What aspects of Starfinder do you *not* want to see brought over to PF2E?


Prerelease Discussion

51 to 90 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Resolve points for stabilisation
I actually like the idea of all classes having a pool of points to use on special abilities, but I hate having them tied into the dying & stabilisation rules.

Egregious scaling back on power & magic nerfs
I felt Starfinder was incredibly declawed for the sake of re-balancing player choices. A lot of fun stuff was removed and the lack of casting defensively was mean. I can stand it in Starfinder because it can be seen as a brand new game, but I can’t imagine a watered down version of Pathfinder being that fun.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Please don't:
*Don't make universal archetypes and fixed class features to be modified by archetypes (this is really bad, since you limit so much the archetypes)
*Don't Use Resolve Points and the form to stabilize/die
*Don't Give just one Attack of Opportunity per round (KEEP Combat Reflexes)
*Don't Create a simplified critical hit system (keep weapons with higher critical threat)
*‎Don't make two-page-monsters for every one like in Alien Archive. Not all monsters need that amount of information
*‎Don't make item creation/repair so simple
*Don't Make racial/theme ability scores irrelevant in character creation
*PLEASE don't flat creatures sizes. Size and its modifiers are a really important part of the game
*DON'T MAKE CHANGE GRIPS AN ACTION.

Please do:
*Keep concentration, even if it'd be simplified
*Keep NPCs and Monsters development/creation more similar to PCs (If not, use Unchained rules, because it's waaaaay better than Starfinder too simplified rules)
*DO SPECIFY how much feats monsters have for level/HD. This is really nebulous in Starfinder and we don't like to "have fiat" for this...

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Resolve Points, I wasn't a fan of how similar me and all the other players felt and I think that and the class design was part of it.

Monsters not being built on the same rules as players

Liberty's Edge

Ability scores & ability modifiers.
Just go with the mods. It's needlessly confusing and has tripped up every new player I've introduced to the game, especially as ability scores literally no nothing. It's a legacy of a game Pathfinder is no longer part of.

(And the gear/ boosts to ability modifiers are also needless. Tweak the monster math so characters don't need to continually boost their ability modifiers higher and higher.)


Brew Bird wrote:
The bulk system. It's clunky, and kind of immersion breaking. I much prefer PF's weight-based carrying capacities. As they exists in Starfinder, bulk limits create comically weak creatures.

I think Starfinder only uses the bulk system because weight is meaningless in a space game with 0g environments and planets of different masses. We probably don't need to worry about bulk in PF 2.0.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't wanna see Starfinder's hit point/stamina system in 2nd edition, but thank Corellon they've already confirmed it's not gonna be in. I had high hopes on this system before Stafinder's release and was deeply disappointed. Without things that target your hit points while bypassing stamina completely this system becomes useless. I thought critical hits would do that, and they don't.

I don't wanna see the resolve system that gives all the classes the same general pool of points based on it's key ability score in order to activate its class features. It just makes classes that much equal to one another, it's the same problem I had with 4th edition where overzelousness in balance made the game feel too homogeneous.

And, most importantly, I don't wanna see archetypes work in 2nd edition the way they work in Starfinder. I want to be able to stack archetypes, one of the best things about archetypes is combining them to make the exact character you want the way you want it. To me we could have both universal archetypes that could be used by every class in the game and more restricted archtypes that only one or a few classes can take, as long as I can stack them, I'm happy.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The problem with the standard encumbrance system in Pathfinder is that it is complicated enough that many game groups ignore it. There are reasons other than zero-G to come up with a simpler encumbrance system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't use resolve at all, but especially not in regards to stabilising/dying.
Please don't use item levels.
Really don't make changing grip an action.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't like the levelled items either. It feels.. video gamey. Welcome to World of Pathfinderquest.

Items in PF1 are only somewhat level-y from the Wealth By Level bit. a +5 flaming longsword is actually not really all that much better than a regular longsword. It's +5 to hit, and average 13 damage, vs. the regular, which is um 4.5 damage. Most of the damage a high level character does is because of his or her levels (# of attacks, feats, etc) and stats (str etc). The difference in terms of weapon damage is actually only about 2.9x.

An azimuth laser rifle is 1d8 (=4.5 average damage), and the zenith laser rifle is 11d6 damage (=38.5). That's almost 9x more damages!

Why does it do so much more damage? It only uses 2x the energy of the starter rifle. I would prefer that the difference came from the character instead. Plus the weapons feel kinda.. copy pasty?

...I'm also worried adding up all of those d6s will bog down high level Starfinder play. And I don't want boggy gameplay. ew.

Brew Bird wrote:
Maybe my games are unusual, but lifting heavy objects actually comes up a lot, and our first encounter with it in Starfinder was pretty jarring. We couldn't figure out how to interpret the rules without creatures coming out comically weak.

Happens in our games too. Pushing/pulling, lifting, hauling, vehicles carrying cargo. Well, our PF games. Hasn't come up yet in SF, but we've only played a lil bit of SF. It will eventually come up there tooo.

Matrix Dragon wrote:
I think Starfinder only uses the bulk system because weight is meaningless in a space game with 0g environments and planets of different masses. We probably don't need to worry about bulk in PF 2.0.

Weight still matters in a spacy setting. They actually have rules for lifting things in different gravity in SF (Game mastery chapter). They converted to bulk as an abstraction to try to get a handle on the idea of volume... and to simplify it so that you don't need a weight/strength table.

Of course you can't really combine mass and volume in a meaningful way like that, but that's a different problem.....

Liberty's Edge

Not a fan of resolve either.
Losing an ability to use a cool class power because you went down, or dying faster because you did so feels off.

I don't like the theoretical design of barbarians having to spend their resolve to rage.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

One of the things mentioned in the Know Direction interview is that the new game won't be using Resolve.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ability scores, I'm a huge fan of point buys for ability scores(as an aside I think the pcs should have enough points to put them way above a regular person). What I don't like is that one you can't dump stat that limits character concepts, the starting stat ceiling and the fact that it's a one to one buy. It's very limiting and supremely un-fun. Yes I know you can dump stats without getting points in return. I don't like that either. The one to one buy and the ceiling being the parts I dislike the most. I create counter concept characters ie: high strength wizards etc. :)

Personally I think that if you want to have a lot of high scores or a lot of low scores or whatever there should be a way to trade out attribute buy points for other stuff and vice versa and no standard, high and epic buys. I have some ideas on this that I won't get into.

EAC! The whole removal of touch AC and the flat footed condition. Starfinder simplified this is the wrong way IMHO as now it just plain makes less sense. I mean while I would love a system where armour protects you by both deflection and absorption of force and not by making you harder to hit as in real life I can live with touch AC and armour bonuses etc.

Not sure how I feel about bulk as I haven't really looked at it much. I can see arguments both ways. If bulk is going for realism it's sadly still missing its mark as I'm fairly certain that a super strong pc could probably load themselves up with 10 rifles and not be encumbered. So possibly a much revamped system would be better. Maybe not.

Resolve, stamina...seems kind a clunky not too sure. I might just need to get more familiar with it though.

For me it's the first two things I mentioned that I have a strong distaste for, with EAC and no touch AC as being top of the list of things I do not want.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bruno Mares wrote:

Please don't:

*Don't Give just one Attack of Opportunity per round (KEEP Combat Reflexes)

They've already made it worse than that: you need special training to even make an Attack of Opportunity at all.


Jester David wrote:

Not a fan of resolve either.

Losing an ability to use a cool class power because you went down, or dying faster because you did so feels off.

Agreed, mostly.

I'm okay with resolve as a way to sort of partially reboot the day. It's neat if you're able to take short-rests and recover some of your health and spells, for instance. And spells. AND spells.

I'll say it one more time; AND SPELLS. In Starfinder, it's frustrating to play a mystic/technomancer because while the fighter types get to deliberately run themselves to 0 stamina several times a day and remain 100% effective, you have to miserly conserve your spell slots because they don't refresh. Of course, usually those same casters haven't taken (much) damage, so they just spend the 10-minute short rest tapping their feet, asking the fighters if they're done resting.

So hey, resolve for fuel for class abilities, sure. Resolve for short rests, sure, if it's fair. Resolve for not dying... not so much.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Something I would like to see from Starfinder?

Skittermanders

Give them to us.


Different rules for monsters/NPCs and PCs

On the other hand I think the bulk system is brilliant in design that maybe requires some scale adjustment.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I like Starfinder quite a bit, but the main thing I'm hoping to avoid is the way they do point buy for attributes. It makes me irrationally angry that there's no useful way to end up with all even numbered attributes, and I liked being able to dump a stat to pump another. I think it's fair to want to limit such things (I actually think 5e does a good job there with the min 8/max 15 before racial modifiers thing they do), but I feel like Starfinder is missing something as a result of the choices made there.


The biggest thing I don't want is the layout of the classes. I do NOT want the class feats inside the class descriptions, like they are in Starfinder. Makes the class descriptions really poor reads. Please put the class feats into a separate section, preferably right after the class.

I quite like the ability generation. I like how every race can have an 18 in any ability score. What i do not like is that EVERY character will have an 18 in their main ability score - any other option is simply sub-optimal.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Don't go into Power Dome A wrote:


In reality almost no one uses any encumbrance system in any RPG so if it isn't something players are actually going to use then don't even waste the ink. I don't know if people will use Starfinder's rules yet because the game is still too new. I know if Pathfinder's rules are retained no one is going to use them anyway.

Based on the multiple campaigns and game systems that I run or play in, this statement is demonstrably false.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I keep track of encumbrance on my PCs and when I GM.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Rysky wrote:

Something I would like to see from Starfinder?

Skittermanders

Give them to us.

How about Glittermanders?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

I use encumbrance as well for home games.


I don't care much for starfinder so they can keep everything they have there


Patrick Newcarry wrote:
I love bulk. Don't kill bulk. Bookeeping is so much easier with it.

Don't worry about that. Starfinder actually stole bulk from Paizo's inner playtest document for NPF. So it's not something that New Pathfinder could steal from Starfinder, it was something born into New Pathfinder itself.

Some other things in this thread that have already been confirmed for playtest at the very least:
Undercasting/overcasting but non-scaling spells.
Monsters and PC have different stats.


Raising multiple ability scores at ability score raising time and making lower abilities raise faster were good ideas. What wasn't a good idea was making higher but odd ability scores worse if you try to raise them to 18 or higher: If a player raises a 14 it goes to 16 then 18 but if a player raises a 15 they go to 17 and then 18, meaning you lose a point to no gain.

This is something I had to reread multiple times to make sure I wasn't missing something I missed because it was clear this was badly designed just looking at it once. Most of the time when there's a problem it's multiple rules interacting, but this managed to make no sense within a single paragraph.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Patrick Newcarry wrote:
I love bulk. Don't kill bulk. Bookeeping is so much easier with it.
Anguish wrote:
In Starfinder, it's mostly add up the number of bulks, only some things aren't bulks at all, and some times are part of bulks and so many of those become bulk.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Bulk isn't a perfect system, but it is way easier.
Another Poster wrote:
Bulk
And Another Poster wrote:
Bulk
Yet Another Poster wrote:
Bulk
I Know What You Did Last Poster wrote:
Bulk
Rysky wrote:

Something I would like to see from Starfinder?

Skittermanders

Give them to us.

No 'Manders, ONLY BULK!!! (Sorry, couldn't resist.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Something I would like to see from Starfinder?

Skittermanders

Give them to us.

To be serious, I also would like skittermanders in PF2e as a PC race. Even more than goblins, and I like goblins a whole bunch.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No one has brought it up that I've seen:

The worst thing I've seen in both 5e AND Starfinder is...

...extreme limitations on what sort of magic gear a character has.

I think the limit is 3 in most cases for both, and it's a rule that should really NOT be implemented.

If one is a fighter, for example, they are eventually going to need, bare minimum:

1 magic armor (or special armor)
1 magic shield (or special shield)
1 magic weapon (or special weapon)
1 magic carrying bag (because things are going to be heavy, even for a fighter with good STR to be carrying around)
1 magic environment item (Cloudkill, asphyxiation, etc)
1 magic mobility item (when things are flying, there's probably not going to be time for the party wizard to slap 'em with a fly spell, for example)

Those are just off the top of my head, but trying to do that with only three magic items isn't going to make the grade.


Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

No one has brought it up that I've seen:

The worst thing I've seen in both 5e AND Starfinder is...

...extreme limitations on what sort of magic gear a character has.

I think the limit is 3 in most cases for both, and it's a rule that should really NOT be implemented.

If one is a fighter, for example, they are eventually going to need, bare minimum:

1 magic armor (or special armor)
1 magic shield (or special shield)
1 magic weapon (or special weapon)
1 magic carrying bag (because things are going to be heavy, even for a fighter with good STR to be carrying around)
1 magic environment item (Cloudkill, asphyxiation, etc)
1 magic mobility item (when things are flying, there's probably not going to be time for the party wizard to slap 'em with a fly spell, for example)

Those are just off the top of my head, but trying to do that with only three magic items isn't going to make the grade.

Doesn't the magic item limit only apply to worn items in Starfinder? I'm pretty sure you can carry and wield as many other magic items as you like.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Brew Bird wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

No one has brought it up that I've seen:

The worst thing I've seen in both 5e AND Starfinder is...

...extreme limitations on what sort of magic gear a character has.

I think the limit is 3 in most cases for both, and it's a rule that should really NOT be implemented.

If one is a fighter, for example, they are eventually going to need, bare minimum:

1 magic armor (or special armor)
1 magic shield (or special shield)
1 magic weapon (or special weapon)
1 magic carrying bag (because things are going to be heavy, even for a fighter with good STR to be carrying around)
1 magic environment item (Cloudkill, asphyxiation, etc)
1 magic mobility item (when things are flying, there's probably not going to be time for the party wizard to slap 'em with a fly spell, for example)

Those are just off the top of my head, but trying to do that with only three magic items isn't going to make the grade.

Doesn't the magic item limit only apply to worn items in Starfinder? I'm pretty sure you can carry and wield as many other magic items as you like.

It sure the heck didn't feel like that on any of my readings of the rules, but then again, some of the writing was opaque enough that I may have missed it.

Sovereign Court

I like the bulk system so much that I actually already wrote my own similar system (also called bulk, almost exactly the same) back in 2011 or so.


Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Brew Bird wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

No one has brought it up that I've seen:

The worst thing I've seen in both 5e AND Starfinder is...

...extreme limitations on what sort of magic gear a character has.

I think the limit is 3 in most cases for both, and it's a rule that should really NOT be implemented.

If one is a fighter, for example, they are eventually going to need, bare minimum:

1 magic armor (or special armor)
1 magic shield (or special shield)
1 magic weapon (or special weapon)
1 magic carrying bag (because things are going to be heavy, even for a fighter with good STR to be carrying around)
1 magic environment item (Cloudkill, asphyxiation, etc)
1 magic mobility item (when things are flying, there's probably not going to be time for the party wizard to slap 'em with a fly spell, for example)

Those are just off the top of my head, but trying to do that with only three magic items isn't going to make the grade.

Doesn't the magic item limit only apply to worn items in Starfinder? I'm pretty sure you can carry and wield as many other magic items as you like.
It sure the heck didn't feel like that on any of my readings of the rules, but then again, some of the writing was opaque enough that I may have missed it.
Starfinder Core Rulebook, pg. 222 wrote:


Worn magic items are things like rings, cloaks, amulets, and gloves. Just as your armor has a limited number of upgrade slots, you can only wear up to two magic items at once and have both function normally—beyond that, the magical fields start to interfere with each other...

...This limitation applies specifically to worn magic items, and does not apply to armor upgrades, held items, weapon fusions, augmentations, magic armor, consumables, or other forms of magic, all of which function normally.

Actually seems pretty clear. Perhaps there's some confusing wording elsewhere though. There are definitely a few cases of rules being stated differently in different chapters.


Knight Magenta wrote:
Let me throw another vote behind NPC stats. Nothing is more feel bad then the GM rolling a 5 for a npc and hitting your Level +2 armor-wearing vesk...

... bad THAN the GM ...

Sorry, just had to - but I agree with your statement!


There is nothing from Starfinder I want to see.


wraithstrike wrote:
Dαedαlus wrote:
If I can, at character creation, make a goblin that's just as strong as the strongest orcs, we have a problem.
This is what I was talking about. It happens in SF because they have a cap that cant be passed by the official rules so the race that naturally starts off with a +2 is the same as the race with no modifier at character creation.

That I would NOT like to see in Pathfinder!


Lemartes wrote:

Ability scores, I'm a huge fan of point buys for ability scores(as an aside I think the pcs should have enough points to put them way above a regular person). What I don't like is that one you can't dump stat that limits character concepts, the starting stat ceiling and the fact that it's a one to one buy. It's very limiting and supremely un-fun. Yes I know you can dump stats without getting points in return. I don't like that either. The one to one buy and the ceiling being the parts I dislike the most. I create counter concept characters ie: high strength wizards etc. :)

Personally I think that if you want to have a lot of high scores or a lot of low scores or whatever there should be a way to trade out attribute buy points for other stuff and vice versa and no standard, high and epic buys. ...

I agree 100%!


Well, they've confirmed they're using Starfinder's Ability Score Increase system, so I expect an Ability Score hard cap will be in place.


Bloodrealm wrote:
Well, they've confirmed they're using Starfinder's Ability Score Increase system, so I expect an Ability Score hard cap will be in place.

They've also said it's changed so that things work differently at first level. That might mean ability caps at character creation can be surpassed with racial modifiers.


GRuzom wrote:
Knight Magenta wrote:
Let me throw another vote behind NPC stats. Nothing is more feel bad then the GM rolling a 5 for a npc and hitting your Level +2 armor-wearing vesk...

... bad THAN the GM ...

Sorry, just had to - but I agree with your statement!

Curse you, edit window.

51 to 90 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / What aspects of Starfinder do you *not* want to see brought over to PF2E? All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion