Pathfinder books. I'll call it a very productive day if I can cover 20 pages in a day with a feeling of understanding. But a full cover to cover reading is often approaching a month of reading.

Maybe a half month can be put into a book if I have literally nothing but time on my hands that week, but factor in the necessities of life, it quickly elevates to a month minimum.

This is a session zero issue, not a system's issue. You could make the same complaint about rarity in PF2.

I already alluded to rarity with this example here:

Hey I know this thing exists, but can I have it in this location?

I love rarity. I don't have to worry about whether or not something exists. I just have to worry about its commonality in the area. Instead of asking a question of, "Can I just make this exist in this setting?" I'm only having to ask the questions of, "Alright, what avenue can I use to get that item (or information in the case of intangibles less physical things) from point A to Point B, point B being this area's locale," or, "Do I just not want it here?" Whether the item has the capability to exist is a factor I don't have to grapple with. Only whether I can get the item to the setting locale.

This is more of a future-proofing question. But I remember in Galaxy Guide, it was mentioned that the language of Druidic/Wildsong was lost during the Gap, and that Druids no longer exist. During one of the Paizo Con panels, an encouraged example of cross play was being a druid.

I am a GM, and I want to brace for the potential of a player asking to be a druid. In a game that might allow Pathfinder entries, if lore was being followed, most every class with the exception of the Druid would be able to exist in the Starfinder timezone in some capacity.

Should GMs encourage a player to be a druid if they want to be one? Should they deny it? Could druids exist, but they simply cannot use Wildsong as a language, or is the Wildsong Language key to all druid powers. Of course, Rule 0 will let us homebrew as we wish, but the point still stands, that to allow a druid, we'd have to willfully ignore a principle well established to the 2E version of Starfinder by the Galaxy Guide. And I want to be prepared with how I should go about the request for a druid in Starfinder.

What's weirder to me is Starfinder 1E seems to make no mention of the Druidic language being lost to the gap, at least in the core books, and even includes advice for attempting to convert a druid to Starfinder 1E from Pathfinder 1E. I don't know if an adventure or adventure path established this. But assuming it was not mentioned, this seems to be a decision made for 2E, which feels odd as it imposes a pretty notable compatibility restriction by forbidding an entire class that seems to have been soft-allowed even in 1E.

Different worlds is not what I'd call a good approach. WotC already has that problem.

Why would I want to learn Eberron, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and the host of other D&D settings when I'm still studying the Forgotten Realms and don't even yet feel Intermediate in it?

Someone wants me to play an Eberron campaign? Alright, I'll need a month or two to study a setting book first. Else I won't actually be able to make a character that lived in the world. The GM might say they can teach you to expedite the process? But more often than not, they aren't gonna have the skill, the time, nor the patience to bring you up to speed in a timely manner. This is of course a problem with Pathfinder, too, but at the very least, you aren't jumping from world to world as genre changed. You only have to go through this initial hump once.

When you have to deal with multiple settings in one system, you also have to grapple with questions of whether an entry exists or not from one world to another, questions like, "Is this class or class option a thing? Is this ancestry a thing? Is this weapon a thing? Why GM did you not tell me that this item that is rare in this other setting is actually a common staple in this setting?"

Of course, there are ways about it. Some GMs just homebrew to allow everything in all books in, but I feel that disrespects the setting by willfully ignoring its limitations, and starts to turn it into a kitchen sink anyway. Other GMs just are hyper casual and pay no attention to lore, but with that approach, you end up with a setting more theme parkier than what one would call a theme park setting.

Pathfinder is simple. It's one world. It's a kitchen sink world, but once you know what's happening, you can make it work. Starfinder? It's not a different world either. Just the exact same setting in the future. All knowledge of Pathfinder carries over into Starfinder. And all knowledge of Starfinder gives foresight in regards to Pathfinder. At least in Pathfinder I know every entry exists in some capacity, and it just becomes a question of, "Hey I know this thing exists, but can I have it in this location?"

I really hope it's the Impossible Book, it'd mesh so well with the remaining classes.

Plus, it's a rather "impossible" notion, which ironically, makes it feel more museable.

Toss in a few X is often problematic when working within APs though. The maps often feel cramped enough as it is with the encounters as they are.

Agreed. Very much agreed. But I'd hope they get more than just an Inventor/Gunslinger pass. We've seen enough people before that release saying that they did not even need a pass beyond simple errata. And now that we got a pass along those lines, we now see threads saying that they are some of the most lackluster classes. So whatever the case, I hope the remaining 4 classes get a proper remaster.

I'm still holding out hope that the Impossible Playtest's actual book will include such a pass for 2026, though realistically it does not feel likely to be such.

Certainly worked for me. As I was not as big on 1E, I had no plans to play Starfinder 1E. But the Starfinder Playtest did get me reading Starfinder 1E books to study up the lore. Now I partially know the system. I probably would still not want to play SF1E perse, but I'm definitely wanting to run some Starfinder on the 2E system now.

Since I'm running Kingmaker, which allows players to briefly visit Numeria, I'm also excited to include some Starfinder elements in my game.

Alike, if I run Starfinder, I'm excited to see many Pathfinder entries in Starfinder, as while I respected Starfinder for being more futuristic, it never quite jived with me its exclusion of many Pathfinder arts. And I like how the merging of systems will let me do things like play a wizard in space or a cleric in the future. Instead of just a reflavored technomancer or mystic. Frankly what I'm looking forward to most is giving Pathfinder classes access to the Computers and Piloting skill (actually I might make Piloting at least a default skill in my Pathfinder games. It feels like a good universal skill even in the Pathfinder space).

A 2E version of the Book of the Damned would be an interesting thing to revisit. Though letting it coincide with a Book of the Blessed might also be neat.

A bit late to this thread, but from the GM side, I actually found the new action economy liberating. Perhaps I was doing it wrong, but back when I was GMing 1E, I always had a feeling that the NPCs could only do one thing. Move an Strike, do one gimmick ability, or do a full attack per turn. I recall vividly having my players fight a black dragon and then realizing that the dragon could barely do anything within the 1E action economy. 1E always felt to me like each creature had a prescribed list of specific actions to do due to what I consider its 2 1/2 action system. And the simple act of opening up that half action into a full, flexible action gave me a feeling that I could really play around with creatures beyond the prescribed methods, and tailor more bespoke reactions for my players from the creature.

Starfinder 1E actually had that as a spinal implant, the cybernetic arm.

Versatile Heritage for heavily borged out ancestries. Not an android where they are a robot first. But a base ancestry that is so heavily modded out the gate that they get access to ancestry feats that revolve around being as much or more machine than their base ancestry.

Alright, turns out another panel, Adventures in the Cosmos, explains that this will be a free pdf that sounds akin to the Roleplaying Guild Guides. That's awesome. Looking forward to seeing it.

I'm currently watching the PaizoCon 2025 Organized Play panel, and it is mentioned that the Starfinder Society Player's Guide will be including the Ikeshti and the Shobhad ancestries. As far as I knew, Society Guides like the Roleplaying Guide Guides were no longer done in pdf format, and were now hosted on Lorespire. I do not participate in Society games, so I don't know the workings of it that well, so my apologies if the answer is more obvious. But will these races be available via a pdf? Or will they only be hosted on Lorespire (and hopefully AoN)? Would there be a web supplement? Or will this actually be a book akin to the Pathfinder Lost Omens Pathfinder Society Guide book?

That would be Galactic Magic. Desna's embraced her cosmic identity and is just a moth now (a really cool looking moth, mind you). Rovagug, er, I mean, "The Devourer", is still shown to be formless. Pharasma's gone all Professor X with her hover chair. Urgathoa, hilariously, is shown wearing a space helmet - to let you know, she's in SPACE now! I'm pretty sure no gods need helmets (though several are depicted wearing them), but the undead god definitely doesn't need one. I'll give it style points but it does strike me as funny. Zon-Kuthon also got the Hellraiser in space glow-up, but I expect their image to change pretty radically in 2nd edition given ongoing events. As for the new gods, many of them look pretty rad - Oras is probably my favorite, though I love the idea that Damoritosh has a halo, despite his 1st edition alignment, given how the Vesk see him as saintly by their cultural standards.

Thank you, very much. To add to the list, why does Iomedae look like Dora the Explora woke up one morning and chose mucha violencia

Because constructs (particularly those that were formerly golems) can no longer be crafted by PCs in 2E, I'd be interested in seeing a caster-oriented archetype that allows you to create a magical construct companion (as opposed to an inventor's construct companion) that might follow the rules of an animal companion similar to how a Mechanic's drone would.

I can see dominion being included in a book on The Vast. 1E only seems to have dedicated books to the Pact Worlds and Near Space, but not one for the Vast.

Though while the Galaxy Guide is nice, I do still hope we'd get a more dedicated 2E Near Space and Pact Worlds books.

I hope Starfinder gets a Divine Mysteries style book that sums up gods and goddesses. (Genuine question, which books in Starfinder 1E actually show what the gods look like, if any? I'm only up to Near Space among the core books, and haven't seen any imagery of the gods yet.)

I want to see a book dedicated to esotericists and other practitioners of the old ways. But in practical purposes, Starfinder expansions to Pathfinder classes. The Esotericist archetype from the Character Operations Manual shows us that practitioners of the old ways very much are around in Starfinder, and would likely be represented with Pathfinder classes in 2E (except for the Druid, which apparently lost its powers as wildsong was somehow lost to the Gap). But either way, this book would focus on bringing Pathfinder classes up to speed with either feat options to help them take advantage of the Starfinder options where available.

I've recently re-gone over Starship combat to understand the Character Operations Manual expansion to the rules, and it gave me a thought.

I'm kind of hoping some thought would be given into expanding the starship building system to encompass a few other vehicle types, like watercraft, aircraft, and maybe some large-scale landcraft? I just find the idea interesting of being able to have other vehicles as bases of operations, especially in a campaign that might not need to leave the planet. But another reason I'd ask for these considerations, is that while these vehicles still have use in Starfinder, you can take advantage of the Pathfinder/Starfinder compatibility, and make use of this vehicle system quite well in Pathfinder if land, sea, and air vehicles were given mechanical consideration, especially for those that are on a size scale suited for being a base of operations.

Okay, second stab at the Gun Witch, because the criticism was correct: needs to be class archetype.

So normal class archetype stuff would apply and both spell casting and weapon proficiency would be made similar to the war priest. Witch's Familiar is replaced with
Pact Pistol: Has the stats of a flint lock pistol, and serves as your connection to your patron. It does not get the extra abilities that a normal witch's familiar gets and can only prepare master abilities. It automatically gains potency and striking runes as with automatic progression.

It also gains the unique familiar ability: Ready Familiar: when ever you cast or sustain a hex spell, your Pact Pistol automatically reloads with standard ammunition conjured from the ether, OR if you have instructed your familiar to, it will load special (magical or alchemical) ammunition you are wearing.

You gain the Hex Cantrip: Patron's Target. 1 action, with the Hex and concentrate trait. Sustained up to 1 minute.
When you cast this spell your weapon increases it's item bonus by one. in addition when you cast this spell and each time you sustain it you may step, demoralize, stride, recall knowledge, OR begin to aid an ally (as in the action to cast this spell, counts as one of the two needed to aid)

Feats in this archetype would include being able to designate a second 1 handed fire arm to automatically reload with your familiar ability. Being able to essentially exploit vulnerability if you chose to recall knowledge, gaining the intimidating glare feat, and allowing you to add your weapon bonus to the demoralize action you take with the hex cantrip, making the stride you take as a part of your hex cantrip not trigger RS.

On top of this, I want to see expanded gunwands and gunstaves. I want to see rules for costs and levels of a gunwand beyond rank 1 spells, and gunstaves beyond 1 cantrip and 1 rank 1 spell. Or at the very least, I'd like to see them pull a Runelord and implant their stave or wand in a gun they are wielding.

Sounds like an awesome mod! Hope the team does well in completing it. Man, would be really cool if Larian and Paizo wished to license Larian the Lost Omens Campaign Setting to make a game as well.

Will vods of the presentations be cut and uploaded to YouTube? It's rather hard to parse what is where in the Saturday vod on Twitch.

Yeah, I don't think it's bad to be critical of PF2E. It's a great game, I love it. But if you saw my home rule document, you'd see I have a lot of things I think are not great decisions. But despite that, I still love the system, I just have it more modded than some people's Skyrim games. (my home rule document is over 160 pages, like 10% of it is actual rules, and the remaining is replacement entries to put the rules into action).

As for the gunslinger itself, I found it interesting. My partner plays a gunslinger in my Kingmaker game, and he often does the most damage in the party when he gets those critical hits, on top of dropping a lot of persistent damage. Crits are common enough I see them trigger the big numbers quite frequently. If Pathfinder 2E "does not suit crit fishing," it certainly suits it much more than 1E ever did.

Give and take. Buff and nerf.

You get much less alchemical items at once (nerf), but they scale to your level, and are much more potent (buff).

Putting in my money for Vitality and Void Dragon. The black one just feels voidy to me, and if that's the case, Vitality would be a good counter.

It looks like the Tech Playtest Starfinder side is trying to make more potent companions in the form of drones, the deal is that to get that extra power, even more feats are required.

Honestly an Azlanti Star Empire book would be great. I've been reading through the Starfinder 1E books, and from Alien Archive 3, there are some interesting azlanti star empire races to touch on. The Dessamars, Hortuses, and the shatoris are all very neat!

On the note of a Ship Core book, I want to see at least an attempt at implementing pricing for ships as an optional rule. At the very least, even if it's free in 90% of games as a cause of being a discovered vehicle, giften by a benefactor, or other means, it's good to know what kind of value a ship has in comparison to others beyond just a stat block.

Ideally I'd like to see individual components having costs (that can be ignored as an optional rule), but as a simpler method, if the Build Point system was used, it could simply be said that each Build Point is worth X amount of credits on average.

In my experiences, players like to ask GMs questions like, "How much does it cost," and are often not satisfied with a handwaved "it doesn't matter matter how much it costs." Even if it's free, they like to know things like this. Some other tables in a sandbox game might want to genuinely save up for one, too, and sometimes aren't satisfied with the "impress a benefactor to get a free one approach." Especially those that are wary of a catch, and want to genuinely own one.

TLDR: it's probably best to keep ships free for most games, but please make a guideline for ship costs in credits.

I guess I should clarify that I don't mean for them to be dedicated to being a nonmagical healer, but I want them to be able to play the role of an effective dedicated healer if they want to. And they certainly should not need to delve into an archetype to be such.

Just poking people for good or ill feels so limiting though. Perhaps giving them an auto-scaling Medicine proficiency so they can effectively treat wounds as a baseline, and granting them a few class feats to choose that expand their medicine checks to do more, like the Medic archetype can, but with the potency that a proper class offers. You can of course flex away from it to focus more on creating drugs for buffs and nerfs, but the package should include avenues for being a competent field medic without the need for delving into an archetype. I don't think it should be a subclass though, I think it should be a series of feats any biohacker can invest in, as it simply does not make much sense that a class that knows the body so well they can make chemical compounds to enhance or hinder it, somehow is not capable of patching it up, or fighting off the types of afflictions they inflict.

As for the evolutionist, I don't know much about the evolutionist, as that's 8 books away on my reading order, so I probably won't get to read it for some time to give it a call. A brief skim of its description indicates I would not be surprised if it got rolled into the biohacker like the precog got rolled into the witchwarper though, but that's an uneducated sentiment as I have not read the class in full yet.

So I'm reading the Vanguard right now, and I really want to see the Vanguard be brought to SF2E, but the Vanguard really needs a name change to something that invokes what it actually is. I don't what name would actually invoke it's vibes, but the Shigaraki Tomura vibes are awesome. Perhaps an "Entropath," or a "Discordant?"

Biohacker is also cool, would love to see it brought in as a dedicated non-magical healer. Feels like it'd make an interesting alternative to an alchemist. Don't really want to see the biohacker brought in as it is in 1E though, feel it should implement some additional considerations to emphasize surgery as well as medicine and poison. Put more emphasis on them as a physician and surgeon on top of being a Hojo-tier bio scientist. Let them emphasize knives as well as darts. Let them craft elixirs, poisons, and mutagens in addition to medicinal items.

Yeah, I was wondering about the lack of index. Are Starfinder 2E books not going to have an index? Because a lack of index can get confusing especially when dealing with traits, as some traits, such as the incapacitation trait, don't even have their definitions in the main book, but are solely defined in the index. Will the Player Core, GM Core, and Alien Core have indexes?

Actually, for Night City, you may want to look to Verces, the temperate ring of cities run by mega corps who use the blasted and frozen wastes to test tech.

The reason I associated it more with Akiton is because Akiton is described in the Galaxy Guide as a haven where law enforcement is light, and criminals and corporations can operate without oversight, not even really needing the illusion of oversight either. Then you can top off the desert landscapes for the nomadic side of Night City to get sandstorms and mad-max style raiding. While verces can be corrupt, and does indeed have a desert border, verces still has a government with a lot of power, whereas Akiton lacks that. And Verces feels more like it'd be a metropolis of one mega city divided into thousands of districts like Tokyo, but on a grander scale, whereas Akiton feels more like it'd have a single lone city that is cut off from other cities by hundreds to thousands of miles, and actually escaping the city would feel a huge endeavor, much like Night City.

Though for Verces, I sooner imagined the city planet of Star Wars, just congested into the ring, rather than being the whole planet.

Akiton called to me because I realized it would be the best place to do a Night City setting within the Pact Worlds. It is vague and slippery, yes. And part of me as a GM is frustrated with that. But the vagueness means I can also slip in a lot of those Cyberpunkisms without much worry. But now I can have Cyberpunk plus magic. (Though now I'm really wondering how possible it would be for Starfinder to have a netrunner-style pure hacking class. Doesn't feel feasible to make it with seperate hacks, as it'd likely take up a lot of page space. Perhaps as an alternate spell school that's not actually magical, like the 1E alchemist... but I feel that'd be a weird one for folks to wrap their heads around.)

I'm in a similar boat where I've only been chewing through core rulebook in release order (barely started the character operations manual, but taking a break for Galaxy Guide), so I've not gotten to see a lot of specific lore.

At first I was wondering what a dragonet would be, whether it'd be a young dragon akin to Roll for Combat's dragon ancestry, or an alternative anthro dragon akin to a dragonkin. Then a player suggested it might be what was formerly a pseudodragon (using fey dragonet as a latchpoint) but as a playable character, and this never occured to me, but that sounds adorable. Legit curious which of the three it might be. Looking forward to PaizoCon.

Dragonets are my favorite, because what is better than a tiny dragon curled up on your lap—OMG, no, stop chewing on the blanket!—they are truly wonderful creatures to have around.

Well that confirms that. I LOVE IT!!!

Given Ultimate Equipment is a book that combines various mainline items from multiple PF1E sources and congregates them, there is no equivalent book for Pathfinder.

A lot of PF1E material does not convert easily to PF2E, especially magic items. PF1E has many "must-have" magic items that are obvious picks, and PF2E intentionally disallowed such items to encourage items that focus more on flavor and unique abilities, rather than basic stat-boosts.

If you want to convert a few items from 1E, I'd recommend consulting both the Pathfinder Second Edition Conversion Guide, and either the GameMastery Guide's (Legacy) or the GM Core's (Remaster) item creation guidelines. Before you do this, I'd try to make sure you're well acquainted with how PF2E items work within the scope of PF2E, so that you can do conversions that are balanced within PF2E's sensibilities.

To start:

Book: Galaxy Guide pg. 114
The Hellknight archetype's Hellknight Dedication archetype feat has a conflict with its Infernal Bulwark archetype feat. The Hellknight Dedication grants you familiarity with medium and heavy armor, while Infernal Bulwark grants you training and possibly expert proficiency with heavy armor. Problematically, say for example you're a hellknight with a main class that does not have light armor training, you create a situation where you can potentially have trained unarmored, untrained light, untrained medium, and trained heavy, but the heavy is treated as medium, and becomes untrained. And therefore you remain trained in only unarmored. This is an error that can especially show up for any class that has only unarmored or light armor proficiency.

Suggested fix is to instead grant training in light and medium armor, which would grant expert proficiency if you are already trained.
------------------------------------------------------------
Book: Galaxy Guide pg. 117
The Knight of Golarion Dedication archetype has a prerequisite of Strength 14 instead of Strength +2.
------------------------------------------------------------
Book: Galaxy Guide pg. 120
The Xenoarchaeologist's Don't Touch That archetype feat probably should be a 4th-level feat.
------------------------------------------------------------
Book: Galaxy Guide pg. 123
The Xenodruid's Planetary Bond archetype feat's 3rd paragraph reads awkwardly, "If your powers are lost due to anathema, you lose the effects of this feat and cannot bond with another planet only if you repent by conducting an atone ritual." Should probably change to "If your powers are lost due to anathema, you lose the effects of this feat and cannot bond with another planet unless you repent by conducting an atone ritual."
------------------------------------------------------------
Book: Galaxy Guide pg. 129
The astrazoan's Change Shape ancestry feature keeps abilities that reduce the effectiveness of other abilities. It's assumed that these abilities are to be removed from the basic Change Shape?

1. The Change Shape ancestry feature clashes with the Construct Copycat heritage, as the Change Shape ancestry feature grants access to all ancestries with no limiter. This means that any ancestry with the construct trait (for example, the automaton), can be used with the Change Shape ancestry feature without the Construct Copycat heritage. Even if the automaton is disregarded due to its status as a Pathfinder ancestry, an astrazoan would likely be able to change into an SRO the moment it got an ancestry without needing Construct Copycat.

2. The Change Shape ancestry feature clashes with the Friendly Face ancestry feat, as the Change Shape ancestry class feature grants access to taking on the form of specific individuals without a 10-minute observation penalty.
------------------------------------------------------------
Book: Galaxy Guide pg. 135
The astrazoan's Cellular Regeneration ancestry feat probably should have a deactivation damage option for the purpose of balance.
------------------------------------------------------------
Book: Galaxy Guide pg. 142
The contemplative's Intensified Psychic Shock ancestry feat needs to clarify how you use a battery to power the granted boost trait. Do you have to drain a held battery, a worn battery, or a stowed battery, a battery in a weapon you're holding? Do you have to stuff a battery in your brain-head?

Additionally, the granted splash trait for the psychic wave application does not specify how much splash damage is dealt.
------------------------------------------------------------
Book: Galaxy Guide pg. 159
The kalo's Flashing Fit ancestry feat's 17th-level benefit is pretty negligible, as vibrant pattern does not have a heightened form. Unless the Starfinder 2E version of the spell has gained a heightened form, the only benefit to heightening the spell is that it is slightly harder to counteract.

NOTE: THIS THREAD IS FOR FINAL RELEASE CONTENT, NOT PLAYTEST CONTENT!

This thread is for posting errata suggestions for Starfinder 2E books to be issued in the 2025 Fall Errata cycle. Please do not post entries regarding playtest content in this thread. Try to avoid cluttering this thread with long discussions, for ease of developer review.

It might be harder to convince the GM if you use the automaton as an example. I'd try going for the dragonblood's scaly hide feat or the kashrishi's tough skin feat. Will be easier to explain.

You are going to have to explain that first point Moosher, Because Sin-Spells are Curriculum spells...or rather they are a subset of your curriculum. Would be weird if Wrath couldn't prepare fireball inside their extra School Slot.

They are even defined underneath the rules for the Runelords Arcane School. No reason to believe they are at all separate lists for other purposes than to define the part that comes from your sin and not the base curriculum.

Yes, the semantics are weird. I spent a lot of last night trying to parse the specifics. To further the point.

For the purpose of spell preparation, we do have the clause that sin spells are considered curriculum spells. Which means you would be able to prepare the fireball in a 4th-rank 4th spell slot.

But for the ability to swap spells, it targets curriculum or sin spells, which is what begins to make things weird. The clause that sin spells are curriculum spells should make it to where you would not need to declare "curriculum spells or sin spells." and this flags it as two things. One is either that sin spells are seperate to some degree, or the other is that the inclusion of the mention of sin spells is extraneous and can be removed in that case.

As you said, runelord ended up a mindbender and feels a bit rushed. For example, my honest thought is I do agree, Paizo probably should reduce the staff to the lowest form as a clarification, the issue is my sentiment on what paizo should do is seperate from my interpretation of the rules as written, as it leans toward enabling all heightened spells. But knowing Paizo's patterns of mechanics, rules as intended would assume something more tame. But if a player takes that interpretation to a GM, I would not call it a bad interpretation. And it will read the way it does to a lot of people. For example, we have 4 people leaning toward staves heightening, and 2 people for staves not heightening. GMs can reign it in, of course, but there will be a lot of interactions with GMs and players having a similar debate on how much to give the runelord, which is problematic. Because you very well could be right that that is Paizo's intent, but regardless, errata should be made, because patterns like this means GMs will see a lot of players with this interpretation, and some GMs will have this interpretation, and this will just become another factor of table variance for the wizard.

Book: Rival Academies pg. 114
The Runelord's Arcane Bond and Personal Rune class archetype feature needs clarification. The archetype feature grants you a bonded weapon that you can use as a staff, that contains "the sin spells from your sin up to the highest rank of spell you can cast (including your cantrips)."

This entry can be interpreted two ways: first is that the staff includes heightened versions of the sin spells, and second is that the staff does not include heightened versions of the sin spells, often based on the question of whether heightened versions of a sin spell count as sin spells for this purpose.

Yeah, I was still researching that point and found it incomplete so I'd deleted it, but to complete the point, I need to fill out that it says Curriculum spells or sin spells, which makes the lists seperated. If it was calling for curriculum spells, it'd follow normal wizard rules, but the wordage curriculum or sin spells means they are seperate lists. Only the term curriculum works alongside normal wizard rules, as only the term curriculum is called upon. Leaving sin spells in a seperate compartment.

But if a sin spell is still considered a sin spell when heightened to prepare, that means a sin spell is still considered a sin spell when heightened to be installed in a staff. And therefore remains defined as a sin spell up to the highest rank of spell you can cast

Either way, this does need paizo clarification of intent. We can go in circles of this all day. The issue here is we have two groups that interpret this rule in different ways. And that is a problem with the text itself.

Speaking of Galaxy Guide... *inhales* AZRINARAN ELF HERITAGE WHEN?!

keftiu wrote:

I'm finally giving some Starfinder books a more thorough read than I previously had, and Formians are really sticking out to me... but here's a post from me begging for them 4 years ago.

keftiu wrote:

Formians I'm starting to think are increasingly likely as a playable Ancestry; this text now establishes them on three different planets, and the sidebar on 'hiveless' Formians seem like ready-made PCs. I have friends clamoring for insect Ancestries, and have loudly wanted to see them on Castrovel alongside their Lashunta rivals.

Starfinder 1e had playable Formians, complete with a Heritage-like alternate trait for winged Formian Alates! We might see them return through SF2, rather than a Pathfinder 2e book.

Aren't Formians D&D though :O ?

I can see ant-based aliens, but... yeah, that may be a problem :S

Formians are mentioned in Galaxy Guide, which is ORC, so Formians are all green for use.

If a staff adds all sin spells, it adds all spells at each individual level.

It contains "the sin spells from your sin up to the highest rank of spell you can cast (including your cantrips)" It does not contain "the sin spells from your sin up to the highest rank of spell you can cast (including your cantrips; the ranked spells are at their lowest rank)"

Both Fireball (3rd), Fireball (4th), up to Fireball (Nth) are all seperate sin spells available for this purpose.

Your example of the staff of fire proves the point. Staves contain spells at separate levels, treating them as separate spells, in the example you showed, for Breathe Fire across two ranks, and fireball across 3 three. If the spells stayed at lowest level, the staff of fire would not have heightened versions of the spells.

It's not heightening one spell from its lowest rank, it's the staff having all available ranks of the spell installed. Which is, effectively, heightening.

Though I would not complain if an errata reduced this to only the lowest-rank versions of spells. But while it says "spells from your sin up to the highest rank of spell" including the seperately heightened versions of spells is not a wrong interpretation without developer input or errata.