Wishes and concerns for Starfinder Second Edition


Playtest General Discussion

251 to 300 of 439 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Sanityfaerie wrote:
But yeah... there's a reason that my idea of mechanics was built around things like being able to shoot with an awesome gun while making the guns of your buddies more awesome so that they can also shoot with them. The *archetype* of a mechanic is all through the lore, and it's important to be able to be that kind of character... but we need to give them something to do with their screen-time that isn't "be a mechanic doing mechanic things", because that doesn't work but so well as a spotlight focus.

If comparing things to Pathfinder, I think I'd prefer the Mechanic to be more Alchemist than Inventor. I'm not particularly enamored of the archetype "I have this One Cool Thing I've built which is slightly better than what other people can buy which makes up for me being worse at using it than they are", but far more of "I'll build a thingamajig for just this one situation that solves the problem".

Angus MacGyver, not Tony Stark.

It's OK if they also have some semi-permanent stuff. The 5e version of the Artificer is kind of neat. They have both the ability to "infuse" a small number of items, turning them into semi-permanent magic items chosen from a specified list, as well as spellcasting that's flavored as building/using magic consumables (e.g. an artificer's fireball could be a magic grenade, even if it is represented mechanically by the spell). While the details would of course differ, that's the sort of thing I'd like to see in a Mechanic.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Elegos wrote:
I am against the idea that said new edition needs to throw out every good unique part of Starfinder in the name of compatibility, a goal which has never sat well with me.

It might help if you were more specific with what you mean here, including specific examples of how that won't be in the final product. For example, you're making a lot of hay about tech focused classes not being in the playtest, but you don't have any firm information about if such characters will be enabled through other means. None of us, developers included, have that information. Not even what classes will be in the playtest document, which won't come out until next July, is set in stone yet.

In fairness, I will say that I have seen some of what I mean come from you, such as your distaste for all casters getting full spell ranks, and indeed that is going to be a problem if that's a deal breaker. But even there, you don't know that a Technomancer is going to be a full 3/4 slot caster with all the lack of class features that entails. Entirely possible it will be a wave caster, or 2 slot caster, or something new altogether, that allows them the class budget to still do all the technological interactions AND still fit within the new casting paradigm.

That's why you're being told you're being premature. Edit: So, instead of just going straight to "it's a failure", let everyone know where you think the gaps will be. That's going to be the best way to make sure they get plugged one way or another.

Paizo Employee Senior Developer

22 people marked this as a favorite.
Elegos wrote:
Jokes about "you'll still have SF1" also don't land well in this discussion.

I joke around a lot but that was a genuine comment that was not intended in any way to be funny or sarcastic. Enhanced is coming in October followed by two new APs and 2 years worth of Starfinder Society scenarios. There's no shortage of content there. Some people will keep playing SF1 (whether or not they also play SF2) and that's awesome.

Elegos wrote:
Was there a consultation of what people wanted in SF2 that I missed?

We've been listening to community feedback for a long time as well as drawing from our staff's experience as players, GMs, and people who have been working on Starfinder since its creation. We've heard some voices from the community who don't want certain things to change, but the vast majority of community reactions about things like PF2 compatibility and full spellcasters have been positive. We're in the early days yet, and I'm sure we'll hear more detailed feedback when we eventually start releasing spells and spellcasting class rules.

Elegos wrote:


You're saying some things are subject to change but I'm struggling to get an impression of how much is actually up for debate.

This is not a debate. We are looking for feedback about how new mechanics perform during an open playtest, not crowdsourcing our principles of design.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah. Reminder that the actual Playtest for SF2E isn't happening until a full year of design and development from now. The actual changes, establishments within the SF2E meta, and proposed options are still way far out.

We know what the base engine will look like: 3-action economy, +10/-10 over DC criticals, 10 ranks of spells. But the actual unique aspects of the game are still up in the air. So to form an opinion on this, when we're barely even started the trip to arrive at the starting line of the playtest process, is a little much.


Oh yeah ranks of spells. New terminology is def gonna take abit to get used to.

Paizo Employee Developer

13 people marked this as a favorite.

Just here to say that everyone's enthusiasm is touching, inspiring, and motivating! Jenny has done great addressing the community here and I'm just posting this to say that I read these boards, discords, and other online communities and appreciate our fan's passion and opinions!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jenny Jarzabski wrote:
keftiu wrote:
Maybe we can even harness the magic power of punctuation :p
Can confirm that the addition of an exclamation point makes a product name more powerful.

Taking advice from Zo!, I see.


FireclawDrake wrote:
Jenny Jarzabski wrote:
keftiu wrote:
Maybe we can even harness the magic power of punctuation :p
Can confirm that the addition of an exclamation point makes a product name more powerful.
Taking advice from Zo!, I see.

Is anyone else really worth listening to?

Dark Archive

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

Wait a sec, I never posted my wishes in this thread? Huh... I guess its kinda that I used to be like "gimme SF2e with three action economy and rule/math improvements on somethings and I'm golden" and never really though much of it more since I kinda didn't think there would be major overhaul of stuff. Well guess its time to actually give my current thoughts

Well besides general "I hope SF2e retains its gameplay identity from SF and doesn't rely too hard on PF2e content to work as supplements" kind of stuff that is part of why I hope to have SF legendary profiency classes and unrealistic "I hope there is same content as in sf1e core and more!" wish(8 classes plus vehicle/starship/mecha/tech rules seems bit too much for one book), there is some other things to say yeah.

One is that I do hope new technomancers will have that weird "controlling technology with your mind" reality bending surreal nature I associate with technomancy as concept, the old ones kinda felt like "tech flavored caster that doesn't actually need or benefit that much from technology, though some of the spells target tech"

Other thing is that I'm currently bit wary of what pact worlds is gonna get blown up and repercussions of that, but I'm also super interested to see effects of Starfinder adventures being canonized(devastation ark has lot of interesting potential). In general I'm seeing this as great chance for Starfinder team to finally highlight new iconic villains and cement them as interesting plot hooks since lot of 1e villains felt more of like faceless organizations and such.

(there are in general lot of stuff that didn't get explored in sf1e that I think has potential to get explored here in this new "PF/SF are 100% compatible" mode. Namely planes and space wizards, I'm still fan of xararians and want to see those jerks being more major villains than just single 1e ap bestiary entry :'D 1e did have magical weirdness, but it felt overall like magic was treated as kinda on the sidelines, so this new paradigm means is has chance of highlighting magic being more important to some parts of setting)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Something that might ease some people's mind is that in the STFU podcast interview (great name btw XD), it was said that "compatibility and balance are two different things". Also that while you could use PF2 stuff in SF2 and vice versa, it doesn't necessarily mean you should. SF2 will be its own game, so stuff might be compatible, but not necessarily fully balanced. Flying ancestries or using a sailing vessel to attack a star ship being the obvious examples.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Karmagator wrote:
using a sailing vessel to attack a star ship being the obvious examples.

Listen. I am the captain of this proud vessel, and in the name of Queen and Country I order you to bring us around and load the cannons!

Shadow Lodge

FireclawDrake wrote:
Jenny Jarzabski wrote:
keftiu wrote:
Maybe we can even harness the magic power of punctuation :p
Can confirm that the addition of an exclamation point makes a product name more powerful.
Taking advice from Zo!, I see.

I'm more interested in Zo, the starport on Triaxus, than Zo! the media mogul.

Paizo Employee Managing Creative Director (Starfinder)

5 people marked this as a favorite.
thistledown wrote:
I'm more interested in Zo, the starport on Triaxus, than Zo! the media mogul.

Stay tuned.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Just wanted to pop in here and say that, now that kineticist (my favorite class) is out for pf2e I keep thinking about how it would fit into starfinder 2e. I hope that there are minimal hoops with bringing a pf2e class to sf2e (honestly I would be okay with some hoops with bringing a sf2e class to pf2e, that's a harder pill to swallow imo) in organized play or mechanically.

There are also definitely some question marks on things like 'what way is up' in the vacuum of space, how do some spells/abilities work when there is no ground to speak of, etc. I'll still be playing sf2e (and sf1e until/a while after sf2e releases) but only having 6 classes at launch is understandable but also not a lot of variety. Especially since no vanguard or evolutionist:CCCC So yeah if we get the easiest translation possible for pf2e classes to sf2e I'll be happy


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't imagine you having any problem to use a kineticist in SF2. It's a class pretty agnostic to the lore allowing to use it with no or minimal adjustments.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just realized, SF2E being a thing means we might eventually see a necrovite archetype. This excites me.

Second Seekers (Jadnura)

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Something Dustin mentioned in the STFU Interview gave me a thought. I think this was also spoken about in one of the earlier interviews too, but the idea is one of the Mystic's healing spells is a healing ringtone, that magically tells the phone's owner that "hey buddy, it's going to be fine :)"

The flavour of this is amazing, and I can't wait to hear what players come up with for what their healing ringtone sounds like (did somebody say, "Space La Cucaracha"?) - but it also reminded me of an existing pain point in SF1: bread-and-butter buff spells, and consumables. There are a number of low-level spells that would be excellent as a spell amp, but because of the strict rules on spell amps, they're ineligible. For example, Supercharge Weapon is an amazing spell that continues to be useful well after many other level 1 spells are no longer relevant: perfect fodder for a spell amp, for a Soldier to carry around, or what-have-you. But, spell amps can only replicate spells that target creatures, and Supercharge Weapon targets one weapon. Womp womp. Shifting Surge kind of gets around this, by targetting one willing creature or object, but it also doesn't pass the Spell Amp test, since it's not listed as harmless in its Saving Throw or Spell Resistance entry. Same thing for Charming Veneer, which would otherwise be prime Spell Amp fodder. I know there've been threads about this on the forums in the past, with other examples of spells that technically cannot be made into amps, even though they otherwise seem like top candidates.

Anyways, where I'm going with this is: I hope that "healing ringtone" (or whatever it ends up being called) and other gear-targeting spells can be turned into Spell Amps (or whatever they end up being called!) in SF2e. Gear and tech being a bigger thing in SF in general means that better integration with spell consumables rules, and a close pass on what spells are / aren't excluded from being turned into consumables, are a bigger deal than in PF2 (I assume, anyways.) Imagine pouring a "space weapon oil" of Healing Ringtone onto your cell phone, which makes it ring its extra-special magical ringtone to make you feel better :)


Assuming that PF2E's feats and things can be ported over with no issues then you'll always, at minimum, have access to Trick Magic Item as a feat. It may not be particularly efficient given how many actions you've got to spend, so I'm also hoping they open up what sorts of spell consumables we'll have access to, but it's nice to know that there is something there at minimum.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kishmo wrote:


The flavour of this is amazing, and I can't wait to hear what players come up with for what their healing ringtone sounds like (did somebody say, "Space La Cucaracha"?)

Don't you worry about a thing...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I've said it elsewhere, but I'm very excited for the 2nd edition of Starfinder because I have had this idea for a Pathfinder/Starfinder crossover (homebrew) AP and having both games utilize the same system will make it that much easier for me.

A lot of folks list their worries or concerns, their wishlists and whatnot ... but for me the one thing I'm hoping for is that Starfinder 2e has "dedication" feats like PF2e has, and that they're roughly seamless (in so far that you could have say a soldier with the champion dedication for example).

And as many have said, I trust Paizo to deliver the goods. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:


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.

But not you've got a science fiction supposedly futuristic scenario where you don't have situations and technology that can equal what we see in wars being fought right now in our world.

No, long range weapons need to exist to make the game feel like sci fi, or even "modern" warfare, i.e. what's existed since it became possible to make high quality rifles.

Sure, you can create a scenario where only the sniper can do anything, and that's realistic but not fun. But you shouldn't go all the other way and make sniper rifles useless because the characters that took the class options and feats that make them good at that are never allowed to come into play either. For example, your sniper provides cover while the rest of the team advances on the enemy position.

The same for the flying options discussed up thread. Flight is a real tactical advantage. Just make it cost something, both tactically (it does in real life because all the enemies can see you and shoot at you) and in equipment/options you could have had if you didn't spend all your credits/points on getting in the air. Have scenarios where it's really needed as well as scenarios where you really can't. Then the game still works, which is the point.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The_Minstrel_Wyrm wrote:

A lot of folks list their worries or concerns, their wishlists and whatnot ... but for me the one thing I'm hoping for is that Starfinder 2e has "dedication" feats like PF2e has, and that they're roughly seamless (in so far that you could have say a soldier with the champion dedication for example).

And as many have said, I trust Paizo to deliver the goods. :)

Good news, for the "100% compatibility" promise to actually work, SF2 has to have PF2's archetype system. For the Soldier it was even said that they had (at the time) no idea yet what the multiclass archetype would look like.

As for them being mostly seamless, I really don't see how that couldn't happen. As long as you/your GM allows it ofc, which is going to be the main problem for many people. Apart from that, it's mostly tone/theme and sometimes balance that will clash. But other than that, it should fundamentally work.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't really understand why they wanted it to be 100% compatible, because I don't see a need to have SF2 characters showing up in PF2 or vice versa. It's nice to have rules congruence, because then if you know how to run encounters in one, you know how to do it in the other. And spells with the same name should work the same, but I don't see that SF2 needs to have all the spells that exist in PF2. With more technology options, there's less need (or no need) for magic in a science fiction oriented game. Melee and ranged combat should work the same, with the only difference being the weapons options, and common tech weapons in SF2 should be WAY better than common non-magical weapons in PF.

I think melee combat is inevitably going to play a lesser role in SF2 than PF2 unless you cripple the ranged weapons or the rules for them. Modern ranged weapons are just way better than anything that was available in pre-modern times, and it just makes sense for characters (and their enemies) to take advantage of them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Calgon-3 wrote:

I don't really understand why they wanted it to be 100% compatible, because I don't see a need to have SF2 characters showing up in PF2 or vice versa. It's nice to have rules congruence, because then if you know how to run encounters in one, you know how to do it in the other. And spells with the same name should work the same, but I don't see that SF2 needs to have all the spells that exist in PF2. With more technology options, there's less need (or no need) for magic in a science fiction oriented game. Melee and ranged combat should work the same, with the only difference being the weapons options, and common tech weapons in SF2 should be WAY better than common non-magical weapons in PF.

I think melee combat is inevitably going to play a lesser role in SF2 than PF2 unless you cripple the ranged weapons or the rules for them. Modern ranged weapons are just way better than anything that was available in pre-modern times, and it just makes sense for characters (and their enemies) to take advantage of them.

On the business side, because it saves months and years of development time. It is also a great way to generate new customers by getting the PF2 playerbase interested. On the non-business side, because it is ****in cool? Also, who doesn't like having years of content that you can fall back on and that takes some of the pressure off the devs?

Also, Starfinder isn't science fiction, it's science fantasy. Hence magic absolutely needs to be present.

As far as the tech difference is concerned, that is debatable. Yes, some things are just improved, like automatic weapons being just better than flintlocks. But it really doesn't matter if you have a tech-y sword that you can make really hot or a magical sword that does the same thing. Power armor made of adamantine isn't monumentally better at protection than a suit of armor enchanted to the moon. Most of it is that it is infinitely easier to achieve and much, much cheaper.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think there are quite a few people who heard science fantasy, were told magic was in the setting, and were disappointed when they got into the game and magic was relegated to the back burner. There were half a dozen character concepts that had to be abandoned in my group of new players in SF1 because SF1 didn't support them. With full PF2 compatibility those concepts won't be stomped out.

It might help if people took the time to imagine what magic in the future could flourish into, and not focus on how much of it could be replaced or obviated by science. Like, the mysiticism behind magic doesn't have to be some archaic misunderstanding that science scrubs away. The Force wasn't reduced to scientific principles, and magic shouldn't be either.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Calgon-3 wrote:
I don't really understand why they wanted it to be 100% compatible, because I don't see a need to have SF2 characters showing up in PF2 or vice versa. It's nice to have rules congruence, because then if you know how to run encounters in one, you know how to do it in the other.

I think the 100% compatible is that the stuff under the hood (e.g. the action system, the proficiency system, and the basic terms) are identical before you add on the next layer of classes, ancestries, feats, etc. So you can straight up port a character from one game to another and have it make sense and be compatible with the rules. Like both games agree on what "a basic reflex defense" means and how cover works.

I don't think there's going to be any expectation of balance between the two things. That's something that's going to be left for the GM to handle on a case-by-case basis.

I think the fact that melee combat matters sometimes in Starfinder is simply a consequence of "some fights are going to take place in cramped quarters, like starship cargo bays or boarding operations. Like even space stations aren't exactly roomy. It's not as though Starfinder 1e didn't have classes and builds that wanted to fight up close (the Vanguard comes to mind) and those were fine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Calgon-3 wrote:
I don't really understand why they wanted it to be 100% compatible, because I don't see a need to have SF2 characters showing up in PF2 or vice versa. It's nice to have rules congruence, because then if you know how to run encounters in one, you know how to do it in the other.
I think the 100% compatible is that the stuff under the hood (e.g. the action system, the proficiency system, and the basic terms) are identical before you add on the next layer of classes, ancestries, feats, etc. So you can straight up port a character from one game to another and have it make sense and be compatible with the rules. Like both games agree on what "a basic reflex defense" means and how cover works.

Yes. I am expecting that what is meant by 'compatible' is the game rules compatibility. Not character theme, setting, tone, or other such things built on top of the game mechanics.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Starfinder 2 is going to build on top of the Pathfinder 2e rules, IMO. Like we know how stealth works in PF2. There are going to be additional rules on top of that for how things like "cloaking devices" and "scanners" interact with those rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The_Minstrel_Wyrm wrote:


And as many have said, I trust Paizo to deliver the goods. :)

Sturgeons law is more than a little bit of an overstatement. Maybe they need Minnows law 50% of everything is meh ?

But even setting aside things like objectively good or bad, a lot of things have been very hit or miss for me.

Things that haven't wowed me.

Ultimate intrigues skill rules.
Pathfinder 2
Starship combat ( As much as gamers will agree on anything, I'm on the pointy end of that lynch mob)
The mechanic not having a lot of mechanics to let them mechanic
The operative eating any other skill based characters lunch.
The envoy class effectively stopping at 8. Doubly so in that the problem was very fixable but not fixed. That's dropping the ball and refusing to pick it up.
The vanguard really doesn't need Entropy points.
The incredibly static evolutionist. Much like the shifter it seems like a very PF2 class, where the class is setting your power bar for you and you can't diverge from that for better or worse.

Most of the fun I have with starfinder is with the adventures and setting.

In general there's a lot of fidget spinner design lately. There are words, they have complex rules and interactions, but they don't actually DO anything once you peek under the hood. A fidgets spinner has a lot of complex whirly gigs and gears but doesn't actually DO anything.

Overpower the weapons in starfinder for example mathematically does approximately zilch. The envoys consolation prize for having skill focus get eclipsed completely is worth less than a +1 bonus once a day called in advance. Pathfinder 2 has a lot of ridiculously niche feats or feats that exist to restore basic functionality that was taken out to provide a reason to have the feat. The vanguard tracks entropy points they may not even have a use for, The shifter tracks evolution points that is obviated by basic gear and actively hurt a melee class.

Ditching the ivory tower/more box of leggos greatly exacerbates that for me, since it makes it much harder to dig around the parts you don't like.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

**scrible scribbles on the list** The vanguard extra damage attack that burns your entropy points, but its a full round action that's mathematically worse than just full attacking and not burning your entropy points.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I just really hope that Starfinder doesn't lose it's identity and become just a Pathfinder 2 book.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Klutz Lament wrote:
I just really hope that Starfinder doesn't lose it's identity and become just a Pathfinder 2 book.

Thirsty has been really clear that that's not going to happen. Given we've already seen a long-range sniper fight and martial AoE blasts with giant guns, and we're still just a month into things, I wouldn't worry.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
Klutz Lament wrote:
I just really hope that Starfinder doesn't lose it's identity and become just a Pathfinder 2 book.
Thirsty has been really clear that that's not going to happen. Given we've already seen a long-range sniper fight and martial AoE blasts with giant guns, and we're still just a month into things, I wouldn't worry.

... My annoyance at not noticing autocorrect "fixing" Thursty's name until after the edit window is immense.

Second Seekers (Jadnura)

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

I'm hoping we get some more standardization, and abbreviation, of certain repeating rules elements, both for clarity and ease of understanding, and also to save word count. For example (and yes I know Resolve and Stamina are still a big ? in SF2e, but,) in Owen K.C. Stephens' Galactic Magic Feats Chapter, there was a blurb in the intro to define "Recuperate" as "a term I created to represent when a character takes a 10-minute rest and expends a Resolve Point to regain Stamina Points. I use it rather than spell out that sentence each time the rule comes up." (I think he used it on his personal blog, too, even earlier.) I hope that there's more stuff like that, in SF2e!

Like, how many spell descriptions have a sentence along the lines of "a creature that succeeds at a [Whatever] saving throw halves the damage it takes and avoids [this spell's other effects.]" Wouldn't it be nice to have that standardized and shortened, by convention, across the board? Every spell's save entry could be, I dunno just spitballing, but like "Save ½+" or "Save ½-" with the + or - to differentiate if "additional effects" happen, or not, on a successful save? If that was a convention everyone stuck to, it could really speed up those "wait, what does this spell do, again?" conversations!

I assume that people familiar with the Paizo 3 Action System (can we start calling that P3AS PTAS or something?) will already know the sentences that come up a lot that could benefit from being defined as a rules term - anything on the top of folks' minds?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kishmo wrote:

I'm hoping we get some more standardization, and abbreviation, of certain repeating rules elements, both for clarity and ease of understanding, and also to save word count. For example (and yes I know Resolve and Stamina are still a big ? in SF2e, but,) in Owen K.C. Stephens' Galactic Magic Feats Chapter, there was a blurb in the intro to define "Recuperate" as "a term I created to represent when a character takes a 10-minute rest and expends a Resolve Point to regain Stamina Points. I use it rather than spell out that sentence each time the rule comes up." (I think he used it on his personal blog, too, even earlier.) I hope that there's more stuff like that, in SF2e!

Like, how many spell descriptions have a sentence along the lines of "a creature that succeeds at a [Whatever] saving throw halves the damage it takes and avoids [this spell's other effects.]" Wouldn't it be nice to have that standardized and shortened, by convention, across the board? Every spell's save entry could be, I dunno just spitballing, but like "Save ½+" or "Save ½-" with the + or - to differentiate if "additional effects" happen, or not, on a successful save? If that was a convention everyone stuck to, it could really speed up those "wait, what does this spell do, again?" conversations!

I assume that people familiar with the Paizo 3 Action System (can we start calling that P3AS PTAS or something?) will already know the sentences that come up a lot that could benefit from being defined as a rules term - anything on the top of folks' minds?

Good news, the system is practically build around this exact kind of standardization/abbreviation. For example, a slightly more complex version of the save thing you talked about is used regularly. It's called a "basic save" and is defined in a single place - enemies that crit fail/fail/succeed/crit succeed at such as save take double/full/half/no damage. Essentially all pure damage spells simply say "basic X save" in a big header that includes, range, area, targets and so on and the description simply has the flavor text plus "Enemies take x damage".

Apart from stuff like this, we also use a tag system. Abilities, creatures, spells, items and so on have a bunch of those that reference certain rules elements, e.g. undead, or can get referenced by other things. For example something that gives bonuses to finding undead would work on anything with the undead trait. That way you can usually quickly tell a lot of things.


Kishmo wrote:
"Recuperate" as "a term I created to represent when a character takes a 10-minute rest and expends a Resolve Point to regain Stamina Points.

Coffee break

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Realized another concern while at convention this weekend: Languages. Starfinder you start with a couple from Int, and get another with every rank in Culture (so every level). Sometimes you'll get TWO per rank in Culture. So you can wind up with a LOT of languages - which is fitting when there's 140 ancestries, most of which have their own language.

Pf2 it is incredibly hard to get more languages. You're spending feats to get a couple of them.


Aren't universal translators dirt cheap, if not given out to people like candies?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
Aren't universal translators dirt cheap, if not given out to people like candies?

The opposite, they basically don't exist.

Tech Revolution has a whole page dedicated to explaining the problems, limitations, and difficulties with translation tech in the starfinder setting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
Aren't universal translators dirt cheap, if not given out to people like candies?

starfinders wayfinders have one. It needs to listen to a few minutes of conversation but then it's like google translate. It's 500 credits or requires getting Fitch and the wayfinders to know you a bit.


There's some items and augmentations that help with languages for things like first contact situations, but not so much for long term socialization on a new planet. A cheap serum lets you temporarily learn the pigdin feature from one of the CRB themes, and there's a brain augment that lets you listen to a new language for a minute and then briefly speak it, but you can't keep doing it all day.


I posted this on another topic, but I'd love to get modular weapons:
- take every single TYPE of weapon (sword, axe, doshko, pistol, assault rifle, sniper rifle, launcher, etc)
- start with a damage die
- give a number of "slots"
- fill those slots with extra range, increased damage, different damage type, critical effects, ammo count and other abilities

Say you have an Absalom Pistol, dealing 1d6 piercing points of damage, 30 ft range, 9 rounds, 1 shot/usage and 5 slots.
1) change from piercing to Fire (laser)
2) add Conceal
3) add 3 rounds to capacity
4) add 30 feet to range
5) add Burn 1d4 as a critical effect


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:


Tech Revolution has a whole page dedicated to explaining the problems, limitations, and difficulties with translation tech in the starfinder setting.

thats why you use translation magitech. Its a first level spell to teach someone your language for a day.


I never expected translation to be a problem...

Were sci-fi TV shows and movies lying to us this whole time XD ?

Grand Lodge

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

I never expected translation to be a problem...

Were sci-fi TV shows and movies lying to us this whole time XD ?

Depends which ones you mean? See, for example, Ivanova's less-than-stellar attempts at speaking Minbari on Babylon 5:

"<Hat rack rat-catcher to forward weapons. Brickbat lingerie.>"

And yes, magic is the problem-solver here, if you can convince someone whose language you don't speak to let you touch them with a charged spell.

Second Seekers (Luwazi Elsebo)

Arutema wrote:

And yes, magic is the problem-solver here, if you can convince someone whose language you don't speak to let you touch them with a charged spell.

We developed three methods for doing this.

1) Was the n +1 mechanic. You turn to your fellow starfinder, demonstrate the handshake. Then demonstrate a second hand shake with a glowy hand.

2) You can try to literally slap some sense into someone in combat.

3) Knock someone out cast the spell on them (its harmless so i think they still count as willing) then get them back on their feet.

Most random people you meet for a first contact won't come along with you but, BUT if you hand them a datapad with star sugar heart love on it and some cookies or medicine most will translate for you

Sovereign Court

WatersLethe wrote:

I think there are quite a few people who heard science fantasy, were told magic was in the setting, and were disappointed when they got into the game and magic was relegated to the back burner. There were half a dozen character concepts that had to be abandoned in my group of new players in SF1 because SF1 didn't support them. With full PF2 compatibility those concepts won't be stomped out.

It might help if people took the time to imagine what magic in the future could flourish into, and not focus on how much of it could be replaced or obviated by science. Like, the mysiticism behind magic doesn't have to be some archaic misunderstanding that science scrubs away. The Force wasn't reduced to scientific principles, and magic shouldn't be either.

One of the appealing parts of SF for me was the fact that magic took a "back burner" position - changing this will add a totally new feel to an existing system game and will be hugely "inworld" changing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Starfinder had several caster classes in core and released more as it went along. Can it really be said to have put magic on the back burner?

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well yes, because that complaint(well in this cause positive I guess? I more often see it as complaint) is more about presentation of magic in the setting rather than mechanics of it.

Like Starfinder 1e presented magic as "liberal arts" career, it didn't feel like Starfinder magic had evolved since era of Pathfinder or that it was that important in society besides making it easier to handwave technobabble.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I get what Cylerist and Corvus are saying. A friend of mine described it like this: Star Wars is a low-magic setting with some high-magic characters (Jedi). Starfinder is a high-magic setting with low-magic characters. There's magic stuff all over the place, but the magical-ness of individual characters is actually pretty low. Even full casters rarely FEEL like "I'm a MAGIC user!"

251 to 300 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.