Five Differences Between Starfinder Rules and Pathfinder Rules

Luthorne wrote:

And, honestly, even in most action flicks I've seen where someone dual-wields guns, they usually don't fire both simultaneously, they just fire one, then the other, then the other, then the other, though admittedly rapidly...which is probably simply a trick to underscore how many bullets are being fired. Remember also that rounds are an abstraction and not meant to be a perfect representation of how quickly or slowly things are happening...while there's a nice 'your turn' 'my turn' 'their turn' thing out of game, in the game it's mostly happening almost all at once, and it's not like you're...

Or, if they're really going "Both Guns Blazing", they're firing both at the same target - probably while sliding across the floor or something.

I never said they weren't targeting the same target...just that when I've seen them doing it, in order to drive home how many bullets they're firing they usually fire with one, then the other, then back to the first, etc., really fast, instead of just firing simultaneously. On the rare occasions it is simultaneous, it always seemed to be a bit more careful and deliberate. So it could still fit into being gunfire spaced out over multiple rounds.

If I have a pistol in one hand and a melee weapon in the other can I fend off melee attackers and hence not provoke an AoO?

Does Starfinder have any shields? Could my 4 armed character use a two handed weapon and a two handed shield? What about a one handed weapon and three shields?

Does Starfinder have any four handed weapons?

Can my android install mods for extra arms?

Actually, I don't recall seeing any action-movies with four-armed protagonists, so I'm not really sure where the comparison comes from.

So either you didn't see 2012's "John Carter" or you don't consider it an action movie. :-)

thejeff wrote:

Luthorne wrote:

And, honestly, even in most action flicks I've seen where someone dual-wields guns, they usually don't fire both simultaneously, they just fire one, then the other, then the other, then the other, though admittedly rapidly...which is probably simply a trick to underscore how many bullets are being fired. Remember also that rounds are an abstraction and not meant to be a perfect representation of how quickly or slowly things are happening...while there's a nice 'your turn' 'my turn' 'their turn' thing out of game, in the game it's mostly happening almost all at once, and it's not like you're...

Or, if they're really going "Both Guns Blazing", they're firing both at the same target - probably while sliding across the floor or something.

I never said they weren't targeting the same target...just that when I've seen them doing it, in order to drive home how many bullets they're firing they usually fire with one, then the other, then back to the first, etc., really fast, instead of just firing simultaneously. On the rare occasions it is simultaneous, it always seemed to be a bit more careful and deliberate. So it could still fit into being gunfire spaced out over multiple rounds.

<Loses 15 minutes to watching Chow Yun Fat clips>Definitely some of both. I mean, I guess you could say that pulling the triggers is rarely actually simultaneous, but it's still often firing as fast as he can squeeze the triggers. Usually both guns at one target for the fast stuff - switching targets has more of a deliberate pause, whether it's both guns to a new target or just shooting one at the new guy.

That too. There's nothing that says that you need to be targeting different individuals when you're fighting with multiple weapons. Just fire all four guns at the same guy!

Still can't aim down four sights at once. :)

Alzrius wrote:

That too. There's nothing that says that you need to be targeting different individuals when you're fighting with multiple weapons. Just fire all four guns at the same guy!

Still can't aim down four sights at once. :)

When was the last time you saw an action movie hero actually use sights? :)

What about aliens with multiple heads to go with their extra arms?

As someone with extensive military and law enforcement firearms training, I can say with some authority that firing two pistols at the same time is ludicrous... in real life. You cannot aim both firearms utilizing the sights and the recoil is extremely difficult to compensate. That said... Starfinder is a game and people love the duel pistol wielding hero. So let's not apply real-world logic to the game that has magic and aliens.

When was the last time you saw an action movie hero actually use sights? :)

Barring sniping scenes or the like. Any situation where they'd actually use multiple weapons.

What about aliens with multiple heads to go with their extra arms?

I don't remember the last time someone aimed down a gunsight in an action movie. But in most action movies, one's ability to fire rapidly is determined by one's importance to the plot, not by one's number of arms. :P

As for aliens with multiple heads to go along with their extra limbs: Granting them additional firearm attacks would actually make sense. And really, what I was responding to was the assertion that it "makes sense" that more arms = more firearm attacks. Totally makes sense for melee attacks; ranged attacks, not so much.

As someone with extensive military and law enforcement firearms training, I can say with some authority that firing two pistols at the same time is ludicrous... in real life. You cannot aim both firearms utilizing the sights and the recoil is extremely difficult to compensate. That said... Starfinder is a game and people love the duel pistol wielding hero. So let's not apply real-world logic to the game that has magic and aliens.

Avoiding the real world logic allows it, if the developers want to go that route. But it doesn't require it either.

Imma just shoot my one gun two times, m'kay?

Luthorne wrote:

Actually, I don't recall seeing any action-movies with four-armed protagonists, so I'm not really sure where the comparison comes from.

So either you didn't see 2012's "John Carter" or you don't consider it an action movie. :-)

Or he doesn't consider Tars Tarkas a protagonist in that movie.

Or that, yeah.

thejeff wrote:

When was the last time you saw an action movie hero actually use sights? :)

Barring sniping scenes or the like. Any situation where they'd actually use multiple weapons.

What about aliens with multiple heads to go with their extra arms?

I don't remember the last time someone aimed down a gunsight in an action movie. But in most action movies, one's ability to fire rapidly is determined by one's importance to the plot, not by one's number of arms. :P

As for aliens with multiple heads to go along with their extra limbs: Granting them additional firearm attacks would actually make sense. And really, what I was responding to was the assertion that it "makes sense" that more arms = more firearm attacks. Totally makes sense for melee attacks; ranged attacks, not so much.

hmm... i dont think either situation is very viable but if i had to try one it would be dual guns since they generate their own force. the more arms = more swords hits thing is not actually possible, you arent exerting much force from your arms, it mostly comes from your legs, hips and torso, you could maybe get two hits from an extra arm on the same side as your first weapon hand but then you are just splitting the force between two points instead of one. There are some gimicky double rifles and pistols out there but they arent going to do much more than a single bullet with more energy in it... but eh, reality can stay far far away from table tops.

thejeff wrote:

When was the last time you saw an action movie hero actually use sights? :)

Barring sniping scenes or the like. Any situation where they'd actually use multiple weapons.

What about aliens with multiple heads to go with their extra arms?

I don't remember the last time someone aimed down a gunsight in an action movie. But in most action movies, one's ability to fire rapidly is determined by one's importance to the plot, not by one's number of arms. :P

As for aliens with multiple heads to go along with their extra limbs: Granting them additional firearm attacks would actually make sense. And really, what I was responding to was the assertion that it "makes sense" that more arms = more firearm attacks. Totally makes sense for melee attacks; ranged attacks, not so much.

It's not even really clear that more melee attacks makes sense. Obviously we don't have any real 4 armed people to examine, but real world two weapon styles don't really translate to "more attacks".

I've seen other game systems treat two weapons as just giving a bonus, rather than being treated as multiple attacks.

*grabs two pitchforks, runs outside*

*grabs two pitchforks, runs outside*

What is your goal with the second pitchfork? You arent going to get any extra pokes in with that thing you know!!

No, but I look now 120% more gangsta.

Gorbacz wrote:

*grabs two pitchforks, runs outside*

What is your goal with the second pitchfork? You arent going to get any extra pokes in with that thing you know!!

To keep poking after you drop or break the first one?

Ed Reppert wrote:

Luthorne wrote:

Actually, I don't recall seeing any action-movies with four-armed protagonists, so I'm not really sure where the comparison comes from.

So either you didn't see 2012's "John Carter" or you don't consider it an action movie. :-)

Or he doesn't consider Tars Tarkas a protagonist in that movie.

Yeah, John Carter is the protagonist, so Tars Tarkas is more of an important side character? Though I guess it depends on your viewpoint...

No, but I look now 120% more gangsta.

I have no rebuttal for this.

Gorbacz wrote:

No, but I look now 120% more gangsta.

I have no rebuttal for this.

Actually I look 120% more gopnik, but that's not a term used often across the big water.

bugleyman wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

No, but I look now 120% more gangsta.

I have no rebuttal for this.

Actually I look 120% more gopnik, but that's not a term used often across the big water.

Wait, is this real, "Gopniks usually wear Adidas tracksuits, due to them being popularised by the 1980 Moscow Olympics Soviet team."

like, hey guys, do you remember that one time 37 years ago when we saw those cool track suits? Lets all wear those, like, all the time.

Gorbacz wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

No, but I look now 120% more gangsta.

I have no rebuttal for this.

Actually I look 120% more gopnik, but that's not a term used often across the big water.

Wait, is this real, "Gopniks usually wear Adidas tracksuits, due to them being popularised by the 1980 Moscow Olympics Soviet team."

like, hey guys, do you remember that one time 37 years ago when we saw those cool track suits? Lets all wear those, like, all the time.

I am so stealing this level of inspiration for thugs in my Starfinder game: from now on they'll all dress in dungeonpunk style, with lots of mismatched pieces of armor with spikes and buckles, due to them being popularized by adventurers from a few thousand years ago.

^Paizo has GOT to make pictures of the Starfinder iconics cosplaying as Pathfinder iconics . . . .

Will there be a section or on how to incorporate these rules into regular Pathfinder? The EAC-KAC system would have some issues and the Magic rule is its own beast, but the others sound like something out of Unchained.

Counter point: Octopus. I would be truly terriffied of septa-wielding cyber octopus in power armor.

Octupi have many tentacles, but they don't have the same muscle memory of vertebrates. An octopus actually has to see its tentacles to know where they are. Otherwise, they flail about instinctively and often ineffectually. That would seems really bad for using ranged weapons. Seems evolution took a little shortcut there.

In fact, humanity's ability to throw rocks (and by extension use other ranged attacks) seems to be pretty much unique.

Yes, this is semi-OT. Sorry. Shutting up now. Well, soon anyway...

Torbyne wrote:

Counter point: Octopus. I would be truly terriffied of septa-wielding cyber octopus in power armor.

Octupi have many tentacles, but they don't have the same muscle memory of vertebrates. An octopus actually has to see its tentacles to know where they are. Otherwise, they flail about instinctively and often ineffectually. That would seems really bad for using ranged weapons. Seems evolution took a little shortcut there.

In fact, humanity's ability to throw rocks (and by extension use other ranged attacks) seems to be pretty much unique.

Yes, this is semi-OT. Sorry. Shutting up now. Well, soon anyway...

Oh sure, i am assuming some level of uplift in their intelligence but we are already discussing cyborg octopus in power armor on segways, is this really that much more to throw in the pot?

And yeah, as i understand it Humans are really freaky for how much endurance we have and how good we are at throwing things. (both assuming we actually practice using these abilities of course. Please dont ask me to demonstrate throwing a footbal or anything.) ;)

Clearly the power armour includes a veiwfield for each extremity.

Not the only anatomy-specific enhancement I can think of, I'm a fan of a scope designed for compound eyes with each segment showing a different spectrum.

Torbyne wrote:

Counter point: Octopus. I would be truly terriffied of septa-wielding cyber octopus in power armor.

Octupi have many tentacles, but they don't have the same muscle memory of vertebrates. An octopus actually has to see its tentacles to know where they are. Otherwise, they flail about instinctively and often ineffectually. That would seems really bad for using ranged weapons. Seems evolution took a little shortcut there.

In fact, humanity's ability to throw rocks (and by extension use other ranged attacks) seems to be pretty much unique.

Yes, this is semi-OT. Sorry. Shutting up now. Well, soon anyway...

I think elephants throw rocks, and there are a few creatures with ranged natural attacks (e.g. archer fish).

So I may have missed it, but will Starfinder magic still be Vancian? It feels awkward for the setting.

So I may have missed it, but will Starfinder magic still be Vancian? It feels awkward for the setting.

At present, all casters are spontaneous.

Coridan wrote:

So I may have missed it, but will Starfinder magic still be Vancian? It feels awkward for the setting.

At present, all casters are spontaneous.

I'd prefer power points like 3.5 Psionics or Everquest d20, but I'll settle for Spontaneous

The Sideromancer wrote:

Coridan wrote:

So I may have missed it, but will Starfinder magic still be Vancian? It feels awkward for the setting.

At present, all casters are spontaneous.

I'd prefer power points like 3.5 Psionics or Everquest d20, but I'll settle for Spontaneous

I much prefer the ShadowRun style of Magic.

Having to "memorize" which spells you want is tedious and casting spells with a hard limit and no potential for backlash seems weird. Like you can only channel so much mana (totally makes sense) but what is the random arbitration that determines that outside of the "class gets x amount per day"?

All magic arises from mana, which is an energy field inherent in the earth (or in Golarion, or any planet, and probably in the multiverse generally). Certain sentients have an innate ability ("psychic ability") to manipulate this energy, often by converting it to other forms (e.g, heat or gravity). This innate ability appears to varying degrees in an individual, so that the ability to convert mana to heat appears to be a different ability than the ability to convert mana to gravity or electricity or whatever. An individual might or might not have one or more of these abilities. Some abilities do not appear to involve energy conversion. Instead they appear to involve the transfer or manipulation of information (e.g, telepathic sending or telepathic receiving, or precognition).

The degree to which a sentient can use mana varies. Gods, for example can do much more with mana than can mortals. Mortals do, however, have the ability to "channel" the gods' manipulation of mana (if the god so wills). Manifestation of such channeling is known as "miracle".

In essence then there is no difference between "arcane", "divine" and "psychic" magic.

Or so goes the theory, anyway. :-)

The word "mana" does not appear in the Starfinder Core Rulebook.

Some stuff

Wat.

The word "mana" does not appear in the Starfinder Core Rulebook.

what about "Vespian gas"?

Vic Wertz wrote:

The word "mana" does not appear in the Starfinder Core Rulebook.

what about "Vespian gas"?

What about midichlorians? *queue the revulsion of everyone on this forum*

The word "mana" does not appear in the Starfinder Core Rulebook.

An oversight, I'm sure. :-)

...but we are already discussing cyborg octopus in power armor on segways, is this really that much more to throw in the pot?

Did anyone think they would actually ever read something like this? I didn't... very entertaining. Carry on.

1:
New Rules.. new mechanics... all in all sounds ok. I know pools from other systems. There you have willpower or faith to use for special short time bonus or actions. Here it will be Resolve Points. OK that far.
Stamina is the new health and Hit points are.. additional health. Well i will see how this plays out. I guess its ok.

2:
In Pathfinder we have 3 AC Values (flat food, touch, normal) and now we have 2. No really difference. When i am GMing i say it hits 27 touch or 34 or ... It depends on the monster or the weapon. So here i have to day its 25 KAC or 27 EAC.. depending on the weapon. No change really. Absolutely OK.

3:
Thats new but sounds cool. Hope it will speed up the fight a bit if only one attack ist made everytime its ones turn. Some of my players are slow and when they have 4 or 5 attacks it takes forever. And the mage player gets really boring when all others do dozens of attacks until its his turn again. I think this change helps to keep the figt more dynamically and better to describe. Like that change

4:
Its ok. Helps a lot. In our group there are not that mich AoO. Players know how to avoid. And as a GM its also mostly easy to avoid.
And AoO do not have that huge impact. Leaving them out mostly makes it way easier. Speeds up combat again. I like that.

5:
Its absolutely Ok. I am neutral to that. In Pathfinder each class has an own list and it nearly does not really matter if its arcane or devine. Now each class has his own list again. I see no difference.

But in general its a whole new Rulesystem. Maybe its better to not compare it to Pathfinder. Of course there are similarities but there are also similarities to a dozen other systems.
For me i will treat it as a whole new ruleset and i will recognise similarities which make it easier to understand but on the other hand if you compare it too much you make mistakes because its a different system. I am really excited and i really like to read the rules in whole.

2:

In Pathfinder we have 3 AC Values (flat food, touch, normal) and now we have 2. No really difference. When i am GMing i say it hits 27 touch or 34 or ... It depends on the monster or the weapon. So here i have to day its 25 KAC or 27 EAC.. depending on the weapon. No change really. Absolutely OK.

I think the system was far more cumbersome than that but i usually think of it in terms of categories of defense available to PCs instead of just AC.

Normal AC (Though some things will bypass certain kinds of bonuses)
Touch AC
Flat Footed AC (which some things can avoid)
CMD
FORT
WIL
REF
DR/Hardness/Resistances
SR
Miss Chance

The new system cuts out at least two of those categories which i am very greatful for. What it leaves us with is still a lot to track.

The new system cuts out at least two of those categories which i am very greatful for. What it leaves us with is still a lot to track.

No, the system basically still has those things.

Touch AC is just renamed and Flat Footed instead is always -2 instead of -Dex.

Torbyne wrote:

The new system cuts out at least two of those categories which i am very greatful for. What it leaves us with is still a lot to track.

No, the system basically still has those things.

Touch AC is just renamed and Flat Footed instead is always -2 instead of -Dex.

Touch AC is far from "just renamed". The level 5 Soldier sheet had 24 EAC, 26 KAC. Most monsters in Starfinder: First Contact have KAC equal to EAC+2, though a few have KAC equal to EAC+1.

CMD is gone, which, YAY!

EAC=Touch is roughly the same sure, there are just good ways to buff EAC now, but flat footed is not a trackable AC, it is just a conidtion with a flat -2 which i much prefer.

I've been using a homebrew Stamina Point system for some time now. I've just been calling it "Fatigue Points". Seeing an official version of this sort of concept probably has me more excited then anything else!

Can my android install mods for extra arms?

Anyone can.

Fardragon wrote:

Can my android install mods for extra arms?

Anyone can.

Noice.

Fardragon wrote:

Can my android install mods for extra arms?

Anyone can.

Sweet—I need a third arm to improve my ski-boxing!

Milo v3 wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

The new system cuts out at least two of those categories which i am very greatful for. What it leaves us with is still a lot to track.

No, the system basically still has those things.

Touch AC is just renamed and Flat Footed instead is always -2 instead of -Dex.

Touch AC is far from "just renamed". The level 5 Soldier sheet had 24 EAC, 26 KAC. Most monsters in Starfinder: First Contact have KAC equal to EAC+2, though a few have KAC equal to EAC+1.

I don't think First Contact is supposed to be out yet. Does the place you got it know that Free RPG Day isn't for another week?