"Assurance: In P1E, taking 10 replaced the d20 of a skill check with a flat 10. Everything else stayed the same. The P2E equivalent is Assurance, except it's 10 plus your proficiency and nothing else. A high Strength character and a low Strength character with the same level and training in a skill will have the exact same Assurance. Yes, you're negating penalties along with bonuses when using it, but the penalties in question aren't likely to always be there, unlike your ability mod. What would you call it when you're always paying a price to maybe-sometimes negate another cost? The game, especially using Athletics in combat, especially using Assurance on your second or third action (because the MAP also goes away), assumes you want to use Assurance but I never would. It just strikes me as conniving and dishonest."
"This. PF1e is the epitome of "things I didn't like about 3.5...taken to their logical extremes". PF2e isn't as bad about that, but is obsessed with mechanical balance to the point of creating the illusion of choice. Sure, you've got tons of choices. And either you build them right and they all end up about exactly the same...or you don't and you kinda limp along. Tons of choices, most of which don't really matter much."
"And this. The constant proselyting and boosting in forums designated for other games is wearisome. And the constant "it's 5e, but better!" (when it caters to a different style than the 5e I play) is annoying."
"It is indeed troublesome and kinda amazing. I also find that when I criticize the like to state a negation and follow with the immediately obvious that doesn't really refute the point. If I were to pose "I don't like the jump being an action, PF1 and 5e handle jumping better as part of your move" they'll say its ok because it goes to 11 there are 3 actions, even though my problems with it still arose using said action system."
"No agency. Plenty of choices but they are mostly hollow."
"I can't tell if this edition is two steps forward, one step back or one step forward, two steps back. It's not bad, but while there are specific elements about it that I like I'm not sold on it. It definitely it's a D&D 5E clone which is one of the things that I've heard against it. I'm just kind of meh on the book as a whole.
Honestly if I'm looking for a new Pathfinder I'll either play Starfinder (which I was expecting this to take a lot more guidance from, I love Starfinder so much more than PF2E) or I'll wait until Savage Pathfinder comes out (because Savage Worlds is getting Pathfinder and I expect that to be amazing). I won't be keeping this one."
"My overall opinion is that PF2 is basically the bad/meh parts of PF1 (over-fiddliness in customization options, fear of handing out interesting abilities at higher levels, etc.) plus the bad/meh parts of 5e (bland classes, tightly constrained numbers leading to samey characters, etc.) with none of the redeeming features of either game, so I'm in the "one step forward, two steps back" camp, personally."
"That's a general trend of PF2, frankly: things you used to get for free (especially very-flavorful-but-not-very-powerful stuff and things you need to do your main job) are all taken away and then doled back out piecemeal, but with at most half the effectiveness and having at least twice the level prerequisite. It really gives the impression that the PF2 devs were petrified of giving characters anything fun or useful, which is something already seen in the PF1 era and only exacerbated by drawing on 5e for inspiration."
"Here's what I don't agree with, though. I don't agree with making two dozen subtle changes to the core mechanics of the game so that it reduces player options for customization. I don't agree with going from a rich world of options where we had dozens of races, and hundreds of classes, archetypes, and prestige classes (not to mention feats, spells, and unique traits), to only a half dozen races and classes, as well as a few pages of feats and spells, to play with. I disagree that in a world with space-age alloys and super-advanced technology that there aren't shields, whether they be adamantine or entirely energy-based. I also disagree on decisions that made the game feel more like an attempt to ape Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition style and flow. Lastly, and most strongly, I disagree with the dismissive tone, and token attitude, that infuses the "legacy conversion" section in the rear of the book. A section that I feel was one of the game's major selling points, but was littered with comments like, "at DM discretion," and, "isn't really meant to work in Starfinder," or, "is going to be difficult.""
Starfinger Core Rulebook by Alien Rope Burn
"If some guy just walks in off the street and says, 'I want a rocket launcher!', most people are going to say, we don't think you're rocket launcher-ready."
~Owen K.C. Stephens, Starfinger Design Lead, GenCon Q&A Transcript