Starfinder 2026 Errata Suggestions

[moosher12]

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.

[moosher12]

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.

[moosher12]

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.

[Tempest_Knight]

The Errata needs errata... there is no Deadly Arms ability on page 105, presumably it is supposed to be Ready Arms

[moosher12]

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.

[Christopher#2411504]

There is a potentially unintended interaction between Size Up and Secondary Directive. Turn would go as follows:
1. Use a 2 Action Directive
2. Secondary Directive.
- subordinate Action uses 1 Action Get Em! on asset
- 1 Action Get Em! turns into 2 Action Get Em!
- you do a Strike and full 2 Action Get Em! benefits

Acquire Asset also seems to ingore the 1 hour Frequency of Seize Up!, by just setting the Asset without checking if it is possible.

[Christopher#2411504]

The Cantrip "Vague Idea" from Guilt of the Graveworld Players guide is effectively free to use during exploration, as the downside won't come up. And the effect is around a successfull Aid.

It needs a re-use limit as badly as Guidance did.

[BretI]

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.

[moosher12]

BretI wrote:

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.

[Nitrobrude]

Not sure if errata territory, but Vehicle rules in GM Core are absolute nonsense. Changing how heading works or allowing certain vehicles to bypass the "can only go forward" rule would go a long way.

Auto-Fire also needs some clarifications/corrections.

[moosher12]

Nitrobrude wrote:

Not sure if errata territory, but Vehicle rules in GM Core are absolute nonsense. Changing how heading works or allowing certain vehicles to bypass the "can only go forward" rule would go a long way.

Auto-Fire also needs some clarifications/corrections.

I wouldn't call it errata territory, because it's not necessarily broken. Starfinder Vehicle Rules are just a repaste of Pathfinder vehicle rules, so you can't really change one without changing it in Pathfinder.

[Nitrobrude]

Now that we are getting quite a few sessions under our belts across a couple different tables, my primary group is finding quite a few things. These are the biggest ones I'm not seeing discussed or mentioned yet.

Compact Trait
Wording needs to be changed from...

"You can Raise a Shield with your compact shield as long as you have that hand free or are holding, but not wielding, a light object in that hand."

...to...

"You can Raise a Shield with your compact shield as long as you have that hand free or are holding, but not wielding, an object of negligible or light bulk in that hand."

...otherwise as written a character cannot take the Raise a Shield action with a Compact shield when holding a datapad, cred stick, etc because they are not "light."

Field Scientist's Toolkit
A chemalyzer is Bulk L and provides a +1 bonus to skill checks to ID unknown drug, medicinal, poison, or other chemical substances.

A Field Scientist's Toolkit contains a chemalyzer and more yet is only Bulk - and provides no such bonus.

Seems like it should have at least Bulk L and at least mention the bonus of the chemalyzer if not outright include it in addition to its own bonuses. We went 5 or 6 sessions not knowing of the chemalyzer included in the kit providing separate bonuses to checks that honestly, would have been SUPER helpful to have had in our campaign. As far as we noticed it's the only "kit" to contain items with bonuses separate from what the kit provides so we read glossed over it the same way we did "sterile bandages" in the medkit.

Phase Shield
It's described as "...often worn strapped to a limb or belt that projects a hard light barrier when deployed." But due to having the Compact trait when deployed it still requires an active hand to use. Should this not have the Installed trait instead of Retractable or the belt portion of text removed?

Hefty +X Trait
This seems to have been copy pasted with the same issue that PF2e never fixed. There needs to be clarification on if the shield with this trait needs to be raised or not to benefit from Standard Cover.

As written a shield with hefty appears to provide standard cover to its wielder, and only its wielder, at all times. This also means that its wielder, and only its wielder, can Take Cover to increase the cover to Greater. The only benefit then of Raise a Shield being that the circumstance bonus to AC would not be affected by abilities that reduce/remove cover such as an Operative's Aim ability and that you would then allow other creatures to benefit from Standard/Greater Cover.

This also means the base +3 will never really come into play. A single action to Take Cover (+4 AC, Reflex, and Stealth) vs a single action (two actions if Strength less than +X) to Raise a Shield (+3 AC, and +2 Reflex and Stealth).

If intended, "...even when not raised," being added to the end of the text would go a long way.

If not intended, "...when raised," should be added.

[Christopher#2411504]

Nitrobrude wrote:

Field Scientist's Toolkit

A chemalyzer is Bulk L and provides a +1 bonus to skill checks to ID unknown drug, medicinal, poison, or other chemical substances.

A Field Scientist's Toolkit contains a chemalyzer and more yet is only Bulk - and provides no such bonus.

Seems like it should have at least Bulk L and at least mention the bonus of the chemalyzer if not outright include it in addition to its own bonuses. We went 5 or 6 sessions not knowing of the chemalyzer included in the kit providing separate bonuses to checks that honestly, would have been SUPER helpful to have had in our campaign. As far as we noticed it's the only "kit" to contain items with bonuses separate from what the kit provides so we read glossed over it the same way we did "sterile bandages" in the medkit.

Maybe the Scientist Toolkit contains a basic/minitature chemalyzer. That is there if the plot demands it, but does not give a bonus like the dedicated unit?

Just spitballing some ways out of this.

[Nitrobrude]

Christopher#2411504 wrote:

Just spitballing some ways out of this.

Nothing to spitball. It just requires a 30 second errata. *shrug* I edited my PDF to remove the "Chemalyzer" bit and changed the bulk to L to be more in line with other two handed (one of worn) items. Quick and easy K.I.S.S. solution.

[Christopher#2411504]

"Energy Damage in a Vacuum" variant rules a illogical, self-contradicting mess and need to be rewritten from scratch.

Apparently Lasers don't work in Vacuum, unless I literally push them into someones face. Because they deal ranged fire damage.

The same rule also say that apparently Spells don't work. But Magical Effects do, because magic breaks physics.
Magical Effects, like Spells?
So Spells don't work and do work at the same time. Or apparently a Dragons Firebreath works, but a Fireball doesn't?

[Xenocrat]

Lasers work fine because they don't have the fire trait. All energy weapons lack any energy trait and aren't affected by this alternative rule as written.

[Nitrobrude]

Christopher#2411504 wrote:

"Energy Damage in a Vacuum" variant rules a illogical, self-contradicting mess and need to be rewritten from scratch.

Apparently Lasers don't work in Vacuum, unless I literally push them into someones face. Because they deal ranged fire damage.

The same rule also say that apparently Spells don't work. But Magical Effects do, because magic breaks physics.
Magical Effects, like Spells?
So Spells don't work and do work at the same time. Or apparently a Dragons Firebreath works, but a Fireball doesn't?

While I agree and can apply the first sentence of your post to...honestly...all of 2e (PF included)... For better or worse, as mentioned, weapons don't have traits related to their energy damage. This is what leads to such nonsense as Flamethrowers work just fine underwater but an Atomic Blast spell wouldn't deal any fire damage. Instantly vaporized water from underwater detonations on Earth would like a word. *shrug*

Simple solution is for errata to remove the part about magical effects and upgrades being exempt if spells aren't supposed to work OR remove the bit about spells not working if magic is supposed to break the laws of physics (which still contradicts other entries like Aquatic Combat). The whole section (the whole book really ) already states GMs should just do what they want anyways so it really doesn't matter as long as Paizo corrects the contradiction one way or another.

[Christopher#2411504]

Plasma Caster has the Art and Description of a "compact Pistol". Yet it is also a 2H Weapon. Those two don't seem to match.

And I can't really tell which direction that ambiguity should resolve into.

[Nitrobrude]

Christopher#2411504 wrote:

Plasma Caster has the Art and Description of a "compact Pistol". Yet it is also a 2H Weapon. Those two don't seem to match.

And I can't really tell which direction that ambiguity should resolve into.

The stats are absolutely written by someone picturing a Bowcaster from Star Wars. The art and description is absolutely someone picturing the plasma pistol from Halo.

I'd imagine the easier fix for now is to make the stats match the boom pistol but a bit more expensive and Bulk L.

[Alun01]

Nitrobrude wrote:

Not sure if errata territory, but Vehicle rules in GM Core are absolute nonsense. Changing how heading works or allowing certain vehicles to bypass the "can only go forward" rule would go a long way.

Yeah I can see future vehicles having some sort of trait to work around this, if not just errata'ing GM Core's vehicle rule.

[Christopher#2411504]

Ebony "Take Em Alive" Feat says:

Quote:

Until the beginning of your next turn, you and your allies can add the nonlethal

trait to your attacks with weapons (without taking the normal penalty), and to your spells that deal damage and don’t have the death
or void
trait.

The two bolded "your" seem wrong. Shouldn't it be "their" or "their respective"?

Because your allies adding Nonlethal to only your Strike and Spells (but not their own) seems off.

[Nitrobrude]

Christopher#2411504 wrote:

Ebony "Take Em Alive" Feat says:

Quote:

Until the beginning of your next turn, you and your allies can add the nonlethal

trait to your attacks with weapons (without taking the normal penalty), and to your spells that deal damage and don’t have the death
or void
trait.

The two bolded "your" seem wrong. Shouldn't it be "their" or "their respective"?

Because your allies adding Nonlethal to only your Strike and Spells (but not their own) seems off.

No. "Your" is actually correct in this instance. Their would exclude you. Your excludes no one.

You and your allies = sets the subject to you and your allies, not just you alone.

Your attacks/spells = the attacks/spells of the collective you, the subject, not the singular you, the individual.

It might be more correct to replace both bolded instances of your with, "your respective attacks/spells" but it's not needed.

[Christopher#2411504]

Over on Reddit there is a post on how to break Terrified Retreat using Abadacorp Rep Archetype:
Fleelock - how I optimized the fun out of a game at level 17

Quote:

Sf2 has a higher skill floor and skill ceiling than Pf2, with more opportunities to unbalance the game whether by design or not. I played a level 17 one shot as an envoy with the following synergy:

* Get Them! + Cut 'Em Deep + Do You Know Who I Work For? + Quip + Terrified Retreat

* This allows for 1A Get Them!, 2A to Demoralize two creatures, and a reaction to potentially Demoralize a third creature.

Success is upgraded to critical success and removes the normal 10 minute immunity to demoralize. There were moments where I only needed to roll 2 to inflict Fleeing on a lower level creature, every round.

I think the core issue is that there is a Success-> Critical Success upgrade for Demoralize in the first place. Terrified Retreat probably means you no longer have that design space for Skill Fets. It might even be too strong for a Class Feat, without another limit like once per turn. OP suggested:

Quote:

The easiest change I would make is change Do You Know Who I Work For? to "a success causes the target to be Frightened 2" instead of "a success becomes a critical success."

Another issue is that "Do You Know Who I Work For?" uses odd wording for the Critical success upgrade, allowing it to potentially stack with the Failure Upgrade from Envoy Cut 'Em Deep. But I am more doubtful about that. Still, lower enemies have low Will Saves, so a success on a low roll is very likely.

[Nitrobrude]

Christopher#2411504 wrote:

*snip*

I personally don't see any problem other than I just don't like "Do You Know Who I Work For?" in general. Bad title, poor wording. For the combo...

• Target/s must be within 6 squares.
• Target/s must be visible to envoy.
• Target/s must be able to hear envoy or see envoy with Intimidating Glare.
• Targets must "know" of AbadarCorp, and IMHO actually care (but that's not RAW).

Especially with the amount of range and 3D movement in SF2e, this seems like a non-issue and that a level 17th Envoy has better things to do with their turn and reactions. The combo CAN be a really powerful opening when surrounded in melee but then it quickly loses steam, especially if enemies spread out. At least as far as I see it.

[Blackhole252]

Magnetar Rifle is overtuned.

It is the only d12 ranged weapon without a serious drawback (e.g. area fire or unwieldy) and can fire 30 shots before reload.

The best capacity d10 ranged weapons can only fire 5 shots before reload.

The best capacity d8 ranged weapon can fire 20 shots before reload.

Elebrian dip via Adopted Ancestry is a cheap price to pay to access advanced weapon proficiency.

[Wyddelbower]

Core Rulebook, Pg. 320

Cellular Stimulant is a great concept but executed poorly, as it takes forever to become meaningfully relevant in its upcasting. Until Rank 6 it is essentially the caster just sacrificing an action for an ally (a single round of a buff for 10 minutes of penalty).

The Rank 1 of this is fine, but instead I propose you should be able to have the following Rank increases to make it more valuable both thematically and mechanically.

Heightened (3rd) You can target up to three creatures by using two actions to cast this spell.
Heightened (5th) You can target up to five creatures by using three actions to cast this spell.

The action economy sacrifice/benefit ratio then goes from 1:1, to 2:3, to 3:5.

I am running a Mystic of Oras and have found that this spell is very underwhelming on both fronts with little to look forward to (especially since the next rank spell for Oras is a Rank 5 spell!).

[Wyddelbower]

Player Core pg 120

The nomenclature for the Mystic Connection "Healing" is a bit misleading and impacts the flavor of the character—when reading through the description and spells it is about both void and vitality together that matches with the Philosophical concept of The Cycle in the PC pg 39.

Similar to how the Akashic connection is used to indicate the "knowledge" domain, I propose for the Healing connection to be changed to Cycle (alternatively, Duality, if wanting to avoid pigeonholing the selection into a specific philosophy).

[Driftbourne]

Wyddelbower wrote:

Player Core pg 120

The nomenclature for the Mystic Connection "Healing" is a bit misleading and impacts the flavor of the character—when reading through the description and spells it is about both void and vitality together that matches with the Philosophical concept of The Cycle in the PC pg 39.

Similar to how the Akashic connection is used to indicate the "knowledge" domain, I propose for the Healing connection to be changed to Cycle (alternatively, Duality, if wanting to avoid pigeonholing the selection into a specific philosophy).

The Cycle is mostly for Solarians, and is popular with the Kasath, although not limited to either Solarians or Kasath. There's a full page on The Cycle in SF1e Galactic Magic on pg 132.

Mystics aren't about Duality; it's more about healing any and all you bond with. "Transfer Vitality: You can transfer up to 10 Hit Points (minimum 1) from your vitality network into yourself or a bonded creature you can sense within 60 feet. This works on creatures with void healing as though this action had the void trait." An individual mystic may favor one of the other but isn't necessarily worried about the balance between Vitality and void healing as a class feature.

[Darkorin]

I would love some clarification about what is really supposed to be a gun for Operatives.

The current definition of all ranged weapons with the analog or tech trait covers pretty much everything, including melee weapons with the thrown traits when they are thrown.

Is that intended?

I think the only ranged weapon that is currently excluded from that definition of gun is the Shobhad Longrifle, which feels more like an omission than true intent.

Like a thrown knife is a gun but that sniper isn’t… something feels weird.

[moosher12]

Darkorin wrote:

I would love some clarification about what is really supposed to be a gun for Operatives.

The current definition of all ranged weapons with the analog or tech trait covers pretty much everything, including melee weapons with the thrown traits when they are thrown.

Is that intended?

I think the only ranged weapon that is currently excluded from that definition of gun is the Shobhad Longrifle, which feels more like an omission than true intent.

Like a thrown knife is a gun but that sniper isn’t… something feels weird.

Seconded. For one, while it is easy to assume that the shobhad longrifle is analog due to the fact Starfinder weapon's must include a trait of Archaic, Analog, or Tech, of which the shobhad longrifle has neither. The definition of gun is often troublesome. Things that are not guns are considered guns (a knife is a gun when thrown, and a shuriken drone is a gun), and things that very much are guns are not considered guns (a dwarven scattergun is not a gun). And while we don't have a bow yet, bows had the analog trait in Starfinder 1E, and if a bow comes to Starfinder 2E trait with any trait except archaic, then a bow will be a gun. When the GM Core suggests giving Operatives the training in all ranged weapons in a Pathfinder game, it raises question on why this cannot just be a default.

[Perpdepog]

moosher12 wrote:

Darkorin wrote:

I would love some clarification about what is really supposed to be a gun for Operatives.

The current definition of all ranged weapons with the analog or tech trait covers pretty much everything, including melee weapons with the thrown traits when they are thrown.

Is that intended?

I think the only ranged weapon that is currently excluded from that definition of gun is the Shobhad Longrifle, which feels more like an omission than true intent.

Like a thrown knife is a gun but that sniper isn’t… something feels weird.

Seconded. For one, while it is easy to assume that the shobhad longrifle is analog due to the fact Starfinder weapon's must include a trait of Archaic, Analog, or Tech, of which the shobhad longrifle has neither. The definition of gun is often troublesome. Things that are not guns are considered guns (a knife is a gun when thrown, and a shuriken drone is a gun), and things that very much are guns are not considered guns (a dwarven scattergun is not a gun). And while we don't have a bow yet, bows had the analog trait in Starfinder 1E, and if a bow comes to Starfinder 2E trait with any trait except archaic, then a bow will be a gun. When the GM Core suggests giving Operatives the training in all ranged weapons in a Pathfinder game, it raises question on why this cannot just be a default.

NGL, shobhad longrifle bugs me more for breaking the upgrade system. It gets two extra slots for a scope and a silencer when no other weapon seems to get the same. I first assumed this was how "specific magic weapons" would be introduced to the game, and that could still be the case in Tech Core, but I'm becoming increasingly convinced it's a side-effect of the longrifle being ported over from an AP volume to a different supplemental product.

[DarkSavior]

Bullet Typhoon: seems like it should ignore unwieldy trait. Its a level 20 capstone type feat, but it doesn't allow what Punishing Salvo and Run Hot already do. Which is getting primary target more than once in a round. That seems odd and feels like an oversight. If I am wrong so be it, but I wanted to mention it.

[Driftbourne]

moosher12 wrote:

Darkorin wrote:

I would love some clarification about what is really supposed to be a gun for Operatives.

The current definition of all ranged weapons with the analog or tech trait covers pretty much everything, including melee weapons with the thrown traits when they are thrown.

Is that intended?

I think the only ranged weapon that is currently excluded from that definition of gun is the Shobhad Longrifle, which feels more like an omission than true intent.

Like a thrown knife is a gun but that sniper isn’t… something feels weird.

Seconded. For one, while it is easy to assume that the shobhad longrifle is analog due to the fact Starfinder weapon's must include a trait of Archaic, Analog, or Tech, of which the shobhad longrifle has neither. The definition of gun is often troublesome. Things that are not guns are considered guns (a knife is a gun when thrown, and a shuriken drone is a gun), and things that very much are guns are not considered guns (a dwarven scattergun is not a gun). And while we don't have a bow yet, bows had the analog trait in Starfinder 1E, and if a bow comes to Starfinder 2E trait with any trait except archaic, then a bow will be a gun. When the GM Core suggests giving Operatives the training in all ranged weapons in a Pathfinder game, it raises question on why this cannot just be a default.

I think lore-wise, the strange use of the term gun should be blamed on something that must have happened during the Gap, otherwise it's kind of hard to grasp why a knife is a gun. Blame it on the Gap, and it makes sense to me. Although the last of consistency in it's sue is still confusing.

[Christopher#2411504]

Supercharge Weapon seems ludicrously weak for a Slot spell.
2 Actions so an ally can maybe do +1D6 damage per Rank on their next attack? I can't think of a damaging spell that is quite that weak and requires another PC making the roll.

Shifting Surge is slightly more usefull, as it can at least change the damage type. Within that very small set of 5 damage types (acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic). But the Rank 1 version does that, all the Heightened Versions are as useless as Supercharge Weapon.

Were those supposed to be Cantrips? Did you accidentally forgot to finish writing them? Because I think everyone that ever read them was baffled by them. And I can find the reddit and discord threads to prove it.

[Nitrobrude]

Christopher#2411504 wrote:

Supercharge Weapon seems ludicrously weak for a Slot spell.

*snip*
Were those supposed to be Cantrips? Did you accidentally forgot to finish writing them? Because I think everyone that ever read them was baffled by them. And I can find the reddit and discord threads to prove it.

Maybe a hot take from an old Grognard, but...TTRPGs overall NEED spells that might exist mainly/solely to be used for item rewards, fit themes and flavors, and give us good options for NPCs to use that don't just instantly destroy the party. Not EVERY spell needs to be the pinnacle of peak optimization. That said... Situational ≠ Ludicrously Weak. Plenty of situations exist in which the spell is the most useful in a given moment when you stop comparing things in a complete and utter vacuum that every reddit post I found does. Two quick examples I can think of:

Giving an ally at range with better positioning and a high chance of hitting +1d6, then using Take Cover could easily be better than repositioning in order to see a creature to deal 2d4+2 damage with Force Barrage but then being more exposed to enemy attacks. After all, you dealt fractionally more damage but going down might remove your entire turn of actions for the remainder of the fight or worse...

Perhaps the operative is stealth attacking an enemy 400ft away. The caster uses a Rank 3 Supercharge Weapon spell gem they found to grant them an additional +2d6 damage on top of the effect of enhance weapon they already gave. Is there a better spell to use to hurt the enemy at that distance? If so, should the caster even use it and make themself known?

[Christopher#2411504]

Nitrobrude wrote:

Perhaps the operative is stealth attacking an enemy 400ft away. The caster uses a Rank 3 Supercharge Weapon spell gem they found to grant them an additional +2d6 damage on top of the effect of enhance weapon they already gave. Is there a better spell to use to hurt the enemy at that distance? If so, should the caster even use it and make themself known?

Fireball is 500ft range and 6D6 damage at Rank 3.

An area of effect does more damage on a single target then this spell. For the same action and slot cost.

If you need to start with "what if the fight is at 400 ft", you are contriving a scenario that isn't going to happen in 95% of all games. Fights at such distances are either:
- a curb stomp for the side that has the better range, because the enemy cannot get into range or LoE blockers to fight back
- not actually going to be a fight at this range, because the enemy can get into range or to LoE blockers to fight back

[Nitrobrude]

Christopher#2411504 wrote:

Blah blah blah blah blah.

I'm not going to engage if you can't be bothered to read the literal opening of my post...

Again...TTRPGs overall NEED spells that might exist mainly/solely to be used for item rewards, fit themes and flavors, and give us good options for NPCs to use that don't just instantly destroy the party. Not EVERY spell needs to be the pinnacle of peak optimization.

Notice how my example with the operative was a Spell Gem? Crazy.

Move to a rules discussion thread and I'll happily engage there. *Shrug*

[Squark]

The Anomaly Hunter background from Galaxy Guide page 102 is inexplicably overpowered. Getting potentially four skills form a background makes no sense. Letting the player chose from a wide range of skills and lores is fine, but getting extra skills is way too much.

[NoxiousMiasma]

In Alien Core, the two Midwifes seem to have each other's art? Liberoba Midwife is described as having bloodied aucturnite shears (which she also has a Strike), but Presulea's art has the sharp-edged tentacles and scissorlike limbs. And then the art labeled "Liberoba" depicts a lumpy growth that better matches the description of Presulea.

[Darkorin]

Nitrobrude wrote:

Again...TTRPGs overall NEED spells that might exist mainly/solely to be used for item rewards, fit themes and flavors, and give us good options for NPCs to use that don't just instantly destroy the party. Not EVERY spell needs to be the pinnacle of peak optimization.

Notice how my example with the operative was a Spell Gem? Crazy.

Move to a rules discussion thread and I'll happily engage there. *Shrug*

Counter Argument: when these spells are granted automatically as a spell, it becomes an issue. Shifting surge is granted to anomaly witchwarper and elemental mystics.

It’s essentially a dead spell given to them.

And if the main utility is to give it as a “consumable reward” why does it need to be a full spell? Just make it a consumable.

[DemiurgeMCK]

On page 70 of Galactic Ancestries, it says for the Tankmeat Goblin heritage "While you're wounded, you gain +5 status bonus to your Speeds and melee Strikes". Even with the wounded requirement, the +5 bonus to melee Strikes at level 1 seems unintentionally excessive?

[kaid]

DemiurgeMCK wrote:

On page 70 of Galactic Ancestries, it says for the Tankmeat Goblin heritage "While you're wounded, you gain +5 status bonus to your Speeds and melee Strikes". Even with the wounded requirement, the +5 bonus to melee Strikes at level 1 seems unintentionally excessive?

On reddit the person who designed that heritage seemed to confirm that was an error and should be +1 to melee strike.

[Sagiam]

kaid wrote:

DemiurgeMCK wrote:

On page 70 of Galactic Ancestries, it says for the Tankmeat Goblin heritage "While you're wounded, you gain +5 status bonus to your Speeds and melee Strikes". Even with the wounded requirement, the +5 bonus to melee Strikes at level 1 seems unintentionally excessive?

On reddit the person who designed that heritage seemed to confirm that was an error and should be +1 to melee strike.

Thank you! I was wondering about that one in another thread.

deathandtaxesftw wrote:

I have confirmation from Paizo staff that the Tankmeat Goblin thing is an error and is slated for errata. I cannot say more at this time.

[Justnobodyfqwl]

Sagiam wrote:

kaid wrote:

DemiurgeMCK wrote:

On page 70 of Galactic Ancestries, it says for the Tankmeat Goblin heritage "While you're wounded, you gain +5 status bonus to your Speeds and melee Strikes". Even with the wounded requirement, the +5 bonus to melee Strikes at level 1 seems unintentionally excessive?

On reddit the person who designed that heritage seemed to confirm that was an error and should be +1 to melee strike.

Thank you! I was wondering about that one in another thread.

deathandtaxesftw wrote:

I have confirmation from Paizo staff that the Tankmeat Goblin thing is an error and is slated for errata. I cannot say more at this time.

Reddit user Derryzumi said that they wrote the original Tankmeat Goblin, and intended for it to be a +1 Circumstance Bonus. They then deleted this message (and seemingly their entire Reddit account?), which lines up with Paizo's "dont try to communicate errata through random forum posts" policy.

Deathandtaxesftw makes those good Starfinder videos as Thraben_U, and has seemingly confirmed this in his quote.

[Nitrobrude]

Darkorin wrote:

*Snip*

I personally think Shifting Surge and Overcharge Weapon should just be a single spell myself. But even as written, as stated, I don't view the spell as worthless as "if I'm not personally dealing maximum damage every turn, why play?" types. I can think of plenty of situations where granting my ally or myself a bonus die/dice to be used in one of the next 10 rounds is more beneficial than dealing damage myself in that exact moment. Even MORESO if I have ways to cast said spell/s without using spell slots. Also, I never said only as consumable reward. I listed that as one of the many options to support the need for suboptimal/situational spells.

Personally I view it as fitting and has good synergy for an Elemental Mystic and a good balance to Anomaly Witchwarpers getting one of, if not the, best Field effects. You think Shifting Surge is worthless? Better than a Gap Influenced Witchwarper's Delete when the adventure takes place on a tombworld filled with analog traps, beasts, mindless undead, and more. *shrug* Situational ≠ Worthless and hardly a befitting conversation in an Errata topic.

[DMurnett]

The Striker specialization's exploit is still a bit confusing. As written you get full proficiency with Advanced weapons that match the requirements. Is that intended? You still get Advanced Guns training that scales up to Legendary at level 19. How are you better with Advanced guns than Martial guns? There's an easy fix here by just making your Martial Gun proficiency scale your Simple/Martial agile/finesse weapons and your Advanced Gun training scale, well, the advanced ones, but whatever.

[DemonicDem]

There are a bunch of weird things about Galactic Ancestries:

Maraquoi's Dermal Hearing:

Quote:

You perceive sound through sensitive receptors on

your skin rather than their ears. Your hearing is an
imprecise sense with a range of 30 feet, alerting you to
the presence, but not the precise location, of creatures
within the area.

This is likely supposed to make their hearing better, but this just makes their hearing worse. Hearing is already an imprecise sense, with no listed range.

Urog's Overproduction:

Alchemical items are not recommended to be used in SF's Anachronistic Adventures. Is this supposed to be Serums?

Copaxi's Aggressive Antlers:

These seem really, really bad for an Ancestry-feat weapon. 1d4 piercing finesse is effectively worse than base fists. Is this supposed to be 1d6 at least?

Copaxi's Armored Shell:

Ignoring the weirdness about upgrades being split into another feat, this is not given an armor category and thus you never can get this better than trained.

Formian's Flight Specialist:

Despite being listed as "ambassador, queen’s court, or soldier, formian only)", it does not actually override the prerequisites of having the Basic Flight feat, and thus cannot be taken.

[DemonicDem]

Galactic Ancestries:

Orocorans not getting See the Unseen as an Ancestry spell is a bit odd. That was their constant spell in 1e (See Invisibility) and Ichor Lords still have it as a constant spell. Was Invisibility accidentally given to them instead?

[Christopher#2411504]

The Fangblade and Ivory Compers are confusingly given Free-Hand, meaning they need to be held in a active hand to be used. But their description sounds like they are attached to a (non-prehensile) Tail or installed in the mouth respectively - so they should require 0 hands to be used. The Free-Hand trait simply does not do that and actually causes confusion.

The chompers can be chalked up to the usual "badly designed custom Adventure content", but it probably should be marked as uncommon or rare. As is customary for custom Adventure and AP content, due to the common design issues.

But the Fangblade is PC1, so it definitely needs a proper fix.

It might be easiest to turn it (and maybe the Chompers too) into Implants that grant a new Unarmed attack? Armor Upgrade could also be a option, as those can still be swapped realtively easily and solve how it is securely attached to a body part.

[moosher12]

Galaxy Guide pg. 98
Player Core pg. 94

Partially repeating this with the addition of Masked Background, but the Disciple and Masked backgrounds include the Religious Talisman skill feat, a skill that was originally level 1, but is now level 7. A level 7 skill feat feels inappropriate to grant to a level 1 player, and I believe these feats were included by mistake, as Religious Talisman was originally Holy Talisman in the playtest, which was a level 1 feat, and therefore fine. I assume it was increased to level 7 because Pilgrim's token already exists.

I'll repeat the solutions as last time.
If it is okay for a level 1 character to have Religious Talisman, then Religious Talisman should be reduced back to a level 1 feat. Otherwise, Religious Talisman should be replaced with a level 1 feat for the Masked and Disciple backgrounds. Such as Student of the Canon, or Pilgrim's Token for the case of the Masked background.