Wishes and concerns for Starfinder Second Edition


Playtest General Discussion

101 to 150 of 439 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber

Some of my wishes:
Scifi is not a coat of paint to add to objects. A sword is a sword, adding a "chain saw" or making it out of energy doesn't change things.
1. The problem with melee. Sure your character has an energy great axe, don't expect to live long enough to use it.
2. The technology level should exceed what we have today (combat drones and optics for shooting from cover, ballistic computers that adjust target rectical by distance), should be how we think of a bow and arrow today.
3. Make medicine int instead of wisdom. Medicine even for the ancient Egyptians and Greeks was recorded and transferred as book knowledge, they where not always right but that is true with all science-based persuts.
4. The primacy of the synthetic. What is stronger, muscles or hydraulics? Cyborgs, robots, and exoskeleton should be doing things meat sacks can't. Not "fair", just borg up.
5. If it will be galactic adventure rules for rolling up planets (and other celestial bodies) including with hostile environments. (Players vs planet)
6. Mega-structures
7. Starship combat with fleet rules.
8. Fabricators


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Melee was a valid option in S1, they're not gonna remove it in S2


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wasn't it considered better than ranged combat for some builds, even?

Also, as for mega-structures and fabricators, Absalom Station, the Idari, and Apostae are all members of the Pact Worlds, and the UPB specifically became currency because of the ability for machines to transmute them into just about anything.

Wayfinders

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Several of the things on your list we already have in Starfinder.

CrimsonKnight wrote:
5. If it will be galactic adventure rules for rolling up planets (and other celestial bodies) including with hostile environments. (Players vs planet)

In the Galaxy Exploration Manual

CrinKnmsoight wrote:
6. Mega-structures

Absalom Station: 5 miles across.

Idari 2.5 miles long.
Conqueror's Forge: 2.5 miles long
Supercolossal Starships: 6 miles or longer.

CrinKnmsoight wrote:
7. Starship combat with fleet rules.

In the Starship Operation Manual.

CrinKnmsoight wrote:
8. Fabricators

We have U-kiosks for making anything from UPBs


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've also got an additional wishlist in no particular order, though I generally don't care too much how this is achieved mechanically:

1. Power armour that is optional, but worth specializing in
Power armour is extremely cool, but I don't want it to be the default thing any "heavy" type of character would invest in. I want it to be just a bit special.

2. Oversized double-barrel shotgun
Having read way too much Lancer over the last days, I now want a unnecessarily big shotty. Only two shots, but I want whatever I shoot at to no longer be there. Bonus points if the shell ejection is powerful enough to qualify as an additional attack. Add some support for such a playstyle and I'm happy :D

3. Varied ranged weapon combat
As ranged combat looks like it will be the default assumption in SF2, I'm not too worried, but it still bears highlighting. In PF2, what feels like 90% of ranged weapon actions boil down to two things: I shoot a few more times or I shoot once with slightly more damage. Different, deeper or more complex interactions are rare and usually much higher level than comparable melee options. This very often leads to extremely same-y playstyles for ranged characters, which I'd like to have the option to avoid.

4. Options for variable ammo
This is another one of the instances where I want things to differ from PF2. In PF2, anything but the very basic ammo has a prohibitive cost in both money and additional actions. In 99,9% of cases, there is basically no reason to even consider using it - outside of some few outliers when using reload 0 weapons. Even if it costs a bit of money or requires certain feats and only gives small bonuses/changes to my weapon's stats. I'd like it to be a choice what I load my weapon with. This is closely connected to my next point...

5. Extensive weapon/armour/equipment customization
Different focusing lenses that change my weapon's attack pattern from line to cone (or vice versa), shotgun chokes, longer barrels that extend the range, shortened barrels to reduce range but increase spread/portability, scopes, better cooling, holsters, chest rigs, and so on. Guns and gears has made a valiant first foray into this territory, but I'd like to see much, much more. Normal weapons are cool and all, but I'd like to adjust things to match my playstyle even more. It's not too high of a priority for the CRB, but an armory-type book should have it as an optional system at least.

Edit: Forgot one.

6. Transhumanism options
Cybernetics, biomods, "totally legal and save" futuristic gene therapies, "uploading" your consciousness into a machine, or replacing parts of your brain with an AI, which will totally not have disastrous consequences. Transhumanism (or whatever it is called when applied to other species) is perhaps my favourite Scifi element. I want as much of that as I can :D


CrimsonKnight wrote:

Some of my wishes:

Scifi is not a coat of paint to add to objects. A sword is a sword, adding a "chain saw" or making it out of energy doesn't change things.
1. The problem with melee. Sure your character has an energy great axe, don't expect to live long enough to use it.

The game probably will have armor e defensive tecnologies that is more effective vs range than melee. For example, imagine an energy shield that's more effective vs small projectiles and laser weapons but is useless vcs heavy masses like from melee weapons. (basically this is a high-tech version of Wall of Wind).

CrimsonKnight wrote:
2. The technology level should exceed what we have today (combat drones and optics for shooting from cover, ballistic computers that adjust target rectical by distance), should be how we think of a bow and arrow today.

Yes but at same time that defensive technologies will also better. Drones could be disable by EMP, optics could be scrambled and the good old cover will still a good option for many cases.

CrimsonKnight wrote:
3. Make medicine int instead of wisdom. Medicine even for the ancient Egyptians and Greeks was recorded and transferred as book knowledge, they where not always right but that is true with all science-based persuts.

Make sense but this probably won't happen because of PF2 compatibility. Yet this could be done by some skill feat that allows to use int instead of wiz for medicine checks or like cirurgeon alchemists that can use craft in place of medicine we could get something that allows to use a lore instead.

CrimsonKnight wrote:
4. The primacy of the synthetic. What is stronger, muscles or hydraulics? Cyborgs, robots, and exoskeleton should be doing things meat sacks can't. Not "fair", just borg up.

"Exotic" super strong ancestries, biotech, and magic still there too.

CrimsonKnight wrote:
5. If it will be galactic adventure rules for rolling up planets (and other celestial bodies) including with hostile environments. (Players vs planet)

This already happens in SF1, and in PF2 due the great amount of different biomes, planes and even other worlds that you can access through aiudaras.

CrimsonKnight wrote:
6. Mega-structures

Like Absalom Station?

CrimsonKnight wrote:
7. Starship combat with fleet rules.

We don't know yet. Maybe SF2 Core book will deal with starships maybe this will put into another more specific book. But I'm certain that we will get this sooner o later.

CrimsonKnight wrote:
8. Fabricators

Sorry but what do you mean when you say "Fabricators"?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber
YuriP wrote:
CrimsonKnight wrote:

Some of my wishes:

Scifi is not a coat of paint to add to objects. A sword is a sword, adding a "chain saw" or making it out of energy doesn't change things.
1. The problem with melee. Sure your character has an energy great axe, don't expect to live long enough to use it.
The game probably will have armor e defensive tecnologies that is more effective vs range than melee. For example, imagine an energy shield that's more effective vs small projectiles and laser weapons but is useless vcs heavy masses like from melee weapons.(basically this is a high-tech version of Wall of Wind).

Basicly game designers bending over backwards to make melee relevant.

Just like mass effect occasionally you may use your omnitool blade but you are usually destroying things before they reach you. But the game designers had to build a teleport ability so melee is viable.
YuriP wrote:


CrimsonKnight wrote:
2. The technology level should exceed what we have today (combat drones and optics for shooting from cover, ballistic computers that adjust target rectical by distance), should be how we think of a bow and arrow today.
Yes but at same time that defensive technologies will also better. Drones could be disable by EMP, optics could be scrambled and the good old cover will still a good option for many cases.
That's the point, EMP shielded and radation hard electronics exist today. Shooting from full or 95% cover should be allowed. Modern ballistic target rifles for civilian use are accurate at over 1 mile but a scifi laser is not.
YuriP wrote:


CrimsonKnight wrote:
3. Make medicine int instead of wisdom. Medicine even for the ancient Egyptians and Greeks was recorded and transferred as book knowledge, they where not always right but that is true with all science-based persuts.
Make sense but this probably won't happen because of PF2 compatibility. Yet this could be done by some skill feat that allows to use int instead of wiz for medicine checks...

Exactly what I'm hoping for.

Mega-stuctures like Dyson sphere/swarm, ring worlds, starkiller base...

As far as what I mean by fabricators, think player controlled industrial replicators.

Starfinder seemed to push the tone of the game towards "Flash Gordon" and "Buck Rogers" when I was trying to do things like firefly, legend of the galactic heroes, the expanse without too many house rules to keep track of.


Karmagator wrote:

I've also got an additional wishlist in no particular order, though I generally don't care too much how this is achieved mechanically:

1. Power armour that is optional, but worth specializing in
Power armour is extremely cool, but I don't want it to be the default thing any "heavy" type of character would invest in. I want it to be just a bit special.

2. Oversized double-barrel shotgun
Having read way too much Lancer over the last days, I now want a unnecessarily big shotty. Only two shots, but I want whatever I shoot at to no longer be there. Bonus points if the shell ejection is powerful enough to qualify as an additional attack. Add some support for such a playstyle and I'm happy :D

3. Varied ranged weapon combat
As ranged combat looks like it will be the default assumption in SF2, I'm not too worried, but it still bears highlighting. In PF2, what feels like 90% of ranged weapon actions boil down to two things: I shoot a few more times or I shoot once with slightly more damage. Different, deeper or more complex interactions are rare and usually much higher level than comparable melee options. This very often leads to extremely same-y playstyles for ranged characters, which I'd like to have the option to avoid.

4. Options for variable ammo
This is another one of the instances where I want things to differ from PF2. In PF2, anything but the very basic ammo has a prohibitive cost in both money and additional actions. In 99,9% of cases, there is basically no reason to even consider using it - outside of some few outliers when using reload 0 weapons. Even if it costs a bit of money or requires certain feats and only gives small bonuses/changes to my weapon's stats. I'd like it to be a choice what I load my weapon with. This is closely connected to my next point...

5. Extensive weapon/armour/equipment customization
Different focusing lenses that change my weapon's attack pattern from line to cone (or vice versa), shotgun chokes, longer barrels that extend...

Conversely, I hope we also get shotguns small enough to mount on the gauntlets of your armor. I don't mind if it hasn't got the Free-Hand trait, I just like having shotguns on my arms.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm thinking... "just a bit special" power armor sounds like archetype bait. Like, the idea that Power Armor is the kind of thing that you need to invest some time and attention into getting good at before it's worth wearing? That feels right somehow. Possibly make it the sort of thign where you can buy the power armor itself, and then independently buy augmented components and/or add-ons, so that the character who's really into power armor can(if they choose) sink a major fraction of their WBL into upgrading and customizing their suit.

For power armor in particular... I feel like it should be possible to have a character where their power armor eats up half of their feats, two thirds of their money, and some sizeable fraction of their item investments, and you feel like that's all resources well spent.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
CrimsonKnight wrote:
Basicly game designers bending over backwards to make melee relevant.

Yeah you want a game other than Starfinder.


CrimsonKnight wrote:
YuriP wrote:


CrimsonKnight wrote:
2. The technology level should exceed what we have today (combat drones and optics for shooting from cover, ballistic computers that adjust target rectical by distance), should be how we think of a bow and arrow today.
Yes but at same time that defensive technologies will also better. Drones could be disable by EMP, optics could be scrambled and the good old cover will still a good option for many cases.
That's the point, EMP shielded and radation hard electronics exist today. Shooting from full or 95% cover should be allowed. Modern ballistic target rifles for civilian use are accurate at over 1 mile but a scifi laser is not.

For laser and some energy weapons an interesting suggestion is to make them having a different distance penalty of ballistic weapons. These weapons usually doesn't loose precision due the distance, specially if they get auxiliary target systems but its perfectly acceptable that light and some energy beams looses power over the distance so their distance penalty could come in form of diminish the damage dice size.

So a laser pistol instead of lose precision after 40 ft it can diminish its damage to d4 if the target is between 40-80ft and to d2 if the target is between 80-120ft and them no damage after this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber
YuriP wrote:


For laser and some energy weapons an interesting suggestion is to make them having a different distance penalty of ballistic weapons. These weapons usually doesn't loose precision due the distance, specially if they get auxiliary target systems but its perfectly acceptable that light and some energy beams looses power over the distance so their distance penalty could come in form of diminish the damage dice size.

So a laser pistol instead of lose precision after 40 ft it can diminish its damage to d4 if the target is between 40-80ft and to d2 if the target is between 80-120ft and them no damage after this.

is this to simulate beam divergence and scattering? I really like this idea for things like charged particle beams like ion weaponseven if the numbers need to be tweaked


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For the "starships throw off the economy", I think it would make sense that those work off of a completely different currency than credits, if not even more abstracted as it seems to be in SF1. I mean, higher level gear is pretty pricey, but compare the price of a fancy rifle to something like a fighter jet. And that's the most basic ship, with cost increasing to absurd degrees the higher you go. The comparison doesn't work 1:1 with how it works today, but I think you get the idea.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CrimsonKnight wrote:


1. The problem with melee. Sure your character has an energy great axe, don't expect to live long enough to use it.

I've seen this a few times,but only lately and have to wonder where it's coming from. In starfinder melee does more damage (Strength or strength and a half), has more bonuses (flank, prone) , and fewer penalties (prone. Cover) and I've only seen getting to the enemy be a real issue once. (in a sniper alley, and people with rifles had the same if not more trouble getting to the snipers: because people with rifles don't but as much value on movement).

To be clear, I've run over 150 games in starfinder society, a starfinder home game, played at least that many games, and PBPsted through a bunch of the adventure paths. I do see the occasional battle turtle that didn't take movement into account, but they're rare and more than make up for it once they get where they're going.

between blitz soldier, cheap enhancement bonuses to movement, jet packs, heel thrusters, and the ultimate leveler of the haste circuit* starfinder melee can easily close the distance and go to town, particularly with a reach weapon. Getting melee with reach next to casters and gunners forces them to soak up aoos moving away/shooting or to switch to backup weapons.

In PF2 Melee seems to do ok. the three action economy puts move move whack on the table. Strength to damage and flanking/off target bonuses kick in.

So are people just reading the blurb of starfnder as the game with the pew pew lasers and assuming melee doesn't work? There's some meta in PF2 i don't know about where melee is dead? Assuming that PF2 where melee works + Starfinder where melee works somehow= melee doesn't work?

* if you haven't looked at starfinder haste? They increased its power in some respects. Its now a pounce that doesn't care about corners. You can run 60 feet to the center of a maze and doublewhack someone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

First wish in the system: Wow me with the skill uses. Especially combined with a class ability.

Neither Starfinder or PF2 really do this.

In starfinder you can put resources towards you favorite skills and get a really good chance of succeeding. It's in a good balance in between pathfinders absurd bonuses and pf2s bounded accuracy. That's good but its not really wow.

I think THIS, not their skill supremacy, is the real problem with the operative. They're good at all of the ordinary skill stuff and that's fine, but there's no extra ordinary skill stuff for the mechanic to do with engineering/computers or the biohacker TO be good at in their respective fields. Mechanics have remote hack and that's about it. The operative take 10 i win button makes the resulting "if you fail" abilities irrelevant.

Pathfinder 2 skill feats just aren't exciting to me. By and large they're

a +2 (the only mathematical increase allowed. barely noticable on any one given night),

A solution in search of a problem ( Like allowing pick pocketing or planting evidence, which were sleight of hand) I have hated this approach since ultimate intrigue.

Ridiculously situational ( you stealth through overgrown terrain and only in forests. Like.. you're going to need to leave the blackberry bush to get somewhere eventually)

One possibility is that instead of their class bonus to skills being normal, have it count once towards the die roll, and a second time towards counting as a critical success (One of the features in the pf2engine that i really like). That way the mechanic can sometimes do something nuts like take over the robot or suit of power armor they're fighting. They don't just shut down the security system they turn it on their opponents. Everyone else can too, but the mechanic is twice as likely as any other specialist to pull it off.

You could also have class abilities do the same thing. take over the computer take over the robot. Have it gain sentience and empathy. Go nuts. Skill feats should be used to make skills be amazing, not functional.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
CrimsonKnight wrote:


1. The problem with melee. Sure your character has an energy great axe, don't expect to live long enough to use it.

I've seen this a few times,but only lately and have to wonder where it's coming from. In starfinder melee does more damage (Strength or strength and a half), has more bonuses (flank, prone) , and fewer penalties (prone. Cover) and I've only seen getting to the enemy be a real issue once. (in a sniper alley, and people with rifles had the same if not more trouble getting to the snipers: because people with rifles don't but as much value on movement).

To be clear, I've run over 150 games in starfinder society, a starfinder home game, played at least that many games, and PBPsted through a bunch of the adventure paths. I do see the occasional battle turtle that didn't take movement into account, but they're rare and more than make up for it once they get where they're going.

between blitz soldier, cheap enhancement bonuses to movement, jet packs, heel thrusters, and the ultimate leveler of the haste circuit* starfinder melee can easily close the distance and go to town, particularly with a reach weapon. Getting melee with reach next to casters and gunners forces them to soak up aoos moving away/shooting or to switch to backup weapons.

In PF2 Melee seems to do ok. the three action economy puts move move whack on the table. Strength to damage and flanking/off target bonuses kick in.

So are people just reading the blurb of starfnder as the game with the pew pew lasers and assuming melee doesn't work? There's some meta in PF2 i don't know about where melee is dead? Assuming that PF2 where melee works + Starfinder where melee works somehow= melee doesn't work?

* if you haven't looked at starfinder haste? They increased its power in some respects. Its now a pounce that doesn't care about corners. You can run 60 feet to the center of a maze and doublewhack someone.

Based on their posts, CrimsonKnight seems to think the fact that melee is viable is a FLAW in the game, not that melee is too weak.


Grankless wrote:


Based on their posts, CrimsonKnight...

Ahhh ok. Thanks!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, melee is always going to be relevant no matter how good guns are because when you're within arms reach of someone a knife (or a tech knife) is a lot more effective than a gun- it's quicker, more accurate, and just as deadly. Like there's a reason real world special forces people carry serious knives.

Plus, melee combat is all over classic sci-fi. Whatever monster you're fighting might want to grab you, everybody in Dune knows how to swordfight because of how the personal shields work, the Jedi lightsaber is iconic, Worf has his Bat'leth, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ranged combat has the problem of being hard to make interesting. I mean, I'm sure there's a lot that goes into hitting someone with a rifle or pistol, but it still just LOOKS like standing there and shooting. The best I've seen ranged be is Boxy but Good. In starfinder it feels a touch underpowered.

Melee has always had all the cool feats for shifting positions or doing combos or grabbing people and throwing them accross the room or doing martial arts inspired stuff. There's a lot more to visually see describe and work with.


Yeah. Sci fi melee combat is generally bonkers cool, which is more than enough reason to support it in a science fantasy game.

Karmagator wrote:
For the "starships throw off the economy", I think it would make sense that those work off of a completely different currency than credits, if not even more abstracted as it seems to be in SF1. I mean, higher level gear is pretty pricey, but compare the price of a fancy rifle to something like a fighter jet. And that's the most basic ship, with cost increasing to absurd degrees the higher you go. The comparison doesn't work 1:1 with how it works today, but I think you get the idea.

On the flipside, a big reason why things like fighter jets cost a lot more money than handheld weapons is because of their size, and the amount of processing involved. Neither of those are really concerns in Starfinder; it takes you the same amount of time and UPBs to build an on-level gun as it does to build a suit of armor, power armor, or vehicle, for example. The item's level is the main thing that matters for things like cost, and whatever that level means for the item in the world. Technological complexity, time needed to synthesize rare components from UPBs, whatever.

I'd actually argue that, given that fact, folding ships more tightly into the game's base economy could also fix the economy issue. If a level 8 ship costs the same as a level 8 item, or within a couple levels of same, it becomes a lot less attractive to, say, sell your main method of transport and dealing with on-level space threats for a couple extra mods or runes or whatever.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

My analogy for "the starship economy" would be cryptocurrency (with the notable difference that there is a use for starships.)

During the height of the crypto boom it was very easy to get people to give you cryptocurrency for other cryptocurrencies. It was (and remains) terribly difficult to get people to give you actual money for your cryptocurrency.

The people who sell ships and ship parts have lots of ships and ship parts, and are generally unwilling to acquire more except in exchange for other ships/ship parts. They are happy to take your credits, but they are loath to give you credits for ships/ship parts since they already have ample inventory.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
I think THIS, not their skill supremacy, is the real problem with the operative. They're good at all of the ordinary skill stuff and that's fine, but there's no extra ordinary skill stuff for the mechanic to do with engineering/computers or the biohacker TO be good at in their respective fields. Mechanics have remote hack and that's about it. The operative take 10 i win button makes the resulting "if you fail" abilities irrelevant.

Here's an idea: drop the skill monkey aspect of the operative, and make everyone good at skills.

I mean, the whole skill monkey aspect goes back to AD&D's Thief class. In AD&D 1e, thieves had a list of "thief skills", like Climb Walls, Pick pockets, Find/Remove Traps, Hide in Shadows, and so on. These had a percentage chance based on your level (with some modifiers for armor, race, and Dexterity). AD&D 2e kept the same structure, but allowed more flexibility in what skills you were good at.

Then came D&D 3e, and most thief skills became regular skills. As a compensation, the rogue got by far the most skill points: 8 per level, with the runner-ups (bards, rangers, druids) getting 4 and everyone else getting 2 (I could be misremembering some detail here, but that's beside the point). They also got a serious buff to Backstab, which became Sneak Attack which was both stronger and easier to use. This turned the Rogue into a more generalist class, which could either focus on traditional thievery or sometimes more social skills or whatever else. PF1 mostly kept the same thing going.

And then we get to Starfinder 1e, where the Operative is clearly meant as the substitute for the Rogue, in the same way the Soldier is the Fighter substitute, the Mystic is the Cleric, and the Technomancer is the Wizard. And that meant that the rogueoperative is the designated skill monkey.

But skills are a fun aspect of the game, and should not be left to a single class to excel in. Let every class excel at the appropriate skills, as determined by class and subclass. Give everyone a skill increase at every level, and maybe a skill feat every level too (though I'd be OK with that still being an operative thing). Let the Operative's identity be about various ways to use skills to set up particularly lethal attacks, as well as applying debuffs through attacks, not about the skills as such. It would also go a long way toward solving the problem Pathfinder has of leaving skills you don't hyperspecialize in behind – having 5-6 good skills feels a lot better than having 2-3.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber

Look at even modern day yes you have every solder has a knife and many civilians have them too. does it have its place? Yes, But what is the primary weapon around the world a gun. Do people practice sword fighting, i enjoy fencing and HEMA like the rest. Just as deadly? I don't know if you worked in an ER or have seen much gun violence or the aftermath but I've stitched plenty of knife wounds and sent them back on their day. Tissue trauma from a gun is usually far greater. I've seen the kind of power my rifle sends down range.

Knives are near silent so are crossbows and bows.

dunes's personal shields if you can stop something going fast you can stop something going slow

the jedi are an example, the whole universe was made for the lightsabers to work unless the plot needed them not to like "order 66".
Worf has his Bat'leth and plot armor plenty of klingons where killed by phasers, disruptors, etc. before they had a chance to swing.

Melee weapons as a side arm/weapon of last resort/or if you have the prefect opportunity makes sense.

I'll put it this way there is a grisly bear who is charging to kill and eat you (only one will live). you have a choice modern melee weapon or a modern high power gun. you are trained with both, What would you choose?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Skill monkey isn't an aspect exclusive of AD&D. This concept appears many times in media with all kind of skill monkey specialist.

Yet IMO PF2 already made the necessary steps to get from this direction. Today is no more necessary to have a skill monkey in the party like we have in D&D/PF1/SF1. For example currently each char is able to become legendary in 3 skills and expert in 1 skill and with exception of Lore a 4 players party is able to get all the 16 skills available. OK this requires a all party members agree to take all the skills and depending from what attribute the skill is based it will be weakened (this happens with skill monkeys too) but this already allow the most party covers a large number of important skills to adventure without need to have a skill monkey like a rogue/investigator/thaumaturge in the party. Something thats is difficult to meet even with a skill monkey in PF1/SF1/3.5 with their respective list of 26/20/36 skills.

So I don't see a problem if SF2 take the PF2 skill system as basis. I just hope that they get away from skill feats that enable some secret checks using some skills (like Lie to Me) from players because almost alway me or the players forget that these things was in someone sheet until is too late.

Make the skill system even more easier risks to banalize the entire skill system risking the skills becomes more a matter of luck than choice.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
CrimsonKnight wrote:

Look at even modern day yes you have every solder has a knife and many civilians have them too. does it have its place? Yes, But what is the primary weapon around the world a gun. Do people practice sword fighting, i enjoy fencing and HEMA like the rest. Just as deadly? I don't know if you worked in an ER or have seen much gun violence or the aftermath but I've stitched plenty of knife wounds and sent them back on their day. Tissue trauma from a gun is usually far greater. I've seen the kind of power my rifle sends down range.

Knives are near silent so are crossbows and bows.

dunes's personal shields if you can stop something going fast you can stop something going slow

the jedi are an example, the whole universe was made for the lightsabers to work unless the plot needed them not to like "order 66".
Worf has his Bat'leth and plot armor plenty of klingons where killed by phasers, disruptors, etc. before they had a chance to swing.

Melee weapons as a side arm/weapon of last resort/or if you have the prefect opportunity makes sense.

I'll put it this way there is a grisly bear who is charging to kill and eat you (only one will live). you have a choice modern melee weapon or a modern high power gun. you are trained with both, What would you choose?

Which are all great points for a realistic depiction of the modern day. Starfinder is not that. It's a game set in a science fantasy setting. Its goals are not to accurately model modern warfare, or even a hypothetical state of futuristic warfare. Its goals are to give the players tools to tell cool stories together, and to both look and feel cool while doing so. Telling those players who want to play as legally distinct Jedi, or members of Dune's noble houses, or whatever other melee-focused sci fi trope you can think of that they're wrong and they're going to have a bad time because that's how things work in our modern-day reality is pretty well guaranteed to make them feel bad, and also shuts off all the cool stories involving those kinds of characters from the jump. That's literally antithetical to the point of the game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
CrimsonKnight wrote:
Basicly game designers bending over backwards to make melee relevant.
Yeah you want a game other than Starfinder.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Perpdepog wrote:
Which are all great points for a realistic depiction of the modern day. Starfinder is not that.

good thing I'm not asking for that.

Perpdepog wrote:
It's a game set in a science fantasy setting. Its goals are not to accurately model modern warfare, or even a hypothetical state of futuristic warfare. Its goals are to give the players tools to tell cool stories together, and to both look and feel cool while doing so.

Giant mecha, dragons, magic/psychic powers, FTL, Gods, etc. I think everyone knows it is Science Fantasy.

Perpdepog wrote:
Telling those players who want to play as legally distinct Jedi, or members of Dune's noble houses, or whatever other melee-focused sci fi trope you can think of that they're wrong and they're going to have a bad time because that's how things work in our modern-day reality is pretty well guaranteed to make them feel bad, and also shuts off all the cool stories...

So instead you want to tell the players who like the Artillery, sniping, BFGs, or whatever other ranged-focused sci fi trope you can think of. That they're wrong and they're going to have a bad time because that's how things work in the game is pretty well guaranteed to make them feel bad, and also shuts off all the cool stories.

Most of the premade stories so far (and all the ones I've played in) have had the two sides basically on top of each other. abilities and encounters are thus limited to such short ranges.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:
Skill monkey isn't an aspect exclusive of AD&D. This concept appears many times in media with all kind of skill monkey specialist.

Yes, we see a lot of highly skilled people in media. What we don't see are (relatively) unskilled people. Everyone is skilled, only at different things.

And high skill levels are fun, and I can't see how that would unbalance anything. In the Pathfinder campaigns I'm playing in, I feel reasonably competent with my Nature +23 (Master prof +18, stat +4, item +1) at level 12. I feel totally incompetent with my Arcana +15 (Trained prof +14, Int +1), because any monster or spell that would be relevant to identify is going to have a DC of about 30 which means I have less than 1/3 chance. The game is balanced around specialists, so let people be good at things.

Quote:
Yet IMO PF2 already made the necessary steps to get from this direction. Today is no more necessary to have a skill monkey in the party like we have in D&D/PF1/SF1. For example currently each char is able to become legendary in 3 skills and expert in 1 skill and with exception of Lore a 4 players party is able to get all the 16 skills available.

I'm not sure where you're getting the Expert skill from. As a baseline, PCs get 9 skill increases after 1st level. This is enough for three Legendary skills at 19th level.

But getting there is a pain. You don't get your first skill increase until 3rd level, and then only one. You don't get your third expert skill until level 11 (unless you spread skill increases around). So at 10th level, where a level-appropriate DC is 27 (unless it's a hazard in which case it's 32 or 35 for some unfathomable reason), your party is likely operating at +14 or so in half the available skills.

I've been shouting from the rooftops since day one about how skill DCs are too high at moderate to high levels, because they mean that your Trained skills become useless, at least for level-appropriate things. At 1st level my sorcerer had a pretty good shot at IDing arcane magic and arcane creatures, now he doesn't. This feels bad. But I recognize that changing the DC-by-level chart is unlikely to happen, and the next best thing is actually making people competent. That's a change that works perfectly well within the system: just have people skill up at every level instead of every odd level. Let the 10th level monk be a master of both Acrobatics, Athletics, Diplomacy, and Occultism, to give him some breadth.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
crimson knight wrote:
So instead you want to tell the players who like the Artillery, sniping, BFGs, or whatever other ranged-focused sci fi trope you can think of. That they're wrong and they're going to have a bad time because that's how things work in the game is pretty well guaranteed to make them feel bad, and also shuts off all the cool stories.

If one persons idea of a cool idea requires that everyone else just instadies for getting too close to their awesome... yes.

Ideally you balance different and incomparable advantages and disadvantages into melee so that both are fun and viable in different ways.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
CrimsonKnight wrote:
good thing I'm not asking for that.

Then why do you keep bringing it up as the source of your examples that you think the game's meta should be following?

CrimsonKnight wrote:
Giant mecha, dragons, magic/psychic powers, FTL, Gods, etc. I think everyone knows it is Science Fantasy.

Then, again, why do you keep bringing up arguments that go against a fantasy game's core conceits?

CrimsonKnight wrote:
So instead you want to tell the players who like the Artillery, sniping, BFGs, or whatever other ranged-focused sci fi trope you can think of. That they're wrong and they're going to have a bad time because that's how things work in the game is pretty well guaranteed to make them feel bad, and also shuts off all the cool stories.

Like BNW said, the point is to have options that allow multiple kinds of characters to shine. Forcing everything into the idiom of farthest range wins very obviously doesn't do that for anyone who doesn't want to be at those ranges. Permitting the game to operate with melee as an expected part of its design doesn't shut out anyone wanting to play at a longer range, it just gives the shorter-range characters something to do.

Now, if the stories you are complaining about me shutting off are things like "I killed all the enemies with my sniper rifle from a map away before they got to engage at all," then yeah. I want those stories shut down. That's fun for all of one person in a party, doing one style of combat, and Starfinder is a group game. It'd be the reintroduction of the scry-and-fry method of casters from the PF1E/3.5 days, which was fun for the party wizard and exactly nobody else. Furthermore, it's thoroughly un-fun when enemies are doing that to your party, which changing the game to require long-range engagement would do, which is, again, against the point of playing a game.

CrimsonKnight wrote:
Most of the premade stories so far (and all the ones I've played in) have had the two sides basically on top of each other. abilities and encounters are thus limited to such short ranges.

Then the issue is with adventure design, not rules design. Even if it were an issue with the rules, swapping things around so that artillery and snipers ruled the roost wouldn't fix the problem. All it would do would be to move the problem on to someone else's shoulders, which isn't really a solution at all.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

On a topic other than skills and high-tech combat: I'm assuming the game will have some form of rules for building ships and/or a home base. It would be really neat if those rules had some form of mechanical benefit for comfort. Starfinder 1e had the ability to build entertainment centers as well as allowing for different levels of crew quarters. It would be nice if these actually did something.

As a sci-fi example, compare the amenities on the Enterprise-D, which is essentially a heavily armed luxury liner with bars, holodecks, civilian families, a park, and so on, to those of the Defiant which are so spare that crew have to hot bunk and subsist on ration bars instead of replicated meals.

The only game I can recall having something like this accounted for in its rules was Burn Bryte, which was released as a Roll20 exclusive a few years back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Staffan Johansson wrote:

On a topic other than skills and high-tech combat: I'm assuming the game will have some form of rules for building ships and/or a home base. It would be really neat if those rules had some form of mechanical benefit for comfort. Starfinder 1e had the ability to build entertainment centers as well as allowing for different levels of crew quarters. It would be nice if these actually did something.

As a sci-fi example, compare the amenities on the Enterprise-D, which is essentially a heavily armed luxury liner with bars, holodecks, civilian families, a park, and so on, to those of the Defiant which are so spare that crew have to hot bunk and subsist on ration bars instead of replicated meals.

The only game I can recall having something like this accounted for in its rules was Burn Bryte, which was released as a Roll20 exclusive a few years back.

That would be nice. Sort of like a morale bonus.


I could see something like that giving you some bonuses to downtime activities, like Earn Income and Craft. Something it's helpful to have a bonus too, but not absolutely necessary so you don't have to feel bad if you want the aesthetic of your ship to be all grimy metal and cargo netting for beds.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
CrimsonKnight wrote:
Most of the premade stories so far (and all the ones I've played in) have had the two sides basically on top of each other. abilities and encounters are thus limited to such short ranges.

This actually has nothing to do with mechanics.

The maps have limits to how big they can be, because of the books they’re printed in. Because of the table they’re played on. You can only have the combat areas be so big.

Can people using homebrew on a virtual tabletop go around that restriction for a sniper fight? Absolutely, but that’s the exception rather than the standard.

Wayfinders

3 people marked this as a favorite.

To put this in perspective, snipers in Starfinder, even on a completely open flip map, are not even at topical sniping range. For a modern long-range sniper, the typical range they start shooing at would take 21 30-inch flip maps placed end to end. With long-range shots needing up to 33 flip maps.

I think to have a real sniper battle on a 24-30-inch map. Each side would have obstacles or buildings to hide in, and in the middle of the map, have a section blacked out diving the map, with a note saying this line is 1/2 mile wide.

For normal long-range combat in Starfinder, you would have to have each side start apart at a distance so that if both sides took a move action, they would still not be in short-range weapons range. Assuming a move, and short-range being 30 feet, you would have to start at greater than 24 inches apart on a flip map. About the only time that could happen is in open terrain or a long street map. You could shorten that to 18 inches on the map if one side didn't move. Or 12 inches if one side only had melee weapons and the other side didn't move. And it's hard to place a lot of 12 to 24 inch rooms on a single map.


eddv wrote:
Funny thing is most of the guns in the field test actually need reloaded MORE often than the guns in Pathfinder do at the moment. Hopefully they iron that out, but I did find it funny.

For the record, a follow-up to the field test made it extra clear that you only have to reload when your magazine or battery is empty. So no, the four whole guns alpha-previewed thus far are more powerful and have to be reloaded less often than their PF2E equivalents.

As for my wishes, I only just got a chance to start playing Starfinder, funnily enough — I decided to join the play-by-post some friends started up a day before SF2E was announced on the horizon. (Just made a super lucky full attack with a flare rifle as the first turn my manic astriapi Mystic took in Dead Suns. ¯\_('v')_/¯)

So I don't know much, but it really seems like a neat system, and I hope the DCs aren't as punitive nor the capabilities as restricted as in PF2E, because I think it does make sense for Starfinder to be the wilder and more power-fantasy-happy game. (The comments on flight likely being a starting-level option are encouraging in this sense.) Hopefully they can adapt the unique character systems of Starfinder forward in one form or another, too~.

Edit: oh, duh, the FAQ makes the assumptions bit explicit as well.

FAQ wrote:
Are there going to be different baseline assumptions between Starfinder and Pathfinder? Absolutely. Starfinder Second Edition is going to use the same rules engine as Pathfinder, but that doesn’t mean that the games will have the same assumed baseline. Technology is prevalent in Starfinder, and we’ll be including all manner of bespoke tech gear, personal augmentations (like cybernetics or biotech), as well as upgrades for armor and weapons. Ranged weapons are also far more plentiful, and many of them have the capacity to fire multiple times in a row without reloading. We’ll also be looking to open ancestries in ways that don’t fit as well into Pathfinder’s assumptions: like access to innate flight for species who naturally fly.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Driftbourne wrote:

To put this in perspective, snipers in Starfinder, even on a completely open flip map, are not even at topical sniping range. For a modern long-range sniper, the typical range they start shooing at would take 21 30-inch flip maps placed end to end. With long-range shots needing up to 33 flip maps.

I think to have a real sniper battle on a 24-30-inch map. Each side would have obstacles or buildings to hide in, and in the middle of the map, have a section blacked out diving the map, with a note saying this line is 1/2 mile wide.

For normal long-range combat in Starfinder, you would have to have each side start apart at a distance so that if both sides took a move action, they would still not be in short-range weapons range. Assuming a move, and short-range being 30 feet, you would have to start at greater than 24 inches apart on a flip map. About the only time that could happen is in open terrain or a long street map. You could shorten that to 18 inches on the map if one side didn't move. Or 12 inches if one side only had melee weapons and the other side didn't move. And it's hard to place a lot of 12 to 24 inch rooms on a single map.

They had ONE scenario at appropriate ranges for a sniper duel. If you were a sniper it was fun. The rest of the party spent several rounds running to get where they could do something useful.

Paizo Employee Managing Creative Director (Starfinder)

17 people marked this as a favorite.

We're exploring a lot of different options with combat types in our playtests. We recently had a really solid encounter, where the PCs ended up battling some foes at close range, with some PCs engaged in a back/forth firefight over a downed log. With 5 feet between them, the two groups exchanged fire and then took cover, which led to a really interesting dynamic.

As for long-range combat, while our short-ranged firefight was happening, one PC was engaging enemy snipers with their own sniper rifle in shots that were on average about 200 feet away from one another.

The whole thing _felt_ really cool. It's also the type of game we're going to look at overall. While Flip-Mats and table mats are something we have to keep in mind, we're going to look at ways to expand on how all varieties of groups can try out different combats. Perhaps even the dreaded 1 Square = 30 Feet will return! :D


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Thurston Hillman wrote:
with some PCs engaged in a back/forth firefight over a downed log.

Note: Invest in sf2 future forestry future. Lumber prices will be insane.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thurston Hillman wrote:

We're exploring a lot of different options with combat types in our playtests. We recently had a really solid encounter, where the PCs ended up battling some foes at close range, with some PCs engaged in a back/forth firefight over a downed log. With 5 feet between them, the two groups exchanged fire and then took cover, which led to a really interesting dynamic.

As for long-range combat, while our short-ranged firefight was happening, one PC was engaging enemy snipers with their own sniper rifle in shots that were on average about 200 feet away from one another.

The whole thing _felt_ really cool. It's also the type of game we're going to look at overall. While Flip-Mats and table mats are something we have to keep in mind, we're going to look at ways to expand on how all varieties of groups can try out different combats. Perhaps even the dreaded 1 Square = 30 Feet will return! :D

Shotguns using actual cones is a big improvement over PF2e scatterguns that has me extremely excited to play a soldier in SF2e. I'm ready to be a tanky frontline dwarf pump chump


Thurston Hillman wrote:
We recently had a really solid encounter, where the PCs ended up battling some foes at close range, with some PCs engaged in a back/forth firefight over a downed log. With 5 feet between them, the two groups exchanged fire and then took cover, which led to a really interesting dynamic.

I liked that scene in REAMDE, too.

Wayfinders

thistledown wrote:
Driftbourne wrote:

To put this in perspective, snipers in Starfinder, even on a completely open flip map, are not even at topical sniping range. For a modern long-range sniper, the typical range they start shooing at would take 21 30-inch flip maps placed end to end. With long-range shots needing up to 33 flip maps.

I think to have a real sniper battle on a 24-30-inch map. Each side would have obstacles or buildings to hide in, and in the middle of the map, have a section blacked out diving the map, with a note saying this line is 1/2 mile wide.

For normal long-range combat in Starfinder, you would have to have each side start apart at a distance so that if both sides took a move action, they would still not be in short-range weapons range. Assuming a move, and short-range being 30 feet, you would have to start at greater than 24 inches apart on a flip map. About the only time that could happen is in open terrain or a long street map. You could shorten that to 18 inches on the map if one side didn't move. Or 12 inches if one side only had melee weapons and the other side didn't move. And it's hard to place a lot of 12 to 24 inch rooms on a single map.

They had ONE scenario at appropriate ranges for a sniper duel. If you were a sniper it was fun. The rest of the party spent several rounds running to get where they could do something useful.

One option would be to give the rest of the party a noncombat objective that the sniper is trying to stop them from achieving.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of my biggest disappointments in SF1 was how hard it was to play say a fighter pilot and have that matter. Many of "our" classic sci-fi heroes are fighter pilots and with the starship system as it is , that is really hard to do.

Wayfinders

Gamerskum wrote:

One of my biggest disappointments in SF1 was how hard it was to play say a fighter pilot and have that matter. Many of "our" classic sci-fi heroes are fighter pilots and with the starship system as it is , that is really hard to do.

Having the party's main ship be able to dock one or two smaller fighter craft could help that.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

In a party-oriented game, it's hard to make that concept work unless everyone is a fighter pilot.


My major concern is that they'll wipe the slate clean and start over instead of converting everything for S2E...

We just got the Evolutionist as a new class, for instance, so I do hope that they don't remove it. There are only 13 classes in Starfinder, so no need to ditch some.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They’re not gonna launch with a 1,000 page book no


Sniper rifles that work for operatives or the operative-equivalent class right out of the gate. In SF1e, we had to wait for the release of the Sniper alternate class feature before operatives could mesh their core class feature with one of the quintessential sneaky weapons.

Wayfinders

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
In a party-oriented game, it's hard to make that concept work unless everyone is a fighter pilot.

Having the PCs in two ships in ship combat is not the same as splitting the party to search different rooms in a normal encounter. The map for the ship combat is just one big room.

Wayfinders

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
They’re not gonna launch with a 1,000 page book no

I wonder if the SF2e Core rule book will be split up like the PF2e remaster project. If there was a player core one and two that could cover all the current Starfinder classes.

101 to 150 of 439 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Second Edition Playtest / Playtest General Discussion / Wishes and concerns for Starfinder Second Edition All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.