|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I'm in firm belief that SF2e shouldn't be just "PF2e the scifi edition with heavier focus on vehicle/starship/mech combat". Not just because of things like "canteena species system is hard to keep up if everyone has ancestry feats or if species feats are generic" and that "there are lot of different unique weapons out on market and items to allow you to do things that would be higher level in pathfinder at low levels" aspect but also because of things like small flavor differences in mechanics and potential for doing things PF2e did in playtest but didn't get to final version as some of them might be better fit in starfinder.
(pathfinder 1e also had dealios with "well 3.5 monsters should be compatible with system" and starfinder had bugs related to "well pathfinder 1e monsters should be portable to starfinder, so I hope starfinder avoids this school of thought so we don't have restrictions because "you should be able to use pathfinder monsters in starfinder and vice versa without conversion issues!")
For example of the playtest related dealios 1) in pf2e playtest the untrained profiency bonus being equal to your level (or in later errata -4 your level) might make more sense to players in starfinder than pathfinder. I honestly always preferred idea of untrained profiency also scaling with level, but the "I want my wizard to really suck at athletics" crowd won out for understandable reasons. I'd think though that in starfinder it really does make sense that in futuristic word where common education is a thing that everyone has baseline ability to use computers and drive vehicles :'D Its already kinda hurting in starfinder when vehicles come in and only single character has piloting.
There is also that some devs seemed bummed out that removal of baseline for skills meant that skills couldn't be used as DCs more often(in pf2e remnant of this is mostly athletics dc for grapple escape related stuff and deception dc), and I'm curious to see what devs would come up with if all characters could be expected to have at minimum of certain skill dc by specific levels.
Other thing from playtest that I think could have potential here is 2) having profiencies only jump one number instead of two (so 1/2/3 instead of 2/4/6). I honestly preferred the change to bigger numbers since it feels better to me, but I do think devs do have point that it harder to play around with class proficiency(so all martials need to have at least master, because +2 isn't competitive with +6, compared to how +2 would have been competitive with +4 in comparison) and I'm again curious to see what devs would do with that. But main reason I think that might work better here is that starfinder in general feels like there should be smaller jump between levels and effectiveness than in pathfinder, especially assuming if they keep around six levels of spells compared to ten levels.
This is especially important in starfinder because wizard in pf2e isn't competitive using weapon vs enemies, but I feel like mystic with pistol should stay competitive vs enemies in starfinder and shouldn't be forced to have master profiency to do that :'D So if starfinder 2e uses profiencies, expert should be competitive vs high level enemies even if legendary and master are still better.
Third thing isn't strictly playtest thing, its more of how action economy and spells work. I much prefer 3 action economy to swift/move/standard action, but playtest did admittedly show "what if spells had variable effects based on actions you use" where release game just had vast majority of spells be just 2 actions. Basically I think spell design in starfinder using 3 action economy should have all spells have potential of either 1-2 actions or 2-3 actions at least to have spellcasters get full benefit of interesting parts of action economy as well.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For a start, the core math needs to be less punishing and actually fun to play. Optimizing in SF means you can actually succeed in your area of expertise most of the time. In PF2 it means you don't fall behind what the system expects.
For that matter, throw out Assurance and keep Take 10, because not everything needs to be a die roll, and investing in a skill needs to make you not fail trivial tasks in it because the dice said "no". Also, get rid of natural 1s downgrading your skill checks to crit fails.
. Also, get rid of natural 1s downgrading your skill checks to crit fails.
That's going to go worse in a universe with demon powered fusion reactors isn't it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm, I honestly don't think they should do too much differently from PF2, because it's just that good. I would love it if as much as possible worked just like PF2, including ancestries, skills, and proficiencies.
Most things I'd want to change should be changed in PF2 as well, like giving Wizards and Rogues standard weapon proficiences, making shields not so disposable, and making something like Free Archetype standard.
|
|
For that matter, throw out Assurance and keep Take 10,
How about keeping around both?
Like secret fun side of assurance isn't that its for taking ten, its for allowing character who would normally have massive penalties to skill still use it competently well xD (that is what I use it, for stuff like dumbing wisdom for character that automatically identifies weaker undead with religion)
sidenote, on the other thing: I think ye are being bit imprecise there, you technically don't need to optimize to keep up with math of your own level in PF2e(compared to how in starfinder you need every single skill bonus to keep up with challenging dc skill math), it however means you need to do it to keep up with math of higher level enemies. Like, vs your own level and lower levels having lower proficiency or stat modifier is usually okay. But yeah, the math tightness is something that would actually be addressed by the whole "Lower profiencies from +2 to +1" because lot of the feeling of being forced to optimize is result of how huge gap 4+ proficiency bonus is compared to +8.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Things I love about starfinder in no specific order:
Huge amount of items, but aside from armor and weapon not much is really needed. And if you don't want to be that alien that's caught with their proverbial pants down, there are a lot of options to have even weapon or armor semi build in (IUS, entropic strike, solarian weapon, tons of stuff for weapons. Less for armor but numbers matter a lot less because of the lack of a +10 to crit situation, and a lot of the stuff armor does can also be gained from augments/spells/etc).
More choices for your character. 2e took a lot of class features, class options like rogue tricks, combat feats, and multiclassing/archetypes and put them all into one bucket. Starfinder classes have a lot more to their core chassis, then most classes also have another bucket to pick from like adaptations or mechanic tricks, and then you have feats on top of that.
Skills are a lot more flexible. Being able to choose where every +1 goes every level let's a character choose between throwing all their ranks in a few skills or spreading everything out. That combined with looser math means your character can be decent with more skills than in 2e where at 20 if you aren't legendary in your skill you fall behind. There are some exceptions to this (I don't think perception should be a skill, I think every class in starfinder should be able to get up to a +6 insight bonus if they choose to in some way, stuff like that) but in a lot of ways I prefer starfinders method.
Having things between magic and martial. I love having supernatural or spell like stuff. The classes that accumulate resources in combat like solarian, vanguard, and evolutionist are so unique and fun and exist in a very creative space between shoot/hit thing with stick and magic spell casting (or some combination of those two things). Having technology be able to do a lot of pseudo magic stuff almost makes for a whole other aspect too.
Old school action economy. It could do with a few fixes, swift actions could have a few more fun uses, but the simplicity of move, do thing or do one big thing I really like. I've played with a few people in 2e that get frustrated because the three action economy makes doing a lot of things a bad idea and makes them feel like the last action is pointless (and yes I know there's a lot of things you could do with a third action but it can feel really crappy to hear you need to build you character different, can feel forced to do that third action). I dunno how to explain it really but the three action economy is messy.
Of course there's the setting but that's kind of a moot point for this topic.
Things I think pathfinder does better:
Archetypes. Making archetypes take away regular class options is just a bad idea when you can't choose which aspects you want. Why would I take this archetype that locks me into these 4 or 5 specific class features and takes away from the huge amount of options I could take? Like taking the augmented archetype for a mechanic takes away from the 40 or so options I could take and instead I'm locked into 3 options at levels 2, 4, and 6. If all archetype optional were optional it would be ideal.
Heritages. Being able to mix human with oread or whatever other combination is just cool. Not a super huge fan of ancestry feats and stuff though, starfinders way of giving everything to you at level one is preferred imo.
|
|
I'm personally bit allergic to the "skill ranks" due it being more or less a trap option to not invest them all into same skill (especially in starfinder where skill math for challenging and harder skills is extremely tight higher the levels), I don't necessarily mind if SF2e doesn't have profiencies, but I'd rather have skill ranks replaced with something else entirely.
Honestly 3 action economy's favorite thing to me is the small thing of how much mobility it allows without having to spend feats on spring attacks or shot on the run or such. Starfinder combat ends up feeling rather static to me lot of the time, sometimes even more so than 1e even though starfinder doesn't have the five foot step full attack dance... Ironically, it is because of that it feels more static to me, because here you can't full attack and do guarded step at same time so once combat begins high level soldiers just start trading full attacks. 3 action economy just feels inherently better than move/standard in game flow, only time it didn't work for me was 1e unchained version because system wasn't designed it in mind so converting actions and monsters to it felt off.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they make one, then they'd need to make feats bigger for me to justify playing it. Class feat being limited to tiny little chunks of nothing in Pathfinder 2e is just so boring and can be legit hard for me and my group to actually pick class feats that look fun and interesting.
Interesting skill feats.
Also shouldn't repeat the Pathfinder 2e thing of "Okay so we claim you have three actions, but half the classes actually basically only have two or have a routine they have to cycle through every turn."
Have actual willingness to have diverse class subsystems from the get-go, rather than 'all classes must use focus' situations.
No ancestry feats.
Keep a more starfinder-y style monster creation system as that's far more gm friendly than PF2es.
Let shapeshifting be non-horrible, like how SF already handles it.
Pathfinder 2 seems almost afraid to give people actual effects that fulfill the main concept of a class or feat without so many caveats and pre requisits that it doesn't work within the bounds of most campaigns
Starfinder sometimes has a problem where the class is a case of show don't tell. besides a slow scaling skill focus and remote hack, what does a mechanic do to be THE mechanic? I get that a hacker operative or FOR SCIENCE! based mystic can have about the same + hacking*, and you want there to be viable, but the mechanic should have a lot of special or unique things beyond a slowly scaling skill focus.
Maybe that could be combined with the assurance problem for some mad science. The operative rolls a 20 but has half their level (half level +5?) as the minimum roll while the mad science mechanic has a very swingy roll20 but could either hack the robot onto your side or fry their own brain. That differentiates skilled characters beyond a d20 plus slightly different mods.
* In a recent high level game, the mechanic wtf'd that the ysoki mystic was the highest level engineer in the party...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The mechanic's big hacking thing is the level 7 custom rig upgrade that automatically removes one countermeasure whenever you successfully hack. That's actually quite strong.
|
|
Class fantasy/class gameplay dealio is something I notice with starfinder classes a lot yeah :'D Most of them do decent job with it though, at least on higher levels
I actually like class feats, but I do think skill feats have problem of skill "feat" as term making you think they should be equal to general and class feats in power, when most of skill feats are "extra options for skill situations", it doesn't help that in combat heavy game its confusing when some skill feats are useful in combat and others aren't (and I really think you should be able to recognize spells without a skill feat)
Also yeah I don't mind some classes having routine(99% of spells being just 2 action spells is issue), but I do think some classes, like swashbuckler, kinda fall into the routine without having competitive alternate ways to go through it for most time. I mean, you can do so, but it kinda feels like you shouldn't deviate from the routine?
Keep a more starfinder-y style monster creation system as that's far more gm friendly than PF2es.
Anyway, this one I'm curious about. Starfinder monster creation rule is "you select from three arrays, creature of same array and CR have exact same stats", then you customize it by making up monster abilities and adding grafts. I guess it is gm friendly in manner of it being mostly automated, but it leaves less choices for gm(I like figuring out how I'll spread high/moderate/low values for my creatures) and its harder to estimate effects of boss enemies (I'll often create boss enemies of higher level by comparing how their bonuses would compare to enemy of same level as party)
I don't mind the array system though, but I'd prefer it if there were more customizing built into it. I like to follow creature building guidelines when making my own monsters and oddly enough it kinda bothers me how amount of special abilities is built into the array
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, this one I'm curious about. Starfinder monster creation rule is "you select from three arrays, creature of same array and CR have exact same stats", then you customize it by making up monster abilities and adding grafts. I guess it is gm friendly in manner of it being mostly automated, but it leaves less choices for gm(I like figuring out how I'll spread high/moderate/low values for my creatures) and its harder to estimate effects of boss enemies (I'll often create boss enemies of higher level by comparing how their bonuses would compare to enemy of same level as party)I don't mind the array system though, but I'd prefer it if there were more customizing built into it. I like to follow creature building guidelines when making my own monsters and oddly enough it kinda bothers me how amount of special abilities is built into the array
I can totally see desire for a broader and more customisable monster creation system, but the PF2e system is abit too guideless IMO to be as useful for quick monster creation.
|
|
Ah, you are right in that I learned to use PF2e monster creation by testing out different combinations of bestiary -4 to +4 monsters in different exp budgets and then experimenting with different statlines in my JR homebrew. Guidelines aren't bad per say, but they don't really help you understand fully ramifications of high/low bonuses.
It sounds like good idea if they would provide example combinations of statlines for specific kind of effects(like what kind of monster you would give extreme dc for, or how to create tanky monster that isn't overwhelmingly powerful) or other examples of what different kind of bonuses mean in practice.
That and while I can attest that it is possible to create monster quickly with it (I sometimes stat up new statblock during session with it), it definitely would be handy to have "quick loadouts" suggestions for when you need specific kind of monster fast, so you could just look up the level of monster and fill in numbers by the suggestion.
I'm hoping for a playtest myself to test out what they come up with.
IF the OGL mess did'nt go our way Betting we would have gotten SF 2nd Ed a lot sooner. Though it will now only be "ORC Proofed" I think it will be a longer lead time til we see anything official.
But Eric Mona in a twitch cast did say "he loved giving players in SF what they want", so for sure 3 action economy and skill stuff at least wre noted, but nothing official as of yet he can announce at this time.
my bet is about 2 years from now, would have been a year otherwise, but they have to ORC proof PF II first, then SF.
Tom
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The main thing I'd change in Starfinder is to streamline starship combat, to be honest. Making it more like PF2e (aside from making them more compatible, mixing up ability benefits, and so on) doesn't particularly interest me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A new ship combat sub system would be a great thing, thats for sure!!
Tom
|
Skills and Ancestries are the first things to come to mind:
- Given the number of useful skills in SF, Having only three 'good' skills seems like it would be pretty brutal for any non-Operative trying to 'cover the Int skills'
- Creating heritage and feat options for each SF Ancestry just seems like a big job.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd prefer they do classes and Archetypes more like PF2 than SF. The existing SF archetypes although a cool idea with having class agnostic archetypes unlike PF1, the loss of arbitrary class abilities without ability to regain them wound up being too problematic. I think converting many aspects of SF classes to class feats, and enabling Archetypes similarly would be great. However, I'd love to see all classes having a class feat at first level. I'd also love to see many archetypes available to be taken at 1st level, if desired, not being built with the assumption that all of them would only be available at 2nd level or higher.
Baseline potential differences between ancestries should be far more wider than the scope/budget allowed in PF2. Having ancestry feats and further differentiation as they advance is fine, but PC ancestries should be able to vary more than in PF2 in order to keep the more varied cantina feel for the game. I suspect for instance that in Pathfinder we would never see a baseline ancestry include all of the following (prior to ancestry feat/heritage) Aquatic (not amphibious), resist cold, weak to heat, with dark vision and light blindness. Other examples would include things like at-will telepathy abilities and such, which are staples of the fantasy need to be able to be baseline abilities for appropriate ancestries.
Weapons should continue to provide a wider selection of types of damages starting at starting at early levels. Critical effects should be tied to these weapons to provide flavorful differences on these weapons without being tied to combat specialization in the weapon. (such combat specialization might unlock more advanced/better critical effects though potentially)
I like Stamina in StarFinder, I think it makes sense to make it a baseline part of a SF2. Don't hard-code that all things which heal HP don't do anything to stamina. Those effects would tend to be more limited to times per day, and rather than doing nothing to stamina, would heal HP first and any leftover would have reduced effect on stamina. (half effect restored) making it an inefficient way to restore stamina, especially with having more less costly means of restoring stamina with a little time investment.
Have multiple ways to get various bonuses, be they particular forms of magic, or technological perfection, etc. but don't have them stack directly. Such benefits might have side effects that might be useful even if applied together. Technomancers might actually have methods at certain levels to start to partially stack effects for instance as kind of a specialty of theirs.
It seems like Science Fiction and this apples as well to Science Fantasy is more skill based, and there will be call for more variety of skills. I don't know if that means more discreet separate skills, or it means more specific Lore(-like) skills that are commonly relevant. Having more skills in the list would mean we probably need more skill rank increases available.
I'd like to see them reimplement a mechanic similar to the old Pathfinder 1st edition Traits. I recommend specifically utilizing something much like the PFS Boons, but which would be picked for an adventure you are entering. (not just for/at character creation) These boons would be used to generate a tie to the adventure, and frequently insure your character may have access to a means to succeed at a portion of the adventure. Be it a boon allowing you to use some skill as if you were trained in certain circumstances, or use an alternate related skill for that purpose during the adventure. These boons will help players to understand what resources will be helpful for the storyline, and help them integrate their characters into the storyline and help them succeed at various challenges through the storyline.
Honestly, I sort of wish that monsters had Ranks for their abilities/attacks. And there was potentially a difference beyond the number between a 18 Trained AC vs. 18 Expert AC for instance.
Ideally, character generation and options should help provide options and differentiation for all the modes of likely play. Unlike Pathfinder, it is easier to imagine far more frequent 'modes' of play in 'StarFinder'. There is transitional downtime, encounter, and exploration, but there is also Mech, Vehicle, Space, Cyber or even potentially things such as Political or Economical for Corporate, Faction, or Community tiers. There is a degree to which these subgames seem to lack diversity with people. Mystic characters know only specific spells, but get into space combat and they all have the same spellcasting abilities to trigger specific magics at the at mode of play. It seems like there should be some option for differentiation between people that isn't just a 'I win' button for challenges in such modes as characters level up.
Someone mentioned liking the idea of having spells have more than one option for number of actions to cast the spell. That isn't entirely new for PF2, but making that be the typical would be new, and I'd agree that it would be nice to see that explored.
Personally, I prefer the Starfinder ability score generation method over the PF2 "A-B-C" method. 12 points rather than 10 would probably be better suited to spread things out a bit without a drastic "power creep;" I sometimes find a low level character is just a bit short of being competent when not narrowly specialized.
Races/species and themes probably don't need much, if any, change. Consolidating the race/species variants in one place and possibly adding some others would be enough, IMO.
The class balance, especially regarding skill bonuses, probably needs to be adjusted/tweaked. Also, some of the optional/variant class abilities may need to be looked at/rebalanced.
Add me to the list that believes "Starfinder 2" archetypes should be more like PF2 archetypes: set minimum levels for each archetype ability, require the "dedication" ability before taking any others, but allow more flexibility as to which abilities are selected (and when) rather than the "all or nothing" that most Starfinder archetypes are stuck with; also allow multiple archetypes (with some caveats like "must select all/at least two other archetype abilities before selecting another archetype 'dedication'"). Solarian with a "mystic (or witchwarper) dedication" to gain up to 4th level spells at the cost of fewer stellar revelations? I could see that (basically trading class features instead of using a feat for Connection Inkling or Reality Glimmer).
Personally, I tend to use Starfinder archetypes more with a multiclassed character (especially on the "dip" class) than with a single classed character because it otherwise straightjackets the development so much (other than a few archetypes with only one or two mandatory features).
Upgrading equipment should be easier, rather than needing to buy/craft/replace completely new items (especially armor and weapons) every 2-3 levels.
Starship combat should be revised: pilots and gunners are a bit too central, while everyone else is basically there for support; this might be a good place to import the three action economy (with one, two, or three action starship tasks) so that the crew can have more options than just glide or snapshot outside their "primary" role/activity.
|
|
I do feel like the starfinder stat generation is more restrictive than either 1e or 2e, like if species doesn't have stat to key stat of your class, thats 8 points of the generation :'D And 6 if they do leaving 4 extra ones. Either way you WILL have multiple stats at 10 unless you do weirder spread of them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do feel like the starfinder stat generation is more restrictive than either 1e or 2e, like if species doesn't have stat to key stat of your class, thats 8 points of the generation :'D And 6 if they do leaving 4 extra ones. Either way you WILL have multiple stats at 10 unless you do weirder spread of them.
starting characters only need a 16 in their key stat to be successful.
yes, that does mean that a melee ysoki is going to have to spend 8 points on STR. But they also get +2 in 2 different stats, and then you have 2 points to spread around. and there are variants to most of the major species.
i'm pretty satisfied w/ the balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The flexibility of Starfinder's ability score generation is great.
The available pool of points for generation is a probably a little low, however. Which is why I stated: "12 points rather than 10 would probably be better suited to spread things out a bit without a drastic 'power creep;' I sometimes find a low level character is just a bit short of being competent when not narrowly specialized."
As far as starting with an 18 to maximize an ability score, the difference between a 26 (+8 bonus) and a 28 (+9 bonus) at 20th level is (IMO) not a huge difference. By 10th-11th level, even starting with a 14 instead of an 18 reduces to a difference of +1 on the ability bonus (14 +2 at 5th +2 at 10th = 18; 18 +1 at 5th +1 at 10th = 20), assuming the same personal upgrade choices; granted the difference is highest at the lowest levels when bonuses are more important.
|
|
Problem with 12 would be that you could get two stats with 18 then, so it would require another "nah you can only get one stats to 18 at first level" clause which would make it clumsier to me.
difference between +8 and +9 isn't big yeah, but neither is it in pf2e if you are fighting threats of your own level or lower. Biggest benefit of it is that it makes it easier to punch up higher level enemies(so with +29 total bonus, you can hit ac of CR 23 encounter soloboss with roll of 10 assuming you aren't flanking it) as math of starfinder is really tight at high levels when you are facing harder challenges. Skill math is worst case of it, level 20 challenging dc is 45 which means (20 skill ranks +4 stat + 3 class skill + 3 skill focus = success on 15 :'D Ye kinda do need either tool item bonuses, higher insight bonuses from class or higher stat bonus) you need absolutely every bonus you can get in game to have reliable chance to succeed :'D Math in starfinder is least tight regarding save bonuses (dc 29 vs save of 23 or 19 of the said CR 23 solo boss ain't that tight because single fail vs high level spell can wreck enemy hard)
|
|
Problem with 12 would be that you could get two stats with 18 then, so it would require another "nah you can only get one stats to 18 at first level" clause which would make it clumsier to me.
difference between +8 and +9 isn't big yeah, but neither is it in pf2e if you are fighting threats of your own level or lower. Biggest benefit of it is that it makes it easier to punch up higher level enemies(so with +29 total bonus, you can hit ac of CR 23 encounter soloboss with roll of 10 assuming you aren't flanking it) as math of starfinder is really tight at high levels when you are facing harder challenges. Skill math is worst case of it, level 20 challenging dc is 45 which means (20 skill ranks +4 stat + 3 class skill + 3 skill focus = success on 15 :'D Ye kinda do need either tool item bonuses, higher insight bonuses from class or higher stat bonus) you need absolutely every bonus you can get in game to have reliable chance to succeed :'D Math in starfinder is least tight regarding save bonuses (dc 29 vs save of 23 or 19 of the said CR 23 solo boss ain't that tight because single fail vs high level spell can wreck enemy hard)
the math tightness means that you have to do more as a party than just whack-the-giant-space-monster
you need buffers, debuffers, flankers, etc., if you plan to defeat the giant space monsters
makes the game more interesting than just the big guy with the crazy high attack bonus doing all the work like in PF1
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing, really. I like them being two different things. They are for different games, the systems should be different.
I definitely hope starfinder remains starfinder for as long as it can.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Problem with 12 would be that you could get two stats with 18 then, so it would require another "nah you can only get one stats to 18 at first level" clause which would make it clumsier to me.
Maybe start with increases to four ability scores at 1st level (like at 5th, 10th, etc.)*, after applying racial/species modifiers and selecting a theme, and then a pool of 4 points to spend as you wish?
This would be equivalent to 12 total points, but would force the points to be spread out more. Unless there is a race/species with a +4 in two scores, they can't start with 18s in two scores. The character can still start with an 18 in a score that gains a racial/species bonus, but would be limited to 16 in a score without a bonus and a 14 in a score with a -2 racial/species penalty.
Unfortunately, it also pushes you to "build" a character around a race/species/variant that is "suited for" a specific "role" instead of allowing you the ability to make "non-standard" characters easily (like a melee focused contemplative solarian).
Ability score generation is just one of those subsystems that is really hard to please everybody with...
*- or PF2
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they need to scale up the abilities. Jetpacks are a thing so allow ancestries and magical means of doing it much sooner than in PF2. Same for darkvision and some of the other ancestry abilities that they scaled way back from PF1.
I really hope they get rid of the class skill stuff. Don’t make it so only some classes can even compete in some skills because of lack of an insight bonus and/or not being a class skill.
Please keep something like the PF2 model for multiclassing and archetypes, but consider free archetype or something like it as part of the base rules. That way you can have your Technomancer vehicle junkie or augmented soldier. I would like something between the current theme in SF and a free archetype in PF2.
Please when you’ve got the same skills, use the same names. We don’t need it to be Bluff in one system and Deception in the other! I like the name Culture better, but would rather have it be Society just so it matches PF2.
If they go with the TEML system, I agree they need more skill increases.
Make it so you can improve a weapon that you learned outside of your class weapons. Same for armor. Right now, if the class didn’t give it to you it is very difficult to improve past Trained in a weapon.
I like the stamina system of Starfinder and would prefer they keep that over the single hit point pool of Pathfinder.
Mnemonic Editor sounded interesting but Starfinder needs more retraining options. You sometimes really want to go back more than two levels and change a decision.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Armor/Weapons Math
Do I like the idea of having a large selection of weapons and armor? Yes.
But I want the selection to be full of choices that are actually DIFFERENT, not just a higher level of the same thing.
Oh, you are wearing the Version 3 of your armor? But you have leveled up a few times so now you are under geared. Time to go out and buy the Version 4 of your armor...
This is a TTRPG NOT AN MMO!.If I wanted to play a tabletop MMO I would have played dnd 4e damn it!
If I wanted to play a tabletop MMO I would have played dnd 4e damn it!
Ironically, 4e had some pretty interesting weapon variety from specialization feats.
|
|
The Armor/Weapons Math
Do I like the idea of having a large selection of weapons and armor? Yes.
But I want the selection to be full of choices that are actually DIFFERENT, not just a higher level of the same thing.
Oh, you are wearing the Version 3 of your armor? But you have leveled up a few times so now you are under geared. Time to go out and buy the Version 4 of your armor...
This is a TTRPG NOT AN MMO!.If I wanted to play a tabletop MMO I would have played dnd 4e damn it!
October's Book promises rules for equipment scaling, so Paizo seems aware of the related problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've mentioned this before, but the FIRST thing I'd change would be to swap Ancestry/Background with Themes/Species. That is, Themes should be as relevant as your PF2 ancestry, with all the higher level feats and goodies, while Species becomes your "background" with set bonuses and skill affinities. The power can be tinkered with, perhaps through a small menu of bonuses that act as your heritage (making Themes slightly less powerful than Ancestries at level 1, and Species more impactful than Backgrounds), but that would be my basic idea.
I would take a long hard look at the magical classes. As written, I'm not sure they fit into the power structure for magic users in PF2, so figuring out a power level that is satisfying while still allowing the current class fantasies and not breaking PF2s power budget (in either direction, too weak would be as bad as too strong) would be a challenge.
Thought of something else that I would want to be different between the two systems. Need the math to support going up against a lot higher level opponent.
In Starfinder, we have fought gods. This is something that has a basis in other science fiction settings and I think should remain in Starfinder as a possibility.
With the tight math of 2e, you have a lot of trouble against something APL +2 or so. You also have problems with someone three levels lower than the rest of the group having trouble contributing in any meaningful way.
Loosen up the math from 2e to allow a wider range of opponents. This probably means having more ways to buff and debuff. You may need to reduce the severity of critical hits as well if you keep critical hits being AC + 10 like it is in PF2.
Loosen up the math from 2e to allow a wider range of opponents. This probably means having more ways to buff and debuff. You may need to reduce the severity of critical hits as well if you keep critical hits being AC + 10 like it is in PF2.
PF2 players freak when they see my melee mystic dragonkin with an AC of 9/11 heading for the front lines...
What.. he's going to get hit anyway.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest thing I hope Starfinder 2e does differently from PF2e is not to split the community between editions. For me, it's the setting that matters most. As long as Paizo keeps putting out Starfider books, I don't really care what edition it is. I hope Starfinder Enhanced bridges the gap with PF2e enough that die-hard PF2e players are willing to play it again. Years from now When we do get to SF2e, I hope it's more like PF2.5e with lessons learned from PF2e as well.
So maybe a good question might be
What should hypothetical compatible Starfinder and Pathfinder be like? or should they be?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest thing I hope Starfinder 2e does differently from PF2e is not to split the community between editions. For me, it's the setting that matters most. As long as Paizo keeps putting out Starfider books, I don't really care what edition it is. I hope Starfinder Enhanced bridges the gap with PF2e enough that die-hard PF2e players are willing to play it again. Years from now When we do get to SF2e, I hope it's more like PF2.5e with lessons learned from PF2e as well.
I definitely care more about system than setting, since you can play the Starfinder setting in other rpgs. If SF2e is a reset to basically no content + PF2e style boring chargen, I know my groups will probably stay using SF1e or other systems like Cortex & Fate.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just got back from my first Pathfinder 2e Society game. The first combat seems balanced and fun, even if a bit on the hard side. The 3 action economy seemed fun, and a few hit by 10 or more to crit felt good.
Then the second combat started. GM rolls 3 nat 20 in a row with max or near max damage each time. 2 PCs all ready down, and that was just the first of 6 of the bad guys turns. GM stops rolling nat 20 but still crits on most rolls, 4 PC down, and the 2 left standing are heavily injured by the end of the first round of combat.
3 action economy + +10 to crit + lucky die rolls If this happening on the PC side the fight ends too soon to feel like a challenge if on the GMs side, it's a very likely TPK without some creative GMing.
The math seemed a little tight for organized play we had a party split up over 3 levels
I'm not going to judge PF2e after one game but I'm in no hurry for Starfinder to be updated to 2e after my first game.
|
|
In your case, I think getting 3 nat 20s in row was what sealed in. Like in PF1e or starfinder, if enemies did 3 nat 20s in row, that would likely also kill or knock out half the party. (one of first times I run PF1e in society, one level 1 character died from single longbow crit instantly...)
PFS in 2e does have issues yeah if party has characters from both tiers :'D Like one level difference is manageable, but the way challenge points scaling works the lowest level characters will struggle if presence of high level PC increases CP too much (of course depends bit on scenario too since I feel like lot of year 1 scenarios were still struggling to find balance, but I digress)
PF2e style boring chargen.
Are you talking about the point buy? Or does chargen mean leveling up char in general and not just creating them at level 1? Like in both PF2e and SF you pick theme/background, ancestry/species and class. So that would leave stats left?
I really much prefer the "choose your ability boosts" to "you have 10 points and you'll spend 6-8 of them in single stat unless you don't care about maxing one stat for high levels" since I like having multiple stats over ten x'D
In Starfinder, we have fought gods. This is something that has a basis in other science fiction settings and I think should remain in Starfinder as a possibility.
With the tight math of 2e, you have a lot of trouble against something APL +2 or so. You also have problems with someone three levels lower than the rest of the group having trouble contributing in any meaningful way.
Minor correction, we have fought wannabe gods ;D A herald trying to steal his god's position.
Anyway, I do have to say that -4 and -3 enemies in PF2e can contribute to fight (more so than in SF I would dare to say based on one level 11 encounter with 8 CR 7 mooks that was supposedly CR 13 encounter in total from one ap. It was pretty much "lol pcs kick their asses because these guys can't hit or deal meaningful damage" encounter), the main thing is that use of low level mooks requires more complicated tactics higher level PCs are.
I've mentioned this before, but the FIRST thing I'd change would be to swap Ancestry/Background with Themes/Species. That is, Themes should be as relevant as your PF2 ancestry, with all the higher level feats and goodies, while Species becomes your "background" with set bonuses and skill affinities. The power can be tinkered with, perhaps through a small menu of bonuses that act as your heritage (making Themes slightly less powerful than Ancestries at level 1, and Species more impactful than Backgrounds), but that would be my basic idea.
I would take a long hard look at the magical classes. As written, I'm not sure they fit into the power structure for magic users in PF2, so figuring out a power level that is satisfying while still allowing the current class fantasies and not breaking PF2s power budget (in either direction, too weak would be as bad as too strong) would be a challenge.
Lot of stuff I agree with here, in scenario where they avoid increasing number of spell levels SF casters have, I hope they decide to increase their amount of spellslots instead(or maybe give them abilities to regain spell slots with resolve?)
Are you talking about the point buy? Or does chargen mean leveling up char in general and not just creating them at level 1? Like in both PF2e and SF you pick theme/background, ancestry/species and class. So that would leave stats left?
Chargen means character generation, not just ability scores, and not just level 1 because characters can be made past level 1.
The boring part comes as a result of a mix between their philosophy of trying to be as controlled and restrained as possible with their options, while also making the containers for their mechanical choices (the various feat categories) very small preventing them from being able to put cool and interesting abilities into those containers, since if they actually put something substative in one, then it would blow most of the others out of the water.
Often choosing feats in Pathfinder 2e isn't a matter of picking the coolest or most fitting option for your PC from my groups & many I talk with. But instead, tends to be "Pick the least bad option"/"Pick the option you dislike least".
|
|
I just got back from my first Pathfinder 2e Society game. The first combat seems balanced and fun, even if a bit on the hard side. The 3 action economy seemed fun, and a few hit by 10 or more to crit felt good.
Then the second combat started. GM rolls 3 nat 20 in a row with max or near max damage each time. 2 PCs all ready down, and that was just the first of 6 of the bad guys turns. GM stops rolling nat 20 but still crits on most rolls, 4 PC down, and the 2 left standing are heavily injured by the end of the first round of combat.
3 action economy + +10 to crit + lucky die rolls If this happening on the PC side the fight ends too soon to feel like a challenge if on the GMs side, it's a very likely TPK without some creative GMing.
The math seemed a little tight for organized play we had a party split up over 3 levels
I'm not going to judge PF2e after one game but I'm in no hurry for Starfinder to be updated to 2e after my first game.
This shows one of the problems with 2e. It is far more a game of dice luck than 1e or Starfinder.
|
|
Often choosing feats in Pathfinder 2e isn't a matter of picking the coolest or most fitting option for your PC from my groups & many I talk with. But instead, tends to be "Pick the least bad option"/"Pick the option you dislike least".
So wait, ye were talking about feats? Like I get what you mean partially (I think it might have been mistake for paizo to turn "feat" into universal term because it makes people assume that general feats, class feats and skill feats are supposed to have equal weight when general feats are mostly neat static bonuses, skill feats are small upgrades to skill utility and class feats are just customizable class features), but starfinder feats aren't that much more interesting in comparison.
(sf feats were simplified a lot from 1e which is good thing, but they are also kinda boring for most part so I always end up with similar skill loadout on most characters. For most of them you can figure out a some reason to sometimes pick them, but there are couple of them that are universally useful or needed math wise.
I don't really have good idea on what they should do with feats in starfinder technically. Like all starfinder classes HAVE class feats. The other feats we have are basically general feats already. So question is, would they split some of the feats into skill feats and similarly to PF2e make general feats rarer, or should they instead have kind of "uneven level general feat, odd level skill feat" sort of thing going on? Or just have "class feats on even and general feats on odd" level thing going on where players can choose whether to use those general feats to improve combat capabilities or skill utility without feeling like they are forced to increase skill utility they aren't interested in?)
This shows one of the problems with 2e. It is far more a game of dice luck than 1e or Starfinder.
Hard disagree here. You are technically correct, but only because 1e allows you to make character that succeeds with every result except nat 1 on dice making dice completely meaningless. Heck, we could have whole debate about nature of four degrees of success vs "save or die".
Crits being more common in PF2e doesn't make it inherently more luck based than starfinder :P If we go purely by dice luck, lot of the starfinder hazards are purely "unless you roll 18 or higher you don't even spot the trap, if you are low level then you insta die when trap strikes". PF2e is more tactical and teamwork heavy game than starfinder if you ask me. Starfinder unlike PF1e doesn't allow you to make characters that solo entire encounters, but starfinder has rather large safety net for character deaths.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't possess the system mastery to comment too deeply on it but to me the big thing would be not following the PF2e ancestry system in terms of, paring off much of what in PF1e would have been part of the base stats for a species into feats, for the simple, practical reason that it eats into more page space & word count for books. PF2e ancestries do not show up in playable form in monster manuals, they only appear in core books & dedicated setting books.
A large part of the appeal of starfinder to me is the variety of playable species, that cantina feel mentioned in the op. By my count, there's 130 playable species in starfinder currently. Compare that to 35 ancestries in PF2e - 51, if you count versatile and half-human heritages as separate ancestries, but I will draw the line at anyone attempting to count each individual heritage as a comparable playable option to a whole new ancestry/species.
So yeah, just that, pace of release isn't going to be achievable with the PF2e system so I'd like to avoid that.
I really much prefer the "choose your ability boosts" to "you have 10 points and you'll spend 6-8 of them in single stat unless you don't care about maxing one stat for high levels" since I like having multiple stats over ten x'D
Then take multiple stats over ten. There's no connection between having the freedom to put your points where you want them and that freedom resulting in you being stuck with stats you don't want.
Or for pf 2, don't shove me into getting a high int on the alchemist, make me WANT to have high int on my alchemist. If you don't do that let me buy dex or strength instead.
|
|
Then take multiple stats over ten. There's no connection between having the freedom to put your points where you want them and that freedom resulting in you being stuck with stats you don't want.
I mean same applies here: we could have "theme boost, species boost, free boost, fourth something boost" stat adjustment in starfinder without including class boost. In PF2e key stats really only adjust class dc directly, in SF it also comes with resolve points, but you don't always need to have max amount of resolve. So I don't see why hypotethical SF2e would need to mimic this aspect even if it got away with ability points.
I mostly just like the format of "four boosts" at char gen, don't really care where the boost comes from xD Like maybe they could do something like "class boost gives you boost to class' key stat plus one freebie one". *shrugs* 10 points one just doesn't jive well with me because of statlines I end up creating with them. Similarly why I don't like PF2e ancestries with only two positive boosts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So wait, ye were talking about feats? Like I get what you mean partially (I think it might have been mistake for paizo to turn "feat" into universal term because it makes people assume that general feats, class feats and skill feats are supposed to have equal weight when general feats are mostly neat static bonuses, skill feats are small upgrades to skill utility and class feats are just customizable class features), but starfinder feats aren't that much more interesting in comparison.
[Snip]
I'm not comparing PF2e feats to just SF feats, but chargen to chargen. Feats is just how PF2e handled most choices of chargen. The issue is that the feats of PF2e are boring as hell and rarely have anything cool, while something like PF1e and SF don't limit themselves to only having tiny blocks as their only method of giving character options, so have more space to actually give you cool things to play with.
Like, if you're playing a caster in PF2e you're probably feeling pain whenever you get a new class feat because of how bland and boring they all are.
I don't want a starfinder 2e if it just means that instead of getting diverse design possibilities in classes & cool flashy class abilities, that everything is dull tiny abilities that does something like modify tags of an action or slightly modify the action economy. I want to read the book and go "Wow a character with that power could be cool".
Compare PF1e Oozemorph to PF2e Oozemorph for a blantant shift in how much PF2e is willing to let you have cool things. Replaced being able to be a living ooze who can shape their limbs into goo-weapons and sleeps in a bucket into "I can blind myself permanently instead of being petrified" as their most flavourful ability.