Starfinder Second Edition is Coming!

thistledown wrote:

Driftbourne wrote:

3: People still play Pathfinder 1e, there's no expiration date on the books.

Sure. But looking at the gencon online schedule, each slot had 20 PF2 games, 10 SF games, and only 1 PF1 game.

”I wanna play this game” and “I wanna play games at a Con slot” are two veeeeery different things.

For the most part if you want to run or play a game that is old/out of print/not supported, the traditional way to do that is "convince your friends".

Like I could probably never find a Castle Falkenstein game at a convention, but if you live near me I might loan you the books and we can play it sometime.

The preference for "games that have books to sell you right now" to operate at conventions is primarily driven by "the people who publish those games want to sell you those books"- it's marketing.

Speaking to the obvious:

Conventions are in part about an event to gather customers together and sellers to sell products. It is in part a bazaar. It's all about money because game conventions costs money and its not just tickets but sales that helps fund the operations as sellers gives a percentage of sales to the convention operations as vendors. Much as happens with weekend "farmer's market" and other like events.

To be clear, it is not without doubt that these conventions are not solely about selling stuff. It is still an essential part of "making bank" with these conventions. Kind of gives Vendors/Sellers/Publishers an incentive to be at attendance at such conventions.

It looks like I'm in a minority. But I never liked the PF2 rules. 3 and 4 hour combats starting around level 10 are boring as hell. So, it looks like Paizo has nothing more to interest customers like me with this cut over.

It looks like I'm in a minority. But I never liked the PF2 rules. 3 and 4 hour combats starting around level 10 are boring as hell. So, it looks like Paizo has nothing more to interest customers like me with this cut over.

That's definitely not normal. 3 to 4 hour combats should be very rare in my experience and from what I've seen from other people. Really long combats (~2 to 3 hours) shouldn't start to be become more common until level 15+. But you are right, at high levels, combat can be quite session-filling. Especially if someone is being cute and throws CC spells everywhere.

It might be worth giving it another shot with a different group or at least a different campaign.

What a strange complaint to levy at PF2. I've found SF1 combat to be somewhat lengthier than PF2 combat all the way up to ~14 level at least. Close enough that it might just be group dependent either way.

I am very thankful and glad that we have had the Paizo creative team chime in here and allay a few of my 'doom and gloom' concerns.

This weekend was not a good weekend for personal reasons, and it has colored my perspective on a lot of things.

I had to step away for a day or two to refocus and regroup.

Cautiously optimistic now (and folks who know me well will know that's the equivalent of ecstatic cheering response for more mainstream folks).

What a strange complaint to levy at PF2. I've found SF1 combat to be somewhat lengthier than PF2 combat all the way up to ~14 level at least. Close enough that it might just be group dependent either way.

High level PF2 combat takes more turns, but absolutely less time than high level PF1 combat does at least. I'm not familiar with like level 17 combat in Starfinder, as none of our games got that high.

As the shock at the announcement gets its edge taken off with time, I'm looking forward to working with everyone who loves SF1 to make SF2 as good as it can be with the lengthy concepting and playtesting phases coming up. Paizo's playtests are industry leading for taking real feedback and putting it into practice.

There is so much to look forward to. The Paizo developers are passionate about their games, and can work some serious magic.

I've removed a few posts that were direct personal attacks. Please don't call each other names, assign motivations to, or otherwise behave badly. Be awesome to one another.

This is not the thread to talk about any upcoming projects. Please make a new thread (or homebrew for SF1) to discuss those topics and how you plan to handle intellectual property concerns.

-Jim

It looks like I'm in a minority. But I never liked the PF2 rules. 3 and 4 hour combats starting around level 10 are boring as hell. So, it looks like Paizo has nothing more to interest customers like me with this cut over.

well, you are not alone at least.

I was expecting this to happen in a few years as a sort of Pathfinder 2.5 / Starfinder 2.0 consolidated edition.

ether way: It’s not for me.

I think that it might be interesting to see how Sci-Fantasy and traditional fantasy interact, The PFS/SFS Society scenarios that allowed this were interesting.

Terevalis, you approached the periphery of a valid point, which is why I said something.

But you've been pretty combative the entire time, and flinging insults at one of the most respected members of the community (not to mention claiming to speak for people other than yourself) is not going to win you any favors or sway anyone to your point of view.

If you read the original post that I placed I said, IMHO.

I've removed a few posts that were direct personal attacks. Please don't call each other names, assign motivations to, or otherwise behave badly. Be awesome to one another.

This is not the thread to talk about any upcoming projects. Please make a new thread (or homebrew for SF1) to discuss those topics and how you plan to handle intellectual property concerns.

-Jim

*thumbs up*

My prediction that Paizo would funnel all of its settings into one GURPS-esque system is coming true.

For the most part if you want to run or play a game that is old/out of print/not supported, the traditional way to do that is "convince your friends".

This is, I think, a very valid reason to be disappointed in this change, for people who aren't happy with the direction of PF2.

Although I personally play mostly home games, I know that's not true of a lot of people. And going from "I can easily find tables" to "I have to convince people to play the game I want to play" - I can definitely sympathize with that feeling like a downgrade.

One of my close friends doesn't like PF2 - mostly just too invested in PF1 - and the changeover pretty much resulted in him not being able to play anymore.

My prediction that Paizo would funnel all of its settings into one GURPS-esque system is coming true.

Given that PF2 is basically the cornerstone of ORC, it being suited to a wide variety of genres is exciting. Way yoo soon to count the chickens, but if this goes really, really, really well, it could be the beginning of a golden age.

RocMeAsmodeus wrote:

My prediction that Paizo would funnel all of its settings into one GURPS-esque system is coming true.

Given that PF2 is basically the cornerstone of ORC, it being suited to a wide variety of genres is exciting. Way yoo soon to count the chickens, but if this goes really, really, really well, it could be the beginning of a golden age.

I think it can be reasonably argued that this golden age has already started quite a while ago, for the players at least. TTRPGs have never been more accessible, numerous or popular.

But I'm certainly loving the possibilities this opens up. Paizo will likely have their hands full with PF and SF, but I imagine other companies or even individuals could step up to bring us even more content ^^

If Paizo sticks to mostly keeping PF and SF separate except for occasionally borrowing creatures or items from one game to the other. That leaves a middle ground for heavily mixed PF/SF products for third-party creators that wouldn't be directly competing against Paizo's core games. Thats where the next golden age for third party content could be.

RocMeAsmodeus wrote:

My prediction that Paizo would funnel all of its settings into one GURPS-esque system is coming true.

Given that PF2 is basically the cornerstone of ORC, it being suited to a wide variety of genres is exciting. Way yoo soon to count the chickens, but if this goes really, really, really well, it could be the beginning of a golden age.

That's been my hope all along. One of the things that was really nice in the early aughts was the sheer compatibility of the d20 system. I had visions of combining d20 modern, d20 star wars (with some of the specifically star warsy bits cut out), and 3.5 into a massive time travelling campaign. The lack of balance among the games and inconsistent rules ultimately nixed that idea, but given Paizo's focus on making the games compatible and balanced, I'm sure they can do a much better job than Wizards did. I've said in several places the only thing lacking now is a modern or near future version of the game, though I'm not sure how that would interact with the gap.

Loving the questions and excitement here! Sorry for the lack of responses on my end. I've been at Gen Con and am currently waiting for the last leg of my flight home after losing a day to cancellations. Expect to hear more from the team in the coming days.

Loving the questions and excitement here! Sorry for the lack of responses on my end. I've been at Gen Con and am currently waiting for the last leg of my flight home after losing a day to cancellations. Expect to hear more from the team in the coming days.

Looking forward to it! Have a safe flight ^^

Loving the questions and excitement here! Sorry for the lack of responses on my end. I've been at Gen Con and am currently waiting for the last leg of my flight home after losing a day to cancellations. Expect to hear more from the team in the coming days.

Thanks! I appreciate all the great details we've gotten so far. Getting an FAQ page and a sneak-peek of Soldier right away definitely helped me get a sense for what to expect.

I don't envy your flying time, as I never really liked flying commercially. In fact, I haven't done it since about 1993 and don't anticipate ever doing it again.

As others, really looking forward to more info on this. :-)

If Paizo sticks to mostly keeping PF and SF separate except for occasionally borrowing creatures or items from one game to the other. That leaves a middle ground for heavily mixed PF/SF products for third-party creators that wouldn't be directly competing against Paizo's core games. Thats where the next golden age for third party content could be.

PF and SF are canon wise, chronologically separate. They are separate. What appears to be a goal is the rules mechanics being compatible. Certainly, there be rules unique to the SF 2e setting but built on the PF 2e-remastered rule system framework.

That can be a good thing. There would certainly be rules that will inherently apply to things in SF setting that is not necessarily in or exist in PF in the chronology of the canon... pre-Gap (Age of Lost Omen) and post-Gap era.

First three things that popped into my head with Menacing Laughter for "battle cries": "Suppressing Fiiiiire!!!!!", "Dakka Dakka Dakka Dakka Dakka", and "WAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!!".

I'm back from Gen Con all. So, you know the drill. Please keep on topic, which in this case are thoughts/opinions and speculating about SF2. Anything else will get deleted.

I checked out SF1 with one of the humble bundles and thought it was ok, but it just didn't grab me. I like to many of the changes PF2 made to go back to PF1 or a game with a similar system like DnD3.5 etc.

So I am a lot more interested in checking out SF now that it will use some of the stuff I thought where nice changes for PF2, 3 action economy being a big one.

Anyways, depending how the playtest goes next year, might have to see about moving things around to budget SF subscriptions in a couple of years.

Deleted an off topic post

Thinking about this more, I think the things I most hope stay in Starfinder for 2e are

-the different gear paradigm (ranged combat is the default assumption, flight is easily available from low levels, etc.)

-high level equipment being technologically better rather than magically better (i.e bigger fancier guns that do more damage, not just magic runes)

-weird ancestries that actually get to do weird things and aren't just mechanically equivalent to a humanoid (kasatha being able to use all four arms effectively)

That would be the things that I "care about", I suppose, the most, as far as Starfinder having its own distinct style and feel.

-high level equipment being technologically better rather than magically better (i.e bigger fancier guns that do more damage, not just magic runes)

I think there's going to be parity in that each gives a numerical bonus up to +3, but the additional effects of "tech" versus "runes" are going to be different.

One thing I really hope for is that the game lets me upgrade my trusty laser pistol by like buying new lenses and capacitors and sights instead of having to keep buying a new gun every 3 levels.

One thing I really hope for is that the game lets me upgrade my trusty laser pistol by like buying new lenses and capacitors and sights instead of having to keep buying a new gun every 3 levels.

Alternately, have those bonuses be something inherent to your character instead.

Hopefully no one minds I post this link to a Roll for Combat live stream where they talked to Erik Mona and Thurstan Hillman, I think they answer some of the questions people have been asking in this thread like the differences in when PC's can get flight etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb7jgE0jisg

Linkified.

I got as far as them saying "Mystic has a class feature called Vital Network" and then I squealed uncontrollably for like a minute straight and had to take a break.

Vitalist was one of my all-time favorite classes and nothing like it has existed in Pathfinder for a while.

I am SO excited. :D

I got as far as them saying "Mystic has a class feature called Vital Network" and then I squealed uncontrollably for like a minute straight and had to take a break.

Vitalist was one of my all-time favorite classes and nothing like it has existed in Pathfinder for a while.

I am SO excited. :D

Oh my god, a Vitalist successor would have me over the moon. One of the coolest things ever made for the old d20 chassis!

MaxAstro wrote:

I got as far as them saying "Mystic has a class feature called Vital Network" and then I squealed uncontrollably for like a minute straight and had to take a break.

Vitalist was one of my all-time favorite classes and nothing like it has existed in Pathfinder for a while.

I am SO excited. :D

Oh my god, a Vitalist successor would have me over the moon. One of the coolest things ever made for the old d20 chassis!

Based on the video, it sounds like the Mystic class feature works exactly like Vitalist. You have a bond with your party members, you have a floating pool of hit points, you can spend an action to send hit points down the bond...

Hopefully there will be feats to do some of the cool stuff Vitalists could do with their bond.

This is so very exciting. Really love the cleanness of the PF2e system and am looking forward to seeing it IN SPACE! Really hoping that the playtest is as thoughtful and complete as the pathfinder playtest was. I especially loved playing doomsday dawn and thought that it gave a great opportunity to try out the new system. My group probably would not say no to a doomsday dawn sequel. Maybe with a title like, Doomsday Dawn 2: 2 doom, 2 furious. :)

But seriously I really love this step forward for both games.

roysier wrote:

It looks like I'm in a minority. But I never liked the PF2 rules. 3 and 4 hour combats starting around level 10 are boring as hell. So, it looks like Paizo has nothing more to interest customers like me with this cut over.

That's definitely not normal. 3 to 4 hour combats should be very rare in my experience and from what I've seen from other people. Really long combats (~2 to 3 hours) shouldn't start to be become more common until level 15+. But you are right, at high levels, combat can be quite session-filling. Especially if someone is being cute and throws CC spells everywhere.

It might be worth giving it another shot with a different group or at least a different campaign.

Extensively long combats are normal. I've played in a bunch of them with different GM's and I even took my hand at GMing and there is no doubt combats are about 30% longer in PF2 than in PF1. I find the 2e combat system boring, especially as a player where not only are the longer but t it also takes longer for your turn to come around again due to 3 actions for everyone else on the battlefield. If you don't like long combats don't play 2e.

Extensively long combats are normal. ... If you don't like long combats don't play 2e.

That has not been my experience. Nor the experience of the majority of the people that I have talked to on the PF2 forums.

If this has been your experience, I would suggest going to the PF2 advice forum and having some of the system experts troubleshoot what is going wrong. We have had several people come on there in the past to find out what they are doing incorrectly. Most commonly it is that they do not have Striking runes on their weapons, they are not using any teamwork, or they have forgotten to add their level to their proficiency. All of those types of inaccuracies in running the game have led to combat falling apart at about level 5 - level 10.

roysier wrote:

Extensively long combats are normal. ... If you don't like long combats don't play 2e.

That has not been my experience. Nor the experience of the majority of the people that I have talked to on the PF2 forums.

If this has been your experience, I would suggest going to the PF2 advice forum and having some of the system experts troubleshoot what is going wrong. We have had several people come on there in the past to find out what they are doing incorrectly. Most commonly it is that they do not have Striking runes on their weapons, they are not using any teamwork, or they have forgotten to add their level to their proficiency. All of those types of inaccuracies in running the game have led to combat falling apart at about level 5 - level 10.

lol, or you are not playing with PF1 players who are not proficient. To each his own. I have now been through 2 x 4 hour combats using pf2 rules. I have never, not once, over a few thousand sessions at many different levels as a player and GM seen a combat ever run that long in PF1 or SF1. The long combats make sense if you think about it. PF2 creatures have buckets of hit points. Spells are nerfed so there are no quick ending combat spells, you have creatures that have high levels of regeneration, knowledge of creatures is nerfed do you often don't know the most effective way to fight something. I get it, some people like the balance and will take the long combats. Others like me find long combats boring. So for me 2nd edition is an absolute No Go. I assume most people who think like me have already abandoned Paizo. so I'm sure my opinion is in the minority on this forum.

I legitimately cannot see how a PF2 combat could take 4 hours. I'm not sure I've had a single PF2 combat that took more than 40 minutes. Were you fighting multiple Level+3 enemies or something?

My subjective opinion is that combat in PF2 is much brisker, particularly at high levels, than the previous edition, but YMMV.

lol, or you are not playing with PF1 players who are not proficient. To each his own. I have now been through 2 x 4 hour combats using pf2 rules. I have never, not once, over a few thousand sessions at many different levels as a player and GM seen a combat ever run that long in PF1 or SF1.

I have seen six hour combats in PF1 and I believe there are some notable live shows that moved away from PF1 in particular because the combats took so long.

I mostly play PBP, so time isn't measured the same.

I have seen one combat that lasted almost 10 rounds (at which point the Barbarians would have dropped out of Rage). But that was mostly because it was a multi-stage battle. We had to first reach the enemies in their fortified location, then when we were mopping up the last of them a second wave of enemies arrived.

Other combats that I have seen have all been under 5 rounds. The battle will end one way or the other within that time.

I legitimately cannot see how a PF2 combat could take 4 hours. I'm not sure I've had a single PF2 combat that took more than 40 minutes. Were you fighting multiple Level+3 enemies or something?

My subjective opinion is that combat in PF2 is much brisker, particularly at high levels, than the previous edition, but YMMV.

We had a boss fight in PF2e that lasted so long that I didn't have time to reload my sling. Any of the fights our group had that went long was due to 1/2 the party getting paralyzed.

PF2 combat taking longer than PF1 combat is extremely atypical, excepting cases where the caster ends the combat with one spell in the first round in PF1.

Not to be rude, but insisting otherwise as a general rule comes across as "man yells at cloud" talk.

If one round of PF2 combat takes an hour to run, then I could see a combat taking 4 hours to finish.

I can't think of any good reason why one round would take that long though.

And yes, if your experience with PF1 combat is "caster ends combat after winning initiative", then yes - PF2 combat is going to take longer than that.

While I'm cool with calling my SF1e collection complete. I do need to get the other adventure paths outside of Dead Suns and was hoping for at least having them as collected single bound offerings. Since that isn't going to happen if work is going to be focused on 2e, is there any way a collected bundle of the books could be offered?

Yeah, I'm definitely confused by this argument.

As someone who ran PF1 multiple games a week since it came out, and has run PF2 the same, combat - especially high level combat - is significantly faster in 2e.

1e combat was only fast if the caster won the fight with their first spell. Fights where everyone was participating equally took forever to resolve. I had single combats last multiple sessions.

It's hard for me to imagine what you would need to do to make 2e combat slower than 1e combat, unless you just have players that have vicious choice paralysis and really struggle with having to decide on three actions per turn.