The purpose of this forum is to start discussing Starfinder Second Edition. For the most part, there may not be much to say because Pathfinder Second Edition needs to be completed, first. However, I've made a critical observation that I wanted to share (and may already realized by Paizo).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would think we are pretty FAR away from a Starfinder 2.0 however with so much errata needing to be addressed I would be very supportive of a 1.5 or reprint addressing current issues. I will say I love the new action economy of Pathfinder 2.0 and really, really wish it was used for Starfinder but I do enjoy it, in its current state as well.
Unlike Pathfinder, Starfinder does not have any competion from WotC. Whatever customer base is created by Starfinder I think will remain stable -- regardless of what WotC does with D&D.
I play Pathfinder. I've never played Starfinder. Though, I come to realize how absolutely brilliant it was of Paizo to create Starfinder. I really doubt WotC will ever make anything like it. They are too distracted with the Magic Gathering.
The stories that can be told in Starfinder with all those alien worlds go way beyond anything that can be done in Pathfinder or D&D.
Create a popular rule system successfully with PF2, apply that to SF2, and I can see SF2 probably out lasting PF2.
Because PF2 will eventually be challenged by D&D 6e, Paizo will have to start work on PF3. Maybe, just because 6e at that time will be newer (than PF2). People always like newer -- not old and reliable.
I may be repeating myself, but SF2 I think will go unchallenged and that just might give it the same 10 year run that PF1 has enjoyed -- which means tons of really exciting material for the SF customer base (possibly out stretching anything that could have been done with Pathfinder).
As a Pathfinder player and GM and watching PF2 unfold, I've been holding out on getting any SF material -- because I'm certain SF2 is on the way shortly after PF2 is released.
However, as my eyes are starting to open to the possibilities offered in Starfinder and Paizo (my absolute favorite RPG company), I'm beginning to think that even a short-term investiment in SF materials is totally worth it -- because what's coming next is very likely lightning in a bottle.
So, for you Starfinder players and GMs out there -- don't stop now. Continue to buy Starfinder -- you're really going to like what happens next.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's too early to think about Starfinder 2nd ed. Paizo said themselves that it would be putting the cart before the horse at this stage.
I am more in line with 1.2 reprintings of Starfinder so far. Currently there is so much Errata up in the air, and they are behind with it (it has been 7 months since the last FAQ update).
Starfinder does have competition though. Disney has a full Star Wars tabletop line, as does whichever company has been releasing Star Trek's more recent tabletop. Both have dedicated following outside of the tabletop scene, so while Starfinder is a unique IP for the genre it is not uncontested.
Starfinder has a lot of potential, for sure, but unfortunately Paizo has been handling things poorly since it's release. The core rulebook was released alongside Ultimate Wilderness on the Pathfinder side and both recieved poor playtesting as a result. Ultimate Wilderness basically recieved some minor FAQ attention and then was basically abandoned in favor of the Pathfinder Playtest. The latter, was released alongside Starfinder's Armory, and looking at both there are enormous printing issues alone, not to mention incorrect, missing, or conflicting information.
Before thought of a Starfinder 2, I think effort needs to go into fixing the current system and release schedule. Right now, since Starfinder's release Paizo seems to be overburdening itself and that needs fixing first. Whether that means more staff to playtest and edit, staggering releases so they don't parallel Pathfinder releases, or dividing into two teams who can devote 100% of their efforts towards each system.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, did I slip through a time portal to April 1st?
However, I do agree that Starfinder is great and that the possibilities of the setting are endless.
I've played PF1 through it's entire run and older editions of D&D before that. I don't know that I've ever had more fun with any RPG vs. the fun I'm having with Starfinder.
I first started playing table top games with Pathfinder. Since then, I've played quite a smattering of different games. Starfinder is one of my favorites.
However, the way Paizo is going about releasing Starfinder and Pathfinder 2.0 leaves a lot to be desired. There are many issues, and I feel Paizo is just trying to pump out as much content as possible. I'm kind've worried about the future of Paizo as a company, to be honest.
Their quality control is slipping, and with the push for more stuff to be out the door, it screams to me of a looming financial disaster.
I foresee Pathfinder 2.0 failing quite horribly for a myriad of reasons. I truly believe that if Paizo is going to continue as a company, their future lies with Starfinder as their main focus.
I foresee Pathfinder 2.0 failing quite horribly for a myriad of reasons. I truly believe that if Paizo is going to continue as a company, their future lies with Starfinder as their main focus.
I dont know about that really. If Pathfinder 2.0 was crap then maybe but I really, really like what im seeing. As a system it looks really solid and a welcome departure from 3.5 while also retaining just enough of its roots to feel familiar. It will without a doubt alienate some purists but that would always be the case no matter what they put out. That party will accept no change or change so slight as to make the point of putting out a new addition moot.
I feel like the vast majority will happily push on playing Pathfinder 2.0 and see it attract new customers as well.
I do share the frustration with the apparent rush of new product and apparent drop in quality, especially proof reading. I really enjoy Starfinder but I am increasingly getting frustrated with all the mistakes and omissions. I want to support them so I hope they step up their game. Right now it feels like Starfinder has never received the attention it deserves from a editing / FAQ support stand point. They have a gem on their hands but only so long as they support it properly.
Judging by the Pathfinder 2.0 playtest forum, it's pretty divisive. There are several things I don't like with the system itself. But then they've also inserted political stuff into it. Which, agree or disagree on the stance of it, when you mix politics and business, it's always bad for business.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They have a gem on their hands but only so long as they support it properly.
Gems need to be cut and polished properly so that their fire and brilliance can shine through.
|
My gaming group switched from Pathfinder to Starfinder. We don't plan to play PF2 for many years, if ever.
I'm a little disappointed that Paizo is putting so much attention into PF2 right now instead of following up on their new Starfinder game. I understand their reasons. Pathfinder is their flagship product. But as a Starfinder player, it is disappointing.
I'm definitely not interested in Starfinder 2.0 right now. There is still so much potential with the current edition. I don't see a reason to recreate the entire thing.
That being said, I wouldn't be sad to see the starship rules overhauled. I know I'm beating a dead horse at this point, but strength-based characters have a difficult time under the current starship rules.
Not before a Starfinder Unchained, in the very least.
I would think we are pretty FAR away from a Starfinder 2.0 however with so much errata needing to be addressed I would be very supportive of a 1.5 or reprint addressing current issues. I will say I love the new action economy of Pathfinder 2.0 and really, really wish it was used for Starfinder but I do enjoy it, in its current state as well.
Out of the gate Move/shoot/move in a game full of ranged weapons isn't a good idea.
I might try the 10+crit thing, tho. Maybe only fir the crit effect, and double damage just on 20s. There are a lot of cool crit effects that would be fun to see more often. Worth a try, although the math is not built for that.
I agree with the stardip overhaul. I'm houserulling the heck of it, but I'd pay for a Paizo version that is actually playtested and not rushed to fill in the small portion of the book that could be spared in the base gane
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
From the Pathfinder Playtest FAQ:
Will you be doing a new edition of Starfinder, too?
We have no plans to revise Starfinder at this time. Many of the rules innovations we debuted in last year's Starfinder Core Rulebook were born as changes to the in-development Pathfinder Second Edition game, so some of the "new" Pathfinder is already baked into the Starfinder system. It's possible that we'll learn things over the course of the Pathfinder Playtest that we're eager to apply to Starfinder, but that's putting the space horse considerably before the space cart.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That quote is still considerably backwards.
The space horse is supposed to be before the space cart. I mean, unless space horses push carts instead of pull them, unlike earth horses, for some reason.
I am more in line with 1.2 reprintings of Starfinder so far. Currently there is so much Errata up in the air, and they are behind with it (it has been 7 months since the last FAQ update).
Starfinder does have competition though. Disney has a full Star Wars tabletop line, as does whichever company has been releasing Star Trek's more recent tabletop. Both have dedicated following outside of the tabletop scene, so while Starfinder is a unique IP for the genre it is not uncontested.
Starfinder has a lot of potential, for sure, but unfortunately Paizo has been handling things poorly since it's release. The core rulebook was released alongside Ultimate Wilderness on the Pathfinder side and both recieved poor playtesting as a result. Ultimate Wilderness basically recieved some minor FAQ attention and then was basically abandoned in favor of the Pathfinder Playtest. The latter, was released alongside Starfinder's Armory, and looking at both there are enormous printing issues alone, not to mention incorrect, missing, or conflicting information.
Before thought of a Starfinder 2, I think effort needs to go into fixing the current system and release schedule. Right now, since Starfinder's release Paizo seems to be overburdening itself and that needs fixing first. Whether that means more staff to playtest and edit, staggering releases so they don't parallel Pathfinder releases, or dividing into two teams who can devote 100% of their efforts towards each system.
Great information! Thanks!
I foresee Pathfinder 2.0 failing quite horribly for a myriad of reasons. I truly believe that if Paizo is going to continue as a company, their future lies with Starfinder as their main focus.I dont know about that really. If Pathfinder 2.0 was crap then maybe but I really, really like what im seeing. As a system it looks really solid and a welcome departure from 3.5 while also retaining just enough of its roots to feel familiar. It will without a doubt alienate some purists but that would always be the case no matter what they put out. That party will accept no change or change so slight as to make the point of putting out a new addition moot.
I feel like the vast majority will happily push on playing Pathfinder 2.0 and see it attract new customers as well.
I do share the frustration with the apparent rush of new product and apparent drop in quality, especially proof reading. I really enjoy Starfinder but I am increasingly getting frustrated with all the mistakes and omissions. I want to support them so I hope they step up their game. Right now it feels like Starfinder has never received the attention it deserves from a editing / FAQ support stand point. They have a gem on their hands but only so long as they support it properly.
Yes, I think product support even for back versions is critical for a company's success. Customers of back versions should not be made to feel abandoned. Maintaining quality releases is a corner stone. The more a company trips up on these things, the less seriously the market views that company.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still, what he is saying that it will be a disaster if they made Starfinder 2.0 right now.
Starfinder has their own design and development team, which has increased in size since the Core Rulebook (commensurate with an increasing Starfinder product release schedule).
I did read that chief technical officer Vic. Unfortunately, the presence that the people have felt for seven months have suggested either a need for more staff, or something wrong.
If you could relay that to someone who can listen I would be thankful. I would even offer my services if it would help, but I likely lack the professional experience or the US citizenship required to apply.
I understand the difficulty of keeping everything afloat, and the actual difficulty of things like publishing, game design, and keeping up with public feedback. The impression though being expressed concerning Starfinder in general seems to be neglect however, as evidenced by the traffic on the Starfinder section of the forums, and the lack of any insight from either moderators or staff beyond yourself.
The Starfinder tap will start flowing more rapidly in the near future.
Waiting 5-6 months after the initial release to ensure that there is sustainable demand for a new product line before hiring new staff is actually pretty fast (from a business standpoint). Also, from what has been published in the previous adventure path Forewords, there's about a 6 month lag (or more, for bigger projects) to develop a product and get it printed before it can be sold.
Still, what he is saying that it will be a disaster if they made Starfinder 2.0 right now.
As I said, looks like PF2 needs to be completed, first.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
We barely have material for the first edition of Starfinder, why do we need a second already?
No offense, but lets wait 9 more years and then have this discussion.
How about a Starfinder Revised in August 2020. That will give Paizo time to get Pathfinder 2 out and released on August 2019. Then they can turn their attention to Starfinder and borrow some of the mechanics from Pathfinder 2 and apply them to Starfinder.
I would love to see the new action economy applied to Starfinder. To me there is something about the simple 3 actions per turn that makes the action types in Starfinder seem dated and not as flexible and thus not as much fun.
Also I would like the 'beat the DC by 10' and get a critical success and the opposite '10 or lower than the DC' for a critical fail to be part of Starfinder core.
Now that I am thinking about it, I would like the core rule base in Pathfinder 2 and Starfinder Revised to be as similar as possible so I can borrow materiel from Pathfinder 2 and use it in Starfinder without too much conversion.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Starfinder is one of my favourite games ever (and I’ve never managed to like science fiction games and until now would have said that I hate science fantasy).
I’m surprised to see people disappointed at the quality. For me, it’s terrific (there just isn’t enough material, sadly). The starship DCs was an annoying glitch, but it was fixed pretty quickly. None of the other issues seem particularly troubling to me.
The game universe and adventures are utterly brilliant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I *really* do not like Pathfinder 2.0. And yes, I did try it. I think Starfinder is a good bridge between 1 and 2, and I do not want to see it be more like 2. Fix some rules errors, some errata, but otherwise, keep it the way it is.
How about a Starfinder Revised in August 2020. That will give Paizo time to get Pathfinder 2 out and released on August 2019. Then they can turn their attention to Starfinder and borrow some of the mechanics from Pathfinder 2 and apply them to Starfinder.
I would love to see the new action economy applied to Starfinder. To me there is something about the simple 3 actions per turn that makes the action types in Starfinder seem dated and not as flexible and thus not as much fun.
Also I would like the 'beat the DC by 10' and get a critical success and the opposite '10 or lower than the DC' for a critical fail to be part of Starfinder core.
Now that I am thinking about it, I would like the core rule base in Pathfinder 2 and Starfinder Revised to be as similar as possible so I can borrow materiel from Pathfinder 2 and use it in Starfinder without too much conversion.
As someone who isn't a fan of PF2 yet, this would be a nightmare to me.
No, the rules are already set for Strfinder. At best they could release optional system much like they did with Pathfidner Unchained, but they can't change the core of the game. And until the game has been around a while there is no reason to release a revised version or a 2.o. Keep in mind, Starfinder isn't quite even a year old yet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Starfinder is one of my favourite games ever (and I’ve never managed to like science fiction games and until now would have said that I hate science fantasy).
I’m surprised to see people disappointed at the quality. For me, it’s terrific (there just isn’t enough material, sadly). The starship DCs was an annoying glitch, but it was fixed pretty quickly. None of the other issues seem particularly troubling to me.
The game universe and adventures are utterly brilliant.
I think its more just the typo's & omissions. In some cases it looks like the rule was edited or changed but the info is incomplete or vaguely written.
In general I completely agree with you and dont want to infer otherwise. I really, really love Starfinder and I am looking forward to seeing much more of it. I just want to see them tighten up the ship a little bit in the editorial department.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Starfinder is one of my favourite games ever (and I’ve never managed to like science fiction games and until now would have said that I hate science fantasy).
I’m surprised to see people disappointed at the quality. For me, it’s terrific (there just isn’t enough material, sadly). The starship DCs was an annoying glitch, but it was fixed pretty quickly. None of the other issues seem particularly troubling to me.
The game universe and adventures are utterly brilliant.
I think its more just the typo's & omissions. In some cases it looks like the rule was edited or changed but the info is incomplete or vaguely written.
In general I completely agree with you and dont want to infer otherwise. I really, really love Starfinder and I am looking forward to seeing much more of it. I just want to see them tighten up the ship a little bit in the editorial department.
It seems to me you can always edit an RPG, the Pathfinder CRB went through six revisions of the text after release even after all the prelaunch editing/development passes and I'm sure there's still a list of errors they haven't yet caught. I don't find the Starfinder books difficult to understand or that there are many issues I can't resolve for myself (beyond things that are actual errors like starship DCs - I appreciated the help correcting those).
For me there's a trade off - if they begin increasing the number of editting passes they'll necessarily slow down (I'm sure the profit margin isn't high enough to just "hire more people" willy nilly. I don't want the release rate to go even slower just to resolve the odd omitted word or reference. I'd rather get more books and leave the resolution of grey areas to the DM (or to the organised play team for those playing SFS).
Having said that, they've bulked up their editing and development teams in recent times and Starfinder seems to more and more be a standalone 'department' within Paizo. So hopefully we can get the best of both worlds and have more people looking over more books. :)
I haven't played Starfinder. Getting really interested, though.
1. What do you like about the current edition?
2. What would you change?
3. Is there anything you wouldn't want to change?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't played Starfinder. Getting really interested, though.
1. What do you like about the current edition?
Personally, I like the setting. It's interesting and my table has a lot of fun. What I like most, though people disagree, is the open-ness of character building. Most of the classes don't have specific by-level abilities, opting for choices. This means for the most part no two characters are alike, even among the same class. This flexibility also means you add more to the game providing new class options like Envoy Improvisations compared to adding new full classes.
2. What would you change?
There are what I'll call Pathfinder 1-isms. Rules-wise Starfinder falls in the middle of where Pathfinder 1 is ending and the Playtest is beginning. One area where this can be seen is abilities that mention a target's Int score. An example is Wildwise needing Int 1 or 2. The monster entries though are not written in a format that gives those scores, so you have abilities asking for things that aren't provided.
There are also various exploits and loopholes in the system due to hasty writing (likely repeated changes as well) and poor editing. An example is the cost of Fusions. You can purchase most fusions for a fraction of their cost and transfer due to poorly thought out equipment rules. Some see this as a feature, I strongly disagree and can point to how fusions gain power with levels.
EDIT: I forgot. Give Solarians like, 2 more skill points a level. They need them badly for the role they're expected to fill in Starship combat. They also recieve things like 2 free class skills of choice and 6 skills over the course of their levels that get a cool Insight bonus, but then not enough points to actually take advantage of them.
3. Is there anything you wouldn't want to change?
Most of my changes fall to editing and FAQs, so really I like the game as it is.
EDIT: Barring the edit I had to add.
I haven't played Starfinder. Getting really interested, though.
1. What do you like about the current edition?
I haven't been able to play through with a game of Starfinder yet, so I can't say. My best friend likes it though, and he tells everyone about how good it is.
2. What would you change?
Can't say.
3. Is there anything you wouldn't want to change?
Can't say either. Anyone up for a game?
1. What do you like about the current edition?
The way it blends sci-fi and fantasy together in a way that, to me at least, is more than the sum of it's parts. I feel that combat is pretty fast-paced, and no class is lacking in either combat or social interactions. Warrior classes finally feel like they have enough skill points to actually do stuff. Of course, to some, 4 might not be much. But as someone who mainly played Fighters and Barbarians, that's a lot more than I'm used to.
2. What would you change?
I'd overhaul most of the starship rules, as well as change what DCs are needed for certain actions, like healing. I'll be honest, I haven't played starship combat, but I'm a little intimidated by it and have thus far been avoiding it. I'd also like some more vehicles and vehicle combat stuff. Aside from that, mostly editing issues and some errata making things clearer.
3. Is there anything you wouldn't want to change?
I'm pretty happy with most of the other stuff. At first I wasn't too sure about leveled equipment, but I ended up enjoying it quite a bit. I'm also a big fan of the single type of currency in the form of Credits. Much easier to keep track of versus needing to keep track of copper, silver, and gold. Sure, UPBs are a thing as well, but it's still a lot easier due to the 1-to-1 conversion.
1. What do you like about the current edition?
The rules are close enough to 3.5 and PF that I didn't feel like I had to do a lot of work to figure out how to play, but far enough away and in a completely new setting where it still feels like I'm playing a completely new game. They fixed a lot of my long time issues with 3.5 (some were fixed in PF, but my group didn't really switch). The setting is amazing. It sits in a unique head space, in that the only roleplaying games that are remotely similar are Star Wars, Shadowrun, Serenity, and possibly GURPS/RIFTS with some GMs. But, while I love the stories/settings in those games, I tend to hate the rules. The setting, in contrast, is completely open ended. You can play corporate (or anti-corporate) operatives a la Shadowrun or fantasy space wizards a la Star Wars, or both, at the same table, in the same game/story and make it all work pretty seamlessly (unlike RIFTS). Also Bantrids, Scyphozoans, Barathu, Morlamaw, and Astrazoans. I mean, seven-legged, knee-eyed, hermaphroditic, shape-shifting, space star-fish. What's not to love about that?
2. What would you change?
I would have more thoroughly embraced the 'undead are people too' part of the story and made corpsefolk, ghouls, and bone troopers playable. I probably would have added a more magical class or two, in spite of the risks, something like a sorcerer and/or oracle, and a lot more spells/magic items. We could also use a more nature/primitive oriented class; something like a cross between ranger (sans spells) and barbarian, for all the 'savages' we'll be coming across. I would have liked a little more fantasy in my science-fantasy game. In addition to what we got in the AA, I probably would have done a full on Bestiary with most of the iconic PF Bestiary 1 monsters and also probably 20-60 pages of tables for 'generic large herbivores', 'small flying creatures' or the like. Stuff to populate random planets with. The AA gave us rules to create our own, but if I had time for that, I wouldn't be buying books. I'd also like to see class/feat/archetype options that made non-Operative small arm wielders more viable. It's part of the trope. Plus, it's weird to see literally everyone that isn't an Operative walking around with rifles all the time. I probably would prefer the PF2 action economy, as, on paper, it looks both better and easier, but I've yet to play it to be sure. Starship combat and vehicle chases probably could have used another couple passes.
3. Is there anything you wouldn't want to change?
The new way they're managing alignment. All the stuff in the 'I like' section above. The game balance between players and monsters is much better. Combat feels real and dangerous for me for the first time in like 20 years.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Putting aside the confusion of inquiring about a second edition of a game you have yet to play...
1. What do you like about the current edition?
An incredible amount. The classes, which on first glance seemed too specific turned out to be remarkably broad and flexible. Skill system is great (and I think I prefer it to PF2). Feats are solid & worthwhile. No feat taxes that I've noticed. Combat is more fluid and has more meaningful choices than PF1. Starship rules are good but see below. The willingness to incorporate alien races as playable species is great.
The setting is incredible. Science fantasy allows for pretty much any concept you can come up with for a story/adventure. While I don't want your standard tavern to resemble the Mos Eisley cantina in Pathfinder, it totally works in Starfinder. When you literally have the whole galaxy to play with, there's room for just about anything without sharing Pathfinder's risk of thematically going off the rails.
2. What would you change?
Very little at present as I expect most of my criticisms will be addressed in future supplements. Vehicles and how they're built and how top speeds are specified makes the list. Some are just too slow for no apparent reason.
Lower tier projectile guns seem to have limited rounds/magazines for no real reason.
Starships need expansion material, not major changes/rewrites.
I'd really like expansions for starship operations as well - trading, operating, crewing a ship, etc. I don't need it to be a Traveller-style economic sim, but for a "keep flying" style campaign I'd like to do more than rely on GM fiat or handwavium.
I'd like to see Ultimate Campaign style expansions for building, downtime, and kingdom/settlement/colony building.
3. Is there anything you wouldn't want to change?
Again, I'm seeking expansions, not rewrites. I'm still learning the system but I haven't found anything broken, so keep what's currently there.
Honestly, Starfinder is simultaneously scratching my Pathfinder tactical play, Gamemaster "I have so many ideas", my "Science Fiction is my 1st love", and my "Star Frontiers was my 1st RPG" nostalgia itches. It is, hands-down, the most fun I've had with a RPG in maybe...forever. Yes, it's that good, IMO.
Skill system is great (and I think I prefer it to PF2).
From what little I know about PF2e's skill system so far, I'm likely to agree with you. I'm not sure the differences in the playtest are wide enough between someone that's supposed to be 'the best' at something versus someone just barely trained in it. I think their's is easier, certainly, but I would prefer at this point not to adopt it at all.
Skill system is great (and I think I prefer it to PF2).From what little I know about PF2e's skill system so far, I'm likely to agree with you. I'm not sure the differences in the playtest are wide enough between someone that's supposed to be 'the best' at something versus someone just barely trained in it. I think their's is easier, certainly, but I would prefer at this point not to adopt it at all.
I haven't played PF2e, but I have watched several videos of it being played. One of the gripes I noticed and heard from a player was that skills are very high now. So even at relatively low levels, you'll be rolling in the 20's regularly. Even skills you don't really train will be relatively high from a PF1e standpoint.
Whether that's bad or not, I'm not going to judge myself. The DC for things have been increased as well, I believe. I personally don't see the point in that aside from, "Hey look! High numbers!"
Skill system is great (and I think I prefer it to PF2).From what little I know about PF2e's skill system so far, I'm likely to agree with you. I'm not sure the differences in the playtest are wide enough between someone that's supposed to be 'the best' at something versus someone just barely trained in it. I think their's is easier, certainly, but I would prefer at this point not to adopt it at all.
I haven't played PF2e, but I have watched several videos of it being played. One of the gripes I noticed and heard from a player was that skills are very high now. So even at relatively low levels, you'll be rolling in the 20's regularly. Even skills you don't really train will be relatively high from a PF1e standpoint.
Whether that's bad or not, I'm not going to judge myself. The DC for things have been increased as well, I believe. I personally don't see the point in that aside from, "Hey look! High numbers!"
I think I mentioned in one of the other SF threads on the PF2 skills.
To get a better idea, there's two sides of complaint. On the one, your minimum skills are essentially at level-3 at all times ehich people complain because they can't be "bad at something". On the flipside, the high end of skills hovers around the 50% success rate at full investment, not including item modifiers of which there are very very few. The raw points difference between untrained and legendary is 5 points without attributes (which go up just like Starfinder's so there's plenty of boosts to go around and diversify) or items, so there's a weird dissonance where people either feel you're too good at everything and/or not good enough at your hyper-specialized activities.
Honestly, I defend both ends cause I get what they were going for. Rather than numbers being the focus they wanted uses, but while the framework is there it isn't fleshed out enough in the playtest. Plus the four degrees of success throw a wrench in things with natural ones and twenties being automatic critical in most cases. Though while I defend it, that doesn't mean I like it. I'd have preferred a bounded system closer to 5e's where things go up every few levels rather than tie most values directly to level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't played Starfinder. Getting really interested, though.
1. What do you like about the current edition?
The campaign setting. The way they incorporated starships.
2. What would you change?
The WBL/equipment-by-tier system.
I'd make player's ships increase at 1/2 APL rate (capping out at tier ten) - the idea of the starship getting better and better and better over a storyline just doesn't fit with my science fiction tastes. I can picture the crew tinkering and gradually improving the ship, but a tier 20 light freight being better than a tier 15 battleship is just odd for me. I'd have preferred the 11-20 tier being for "NPC" ships.
3. Is there anything you wouldn't want to change?
I love the "monsters are not PCs" approach which many object to (including the fact that NPCs hit more often but die quicker). I wouldn't go back to a system which tried to present monsters/PCs as being mechanically the same.
I really like Stamina/HPs (or any similar system of tiredness vs wounds). It's just enough abstraction for me whilst still making a distinction. (I kind of wish each wound was 3/4 stamina 1/4 hit points or something rather than treating stamina as a kind of shield - I find it really weird that a healer is totally meaningless for the first few rounds of a firefight - then suddenly everyone's heavily wounded). I think going back to just hit points would be a real downer, though.
I haven't played Starfinder. Getting really interested, though.1. What do you like about the current edition?
Personally, I like the setting. It's interesting and my table has a lot of fun. What I like most, though people disagree, is the open-ness of character building. Most of the classes don't have specific by-level abilities, opting for choices. This means for the most part no two characters are alike, even among the same class. This flexibility also means you add more to the game providing new class options like Envoy Improvisations compared to adding new full classes.
Yes, I noticed that in Pathfinder. This is probably why I like playing spell casters. Gives me more of a chance to differentiate my character.
This specific by-level ability thing is probably why most group don't want to have two characters of the same class. I never realized that issue was exposing a game design limitation.
2. What would you change?
There are what I'll call Pathfinder 1-isms. Rules-wise Starfinder falls in the middle of where Pathfinder 1 is ending and the Playtest is beginning. One area where this can be seen is abilities that mention a target's Int score. An example is Wildwise needing Int 1 or 2. The monster entries though are not written in a format that gives those scores, so you have abilities asking for things that aren't provided.
There are also various exploits and loopholes in the system due to hasty writing (likely repeated changes as well) and poor editing. An example is the cost of Fusions. You can purchase most fusions for a fraction of their cost and transfer due to poorly thought out equipment rules. Some see this as a feature, I strongly disagree and can point to how fusions gain power with levels.
EDIT: I forgot. Give Solarians like, 2 more skill points a level. They need them badly for the role they're expected to fill in Starship combat. They also recieve things like 2 free class skills of choice and 6 skills over the course of their levels that get a cool Insight bonus, but then not enough points to actually take advantage of them.
Other people have raised issues with the editing.
3. Is there anything you wouldn't want to change?
Most of my changes fall to editing and FAQs, so really I like the game as it is.
EDIT: Barring the edit I had to add.
Overall, even with it's flaws, I feel the same way about Pathfinder. I'm really just fine with it the way it is. The material are the best I've ever had. Hope Paizo's listening to the editing comments, though.
So, how would you feel about Pathfinder 2nd Edition (PF2) changes being applied to a Starfinder 2nd Editon, once PF2 is finalized?
Don't need it?
Hoping it will help improve Starfinder?
I haven't played Starfinder. Getting really interested, though.
1. What do you like about the current edition?
2. What would you change?
3. Is there anything you wouldn't want to change?
1) The Gap. Long story short, up until about 400 years ago, though an unexplained supernatural event, all historical accounts and memories were wiped, "resetting" the galaxy if you will. This is narrative genius for two reasons. The first is that it allows starfinder to ditch any baggage lore-wise from pathfinder (and not spoil any future events). The other is, that it creates a "clean slate" of a galaxy where there are so many unknowns, anything can happen or crop up and more or less seem reasonable. This makes starfinder - dare I say, perfect for homebrew shenanigans and custom settings.
2) The game is too crunchy and constraining with it's rules. Starfinder and by extension pathfinder, feel like a video game where you have to adhere to a rigid set of defined parameters that at times, seem completely arbitrary.
But what really gets me is that because of the very "programmed" nature of the rules, they interact with many other rules at once and and it's very daunting for newer players to try and keep track of making all of those little "pathfinder-ism" cogs to mesh together. There are way too many references to other rules in the book that make players have to flip to one or more other pages to fully understand the nature of an interaction, which is really inconvenient and slows down the game. If not overhauled entirely to minimize inter-dependencies, the rules at least need to be more concise and organized better if they are so important to follow closely.
3) What I wouldn't change is how alignment is handled: That it basically doesn't matter. What makes any argument of morality compelling is the inherently subjective and fuzzy nature of morality. Putting clear labels on morality defeats the point of it. I'm glad it's dead.
Kids these days!
Gotta get used to the shorter attention span!