Character Operations Manual potential errata and typos thread


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.

A thread for gathering errors in this book.

Junker's Cache, pg 93: Junk Armor appears with 2nd and 3rd level options, but this is a 1st level only spell.

Hack Capacitor, pg 92: The Hack Capacitor takes away a 6th level feature but uniquely among these alternate class features doesn't give any improvement at that level.

Gravity Well, pg 135: "Creatures adjacent to the spell’s origin point take a–2 penalty to the save to avoid being pulled." It's impossible to be pulled towards the origin point (a grid intersection) from that position.

Spark of Ingenuity, pg 43-44: The instinctive option is missing a boost to their inhibitors when they gain the class feature at 6th level, but the 9th level upgrade includes two inhibitor upgrades. One, the dazzled condition, is much weaker than the other, the off-target condition. Should it be an option at 6th level instead?

Riot Shield, pg 126: Unlike the tactical and knight's shield, this lacks language limiting the bonus when you align it to one round. Does it last indefinitely against an aligned target, or does it have a similar duration limitation?

Know Coordinates, pg 137: This spell is level 1 with no save, which is surely a huge, huge mistake given its power to destroy plots and make PCs always trivially findable by their enemies.

Miasma, pg 137: This is listed as level 1 for Mystic on the icon text but level 4 for Witchwarper. It is correctly listed as level 4 for the Mystic on the spell list on pg 130.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

P34, Half-orc Professional Focus. Making Profession a class skill is meaningless, as there are no classes that do not gain Profession as a class skill, and no way to make it not a class skill. Maybe some attempt at future-proofing, although I can't think of a reason a Starfinder class wouldn't have Profession as a class skill.


Constellation Blast, pg 87: "When you use this ability, you create three 10-foot-radius bursts within 60 feet of you, each of which cannot overlap and must be centered no more than 15 feet from the center of one other radius." Literally no one can figure out what this means, and the people cry out for justice.


Xenocrat wrote:
Constellation Blast, pg 87: "When you use this ability, you create three 10-foot-radius bursts within 60 feet of you, each of which cannot overlap and must be centered no more than 15 feet from the center of one other radius." Literally no one can figure out what this means, and the people cry out for justice.

So start out with the a 60' circle around you - plot your first burst inside that range. Now the second burst must be within 15 feet of the first, and still within the 60' range. The third must be within 15 feet of one of the first two, still within the 60' range. No overlaps.

So your bursts could be (all within that 60' range, no more than 10' gap between "adjacent" bursts) :

OOO

OO
O_

O
O
O

O
__O
O

OO
_O

(underscores for formatting the post only)

Does that help ?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

10 ft radius, max 15 feet apart center to center is impossible. If you place to two spheres so that their edges are touching, they will be twenty feet apart. If you place them 15 feet apart they will overlap by 5ft.


Xenocrat wrote:


Spark of Ingenuity, pg 43-44: The instinctive option is missing a boost to their inhibitors when they gain the class feature at 6th level, but the 9th level upgrade includes two inhibitor upgrades. One, the dazzled condition, is much weaker than the other, the off-target condition. Should it be an option at 6th level instead?

I note that the 8th level Biohacker SFS pregen implies that this is the case, dazzled is listed as an available spark of ingenuity option for her.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Slice reality p. 141

As others have pointed out, the fort save on slice reality should probably negate the staggered effect if cast on a single target, or reduce the duration, given there is a much higher level Witchwarper ability that does the same thing without damage. (Sadly, can’t quote it ATM, on my phone.)


Page 62, in the Witchwarper section.

Their charisma-based bonuses for their spell slots are instead labeled as a "Wis" Table. Probably the result of a sloppy copy-and-paste.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Altered or Replaced Witchwarper Class Features, pg 39: "You don’t gain another daily use of the infinite worlds class feature, nor do you gain its additional 4th-level effect." This is obsolete playtest language; Witchwarpers no longer gain daily uses of infinite worlds and the advancement of capabilities isn't tied to character level. Some new ability needs to be traded away, similar to the Technomancer losing a spell known.


Biohacks, pg 42: "You can deliver any biohack you create with any attack from an injection weapon." A dart already filled with another injectable substance is "any" attack when fired, so as written this allows you to add a biohack on top of a medicinal, serum, or poison on the same shot. If this isn't intended the language should be adjusted.


Garretmander wrote:
10 ft radius, max 15 feet apart center to center is impossible. If you place to two spheres so that their edges are touching, they will be twenty feet apart. If you place them 15 feet apart they will overlap by 5ft.

It makes me wonder if they meant 10 foot diameter circle as that would make the numbers work in the way it seems to be intended.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Curving Flare Stellar Revelation, pg. 86. The flavour of this ability describes it working through gravity manipulation but it is marked as a Photon Revelation rather than a Graviton Revelation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Solar Inferno (Su) pg 86 and 87

This ability is explicitly allowed with Melee attacks through the Solar Weapon/Shield, but makes no mention of excluding the user from the ability. This means you're always nuking yourself whenever you use the ability and since you have Bad Reflex, chances are you light yourself on fire.

I understand that the Graviton equivalent, Gravity Well, also affects the user, but it's not nearly as detrimental (and is much more beneficial for Melee than Ranged).

I don't know if this is in fact unintentional, but it seems like a pretty big detriment to light yourself on fire anytime you use an ability, enough so that it could be an oversight.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

How does work cordinate assault (from mechanic) now with experimental weapon or armor?. Because it has reference to exocortex and drone but not to new options.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TurinDM wrote:
How does work cordinate assault (from mechanic) now with experimental weapon or armor?. Because it has reference to exocortex and drone but not to new options.

Oh wow, how did that get past Q&A? This also affects Control Net (Ex), the level 17 ability that lets you split your levels between your drone and exocortex, though I assume it just does the same for the prototypes. Good job spotting that, as prototypes do not feature a level 11 equivalent.

I also noticed that Prototype Weapon's Advanced Customization (lvl 7) does not have any option at level 14, unlike the prototype armor. I wonder why, though I might have a guess as to why that is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tymin wrote:
TurinDM wrote:
How does work cordinate assault (from mechanic) now with experimental weapon or armor?. Because it has reference to exocortex and drone but not to new options.

Oh wow, how did that get past Q&A? This also affects Control Net (Ex), the level 17 ability that lets you split your levels between your drone and exocortex, though I assume it just does the same for the prototypes. Good job spotting that, as prototypes do not feature a level 11 equivalent.

I also noticed that Prototype Weapon's Advanced Customization (lvl 7) does not have any option at level 14, unlike the prototype armor. I wonder why, though I might have a guess as to why that is.

It’s not unprecedented for Paizo to print archetypes that mess with a base class and orphan some later class features they didn’t think about. It was problem #2349 on Ultimate Wilderness.


Xenocrat wrote:
It’s not unprecedented for Paizo to print archetypes that mess with a base class and orphan some later class features they didn’t think about. It was problem #2349 on Ultimate Wilderness.

Problem #2349? did Ultimate Wilderness have over 2000 problems, or was that problem #2349 in Pathfinder in general? Dumb jokes aside, I am now very curious what paizo will do to fix this. Do you think they'll release a short statement or wait to release an errata? I'm looking forward to it none the less. More fun times for my mechanic.


I was wondering about that, and the easiest explanation is that it does nothing, since you don't have the AI class feature.

The fairer explanation is that you can split your mechanic levels between armor and weapon prototype.

The Santa Clause option is to let them split levels between all four: drone, exocortex, armor prototype, and weapon prototype.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tymin wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
It’s not unprecedented for Paizo to print archetypes that mess with a base class and orphan some later class features they didn’t think about. It was problem #2349 on Ultimate Wilderness.
Problem #2349? did Ultimate Wilderness have over 2000 problems, or was that problem #2349 in Pathfinder in general? Dumb jokes aside, I am now very curious what paizo will do to fix this. Do you think they'll release a short statement or wait to release an errata? I'm looking forward to it none the less. More fun times for my mechanic.

Ultimate Wilderness had several thousand problems, it was a toxic trash fire whose product thread will probably always have the dubious distinction of the most posts in that forum.

They won’t do anything to fix it, it would require a couple of other paragraphs on a page where they won’t fit, and they don’t generally fix mistakes unless they are extremely egregious. This is just an alternate option you don’t have to take that deprives you of some not super important class features at levels most people won’t play.


Not sure if this was a mistake but I figured I'd make it here instead of making a thread just for this, but the Mind Forward korasha lashunta's ability score modifiers are exactly the same as a base dayama lashunta's ability score modifiers. Seems a bit of a waste to just give an option that amounts to, "i want this one's stats with this one's aesthetics."


Infinite Worlds, pg 61:

Quote:
You can instead create multiple, milder effects in place of a single, more powerful effect. When you do this, you select two effects available to any version of this ability created by expending a lower-level spell slot than that you actually expend. For calculations based on spell level, use the level of the spell slot you expend.

The second sentence should probably read "select two different effects available." Because if you can select the same thing twice you get what is effectively a one level metamagic increase to (1) double damage on the 5th/6th level options to do the instantaneous 4th option (so you do 8d6 damage with a 4th slot, but 20d6 with a 5th level slot and 24d6 with a 6th level slot), and (2) double saves against debuffs (a 3rd level slot spent on the 2nd instaneous effect would require two saves to avoid being knocked prone, a 6th level slot spent on the 5th instantaneous effect would require two saves to avoid entanglement, etc.)

See also discussion here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Disrupting Shot Operative Exploit, pg 83.
It seems to me that this level 6 exploit having the level 10 exploit Deactivating Shot as a prerequisite must be some sort of error. (why it has 2 prereqs to begin with and such unrelated ones is a thorough headscratcher as well).

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Entropic Strike p. 52

“At 10th level, you also add your strength modifier to the damage of your entropic strike.”

Shouldn’t it be ‘May add your damage?’ Or do they want vanguards with 8 strength to suddenly do slightly less damage at level 10?


Vanguard Aspect Insight (Ex) Improved Combat Maneuver pages 53 -55

Vanguards as they level up can pick up two different Aspects. Each Aspect can give a Improved Combat Maneuver. What happens if they grant the same Combat Maneuver?

As is, both Boundary & Cascade Aspects give Improved Combat Maneuver: Sunder.

Expecting future Vanguard material to have new Aspects so some type of answer is needed.

Sovereign Court

I guess picking up redundant Aspects is not a good idea?


Ascalaphus wrote:
I guess picking up redundant Aspects is not a good idea?

Well, they didn't say picking redundant Aspects was a bad idea in the rules, so clearly, CLEARLY, this supposition is incorrect! (/end sarcasm.)


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
VampByDay wrote:

Entropic Strike p. 52

“At 10th level, you also add your strength modifier to the damage of your entropic strike.”

Shouldn’t it be ‘May add your damage?’ Or do they want vanguards with 8 strength to suddenly do slightly less damage at level 10?

Given they will have earned multiple ability upgrades by that point, *and* unlocked their first personal enhancement? I feel like this is probably an overlooked edge case, as its vanishingly unlikely someone would still have Strength 8 at level 10.


Xenocrat wrote:
Biohacks, pg 42: "You can deliver any biohack you create with any attack from an injection weapon." A dart already filled with another injectable substance is "any" attack when fired, so as written this allows you to add a biohack on top of a medicinal, serum, or poison on the same shot. If this isn't intended the language should be adjusted.

I would add this language about serums.

Serums, CRB 225 wrote:

Serums are normally 1 ounce of liquid (though it is possible to make serums with larger volumes, these are no more effective than standard serums), and lose potency if they are mixed with any

other material.

If biohacks can be mixed with or added to an injection weapon loaded with another substance, do they overrule this clause of the original serum rules? Or are they only mixable with things like medicinals or poisons that don't have a similar rule?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The serums in this book, like those in Armory, have negligible bulk. The serums in the CRB and Pact Worlds have L bulk. One of these pairs should be errata'd at the 2nd printing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Frightening Injection feat, page 115. This is strictly inferior to the Improved Demoralize (Signal of Screams #3) feat. Both take a move action, but Improved Demoralize can be used by anyone at any time and doesn't have a once per day per target.

Recommend making Frightening Injection a reaction.


Patch Tech (spell) page 139. The spell indicates that it has a "Close" range and Targets "one technological item", but the description text states that "You gain a +3 insight bonus to Engineering checks to arm explosives, disable devices, and repair items." It's not clear how casting the spell on an object permits this insight bonus to you - at best if you're applying it to the object to be Engineered it's still unclear. Also, it seems your allies cannot take advantage of this?

My best guess is the spell is either a mishmash of two ideas (a personal skill boost and a repair action) that was never fully finalized, or it was changed during development and one of these discrepancies is a remnant of a past version. Either way, it's not clear how a player can use this in this form without GM intervention.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Is the Aesthetic warrior a typo or should we get ranks in profession interior decorator?


Holographic Artist's Cache, pg 93: The Holographic Image spell lacks an asterisk for the first and second slot, but does have one for the third slot. It should probably have one for every slot, as otherwise you cast your cache Holographic Image in one location/area and it stays there all day, which isn't very useful.


Matt2VK wrote:

Vanguard Aspect Insight (Ex) Improved Combat Maneuver pages 53 -55

Vanguards as they level up can pick up two different Aspects. Each Aspect can give a Improved Combat Maneuver. What happens if they grant the same Combat Maneuver?

As is, both Boundary & Cascade Aspects give Improved Combat Maneuver: Sunder.

Expecting future Vanguard material to have new Aspects so some type of answer is needed.

My copy of the book says "If you already have the bonus feat granted by the aspect insight, you can instead select any other feat for which you meet the prerequisite." Page 53, Second Aspect Insight. My reading is that if you already have the feat from any source, including but not limited to your first aspect insight, you just pick a different feat.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Is the Aesthetic warrior a typo or should we get ranks in profession interior decorator?

Its obviously a Soldier that trains in the art of Fēng Shuǐ, duh. Someone has to handle the interior decorating for the ship's living quarters, LOL.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Someone pointed this out on the OrgPlay Discord, but I thought I'd post it here so the devs can see it too.

Experimental Weapon Prototype (Ex) Weapon Prototype Proficiency page 72
Although the class feature grants you proficiency in the chosen weapon type, it has no language regarding weapon specialization, unlike the Artificial Intelligence - Exocortex option which specifically says you gain weapon specialization with longarms at 3rd level.

Character Operations Manual p.72 wrote:

Weapon Prototype Proficiency (Ex)

You gain proficiency in advanced melee weapons, heavy weapons, or longarms. Once this choice is made, it can’t be changed. Your weapon prototype must be a weapon of this type. Your designated weapon prototype calculates its hardness, HP, and saves as if its item level were 5 higher.
Starfinder Core Rulebook p.79 wrote:

Combat Tracking (Ex)

Your exocortex provides you with enhanced combat ability, granting you proficiency with heavy armor and longarms. At 3rd level, you gain weapon specialization in longarms just as if your class granted proficiency.

Is the proficiency granted by Weapon Prototype Proficiency assumed to be a proficiency "granted by the class" for the purpose of the Weapon Specialization (3rd level) class feature, or do Mechanics who have selected the Experimental Weapon Prototype need to spend a feat to gain the benefits of Weapon Specialization with the chosen prototype weapon (either the Weapon Specialization or Versatile Specialization feat)?

Sovereign Court

CRB p. 70 (mechanic class features) wrote:


WEAPON SPECIALIZATION (EX) 3rd Level
You gain the Weapon Specialization feat as a bonus feat for
each weapon type this class grants you proficiency with.

Experimental Weapon Prototype is a class feature that grants you proficiency with some weapon. So the above text gives you weapon specialization.

The exocortex contains an extra reminder, but even without that special reminder exocortex mechanics would have also gained weapon specialization.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:
CRB p. 70 (mechanic class features) wrote:


WEAPON SPECIALIZATION (EX) 3rd Level
You gain the Weapon Specialization feat as a bonus feat for
each weapon type this class grants you proficiency with.

Experimental Weapon Prototype is a class feature that grants you proficiency with some weapon. So the above text gives you weapon specialization.

The exocortex contains an extra reminder, but even without that special reminder exocortex mechanics would have also gained weapon specialization.

That is what I figured. I think Prototype Weapon Proficiency should still include the reminder language to bring it into agreement with similar abilities (like exocortex) and prevent confusion.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

That's the problem with "helpful" reminder language: suddenly to stay consistent you need to put it everywhere, otherwise people wonder if the absence in some places is meaningful.

It would help if they'd used a separate font for it. (For example, MtG puts their reminder text in italics.)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

The Vanguard Discipline Draw Fire:

"Draw Fire (Su)D
As a reaction when you are in the area of an attack or effect that requires an attack roll, you can spend 1 Entropy Point to grant allies in the area cover against the attack or effect."

From CRB page 242:

"Allies and Enemies
Sometimes an ability targets or requires an enemy or an ally, such as the envoy’s watch out improvisation. You count as your own ally unless an ability says otherwise. The GM has the final say on whether someone is an enemy or ally; you can’t declare one of your fellow party members to be an enemy or an enemy to be an ally just to trigger a special ability. "

Since vanguard disciplines don't seem to have any language about not treating yourself as an ally, Draw Fire appears to function as a purely selfish ability, rather than as team protection. Based on the name, I think this is probably an error.


HammerJack wrote:

The Vanguard Discipline Draw Fire:

"Draw Fire (Su)D
As a reaction when you are in the area of an attack or effect that requires an attack roll, you can spend 1 Entropy Point to grant allies in the area cover against the attack or effect."

From CRB page 242:

"Allies and Enemies
Sometimes an ability targets or requires an enemy or an ally, such as the envoy’s watch out improvisation. You count as your own ally unless an ability says otherwise. The GM has the final say on whether someone is an enemy or ally; you can’t declare one of your fellow party members to be an enemy or an enemy to be an ally just to trigger a special ability. "

Since vanguard disciplines don't seem to have any language about not treating yourself as an ally, Draw Fire appears to function as a purely selfish ability, rather than as team protection. Based on the name, I think this is probably an error.

I don't see the issue as you've described it. If you and allies are caught in the area of a blast weapon (requires an attack roll) or automatic weapon (ditto) it seems that both the Vanguard and his allies would get cover. How is that "purely" selfish?

If you mean that it is also useful for selfish purposes, sometimes exclusively so, I agree that probably isn't intended and this one should probably exclude the Vanguard himself based on the name of it, which implies drawing fire towards the Vanguard and away from others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Even if ONLY the vanguard is in the area, the vanguard can become safer by drawing fire toward themselves. I expect the intended function was for the vanguard to provide cover to their allies in the area, but not themselves.


Shield Upgrades, pg 125: The option for a fortified plates armor upgrade installed in a shield is missing the asterisk, which means that as published you can slap fortified plates on your shield and get fortification from all attacks without having to align the shield.

The intent is probably (as with all the other defensive upgrade options) that this should require aligning to get the benefit against a single foe, so the asterisk should be added.


Medication Mastery biohacker theorem, pg 46: "You can use this ability a number of times equal to your key ability score..."

This was probably intended to say key ability modifier. The difference between 18 and 4 uses at level 2 for an optimized character.

Solar Shield solar manifestation, pg 84-85:

Quote:
You can make unarmed attacks with your solar shield; these attacks are not archaic, and you threaten squares within your reach while it is formed. You can add solarian weapon crystals to your solar shield as if it were a solar weapon, in which case their benefits apply to unarmed attacks you make with the shield. The damage type of these attacks is the same damage type as the type granted by the solarian weapon crystal, and if the solarian weapon crystal does not specify a damage type, it deals bludgeoning damage.

The bolded language implies that if a weapon crystal that does fire or electricity (for example) extra damage is added the entire shield damage is converted to that type, unlike how solar weapons work. But by the standard EAC/KAC rules, this would mean that a shield doing all electricity or fire (or whatever) damage would target EAC. This is a big problem for shield vs. weapon balance if you have the improved unarmed strike feat.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:

Medication Mastery biohacker theorem, pg 46: "You can use this ability a number of times equal to your key ability score..."

This was probably intended to say key ability modifier. The difference between 18 and 4 uses at level 2 for an optimized character.

Sometimes I wonder why we even have ability scores anymore, and why we don't just get rid of those and only keep the modifiers.


Ascalaphus wrote:


Sometimes I wonder why we even have ability scores anymore, and why we don't just get rid of those and only keep the modifiers.

HERESY!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:

Medication Mastery biohacker theorem, pg 46: "You can use this ability a number of times equal to your key ability score..."

This was probably intended to say key ability modifier. The difference between 18 and 4 uses at level 2 for an optimized character.

Sometimes I wonder why we even have ability scores anymore, and why we don't just get rid of those and only keep the modifiers.

For bulk capacity formulas, apparently.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:

Medication Mastery biohacker theorem, pg 46: "You can use this ability a number of times equal to your key ability score..."

This was probably intended to say key ability modifier. The difference between 18 and 4 uses at level 2 for an optimized character.

Sometimes I wonder why we even have ability scores anymore, and why we don't just get rid of those and only keep the modifiers.

I get (and agree with) the sentiment, but I guess with ability score damage/drain being a thing, it's a lot easier to say "you are unconscious/dead when the score reaches 0," than saying "you are unconscious/dead when the modifier reaches -5." Especially with ability scores translating to half a modifier. If handled the same, a -1 on an ability score would mean minus a half of a modifier, which is even worse. I mean, it's just a simple trick of making ability score damage function differently, but apparently Paizo didn't think it necessary to do so. If it ain't broke... Though I do see more and more cracks appearing in the system, so a revamp would be welcome.


Gravity Pulse graviton stellar revelation, pg 86: "This benefit lasts for 1 round or until you leave graviton mode, whichever comes first."

The italicized text is very odd, because it's very unlikely to come up and is contrary to how these things ordinarily work.

Most such revelations say "lasts for one round or until you leave X mode." If that's not intended in this case, it makes a lot more sense just to say "lasts for one round." Otherwise you're in the weird situation were someone in photon mode who uses this and then becomes unattuned doesn't end Gravity Pulse early, but someone in the matching graviton mode does.

Recommend either delete the italicized phrase or delete the longer phrase "or until you leave graviton mode, whichever comes first."

Sovereign Court

Quentin Coldwater wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:

Medication Mastery biohacker theorem, pg 46: "You can use this ability a number of times equal to your key ability score..."

This was probably intended to say key ability modifier. The difference between 18 and 4 uses at level 2 for an optimized character.

Sometimes I wonder why we even have ability scores anymore, and why we don't just get rid of those and only keep the modifiers.
I get (and agree with) the sentiment, but I guess with ability score damage/drain being a thing, it's a lot easier to say "you are unconscious/dead when the score reaches 0," than saying "you are unconscious/dead when the modifier reaches -5." Especially with ability scores translating to half a modifier. If handled the same, a -1 on an ability score would mean minus a half of a modifier, which is even worse. I mean, it's just a simple trick of making ability score damage function differently, but apparently Paizo didn't think it necessary to do so. If it ain't broke... Though I do see more and more cracks appearing in the system, so a revamp would be welcome.

But things that do ability damage are extremely rare in Starfinder, and nonexistent in PF2.

The application to Bulk could have easily been done by saying "you can carry 5+StrMod Bulk".

The only real use I still see is in slowing down level 5/10/15/20 upgrades to 17+ scores.

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Starfinder General Discussion / Character Operations Manual potential errata and typos thread All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.