Five Differences Between Starfinder Rules and Pathfinder Rules

P.S. One can always recognize a fish-blood caster; their spells always scale.

So what you're saying... is that... summon bigger fish is OP?

Here's my big question: when do GenCon's Starfinder GMs get a chance to look over the rules? I have to confess to a little nervous foot tapping as I look at the calendar and think about learning a new system.

I approve of all these changes. They all make me happy. Thanks, team!

The lack of spell components troubles me greatly.

One of the things I hated about 4th Edition was that magic required absolutely no components or actual in-game character action to perform. You can tie up a spellcaster, gag them, throw them in a bag, and hang them upside-down, and they could STILL cast spells. I've actually seen DMs resort to those extremes when an NPC captured a PC.

1. This kind of seems like a natural translation of the common sci-fi gaming trope of regenerating energy shields, and non-regenerating HP pools. I like. Might re-flavor the system to reflect that even more if I ever run a Mass Effect themed campaign.

2. KAC and EAC makes a lot of sense. It'll be interesting to see how this might affect a party's combat role dynamics. If the party's Soldier went with armor favoring kinetic protection over energy, will they stick to the rear hurling long ranged attacks while the squishy Technomancer with an unusually high EAC takes the front line, hoping to divert the energy-based monster's attack?

3. This makes sense. I'm really curious to see how Starfinder tackles Kasatha here. Having four arms to make use of in combat seems really advantageous.

4. I propose circumstantial Attacks of Opportunity for "shooting the bounty hunter first" in a cantina booth.

5. Divine, arcane, psychic - justa buncha magic tricks. Hokey religions and ancient weapons, they're all the same to me.

bugleyman wrote:

Personally, I never found the arcane/divine distinction useful or interesting. Having it be ambiguous is much more flexible (not to mention intriguing).

P.S. One can always recognize a fish-blood caster; their spells always scale.

Nice....

Back in 2nd edition I liked the Arcane and Divine split. It made the cleric/Wizard feel very different. One magic comes from one source and another from a different... I could deal with that. Cure was divine, Fireball was Arcane...

3.X bard started crossing the lists and now with Oracles, psychics, witches, and a half dozen other classes with unique casting sources who are mixing and matching the spell lists... I don't see the value anymore.

I like the different feel of the different ways of casting. Divine requires a divine focus, Arcane is usually harder to do while wearing armor, and psychic spells require control of emotions. I'll probably put all that in to any Starfinder game I run and let players choose the system they want if they play a spell casting class.

#3 makes me wonder... if Iterative attacks are treated that way, did you do away with Power attack and combat expertise and make them universal options as well?

1. I'm a little hesitant about this. I was running a game under the Pathfinder Unchained rules similar to this and it really started to break down after a while. I switched back to normal hit points and things have been largely fine.

Of course, the whole system has been reworked to fit stamina/HP, so maybe it has better balance this time.

2. Neutral. I can see the benefit (I'd like personal force shields to give KAC bonus, but not be good for EAC, sort of like Fading Suns), but I didn't have a problem with the old way either.

3. I think I like this. It has potential to keep combat a bit more dynamic. Hopefully Soldiers have an ability to reduce this number. TWF could simply bring the penalties down a bit as well.

4. At first I thought this is straight up better, but with the clarification on how it interacts with spell casting, I'm not so sold.

5. I was on board with a Unified Magic Theory concept of spell casting, even with classes taking different approaches, therefor learning different spells. But I'm starting to think that too many sacred cows are getting the ax here.

I'm going to keep watching to see how things go, but all in all I'm not as confident that Starfinder is going to extend my D20 gaming past my current campaign.

Here's my big question: when do GenCon's Starfinder GMs get a chance to look over the rules? I have to confess to a little nervous foot tapping as I look at the calendar and think about learning a new system.

Thurston Hillman was on an interview with Louis Porter jr and said they haven't decided exactly how they're doing it yet, but we will have some idea of what we're doing before GenCon Thursday. They're not going to push us out the airlock and expect us to breathe without a vac suit!

--Vrocketman

I got a feeling I'm going to be welding the Starfinder mechanics to Pathfinder.

I'm really happy with where this is going. I really liked a lot of how Star Wars SAGA worked and I wish Paizo had went in that road with Pathfinder. The only things I didn't like are how Reflex became an Uber save and the condition track.

I will love Starfinder​ forever if armour as damage reduction is the new way and the saving throws are pointing in the right direction.

SM

Here's my big question: when do GenCon's Starfinder GMs get a chance to look over the rules? I have to confess to a little nervous foot tapping as I look at the calendar and think about learning a new system.

They stated in one of the panels at PaizoCon that they will be sending us NDAs for Starfinder and dropping the rules to us early.

Hopefully they will announce how early soon.

Hmm

No iterative attack?, that enough is a good reasons to give starfinder a try.

1. Eh, it could work? I don't really know if this is needed, but if it works I won't complain.

2. Oh, good. The AC system wasn't my least favorite part of Pathfinder, but I'm not against seeing it improved. Maybe this means that touch spells will be more balanced and give more interesting combat interactions.

3. Thank goodness! One issue I've had with Pathfinder is that throwing out more and more attacks was more or less the best option with martial characters. Or at least if there's a better one, no one's ever told me about it. This may be the one rule I'm most eager to port back to Pathfinder.

4. The main thing this has me excited for is making combat maneuvers more viable. In Pathfinder, there really was no reason to try a combat maneuver at all if you hadn't invested in it. However, it seems odd to me that getting up from prone no longer provokes an attack of opportunity? I can see people defensively drinking potions or drawing weapons, but getting up from prone is not a graceful process without training.

5. Thank you SO much. I was never able to keep track of the small rules between arcane and divine casting, the difference that divine focus makes etc. By unhooking the fluff of where you get the magic from what you do with it, you make so many character ideas viable. I could always get that certain classes got certain spells, but that there was no way to get healing spells through wizardly study (barring custom spell rules) always bugged me. By the same merit, having holy blaster clerics is now possible.

Also, it makes adjusting to custom settings easy. Just say your setting is all psionics or whatever. Or Biotics for mass effect, or the Force for Star Wars...

Overall, I've loved the ways the classes have been going in general. Looking forward to more!

With the elimination of iterative attacks, does Vital Strike (or something that increases damage with level) become a regular ability for everyone?

With the elimination of iterative attacks, does Vital Strike (or something that increases damage with level) become a regular ability for everyone?

As I recall, there will be scaling weapon damage.

My issue with iterative attacks in PFRPG is that the sub-optimal choice of NOT making two or more attacks in a round leads to a rush to the middle and *mostly* static combat as the main melee participants engage in a 5' Shuffle Step. Pretty much every single time.

Every. Single. Time.

To the extent that the rules of Starfinder make this outcome less likely as the default combat tactic? GOOD.

To the extent that people hit the deck, take cover and engage in ranged combat more, thereby eliminating the 5' Shuffle Step, only to engage in the lesser known Hunker Down Waltz? Not so good.

I hope there are many, many excellent reasons to move in Starfinder combat.

Well I'm kinda sad about the loss of iterative attacks, as someone who likes to play an archer I always counted on extra attacks. Hopefully whatever replaces it lets the damage keep up while still hitting multiple targets.

The lack of spell components troubles me greatly.

One of the things I hated about 4th Edition was that magic required absolutely no components or actual in-game character action to perform. You can tie up a spellcaster, gag them, throw them in a bag, and hang them upside-down, and they could STILL cast spells. I've actually seen DMs resort to those extremes when an NPC captured a PC.

I don't know (or care) about 4th Ed, but since I was going to houserule that all magic was some kind of psychic power, anyway (I prefer my Sci-Fi without magic, if possible), the lack of components or magical distinctions is just fine with me.

Aside from the rare high-powered/expensive-to-cast spell, material components never amounted to anything in our game but a monthly upkeep of a few gold pieces. So this won't be missed at our table.

Besides, casting still provokes AoO. That's pretty much the most important part of any of that.

Question no one's asked: How do these differences work with the backwards compatibility with Pathfinder?

Question no one's asked: How do these differences work with the backwards compatibility with Pathfinder?

This. I hope I can use Starfinder stuff in Pathfinder. I also definitely want to use some of the eldritch stuff from Pathfinder in Starfinder, like Great Old Ones or Fey.

Another question, how are immortal NPCs handled? Like Emperyal Lord's, Baba Yaga, the Horsemen, etc.? Will there be conversions for them, or completely new stats?

Perhaps the blog hints at every casting requiring a concentration check?

Nope. No concentration.

EDIT: I see Owen said this already...

Reminder,

3. No Iterative Attacks. Starfinder characters normally get a single attack every round, and this holds true from level 1 to level 20—a character's number of attacks does not increase as their base attack bonus goes up. Instead, any character (even at first level!) can use a full action to make two attacks in a round, each at a -4 penalty.

So you can still use a full attack to get multiple attacks. It's not AS useful as getting 5 or 6 of them... but I still a prevelance for the 5' shuffle and abandoning extra options for the sake of getting two attacks.

Question no one's asked: How do these differences work with the backwards compatibility with Pathfinder?

This isn't a direct answer, but at PaizoCon, I asked Amanda Harmon Kunz about using Starfinder characters in a Pathfinder AP and she seemed skeptical about that working well. She said that it would require a lot of conversion. Theoretically possible, but it didn't look like it would be easy.

Few things I've been a little worried about the rules changes this made me feel a bit better but still a little anxious. Im hopeing once I see it all Ill be sold on it.

I wonder If this is a test for what they want to do for a PF 2.0 I keep seeing people say this and this actually is the first thing that makes me thing they are right. Like a test run if people like it.

The loss of flat-footed seems weird is their a system to make up for catching an opponent unaware? Also for spells since there is no touch ac will they be energy AC now for something similar to scorching ray?

Flat-footed is a condition, and I believe it gives you a -2 to your ACs if you're caught unawares.

Flat-footed is a condition, and I believe it gives you a -2 to your ACs if you're caught unawares.

So if I were to use a rogue sneak attack in Starfinder basically I would be looking for characters with that condition to stabby for my sneak attack?

So really its just relabeled and the ease of hitting flat-footed is worse but that not a huge deal I don't think. really it just makes it the same across the spectrum. I'm ok with this. It does not make me anxious. Uncanny dodge slightly weaker. we be worded more like immune to the status condition or something.

The lack of spell components troubles me greatly.

One of the things I hated about 4th Edition was that magic required absolutely no components or actual in-game character action to perform. You can tie up a spellcaster, gag them, throw them in a bag, and hang them upside-down, and they could STILL cast spells. I've actually seen DMs resort to those extremes when an NPC captured a PC.

Imagine that a space yeti has hung you by the feet from the roof of its cave.

What's cooler?
Dying
Using mage hand to retrieve your laser sword

Cyrad wrote:

The lack of spell components troubles me greatly.

One of the things I hated about 4th Edition was that magic required absolutely no components or actual in-game character action to perform. You can tie up a spellcaster, gag them, throw them in a bag, and hang them upside-down, and they could STILL cast spells. I've actually seen DMs resort to those extremes when an NPC captured a PC.

Imagine that a space yeti has hung you by the feet from the roof of its cave.

Your laser sword is just out of reach.

What's cooler?
Dying
Using mage hand to retrieve your laser sword

Imagine you and your girls brother are freezing to death on a ice planet. do you A freeze to death or B cut open that smelly beast and hide in its organs. which is cooler?

Reminder,

blog wrote:

3. No Iterative Attacks. Starfinder characters normally get a single attack every round, and this holds true from level 1 to level 20—a character's number of attacks does not increase as their base attack bonus goes up. Instead, any character (even at first level!) can use a full action to make two attacks in a round, each at a -4 penalty.

So you can still use a full attack to get multiple attacks. It's not AS useful as getting 5 or 6 of them... but I still a prevelance for the 5' shuffle and abandoning extra options for the sake of getting two attacks.

Going by the stat page for the soldier iconic that was going around, it looks like some weapons wont even be able to do 'full attacks', but instead have huge dice damage, iirc. Also, lossing that 4 attack bonus on even your first attack will absolutely make doing single attacks more attractive in many cases. I mean, how many people do you know are willing to use 2 non-light weapons when dual wielding?

Mage Hand only has V & S components. Perfectly doable hanging upside down.

Hmm

Starfinder has no flat-footed or touch AC

but under the Envoy 'Clever Feint' ability it states:

As a standard action, you can fake out an enemy within 60 feet, making that enemy open to your attacks. Attempt a Bluff check with the same DC as a check to feint against that enemy (though this isn';t a standard check to feint, so Improved Feint and Greater Feint don't apply). Even if you fail, that enemy is flat-footed against your attacks until the end of your next turn. If you succeed, the enemy is also flat-footed against your allies' attacks until the end of your next turn. You can't use clever feint against a creature that lacks an Intelligence score.

Maybe flat-footed is now a condition that gives a flat penalty or something

Yes, as already stated, the flat footed condition still exists. It just doesn't get it's own AC.

My issue with iterative attacks in PFRPG is that the sub-optimal choice of NOT making two or more attacks in a round leads to a rush to the middle and *mostly* static combat as the main melee participants engage in a 5' Shuffle Step. Pretty much every single time.

Every. Single. Time.

To the extent that the rules of Starfinder make this outcome less likely as the default combat tactic? GOOD.

To the extent that people hit the deck, take cover and engage in ranged combat more, thereby eliminating the 5' Shuffle Step, only to engage in the lesser known Hunker Down Waltz? Not so good.

I hope there are many, many excellent reasons to move in Starfinder combat.

It has been stated that ranged weapons (i.e guns) are going to be more important in Starfinder than Pathfinder. And in a gunfight hunkering down behind cover is generally the recommended tactic.

I noticed that there were spells and class abilities to cure hit point damage as a standard action and was told if they say hit points they mean hit points (not stamina). Didn't see anything for quickly curing stamina damage, just the 10 minute resolve use.

Are there quick ways of curing stamina? If not, a quick series of encounters can leave you operating without the stamina buffer, which puts you a lot closer to dead dead. I found myself waiting for more hit point damage after running through all of my stamina so that I wouldn't be wasting a spell.

By the way, no negative Constitution buffer before dead-dead, just a few negative hit points.

While there is not a specific flat-footed Armor Class statistic per se, the flat-footed condition DOES still exist! Whenever a creature is flat-footed (presumably from not acting in combat, though that is unclear to me from what I recall; I do know that feinting still applies it), they take a -2 penalty to both of their Armor Classes!

This is the most significant improvement I have noted so far. It always irked me hugely that Dexterity is no good in surprise situations, where my intuition would make it THE most useful thing.

Well, this and rogues being unable to sneak attack in dim light, and that was corrected in Pathfinder Unchained.

Separate AC against energy is nice, but IMC we generally use various martial arts systems that render armor obsolete anyway.

Sounds like they want magic to take a bit of a back seat to people with weapons here — useful to have, but not a must-have. This addresses D&D/Pathfinder's most fundamental balance problem that we've grown so accustomed to that we take it for granted. I approve. (Then again, there are going to be full casters in future books, so maybe my cheering is premature...? But nerfing Haste is already a huge step in the right direction.)

Also, when you run out of Stamina in the middle of a sentenfefe

LordInsane wrote:

Yes, I'd heard if you take damage you lose the spell, no roll... which is the main reason I worried about some form of casting defensively, if obviously looking radically different (while reluctantly admitting that making it so spellcasters *cannot* cast a spell while threatened without being more likely than not to lose the spell does help in some ways).

First, attacks of opportunity resolve directly after the triggering action. So if you cast a spell you provoke, but if the spell has a casting time of 1 standard action, you get the spell off before the AoO gets made.

So if you're moving out of someone's threatened area they can't attack you? If it resolves after the action, they can't actually target you, since you're outside of their reach when they'd be given the opportunity to make an attack.

I'm... not sure how I feel about that. Promoting more movement is cool, but being unable to stop people from running past you unless you're plugging a chokepoint sounds lame. Plus unless there's been a dramatic change to most of the combat maneuvers, there's little reason to do stuff like trip people now, since at best you're trading your standard action for a single target's move action.

Don't be silly; of course you can still do your AoE in that case. Otherwise, what would be the point of having the rule in the first place? I suppose it just means you can't stop an enemy from completing the triggering action.

I suppose it means that if your AoE kills them, they drop in the new square rather than the old one...

You're right that plain tripping someone is now less valuable. I guess some weapons and/or feats will allow you to trip as a rider effect on hitting someone.

Don't be silly; of course you can still do your AoE in that case. Otherwise, what would be the point of having the rule in the first place? I suppose it just means you can't stop an enemy from completing the triggering action.

I suppose it means that if your AoE kills them, they drop in the new square rather than the old one...

You're right that plain tripping someone is now less valuable. I guess some weapons and/or feats will allow you to trip as a rider effect on hitting someone.

What makes you so sure? And what about other scenarios where a post-action attack of opportunity would automatically fail? A few examples:

• A caster puts a wall of force inbetween them and an attacker, gaining total cover.
  
• Someone teleports out of their square to an arbitrarily distant location (let's say the opposite side of a planet).
  
• A creature moves into a space where they have total cover.
  
• The provoking action incapacitates the character doing the threatening.

I really can't get this question out of my head, so I'm just gonna ask even though I probably shouldn't.

Is Starfinder Pathfinder 2.0?

It seems to me that Starfinder gives the game designers at Paizo the chance to add in all the changes to the d20 system that they wanted to add to Pathfinder but didn't to maintain backwards compatibility/player fanbase. (And to add in the things that they thought of after 2009 that they had trouble fitting into the game at that point.)

Is Paizo testing the waters in a similar way to WotC did before releasing 4e D&D?

A lot of those changes sound very promising. It also seems likely that some of them may someday be under consideration for a future edition of Pathfinder (yeah, yeah...put away your pitchforks!).

*Looks at pitchfork plaintively*

But I just had it sharpened!

Catharsis wrote:

Don't be silly; of course you can still do your AoE in that case. Otherwise, what would be the point of having the rule in the first place? I suppose it just means you can't stop an enemy from completing the triggering action.

I suppose it means that if your AoE kills them, they drop in the new square rather than the old one...

You're right that plain tripping someone is now less valuable. I guess some weapons and/or feats will allow you to trip as a rider effect on hitting someone.

What makes you so sure? And what about other scenarios where a post-action attack of opportunity would automatically fail? A few examples:

• A caster puts a wall of force inbetween them and an attacker, gaining total cover.
  
• Someone teleports out of their square to an arbitrarily distant location (let's say the opposite side of a planet).
  
• A creature moves into a space where they have total cover.
  
• The provoking action incapacitates the character doing the threatening.

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong here, but it feels like the melee zone of control is taking a huge hit here. It's not hard to move in and out of AOO zones in pathfinder and some basic stuff can teach you all you need to know about that. If this is the case, it's easier then it's ever been ducking swings. Things Aratrok listed would all keep the defender safe and the attacker denied a rightful AOO. There's already things in pathfinder that can duck a full attack if you use it wisely so why wouldn't these actions duck the AOO in question?

Also, personal thing, it doesn't feel like much of an Attack or Opportunity it the opportunity is easily lost.

It all depends on the wording of the rules (which most of us haven't seen yet). It may be that the difference is that the triggering action isn't interrupted, but the effect of the AoO (i.e. damage) is still applied anyway. This could avoid some of the arguments about action timing that have come up (although many of those relate to readied actions rather than AoO).

I really can't get this question out of my head, so I'm just gonna ask even though I probably shouldn't.

Is Starfinder Pathfinder 2.0?

It seems to me that Starfinder gives the game designers at Paizo the chance to add in all the changes to the d20 system that they wanted to add to Pathfinder but didn't to maintain backwards compatibility/player fanbase. (And to add in the things that they thought of after 2009 that they had trouble fitting into the game at that point.)

Is Paizo testing the waters in a similar way to WotC did before releasing 4e D&D?

No it's not. Pathfinder will stay it's own thing with it's own rules.

Of course, Paizo is putting in new rules for a different taste. I am sure that a lot is also about the "rebalancing" thing to more ranged and futuristic combat.

bugleyman wrote:

A lot of those changes sound very promising. It also seems likely that some of them may someday be under consideration for a future edition of Pathfinder (yeah, yeah...put away your pitchforks!).

*Looks at pitchfork plaintively*

But I just had it sharpened!

Tammy doesn't get why people are always sharpening their pitchfork. The rust and tetanus only add to the fun.

Don't be silly; of course you can still do your AoE in that case. Otherwise, what would be the point of having the rule in the first place? I suppose it just means you can't stop an enemy from completing the triggering action.

I suppose it means that if your AoE kills them, they drop in the new square rather than the old one...

You're right that plain tripping someone is now less valuable. I guess some weapons and/or feats will allow you to trip as a rider effect on hitting someone.

Come to think of it, maybe it does work that way and stepping out of someone's threatened zone is in fact a safe thing to do (realistically, it's one of the safest thing you could do!). Maybe then reach weapons become more important in SF? I guess one could increase the resolution of the battle grid to somethink like 1 meter instead of 5' and give natural reach to weapons of longsword size or longer...

Nah, I doubt that's it. I'm really curious how good melee is in SF, though. I assume the annoying feat tax of Precise Shot has been removed...?

One thing I like about the new full attack rules is that there are at least melee weapons that can only make one attack. So instead of Vital Strike, you just grab a bigger weapon for a single, precise blow. Since weapon damage scales, you probably get better damage increases from leveling.

I hope that, despite the separation, it is still possible to make somebody that fights as well at 1 HP 0 SP as full.

I'm fine with most of the changes, but I would like a clarification on #1.

Will everybody use that system or only the PCs? Because I don't know whether I agree with PCs and NPCs/monsters using different HP resources.

Holy crap, a lot of people are asking if this is "Stealth Pathfinder 2.0" so let me make my case on this idea as i haev for... geez, the APG, the ARG, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, Unchained... every hard back book with new options since Core?

No, of course its not except that it kind of is. Everytime paizo tries something new they get to learn from that and see how it interacts with things. And there will be hundreds to thousands of posts on their forums looking at a new mechanic from every possible angle. And they will retain a lot of the people who were involved in creating those rules and who themselves have used them in play. So when they get around to making new mechanics and rules they have all of this experience and feedback to draw on and influence their future decisions. We may very well see a lot of Starfinder's rules making their way into a future version of Pathfinder but that in no way makes this a secret beta test, that is just how brains work.