What you hope won't be in there.


General Discussion

51 to 100 of 246 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Emotionless cultists with laser swords.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Starship Trooper types of adventures.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In all honesty I hope that we don't see the same kind of feat bloat the pathfinder comes to suffer from. Basically less feat over all but the one that exist are all actually useful and not taxes... I'm looking at you combat expertise!

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
The Worst Ever wrote:
The Shifty Mongoose wrote:
Time travel. Unless it's implemented as a one-off backstory thing to explain retcons. Though once it gets used, it's never a one-off thing.

Oddly enough, I have to respectfully disagree.

Normally, I can take or leave time travel as far as Sci-Fi tropes go, but the opportunity to cross over with PF Classic is just too enticing.

Oh right! Future PCs doing past APs!

Though you could also explain it as your future PCs playing "spiced-up historical drama" video games.

Okay, now I DO want retro-inspired characters who try to dress and act like how they thought people from far in the past did, but not antagonistic fanboys who shout, "The Runelords did nothing wrong!" and flood the net with wrath or pride or whatever.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

No "net", please. No virtual battles among electronic avatars. Keep it in the physical / mystical realm like Star Wars.

I realize it might just be language, but even recoding the language of spells into something netrunner-ish is something I'm less interested in.

Leave huge openings for wildly divergent possibilities on other worlds. Don't lock the universe into one theme.


I just read that the AI-God has built a "hyperspace arena" where adventures might take place. I hope words have actual meaning and logic to them. "Hyperspace arena"..? I have faith they'll find a better way to describe things in the actual product.

AI-constructed spaces are moving into that "net" stuff I'm less interested in.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
No, I don't like WH40K's setting, why do you ask?

This is one of the saddest sentences I've ever read.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Worst Ever wrote:
The Shifty Mongoose wrote:
Time travel. Unless it's implemented as a one-off backstory thing to explain retcons. Though once it gets used, it's never a one-off thing.

Oddly enough, I have to respectfully disagree.

Normally, I can take or leave time travel as far as Sci-Fi tropes go, but the opportunity to cross over with PF Classic is just too enticing.

Well time travel is already in pathfinder so that's moot.

Okay, I have to ask. Whats wrong with Warhammer? I'm not familiar with it.

Also I disagree with the 'no net'. currently playing a setting with Hypercorps 2099's Hypernet and the players are having all kinds of fun with it and they haven't even decided to go there yet.


Luthorne wrote:
I hope guns and similar ranged weaponry won't completely replace melee fighting.

Eh. On the one hand, I think most modern & SF settings are pretty unreasonable if a knife or sword is a effect answer to combat.

On the other hand, the D&D chassis is really terrible at guns, and always has been. So even when they are good choices mechanically, they're terrible at being guns and just killing people quickly with bullets. It just ends up unsatisfying all around.

I'm with Coffee Demon on 'net avatars' and decking/hacking stuff. Splits the party/story/players in the worst possible way.

For what I definitely don't want to see in Starfinder: fighters (by any name), monks and any shoehorned attempt at a 'noble' class. Or anything 'balanced' by 2 class skills per level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
hiiamtom wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

Uh...those sound less like Starfinder requests and more like Pathfinder 2.0 requests.

Miracle and Wish in particular do not strike me as appropriate in a science fantasy game.

It better be Pathfinder 2.0 for a brand new core book, separate adventure paths, etc. Taking the FFG Star Wars approach of three core rule books for a single set of rules would be terrible.

Well what I meant is that Starfinder by it's very nature isn't going to replace Pathfinder. Asking a game in a different genre focused on space fantasy to fix existing issues in core is only going to lead to disappointment. I think they have already stated that this will have entirely new classes for instance, and magic will be present but it seems not as big a deal as in Pathfinder, what with readily available tech.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

They have rules for martial, spell, and social duels, so why not ones for flame wars?

(Well, in those, at least one side traditionally declares itself the winner all the time, no matter what happens)

Though the benefits of a "net" are that anyone can communicate with each other over long distances (also meanin table talk can be in character via text messaging), it might also mean that the rest of the group has to wait while the tech-savviest PC is online.

I also thought that online university courses fit better into a classless system, whereas apprenticeship-related classes work better in the past. Though I'm still open to character classes not being obsolete in the future.


Pathfinder Companion, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Voss wrote:
Luthorne wrote:
I hope guns and similar ranged weaponry won't completely replace melee fighting.
Eh. On the one hand, I think most modern & SF settings are pretty unreasonable if a knife or sword is a effect answer to combat.

Eh, realistically, you might want to avoid gunfire in spaceships. Holes in the walls could be pretty deadly unless every one of them is adamantine-lined...and none of the guns can beat adamantine's hardness. Leaving aside various possibilities with exotic force fields where guns and such don't perform as well as high tech melee weaponry.

But in reality, I just think guns are dead boring. Barring exotic ones like gravity guns, shrink rays, and what have you.


Malwing wrote:
Okay, I have to ask. Whats wrong with Warhammer? I'm not familiar with it.

IMO, there are very few things wrong with the fluff of Warhammer 40k. There's a great deal that is being worked out as far as crunch goes, but it is one of the oldest rpg's in existence, and has some of the most detailed fluff of all time. They are responsible for miles of cool ideas and story as far as future tech and alien advancements are concerned, and have still been able to balance out the races and their strengths/weaknesses very well.

Honestly there's so much Lore that it's nearly impossible to even begin telling the story correctly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"No 40K stuff"
HERESY! *BLAM*
Sorry, just had to put this.
In all seriousness, you may be right. Though I like 40k, the "humanity always at war" thing is to dark.
HERESY! *BLAM*
I, for one, don't want every battle to be a shooting gallery.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Alignment and codes of conduct and such having the lightest possible presence (down to and including none-what-so-freaking-ever) in this game. In a similar vein, a general openness and permissiveness on the part of the developers for gaming groups to be able to use elements of the game how they see fit without having to constantly fight an uphill battle.

Or advertise this as being one-setting-exclusive from the getgo, such that players at least know in advance that the onus is on them to make the game system work for not-future-Golarion-star-system settings.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
sacklunch wrote:
In all honesty I hope that we don't see the same kind of feat bloat the pathfinder comes to suffer from. Basically less feat over all but the one that exist are all actually useful and not taxes... I'm looking at you combat expertise!

I put Scaling Feats in the "do want" thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
Luthorne wrote:
I hope guns and similar ranged weaponry won't completely replace melee fighting.

Eh. On the one hand, I think most modern & SF settings are pretty unreasonable if a knife or sword is a effect answer to combat.

On the other hand, the D&D chassis is really terrible at guns, and always has been. So even when they are good choices mechanically, they're terrible at being guns and just killing people quickly with bullets. It just ends up unsatisfying all around.

I'm with Coffee Demon on 'net avatars' and decking/hacking stuff. Splits the party/story/players in the worst possible way.

For what I definitely don't want to see in Starfinder: fighters (by any name), monks and any shoehorned attempt at a 'noble' class. Or anything 'balanced' by 2 class skills per level.

You'd be pretty surprised. In close quarters combat, there is a great deal of use of your free hand and a knife against someone with a rifle. Pretty much all modern day armed forces teach that.

Of course, I just want lightsabers dammit! :)

Also for the anti-net people I think it'd stretch my disbelief way too much if there wasn't some kind of internet analogue in this. Especially given how we have one and how quickly it has changed our world. I'd actually love to see some transhuman, Eclipse Phase stuff in here.

As for stuff I don't want? Gotta agree with rehashing old rules. Don't want to spent money on the same feats or classes. Other than that? Can't really think of anything I don't really want.

Scarab Sages Developer

23 people marked this as a favorite.

As far as "netrunning" goes, what we know we DON'T want is a system that encourages most of the players to do nothing while one player uses a subsystem to accomplish something while they twiddle their thumbs. This is true regardless of what that subsystem is, and it's certainly something we are looking out for.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
WombattheDaniel wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
No, I don't like WH40K's setting, why do you ask?
This is one of the saddest sentences I've ever read.

I disagree. Warhammer 40k is entirely too "grimdark" for me.

Liberty's Edge

What Id like to see

A) Less of a focus on humanity. Have them be small percentage wise found off Golarion. For something really off beat, Id love for them as a mechanic to get weaker off World than on. Perhaps there is something there which they cannot do without.

B) A Re imagining of the Core races. Id like to see a Dwarf Empire controlling several Mountain Fortresses using Gnomes as their slave underclass. They use their Mountain fortresses to enforce their will as they fly through space.

What I don't want to see are Dwarves simply migrating to planets with Large mountain ranges, Elves move to Forest worlds and so on.

C) Clerical Magic be determined by the Church a cleric worships not by the God themselves. Ie if you reimagine the pantheon, You could have the AI god accept all worshippers but you might have the Church of the Supreme Being who worship a LE version of the God and the Church of the Defective Code worshipping a NE version.

( A good example of this is Arcanis where the Gods don't have alignments but Churches who effectively dictate if the God is nice or bad)

D) Restrictions. Yeah most consider them long gone ... not needed and from previous editions of D&D. Id like them to come back.

From my point A. Lets say the issue that Humans have when they leave their Home Planet is that they cant contact any God (thus No Human Clerics). Some people hate restrictions but some settings work really well with them : ie Darksun.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
WombattheDaniel wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
No, I don't like WH40K's setting, why do you ask?
This is one of the saddest sentences I've ever read.
I disagree. Warhammer 40k is entirely too "grimdark" for me.

Honestly, modern day WH40K has kind of acknowledged their grimdarkness and has really become a parody of itself rather than taking it too seriously. Though the same can't be said of their fan base...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KM WolfMaw wrote:
Technology is the new Magic, aka, without it you are useless.

I would be OK with that as long as there are no non tech PC classes.

Fighters still use technology after all. Swords don't grow on trees.

What would make me mad is if the magic characters are still just better than the tech characters cause realism.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

People who wont want magic are wrong.

WTF do you think the force is? Bleh. All i see in this thread is everyone wish fulfillment of nerfing the piss out of casters.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I love 40k having said that i already own that game so i dont want it rehashed in starfinder.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Gallyck wrote:

People who wont want magic are wrong.

WTF do you think the force is? Bleh. All i see in this thread is everyone wish fulfillment of nerfing the piss out of casters.

I mean, the thread is title "What you don't want to see in Starfinder." So it's going to be what people don't want to see in Starfinder.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
WombattheDaniel wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
No, I don't like WH40K's setting, why do you ask?
This is one of the saddest sentences I've ever read.

How so? The basic premise is that there is a giant church-like tyrannic organization that keeps everyone except a chosen few in slavery and abject poverty. Those not in slavery are troubleshooters of various stripes, and ALL of them would denounce the worst totalitarian scum our history has produced as "too rainbow sunshine huggy huggy weaklings". There are other races, defined only by what kind of ultra hostile they are to humanity. So there can be war, war, war. Yay. And the best part is, ALL this is NECESSARY because otherwise things would be far worse (?).

I don't particularly enjoy roleplaying stuff that reads like the fantasies of white power fanatics.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I sure hope it's NOT Spelljammer


TxSam88 wrote:

I sure hope it's NOT Spelljammer

I keep seeing references to Spelljammer and Dragonstar but while I wasn't really around for those supplements, from what I read I have a few problems. Mostly magic.

Spelljammer doesn't seem like sci-fantasy, it seems like fantasy in space, something I wouldn't be too thrilled with in Starfinder. Dragonstar is closer but I still get the message that magic is the top tier thing to do and honestly I hope that the prominence of magic is toned down a bit in Starfinder compared to Pathfinder. If Pathfinder classes are truly portable to Starfinder it just seems completely unnessesary and honestly I've gotten sick of magic as the constant go to for any effect or way to do anything or the only thing to have significant additional material.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

If Distant Worlds is the template, then we can really expect standard sci fi technology, especially seen in the 50's as well as 70's retrofuturism, combined with some sci fi stuff from the Victorian/Edwardian authors (H.G. Wells, Edgar Burroughs), with some magic in there. I definitely want there to be magic, but I also want technology to have at least an equal power in the world. I just want to play a fighter with a rocket arm really :)

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
As far as "netrunning" goes, what we know we DON'T want is a system that encourages most of the players to do nothing while one player uses a subsystem to accomplish something while they twiddle their thumbs. This is true regardless of what that subsystem is, and it's certainly something we are looking out for.

Maybe the key is to prevent from the outset situations where only members of a particular class get to be good at such "arenas"?

The problem with "net" stuff in games such as Shadowrun tends to be that only someone with serious resources invested in hacking or astral projection has any business being there - any lesser skilled PCs would be a liability.

So while designing classes, maybe it's a good idea to stay very far away from classes specialized in specific arenas.

Sovereign Court

7 people marked this as a favorite.

What I don't want to see: Starfinder trying too hard to do something another game already did in detail. I don't want Starfinder to try to be 40K or Eclipse Phase or such. When I'm reading through the book for the first time, I hope that I'll be struck by how fresh and original it'll be.


Personally I don't want to see to much transhumanism in it.


Rhedyn wrote:
KM WolfMaw wrote:
Technology is the new Magic, aka, without it you are useless.

I would be OK with that as long as there are no non tech PC classes.

Fighters still use technology after all. Swords don't grow on trees.

What would make me mad is if the magic characters are still just better than the tech characters cause realism.

I didn't mean plain old metal sword, I meant high tech stuff, electronics (even lower tech ones), futuristic materials and the like.

Shadow Lodge

It's far too early for me to really have an idea of what I do or do not want, as I really don't have any idea of what the context or focus of the game would be.

I would rather have more Star Wars than Star Trek, more Fantasy in Space than Sci-Fi.

I'd like for magic to still exist, both mingling with and being separate from technology. Possibly with Technology and Magic sort of working against each other to a degree, so you could have a +5 Holy Sword or +5 "vibroshock" Sword, but trying to combine them weakens both the Magic and the Tech, making it a +2 weapon or something. It's still possible, sort of like the Mystic Theurge, but it does slow down both progressions.

Right now, a lot of the ideas I'm having or thinking about are very Shadowrun or d20 Modern like, and I'm not even sure if those are accurate, or if I'd like them to be correct, (like others have mentioned, I have those games already).

Liberty's Edge

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
As far as "netrunning" goes, what we know we DON'T want is a system that encourages most of the players to do nothing while one player uses a subsystem to accomplish something while they twiddle their thumbs. This is true regardless of what that subsystem is, and it's certainly something we are looking out for.

Hm. Maybe something like what Shadowrun Returns does might be in order. (The rest of the party gets their turn in realspace, then your decker gets his turn in cyberspace. Works nice in combat but not sure how it'd work outside of combat.)

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Magic being nerfed.

I want magic to still be able to do things beyond what can be achieved without it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
WombattheDaniel wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
No, I don't like WH40K's setting, why do you ask?
This is one of the saddest sentences I've ever read.
I disagree. Warhammer 40k is entirely too "grimdark" for me.

You're reading it wrong (much like the current design team). It is entirely a farcical parody.

Which, to be fair, there is plenty of reason not to love. But taking the grimderp seriously is a bad plan.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zahariel wrote:

Magic being nerfed.

I want magic to still be able to do things beyond what can be achieved without it.

While I don't really want Magic to be nerfed, the "it's 1000000 times better than non magic things" kinda need to go, or become an optional thing, otherwise they might as well not bother.

Putting more restrictions on casters and casting without nerfing magic overall could also be an idea.


Insane KillMaster wrote:
Zahariel wrote:

Magic being nerfed.

I want magic to still be able to do things beyond what can be achieved without it.

While I don't really want Magic to be nerfed, the "it's 1000000 times better than non magic things" kinda need to go, or become an optional thing, otherwise they might as well not bother.

Putting more restrictions on casters and casting without nerfing magic overall could also be an idea.

This is why magic concerns me no matter what. Just look at the Core Rulebook for Pathfinder. Around 75% of the classes are spellcasters, 1/3 of the book is just the spells, and doing some things at mid to high levels is basically impossible without magic. Or even worse, look at Ultimate Combat. The book that has a ton of spells and even the Wizard, the one gets some extra goodies. Magic tends to take over and so it just rubs me wrong when anyone really wants an emphasis on it. I really want to see casters taking up 25% or less of the classes and magic to be handled differently so that it doesn't eat a third of a 500+ page book.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, oh, I got something to add to this thread!

I hope there are no more examples of Giants no one will ever need! Seriously, who needs an entire race of giants that ferries people down a river?!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
WombattheDaniel wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
No, I don't like WH40K's setting, why do you ask?
This is one of the saddest sentences I've ever read.
I disagree. Warhammer 40k is entirely too "grimdark" for me.

You're reading it wrong (much like the current design team). It is entirely a farcical parody.

Which, to be fair, there is plenty of reason not to love. But taking the grimderp seriously is a bad plan.

Parody, sure. But with half a million books out, and the only two elements of humour in it being Ciaphas Cain and the cockney orks, someone missed something vital. As you say, the current design team does it, so why treat it as a parody?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would dislike seeing a reprint of spells from Pathfinder. In fact, I'd dislike seeing vancian magic make an appearance, but hoping for something else feels foolish. I would very much dislike having to purchase adventure paths to expand on the Core material when it comes to game mechanics, as opposed to having adventure paths and mechanical splat books as separate supplements.

Do we know if Starfinder will be a standalone game, or will it require the PF core book?

I'm not expecting a whole lot more than a Pathfinderized version of D20 Future and Star Wars revised smashed together withe nice art. Not that I'm notrying excited, I am, I've just seen other D20 sci-fi games...*cough* Traveller 20 *cough* Dawning Star


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It will be a stand alone with backwards compatibility with at least monster stat blocks.


Hmm, interesting.

I hope there isn't a core anthro race, unless it's Ratfolk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GypsyMischief wrote:

Hmm, interesting.

I hope there isn't a core anthro race, unless it's Ratfolk.

I think they've said that some of the core races will be androids, catfolk, humans, lashunta, triaxians, and ratfolk...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From the Blog Post: "You want to play a lashunta technomancer using magic to hack the defense grid, or an android assassin with a laser rifle, or a ysoki ratfolk mechanic clambering around the guts of a spaceship as you blast your way through the enemy blockade? This is the place for it. There will also be new races you've never seen before."


I don't want to see Vancian Magic either. Good opportunity to use something like Spheres of Power for magic here. Simpler, fun to use, less page count devoted to it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh my goodness... Wealth by Level. Please no!!

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.
GypsyMischief wrote:
I'd dislike seeing vancian magic make an appearance...

I'm glad someone brought this up. I was starting to get worried when I didn't see Vancian magic mentioned on page 1.

For 30+ years, every time someone put psionics in a D&D or Pathfinder product, a vocal group of objectors would complain, "Psionics is too sci-fi. Power points are too sci-fi. All these pseudo-scientific power names are too sci-fi. It's too different from the feel of the game's traditional magic system."

Now we have Starfinder, and Starfinder is sci-fi. The most sci-fi fi that Paizo ever claimed was fi about sci. And it's a stand-alone game. There is absolutely no excuse for Starfinder to use anything other than psionics as its default magic system. Actual psionics, not Vancian magic with the serial numbers filed off. Psionics with power points that make narrative sense from a pseudo-scientific perspective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snorb wrote:

What I Want From Starfinder:

* Gyrojet pistols/rifles. (Google them, or watch You Only Live Twice.) Seriously, these need more love.

Those could be useful in space combat (actual zero-g, not ship interior combat).

51 to 100 of 246 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Starfinder General Discussion / What you hope won't be in there. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.