Wishes and concerns for Starfinder Second Edition


Playtest General Discussion

351 to 400 of 439 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Calgon-3 wrote:
I'd say my biggest wish for SF2 is that the combat system and the scenario designs should support combats commonly ending in surrender, capture of enemies, or retreat instead of only ever fight to the death.

Oooh! In both directions, too....

Like have the intro adventure include one potential fight against the police where the correct action is to disengage and get away - where if the party tries to get stuck in, they get completely rolled over, booked, thrown in a cell for the night, maybe fined a bit, and then let go in the morning with a lecture about maybe not (fill in the blank whatever stupid thing they were doing here) next time.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't feel like combat system inherently unsupports that, unless you mean there being heavy mechanics for surrendering or just more options for capturing enemies?

Its more of adventure design thing of whether all enemies fight to death in morale

Wayfinders

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree a lot of it is encounter design, but there could be more rule options to make the option of nonlethal combat more likely, or have morale effects happen. In PF2e morale just gets 6 lines of advice in the GMG and is not listed in the table of contents, glossary, or index. Making a table with morale levels or turning them into traits might help.

To help encourage players to choose nonlethal options more often might help to get rid of the -2 (PF2e) -4 (SF) to do nonlethal damage with a weapon lacking that trait for some types of weapons, or have some weapons like energy weapons have the option to switch to nonlethal damage. If there needs to be a penalty to balance the game have it apply to damage instead, after all the goal of doing nonlethal damage is to do less harm.
A simple global rule could be something like, making a nonlethal attack using a weapon without the nonlethal trait reducing the damage die type to the next lower size die, and removes its crit effects.

Having rules or at least guidelines for fines or punishments for lethal combat in areas where it's against the law would make it easier for GMs to deal with and make players aware there are consequences.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Starfinder 1e already had several weapon lines with the Stun property, letting you switch them between lethal and nonlethal. I hope these carry over into 2nd edition.


Arutema wrote:
Starfinder 1e already had several weapon lines with the Stun property, letting you switch them between lethal and nonlethal. I hope these carry over into 2nd edition.

There's also the "you have 3 rounds to stabalize someone" rule. It's not even an alternate rule, any more than "the npc's head turns into chunky salsa at zero hp" rule is. They're both equally valid core rules. Most of my characters will stabalize a downed person given the chance (and most of them have very expansive definitions of personhood)


Garretmander wrote:
That said, one of the PF2 update spoilers was doing away with ability scores in general, since ability score damage is gone anyway. So I imagine it might be tweaked from this anyway.

Wait...does this mean Str mod doesn't add to melee weapon damage? I feel like I missed this rule change...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Jett wrote:
Garretmander wrote:
That said, one of the PF2 update spoilers was doing away with ability scores in general, since ability score damage is gone anyway. So I imagine it might be tweaked from this anyway.
Wait...does this mean Str mod doesn't add to melee weapon damage? I feel like I missed this rule change...

"Ability score damage" means damage to PC ability scores via special monster abilities, poisons, curses, etc. That stuff has gone away in PF2/SF2. It was already incredible rare in SF1.

Strength still adds to melee damage.

Wayfinders

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Jett wrote:
Garretmander wrote:
That said, one of the PF2 update spoilers was doing away with ability scores in general, since ability score damage is gone anyway. So I imagine it might be tweaked from this anyway.
Wait...does this mean Str mod doesn't add to melee weapon damage? I feel like I missed this rule change...

Pathfinder remaster got rid of ability scores but kept the ability bonuses, the only thing ability scores were used for was determining the ability bonuses. The change just saves space on a character sheet.


Flavor-wise, SF is not PF. Yes, I know there is all the intertwined history et al but SF became its own universe (much like how W40K may have been born of WHFRPG but is uniquely separate as well). That being said, SF2 should not be compatible with PF Remastered. For one, SF is a superior system. For two, the scale is very different. There is still genuine lethality in SF combat whereas PF2/PFR combat nearly guarantees PC success. No two SF characters are equal. All PF2/PFR characters are so equal, little light can crawl between two PCs standing together. I don't say that as negative criticism, they are just two very different games. I wish they'd just reprint the SF books under ORC and leave it at that. None of the changes in PFR legally distinguish that game from PF2. They are all still D&D3E clones so until radical mechanical and flavor changes occur they will remain so. But then, they wouldn't be the same game would they?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Prof.Dogg wrote:
Flavor-wise, SF is not PF. Yes, I know there is all the intertwined history et al but SF became its own universe (much like how W40K may have been born of WHFRPG but is uniquely separate as well). That being said, SF2 should not be compatible with PF Remastered. For one, SF is a superior system. For two, the scale is very different. There is still genuine lethality in SF combat whereas PF2/PFR combat nearly guarantees PC success. No two SF characters are equal. All PF2/PFR characters are so equal, little light can crawl between two PCs standing together. I don't say that as negative criticism, they are just two very different games. I wish they'd just reprint the SF books under ORC and leave it at that. None of the changes in PFR legally distinguish that game from PF2. They are all still D&D3E clones so until radical mechanical and flavor changes occur they will remain so. But then, they wouldn't be the same game would they?

1) SF2 will be compatible with the PF2 system. We can debate what that means, exactly, but that decision has already been made.

2) If SF1 were a superior system, then the devs wouldn't make a SF2 that is this different. And PF2's numbers wouldn't blow SF1's out of the water. The popularity difference between fantasy and scifi simply doesn't account for the difference. So while you think that, the numbers obviously don't agree.

3) The degree of equality between PF2 characters you are talking about isn't supported by the facts either. PF2 got rid of many of the unhealthy extreme differences you can get between characters of the same "type", that's pretty much it. It makes it very hard to have two characters in a party, one of whom can clear half the challenges of an adventure by himself without breaking a sweat and another that cannot contribute meaningfully at all or is made irrelevant by the other guy. Which was absolutely a problem previous editions had, including SF1. PF2 still very much permits major differences between PCs. If you don't see a meaningful difference between a free-hand Fighter and a Laughing Shadow Magus, then that's not the system's fault.

4) PF2's combat not being lethal or challenging is a baseless statement as well. There are tons of threads of GMs wanting advice on how to avoid a TPK or players wanting tactics advice to save their group. With the monster and encounter balance system, PF2 is exactly as challenging as you want it to be.

5) The entire point of PFR was to legally distinguish it from previous PF2-OGL content, so I have no idea what you are talking about. And if you think PF2 is essentially a DnD3e clone, then I have bad news for you. Because that means SF1 is even more of one, given that its mechanics are much, much closer.


Personally, I don't think there's anything about PF2.r's Fighters that screams, "doesn't use firearms." I would expect that the Fighter can simply be copied over to SF2 to fulfill the "Hicks" style of marine/soldier with zero problems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Jett wrote:
Personally, I don't think there's anything about PF2.r's Fighters that screams, "doesn't use firearms." I would expect that the Fighter can simply be copied over to SF2 to fulfill the "Hicks" style of marine/soldier with zero problems.

Most likely true... and that's by design. Ideally, any PF2 class could be moved into SF2 without real problems (though they might not fit in quite as well) and while providing a different experience than any of the existing SF2 classes.

At the same time, i'm pretty happy to see the Operative take the "legendary weapon skill" slot for SF2. It would have felt wrong if nobody did.


Oh i never said I didn't think SF wasn't a 3e clone... it truly is but that's not a bad thing. SF is a great 3e clone! 3e was a great game system and the fruits of it reside in all current d20 style games, especially PF and SF. But that's just it... There was no need to water down PF2 and now subsequently SF by the changes in PFR (and I don't think PFR is a bad system, it just wasn't necessary). Legally in WotC's shadow, they are no better off as they were pre-PFR. It is still the same skeleton as it has been since the inception of 3e and its eventual morphing into PF. The PFR changes are fine in themselves, but SF is distinctly a different game. By watering down SF with PFR, Paizo weakens the SF system. Make changes! Improve! Playtest! But don't drag SF down! And popularity should never be a measurement for quality. There are great games out there with very little shelf movement. SF never had a chance to shine. I don't know why but it is what it is. Now I'm afraid it'll just be a series of books for avid PF collectors more so than its own game.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It's the opposite of watering down in my opinion.

And pretty sure Paizo and their lawyers have a better grasp of the legal situation than a random forum poster.

Quote:
ow I'm afraid it'll just be a series of books for avid PF collectors more so than its own game.

If anything the amount of books released for SF will increase, look at their current publishing rate in comparison to PF.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

That's not what "clone" and "watered down" actually mean.

Just because PF2 has some elements of 3e doesn't make it a clone. PF2 has massive changes in most key systems, so calling it a clone is a bit like calling Battlefield 3 a clone of the original Doom. PF1 was the clone, for the most part.

To "water something down" in this context would involve substantial simplifications of core aspects of the game for the sake of making things simpler. PF2R's changes haven't done that, they barely even touched the core systems and almost all of it was cosmetic.

They made changes, improved and are playtesting. That's what made PF2 and now makes SF2.

And I hate to tell you, but popularity is always an indicator of quality. Not the only one, as can be seen from the state of the current video games industry, but still. But it is what businesses have to look out for, because popularity drives sales. SF1 and the PF2 full release were about two years apart, so SF1 very much had its chance to shine. And Paizo were pretty happy with it. But a lot more people still chose PF2 and I can guarantee you that the SF2 playerbase will be much bigger than SF1's as well.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A bit of off-topic here but.

But popularity ≠ quality. There are many things that can make a high quality game not popular and a low quality game popular. Things like marketing, compatibility, market share and many other things that can both make a mediocre game popular or a high-quality game unpopular or not so popular.

Popularity can be a good indicator that a game can be high quality or not but its not the only one and cannot be used as meter of quality.


Sanityfaerie wrote:


At the same time, i'm pretty happy to see the Operative take the "legendary weapon skill" slot for SF2. It would have felt wrong if nobody did.

They don't, it looks like normal martial proficiency. I trust this over other reports claiming otherwise.

Summary: character sheets were wrong and incomplete going into the event, they were corrected to a +10 attack for this 3rd level character (+4 dex, +1 item, +5 proficiency), so that's trained not expert proficiency to start. The printed values were lower, not higher, so the claims of legendary progression were probably by someone confused and doing their math wrong.


Xenocrat wrote:
Sanityfaerie wrote:


At the same time, i'm pretty happy to see the Operative take the "legendary weapon skill" slot for SF2. It would have felt wrong if nobody did.

They don't, it looks like normal martial proficiency. I trust this over other reports claiming otherwise.

Summary: character sheets were wrong and incomplete going into the event, they were corrected to a +10 attack for this 3rd level character (+4 dex, +1 item, +5 proficiency), so that's trained not expert proficiency to start. The printed values were lower, not higher, so the claims of legendary progression were probably by someone confused and doing their math wrong.

Eh... reading that, my conclusion is "Paizo got their math wrong enough that we actually don't know what the answer is.

Still, it's true that once you toss that particular bit of evidence into the "inconclusive" bin, the thing you're left with isn't strongly supported.

Ah, well.


TheCowardlyLion wrote:

It's the opposite of watering down in my opinion.

And pretty sure Paizo and their lawyers have a better grasp of the legal situation than a random forum poster.

Random heh? Well fair enough, you don't know anything about me, my knowledge and training, my degrees, my court time, or my career and eventual retirement from an Attorney's General office. But what do I know?

Look, I don't care if someone is working fast food after their recent high school graduation or long in the tooth like me... Value someone else's thoughts and, yes, even their feelings, when you speak with them... It makes the conversation more pleasant and everyone can benefit from it...


Karmagator wrote:


To "water something down" in this context would involve substantial simplifications of core aspects of the game for the sake of making things simpler. PF2R's changes haven't done that, they barely even touched the core systems and almost all of it was cosmetic.

You are correct, I should have clarified... when I spoke of watering down, I specifically meant the removal of important qualities that make SF unique, not a simplification of mechanics... PF2/PFR is a simpler system and I do not begrudge any game design which seeks to undo unnecessary complexity, but I'm referring to artistic qualities of game design that will be lost that currently makes SF great.


I don't know. Skimming through Starfinder (because I have multiple other TTRPGs in this genre), it seems to me it owes it mechanical heritage to PF1 and thereby D&D. However, many of its "SF" concepts align pretty well West End and WotC renditions of the Star Wars RPG. Since SW is already pretty heavily fantasy aligned, I'm not convinced that there's an enormous amount of science in Starfinder's SF. IMO, in this instance, Starfinder is really a space fantasy game (supported by its existing magic-using classes) rather than a science fiction game.


It doesn't fit cleanly into either category. SF a science fantasy game and setting, so the similarity to Star Wars isn't surprising. It's a pretty small genre after all.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Prof.Dogg wrote:
TheCowardlyLion wrote:

It's the opposite of watering down in my opinion.

And pretty sure Paizo and their lawyers have a better grasp of the legal situation than a random forum poster.

Random heh? Well fair enough, you don't know anything about me, my knowledge and training, my degrees, my court time, or my career and eventual retirement from an Attorney's General office. But what do I know?

Look, I don't care if someone is working fast food after their recent high school graduation or long in the tooth like me... Value someone else's thoughts and, yes, even their feelings, when you speak with them... It makes the conversation more pleasant and everyone can benefit from it...

I don't believe you are acting in good faith here.


I always act in good faith. It's one of my more annoying qualities I'm told...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Karmagator wrote:
It doesn't fit cleanly into either category. SF a science fantasy game and setting, so the similarity to Star Wars isn't surprising. It's a pretty small genre after all.

I often describe SF as more Star Wars than Star Wars...

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Prof.Dogg wrote:
I always act in good faith. It's one of my more annoying qualities I'm told...

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Prof.Dogg wrote:
TheCowardlyLion wrote:

It's the opposite of watering down in my opinion.

And pretty sure Paizo and their lawyers have a better grasp of the legal situation than a random forum poster.

Random heh? Well fair enough, you don't know anything about me, my knowledge and training, my degrees, my court time, or my career and eventual retirement from an Attorney's General office. But what do I know?

Look, I don't care if someone is working fast food after their recent high school graduation or long in the tooth like me... Value someone else's thoughts and, yes, even their feelings, when you speak with them... It makes the conversation more pleasant and everyone can benefit from it...

Paizo is a company with a legal team. They have had that legal team for some time, and the OGL specifically and its various legal implications have been an area of particular interest to that legal team for a fair number of years now. Then, when the whole debacle happened about a year ago, they had strong motivation to do significant additional research on the matter. At this point, I do not believe that your legal opinion on the matter is more informed than theirs is because I don't believe that anyone's legal opinion on the matter is more informed than theirs is. The legal opinion of WotC's team sure wasn't.

But that's not the only reason I think you're full of it.

When this whole thing went down? We saw how people who actually had some degree of legal training responded to it.

"I am not actually a lawyer. I'm currently only a law student. Based on my limited understanding...."

"I am a lawyer, but I'm not a contract lawyer. Bearing that in mind...."

"I'm a contract lawyer, and I've done a lot of work with a whole bunch of different contracts. Still, I'm not an Intellectual Property lawyer. so if anyone who's actually an intellectual property lawyer starts talking, I'll shut up. That said...."

...and that's just not how you're talking. You're talking like you're someone on the internet who has an opinion and wants other people to think it means something, while you badmouth the legal understanding of a team of "TTRPG IP law in general and The OGL specifically" lawyers.

Even then, the thing that you're claiming is a background in criminal law, which is rather distant from contract law, which you'd be fully aware of, if you were a lawyer. So even the random claim that you made to make yourself seem like an authority indicates that you know way less about the topic than they do, even if taken at face value.

So, basically... pull the other one. It's got bells on.

...and if you want to have a foundation for appeals to "value my thoughts and feelings" then maybe don't start by talking like Paizo is full of people who have no idea what they're doing?


First, I have nothing but respect for Paizo as a corporate entity and believe they are sincere in their actions. I take them in good faith. That being said, I find this whole "burn it all down" mentality perplexing. I get it though, fear is a great motivator...

Second, for every legal opinion, you'll find five variants... I never bother arguing law, I argue facts (albeit case theory is fine but it has to be clear it's only theory till the evidence is weighed). It's the only sincere means of discussion to determine outcomes. The judiciary often have unpredictable mindsets. I blame the robes...

Third, I hate being denigrated as a nobody (although I find it a convenient tool sometime to be underestimated). But I sincerely hate that anyone would denigrate anyone else as a nobody. Each person brings something to the table, whether that law student or that person who just loves CourtTV or the person who just "likes" things a certain way. TheCowardlyLion's dismissal of me having value caught me the wrong way at the wrong time but I stand behind my response. I claim no more knowledge or insight than the person who reads this, nor did I in my posts until my value was questioned then I simply stated my biographical facts, my history as a person (emphasis on person). I have my bona fides, as I'm certain you do as well.

Fourth, I stated my opinion that SF is a superior ruleset than what it will be evolving into and I decry the upcoming changes as they are unnecessary and frivolous and will weaken what is already a great game. If that bothers you, I suggest you look inward as to why that bothers you...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

They changed a few names, retired a handful of monsters, exchanged the ever controversial alignment system with something that basically does the same thing or better. And they got rid of the magic school system, which was mostly only a reference anyway. For SF, the WotC controversy gave them an opportunity to implement a plan that already existed, just a bit earlier than they planned to. Make a SF2 based on their newer system. That's it for the actual game side of things.

There's also the switch from the OGL to the ORC license, but that has very little to do with the current content.

You have a very strange idea of what constitutes a "burn it all down" mentality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Prof.Dogg wrote:

First, I have nothing but respect for Paizo as a corporate entity and believe they are sincere in their actions. I take them in good faith. That being said, I find this whole "burn it all down" mentality perplexing. I get it though, fear is a great motivator...

Second, for every legal opinion, you'll find five variants... I never bother arguing law, I argue facts (albeit case theory is fine but it has to be clear it's only theory till the evidence is weighed). It's the only sincere means of discussion to determine outcomes. The judiciary often have unpredictable mindsets. I blame the robes...

Third, I hate being denigrated as a nobody (although I find it a convenient tool sometime to be underestimated). But I sincerely hate that anyone would denigrate anyone else as a nobody. Each person brings something to the table, whether that law student or that person who just loves CourtTV or the person who just "likes" things a certain way. TheCowardlyLion's dismissal of me having value caught me the wrong way at the wrong time but I stand behind my response. I claim no more knowledge or insight than the person who reads this, nor did I in my posts until my value was questioned then I simply stated my biographical facts, my history as a person (emphasis on person). I have my bona fides, as I'm certain you do as well.

Fourth, I stated my opinion that SF is a superior ruleset than what it will be evolving into and I decry the upcoming changes as they are unnecessary and frivolous and will weaken what is already a great game. If that bothers you, I suggest you look inward as to why that bothers you...

You have not argued any facts, just your arrogance and opinions.

As for denigration of being a nobody, it is a fact. You are a nobody the same as me and most everyone else here in regards to the matter, as you were not involved with ORC, Paizo, or Legal groups involved. Claiming more understanding or knowledge of the situation that isn't your ballpark that you have nothing to do with is a blatant stain, not an accomplished brag.

You claim to have a legal background... that is completely unrelated to the current situation and talk down about it and those involved, you're confusing your opinions for what is happening/happened/ needs to happen.

In short your pontifications are neither pleasant nor agreeable nor applicable. Look at how you've presented yourself in this discussion, what are you attempting to accomplish?


I accomplished what I wished at the onset, TheCowardlyLion. I stated my wishes and concerns for SF 2E... If that bothers you, I suggest again you ask yourself why it did so in a manner that caused you to denigrate me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The insults, the talking down, and the arrogance, as was pointed out.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Karmagator wrote:

They changed a few names, retired a handful of monsters, exchanged the ever controversial alignment system with something that basically does the same thing or better. And they got rid of the magic school system, which was mostly only a reference anyway. For SF, the WotC controversy gave them an opportunity to implement a plan that already existed, just a bit earlier than they planned to. Make a SF2 based on their newer system. That's it for the actual game side of things.

There's also the switch from the OGL to the ORC license, but that has very little to do with the current content.

You have a very strange idea of what constitutes a "burn it all down" mentality.

I look at it as more of a "moving on" rather than a "burning down," myself.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
I look at it as more of a "moving on" rather than a "burning down," myself.

That's what I'd say as well. The team has been pretty clear that they want to preserve the essence of Starfinder, the expressions just won't be necessarily the same. How well that works is quite subjective and never perfect, regardless.


Perpdepog wrote:
I look at it as more of a "moving on" rather than a "burning down," myself.

That's a fair assessment for now, but I also foresee it as the obliteration of a fun game as it's assimilated into a larger game that is differently focused. All of these universal game systems (GURPS, HERO, etc) have their place but I've found a real comfort in Stardfinder being a unique world / system (even one based on Golarion's history). You can always bring in more PF elements as you wish but the universe of SF is so much greater. I especially like third party content that could be set in nearly any Science Fantasy universe. Grimmerspace had so much potential. I really wish it had gotten off the ground.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Prof.Dogg wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
I look at it as more of a "moving on" rather than a "burning down," myself.
That's a fair assessment for now, but I also foresee it as the obliteration of a fun game as it's assimilated into a larger game that is differently focused. All of these universal game systems (GURPS, HERO, etc) have their place but I've found a real comfort in Stardfinder being a unique world / system (even one based on Golarion's history). You can always bring in more PF elements as you wish but the universe of SF is so much greater. I especially like third party content that could be set in nearly any Science Fantasy universe. Grimmerspace had so much potential. I really wish it had gotten off the ground.

I believe you are despairing incorrectly. Being tied to the PF2 rules isn't going to obliterate SF2 any more than being tied to the 3rd Ed rules obliterated SF1.

Let's be real here. The 3rd Ed rules chassis has some real problems with it. Even without PF2, even without the OGL thing, they were never going to have SF2 running on the same chassis as SF1. It just wasn't going to happen. It wasn't a choice between "change to PF2 chassis" and "Everything I love about SF1 stays perfect and beautiful forever." It was a choice between "switch to the PF2 chassis" and "create some new third thing with whatever resources you can spare and hope its better". Given the choice between those two... switching to the PF2 chassis has a number of significant upsides and very few real downsides.

Now, edition wars are a thing, and there are always going to be people who loved the old one and hate the new one and feel unhappy about the change. That's how we got PF1 as an actual thing in the first place, and all the stuff that sprang from that fount. There's nothing wrong with that, and if you are on the trailing edge of the butcher-cut of time on this one... well, in some ways that's an unpleasant place to be, and you have my sympathy. Still, you should realize that it's not the fact that things are shifting to the PF2 chassis that's doing this. It's the fact that the edition is changing at all... and that one was going to happen anyway. To my understanding, that sort of thing is driven by "People aren't buying enough SF1 anymore." Paizo s a company, and companies are ever-hungry beasts that eat and breathe money. If people were still lining up to buy in the right numbers, they'd still be prepping new books to sell. In a very real way, SF1 is being sunset by its customers.

On the bright side...? If you like SF1, you still have two more years of it in the pipe to enjoy, and it's not like anyone's going to force you to stop playing even after that's done. "No more new books" means that there's nothing being published anymore that's both new and official, sure, but it also means that now you have them all. It's not like a push-patch OS update is going to come through on the human brain and break compatibility or anything.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Prof.Dogg wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
I look at it as more of a "moving on" rather than a "burning down," myself.
That's a fair assessment for now, but I also foresee it as the obliteration of a fun game as it's assimilated into a larger game that is differently focused. All of these universal game systems (GURPS, HERO, etc) have their place but I've found a real comfort in Stardfinder being a unique world / system (even one based on Golarion's history). You can always bring in more PF elements as you wish but the universe of SF is so much greater. I especially like third party content that could be set in nearly any Science Fantasy universe. Grimmerspace had so much potential. I really wish it had gotten off the ground.

But it's not? Like, none of the things you just said are happening. Starfinder is no more being assimilated into PF2E than it was assimilated into PF1E or D&D 3.5; it's just using the same game engine. The two games are going to be compatible, but not perfectly so--this has been stated multiple times in multiple places. The baseline assumptions of Starfinder, everyone has guns, folks can easily fly, etc, are still going to be there ... all of which would make it a nightmare if it was being assimilated into PF2E, which hasn't got those assumptions.

As for the claims of PF2E being a "universal game system," and Starfinder's world going away, I've got no idea where those came from. I haven't heard any inklings of Paizo intending to broaden PF2E's engine out into becoming a full generic/universal system anywhere, and I consume far more Paizo and Pathfinder-focused content than is good for me. Starfinder's world is, as you've noted, one of its big selling points; it's pretty universally beloved, pardon the pun. Paizo would be shooting themselves in the foot to get rid of it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Prof.Dogg wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
I look at it as more of a "moving on" rather than a "burning down," myself.
That's a fair assessment for now, but I also foresee it as the obliteration of a fun game as it's assimilated into a larger game that is differently focused. All of these universal game systems (GURPS, HERO, etc) have their place but I've found a real comfort in Stardfinder being a unique world / system (even one based on Golarion's history). You can always bring in more PF elements as you wish but the universe of SF is so much greater. I especially like third party content that could be set in nearly any Science Fantasy universe. Grimmerspace had so much potential. I really wish it had gotten off the ground.

I'm not 100% sure that you meant to say that, but as Perpdepog said, the engine change and the changes to the Starfinder universe have nothing to do with eachother.

As for the actual changes we were told about, I roughly remember that they'll blow up a planet, the SF2 drow are fine, and a new planet will join the Pact Worlds. Other than that, they want to get deeper into the respective ancestries/cultures, rather than just mostly surface level as before. I think that's pretty much it, so I don't think you need to worry ^^

The setting specifically is a major draw for me as well, which is why I am so happy that they are moving to the more modern engine. Using a new, fairly complicated system would already have been a challenge for my group and constantly being reminded of the "greener grass" just over there on top of that would have been really rough. That's the only reason why I didn't decide to start running SF two-ish years ago. The new system on the other hand makes it extremely easy for my group to adjust, so I'm 100% running the game starting with the playtest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
Prof.Dogg wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
I look at it as more of a "moving on" rather than a "burning down," myself.
That's a fair assessment for now, but I also foresee it as the obliteration of a fun game as it's assimilated into a larger game that is differently focused. All of these universal game systems (GURPS, HERO, etc) have their place but I've found a real comfort in Stardfinder being a unique world / system (even one based on Golarion's history). You can always bring in more PF elements as you wish but the universe of SF is so much greater. I especially like third party content that could be set in nearly any Science Fantasy universe. Grimmerspace had so much potential. I really wish it had gotten off the ground.

But it's not? Like, none of the things you just said are happening. Starfinder is no more being assimilated into PF2E than it was assimilated into PF1E or D&D 3.5; it's just using the same game engine. The two games are going to be compatible, but not perfectly so--this has been stated multiple times in multiple places. The baseline assumptions of Starfinder, everyone has guns, folks can easily fly, etc, are still going to be there ... all of which would make it a nightmare if it was being assimilated into PF2E, which hasn't got those assumptions.

As for the claims of PF2E being a "universal game system," and Starfinder's world going away, I've got no idea where those came from. I haven't heard any inklings of Paizo intending to broaden PF2E's engine out into becoming a full generic/universal system anywhere, and I consume far more Paizo and Pathfinder-focused content than is good for me. Starfinder's world is, as you've noted, one of its big selling points; it's pretty universally beloved, pardon the pun. Paizo would be shooting themselves in the foot to get rid of it.

It's wild to me as well to claim that PF 2e is a universal game system akin to Gurps or HERO because Paizo only makes the two games, and they make them with a ton of pre-established lore to boot. Universal game systems don't usually come with any lore, because they know the lore changes between the tens or hundreds of splat books. Paizo isn't publishing like a ton of different settings and then just having PF 2e do back flips and loop-de-loops to fit into whatever setting it has.

It's got Golorion, and then Post-Golorion, and that's it. That's your two settings, or arguably their one setting. Feels a lot like just doomposting if I'm perfectly honest.


I think my biggest concern is that they make some of the SF2s classes worse so they don't step too much on the PF2 classes toes. Like the inventor shares a lot of design space with the most hypothetical mechanic classes, however it is mostly (curranty) unusable similarities, as the inventor does not work very well in a sci-fi setting, being firmly grounded in steampunkesk fantasy. Hopefully, they either ignore the inventor and make a great mechanic, or they reinvent the inventor to make it work in space. However, the worst case scenario is they don't want to change a PF2 class in SF2, nor do they want to step on any toes, and so leave a pretty big hole in SF2 that can only be filled with extensive reflavoring. From what we've seen so far, not stepping on a PF classes' toes seems to be a factor in the devs design, but that could just be for the CRB/early books. So hopefully that changes, or they are fully comfortable taking PF content and making it fully theirs. Or they use the fact that the inventor is OGL and ignore its existence, negating this particular example, but not other examples.


Pronate11 wrote:
I think my biggest concern is that they make some of the SF2s classes worse so they don't step too much on the PF2 classes toes. Like the inventor shares a lot of design space with the most hypothetical mechanic classes, however it is mostly (curranty) unusable similarities, as the inventor does not work very well in a sci-fi setting, being firmly grounded in steampunkesk fantasy. Hopefully, they either ignore the inventor and make a great mechanic, or they reinvent the inventor to make it work in space. However, the worst case scenario is they don't want to change a PF2 class in SF2, nor do they want to step on any toes, and so leave a pretty big hole in SF2 that can only be filled with extensive reflavoring. From what we've seen so far, not stepping on a PF classes' toes seems to be a factor in the devs design, but that could just be for the CRB/early books. So hopefully that changes, or they are fully comfortable taking PF content and making it fully theirs. Or they use the fact that the inventor is OGL and ignore its existence, negating this particular example, but not other examples.

In the Mechanic/Inventor example, I think that's an issue of time and not much else. The overlap between the two isn't actually that large. As you pointed out, the Inventor is pretty firmly grounded in an entirely different genre. The only core mechanics the two would reasonably share is the invention. Explosion and Overdrive don't really make sense on a Mechanic. When they eventually get around to making the class ^^


Pronate11 wrote:
I think my biggest concern is that they make some of the SF2s classes worse so they don't step too much on the PF2 classes toes. Like the inventor shares a lot of design space with the most hypothetical mechanic classes, however it is mostly (curranty) unusable similarities, as the inventor does not work very well in a sci-fi setting, being firmly grounded in steampunkesk fantasy. Hopefully, they either ignore the inventor and make a great mechanic, or they reinvent the inventor to make it work in space. However, the worst case scenario is they don't want to change a PF2 class in SF2, nor do they want to step on any toes, and so leave a pretty big hole in SF2 that can only be filled with extensive reflavoring. From what we've seen so far, not stepping on a PF classes' toes seems to be a factor in the devs design, but that could just be for the CRB/early books. So hopefully that changes, or they are fully comfortable taking PF content and making it fully theirs. Or they use the fact that the inventor is OGL and ignore its existence, negating this particular example, but not other examples.

Considering we know the Operative has Legendary in Firearms, I would say the fear that they aren't going to make classes with similar niches to PF 2e is definitely not the case. The devs statement regarding the PF classes is "We don't want starfinder to be beholden to the idea that we need a "Fighter in Space" or a "Rogue in Space" like there was with Solider to Fighter, Operative to Rogue, etc. They seem to want to do their own thing. So IMO, they want to make their own classes that do their own things, and if they happen to cross paths with other classes, so be it.


Operative being legendary was a mistake, sadly. It has the normal martial progression.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Karmagator wrote:
Operative being legendary was a mistake, sadly. It has the normal martial progression.

I'll wait for the actual preview for the Operative like we got with the Solider to see if that's the case. It's all in the air till we have something approaching concrete to actually see.


Crouza wrote:
Karmagator wrote:
Operative being legendary was a mistake, sadly. It has the normal martial progression.
I'll wait for the actual preview for the Operative like we got with the Solider to see if that's the case. It's all in the air till we have something approaching concrete to actually see.

IIRC the devs have chimed in and said that it is the case that operatives aren't getting legendary weapon prof, though I couldn't point you to where unfortunately.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Karmagator wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
I look at it as more of a "moving on" rather than a "burning down," myself.
That's what I'd say as well. The team has been pretty clear that they want to preserve the essence of Starfinder, the expressions just won't be necessarily the same. How well that works is quite subjective and never perfect, regardless.

I don't think this can be done in pf2s system framework. The power curve is too low and too tight to capture starfinders wheeeee factor.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Karmagator wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
I look at it as more of a "moving on" rather than a "burning down," myself.
That's what I'd say as well. The team has been pretty clear that they want to preserve the essence of Starfinder, the expressions just won't be necessarily the same. How well that works is quite subjective and never perfect, regardless.
I don't think this can be done in pf2s system framework. The power curve is too low and too tight to capture starfinders wheeeee factor.

It can absolutely be done. Most of what makes PF2 characters seem less exciting to start out is that especially lower level abilities are themed as rather mundane. A level 3 Fighter isn't meant to do things that aren't possible without magic, for example. There is also a restriction on movement types such as flying for balance purposes. SF2 has plenty of tech and magic for everyone, so it doesn't need to emulate that. Other than that, it's just the usual low level TTRPG experience. And once you are past level 5 or 7, even with the restrictions the system starts going pretty hard.

I've seen and done plenty of crazy stuff in PF2. From what I've seen from SF1 and learned from reading the books, there is nothing about that energy that can't be replicated in a modern system.


Karmagator wrote:
A level 3 Fighter isn't meant to do things that aren't possible without magic, for example.

I don't think that should be the same for a character with access to consumer level future magictech.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Karmagator wrote:
A level 3 Fighter isn't meant to do things that aren't possible without magic, for example.
I don't think that should be the same for a character with access to consumer level future magictech.

Which is exactly what I said will likely happen in SF2...


6 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Karmagator wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
I look at it as more of a "moving on" rather than a "burning down," myself.
That's what I'd say as well. The team has been pretty clear that they want to preserve the essence of Starfinder, the expressions just won't be necessarily the same. How well that works is quite subjective and never perfect, regardless.
I don't think this can be done in pf2s system framework. The power curve is too low and too tight to capture starfinders wheeeee factor.

I would love to hear how you define 'wheeeee factor'.

'Power curve too low' is always a bizarre complaint against PF2. Yes, the meaning of 'enemy level' changed between PF1 and PF2. PF2 characters don't go to battle against CR+5 enemies because that isn't the scale that enemy power level is measured in. They don't go up against level +5 enemies either because that is way beyond their pay grade. It would be like a level 3 party going up against a CR 12 enemy in PF1. What are you expecting will happen when the party needs to roll a 17 to even hit and the enemy hits on a 4 and does enough damage to KO a party member once each round?

'Power curve too tight' is a much more meaningful complaint. Yes, PF2 has tight balance. Options are options, but any of the various options are not better than other ones.

And that is where the 'subjective' part comes in. Some players really don't like that all of the characters possible are roughly equivalent in power level. They want some characters to be better than the normal. I'm not sure why, because all that does is creates trap options for less experienced players who end up picking one of the less-than-most-powerful character builds.

It also removes the feeling of awesomeness when you can - through your system mastery - build a character that falls outside of the normal 'best in class' character tropes but is still surprisingly powerful. Because in PF2 that is the standard. Build what you want and it just works as well as anything else that others are bringing to the table. So when everyone is doing it, it doesn't feel cool that you can.

So the way that I describe it is that with PF2 system mastery, you can pick exactly the flavor of ice cream that you want. But you won't get a bigger bowl of it because of how much you have studied the menu or found the secret menu items on it. But also, you won't accidentally end up with a flavor that tastes bad. You may not like a particular flavor, but it won't be bad overall.

And some people don't like that particular concept of game balance. And that is fine. Different games for different styles. This concept of 'equivalent character balance' vs 'raw power due to system mastery' is not something that a single game system can support both sides of at the same time.

351 to 400 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.