Starfinder hopes going into 2021

[Agent-D20]

I'd love to see the RPG Superstar contest come back. You know, the event where they publish a fan made adventure? Maybe even with a few runner ups and not just one winner.

Is it usually people from the Society play that get considered? I hope everyone can be considered.

I'd buy it and support Paizo as well as a up and coming game designer. If they did a Starfinder RPG Superstar where the little people like us could spill our heart out and get recognition for our undying love of Starfinder, well, consider me sold.

[BigNorseWolf]

As always, more FAQs/ erratta, streamline the process

I know it seems like the same 12 geeks arguing minutia, but those 12 geeks are running into arguments in home games and in society play. If something is causing a kerfuffle there, its probably causing one in home games as well. The easier you can get the DM and players on the same page, the easier. I know it turns off new people to organized play when people ask "Hey how do i make a boxer?" and either no one knows or people have to fight over the rules over something as simple as a vesk punching someone in the face.

(And once you tell those 12 geeks how something works, they get the news out fast...)

[Wesrolter]

Some kind of race book would be something I would like to see, like the Race guide for Pathfinder. A few simple simple guides for a race builder so we can actually expand. They have some ok looking races and some that are bizzare, I just feel that with the 'endless space' infinite univers of aliens it would make sense to have a Alien builder.

[Peg'giz]

I like the "Race book" idea, but maybe a "Deck of many races" would be even more amazing.
Similar ato the "Deck of many worlds" a system which allows you to create new races by drawing some cards (stats, rough background, Environment etc.)

[FormerFiend]

I'm definitely in favor of a Pact Worlds Races/Species book if for no other reason than a lot of the AA races need some alternate racial traits since they missed out on the COM & Near Space.

I'm less interested in the idea a deck. I'm not entirely opposed to it but I'd want it to be an optional alternative to a more controlled method of race building, rather than being the default.

[Metaphysician]

I don't know, on one hand, a random race generator could be very useful for an exploration game, for the same reason as the random planet generator. On the other hand, for a race where you are going to need to have actual culture elements in order to generate specific characters the players interact with? I feel like that would really need more detail than a deck of cards could really produce. In practice, you'd end up with a lot of "I'll basically run them as ____ only with _____ gimmick change", copying from one of the dozens of existing races. And at that point, if you are going to basically just reskin an existing race, why not just skip the interim step? The Deck of Many Worlds already spits up random races.

This is for races that exist to serve as NPCs, mind. I would be 100% against using a random race generator for player characters.

[C4M3R0N]

This may be asking too much, but I'd really appreciate it if we could make the shield projectors "functional."

They should obviously target an AC of 15 like covering or harrying fire do. That's the bare minimum though.
After that, it'd be great if the "shield" was written as damage and the shield property inverted it to a shield. That way something like weapon spec can provide more shield, overcharging actually does something, even trick attacking with a shield projector would do something other than damage the person (this is an intentionally silly example).

But it'd be nice to be able to actually have a chance of hitting your allies at least. Just look at the math for NPCs to hit bonuses vs PCs to hit bonuses, it's absurd to think these "guns" do anything as is given the statistical improbability of anyone hitting an ally to begin with, much less a support character hitting the party tank.

So, Tl;Dr... all that's on my wishlist is actual shield projectors

[CorvusMask]

Since we got the starship book, stuff I'm looking for next are

1) Vast book
2) Magic book
3) Religion book (people of Starfinder might not be very religious, but gods still exist so they have to have divine influence somehow show up in the world ;D Plus we want more info on new core 20 gods, the Starfinder has kinda neglected fantasy part of setting for a while)
4) Planar book

and eventually would be nice to have Starfinder Society book, but preferably not before the vast book :p

[Metaphysician]

Honestly, I'm not even sure to what extent the people in Starfinder "aren't religious", versus this just being assumed to be the case because of sci-fi cliches. I suppose there might theoretically be more competing social organizations, for a net reduction in influence compared to Pathfinder and its renaissance era social milieu. . . except Pathfinder wasn't shy about having non-church organizations of power, either.

Or, to put it another way: The biggest interstellar megacorporation in the setting literally has a god as its CEO, and is also a church. Another religion controls the linchpin FTL technology that the whole society depends upon. Other religions rule entire planets, or even empires- remember, the Veskarium is ultimately a theocracy. That's a lot of secular power even before you get into all the "religions as NGOs" scale stuff.

[Bored Technomancer]

I want a faction/corporation book. Mainly I am just obsessively seeking information about VitariTech, I dont know why but they have peaked my interest since pact worlds.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

As I said on the species survey's thread, I really want to see more information about the naming conventions of non-Core and non-Legacy species. Apart from extrapolating from the names of the occasional NPCs of these species that pop up in modules like the Adventure Paths or Starfinder Society (like for brenneri, nuars, contemplatives, ijitkri, etc.) you have no clue how these people name themselves (like, for example, dirindi, ferrans, dromadas, cephalumes, etc.).

Something else I've stated before but would wish to see on the equipment side is I wanna see more "swordy" weapons with the operative quality. I wanna play a character who dual-wields swords, but the only operative weapons that are classified as such are the sword canes, which would look silly to dual-wield, but everything else is a kind of knife or tonfa, and the regular swords don't have the operative quality, so there's no real POINT to dual-wielding them when you can just full-attack with one and save the money. At the very least, expand the plasma kukri into an entire line of weapons, please!

Outside of those pet-peeve issues of mine, I also would like to see more about how some of the more esoteric classes, such as Solarians and Vanguards, train and become what they are. We have a solid listing of magic-schools now, which I love, and while there's maybe one or two centers of similar education for Solarians (the Cosmonastery of the Empty Orbit first on Absalom Station and the Corona Academy on Vesk-4), but I presume the Idari is probably full of them, given that's where the art of the Solarian entered the Pact Worlds, on Accara IV, the homeworld of the shakatlas, as their Star-Guardians are commonly dual-classed Solarians and Mystics, and I wanna play Solarians who got their education in some way BESIDES going to one of those two schools I mentioned earlier. And I want Vanguards to receive the same love, since unlike solarians they don't seem to have ANY similar schools for that, at least from what I've read.

[Elro the Onk]

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

Outside of those pet-peeve issues of mine, I also would like to see more about how some of the more esoteric classes, such as Solarians and Vanguards, train and become what they are. We have a solid listing of magic-schools now, which I love, and while there's maybe one or two centers of similar education for Solarians (the Cosmonastery of the Empty Orbit first on Absalom Station and the Corona Academy on Vesk-4), but I presume the Idari is probably full of them, given that's where the art of the Solarian entered the Pact Worlds, on Accara IV, the homeworld of the shakatlas, as their Star-Guardians are commonly dual-classed Solarians and Mystics, and I wanna play Solarians who got their education in some way BESIDES going to one of those two schools I mentioned earlier. And I want Vanguards to receive the same love, since unlike solarians they...

To add to your list: there's a solarian monastery in the Burning Archipelago (the Shadeless Precinct). Tiny bit of info in SF#14.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Elro the Onk wrote:

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

Outside of those pet-peeve issues of mine, I also would like to see more about how some of the more esoteric classes, such as Solarians and Vanguards, train and become what they are. We have a solid listing of magic-schools now, which I love, and while there's maybe one or two centers of similar education for Solarians (the Cosmonastery of the Empty Orbit first on Absalom Station and the Corona Academy on Vesk-4), but I presume the Idari is probably full of them, given that's where the art of the Solarian entered the Pact Worlds, on Accara IV, the homeworld of the shakatlas, as their Star-Guardians are commonly dual-classed Solarians and Mystics, and I wanna play Solarians who got their education in some way BESIDES going to one of those two schools I mentioned earlier. And I want Vanguards to receive the same love, since unlike solarians they...

To add to your list: there's a solarian monastery in the Burning Archipelago (the Shadeless Precinct). Tiny bit of info in SF#14.

Must've missed that one! Thank you!

[Tigerkralle]

Have a clarification or entry for all the races how many and which genders they have if they have genders at all.

I created a Quorlu for Starfinder Society and well i am not sure how many genders and which genders they have. I have no access to adventure paths and have not gamemastered or played every Society scenario with a Quorlu NPC.
That's just one example.

Would be nice to have that information in the statblocks for every race, be it available for PCs or for NPCs.
More important for PCs, because a player usally only manages one character and a gamemaster has so much to do that the gender usally has no meaning at all until the players make it meaningful.
A PC is usally worked out in detail, well at least after some sessions.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Tigerkralle wrote:

Have a clarification or entry for all the races how many and which genders they have if they have genders at all.

I created a Quorlu for Starfinder Society and well i am not sure how many genders and which genders they have. I have no access to adventure paths and have not gamemastered or played every Society scenario with a Quorlu NPC.
That's just one example.

Would be nice to have that information in the statblocks for every race, be it available for PCs or for NPCs.
More important for PCs, because a player usally only manages one character and a gamemaster has so much to do that the gender usally has no meaning at all until the players make it meaningful.
A PC is usally worked out in detail, well at least after some sessions.

Crud, that didn't even occur to me! Yes, this would be exceedingly helpful!

[BigNorseWolf]

Tigerkralle wrote:

Have a clarification or entry for all the races how many and which genders they have if they have genders at all.

I created a Quorlu for Starfinder Society and well i am not sure how many genders and which genders they have.

Igneous and Sedimentary? Although sometimes through life experience they become metamorphic...

[Rocket_Fodder]

I'd like to see more connective tissue between PF and SF settings. If I relax my brain like I'm looking at a Magic-Eye painting I can accept the Gap but there's a bunch of stuff I'd like to see developed officially - stuff like:

Is the Whispering Way still around? How would they interact with Eox and necrotech?

Did Tar-Baphon and the Gallowspire nope off Golarion before it disappeared?

How did the population of the First World or other planes adapt (or not) to the technology?

How did the gods that are still around adjust? (maybe we'll see that in a Gods and Magic book)

Vampires' and werecreature's adaptations to space travel

Now that Aucturn and gods knows what else is a lot more accessible, what are Old One cults getting up to?

For that matter, where's my Madness Mystic Connection?

[Metaphysician]

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

As I said on the species survey's thread, I really want to see more information about the naming conventions of non-Core and non-Legacy species. Apart from extrapolating from the names of the occasional NPCs of these species that pop up in modules like the Adventure Paths or Starfinder Society (like for brenneri, nuars, contemplatives, ijitkri, etc.) you have no clue how these people name themselves (like, for example, dirindi, ferrans, dromadas, cephalumes, etc.).

Something else I've stated before but would wish to see on the equipment side is I wanna see more "swordy" weapons with the operative quality. I wanna play a character who dual-wields swords, but the only operative weapons that are classified as such are the sword canes, which would look silly to dual-wield, but everything else is a kind of knife or tonfa, and the regular swords don't have the operative quality, so there's no real POINT to dual-wielding them when you can just full-attack with one and save the money. At the very least, expand the plasma kukri into an entire line of weapons, please!

Outside of those pet-peeve issues of mine, I also would like to see more about how some of the more esoteric classes, such as Solarians and Vanguards, train and become what they are. We have a solid listing of magic-schools now, which I love, and while there's maybe one or two centers of similar education for Solarians (the Cosmonastery of the Empty Orbit first on Absalom Station and the Corona Academy on Vesk-4), but I presume the Idari is probably full of them, given that's where the art of the Solarian entered the Pact Worlds, on Accara IV, the homeworld of the shakatlas, as their Star-Guardians are commonly dual-classed Solarians and Mystics, and I wanna play Solarians who got their education in some way BESIDES going to one of those two schools I mentioned earlier. And I want Vanguards to receive the same love, since unlike solarians they...

Honestly, I'd go beyond that and suggest that some overview of how people train for *all* of the classes would be appropriate. I mean, sure, anyone can theoretically be self-taught in anything, as PCs go. . . but becoming an actual Soldier ( as opposed to a simple soldier ) should just as plausibly involve sophisticated training as becoming a Vanguard. I'd favor something like. . . four example "schools" for each class, where a 'school' would be some form of at least semi-organized training in the given class, with its own history and praxis and philosophy. Two "traditional" ( easily imagined, just with fleshed out details ) types, one "weird" ( either methodology or philosophy or both are strange ), and one "evil" ( extreme and unsuited for PCs, but interesting for NPCs or for exploring the far boundaries of how one might push a given field ).

[JiCi]

That something is addressed about the Nanocyte's Gear Array and its limitations...

I went on and on about how both the Sheath and Cloud arrays had laughable options compared to the Gear array. Why? Because I initially thought that actiavting the Gear array would allow me to morph up to 7 major forms... at once... especially if I have cybernetics.

The catch: it's only ONE form at the time.

The other catch: if you want more than one more, the 2nd has to be an item 4 levels lower, and the 3rd has to be 8 levels lower.

The last catch: there is currently NO option to have one major form/4, 5 or even 6 levels in a single Gear array, elevating the need to have various items of various levels instead of having at least 3 items of the same reasonable level.

So yeah, really hope that is addressed...

[Dracomicron]

JiCi wrote:

That something is addressed about the Nanocyte's Gear Array and its limitations...

I went on and on about how both the Sheath and Cloud arrays had laughable options compared to the Gear array. Why? Because I initially thought that actiavting the Gear array would allow me to morph up to 7 major forms... at once... especially if I have cybernetics.

The catch: it's only ONE form at the time.

The other catch: if you want more than one more, the 2nd has to be an item 4 levels lower, and the 3rd has to be 8 levels lower.

The last catch: there is currently NO option to have one major form/4, 5 or even 6 levels in a single Gear array, elevating the need to have various items of various levels instead of having at least 3 items of the same reasonable level.

So yeah, really hope that is addressed...

I think that "gear array doesn't work properly" was probably the #1 complaint about the playtest. Pretty sure they are going to pay close attention to it.

[BigNorseWolf]

re connective tissue, getting that specific about what happens in APs plotlines and world changing events is something paizo wants to AVOID.. thats the entire reason for the gap (which i think has to be the least well recieved setting feature)

[JiCi]

Dracomicron wrote:

JiCi wrote:

That something is addressed about the Nanocyte's Gear Array and its limitations...

I went on and on about how both the Sheath and Cloud arrays had laughable options compared to the Gear array. Why? Because I initially thought that actiavting the Gear array would allow me to morph up to 7 major forms... at once... especially if I have cybernetics.

The catch: it's only ONE form at the time.

The other catch: if you want more than one more, the 2nd has to be an item 4 levels lower, and the 3rd has to be 8 levels lower.

The last catch: there is currently NO option to have one major form/4, 5 or even 6 levels in a single Gear array, elevating the need to have various items of various levels instead of having at least 3 items of the same reasonable level.

So yeah, really hope that is addressed...

I think that "gear array doesn't work properly" was probably the #1 complaint about the playtest. Pretty sure they are going to pay close attention to it.

True, but... "HOW didn't it properly" was more concerning... The main issue I had was that you needed specific items of specific levels in order to make the Gear Array work. If you wanted cybernetics in your array, they had to be at most 8 levels lower, but the catch is that every item has a unique level... that cannot be changed... at all.

The Nanocyte couldn't shape more than one form per single Gear Array nor could it elevate the level restriction for its secondary and tertiary arrays, say from -4 to 3 and -8 to -6.

Basically, you couldn't become a proper technological "Swiss army knife".

[Cellion]

I'm guessing a lot people gave them that feedback and the gear array (and the nanite investment mechanics) are going to work entirely differently.

[JiCi]

Cellion wrote:

I'm guessing a lot people gave them that feedback and the gear array (and the nanite investment mechanics) are going to work entirely differently.

I hope so, because being able to materialize a bunch of items out of nanites without having to carry these would be helpful.

Oddly enough, I had no problem with the mech rules, and the only things I had to say about those were... suggestions to add more weapons, more frames and more parts, because that system felt really expansible and customisable.

Kinda wished we had a taste of combining mechs, but... apparently, it WILL be part of the rules :)

[wrmusall]

not sure if this is the right place, but what I want above all else...aLANDSCAPE orientation GM screen please.

[Rockwell555]

Cellion wrote:

- Alternate Starship Combat Rules The rules as they are right now are a huge drag that make way too many groups want to skip all Starship combats. I'd love for there to be rules that allow every member of the party to have some meaningful and fun decisions to make, rather than settling into just rolling a die. Also, for there to be more consistent DCs or just less die rolling in general so you don't have to have cheat sheets and other external tools just to run a Starship combat.

Over at the Starfinder Reddit page, someone came up with what seems, at first glance, to be a pretty good rewrite of the Starship Combat Rules:

https://www.reddit.com/r/starfinder_rpg/comments/iyrsob/starships_revised_u pdate/?utm_source=BD&utm_medium=Search&utm_name=Bing&utm_conten %2520t=PSR1

How useful it is depends on the viewer, though. For example, he does away with ship facing, and initiative goes from Highest to Lowest, as in standard combat.

Also, using these rules may call for rewriting all the starships presented in the various Adventure Paths, if you want it all to be consistent.

[Cellion]

Rockwell555 wrote:

Cellion wrote:

- Alternate Starship Combat Rules The rules as they are right now are a huge drag that make way too many groups want to skip all Starship combats. I'd love for there to be rules that allow every member of the party to have some meaningful and fun decisions to make, rather than settling into just rolling a die. Also, for there to be more consistent DCs or just less die rolling in general so you don't have to have cheat sheets and other external tools just to run a Starship combat.

Over at the Starfinder Reddit page, someone came up with what seems, at first glance, to be a pretty good rewrite of the Starship Combat Rules:

https://www.reddit.com/r/starfinder_rpg/comments/iyrsob/starships_revised_u pdate/?utm_source=BD&utm_medium=Search&utm_name=Bing&utm_conten %2520t=PSR1

How useful it is depends on the viewer, though. For example, he does away with ship facing, and initiative goes from Highest to Lowest, as in standard combat.

Also, using these rules may call for rewriting all the starships presented in the various Adventure Paths, if you want it all to be consistent.

Very cool, and definitely worth checking out. Thanks for bringing it up!

[JiCi]

Here's a good one: Common terms for aliens

I'm serious, some aliens have tongue-twisting names, to the point where it has become difficult to memorize and to find them in the books or sites.

For instance, I would have loved to see something like "Ysoki (ratfolk)" (unless both species are separate), or Espraksa (fowlfolk). Now do that for most of the playable races, and it would be good.

[Parzival418]

First post but what I would like to see is The Vast sourcebook. The Starfinder Battles miniature lines expanded from Wizkids (I know its not Paizo), especially since Ninja Division/Archon dropped the ball hard and especially for Deep Cuts to have some space goblins and Skittermander 3 packs. One a year for the pre-painted, I know they are testing the waters but...., with a 32 piece set is kinda conservative. I'd like to also see the spaceships made into a fourth mini for each booster instead of a being rare minis for 3 mini booster packs. We could always use more armadas. I'd also like to see that rare mini slot also include some terrain. I'd like to see Warlock Tiles Sci Fi tiles.

Aside from The Vast sourcebook I don't really have a big wishlist. I would like to see another player book, with a focus on factions. Each book for Starfinder has surprised me. I'd like to see more Flip Tiles because I just got the three base sets and they are amazing. I see there are some more expansions coming and I like they are compatible with the Pathfinder flip tiles which really expands the usage factor. More modules instead of Adventure Paths. Sometimes I just need something that can be picked up off the shelf and run for levels that isn't part of a series. SOme one & dones. I don't generally do Adventure Paths but I do like having modules to grab when I am fresh out of ideas for the next adventure.

[keftiu]

I would be over the moon with a PF2 Solarian. It’ll never happen, but a girl can hope.

[JiCi]

Balance rules for mechs... I hope...

Mechs can be purchased, customized and piloted by PCs as low-leveled as... 1. These can quickly become "new shiny toys" that the PCs will not let go of.

Yes, it's not recommended to restrict your PCs to what they can do, but we're gonna need some ruling to avoid PCs blowing up your enemies' HQ to bits instead of actually entering the building ^^;

This can get ugly pretty quickly... and some down-to-Earth rules/adaptations to avoid overpowering situations will be needed.

[CorvusMask]

JiCi wrote:

Balance rules for mechs... I hope...

Mechs can be purchased, customized and piloted by PCs as low-leveled as... 1. These can quickly become "new shiny toys" that the PCs will not let go of.

Yes, it's not recommended to restrict your PCs to what they can do, but we're gonna need some ruling to avoid PCs blowing up your enemies' HQ to bits instead of actually entering the building ^^;

This can get ugly pretty quickly... and some down-to-Earth rules/adaptations to avoid overpowering situations will be needed.

Technically speaking, they can't buy them if gm don't let them ;D I don't think mechs even have "prices" since they are like starships in that regard. Technically speaking gm doesn't have to let pcs have starship either.

Anyway, I'm pretty happy about Galactic Magic, interesting to see what religion material will be in it. I still want religion/god book that goes through all core 20 stuff(and other ones in setting) though. And of course that vast and planar book ;D

Really hope that AFTER vast and planar book we do get starfinder society book since honestly I don't really have strong idea of how many starfinder lodges exist or even how many venture captains there are <_< Or heck WHO are part of the Forum besides two characters?

[JiCi]

CorvusMask wrote:

JiCi wrote:

Balance rules for mechs... I hope...

Mechs can be purchased, customized and piloted by PCs as low-leveled as... 1. These can quickly become "new shiny toys" that the PCs will not let go of.

Yes, it's not recommended to restrict your PCs to what they can do, but we're gonna need some ruling to avoid PCs blowing up your enemies' HQ to bits instead of actually entering the building ^^;

This can get ugly pretty quickly... and some down-to-Earth rules/adaptations to avoid overpowering situations will be needed.

Technically speaking, they can't buy them if gm don't let them ;D I don't think mechs even have "prices" since they are like starships in that regard. Technically speaking gm doesn't have to let pcs have starship either.

Oh boy... you're asking for trouble if you don't allow starships and mechs ^^;

At low-levels, sure, these can be out of their price ranges, but as they level up, they will consider these options.

You just have to hope that your players play smart and weigh the pros and cons for starships and mechs before purchase.

[FormerFiend]

JiCi wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

JiCi wrote:

Balance rules for mechs... I hope...

Mechs can be purchased, customized and piloted by PCs as low-leveled as... 1. These can quickly become "new shiny toys" that the PCs will not let go of.

Yes, it's not recommended to restrict your PCs to what they can do, but we're gonna need some ruling to avoid PCs blowing up your enemies' HQ to bits instead of actually entering the building ^^;

This can get ugly pretty quickly... and some down-to-Earth rules/adaptations to avoid overpowering situations will be needed.

Technically speaking, they can't buy them if gm don't let them ;D I don't think mechs even have "prices" since they are like starships in that regard. Technically speaking gm doesn't have to let pcs have starship either.

Oh boy... you're asking for trouble if you don't allow starships and mechs ^^;

At low-levels, sure, these can be out of their price ranges, but as they level up, they will consider these options.

You just have to hope that your players play smart and weigh the pros and cons for starships and mechs before purchase.

I mean if you frame it right from the start & say something like, "guys I have this campaign idea for a starfinder game, but the focus of it isn't going to involve the starship or mech rules, gonna be focused on ground combat so you guys just won't have access to those on the regular. If you really want to play around with them I could work them in for a session or two each, but I want to focus on other things; we all okay with that?", I think most groups would find that reasonable.

[CorvusMask]

JiCi wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

JiCi wrote:

Balance rules for mechs... I hope...

Mechs can be purchased, customized and piloted by PCs as low-leveled as... 1. These can quickly become "new shiny toys" that the PCs will not let go of.

Yes, it's not recommended to restrict your PCs to what they can do, but we're gonna need some ruling to avoid PCs blowing up your enemies' HQ to bits instead of actually entering the building ^^;

This can get ugly pretty quickly... and some down-to-Earth rules/adaptations to avoid overpowering situations will be needed.

Technically speaking, they can't buy them if gm don't let them ;D I don't think mechs even have "prices" since they are like starships in that regard. Technically speaking gm doesn't have to let pcs have starship either.

Oh boy... you're asking for trouble if you don't allow starships and mechs ^^;

At low-levels, sure, these can be out of their price ranges, but as they level up, they will consider these options.

You just have to hope that your players play smart and weigh the pros and cons for starships and mechs before purchase.

Think of it in this term:

Mechs are high grade military equipment which for CR calculation counts your level as 3 higher.

If they were easy to obtain in every single campaign, why WOULDN'T every npc use them as well and turn this into mech setting? ;D

Like mechs are very obviously meant to be "this is an option you can allow in your campaign", if campaign doesn't allow mechs, not much players can do with that besides trying to steal one I guess.

(do note that there is reason why there isn't exact credits to BP ratio with starships: So you can be like "and your rewards is your new starship upgrades along 10,000 credits in cash money". You can't just "purchase new ship with our fancy big amount of credits" mechanically speaking)

[JiCi]

FormerFiend wrote:

I mean if you frame it right from the start & say something like, "guys I have this campaign idea for a starfinder game, but the focus of it isn't going to involve the starship or mech rules, gonna be focused on ground combat so you guys just won't have access to those on the regular. If you really want to play around with them I could work them in for a session or two each, but I want to focus on other things; we all okay with that?", I think most groups would find that reasonable.

They'll try anyway... Then again, if you frame your campaign with tight corridors, ruin explorations and facility sneaking, your players will be quick to catch on that "travelling light" is more suitable. At best, they can get their own vehicles to avoid walking.

They'd still might want they own spaceship to travel and even to live in though ;)

CorvusMask wrote:

Think of it in this term:

Mechs are high grade military equipment which for CR calculation counts your level as 3 higher.

If they were easy to obtain in every single campaign, why WOULDN'T every npc use them as well and turn this into mech setting? ;D

Like mechs are very obviously meant to be "this is an option you can allow in your campaign", if campaign doesn't allow mechs, not much players can do with that besides trying to steal one I guess.

(do note that there is reason why there isn't exact credits to BP ratio with starships: So you can be like "and your rewards is your new starship upgrades along 10,000 credits in cash money". You can't just "purchase new ship with our fancy big amount of credits" mechanically speaking)

Given the frames we had in the playtests, they already all look like restricted military material, and even then, mechs would probably be too cumbersome in a place by the entire Absollom Station.

I could see any organisation, like the Starfinder Society, lending basic mechs to explore planets depending on the topography, similar to how walker-like vehicles are used to explore.

[FormerFiend]

JiCi wrote:

They'll try anyway... Then again, if you frame your campaign with tight corridors, ruin explorations and facility sneaking, your players will be quick to catch on that "travelling light" is more suitable. At best, they can get their own vehicles to avoid walking.

They'd still might want they own spaceship to travel and even to live in though ;)

Did every Pathfinder 1e group you ever played with try to use mass combat, kingdom building, aquatic, naval combat, & mythic rules in every campaign, even if it was explained from the start that the campaign wouldn't be using those particular rulesets & instead focusing on other areas?

If the DM lays out that their idea for a campaign is set on a single planet or space station & doesn't involve the party being the crew of their own star ship, & the players they're proposing this to would rather have a planet hopping campaign or at least one where they have their own ship, well the room for compromise there is fairly small, & if it can't be reached, I'd say the appropriate thing to do would be for the dm to find another set of players who're interested in their campaign concept & the players to find another dm who'd like to run their style of game.

I know that myself, personally; I have absolutely no interest in ever messing around with the Mech rules for Starfinder. Not because I dislike the rules - I actually haven't even really looked at them in the playtest. It's just that, Big O & Gundamn Wing aside, the Mech Piloting genre has never been one that's captured my imagination & that I'm particularly interested. I'm not even a fan of power armor; it's just not a part of the fantasy that appeals to me. Honestly it's to the point that if a DM told me they wanted to run a starfinder game & focus on the mechs, I'd pass on playing in the game.

I also doubt I'm entirely alone on that front. So I don't think it's impossible to find a group of people to play in a game who wouldn't want to use mechs.

Starships admittedly would a bit of a harder sell, since they're a more core part of the game, but I don't think convincing four people that playing this one starfinder campaign that probably isn't going to be the only starfinder campaign they ever play in their lives, sans a space ship, is an impossible task.

[Milo v3]

I have found it quite easy to sell people on skipping starships. Just have them stat up a ship and run a starship combat battle, then the people I know tend to want to skip them from then onwards.

Jokes aside, it's very easy to just..... talk with your players about what your campaign is about. This is part of all rpgs....

[JiCi]

You're both right, guess I'm overdramatizing ^^;

[BigNorseWolf]

JiCi wrote:

For instance, I would have loved to see something like "Ysoki (ratfolk)" (unless both species are separate)

Ysoki apparently have a case of convergent evolution. There are a large number of different species (one of which is likely golarions ratfolk) and they collectively took the name Ysoki from akiton because that's where they had the most respect (not a lot. But the most...)

[LotsOfLore]

EDIT: this isn't something that I would like to see for 2021, or 22, or 23 even!

I see a lot of "make Starfinder 2e", or integrate PF2e stuff into SF, which is great, and seems to be the natural evolution.

How about a RADICALLY different (crazy?) solution: would anyone be behind Paizo making Starfinder 2e a completely different game (system-wise only, obviously, the wonderful setting stays!). I mean something like making a more narrative-oriented game, based on streamlined rules similar to a Savage Worlds, Cyberpunk, or Year Zero, PbTA, Cypher, or any good system that is fundamentally different from "classic" d20 ?

CONS: could kill the game.
PROS: it would finally detatch the two games from each other, that way they stop chasing themselves around, besides, they are already not compatible with each other. Could bring in a whole host of new public and would open up Paizo's offering quite a bit. Paizo would go from having sort of two flavours of the same game, to having two different games that together cover a lot of different tastes! Would enable Paizo to innovate for real and free their creativity, use Starfinder to push towards uncharted (for Paizo) rpg territory. Scary, but cool.

Too crazy?

[Peg'giz]

I would be against it.
Starfinder is connected to Pathfinder and this should also be visibile in the rules.

The "-finder" games are Paizos flagship and are tied to the system. Breaking this would hurt the IP.

[Steve Geddes]

LotsOfLore wrote:

EDIT: this isn't something that I would like to see for 2021, or 22, or 23 even!

I see a lot of "make Starfinder 2e", or integrate PF2e stuff into SF, which is great, and seems to be the natural evolution.

How about a RADICALLY different (crazy?) solution: would anyone be behind Paizo making Starfinder 2e a completely different game (system-wise only, obviously, the wonderful setting stays!). I mean something like making a more narrative-oriented game, based on streamlined rules similar to a Savage Worlds, Cyberpunk, or Year Zero, PbTA, Cypher, or any good system that is fundamentally different from "classic" d20 ?

CONS: could kill the game.
PROS: it would finally detatch the two games from each other, that way they stop chasing themselves around, besides, they are already not compatible with each other. Could bring in a whole host of new public and would open up Paizo's offering quite a bit. Paizo would go from having sort of two flavours of the same game, to having two different games that together cover a lot of different tastes! Would enable Paizo to innovate for real and free their creativity, use Starfinder to push towards uncharted (for Paizo) rpg territory. Scary, but cool.

Too crazy?

I'd be right behind this. Most of the bits I don't like in the Starfinder rules are attempts to stick close to its PF1 roots. In my opinion that "the same but different" approach sounds helpful but isn't.

Having said that...I suspect there are synergies in the editting/development/design of products that mean a PF2 compatible version of SF is far more likely.

An entire new system would make it harder for staff to jump back and forth across the product lines as workflow demanded it.

[LotsOfLore]

And just to add my wishes, within the current framework:

MORE and BETTER adventure material!

Please Paizo, keep pushing on the standalone product line, those are the best vehicle in my opinion. It's not that I don't love the old 6-book format campaigns, but I see that they are a really hard sell to new people! Nobody really wants or knows that they are going to commit to something that will run for 2 years or more (just playing on-line, once a week, for 2 hours, sadly).
The 3-book format has been a big win for me, more of that, rather! Apart from that, what irks me about APs is that they seem to all boil down to assembly line kill-a-monster experiences. Go in room, kill monsters, go to next room, repeat. Don't get me wrong, the stories and NPCs are indeed great, but the point of rupture is in the fact that PCs need XPs to level up. And that limits what you can do in an AP, as well as contributes to put every story inside the same mechanic mold (more or less).

One way to change that could be: tell the story you want, without stuffing it with monsters where there's absolutely no reason to. Instead outright give out XP at milestones and for successful adventure/exploration/social challanges, letting PCs level up two or more levels at a time during downtime, in order to continue on with the next book of the adventure. If they don't want to "jump" like that, they can play some of your standalone adventures (of which you should publish many and at many level intervals) in order to prepare themselves for the next book.

[Yakman]

Ascalaphus wrote:

I'm not sure if the action economy rules are the thing that needs the most attention really. I mean, the Starfinder action economy is clunky compared to 2E but it's a clunky that's worked for twenty years.

What I'd rather see done the PF2 way is the level-based scaling, in particular for armor and weapons. Starfinder has hundreds of armors and weapons and that just seems quite excessive. And I don't think I'm the only one who just doesn't enjoy having to constantly replace armor because it's too weak for my level.

i like the starfinder action economy...

[Metaphysician]

LotsOfLore wrote:

And just to add my wishes, within the current framework:

MORE and BETTER adventure material!

Please Paizo, keep pushing on the standalone product line, those are the best vehicle in my opinion. It's not that I don't love the old 6-book format campaigns, but I see that they are a really hard sell to new people! Nobody really wants or knows that they are going to commit to something that will run for 2 years or more (just playing on-line, once a week, for 2 hours, sadly).
The 3-book format has been a big win for me, more of that, rather! Apart from that, what irks me about APs is that they seem to all boil down to assembly line kill-a-monster experiences. Go in room, kill monsters, go to next room, repeat. Don't get me wrong, the stories and NPCs are indeed great, but the point of rupture is in the fact that PCs need XPs to level up. And that limits what you can do in an AP, as well as contributes to put every story inside the same mechanic mold (more or less).

One way to change that could be: tell the story you want, without stuffing it with monsters where there's absolutely no reason to. Instead outright give out XP at milestones and for successful adventure/exploration/social challanges, letting PCs level up two or more levels at a time during downtime, in order to continue on with the next book of the adventure. If they don't want to "jump" like that, they can play some of your standalone adventures (of which you should publish many and at many level intervals) in order to prepare themselves for the next book.

See, this kind of thing is again why I don't use officially published adventures. Non-combat encounters are *supposed* to provide experience, so why do the APs not provide non-combat challenges? Is it *really* that hard to do something like "This room with a broken machine you have to repair is a CR 5 challenge, getting it functioning is worth X experience", or "This unfriendly official is a CR 7 challenge, if you gain their full cooperation you get Y experience, and if you get at least some information from them you get half that"?

[CorvusMask]

Umm. I'm confused by both of your posts

First the paizo adventure paths DO provide story award exp just for completing major quests and doing non combat tasks and such. Second rules do not ever say that encounters have to be resolved by combat for pcs to gain experience.

I'm... Bit confused of which aps you are talking about and if both of you have very small pool you are talking about? Or is one of you arguing that there should be larger amount of non combat challenges? Which is something that completely depends on ap itself really.

[Master Han Del of the Web]

... Y'all are still using experience points?

[CorvusMask]

Hey, we are having whole big debate about it in extreme difficulty thread in 2e section ;D

(I'm super big exp advocate and super dislike milestones. Only time I used them was when I was forced to use them in curse of strahd because 5e's exp calculation plainly doesn't work and campaign was clearly designed around milestones, I switched back when I got back to homebrew part.

Yeah I don't particularly like 5e, but I did decide to try running it once a year ago to newbie party who wanted trying roleplaying ;p I still don't like it after trying it out, but I'm running this campaign to end since I do like players and party so that makes up for not liking the system.)

[The Artificer]

Master Han Del of the Web wrote:

... Y'all are still using experience points?

Oh? No, I Never touch the stuff, I already do enough math and bookkeeping.