Wishes and concerns for Starfinder Second Edition


Playtest General Discussion

1 to 50 of 439 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought I would start a thread where we can share our wishes and concerns for Starfinder Second Editio and the playtest.

Let me share my Starfinder experience. I am a venture agent in Paizo's Organized Play. I have run my mystic shirren Vir Kah'to to 5th level. I GMed the Starfinder mod for Free RPG Day last year. (I struggled with starship combat and even as a player find it less than intuitive.)

My hope is not just for a better starship combat system, but for a game system that will attract more players. We had some SFS games at the shop that I am active in, but they stopped. We had only two regular players. I also want a system that is easier to learn and GM.

So, who are you and what do you want? (To paraphrase Lorien from Babylon 5.)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am also a VA.
I have played Starfinder in the past, got a character to level 5 and another to level 3, at which point I stopped.

Kept playing (and GMing) 1st edition Pathfinder, and for the last year and a half am playing and GMing PF2e.

I dislike the ship combat because the most useful roles are pilot (dex based) and gunner (dex based) The mechanic is Int based, and there is some stuff to do for a Cha based character, but wis and strength based characters are out of luck.

My second character was a soldier, but my first attempt was due to optimization an exact copy of another players soldier, so I switched to an Intimidation built. At level 3 I realized that I would struggle to keep up with the increasing DC's.

My wishlist:
- Have roles for all builds in ship to ship combat instead of dex/int always the main and CHA the back-up slot.
- Make the DC increase match the increase in bonusses, I want to get better at my main goal, not worse.
- Make the character creation a bit easier and more flexible than in PF2e. The fact that you have to choose sets (For example: Background gives stats, a skill and a skill feat, and don't get me started on picking a deity as a cleric or champion) is more annoying than fun.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I am not a VA/VL/VC.

Have GM'd for a few years at conventions for OrgPlay.

Have only played Starfinder since the convention it launched, and it took me a *couple of years* to get used to the changes and some I still flub.

Do not even have any characters in the L9-12 range, because I would get distracted with something else 'shiny'.

There is a hope that there's a broad base for Starship Narrative Combat, that allows pretty much any sort of interaction, with math that respects the characters versus some hard-driven system mechanic.

Exceptionally worried that they are going to force-implement PF2's flying rules wholesale including accessibility into SF2, and it would *destroy* a lot of the flavor of the system.

There's more here, but the even greater concern is "Will I have enough of a mind left to process the changes or will my brain revert to SF1/PF1 when this thing eventually releases?"


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Not a VA here, but I have run two free-form Starfinder campaigns, both of which ended up getting players to level 17 over 18 months of play (I am fortunate to have a player group that is pretty dedicated to playing weekly!)

GOOD
I am EXTREMELY happy with the idea of the action economy from PF2 making its way into Starfinder; I was hoping that might have been one of the elements of the extended books this fall.

BAD/WORRISOME
The idea of magic being ramped up to 10 levels and being compatible/transferrable with PF2 worries me; unless the background is very restrictive on allowing spell-casting characters, I have to wonder why would anyone ever bother inventing technology and sci-fi weapons. At first I looked at this as just plain bad, but realized that it CAN be controlled, but that would require some pretty direct thought and commentary in the new edition material to encourage such limits for a successful Starfinder campaign. I do recall any number of failed D&D-type games back in the day where DMs added technology and weapons without any thought about how they interacted with or could be justified in a high-magic setting, and I dont want the new Starfinder to cripple itself right at the outset by ignoring that issue

HOPE
I really really really hope the new edition is seen as an opportunity to pretty much replace the starship combat rules with something that is actually enjoyable for the players. As they stand, the starship combat rules COULD give each player things to do, but in reality there are only two crew positions that really matter, and the other players tend to jsut sit there and very occasionally roll dice when one of the two key players tells them to.

OTHER HOPE
This one just might be more my grumpy old-school self leaking out, but the concept of BCs to build or modify ships or even create missile reloads wipes out SO MANY opportunities for adventures and motivations. Why should a crew need to find money or esoteric spares if they can just have nanites build them? The vast array of options for building a ship or modifying it are amazing in Starfinder, and every player wants to do it, but it just feels like its too easy to do from a game/story perspective. I want my players to sometimes have to scrabble for money, or scrabble for some strange component, to do the needful to their ship. I do that when I am running the game but we did once have some issues when a new player joined our group who was insistent on doing things as written in the core rulebook - we corrected that with him but it just seems like such a wasted opportunity for other GMs running their own original content adventures and campaigns.

Dark Archive

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I just want Starship Combat to be fun. Like, it's one of the big areas where SF can separate itself mechanically from PF, and in SF1 it really kinda fell flat at my table.
We all found it slow, a little tedious, and like the ship roles weren't designed with the classes in-mind.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

Good - I'm happy that all the people who refused to touch SF because it uses an obsolete ruleset can put their money where their mouth is.

Concerned - I'm worried that SF will lose the things that made it unique from Pathfinder. It sounds like SF will become a Pf2e subsidiary product line, but we'll have to see what happens. There are pretty big balancing issues such as flight and all the casters being hybrid-classes rather than full casters that are unique to SF they'll have to get past. Grenades will likely also be massively cleaved since all the Evocation stuff from Pf2e will be available.

Bad - Unless they're planning to bring out a massive 640-page tome like Pathfinder 2e's original corebook was, there is going to be a lot of fun toys that are going to disappear, and given that SF's publishing schedule is about half the size of Pathfinder's, no idea when they'll be coming back.

I've never cared for the mandatory item progression of striking runes in Pathfinder 2e, or how 'tight' the math is so that anything +2 Cr above is a fight against God and a fight against anything -2 CR below is a snoozefest. Starfinder allows you to use tactics in lieu of just "hit harder, take less hits". There's also a lack of non-monster NPC enemy support in Pf2e.

Who Cares - 3 Action Economy and Universe revamp:

People treat the 3 action thing like it's the most innovative TTRPG design element since THAC0 and boy does that get tiresome.

I suspect they're going to sandpaper the edges off the Veskarium and make them likeable as a lot of staff and freelancers have said they want the Pahtra to emancipate themselves and are uncomfortable with having a likeable autocratic state (full disclosure, I solved that contradiction with my preferred method: The Vesk Imperial family reclaiming the title of Emperor and marrying a Pahtran woman and making it mandatory that the governor of Vesk-6 is always a Pahtra) which will probably mean emasculating the Veskarium. But ever since I saw the recent editorial bent in Pathfinder's material I've suspected that the universe I've enjoyed reading about would become neutered and I've made my peace with it.


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

I did like having two editions to choose from that had different rulesets, when I would get annoyed with one I usually go to the other. But I can definitely see the merits of merging the two.

Things I liked about starfinder that won't fit well into 2e;

Skill ranks. Being able to really customize how many points you want to put in skills and being able to spread them out was cool.

Multiple pools of abilities. In starfinder you had your built in class abilities, class specific ability choices, and feats on top of that (and said feats are a lot more applicable in combat than a lot of 2e feats). 2e has a lot of those three buckets all squished into one pool and it can make some builds hard to make.

The crit/fail system and attributes. You can be a little wiggly with stats in 2e but not as much as in starfinder. Plus, you could get away with a lot more because having lower ac or to hit wasn't as punitive.

Things I like about starfinder that I hope make the transition;

In combat resource generating classes. Not sure what to call them really but solarian, vanguard, and evolutionist are my favorite classes in starfinder, existing in that middle ground between casters and martials that's really fun. Juggling points in different ways is very engaging imo. I worry that slightly more complicated mechanics like those won't fit with the simpler design of 2e (like swashbuckler).

Scaling built in weapons. I really like solar weapon/entropic strike/adaptive strike in that they are a part of your character. Most of them don't need money to buy or upgrade, and if they do enemies can't take them away from you or anything. I also liked improved unarmed strike, having a decent scaling weapon at all times is really cool. In 2e a level 20 monk without runes to augment their punches does pidly damage, whereas in starfinder a soldier (or any class) with improved unarmed strike and little else can still do okay if they needed to. Just makes it feel like the power is coming from your character.

Augmentations. I would be very surprised if starfinder 2e came without augs but worth mentioning anyway. Similar to scaling built in weapons, having a weapon literally being a part of your character is too cool. And then augs take that to 11 with not only weapons but a ton of cool stuff.

Tons of items. This is something that a lot of people dislike but I'm a fan of so I just wanted to voice it here. I love the crazy amount of items in starfinder and I hope 2e gets a similar amount.

Things I wasn't a huge fan of in starfinder I would be happy to let go of;

Wonky DCs. From high level creature DCs versus spellcasting DCs, to awkward skill DCs at those same high levels, I'll be happy to have things on a more even field. I know I said I'd miss the way skill ranks worked but I don't know that the two have to be connected really.

Resolve points/death and dieing in starfinder. Kind of felt awkward to me that one of he main ways to challenge a party is to have them do a ton of fights. I do get the appeal but it also felt like forced pacing sometimes. That could be due to the games I've been in but that's my experience. I also don't really like the dieing/spending rp to stabilize thing all that much. It could make it seem less deadly than it should maybe?

Starship combat and computers/hacking. These are likely to be in sf2e but I trust devs have learned a lot from the first go around and it'll be a lot smoother in his next iteration.

Invisibility/sneaking and hiding. I still get confused trying to do this right. Invisibility too stronk


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Hey,
Before being a VA, I am a GM / Player !!
<Set Groupee mode on>
I have less than 20 game sessions with starfinder though I've read all the publication regarding rule, lore and AP as most players / GM were not interested in starfinder because it wasn't using PF2e engine (or should we say baseline ??).

I am telling you that I've read them all which isn't true, I actually run them all many times. The world of Starfinder is a cradle of innovation, not mentioning the high level of quality delivered by the narrative team when it comes to AP and adventure modules, this is even more true since the beginning of the Drift crisis event....
<Set Groupee mode off>

My first expectation is about continuity :

Please continue developing the lore and writing awesome scenarios !!! Engine is important, However the story that we will tell using your material, is even more important

My second expectation is about starship battles:

Starfinder is a tactical RPG and as such they are great expectation from a part of our community regarding a complex and sophisticated starship battle system. Another part of the community is expecting a simpler and more dynamic system. amongst those few games I've ran as a DM, it has happened that players refused a scenario because with a spaceship battle because the rules were quiet complex to assimilate, the battle encounter would last for ages, ... So please when designing space battles rules, please try to aim at something simple and allowing to keep the pace of a game (or even more narrative), where more complex space battle could be a game variant with extremely sophisticated options

My third expectation is about species:
the ability of choosing one's character's species is in Starfinder DNA since the beginning and I wish it will stay as as in SF2E; the choice of a PC's species should have more impact compared to PF2e.

Of course I could continue on my wish list ... but I think this is a good beginning.

Thank you for reading this post


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Organized play DM/Player

I really dislike pf2s gating of basic skill uses behind class features you need to spend. Like planting evidence on someone isn't just sleight of hand, its sleight of hand and 2 feats.

Starfinders stamina system lets a group of mixed nuts run into any wacky adventure without someone having to be a dedicated healer.

PF2s tight math makes running characters even 1 or two levels off of the adventure more than awkward.

Removing the abilities from a race and then trickling them back in over feats they "give" y ou over 10 levels... isn't getting anything. Its like a tax "Refund" of your money.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AzSteveC wrote:


BAD/WORRISOME
The idea of magic being ramped up to 10 levels and being compatible/transferrable with PF2 worries me; unless the background is very restrictive on allowing spell-casting characters, I have to wonder why would anyone ever bother inventing technology and sci-fi weapons.

This is going to weaken magic in Starfinder considerably. Durations of spells will plunge precipitiously, and landing effects that previously required a failed save will now require a critically failed save.

Its sad to see Paizo's high tech and high magic setting brought down to join its low tech and low magic setting.


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

I'm not a VLC media player.

I played in two different starfinder games, from 1 to 14 and 1 to 5. I've also GMed 4 other games at low levels with a variety of different players. I got to watch as 11 of 12 people I personally introduced to the game bounced off of it, and essentially forced me to hold their hands through every step of play and leveling because the system was too jank and unsatisfying. The absolute disappointment in required math feats, broken multiclassing and archetypes, unfun spellcasters, pointlessly enormous and unnavigable weapons and armor lists, and clunky combat all combined to drive everyone away. It was no surprise that SF fell out of the online discussion to such a significant degree.

I want:

1. As close compatibility with PF2 as possible, and erring on the side of compatibility even if you have to make some tough calls.

2. Simplified weapons and armor lists, with runes/upgrades instead of leveled copies of the same weapon or armor.

3. Full casters who aren't forced to pick up a gun.

4. Streamlined/simplified ship combat and ship management.

Overall I think we're on a very good path.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I adore PF2, so this is very good news for SF2. I do have some hangups, though.

1. Starfinder benefited from having a wide array of different aliens to choose from. However, the new ancestry feat system requires a lot more work for each alien and possibly reduces diversity. If they have some generic ancestry feats for certainly physiologies, that might make it doable, however.

2. Differences in theme. The way that Starfinder handled theme vs. background and health were different to support theme. More generally available feats also helps with the feel of generalized knowledge in the future. I hope we don't lose some of these differences.

3. I hope there is some more rules on how SF interacts with PF and vice versa. Technology in the past should have some extra rules to help adjust the feel of things. We already have rules for archaic weapons being less effective against high tech armor, so I hope these rules are expanded upon.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
1. As close compatibility with PF2 as possible, and erring on the side of compatibility even if you have to make some tough calls.

This in one of the main objectives of SF2. This make the game simple to designers keep at same time diminished the learning curve between games and allows homebrew games have more freedom merging different parts of both games specially in non-golarion universe scenarios.

WatersLethe wrote:
2. Simplified weapons and armor lists, with runes/upgrades instead of leveled copies of the same weapon or armor.

I agree here is already a point to be improved. Weapons and armor upgrades are way more flexible than multiple weapon and armor grades. In PF2 many shields already suffers from the lack of modularity of runes. Make the same mistake with SF2 weapons doesn't make sense.

WatersLethe wrote:
3. Full casters who aren't forced to pick up a gun.

Erh! I agree but it's already hard for a PF2 caster don't have to pick a weapon to get an option to complete their actions, I doubt that SF2 will go for an different way specially due weapons like pistols are easier and very accessible to them.

WatersLethe wrote:
4. Streamlined/simplified ship combat and ship management.

There are so many people pointing this that they probably will give a strong attention to this part.

WatersLethe wrote:
Overall I think we're on a very good path.

Agree.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm a bit torn. One the one hand, compatibility with PF 2E and having rules similar to it will hopefully help to draw more people into Starfinder. On the other hand, I'm a bit sad to potentially lose some of the interesting things about it. I like the stamina/hp system for example and would be sad to see it back to just HP. I liked the flexibility of skill ranks.

On the other hand, I can see that changes need to be made to draw more people into the game, and there are some aspects that would be a lot more difficult to keep track of if I played Starfinder in person and not on a VTT. So I get it. I'm good adopting some things like the ancestry system, starting asis tied to a combo of ancestry/background/class, moving to the three actions per turn action economy of PF 2e etc. I just hope SF 2e retains some of the mechanical uniqueness of SF, but we'll see. Maybe I'm worried over nothing.

For things that I would like to see, I'm a bit sad to see Soldier just has CON for key stat now, as I'd have liked to see more options not less on that front. I kind of like the flexibility of 1E soldier and hope that they dont' end up too pigeon holed with this area weapon focus they're pushing.

I hope that things like Stellar Revelations and Mechanic Tricks stay to some extent.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Starfinders point buy system decoupled from class and only tangentally related to theme gave builds a lot of freedom. Pathfinder 2's tight math combined with racial and class based "boosts" means you just wind up being worse if you don't go with the stereotype.


Malzra wrote:
I'm a bit torn. One the one hand, compatibility with PF 2E and having rules similar to it will hopefully help to draw more people into Starfinder. On the other hand, I'm a bit sad to potentially lose some of the interesting things about it. I like the stamina/hp system for example and would be sad to see it back to just HP. I liked the flexibility of skill ranks.

Stamina is already a variant rule in PF2.

But it's little used due the many options of off-encounter healing. Once that a Fantasy Sci-fi scenario gives many options of technological and magical solutions we will probably have many off-combat option to get full healer between the encounters.

Malzra wrote:
For things that I would like to see, I'm a bit sad to see Soldier just has CON for key stat now, as I'd have liked to see more options not less on that front. I kind of like the flexibility of 1E soldier and hope that they dont' end up too pigeon holed with this area weapon focus they're pushing.

I loved the idea of Soldiers being Con based as they did. Conceptually it remounts to Warhammer's Space Marines/Starcraft Marines archetypes. An enormous heavy armored big guy with a big gun.

Mechanically due the class uses Class DC for weapons AoE this frees it to invest into Str too without being so depend from it. This allows some interesting interactions with 3-actions system and reload actions to alternate between big AoE with small shot if you choose to invest into Str and hit with the weapon if the opponent is too closer without MAP while in the next round you can do 1 or 2 more Strikes and reload the weapon to do the next AoE.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gaulin wrote:

Skill ranks. Being able to really customize how many points you want to put in skills and being able to spread them out was cool.

Agreed. You have very few skill increases in PF2e and you can't level int to get more. You only get trained skills which are a bit useless when the dcs are designed around you increasing your profficiency.

Gaulin wrote:


In combat resource generating classes. Not sure what to call them really but solarian, vanguard, and evolutionist are my favorite classes in starfinder, existing in that middle ground between casters and martials that's really fun. Juggling points in different ways is very engaging imo. I worry that slightly more complicated mechanics like those won't fit with the simpler design of 2e (like swashbuckler).
Augmentations. I...

I honestly think that this is not a problem. PF2e has already classes like the oracle which juggle their curse progression. Or the Magus whith his spell strike which needs to be recharged mid combat.

Im trying to say that baseline PF2e has extra ressources and the field test shows that the starfinder team is not afraid of breaking new ground.


I also wish for better starship combat.

I also think that there must be a separate system for starship roles, to avoid the major issues basic SF had with classes and characters not being able to perform anything well, while Operatives simply could do everything better than specialists.

They have to pick a lane, it's either fantasy like star wars, or something interesting that leans more on hard sci-fi. The hard sci-fi approach is easily the best option since each hand-waved space element (and challenge) is one less mechanic for players to engage with, the time-frame enabled for a more cadenced approach to combat offers a better pace for table top roleplay, since scifantasy "pew pew" style of combat don't translate well since they rely on fast paced action-packed scenes that runs on rule of cool, mostly.

The economy issue also must be dealt with, because that tacked on point system was incredibly annoying, immersion-breaking and outright silly. It needs to be thought from the ground up to be integrated with the basic systems.

In short, the Expanse completely spoiled me in regards to space combat. Hyperion and Red Rising also showed me that you can have interesting space combat scenes even if you don't go full-on realistic.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

If this is what it takes for Starfinder brand to survive then so be it but I am not thrilled by having the setting be a subsystem of PF2e because then it may well become Pathfinder in SPAAAACCEEE rather than its own distinct brand. Still, on the optimistic side, making Starfinder 2E compatible with PF2e can open doors for cross-play, broader story arcs, and a unified player base. Time will tell.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Starfinders point buy system decoupled from class and only tangentally related to theme gave builds a lot of freedom. Pathfinder 2's tight math combined with racial and class based "boosts" means you just wind up being worse if you don't go with the stereotype.

An errata for the Pathfinder Core Rulebook printing in January allows players to take two free-floating bonuses for an ancestry. So, you may be able to have a shirren with and 18 charaisma working with an elven soldier with an 18 con.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Anorak wrote:
If this is what it takes for Starfinder brand to survive then so be it but I am not thrilled by having the setting be a subsystem of PF2e because then it may well become Pathfinder in SPAAAACCEEE rather than its own distinct brand. Still, on the optimistic side, making Starfinder 2E compatible with PF2e can open doors for cross-play, broader story arcs, and a unified player base. Time will tell.

Perhaps the leadership at Paizo has a concern that too many systems can be a problem. This was one of the problems that TSR faced. I highly recommend reading Ryan Dancey's letter on The Death of TSR is well worth a read.

The OGL debacle may have pushed up the timetable for Starfinder Second Edition. I will feel a bit more comfortable if everything is under the ORC license.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm cautiously optimistic.

I've GM'd Starfinder to level 20 once, level 12 twice, played to level 5 (so far, it's ongoing) once.

I've GM'd pathfinder 2e to level 8, and played it to level 2, 6, 10, and 3 in order.

I really, really like running PF2 much more than SF1. However, the writers could take a note from the SF1 10% sell rule. It lets you throw loads of loot at your players, but it becomes useless in a few levels instead of throwing balance out the window. PF2's treasure system is more work in the GM in terms of figuring out what is appropriate to hand out/you need to worry about them selling it for other things you haven't prepared for.

I typically like playing PF2 more. However, I find character building, level ups, the setting in general, and shopping sprees vastly more interesting in SF than PF2.

So, mostly I'm hoping that items in general in starfinder that do crazy, useful, and wonky things are easily available in SF2. Unlike the PF2 'throw anything slightly weird into the uncommon category' design space.

Also, per typical SF1 adventure design, having 3 skills that you are good at is insufficient, and I would like to see that rectified, either by consolidating skills (say computers and engineering), or by simply having more skills trained to high levels than PF2. (it is the future and most characters are more broadly educated after all).

I also greatly prefer the stamina system opposed to the standard PF2 medicine system. But really I would rather that just be in the CRB as an alternate rule for SF2 than in the GMg for SF2.


I am late to the Starfinder 1e party and have just started picking up all the 1e sourcebooks. Loving the setting and the info in the books that helps flesh it out and provide more “stuff.” Wondering if there is planned backward compatibility with them for 2e or if it’s expected they’ll all be re-released with the 2e moniker.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really dislike that they killed Starfinder and released a DLC for 2e with the same name and people fell for it. The biggest loss will be species, Starfinder has a lot of cool unique species that have cool stuff but not they will all be watered down to work with PF2e ancestries.
In PF2e you can be a pixie that can't fly (until lv9) or a spider that can't climb (until lv9), etc. I hate that following that principle most species will lose the time most campaigns are over.
We will also be losing most of our cool species since I doubt they are making that many unique feats to fill all of the ones we have.


William Ronald wrote:


An errata for the Pathfinder Core Rulebook printing in January allows players to take two free-floating bonuses for an ancestry. So, you may be able to have a shirren with and 18 charaisma working with an elven soldier with an 18 con.

Wait isn't that just plain better than the +2 +2 -2 everyone usually gets?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
William Ronald wrote:


An errata for the Pathfinder Core Rulebook printing in January allows players to take two free-floating bonuses for an ancestry. So, you may be able to have a shirren with and 18 charaisma working with an elven soldier with an 18 con.
Wait isn't that just plain better than the +2 +2 -2 everyone usually gets?

No, everyone else gets +2, +2, -2, and a free +2 in a stat other than the two +2's.

So it just evens out to everyone can choose the human +2 to any two stats vs +2 to two specific stats and a -2 to a specific stat and a +2 to any other stat.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cherry132 wrote:

The biggest loss will be species, Starfinder has a lot of cool unique species that have cool stuff but not they will all be watered down to work with PF2e ancestries.

In PF2e you can be a pixie that can't fly (until lv9) or a spider that can't climb (until lv9), etc. I hate that following that principle most species will lose the time most campaigns are over.
We will also be losing most of our cool species since I doubt they are making that many unique feats to fill all of the ones we have.

If you check out https://paizo.com/starfinderplaytest/faq, they do actually cover the low-level flight species thing specifically. Compatibility doesn't mean the same balance points, and maybe Starfinder ancestries come with a "these are stronger!" sticker on them, or just don't value flight very highly. But, it's something they're already looking into.

Admittedly, yeah, they probably can't publish a full 130 playable ancestries if they're giving each one four pages instead of half a page. I'm gonna kick back and see where things end up, though. If nothing else, we'll have folks on Starfinder Infinite happy to publish conversions for anything missed.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The typical is +2(free)/+2(x)/+2(y)/-2(z) or +2(free)/+2(x). +2(free)/+2(free) is a strict but minor upgrade over the second default kind of ancestry bonus spread.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Cherry132 wrote:
I really dislike that they killed Starfinder and released a DLC for 2e with the same name and people fell for it.

Not agreeing with this POV but if that is the case, it is likely brought on more by business decisions (inflation, global supply instability, waning audience interest, fractured player base, etc) than malice. By 2025, SF1e will be nearly 10 years old. A new edition was bound to happen. And while I'm part of the camp that fears we may lose more than we gain, I love Starfinder/Paizo and will support their efforts.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Someone on Reddit pointed out that the new area attacking weapons use class DC, which means that a class like kineticist would be one of the best users of the weapons. There's a good chance that this is an oversight but it also makes me wonder about the stated compatibility. I love paizo and the starfinder team but I'm pretty sure every new edition of ttrpgs says it's compatible with current stuff so, not that I don't believe them but I wonder really how compatible they are. Making sure new stuff doesn't cause issues with existing pf characters should be a big deal, hopefully.

Since soldier seems to be trying really hard to not step on the toes of existing classes, is it going to be expected that if one wanted to play a melee character in sfs 2e they would play a fighter? Will that be allowed? The other way around (taking starfinder characters to pf2e) seems a little more controversial but I hope we can at least bring pf characters to the sf setting. Using what seems to be a lot of the same rules is a big step towards that but I do worry about some of the other hoops.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hey people can both like 3 action economy and acknowledge that its just reframing of move/swift/standard action to "you can use move or swift or standard action three times if you want" x'D Its not great because its innovative, its great because it makes flow better


Gaulin wrote:

Someone on Reddit pointed out that the new area attacking weapons use class DC, which means that a class like kineticist would be one of the best users of the weapons. There's a good chance that this is an oversight but it also makes me wonder about the stated compatibility. I love paizo and the starfinder team but I'm pretty sure every new edition of ttrpgs says it's compatible with current stuff so, not that I don't believe them but I wonder really how compatible they are. Making sure new stuff doesn't cause issues with existing pf characters should be a big deal, hopefully.

Since soldier seems to be trying really hard to not step on the toes of existing classes, is it going to be expected that if one wanted to play a melee character in sfs 2e they would play a fighter? Will that be allowed? The other way around (taking starfinder characters to pf2e) seems a little more controversial but I hope we can at least bring pf characters to the sf setting. Using what seems to be a lot of the same rules is a big step towards that but I do worry about some of the other hoops.

A key difference is that those claims past games make is generally about Backwards Compatibility, while this is a coexistant situation. It's in Paizos best interest for the games to be fully compatible to encourage players of individual games to still have reason to buy products of the other.

As for if playing classes from the other game is allowed, it mentions that you'll be able to have your starfinder classes playing along aside things like clerics at least.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm a big lover of starfinder but I'm quite worried about 2e.

The only thing I'll be wanting from 2e is the three action economy, revamped spaceship fights and a bigger, wider pool of spells (magic should be buck wild at end game. Hated it only being limited to 6 ranks).

Everything else from pathfinder 2e i don't want. My experience with pathfinder 2e has been pain with how tight the math for encounters is and how much less freedom you have in terms of customization.

Worse comes to Worse, I'll be sticking with 1e.


I loved playing starfinder with friend had a campaing from 1-11 and some one shots missions. Had a lot of fun, when PF2e was released we played it and I was always thinking how fun it would be if Starfinder used this system.

Good thing:
-SF2 and PF2e using the same system is a good thing, for players (old and new) and for Paizo. Using the same system allows players to migrate from one to the other without much effort.

I have been thinking It will be really awesome to combine Pathfinder 2e system and Mechs to create some nice fantasy setting. Also using PF2e classes on SF2e looks very promising... Cyberpunk Monk, Shady Company Ninjas, Chainsaw Axe Barbarian (from another universe)...

Worried:
One of the Armor Systems that I don't know how it would work is Power Armor... In SF1 these are completely unbalanced. If they do the same thing it will be a mess.

Wishes:
I wish they remove Starship combat from the core, don't get me wrong, I love starship combat and I think this is one of the main flavors for Starfinder universe. But the reason for this is that I wish for a separate book for this completely dedicated to Ships, Mechs, and Vehicle rules. Why? These are all optional systems that you might or not include in your adventure. Having a separate rule book for it would make sure they work together nicely together and have more options. Also without the Book, we can also use the Old Ship rules with a few adjustments.

As many people have complained that they would like to spend skill points like in Starfinder, I would like to suggest spending points separately as an optional rule (it's optional) from 2-8, in the end, it's the same thing but you would be spending points individually instead +2, ranks would remain the same (from U-T-E-M-L)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cherry132 wrote:

I really dislike that they killed Starfinder and released a DLC for 2e with the same name and people fell for it. The biggest loss will be species, Starfinder has a lot of cool unique species that have cool stuff but not they will all be watered down to work with PF2e ancestries.

In PF2e you can be a pixie that can't fly (until lv9) or a spider that can't climb (until lv9), etc. I hate that following that principle most species will lose the time most campaigns are over.
We will also be losing most of our cool species since I doubt they are making that many unique feats to fill all of the ones we have.

They probably will be handled differently, even if they have the same framework. There's a Roll For Combat interview with the developers where they talk about this.

Starfinder 2e will definitely be its own thing and work under different expectations. Specially regarding weapons (with their higher capacities) and Flying abilities.

So I expect that while not front loaded as they were before in SF, they will still keep their core physical attributes.

So, while the framework is the same, the developers will be designing with a different baseline in mind.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Wish: If you give us a hex based starship combat system then, for the love of Desna, please also give us ship miniatures or 'top down' ship tokens so that it is easy to establish facing and weapon arcs!

Second Seekers (Roheas)

Anorak wrote:
If this is what it takes for Starfinder brand to survive then so be it but I am not thrilled by having the setting be a subsystem of PF2e because then it may well become Pathfinder in SPAAAACCEEE rather than its own distinct brand. Still, on the optimistic side, making Starfinder 2E compatible with PF2e can open doors for cross-play, broader story arcs, and a unified player base. Time will tell.

Pretty much where I am too.

I knew the 3.X elements were gone but I was really hoping Starfinder would make some advancements on P2 - at this point 5ish years into Pathfinder 2 I think we can all identify the pain points of its design philosophy and all have our own homebrewed ways of dealing with them. I thought SF2 would be a great time to see professionals try to tackle the beast but I guess its not to be.

Anyway to borrow the format for the topic

I am the Regional Venture Coordinator for the Appalachian region and was one of the first 5 nova gms. I LOVE just about everything about Starfinder 1.

GOOD

Its early yet but Im glad they ditched Reynolds for the art and have gone in a new direction. Anything to help Starfinder really pop as its own thing is a massive positive in my book.

I think the new rules for emphasizing big explodey guns are really interesting even if theyre in sort of a rough unrefined state in the current field test

BAD

I REALLY do not think fantasy style pantheon worship is something I want in my Science Fantasy. Its barely an element I like in my Fantasy fantasy but its an old sacred cow thats never gonna die. But for me religion and its place in a world with high technology really shouldnt look and feel the same as it does in old golarion and stuff like Zon-Shelyn just rubs me the wrong way. I dont buy that anyone would care unless all the god drama was playing out as a days of our lives style soap opera on the vidsphere.

I know cross compatibility is gonna be a thing, but the Pathfinder classes really all place a premium on close quarters, melee oriented combat. I want lasers to reign supreme in my Starfinder and I hope they find a way to keep the game more ranged combat oriented despite having all the Pathfinder Classes available.

HOPE:

I hope that they are somehow able to, despite this goal of full and easy cross-compatibility, to keep Starfinder as a distinct game somehow, instead of being reduced to being a setting book for P2 like Spelljammer is for 5e.

I hope that the technology can still be the star of the show in this setting despite now having 10 level casters.

I hope in general that Starfinder still feels like Starfinder with all the flight and kablooey and computers and all of that and doesnt end up feeling like Pathfinder with spaceships.

Second Seekers (Roheas)

Lightning Raven wrote:
Cherry132 wrote:

I really dislike that they killed Starfinder and released a DLC for 2e with the same name and people fell for it. The biggest loss will be species, Starfinder has a lot of cool unique species that have cool stuff but not they will all be watered down to work with PF2e ancestries.

In PF2e you can be a pixie that can't fly (until lv9) or a spider that can't climb (until lv9), etc. I hate that following that principle most species will lose the time most campaigns are over.
We will also be losing most of our cool species since I doubt they are making that many unique feats to fill all of the ones we have.

They probably will be handled differently, even if they have the same framework. There's a Roll For Combat interview with the developers where they talk about this.

Starfinder 2e will definitely be its own thing and work under different expectations. Specially regarding weapons (with their higher capacities) and Flying abilities.

So I expect that while not front loaded as they were before in SF, they will still keep their core physical attributes.

So, while the framework is the same, the developers will be designing with a different baseline in mind.

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.

Im also not sure how theyre gonna handle flight while maintaining simple 1 to 1 cross compatibility. It will be interesting to see where the compromise gets made.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I’m not seeing the alleged issue with flight.

If GMs don’t want jetpacks in their PF games then don’t allow them. PF adventures won’t be built around all SF options being allowed.

They’re compatible with each other, not balanced by each other.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

I’m not seeing the alleged issue with flight.

If GMs don’t want jetpacks in their PF games then don’t allow them. PF adventures won’t be built around all SF options being allowed.

They’re compatible with each other, not balanced by each other.

Totally.

I would say that you can use PF2e classes and gears on SF2e but they can be outdated by technology. Having a Fighter with laser swords would be cool. The reverse might not work for every campaign or table, A Soldier with Jetpack and Heavy guns in a PF2e might not work.

So in the end it's up to the player and GM to decide what to use and how. But they should work just fine System wise not Lore wise.


QuidEst wrote:
Cherry132 wrote:

The biggest loss will be species, Starfinder has a lot of cool unique species that have cool stuff but not they will all be watered down to work with PF2e ancestries.

In PF2e you can be a pixie that can't fly (until lv9) or a spider that can't climb (until lv9), etc. I hate that following that principle most species will lose the time most campaigns are over.
We will also be losing most of our cool species since I doubt they are making that many unique feats to fill all of the ones we have.

If you check out https://paizo.com/starfinderplaytest/faq, they do actually cover the low-level flight species thing specifically. Compatibility doesn't mean the same balance points, and maybe Starfinder ancestries come with a "these are stronger!" sticker on them, or just don't value flight very highly. But, it's something they're already looking into.

Admittedly, yeah, they probably can't publish a full 130 playable ancestries if they're giving each one four pages instead of half a page. I'm gonna kick back and see where things end up, though. If nothing else, we'll have folks on Starfinder Infinite happy to publish conversions for anything missed.

PF2 Ancestry Guide has an special variant rule to allow flight since 1st level for ancestries with wings but with the note:

Source Ancestry Guide pg. 66 2.0 - Special Rules wrote:

...

However, GMs who allow this option should be aware that a PC who can constantly fly can trivialize many low- and mid-level challenges, consistently outshining or leaving other characters behind; the GM should consider this option very carefully before allowing it and adjust the game accordingly.

Due SF2 being more ranged weapons focused and expects to get fly speed sooner this could be a default rule for SF2 while for PF2 games would be the opposite just allowing SF2 imported ancestries to fly later.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Flight is an issue in PF2 because most NPCs and monsters, especially at low level, don't have flight or ranged abilities. If PCs have flight plus ranged weapons those oppoents are dead meat or just have to run away or take cover inside a building or whatever.

Very few SF1 NPCs (especially) and monsters lack ranged capabilities, flight, or both. Seriously, the number of aliens with a ranged laser eye beam attack or similar is very high. Flying above them to shoot is just depriving yourself of cover.


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

Due SF2 being more ranged weapons focused and expects to get fly speed sooner this could be a default rule for SF2 while for PF2 games would be the opposite just allowing SF2 imported ancestries to fly later.

Every pf2 character can and should pick up a bow, crossbow, sling, or have some other ranged offense or they are asking to become a arrow pincushion.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Even what little we have for SF2e is clearly outside the design paradigms for PF2e, I have no idea how people can look at how weapons work and the soldier's stat-replacing class features and think "yeah this is going to be completely identical".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grankless wrote:
Even what little we have for SF2e is clearly outside the design paradigms for PF2e, I have no idea how people can look at how weapons work and the soldier's stat-replacing class features and think "yeah this is going to be completely identical".

Hahaha So far I would pick a d12 weapon-wielding fighter with power attack instead a d10 heavy cannon Soldier (with any feat)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I hope they keep the experimental philosophy that SF1E. Don't constrict yourself to the same boundaries PF2E. That can be balance wise (they've already indicated this with the concept of level 1 flight) or complexity wise (glitched condition is probably one of the more complex mechanics out there, but I think it's fine and fits). This game can be the wilder brother to PF2E, and that's what I hope it becomes.

Second Seekers (Roheas)

With the remaster on its way its extremely possible that that IS within the new standard design parameters of PF2 to be fair; thats a pretty minor thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I haven't made the jump to Pathfinder as of yet, but I have been DMing Starfinder with a group of mostly newbies. I think the thing I am most hopeful for is a streamlining of some of character creation; my kids (oldest is 10) would love to play, but I am afraid that at the moment the complexity buckles their knees.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrimsonKnight wrote:
YuriP wrote:

Due SF2 being more ranged weapons focused and expects to get fly speed sooner this could be a default rule for SF2 while for PF2 games would be the opposite just allowing SF2 imported ancestries to fly later.

Every pf2 character can and should pick up a bow, crossbow, sling, or have some other ranged offense or they are asking to become a arrow pincushion.

The problem ins't the characters is the monsters and hazards as well pointed by Xenocrat above.

Courtimedes wrote:

I haven't made the jump to Pathfinder as of yet, but I have been DMing Starfinder with a group of mostly newbies. I think the thing I am most hopeful for is a streamlining of some of character creation; my kids (oldest is 10) would love to play, but I am afraid that at the moment the complexity buckles their knees.

PF2 isn't harder than SF1. In fact the general rules are even more simple. My sense is the PF2 has more decision paralysis than complexity specially in a ancestry decision. But I don't believe that children have problem with this. In general children are learn and like even complex games very easily.

Wayfinders

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wishes, a sword, and a planet book that's a mix of near space and ports of call.

Concerns, if we lose themes, what's going to replace Ace Polit?

1 to 50 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.