Field Test #5: Starfinder Encounters of the Second Edition Kind!

WELL, DECK MY HALLS AND JINGLE MY BELLS! CHRISTMAS HAS COME EARLY!

While the "hidden until it swallows something" bit with the glass serpent is funny, I have a particular hatred of perma-invisibility, so I'll be eager to see how much of a difference revealing light makes versus brute force.

Self-destruct, though? That's a special treat just for me. I've had so much fun with exploding zombies in the past.

WELL, DECK MY HALLS AND JINGLE MY BELLS! CHRISTMAS HAS COME EARLY!

While the "hidden until it swallows something" bit with the glass serpent is funny, I have a particular hatred of perma-invisibility, so I'll be eager to see how much of a difference revealing light makes versus brute force.

Self-destruct, though? That's a special treat just for me. I've had so much fun with exploding zombies in the past.

I don't mind decking your halls but I draw the line at jingling your bells.

Oh heck yeah! I'm gonna run this for my players, we've been chomping at the bit for SF2e but I didn't want to have to come up with things.

Is there... any chance of Mechas in SF2e? Having such a big, cool sf1e AP and not including them in SF2e would be considered Cruel and Unusual Punishment. At least, by my Gundam-loving players' minds.

Hooray! Excited to see these in action.

HolyFlamingo! wrote:

WELL, DECK MY HALLS AND JINGLE MY BELLS! CHRISTMAS HAS COME EARLY!

While the "hidden until it swallows something" bit with the glass serpent is funny, I have a particular hatred of perma-invisibility, so I'll be eager to see how much of a difference revealing light makes versus brute force.

Self-destruct, though? That's a special treat just for me. I've had so much fun with exploding zombies in the past.

I don't mind decking your halls but I draw the line at jingling your bells.

Professional Bell Jingler Reporting in.

Is there... any chance of Mechas in SF2e? Having such a big, cool sf1e AP and not including them in SF2e would be considered Cruel and Unusual Punishment. At least, by my Gundam-loving players' minds.

"Hell YES we have plans for mechs in 2E! Otherwise, I riot. Everyone knows this. Alas, it won't be right away, because we have so many other awesome things to playtest first. So expect them in some later supplement. Until then, you can play or read Mechageddon! for all your big stompy robot needs."

-Jenny Jarzabski, Senior Developer, Reddit AMA April 4th 2024

WatersLethe wrote:

HolyFlamingo! wrote:

WELL, DECK MY HALLS AND JINGLE MY BELLS! CHRISTMAS HAS COME EARLY!

While the "hidden until it swallows something" bit with the glass serpent is funny, I have a particular hatred of perma-invisibility, so I'll be eager to see how much of a difference revealing light makes versus brute force.

Self-destruct, though? That's a special treat just for me. I've had so much fun with exploding zombies in the past.

I don't mind decking your halls but I draw the line at jingling your bells.

Professional Bell Jingler Reporting in.

See? I don't mess with Union work.

Very excited!

something im curious about after reading the pdf is what the enemy gun's capacities are, I'm not sure how many shots they should take before reloading for these encounters

something im curious about after reading the pdf is what the enemy gun's capacities are, I'm not sure how many shots they should take before reloading for these encounters

Thanks for pointing this out. The level of detail and information in our attack entries is an ongoing conversation on the team—we want to strike the right balance between "the right info for the GM" and "this takes up way too much space in NPC entries, leaving less room for stuff like special abilities, tactics, and lore." We'll be paying close attention to the community's feelings, here, but we certainly agree that it's helpful for GMs to know when the baddies need to reload.

(... and if the baddies survive enough rounds to empty their mags and reload, the player characters are probably in rough shape!)

After a quick 30-second page thought of field test 5, my first thoughts are the glass serpent looks amazing! and the maps look like they will be fun for ranged combat, I can't wait to give it a try!

schnoodle wrote:

Is there... any chance of Mechas in SF2e? Having such a big, cool sf1e AP and not including them in SF2e would be considered Cruel and Unusual Punishment. At least, by my Gundam-loving players' minds.

"Hell YES we have plans for mechs in 2E! Otherwise, I riot. Everyone knows this. Alas, it won't be right away, because we have so many other awesome things to playtest first. So expect them in some later supplement. Until then, you can play or read Mechageddon! for all your big stompy robot needs."

-Jenny Jarzabski, Senior Developer, Reddit AMA April 4th 2024

Thank you!

Awesome stuff!

Can't wait for people to read that second encounter a little closer :D

Cool Cool

Tom

For an NPC, such as the Corpse Fleet Infantry, what's the DC for their automatic fire attack? Is it 10 + attack modifier since they lack a class DC?

Since Auto-Fire has the attack trait, does using it after making a ranged Strike reduce the DC of the save to resist the damage, or does it just impact the next ranged Strike after the Auto-Fire and not the other way around?

Looking at all the guns and none of them have the fatal trait. I wonder if it has been replaced by some general rule that applies to all guns? Something like "on a critical hit from a gun, multiply damage by 4". That would bring it in line with the fatal trait in Guns & Gear where an arquebus would normally deal 1d8 damage and on a critical 3d12.

I really like how the fatal trait makes guns feel deadly and would miss it if something like it doesn't make it into Starfinder.

Looking at all the guns and none of them have the fatal trait. I wonder if it has been replaced by some general rule that applies to all guns? Something like "on a critical hit from a gun, multiply damage by 4". That would bring it in line with the fatal trait in Guns & Gear where an arquebus would normally deal 1d8 damage and on a critical 3d12.

I really like how the fatal trait makes guns feel deadly and would miss it if something like it doesn't make it into Starfinder.

Part of moving to a ranged focus is giving ranged weapons more variety. Does giving stormtroopers fatal guns really fit the fantasy?

I'm guessing that fatal will at least be used for something like sniper rifles. It's not actually balanced (or fun for everyone not using the sniper rifle) to make them one-shot-one-kill, so fatal is a way to cut down the damage die of a very long-range weapon while having it still feel like a sniper rifle.

In terms of setting vibes, fatal guns make more sense against fantasy plate armor than space-future body armor.

What QuidEst said with the additional observation that these guns are already built for something other than raw, single-target damage. The pulsecaster pistol is essentially a reusable bottled lightning, the autotarget rifle is an automatic weapon, and the aeon rifle has the caster trait which makes it a Swiss Army knife of energy damage.

Also, justice for Grex

I was thinking that since Starfinder 2E is compatible with Pathfinder 2E, then bringing in a gun from PF2E Guns and Gears should be viable. I would expect the guns in Starfinder to be at least as good if not better.

There are also monsters that won't have modern armor. A modern gun should feel deadly against them. Especially more so then a long bow with it's deadly d10 trait.

Didn't stormtroopers have fatal guns. When they could shoot straight, anything they hit went down. Same with Hans with his blaster, one hit is all it would take.

In my home campaign I do plan to mix Pathfinder and Starfinder together, so I was really hoping that given someone armed with a longbow and someone with a blaster rifle versus an unarmored warg, the blaster rifle comes way out in front with damage potential.

Actually, it kind of perfectly matches RL firearm development.

Compared to modern firearms, muskets and such had stupidly large calibers. My favorite comparison is getting shot by a modern bullet is like getting stabbed with a knife while getting shot with a musket is like getting stabbed with a fist. There is a reason that battlefields of the time saw a lot of amputation after the mass adoption of pre-modern firearms. Getting hit with musketballs had a tendency to completely shatter nearby bones to the point of them healing was outright impossible. Nevermind that musketballs were made of lead and had an awful tendency to deform within the body, causing them to break and tumble unpredictably. They were unrefined, inaccurate and brutal weapons.

Outside of that, Fatal is not even a universal weapon trait to all of the PF2e guns and making every gun in SF2e Fatal would just result in less weapon variation overall and a slow ballooning of enemy and NPC HP to compensate and balance the game. The weapon paradigm they're going for is more akin to Mass Effect than Star Wars.

As for 'monsters don't have modern armor,' that was a point that was heavily argued over on the initial release of SF2e. The consensus seemed to be that did not really matter. There is literally a god of evolution and mutation. Even discounting that, there are numerous animals on earth that you'd be very lucky to take out in one shot, especially if they're actively trying to kill you.

I was thinking that since Starfinder 2E is compatible with Pathfinder 2E, then bringing in a gun from PF2E Guns and Gears should be viable. I would expect the guns in Starfinder to be at least as good if not better.

There are also monsters that won't have modern armor. A modern gun should feel deadly against them. Especially more so then a long bow with it's deadly d10 trait.

Didn't stormtroopers have fatal guns. When they could shoot straight, anything they hit went down. Same with Hans with his blaster, one hit is all it would take.

In my home campaign I do plan to mix Pathfinder and Starfinder together, so I was really hoping that given someone armed with a longbow and someone with a blaster rifle versus an unarmored warg, the blaster rifle comes way out in front with damage potential.

Not really, at least not from a realism perspective. The reason why guns are better than bows in real life isn't because they are more lethal but because they are far easier to train people to use and they can get through armour better, against unarmored targets they aren't too far apart in their ability to kill. An arrow through the heart or head will kill just as much as a bullet or laser will.

Don't worry, there are guns with Fatal in the game. And yes, we're focusing them a lot more on the "Sniper" character style, rather than giving every gun a massive damage boost compared to other weapons.

The team did discuss the obvious "but guns should just be better than old weapons, right?" discourse, and we decided that it would be better for the game to break a bit of verisimilitude to have guns in Starfinder have parity with PF2 style archaic weapons, to make sure groups could better blend an work together, rather than just having one game "be better" / "have bigger numbers.

All that being said... our plan is to include some optional rules similar to our first Field Test that provide a bit more drawbacks for the archaic rules on equipment. This is something we're NOT going to assume is a standard gameplay mechanic, but will cater to those groups who want their space-age characters to feel a bit more godlike in anachronistic settings.

I was thinking that since Starfinder 2E is compatible with Pathfinder 2E, then bringing in a gun from PF2E Guns and Gears should be viable. I would expect the guns in Starfinder to be at least as good if not better.

There are also monsters that won't have modern armor. A modern gun should feel deadly against them. Especially more so then a long bow with it's deadly d10 trait.

Didn't stormtroopers have fatal guns. When they could shoot straight, anything they hit went down. Same with Hans with his blaster, one hit is all it would take.

In my home campaign I do plan to mix Pathfinder and Starfinder together, so I was really hoping that given someone armed with a longbow and someone with a blaster rifle versus an unarmored warg, the blaster rifle comes way out in front with damage potential.

They have said multiple times that Starfinder and Pathfinder are their own games. They are not balancing anything from Starfinder around Pathfinder and vice versa. Compatible doesnt mean balanced. If you want to mix the two they said to do so at your own risk as they are not checking or designing for balance.

schnoodle wrote:

Is there... any chance of Mechas in SF2e? Having such a big, cool sf1e AP and not including them in SF2e would be considered Cruel and Unusual Punishment. At least, by my Gundam-loving players' minds.

"Hell YES we have plans for mechs in 2E! Otherwise, I riot. Everyone knows this. Alas, it won't be right away, because we have so many other awesome things to playtest first. So expect them in some later supplement. Until then, you can play or read Mechageddon! for all your big stompy robot needs."

-Jenny Jarzabski, Senior Developer, Reddit AMA April 4th 2024

I had not recalled this quote.

At the same time, my immediate instinctive reaction to that question was literally "Of course they're going to have mechas. If they weren't, Senior Developer Jenny Jarzabski would riot."

Any chance we could get stats for a couple suits of armor...or are the playtest characters supposed to run around in studded leather and plate

Any chance we could get stats for a couple suits of armor...or are the playtest characters supposed to run around in studded leather and plate

The main playtest release will have a full range of equipment

I was thinking that since Starfinder 2E is compatible with Pathfinder 2E, then bringing in a gun from PF2E Guns and Gears should be viable. I would expect the guns in Starfinder to be at least as good if not better.

There are also monsters that won't have modern armor. A modern gun should feel deadly against them. Especially more so then a long bow with it's deadly d10 trait.

Didn't stormtroopers have fatal guns. When they could shoot straight, anything they hit went down. Same with Hans with his blaster, one hit is all it would take.

In my home campaign I do plan to mix Pathfinder and Starfinder together, so I was really hoping that given someone armed with a longbow and someone with a blaster rifle versus an unarmored warg, the blaster rifle comes way out in front with damage potential.

In a simulationist game yes. In a balanced gamist game no. The 2E engine is foremost a GAME that creates a healthy long living environment for CONTINUED stories

For an NPC, such as the Corpse Fleet Infantry, what's the DC for their automatic fire attack? Is it 10 + attack modifier since they lack a class DC?

I was gonna go by the PF2e rules for building creatures with unlimited area attacks for the level, so either dc 14 (moderate) or 17 (high), But 15 is the Level 1 dc by level, so that’s safe too.

Anyone gonna allow Free Archetype for the level 5 encounter test? I’m going back and forth on it (players love it vs more accurate playtesting)

The team did discuss the obvious "but guns should just be better than old weapons, right?" discourse, and we decided that it would be better for the game to break a bit of verisimilitude to have guns in Starfinder have parity with PF2 style archaic weapons, to make sure groups could better blend an work together, rather than just having one game "be better" / "have bigger numbers.

Must be just me, but I just can't get my brain to accept that a team of archaic armed individuals will have the same damage potential as a team armed with modern weapons versus unarmored creatures.

Glad to hear that there will be some optional rules that provide more drawbacks for archaic equipment.

All this has got me thinking and I might also add another house rule in my games where modern weapons and explosives deal double damage versus unarmored creatures. So on a critical they would do four times the listed damage.

But too early for that yet... I still need to see the Starfinder 2E rules before I start modifying them ;-)

The team did discuss the obvious "but guns should just be better than old weapons, right?" discourse, and we decided that it would be better for the game to break a bit of verisimilitude to have guns in Starfinder have parity with PF2 style archaic weapons, to make sure groups could better blend an work together, rather than just having one game "be better" / "have bigger numbers.

I can't express how disappointed I am by this. This in theory means a lasgum in SF is as effective as a flintlock against a lion. I have zero interest in parity between the two systems, for me its a lot better if they don't. A PF2e class can still pick up future equipment if there is time travel but having a lasgun artificially weak to balance with a flintlock is really breaks the idea of the game for me. As is a fight with a flintlock doing similar damage to a soldier with a laspistol (who has lower proficiency bonus) is a bad trade.

I am very sad there wasn't even a public survey for this but jusy an in house discussion.

All that being said... our plan is to include some optional rules similar to our first Field Test that provide a bit more drawbacks for the archaic rules on equipment. This is something we're NOT going to assume is a standard gameplay mechanic, but will cater to those groups who want their space-age characters to feel a bit more godlike in anachronistic settings.

If my soldier picks up an antique it should be bad. Archaic should be the base assumption. Can you please do a survey of the greater player base rather than just in house duscussion for these things?

I am personally very pleased that they decided to make the game actually work at their stated aims, rather than unbalancing it within the first two seconds by making the guns far better than pathfinder weapons for no actual benefit to gameplay for starfinder or pathfinder.

I will say though that I do wonder how impactful these encounter considerations will be to groups that don't play official adventures. How much guidance and reinforcement of encounter-design paradigms will end up in the books themselves?

Anyone gonna allow Free Archetype for the level 5 encounter test? I’m going back and forth on it (players love it vs more accurate playtesting)

People play FA all the time. As you've said, players love it. As such, having a few playtest runs under those conditions seems like a good thing - especially if you happen to notice places where FA tipped the scales (or didn't)

Thurston Hillman wrote:

The team did discuss the obvious "but guns should just be better than old weapons, right?" discourse, and we decided that it would be better for the game to break a bit of verisimilitude to have guns in Starfinder have parity with PF2 style archaic weapons, to make sure groups could better blend an work together, rather than just having one game "be better" / "have bigger numbers.

I can't express how disappointed I am by this. This in theory means a lasgum in SF is as effective as a flintlock against a lion. I have zero interest in parity between the two systems, for me its a lot better if they don't. A PF2e class can still pick up future equipment if there is time travel but having a lasgun artificially weak to balance with a flintlock is really breaks the idea of the game for me. As is a fight with a flintlock doing similar damage to a soldier with a laspistol (who has lower proficiency bonus) is a bad trade.

I am very sad there wasn't even a public survey for this but jusy an in house discussion.

So I can see why you say that, but... there are issues here. Like, lots of them.

So right now, PF2 tries to balance everything against everything else. In the case of PF2, that means having archaic (often runed) weapons balanced against archaic (often runed) armor with ranged balanced vs melee and all of the above balanced vs unarmed attacks (either monstrous or with runes) and unarmored defenses (monstrous or with runes). All of that is a baseline. PF2 certainly isn't going to break its own balance in order to make SF2 feel better.

...and now SF2 adds in two more categories - tech melee and tech ranged. Those are the only two categories we're adding in.

You're saying that you want tech ranged to be Just Plain Better than archaic ranged (with or without runes). Okay. so now immediately you get to the ranged vs melee thing. Either you're saying that tech ranged should be Just Plain Better than tech melee, or you're saying that tech melee should be Just Plain Better than archaic melee (with runes). You don't want to marginalize melee builds, so you pick the latter. So... we now have mass-produced Doshko that are simply better than the legendary battleaxe Foebreaker?

So you shrug and say "well, yeah". Okay. Fine. Now we come to unarmed fighters. Vesk get natural weapons, if they invest in them. presumably those are not upgraded by the SF2 aura. So if they're in line with the archaic scale back from PF2, then you're declaring that they're just not worth as much as compared to the available weaponry in SF2. Well, maybe you don't care about unarmed attacks. It's SF2. You shouldn't be trying to use natural weaponry anymore. Okay. What about spells? Do spell attacks also get stronger because we're in SF2 now, or have we decided that blasters just aren't as good at blasting as compared to martials?

...and then we get to monsters, and all sorts of things start getting messier, because monsters have unarmed attacks and ranged attacks and spells of their own, and they don't really care whether they came from PF2 or SF2. Do you want have to tweak PF2 monster stats every time you bring one over? Do you want monsters that come from PF2 to jsut be weaker? Do you want PC weapons to somehow work better than those same weapons in the hands of random mooks because they're SF2 PCs, and they get to have the advantage of this magical "sci-fi guns are better" buff when no one else in the universe does?

It's messy. It's messier than you want it to be.

This in theory means a lasgum in SF is as effective as a flintlock against a lion.

I'm smelling hyperbole here.

And if you don't like that scenario... don't tell stories that involve that scenario.

I have zero interest in parity between the two systems, for me its a lot better if they don't. A PF2e class can still pick up future equipment if there is time travel but having a lasgun artificially weak to balance with a flintlock is really breaks the idea of the game for me. As is a fight with a flintlock doing similar damage to a soldier with a laspistol (who has lower proficiency bonus) is a bad trade.

Sounds like you want to use the optional rules that do make the archaic weapons worse than the SF2 modern weapons.

Or play a different, more simulationist, game system. Nothing wrong with wanting that either. Though perhaps this forum isn't the best place to go looking for your tribe.

For me, this all started when I looked at Guns & Gears. The arquebus does 1d8 damage with a range increment of 150 ft. It also has the fatal d12 trait, so that means 3d12 on a critical hit. Then look at the flintlock pistol, 1d4 damage, range increment of 40 ft and with its fatal d8 trait, it does 3d8 on a critical hit.

I believe that Pathfinder did a great job with the inclusion of the fatal trait. It keeps the average damage of the gun down while still making it feel dangerous. And that feel is important to me in stories. This set my expectation of the baseline for guns in Starfinder and I was disappointed that guns have lost that feel and feel weaker in comparison.

I understand what I'm asking for brings in balancing issues when bringing Pathfinder content into Starfinder. Creatures that don't have guns will be weaker when compared to their technology wielding counterparts. That will require some consideration and adjustments when importing those creatures from Pathfinder.

What I envisage when I import a wizard from Pathfinder to Starfinder is that the first thing I do is give him a gun. As he now has a gun to attack with, I adjust his cantrips and remove the attack ones and replace them with utility spells. Then throw away his spell books and replace those with a digital tablet. My Starfinder wizard doesn't attack with cantrips anymore, he shoots his gun instead.

That makes Starfinder different from Pathfinder for me. It is a different game built on some similarities but it plays differently. I don't expect anything I bring in from Pathfinder to be balanced when used with Starfinder. I just want the ability to be able to bring it in and use it. Verisimilitude really matters to me and I will gladly give up full drop in compatibility to have it. But that's me, and if the majority see things differently then I'm happy enough to house rule where I see it is needed to satisfy my vision of how things should be.

Real-life militaries are just starting to use lasers against aircraft, drones, and missiles not because they do more damage but because they are more cost-effective per shot and are more accurate.

Ask a cop wearing the typical body armor we have today if they would rather be shot with a gun or a crossbow.

We have had lethal weapons since the Stone Age, a big enough rock dropped from space can cause a mass extinction-level event. We hunted mammoths with sharpened rocks before we even had guns.

When guns first started replacing arrows in the armies, it wasn't because they were better weapons it was because they were easier to train anyone to use them.

I think there are lots of better ways to show a weapon as being more futuristic than the total amount of damage, such as range, rate of fire, cost per shot, number of shots before reloading if you even need to reload at all, damage type, having selectable types of damage, effectiveness vs armor, night vision scopes or other sensory aids.

At least for me as long as a futuristic weapon looks futuristic I don't care how many dice of abstract game damage it does.

Real-life militaries are just starting to use lasers against aircraft, drones, and missiles not because they do more damage but because they are more cost-effective per shot and are more accurate.

Ask a cop wearing the typical body armor we have today if they would rather be shot with a gun or a crossbow.

We have had lethal weapons since the Stone Age, a big enough rock dropped from space can cause a mass extinction-level event. We hunted mammoths with sharpened rocks before we even had guns.

When guns first started replacing arrows in the armies, it wasn't because they were better weapons it was because they were easier to train anyone to use them.

I think there are lots of better ways to show a weapon as being more futuristic than the total amount of damage, such as range, rate of fire, cost per shot, number of shots before reloading if you even need to reload at all, damage type, having selectable types of damage, effectiveness vs armor, night vision scopes or other sensory aids.

At least for me as long as a futuristic weapon looks futuristic I don't care how many dice of abstract game damage it does.

Yep. In the 40k setting, lasguns are a preferable field wound to solid slug projectile: your wound will get cauterized AND you wont get lead poisoning. The only reason the Imperium mass produces the former is because a lasgun charge pack can be thrown in a campfire to recharge if the need is dire ...all this to say, in setting the futuristic option is more cost effective, not more lethal. So all things being equal here doesn't make me bat an eye.

Definitely.

The laser pistol we got in FT1 does have a higher damage potential than most of its equivalent weapons in PF2e. It has a higher base damage die than all simple weapons with the capacity trait and a fair number of martial weapons with the capacity trait. Additionally, we don't see the fatal trait until we get into the martial pistols. From this we can infer that the damage potential of simple weapons, outside of traits, has been increased a step and further reasonably infer that the same holds true for martial and advanced weapons.

Further, the per round damage of this weapon is strictly higher on the grounds that it outclasses its equivalents in terms of capacity either out of the gate with 5 charges in the level 0 version or 10 charges in the level 2 and 5 versions. Less actions reloading means more actions spent shooting.

There is every chance we'll see fatal return on something like a martial heavy revolver or heavy pistol and my assumption is that it too will out perform the slide pistol in ways outside of strict damage. If the trend holds we can probably expect something like 1d8 damage and fatal.

If we want to look at the two-handed weapons, we have not seen any weapons built specifically as single target weapons. All are balanced around having some kind of AoE trait. The one direct comparison we can make is the dwarven scattergun against the stellar cannon and, frankly, I'd take the stellar cannon any day of the week. Setting aside the benefits and drawbacks of targeting an enemy's reflex save versus their AC, it's got a higher damage die and while their fire rate is probably about equivalent since the stellar cannon needs two actions to fire but the stellar cannon's area 10ft trait blows the dwarven scattergun's scatter 10ft out of the water. Scatter 10ft means a main target takes full weapon damage while everything within 10ft takes 1 point of splash damage per weapon damage die. Area 10ft means everyone in that 10ft must save or take full weapon damage or half on a failed save. Additionally, since crits and fatal were an earlier point, splash damage is unaffected by critical hits, while every enemy in the stellar cannon's area has a chance to critically fail their save.

Assuming a perfect situation for both against enemies that completely fill each weapon's AoE, that's 1d8+1 damage for the primary target of the scattergun and then 21 more damage for surrounding enemies while the stellar cannon is looking at 12d10. That's not just more damage, but more damage by an order of magnitude.

The thing that gets me about the "better tech should do more damage" discourse is that it totally ignores the genre space within which Starfinder operates: all of them. While its high percentage of D&DNA makes it a combat-heavy dungeon crawler at heart, it doesn't restrict itself to a specific tone/subgenre like Mothership or Lancer, and goes for as broad a toolbox as it can in order to let tables craft their own experience. Look at the adventure paths to see what I mean: the system can do Event Horizon one minute and pivot to Pacific Rim the next.

Cross-compatibility with Pathfinder opens up this genre space even more, allowing the engine to handle intentionally anachronistic delights such as He-Man, Samurai Jack, and Horizon: Zero Dawn. In stories like these, taking down a robot T-rex with a bow you slapped together from scrap five minutes ago is a thing that can and does happen, and it's both indulgently badass and just a little bit silly. And--given that the default mode for Starfinder is an anything goes, over-the-top sci-fantasy buffet, why wouldn't there be a handful of displaced princes and cavewomen raising hell with nothing but an especially pointy bit of metal? There are dragon CEOs and genies living inside the sun.

So, an optional rule that nerfs archaic weapons seems like the right way to go. Like banning magic and cranking up encounter lethality can help evoke the desperate and gritty feel of Aliens, including a switch to "turn off" sword and planet mode for the sake of emphasizing technological disparity and the need for better loot is a lovely option to have, just like how Dual Class and/or Free Archetype in PF2 nowadays cranks up player power levels for those who don't like the newer edition's more balanced, restrictive take on character building and miss the delightful chaos of first edition.

Of course, one could also make the archaic nerf default and make removing it the optional mode, so... why don't they? I think it's partially because of those tone and genre shenanigans I mentioned above, but also because I think there are two negative impacts on game feel. The first is that it opens up a lot of potential messiness over what does and doesn't count as archaic within SF2 itself, which could lead to a lot of jank in regards to monster design. This extra layer of damage reduction rules whenever the party encounters something with low-tech weapons and/or natural attacks not only slows down gameplay, but also invites a lot of compensatory design and wasted fluff on why this particular creature just happens to have diamond-tipped claws or whatever.

The second problem is that it locks SF2 into an antagonistic relationship with PF2 from the start. Imagine being a player or GM excited to port something over for a little bit of fun, but oops! Rules say it automatically sucks now, and you have to take an extra step to make it not suck. Sci-fi is just better than fantasy, idiot, and your stupid dragon will need special accomodations to compete. Yuck! Not a great sales pitch for the whole cross-compatability thing, you know?

Well said everyone! I don't even need to chime in about magical weapons made entirely of light and death magic being arbitrarily dismissed as not a threat being total BS.

I'm convinced, Starfinder is not for me. After much thought, I don't believe I can tell the sci-fi stories I want to tell with any d20 system. It's all the levels, hit points and game balance that get in the way for me. Thanks for the discussion, it helped me realize I was trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. Now off to find a round peg.

I'm convinced, Starfinder is not for me. After much thought, I don't believe I can tell the sci-fi stories I want to tell with any d20 system. It's all the levels, hit points and game balance that get in the way for me. Thanks for the discussion, it helped me realize I was trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. Now off to find a round peg.

Stars Without Number is a great all-purpose sci-fi system to start with, and the basic rulebook is free. Traveller is another classic, although I haven't played it myself.

What kinds of stories were you hoping to tell? Maybe I or someone else can help you find a better fit.

What I envisage when I import a wizard from Pathfinder to Starfinder is that the first thing I do is give him a gun. As he now has a gun to attack with, I adjust his cantrips and remove the attack ones and replace them with utility spells. Then throw away his spell books and replace those with a digital tablet. My Starfinder wizard doesn't attack with cantrips anymore, he shoots his gun instead.

Famous spell caster quotes from Starfinder "I cast gun."

I'm convinced, Starfinder is not for me. After much thought, I don't believe I can tell the sci-fi stories I want to tell with any d20 system. It's all the levels, hit points and game balance that get in the way for me. Thanks for the discussion, it helped me realize I was trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. Now off to find a round peg.

Starfinder is an extremely versatile setting, what kind of stories do you want to tell?

As for the weapon issue a simple fix if you want Starfinder weapons to have an advantage is to just give Pathfinder weapons the archaic trait, that's much easier than adjusting individual weapons damage for every weapon.

I'm actually going back to Savage Worlds. Over the 30+ years of roleplaying, this is really the only system that hit the spot for me. I love how all it takes is one shot from a gun to take an opponent down. It gives me the verisimilitude I need to satisfy my brain.

I was quite happy with Savage Worlds, but then got caught up in the Starfinder 2E excitement forgetting all the things I didn't like about d20 systems when it comes to modern technology... thinking I could fix them for my home games. But deep down I knew better, it just took me a while to except it, so now it's going to be Savage Starfinder.

I will still purchase the Starfinder 2E PDFs as I love the imagination and content they provide and I'll convert these over to Savage Worlds. Also hoping that Pinnacle manage to snag a license to Starfinder 1E, like they did for Pathfinder, and do all the work for me.

Ask a cop wearing the typical body armor we have today if they would rather be shot with a gun or a crossbow.

If he gets shot in the eye it won't matter which weapon it was.

I may have to take another look at Savage Worlds. It's been a while.