The only reasons why I had opted to play an ysoki in this game in were:
• It was a 1st-level game, and infrared sensors for darkvision were beyond my price range.
• I was using a wrist-mounted computer for social skills anyway.
I would have played a halfling otherwise. Halflings and ysoki both have +2 Stealth, thus making them ideal for "one true build" operatives (ghost), if the GM is running operatives as-printed.
There is a disclaimer here: even after I had shown the GM the statements from Mark Seifter concerning the errors in the operative as printed, the GM opted to run the operative RAW, since what is printed in the book is what is printed in the book.
I am confident that the operative (ghost) would be significantly less potent if the GM takes Mark Seifter's word and removes the +4 to the ghost's trick attacks; that would mean denying the "one true operative build" that is a halfling or an ysoki operative (ghost) with a pistol, and encouraging more variety in operative builds.
I would also like to add that our vesk soldier was extremely mediocre during the session. In combat, they were shabby simply due to low d20 rolls; I imagine that their Blitz tactical pike build would have proven quite impressive otherwise.
Outside of combat, the vesk's -2 Intelligence, a middling skill list, and 4 base skill points per level lend nowhere near satisfactory a noncombat toolset. All classes should have solid combat options and noncombat options, if you ask me.
As for the PCs-as-NPCs, the GM, in fairness, had written the subsequent encounters with actual monster guidelines in mind. I am not sure why they had opted for PC-built enemies in the first encounter. It was a tough fight made easy only by timely critical hits from our side.>>54857235
Constitution provides only a marginal increase to SP, when a character's durability is both their SP and HP. I am skeptical of investing in Constitution above 10 at 1st-level.