Starfinder Second Edition


General Discussion

51 to 100 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Steve Geddes wrote:


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.

This is... actually... pretty good idea. I'm going to steal it...


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I haven’t tried it yet, but I was going to revert to the original starship DCs if I did.


Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

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?

That's a little trickier since PF2 isn't finalized yet. We don't know which aspects will be dropped or carried forward.

Now, it is important to note my case on PF2. I really like D&D 5e. I'd put it in my top 3 tabletop games with Scion: Hero and Pathfinder/Starfinder (labelling them as one entity since same universe and basic ruleset). In terms of Pathfinder 1e I have my complaints, and I had a whole thread on them in the weeks leading to the Playtest announcement.

Starfinder fixed some of these things. Feat bloat being a big one, the rapid fall off of disease and poisons, the necessity of the "big six" magic items. These were healthy for the game as a whole.

Pathfinder 2e has tried to adopt some of the D&D 5e framework, whether they claim to not have stolen it or not. The problem I have with it is how they've tried to put their own twist on it. In the positive, Starfinder's class diversity of options is now paralleled in PF2, but I would have liked to see them go further with it. The Unchained action economy is there, but I feel it has some flaws.

On the negative. Personally I wish they had taken more from 5e. Movement feels stilted and chess-like. I'd rather it like 5e, where you move up to your speed divided how you will on your turn. Basically give everyone Shot on the Run, though there's risk since you'd lack Mobility. If you are going to do a bounded system, don't tie it directly to level. I know players of Paizo products like their big numbers, but I think it would be healthier, especially in a system where the numbers difference between untrained and legendary is +5, if things went up maybe every 4 levels. This would make it that the difference between level 1 and 20 would also be +5, so Legendary would numbers wise be twice as good. Make the power come not from numbers advantage but from new abilities and uses.

Starfinder is kind of like an awkward middle child. I like it, cause most of it kind of falls into place. Action economy may help it a little bit, but they changed Full Attacks already, so it wouldn't really work without backtracking Starfinder to be more like Pathfinder. They made it hard to stack up bonuses to keep numbers in check, but still used the Pathfinder framework when calculating their big numbers. As much as I like 5e, I don't want to see Starfinder become 5e in space.

As said though, PF2 is not finalized. Its finished product may have more that warrants discussion.


Steve Geddes wrote:
I haven’t tried it yet, but I was going to revert to the original starship DCs if I did.

I like static DCs more, and I'm going to use those for many things in my own homerules.

A high tier racer ship should not have more problems to do a flip and burn than a low tier racer ship, in my opinion. And certainly it should not have more problems than a low tier bulk freighter.


Gorbacz wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
I haven't played Starfinder. Getting really interested, though.
What, you've started a thread about a second edition of a game you didn't play? :D

Ironic isn't it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
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).

Its far to early for sf2 especially as PF2 is taking a lot of SF mechanics


This can't possibly be a serious post?? It's been out what? a year? And OP predicts 2.0 will be out "shortly after pf2 release" which is 2019. So in less than 2 years OP seriously expects an SF 2.0? I don't know the intricacies of paizo's forum community, but I'm going to take the OP as a troll.

Also, someone mentioned they wish that Paizo would pay more attention to SF? Not sure where this is coming from. In a year, we've gotten armory, pact worlds, alien archive, a full AP, 2 SFS scenarios a month (iirc, correct me if I'm wrong). Perhaps I'm not hardcore enough, but I've got plenty to play SF especially with 2 more AP's (albeit shorter) on the horizon, next season of society and BB. I'm pretty stoked at the direction SF is going, and have to admit it might be creeping up as my favorite sci-fi system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bonebrah wrote:
Also, someone mentioned they wish that Paizo would pay more attention to SF? Not sure where this is coming from. In a year, we've gotten armory, pact worlds, alien archive, a full AP, 2 SFS scenarios a month (iirc, correct me if I'm wrong). Perhaps I'm not hardcore enough, but I've got plenty to play SF especially with 2 more AP's (albeit shorter) on the horizon, next season of society and BB. I'm pretty stoked at the direction SF is going, and have to admit it might be creeping up as my favorite sci-fi system.

I said that SF needed more attention. But pumping out book after book isn't what I was talking about it. It needs more attention in the editing department. It needs more attention in figuring out the starship and vehicle combat. I would rather have one very well done book a year instead of multiple, lesser quality ones that they then have to go back over later to fix parts of.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Any updates on this?


No


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Starfinder only just came out, it would be insane to even consider a second edition so early. Why would anyone spend money on an RPG if the developers are the sort to decide on a new edition after only two years?


Milo v3 wrote:
Starfinder only just came out, it would be insane to even consider a second edition so early. Why would anyone spend money on an RPG if the developers are the sort to decide on a new edition after only two years?

It's happened before. I tend not to buy those.

Silver Crusade

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

~10 years is usually a solid life cycle of an edition. Look to SF2 around then.

Wayfinders

New player here, but long time gamer [40+ years]. New editions of successful games cost a great deal of goodwill to the companies involved. I will point out a comparison of two successful games that reflect opposite views: Warhammer [40k too] and Battletech. Battletech still uses the same basic ruleset from it's beginning 35 years ago. You can literally pick up a rulebook from 1984 and the rules are the same. New weapons and tech has been added, but they have not alienated their players. Games Workshop thinks nothing of constant revisions, forcing players to spend their entire budget as units and armies are made obsolete or even written out of play! You will hear any gamestore tell how many folks used to play 40k or WHF and got out due to being fed up.
D%D's multiple editions and the changes with PF2 hopefully can be a wake up to Paizo to not alienate players with not needed changes, it might be better in the long run to say, "Okay this rule isn't perfect, but we can live with it."


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It took them 10 years to make a 2nd edition on what had been a 16 year old system. Pathfinder started by not constantly going with new editions like DnD chose.

There's not really anything to wake up to.

Wayfinders

Thank you, I just heard several folks on another forum who were saddened by the change on PF2. As I never played PF, were the changes so drastic?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In a way yes, too much to describe in one post but basically instead of ranks you use profiency and it grows more naturally in things, attacking, casting, AC, Saves, skills.

So everything flows it feels like rather than a treadmill you have to build on.

Also everybody gets different kinds of feats to customize their character. Not a lot with how few books we have at the moment but they are growing with each book.

It's a different edition, not a completely different game though.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I would rather see a Pathfinder 3.0, than a Starfinder 2.0.

Starfinder is what Pathfinder 2.0 should have been.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DeaconKC wrote:

New player here, but long time gamer [40+ years]. New editions of successful games cost a great deal of goodwill to the companies involved. I will point out a comparison of two successful games that reflect opposite views: Warhammer [40k too] and Battletech. Battletech still uses the same basic ruleset from it's beginning 35 years ago. You can literally pick up a rulebook from 1984 and the rules are the same. New weapons and tech has been added, but they have not alienated their players. Games Workshop thinks nothing of constant revisions, forcing players to spend their entire budget as units and armies are made obsolete or even written out of play! You will hear any gamestore tell how many folks used to play 40k or WHF and got out due to being fed up.

D%D's multiple editions and the changes with PF2 hopefully can be a wake up to Paizo to not alienate players with not needed changes, it might be better in the long run to say, "Okay this rule isn't perfect, but we can live with it."

D&D 5e is the most successful edition of the game and it's a major departure from the edition before (as well as previous ones).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WhiteWeasel wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

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....

When Good,Evil,Law,Chaos, and Neutrality, are real tangible forces rather than just opinions on behavior, Alignment(which would be bettered term Allegiance) makes complete since.


Wow... Impressive thread necromancy.


If anything, I would rather see a Starfinder-light, perhaps using the ruleset from the beginner box, and even going a bit further.

A "theatre of the mind Starfinder". That is essentially what our group plays, but the crunchiness of the system makes it difficult to use at such basic level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A "revised starships" would probably be enough. The rest of Starfinder is ok for several more years but the starship rules really need an update.

But if there is a SF2 please put more thought into the setting and use more believable numbers and consider the effects of science fiction technology (or heck at least technology as it is exists now in the real world) on the setting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

All I really need is a Starfinder Unchained type book that gives optional rules for swapping in a bunch of the PF2 stuff. It's actually quite doable, based on my tinkering with house rules.

Throw in some guidelines on how to convert things from APs (DCs, items) and you got a pretty invaluable book.

I'd love to see the skill system from PF2 brought over, at the very least.

The other option is to have a Starfinder add-on book for PF2. That way you can use all the setting stuff from Starfinder, but almost all the rules of PF2. This is honestly probably a lot more likely to happen.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I like starfinder the way it is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have a personal strong dislike for certain mechanical elements of PF2e and will never under any circumstances play that particular system.

Starfinder isn't perfect, but that isn't a direction I want to see it move in.


I don't see the necessity of a 2nd edition right now, but I would like to get more rules. For instance, the Vangard class will also introduce shields.

The only thing I'm salty about the current rules is the lack of actual multiweapon fighting...

4 arms? You can make 4 attacks as a full-attack action, but each roll has a -8 penalty. (-2 per limb)

6 arms? You can make 6 attacks as a full-attack action, but each roll has a -12 penalty.

Like, it would be pointless, but you can certainly try, and it would be at least available. I'd rather have a "discouraging" option than no option at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Uchuujin wrote:
Wow... Impressive thread necromancy.

I know, right?

Look, we settled this a YEAR ago: Starfinder has a total of eight completed hardcovers and only six of them have actually been released. The game is BARELY two years old. Most of the very minor problems that Starfinder has can be solved with some very slight shifts or at most minor surgery in the form of Starfinder Unchained. Pathfinder Unchained came a little too late in the game's lifecycle to solve the huge problems that releasing fifteen Archetypes every month and a new mechanic every hardcover had caused but it an Unchained book would be great for Starfinder eventually. We wouldn't need that book for at least three more years. Certainly not right now.

Starfinder's issues right now can be solved with, like, a new print run of core and/or some alternate rules for Starships...in a book for Starships that they're totally gonna make anyway at some point.

I do not understand why this thread was necroed or why some people seem honestly to think that creating one Second Edition means we're going to get a new edition for every game system every year.

For god's sake, we're only just now getting prepainted minis for this game and the less said about that the better.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
thecursor wrote:
I do not understand why this thread was necroed or why some people seem honestly to think that creating one Second Edition means we're going to get a new edition for every game system every year.

Different people like different things.

For me, it’s too early for a second edition but three years for “SF Unchained” is too far away.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
DeaconKC wrote:
Thank you, I just heard several folks on another forum who were saddened by the change on PF2. As I never played PF, were the changes so drastic?

The changes are absolutely huge, but whether they're a good or a bad thing is a matter of taste. Personally I'm really liking PF2. Looking at it, a lot of Starfinder looks like spinoff from research into PF2.

- Starfinder and Pathfinder 2 both consolidate the skill list
- They both guide the GM with skill DCs appropriate to particular levels, but the Pathfinder 2 ones are much better balanced between classes. Starfinder has a big imbalance in how skills scale between operatives and soldiers/solarians.
- Both of the games have gotten rid of having a mandatory healing character in the party (PF2 has Treat Wounds, Starfinder has Stamina).
- Both of them use pseudo "per encounter" powers: Starfinder has a lot of "can't use this again until you recover Stamina", PF2 uses Focus Points for those.
- It's easier to have ranged attacks in both of them; Starfinder got rid of Precise Shot and gave everyone gun proficiencies, PF2 makes it easier to get cantrips that do decent ranged damage and can be used all day.
- Both of them have a cleaned up action economy. No more "not an action-action" 5ft step stuff. PF2 copies the Reaction concept from Starfinder, but goes further by getting rid of the differences between Move, Standard and Full actions. The three-action economy is the one thing almost everyone loves about PF2, even the people who hate everything else.
- Both of them drastically remove the number of Attacks of Opportunity that happen, making combat more mobile.
- Both of them have much more calibrated to hit/AC math that makes it far easier for the GM to get to the sweet spot with combats.
- Starfinder already increases the typical amount of skill points compared to PF1 fighters, sorcerers etcetera; but PF2 goes even further in making most classes skilled enough that everyone gets to play a role in skill challenge encounters.

So yeah, big drastic changes but I rather like them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
thecursor wrote:
I do not understand why this thread was necroed or why some people seem honestly to think that creating one Second Edition means we're going to get a new edition for every game system every year.

Different people like different things.

For me, it’s too early for a second edition but three years for “SF Unchained” is too far away.

I must be one of those different people. I'm seeing this from a different angle. I would personally like a consolidation of the Pathfinder and Starfinder rule systems so that most elements can be shared between the two with no need for conversion. Not just monsters but classes and everything in-between.

For me, the main reason is that the homebrew campaign setting I am currently working on is set in Earth's near future which I was initially basing upon the Starfinder ruleset. Then came Pathfinder 2E and it spoiled me with the changes it did with the 3 action economy and the way criticals work. Both of these fit in perfectly with my campaign setting. So, I have dropped the Starfinder ruleset and am now using Pathfinder 2E with bits borrowed from Starfinder.

So for purely selfish reasons I would love Starfinder 2E as long as it uses the same ruleset from Pathfinder 2E. Realistically, I would imagine Paizo are way too busy at the moment with Pathfinder 2E to have anything ready by Gencon 2020. Maybe by Gencon 2021, and at that stage it will be 4 years between Starfinder editions. I imagine that may be still too soon for some, but for me I wish it could be sooner.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

My 2 cents. I enjoy SF a lot and do not want a second edition. Maybe in 10 or 15 years, but I doubt it. I really like what I have now. I look forward to whats coming. Some updates to the FAQ/errata would be nice.


Yeah it would be nice to know when the FAQ/errata is coming, even if it's just a Soon™. There's some rules that really need clarification on how they're intended to work, other that really need improvements.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps Subscriber
Wzrd wrote:
So for purely selfish reasons I would love Starfinder 2E as long as it uses the same ruleset from Pathfinder 2E. Realistically, I would imagine Paizo are way too busy at the moment with Pathfinder 2E to have anything ready by Gencon 2020. Maybe by Gencon 2021, and at that stage it will be 4 years between Starfinder editions. I imagine that may be still too soon for some, but for me I wish it could be sooner.

As much as I would like to unite the two systems, I would not adopt everything from PF2 into Starfinder. I like having a ton of quirky race options from the very beginning, and am still adapting to how PF2 handles ancestry feats. I don't think it would handle the truly weird Starfinder races very well.

Also, I would have liked to see PF2 adopt Starfinder's Stamina system. I am still scratching my head over the question of why they did not.

My dream would be Starfinder's ruleset combined with PF2's action economy.

Hmm

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hmm wrote:
As much as I would like to unite the two systems, I would not adopt everything from PF2 into Starfinder. I like having a ton of quirky race options from the very beginning, and am still adapting to how PF2 handles ancestry feats. I don't think it would handle the truly weird Starfinder races very well.

I think it'd be doable enough to do weird races in StarPathfinder. I'm actually a little overwhelmed by just how many new races Starfinder has pushed (about 100 playable races so far). Many of them have about 1 page of fluff and a sidebar with crunch.

Pathfinder 2 seems to focus more on investing in depth on races; each ancestry is several pages of material, with the possibility of further extension with more ancestry feats down the line.

The modularity of Pathfinder 2 ancestries could actually work quite well for Starfinder as well, and the setup pushes writers not to try to just put in a short shallow sketch of a race.

So my dream would be maybe 30 playable races but each of them with three times the amount of content that a Starfinder race typically gets right now.

Hmm wrote:
Also, I would have liked to see PF2 adopt Starfinder's Stamina system. I am still scratching my head over the question of why they did not.

Well Stamina doesn't just come on its own. It brings with it:

- A split in which class heals damage and which one heals stamina. (I like this, but some others hate it.)
- Resolve points. I think they're great because they give every class a clock that ticks down to needing long rest, instead of only the spellcasters.
- Abilities powered by resolve (like Channel Energy); basically all forms of healing either cost Resolve, or can't be used until the next time you spend Resolve to regain stamina (Inspiring Boost).
- Building off that, other abilities that are "once in between rests".
- Other abilities that spend Resolve.
- (Also: batteries. Limited but rechargeable.)

Don't get me wrong, I think it's brilliant. It limits the amount of power you can spend in just one fight, while giving you power in multiple encounters. So it quite elegantly circumvents the PF1 tendency towards 15 minute adventuring days. Steady countdown instead of one nova from 100 to 0.

Pathfinder 2 achieves much of the same though:
- Treat Wounds means that hit points are a "per encounter" pool, not a "per day" pool.
- Focus Points give you per encounter powers, but with the ability to hotwire one ability more if you really need it; but it's hard to get back more than one per encounter.
- Cantrips that can be used all day. This slows down casters running out of juice.
- Hero Points are also somewhat tied to how much you do in a day. A day with many encounters probably takes several sessions and therefore involves hero point refills. Hero Points are decoupled from stats so no more agony for solarians and envoys who can't really afford a healthy-resolve-high charisma.
- Pathfinder 2 has a really extensive 10 minute economy. Lots of 10m stuff may be needed after a fight. Banging out shields, treating wounds, examining loot, thorough searching, item identification etc.

I think they're both valid solutions. I'd say Pathfinder 2 invests more in "time as an essential resource", where as a GM you can twist the screws by reducing how much time you can spend in between encounters. In Starfinder it's either nothing, 10m or long rest. On the other hand, Stamina is less bossy in what skills absolutely must be present in the party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Honestly, it sounds like the real advantage Starfinder has is that it uses *one* unified power mechanic ( Resolve ), rather than multiple separate ones. I know some people hate Resolve, but it neatly avoids the issue of proliferating power pools. Consider how many of the "new" classes added to Pathfinder over time had some form of power pool.

If I were designing Starfinder from scratch, I'd almost be inclined to go even further, and get rid of *spell slots*. Have the caster classes divide their spells into a "At Will", "Per Short Rest", and "Per Long Rest" arrangement. Higher levels don't give you more spells per se, they upgrade spell levels along that continuum. Maybe have a "Per Long Rest + Resolve Cost" level at the top, and/or a "Cast A Spell An Extra Time By Spending Resolve" mechanic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Resolve as anything but a health management mechanic was a total flop for my group. We all actively avoid options with a Resolve cost unless it directly relates to HP or avoiding death.

That's another reason I'd love to get a PF2 addon for Starfinder conversion.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
WatersLethe wrote:

Resolve as anything but a health management mechanic was a total flop for my group. We all actively avoid options with a Resolve cost unless it directly relates to HP or avoiding death.

That's another reason I'd love to get a PF2 addon for Starfinder conversion.

Me and my group enjoy Starfinder, however they did comment on how resolve is tied to both health and special ability source and would rather have had them separate. I, for one, like it how it is. Resolve is a valuable resource, use it wisely.

Sovereign Court

WatersLethe wrote:

Resolve as anything but a health management mechanic was a total flop for my group. We all actively avoid options with a Resolve cost unless it directly relates to HP or avoiding death.

That's another reason I'd love to get a PF2 addon for Starfinder conversion.

I dunno, as you get higher level and have like 11 resolve lying around, and don't need to spend more than a point every two fights or so to regain stamina, you start looking for other things to spend it on.

I kinda like the thrill of "well I might need this to survive later, but I want to use it now to defeat enemies faster..."

Wayfinders

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I spend resolve freely. There are so many great things to do with it.

  • I love to do an improved Get 'Em on the entire room early in a fight with lots of baddies. It allows everyone a chance to get the benefit, and spread attacks to the targets that make sense to them.

  • Ooh, broadsides as a gunner. So awesome!

    I'll admit that I carefully measure the way I use resolve to decide if the expenditure is worth it. Some things that cost resolve I look at and say, "Nope. Not doing that." Other things are so much fun. With most SFS adventures, you can budget for how much resolve to use and get a good sense of how much you can use it. In specials like 1-99 & 2-00 it can be harder to budget, because there are sooo many encounters. Still, I ended each with 2 resolve left by the end, and was happy that I spent as freely as I did.


  • Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    My own judgement, after having run for a while now, is that if the players legitimately have to worry about running out of Resolve all the time, you are probably overtuning your combat encounters, either in difficulty or number. The "average" fight should be costing the PCs little or nothing in the way of Resolve. If it is, you are putting the PCs through a grinder of overly-hard battles. This is not necessarily a bad thing, if the plot justifies it, but it is not always justified. If the players are learning survival methods adapted for a non-stop stream of CR +3 fights, these are not going to be useful or indicative of the larger game.


    Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
    Charli Poshkettle wrote:

    I spend resolve freely. There are so many great things to do with it.

  • I love to do an improved Get 'Em on the entire room early in a fight with lots of baddies. It allows everyone a chance to get the benefit, and spread attacks to the targets that make sense to them.

  • Ooh, broadsides as a gunner. So awesome!

    I'll admit that I carefully measure the way I use resolve to decide if the expenditure is worth it. Some things that cost resolve I look at and say, "Nope. Not doing that." Other things are so much fun. With most SFS adventures, you can budget for how much resolve to use and get a good sense of how much you can use it. In specials like 1-99 & 2-00 it can be harder to budget, because there are sooo many encounters. Still, I ended each with 2 resolve left by the end, and was happy that I spent as freely as I did.

  • I am also playing an envoy who spends resolve points freely. Of course, he started out at 7th level (as I was the GM for levels 1-6) and began play with 10 resolve points, so I never got into the habit of conserving them. I may rethink that if he ever takes significant hit point damage.


    I hope the COM introduces more ways to spend Resolve Points, not only in class-specific abilities or feats. Something like the "use 1 hero point to reroll a check" from PF2.


    Hey! :)
    I pretty much like point-based games like Fate. In SF/PF I tried to introduce a wider and freeform-ish way to use "virtual money", but in the end you always and up making stuff out of mindset, which is basically ANOTHER players' aid, not a PCs in game storytelling / tech driven aid, as it should be. I can get "spend to reroll", I can get... I enhance professions by allowing PCs declaring once per session a person/contact related to it.

    About recovering them, it should be hard as it is. This is not a pulpy,cinematic game. It is even relatively "mid-rangy" in terms of technology. Adding a full fledged and ever returning pool of points wouls drastically change its mindset.

    I wouldn't focus too much on making Resolve Greater; in PF they are pretty limited as well and it's fine. I added the reroll option in starfinder, as well.

    It should be a very limited thing, and it's not a limit, but a feature, clearly intended to create resource management, a killer app in Starfinder imho.

    Dark Archive

    I'm looking forward to an Unchained Solarian in a few years(wishful thinking, I know), maybe plug something into those dead levels. No arbitrary "balance" aspect with the whole Photon/Graviton stuff. More options for damage type other than fire?

    WatersLethe wrote:

    Resolve as anything but a health management mechanic was a total flop for my group. We all actively avoid options with a Resolve cost unless it directly relates to HP or avoiding death.

    That's another reason I'd love to get a PF2 addon for Starfinder conversion.

    Same here, I hate Resolve fueled class options and feats. I'm not trying to use my "Can I make it through the day alive?" pool to do cool tricks. Hard to be frivolous with those points when you didn't max out your Charisma and you're constantly being dropped in combat from being the only person not behind cover the entire time.


    My opinion is we will see before a new spin-off, and whose genre could be a mixture gothic horror, urban fantasy, weird western and pulp fiction.

    Sovereign Court

    Zero the Nothing wrote:

    I'm looking forward to an Unchained Solarian in a few years(wishful thinking, I know), maybe plug something into those dead levels. No arbitrary "balance" aspect with the whole Photon/Graviton stuff. More options for damage type other than fire?

    WatersLethe wrote:

    Resolve as anything but a health management mechanic was a total flop for my group. We all actively avoid options with a Resolve cost unless it directly relates to HP or avoiding death.

    That's another reason I'd love to get a PF2 addon for Starfinder conversion.

    Same here, I hate Resolve fueled class options and feats. I'm not trying to use my "Can I make it through the day alive?" pool to do cool tricks. Hard to be frivolous with those points when you didn't max out your Charisma and you're constantly being dropped in combat from being the only person not behind cover the entire time.

    I think this is a problem with the Solarian being MAD and their resolve stat not doing enough for them apart from resolve.

    Operatives, soldiers, mystics.. plenty of resolve. Their resolve stat is the same stat they use to attack, the stat you want to max. Max Dex, Dex/Str or Wis. So a level 1 soldier, mystic or operative can expect to have 4-5 resolve while a solarian has 1-3. By level 10 the difference has flattened a bit though, say 11-12 vs. 9-11.

    As for "frivolous" tricks or survival, compare that to Pathfinder (1) clerics: should they reserve all their spells for healing, or use some spells to win fights faster and give monsters less time to deal damage?

    So yeah, a resolve ability does need to be good enough to be worth it, but as a player you have to weigh risks instead of categorically avoiding them.


    Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Ascalaphus wrote:
    Zero the Nothing wrote:

    I'm looking forward to an Unchained Solarian in a few years(wishful thinking, I know), maybe plug something into those dead levels. No arbitrary "balance" aspect with the whole Photon/Graviton stuff. More options for damage type other than fire?

    WatersLethe wrote:

    Resolve as anything but a health management mechanic was a total flop for my group. We all actively avoid options with a Resolve cost unless it directly relates to HP or avoiding death.

    That's another reason I'd love to get a PF2 addon for Starfinder conversion.

    Same here, I hate Resolve fueled class options and feats. I'm not trying to use my "Can I make it through the day alive?" pool to do cool tricks. Hard to be frivolous with those points when you didn't max out your Charisma and you're constantly being dropped in combat from being the only person not behind cover the entire time.

    I think this is a problem with the Solarian being MAD and their resolve stat not doing enough for them apart from resolve.

    Operatives, soldiers, mystics.. plenty of resolve. Their resolve stat is the same stat they use to attack, the stat you want to max. Max Dex, Dex/Str or Wis. So a level 1 soldier, mystic or operative can expect to have 4-5 resolve while a solarian has 1-3. By level 10 the difference has flattened a bit though, say 11-12 vs. 9-11.

    As for "frivolous" tricks or survival, compare that to Pathfinder (1) clerics: should they reserve all their spells for healing, or use some spells to win fights faster and give monsters less time to deal damage?

    So yeah, a resolve ability does need to be good enough to be worth it, but as a player you have to weigh risks instead of categorically avoiding them.

    All true, but there's also the aspect of opportunity costs to consider. Like, you can spend a feat for the ability to spend a resolve point to do something, or you could spend a feat for a bonus that's always there, and you get to still have all your resolve available to not die.

    When comparing options that you haven't done the math on, it's pretty easy to justify ignoring non-health Resolve abilities when you know for sure that using them directly correlates with your likelihood of death, and at some point you're going to be locked out of using the Resolve ability based on whatever dire straits your resolve pool is in.

    Maybe it's illogical, or mathematically inferior, to ignore lots of resolve abilities, but having a nice big resolve buffer is a nice psychological boon.

    For what it's worth, there are quite a few Resolve abilities that are good and useful to me, they just are primarily about not dying. If there was a big push to make more non-health related Resolve abilities, it would largely be irrelevant to me and my group. I just think Resolve is best suited for health management, and things like Focus are better utility pools.


    It was funny how this post was revised from the dead. I am GMing a couple of Starfinder games and playing a PF2E game and I don't think the flaws in Starfinder are big enough to warrant a new edition anytime soon.

    Sovereign Court

    WatersLethe wrote:
    Ascalaphus wrote:
    (...)

    All true, but there's also the aspect of opportunity costs to consider. Like, you can spend a feat for the ability to spend a resolve point to do something, or you could spend a feat for a bonus that's always there, and you get to still have all your resolve available to not die.

    When comparing options that you haven't done the math on, it's pretty easy to justify ignoring non-health Resolve abilities when you know for sure that using them directly correlates with your likelihood of death, and at some point you're going to be locked out of using the Resolve ability based on whatever dire straits your resolve pool is in.

    Maybe it's illogical, or mathematically inferior, to ignore lots of resolve abilities, but having a nice big resolve buffer is a nice psychological boon.

    For what it's worth, there are quite a few Resolve abilities that are good and useful to me, they just are primarily about not dying. If there was a big push to make more non-health related Resolve abilities, it would largely be irrelevant to me and my group. I just think Resolve is best suited for health management, and things like Focus are better utility pools.

    Yeah, but try seeing it from the other side. My Soldier 1/Solarian 10 has a strength of 22 so he has 11 resolve. He also has a ton of stamina, good armor, deals fire and electricity damage to any enemies that hit him and has DR 11/- as well as resistance 5 or 10 against most elements. I generally go 2 fights before I'm halfway through my stamina and decide to play safe and spend a point of resolve to fill it up again. So to really make me nervous about resolve it would have to have about 16 encounters. That's more than a full level worth of encounters.

    So I'd be pretty comfortable spending some resolve on this and that.

    51 to 100 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Starfinder / Starfinder General Discussion / Starfinder Second Edition All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.