| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You say 'vs', in what way? Does one do one thing better than the other? Differences between systems? Preferred system? What?
In my mind starfinder is PF1e with most of the glaring problems, and super fiddly bits fixed and removed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You say 'vs', in what way? Does one do one thing better than the other? Differences between systems? Preferred system? What?
In my mind starfinder is PF1e with most of the glaring problems, and super fiddly bits fixed and removed.
I would strongly agree.
As someone whos been actively participating in a recent thread about PF1 vs PF2 (and it may be the thread the OP is referring to):
I like Starfinder a lot and agree with your assessment that it's removed a lot of the bad, while keeping the (mechanical, obviously not setting) feel the same.
Of the 3 game systems (PF1, Starfinder, PF2) I like Starfinder the best.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've ranted enough on the topic, but I feel like Starfinder is in an awkward spot between PF1 and PF2, having simplified things in some ways but leaving other things pretty messy, while still not unlocking the massive quantity of viable builds like PF2 has.
Starfinder is fun, a bit easier to learn and play than PF1, and of those two I find it is preferable simply because I don't need to hold everyone's hand through everything. However between SF and PF2, SF feels like it was an early prototype of PF2 that never got fully developed.
For some examples of what I mean:
In general, you can't min-max like in PF1 to always solve a problem... unless you play a specific class.
Multiclassing wasn't fixed, it became simultaneously almost entirely discouraged and valuable only for dipping. Which feels like the opposite of what you'd want out of multiclassing.
Archetypes were generalized so any class can take them, but their values swing wildly between classes, and are super hard to justify
Casters were nerfed, but didn't get the bonuses that should come with that like scaling cantrips.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll say that as a setting, as a world, as as universe, Starfinder is one of my favorite things in fiction & I love it unconditionally. It stands head & shoulders over Golarion/Lost Omens, which, while containing elements that I love, does ultimately amount to a fairly standard fantasy kitchen sink setting.
Just one man's opinion there.
Mechanically...full disclosure I haven't gotten much opportunity to actually play SF because my regular gaming group does not share my love for it as a setting & I adamantly refuse to play with randos or engage in organized play.
But from what tinkering I have done with it I find I agree with WatersLethe's assessment that it's in this awkward place between PF's editions.
Now personally my preference is for pf1e; I viscerally hate pf2e. Like, probably unfairly but I have tried to get into more than once & I just keep hitting the same roadblock where it just feels like character progression is artificial in a way that PF1e doesn't feel. I understand, intellectually, that this is probably entirely something I'm projecting onto it but I can't escape the feeling with 2e that building a character is this predetermined path with the illusion of choice, like talent trees in an MMO, where as PF1 feels like this glorious grab bag mess of options that gives me some real freedom in organic character building. And SF does lean a little more in the direction of character options feeling a bit more like MMO talent trees to me.
So mechanically SF resides in this place where it doesn't have the glut mess of options like 1e had but also doesn't get all the good ideas that do shine out in 2e.
I do actively prefer it to 2e; like, I actively want to get a friend group together to play Starfinder but I would have to be dragged by the nose to play a 2e pathfinder game. But I'd be lying if there weren't a few ideas it wouldn't benefit from aping from 2e. I just get hesitant when those suggestions come up because I worry it'll pull too much.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll say that as a setting, as a world, as as universe, Starfinder is one of my favorite things in fiction & I love it unconditionally.
Agreed. I love Fantasy more than SciFi or SciFantasy, but the Starfinder setting is so fun that I started using Golarion as a setting for PF only AFTER Starfinder drew me into using a premade setting.
I've run PF games for yyyeeears without my players setting foot on Golarion, until Starfinder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a lot of things to like about Starfinder:
- There are more (and a wider variety of) choices for PC race; capturing that "Star Wars cantina" feel.
- While the system is "stripped-down," compared to PF1, there is generally "enough" complexity to make character-building interesting and meaningful.
- Magic, while present and powerful, doesn't completely overwhelm the other options.
- Anyone with the appropriate skill(s) and sufficient UPBs can create whatever technological, magical, and/or hybrid equipment they want in a few hours.
However, there are some aspects that don't work as well as they probably should:
- The equipment treadmill is even worse than PF1 in some ways. Characters are basically completely replacing their armor and weapons every two or three levels.
- Some classes (the operative, in particular) are "over-tuned" and can completely overshadow the other characters. Even at what the other characters are supposed to be good at.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My opinion:
Starfinder has got lots of wildly variable and fun mechanics. But the mechanics don't completely rule the game like they do in PF1. Choice A may work but B, C, D, and E are equally valid ways of accomplishing your task. In other words it's all just different ways of doing things. There's no dominant character builds and very few bad builds. For me that's a sweet spot between "Mathfinder" and a diceless RPG. Build the character you want to play, and it will be good enough to make a meaningful contribution.
The huge HP totals for enemies, coupled with very few "save or lose" effects means that everyone can feel like they contributed in every combat rather than one overpowered character ending the fight. The damage and dying systems are very forgiving, making fights feel risky but not tedious. "How many Stamina Points are you down?" Doesn't matter, 10 minute rest. "Oof, I'm below 0 HP." As long as you have resolve you're fine.
On the negative side, I'm not a fan of the way skill checks work. The game mechanics are supertuned for the class that's "supposed" to be good at it. No matter how many feats and racial bonuses a solarion throws at computers, he's not going to beat a technomancer who did barely anything but put a rank in the skill every level. So the DCs are set to be a challenge for the technomancer instead of a pushover, but that makes even an "average" check extremely difficult for a character that doesn't have a class bonus and matching key ability score. It's compounded by the fact that Starfinder has so few skills compared to PF1, making it very easy for high-skill and high-int classes to put max ranks in many skills. All of which means the low-skill classes are left out in the cold.
Opinions on equipment are highly personal. Some hate the fact that you can't keep upgrading a favorite weapon. I like the way the weapon math works for the first 10-12 levels. A level 4 longarm isn't going to do as much damage as a level 10, but it's not a massive difference. And I didn't have to worry about constantly upgrading it. I don't like the way you bounce between near unhittable (if you just bought a high-level armor) to always hittable (if you are saving up and your armor item level is a few levels below your enemies' CR). But if we're comparing to PF1 - that might be a better mechanics problem than PF1, where some builds can be unhittable for almost their entire careers.
I adamantly refuse to play with randos orHey, don't diss playing with randos ;P Everyone is randos until they have played together long enough to be a regular group. I wouldn't have my own regular group if I hadn't recruited random people through roll20 xD
I just don't have the patience for acclimating to new gaming groups anymore.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now personally my preference is for pf1e; I viscerally hate pf2e. Like, probably unfairly but I have tried to get into more than once & I just keep hitting the same roadblock where it just feels like character progression is artificial in a way that PF1e doesn't feel. I understand, intellectually, that this is probably entirely something I'm projecting onto it but I can't escape the feeling with 2e that building a character is this predetermined path with the illusion of choice, like talent trees in an MMO, where as PF1 feels like this glorious grab bag mess of options that gives me some real freedom in organic character building. And SF does lean a little more in the direction of character options feeling a bit more like MMO talent trees to me.
Absolutely a projection. PF2e may limit your ability to break the game by overspecializing, but it gives you plenty of freedom to actually choose your playstyle without feeling like you're making a broken character that doesn't satisfy your vision. Not every feat may have been created equal in PF2e, but even so, very few of them are egregiously bad. But there's one thing though, if your only concern is to hit the damage benchmark with every character and build, pathfinder will not solve that for you, either it be 1st edition and 2nd edition.
The core difference between PF1e and PF2e, as a player, is that your choices are mainly made while in combat in PF2e, while in PF1e the bulk of your choices are made prior to the first session, which means that your character will either have a preset routine while in combat or won't have none at all other than decide if you can full-round attack or not (I'm being reductive, but when you analyze it from afar, this is mainly the goal of most builds in PF1e, as many attacks as possible with as much damage as possible. Or hyper focus on a specific maneuver).
In short, PF1e system mastery is know what feats fit together and are the strongest, after you paid your taxes, of course, while in PF2e system mastery is to know what you have at your disposal and when you can apply it effectively since not every action is inherently better than others (like, for example, using Power Attack, Deadly Aim, Rapid Shot, etc), thus you must make a choice mid combat to what fits better. In PF2e you also have the freedom to broaden your character's strengths while sacrificing very little (virtually nothing given dice variance for +1/-1), despite this freedom, the system also manages to reward the hyper specialized builds, but this pay off only comes at higher levels (which, by the way, unlike PF1e, you can safely play without dealing with broken math and bogged down turns).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find starfinder to be a sort of PF2 prototype templated onto PF1.
It's still recognizably PF1 with some fiddly bits trimmed off (9th level spellcasting, CMB/CMD, most feat chains), but on the GM side you see everything just runs plain better. You can ad-lib NPCs from a table instead of having to partially build a level X character in your head. You don't have to worry about PC accuracy or AC skyrocketing, or skills bonuses getting so high the character can just take 1 instead of 10 or 20.
Not that there aren't problems. Skill DCs are set to the specialist's bonus non-specialists are screwed (I take 5 or so off most DCs). The armor and weapon treadmill can eat up all of your credits and you might have to leave all the neat armor upgrades and augmentations to the side. Small arms & dex based melee are near useless to anyone but the operative. Some classes have a thematic key ability score, but can operate better if you either ignore it, or take a dip in another class to change it.
[The core difference between PF1e and PF2e, as a player, is that your choices are mainly made while in combat in PF2e, while in PF1e the bulk of your choices are made prior to the first session...I think this is definitely where PF2 feels flat for someone like me: I kind of need "character is defined by their build" if I'm going to make choices about how to build a character.
Have you tried building a character with Free Archetype rules with no "2 archetype feats before gaining a different archetype" rule?
There is a crazy amount of build theorycrafting with that ruleset, and it also *can* raise the power ceiling.
[The core difference between PF1e and PF2e, as a player, is that your choices are mainly made while in combat in PF2e, while in PF1e the bulk of your choices are made prior to the first session...I think this is definitely where PF2 feels flat for someone like me: I kind of need "character is defined by their build" if I'm going to make choices about how to build a character.
You have far more meaningful choices to make. Let's all be frank here, non of us will build a martial character without Power Attack and Weapon Focus. Nor we will make Dex builds without Finesse. If you want to make an Archer, you either pay the cost by hand (as in using your first level feats) or you're choosing a class that already give you the tax archery feats. And so on. Even spells suffer from this, albeit much less, since the Vancian system creates a bottleneck for niche spells, thus making the staple spells appear virtually in every list, of course this is discounting the fact that some spells are only worth it in scrolls.
So yeah, I don't count myself as a veteran player of TTRPGs, but as someone that actually delved deeper into discussions about the system and with 6+ years of hands on experience with PF1e (and recently PF2e), I find PF1e design guiltier of giving illusion of choice than PF2e, despite poorly thought out youtube videos would lead you to believe. The best thing about PF2e is that it's much harder to make a non-functional character and despite every "misstep" you make having an impact in your power level, you still have a strong core foundation backing your counterproductive choices, this and the 3 action system allow farm more build flexibility than the Full-Round/Standard+Move+swift dichotomy of PF1e.
I'll come out and say it, and this is my personal opinion, but I find myself thinking that a lot of issues found in PF2e (Except shields and the Alchemist) can be traced back to traditional paradigms carried over from 3.5 and Pf1e, such as vancian casting and Christmas tree mandatory magical items along with certain classes "niche" that are overall harmful (The flavorless "Fighters" that despite existing in a combat-driven system somehow have the niche of being the best at "fighting" and Rogues, because of the exact same problem of Starfinder's Operative).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know what you mean about presentation, but there is an undeniable fact that a lot of PF2e's inner workings and game "feel" only reveals itself while in play. When you look at character options without rules context and with the PF2e design paradigm, things may seen better/worse than they actually are (with worse being more frequent since people tend to apply their preexisting knowledge from other RPGs despite not having any reason to do so).
One thing I can easily guarantee you, if your idea of creating characters is realizing interesting concepts that function well, then PF2e is definitely for you. But I have to warn, if your idea of "interesting concept" and interesting characters is creating something clearly broken that will exploit the system's weaknesses to make a extremely powerful character, then PF2e will not allow you to realize it at all. Although, at higher levels, a lot of your hyper specialization will fully come to fruition and the things you chose to be good at will both have a far higher chance of success than previous PF2e levels and you'll be able to do insane stuff supported by the rules such as falling from 5000ft and not take any damage or jumping 100ft+, or using Arcana to evaluate every magical effect and spell your party encounter or stealing some dude's entire armor without noticing you.
The question is ultimately this one: Do you make characters to realize your interesting concepts or to be fully optimized for damage and accuracy?
If your goal is the former, then PF2e is pretty great both in variety and effectiveness (although I love me some archetypes from PF1e that have yet to make an appearance on this new edition), if it's the latter, then PF1e or 3.5e might be your best bet because the combat paradigm in PF2e is too different and there will be a cognitive dissonance between what you think is powerful from 3.5/PF1e and what is powerful in PF2e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only character concepts I've come accross that have been just plain sub optimal...
Snipers
Two gun kid
Non magical healer
Buffs only bard.
Sniper just doesn't work in a team dynamic really.
But you can get sniper rifles that aren't unwieldy, they're basically just advanced firearms with slightly longer ranges. And then you can use them up close or far away.
Multiple guns doesn't work out due to the cost.
And buffing only doesn't work out well either, but neither does spells only (IMO). Basically everybody should invest in getting either an advanced melee or firearm because you're going to be shooting at least some of the time.
Personally I think this is mostly ok (except the multi gun issue) which is really more of a theme issue because there is almost no benefit to having more than 1 gun. The support for it is pretty weak.
But I think if you go into it knowing and expecting that you need an advanced weapon and that multiweapons don't work then you're fine.
The only character concepts I've come accross that have been just plain sub optimal...
Snipers
Two gun kid
Non magical healer
Buffs only bard.
Sub optimal and unsatisfying are two very different things in my understanding.
One thing is playing something unusual and not being the best at it, but having some tradeoffs (less healing for more skills or other kind of versatility), another very different is being unsatisfying, or outright broken, which are characters that can't satisfyingly realize their concept because they don't work at all, are extremely unsatisfying to play or don't offer anything truly unique that justifies their existence, such as playing a Chirurgeon Alchemist that doesn't bring anything unique on top of being pretty bad at what it's supposed to do, thrown weapon builds, dual-wielding gunslingers or combat-oriented mutagenists (regardless of their new medium armor proficiency, the design as a whole is pretty lackluster, very PF1e style of simple vanilla attacks and nothing else).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only character concepts I've come accross that have been just plain sub optimal...
Snipers
Two gun kid
Non magical healer
Buffs only bard.
Totally agreed. I think three of these four are not only suboptimal, but the system doesn't support them with character build bits (class features, feats, etc) that make for fun characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sub optimal and unsatisfying are two very different things in my understanding.
I mean, some people might find it satisfying to play a 10 hit point squox that can only harrying fire and covering fire. Your party can still probably manage the scenario with the amazing squaxo. I can't really speak to personal taste.
But those listed options aren't just less than optimal, they're so far below the other things in their niche or an alternative build that they're blown away. Its very close to being mathematically worse off with few if any advantages. I think it matters a bit more in organized play than a home game where you don't get niche protection and someone can be in your group with the same concept just executed an order of magnitude better.
The non magical healer for example yes.. you can heal in an antimagic field or never run out on a world without healing serums or UBPs. But those circumstances are so niche its never going to make up for you healing 2d6+5 points when the mystic is dumping a bucket of d8s on the table.
The biohacker doesn't heal enough to make the medic archetype worth much.. you might heal 1 or 2 staminia. The medic mystic sees you missing a hitpoint and BOOM, here's 30 staminia back. The out of combat healing options are just saving you money on healing serums... which at higher levels is really couch cushion money. (I have taken a strength based operative from levels 1 to 8 in second skin. I know what a maxed out bar bill looks like...)
Pistols are just worse than longarms. Since you can fire at the same rate with one rifle as 2 guns they don't do anything to make up for it.
And there's just no reason for the envoy not to shoot, and very little reason they shouldn't be half decent at shooting. They can still do the same buffs. ( So this is not... too terrible but just simply worse than a nearby option without many advantages)
A sniper is just missing out on some of the better weapons options. Its not terrible at their job but just worse than the nearby options. To really shine they really need to pick their terrain and.. the DM does that, not the player.
Now personally my preference is for pf1e; I viscerally hate pf2e. Like, probably unfairly but I have tried to get into more than once & I just keep hitting the same roadblock where it just feels like character progression is artificial in a way that PF1e doesn't feel. I understand, intellectually, that this is probably entirely something I'm projecting onto it but I can't escape the feeling with 2e that building a character is this predetermined path with the illusion of choice, like talent trees in an MMO, where as PF1 feels like this glorious grab bag mess of options that gives me some real freedom in organic character building. And SF does lean a little more in the direction of character options feeling a bit more like MMO talent trees to me.
Absolutely a projection. PF2e may limit your ability to break the game by overspecializing, but it gives you plenty of freedom to actually choose your playstyle without feeling like you're making a broken character that doesn't satisfy your vision. Not every feat may have been created equal in PF2e, but even so, very few of them are egregiously bad. But there's one thing though, if your only concern is to hit the damage benchmark with every character and build, pathfinder will not solve that for you, either it be 1st edition and 2nd edition.
The core difference between PF1e and PF2e, as a player, is that your choices are mainly made while in combat in PF2e, while in PF1e the bulk of your choices are made prior to the first session, which means that your character will either have a preset routine while in combat or won't have none at all other than decide if you can full-round attack or not (I'm being reductive, but when you analyze it from afar, this is mainly the goal of most builds in PF1e, as many attacks as possible with as much damage as possible. Or hyper focus on a specific maneuver).
In short, PF1e system mastery is know what feats fit together and are the strongest, after you paid your taxes, of course, while in PF2e...
Like I said, I'm willing to admit that it could just be a mental block on my part. I haven't had personal first hand experience in playing 2e so I can't make an objective judgment on it.
Having said that, while it may be confirmation bias, and it is just one group's experience & therefore anecdotal evidence(which I think is perfectly valid when determining whether or not an individual person may or may not find a hobby fun), this video does show that at least some people experience in practice what I predicted in theory. What's more that is a dm & group that appear to have gone into it with a much more open mindset & less dour expectations than I possess & as an admission of a personal flaw, likely wouldn't be able to move past.
I'd also state, again as a personal anecdote, that I very rarely preplanned my character in pf1e very far out. I tended to make feat selections when level up happened rather than having it all mapped out from the off; if I had a plan it would be for a relatively short feat tree & then I'd be free to improvise from there. I also had the benefit of only very rarely playing pre-written adventures - only two AP runs in my time - and most of the DMs I played with were fairly improvisational as well so pre-planning wasn't necessarily the wisest idea given that I couldn't reasonably predict what we'd be facing next.
Now obviously how many options I'd have would vary between what class I was playing, if I was a fighter I basically had the sole job of hitting things with a sharp piece of metal. But playing as an oracle or an investigator or even a bloodrager gave me a fair bit of flexibility & freedom in terms of what choices I was making & what I was doing in a given session.
Point being that while I'm not saying your assertions on 1e are entirely incorrect, I am saying that they don't really match up with my personal experiences, which I'm willing to stipulate may well be the exception rather than the rule, and while your assertions on 2e may well be generally accurate, they don't seem to match everyone's experiences & my own personal biases likely would result in me not finding the system enjoyable.
Which isn't to say that I think all of 2e's ideas are terrible. The three action round system I think is fine; I wouldn't necessarily call it better. More streamlined, certainly, and a perfectly fine alternative, it isn't something I hate on principle. I think the idea of ancestry feats being an automatic separate thing from normal feat progression is a good one in theory though I'm not a huge fan of it's implementation. Scaling cantrips I think are a good idea. I could go on.
But my problems with the system still put up this impenetrable wall that I just don't think I'm ever going to have the will to push past unless my entire gaming group decides to switch over to the system & it's a choice between playing 2e, finding a new group, or giving up the hobby entirely.
Also full disclosure but I take issue with a number of developments in the Lost Omens setting that came along with 2e that probably muddle my opinion against it even further, which isn't entirely fair but 2e does more directly tie itself to the setting than 1e ever did. So while I'm not a fan of the system on it's own terms, the storyline developments that came with it soured me even further & I finally understand where all those 2e forgotten realms die hards I used to disagree with so vehemently in edition debates were coming from.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, some people might find it satisfying to play a 10 hit point squox that can only harrying fire and covering fire. Your party can still probably manage the scenario with the amazing squaxo. I can't really speak to personal tasteSub optimal and unsatisfying are two very different things in my understanding.
.... I would play a Squox if I had to.
(also note. There is a difference between a biohacker with a healing option and A HEALER. Pre corvid i lifted weights in the gym. I was not A weightlifter. Do yuou x when you do x. You are an xer when something is kind of central about your being)
(also note. There is a difference between a biohacker with a healing option and A HEALER. Pre corvid i lifted weights in the gym. I was not A weightlifter. Do yuou x when you do x. You are an xer when something is kind of central about your being)
I think that's mostly a system mastery issue. The concept of 'I'm going to play a doctor' sounds great to a lot of players. They often forget to answer the question of 'okay, what else are you gonna do for the first two combats a day when no one has taken hit point damage?'.
Healbots can be useful in non stamina systems. With stamina that better be your backup role, and not your primary combat schtick.
(also note. There is a difference between a biohacker with a healing option and A HEALER. Pre corvid i lifted weights in the gym. I was not A weightlifter. Do yuou x when you do x. You are an xer when something is kind of central about your being)I think that's mostly a system mastery issue. The concept of 'I'm going to play a doctor' sounds great to a lot of players. They often forget to answer the question of 'okay, what else are you gonna do for the first two combats a day when no one has taken hit point damage?'.
Healbots can be useful in non stamina systems. With stamina that better be your backup role, and not your primary combat schtick.
I think theres a few tangentially related issues here
How useful your concept is (Healer, tank, shooter, melee, position controller, skills, utility)
How well you execute that concept
How many resources you devote to that concept
What you have left after realizing that concept (Or what that concepts secondary powers let you do)
Non magical healing hits the problems of healing not being critical and not being executed very well. Magical healing is really really good at it. Which has the side effect of leaving you other resources to put to other things.
A two gun kid is in an ok role (ranged damage < melee damage) but does it just plain worse than other very similar options.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find that the key to playing a doctor in Starfinder is to have a hard to pronounce name so people will prefer to call you doctor instead.
But yeah, for a lot of builds "what else can you do beside that" is a legit question. It's pretty rare that you can't scoop up some synergies and actually have multiple roles that you fulfill, but there's just one of them that you actually wear as your label.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I long for the day when Starfinder and Pathfinder are a single, interchangeable system.
I long for the day when Starfinder and Pathfinder are a single, interchangeable system.
Starfinder 2e fan conversion is coming along and I can't wait
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have not been a fan of Pathfinder 2E. As a player of mine said, you just do not feel heroic in 2E. Starfinder still manages to capture that heroic feeling without the crazier scaling issues of 1E. We as a group enjoy the Starfinder system. The setting has lead to quite a few very funny moments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I'm going to check Starfinder out, are there any "traps" to be aware of? I.e. options that look better than they are, options that look worse than they are, basically anything that one might not catch just casually reading the rules; I don't mean "the devs deliberately left bad choices in".
Concept that don't work very well yet
snipers
Two gun kid
Non magical healer
Buffs only bard envoy.
Healing isn't really neccesary. You can survive on stamina and 6packs of healing potions.
Be able to do something in starship combat, even if it is athletics to negate the full attack penalty
Pistols in general do not work for non operatives. Their damage dice and half level specialization bonus make them
Diseases and poisons are NASTY. Be able to get them off. You very quickly death spiral picking up penalties to your fort save which gets you sick which penalizes your fort save
Moving someone provokes AOOs. This can get hillarious.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Traps" to varying degrees:
1. All critical effects are almost entirely worthless
2. Unless you're a melee character, starting with low Dex is straight up a mistake.
3. Don't try to multiclass unless you know what you're doing precisely
4. Even the heaviest armor and shield combo will not keep you safe in melee. You will always get hit reliably.
5. Small arms are worthless for anyone but an Operative.
6. Most archetypes are absolute trash.
7. Many feats sound good but when you realize what it takes to use them, they rapidly lose value, to the point that some feats don't even see use over many many levels. Pick generally useful feats before rare-use feats.
8. Skills are balanced around having your class grant bonuses to them. If you're thinking about focusing on a skill that doesn't get boosted by your class in some way, see if you can change things up.
9. Resolve is very valuable. Check that you're not leaving your resolve stat low.
10. Starships benefit from having one big gun on a turret, guns on inactive firing arcs are wasted BP.
11. Witchwarper sucks, their class features eat each other rather than complement each other.
12. Some GMs don't let feats like Technomantic Dabbler allow you to use spell gems.
13. Always have a backup weapon or way to deal different damage types, elemental resistances will murder you
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I'm going to check Starfinder out, are there any "traps" to be aware of? I.e. options that look better than they are, options that look worse than they are, basically anything that one might not catch just casually reading the rules; I don't mean "the devs deliberately left bad choices in".
No real "traps." That's one of the things I really like about Starfinder: even the suboptimal choices can still contribute decently. Maybe not as good as you would like, but enough that you won't feel like you failed the team because you didn't foresee how something would work out long term.
Two items that might be worse than they look (for some builds):
Power armor feat - You need to really understand how power armor functions before investing in the feat. Power armor is a fine (post-Armory) build if you keep in mind the special rules and the fact that you really can't afford to upgrade an armor with cool abilities very much and have to buy new armor with different abilities. Archetypes and class options are usually better than just taking the feat.
Resolve Points - (Specifically Extra Resolve) Some builds simply don't have many ways to spend resolve other than 10 minute rests and stabilizing. It's often tempting to grab Extra Resolve at 5th level, especially if you've been in a few tough fights, but keep in mind you'll probably be getting 4 resolve over the next 4 levels from various sources (5th level stat increase, stat upgrade, and leveling). If your class abilities don't require resolve you may find yourself with an excess.
One thing that might be better than it looks:
Piloting Skill - It just plays into so much. Even if you are in a group with a dedicated "pilot character" you may find yourself needing to fly a single-seater vehicle across a planet's surface. If you are not a full BAB class you can use ranks in piloting instead of BAB when firing starship guns (essentially making yourself a full BAB class for that purpose).
"Traps" to varying degrees:
1. All critical effects are almost entirely worthless
2. Unless you're a melee character, starting with low Dex is straight up a mistake.
3. Don't try to multiclass unless you know what you're doing precisely
4. Even the heaviest armor and shield combo will not keep you safe in melee. You will always get hit reliably.
5. Small arms are worthless for anyone but an Operative.
6. Most archetypes are absolute trash.
7. Many feats sound good but when you realize what it takes to use them, they rapidly lose value, to the point that some feats don't even see use over many many levels. Pick generally useful feats before rare-use feats.
8. Skills are balanced around having your class grant bonuses to them. If you're thinking about focusing on a skill that doesn't get boosted by your class in some way, see if you can change things up.
9. Resolve is very valuable. Check that you're not leaving your resolve stat low.
10. Starships benefit from having one big gun on a turret, guns on inactive firing arcs are wasted BP.
11. Witchwarper sucks, their class features eat each other rather than complement each other.
12. Some GMs don't let feats like Technomantic Dabbler allow you to use spell gems.
13. Always have a backup weapon or way to deal different damage types, elemental resistances will murder you
Just chiming in to say, yeah all of this is basically true.
I don't know about the witchwarper part because I haven't played one but the rest is accurate.
In my opinion, Starfinder is about knowing what things ("character concepts") are supported by the system and avoiding them. Outside of that there's nothing too critical or hidden. Most feats aren't terribly important for a character.
If you're playing a class that doesn't get advanced firearms/melee or produces its own weapon (solarion, vanguard, technomancer junk weapon) then you're going to want to invest in proficiency and versatile specialization feats. I don't recommend going melee unless you play a melee dedicated class, though I've heard of several people giving it a go as junk weapon/armor technomancers.
I long for the day when Starfinder and Pathfinder are a single, interchangeable system.Starfinder 2e fan conversion is coming along and I can't wait
JoY!
Healing is downright not a thing to specialize into in Starfinder.
With stamina points, it's super rare that someone takes actual hit point damage. And with consumables you can pretty easily cover that.
I do agree though that characters should be well rounded. Which isn't hard to do, there's not that much optimization available in terms of building your character, to prevent you from rounding out your character.
The level of optimization is basically do you primarily melee? Max strength. Do you primarily shoot max dex? Do you think you primarily cast? You're wrong, you primarily shoot, but go ahead and max your casting stat followed by dex.
And basically everybody should make dex their second best ability score, unless it's already your best ability score.
Feats honestly do not do that much for optimization.
And ability score increases are enough that you can pile on int or wisdom or charisma onto any build to suit your fancy.
But don't expect to be good at skills unless your class gives you class features for it.
And even if you get those, the Operative will still be better.
And basically everybody should make dex their second best ability score, unless it's already your best ability score.
Strength based melee fighters shouldn't do this. Enemy hit is so high anyway you're going to be hit. I have an SFS ysoki Strength Operative with a 12 dex and she mostly melees, but does run away and or throw weapons when she starts hitting HP. Highly recommends calden cayden healing potions. Drink till you feel better one way or another.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if your campaign allows you to keep up to level+ heavy armor you should totally have enough dex to max out the bonus on your armor.
Not the most important thing, but it is useful at that point.
Now if you can't constantly get updated armor, obviously you might as well ignore AC as a defense and throw those points into CON and WIS instead.
@BNW, my recommendation is basically for ranged back up attacks, because everyone should still be competent at ranged attacks, for when melee isn't possible.
I mean, maybe you don't need to max it. All the melee classes are full BAB anyways, so it's not as important, but still. And as Garretmander said, you really should try to at least keep enough dex to max out your armor.
And with the way ability score increases work anyways, it's not that hard to raise dex as one of the 4 scores. Str, dex, con, and wis are absolutely great choices if you're not interested in more skills or charisma skills.
If you get an area weapon like line or explode and you're only making one attack, the math works out a bit better as a backup weapon even with lowish dex. Just rolling the dice in case you get lucky and hit a few targets at once.
If you get an area weapon like line or explode and you're only making one attack, the math works out a bit better as a backup weapon even with lowish dex. Just rolling the dice in case you get lucky and hit a few targets at once.
Yeah, but unless you're specifically going after more skills or charisma based skills I think it's relatively easy to go ahead and increase dex as you level.
And even if you do want int or charisma, sacrificing con or wisdom isn't unreasonable. Like sure, your fort/will save wont be as good as they could be, and you wont have as much stamina as you could. But my experience so far has been you don't need super high con for stamina. Since you can always take a 10 minute rest to reset, it's just not that important.
I guess what I'm saying is the opportunity cost to have a good dex is pretty low, IMO.
And dex does get you AC, ranged attacks, initiative, one save (the least important type of save typically) and some skills.
It's just a really strong ability score. Oh and can be important for starship battles, depending on what else you may be able to do.
@BNW, my recommendation is basically for ranged back up attacks, because everyone should still be competent at ranged attacks, for when melee isn't possible.
.
In starfinder I think this is less of a concern, because between foot slats, jump jets, jetpack, force pack, and haste circuits the concept of "not within melee range" approaches a nulll set.
Sorry, not within melee range isn't about being able to physically reach the enemy becuase they're flying. I agree that every melee character (probably every character) should buy force soles mk2.
What I mean is that you can't reach the enemy because they're too far away, or the enemy you want to hit is behind some others and your going to get hit with AoO to reach them.
I'm playing Dead Suns right now, and the number of times I've watched the melee members of the team get stuck trying to run through a hallway being shot at and then taking AoO because they want to hit the high value target in the back is....basically every combat.
Which may be an AP and group combat style dynamic but all I'm saying is, considering the general upsides of Dex, it's not a bad choice to focus on.
(also note. There is a difference between a biohacker with a healing option and A HEALER. Pre corvid i lifted weights in the gym. I was not A weightlifter. Do yuou x when you do x. You are an xer when something is kind of central about your being)I think that's mostly a system mastery issue. The concept of 'I'm going to play a doctor' sounds great to a lot of players. They often forget to answer the question of 'okay, what else are you gonna do for the first two combats a day when no one has taken hit point damage?'.
Healbots can be useful in non stamina systems. With stamina that better be your backup role, and not your primary combat schtick.
Not to mention that Starfinder has two types of healers: Those who restore Stamina (Envoys) and those who restore Hit Points (Mystics). When I stepped down from GMing my group and added a PC to the party, I decided to play an Envoy. He proved to be far more immediately useful as a healer than the Mystic did. Our party Mystic actually focuses on all sorts of things other than healing hit points now.
I'm not really sold on envoys healing staminia. The action economy is pretty heavy, and for the same action they could potentially drop an opponent , resulting in less damage taken.
For a mystic healer you really need the medic archetype. Then instead of waiting till your party member is almost dead, the second they loose a HP BOOM, hp comes back and the medic lets your healing overflow to staminia. It's not something you want to do all the time