What Starfinder Exclusive Mechanics Do You Want To Return?


Playtest General Discussion

1 to 50 of 192 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As the title says, there are some Starfinder-exclusive mechanics that aren't in the preview for 2e that we've seen. What elements would you like to return?

Personally, I would like KAC and EAC to return to really emphasize the fantasy of ballistic vs energy weapons. For compatibility purposes, you'd average the two for calculating "regular AC," and they'd never be more than +/-2 apart. The distinction is too important for the flavor of Starfinder to exclude, even if it means a smidge of extra work when converting from PF to SF.

In addition, I would like class-exclusive ways to spend Hero Points to replace some of the Resolve spenders.

Finally, I'd love the looser "hand economy" of Starfinder to return to better encourage using multiple weapons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Golurkcanfly wrote:
The distinction is too important for the flavor of Starfinder to exclude

Is it?

I figure this would be covered by things like Weakness/Resistance and maybe bonuses/minuses on the Traits of the weapons.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The really wild array of augmentations and armor upgrades would be fun. They occupy a similar place to magic items, but they're far more science-fictiony and have some really awesome effects.


Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
Golurkcanfly wrote:
The distinction is too important for the flavor of Starfinder to exclude

Is it?

I figure this would be covered by things like Weakness/Resistance and maybe bonuses/minuses on the Traits of the weapons.

Weaknesses/Resistances are less elegant, don't scale as well, and are generally less applicable, while separate EAC/KAC is fast and gives more significant differences between armor choices and different enemies.

It's also just a lot easier to automate, and saying "this enemy's energy shields are more powerful than their armor" is more specific scifi flavor than "this enemy is weaker to XYZ damage types."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Golurkcanfly wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
Golurkcanfly wrote:
The distinction is too important for the flavor of Starfinder to exclude

Is it?

I figure this would be covered by things like Weakness/Resistance and maybe bonuses/minuses on the Traits of the weapons.

Weaknesses/Resistances are less elegant, don't scale as well, and are generally less applicable, while separate EAC/KAC is fast and gives more significant differences between armor choices and different enemies.

It's also just a lot easier to automate, and saying "this enemy's energy shields are more powerful than their armor" is more specific scifi flavor than "this enemy is weaker to XYZ damage types."

Yeah you just flavored Resistance/weaknesses in that last line, not make a difference of it. Of course adding flavor is gonna be better. That applies to everything.

And Weaknesses/Resistance are VERy applicable, going into S2 I can see them all over the place.

"Eac/KAC is fast" Yes? No? It's an Ac Difference you have to check on what weapons you're using.


Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
Golurkcanfly wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
Golurkcanfly wrote:
The distinction is too important for the flavor of Starfinder to exclude

Is it?

I figure this would be covered by things like Weakness/Resistance and maybe bonuses/minuses on the Traits of the weapons.

Weaknesses/Resistances are less elegant, don't scale as well, and are generally less applicable, while separate EAC/KAC is fast and gives more significant differences between armor choices and different enemies.

It's also just a lot easier to automate, and saying "this enemy's energy shields are more powerful than their armor" is more specific scifi flavor than "this enemy is weaker to XYZ damage types."

Yeah you just flavored Resistance/weaknesses in that last line, not make a difference of it. Of course adding flavor is gonna be better. That applies to everything.

And Weaknesses/Resistance are VERy applicable, going into S2 I can see them all over the place.

"Eac/KAC is fast" Yes? No? It's an Ac Difference you have to check on what weapons you're using.

"Energy Shields are stronger than physical armor" is much faster than listing out separate damage types and prescribes a much different flavor than being specifically weak or resistant to a given damage type.

In addition, weaknesses are pretty uncommonly used and listing a bunch of separate weaknesses/resistances makes stat blocks harder to read. This is why EAC vs KAC is faster.

Finally, they still don't distinguish Energy vs Physical as well as separate AC does, since it interacts with the degrees of success system less effectively and weaknesses don't care about how much damage of the triggering type you deal. As such, a physical weapon that deals a pip of fire damage does just as much damage as the equivalent energy weapon that does only fire damage, since the weakness is strictly additive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Energy Shields are stronger than physical armor" is much faster than listing out separate damage types and prescribes a much different flavor than being specifically weak or resistant to a given damage type."

Not really, Weak to penetrating, weak to fire, weak to concussive, ect, plus there's only two things, energy stronger than physticla, physical stronger than energy, there's more variety in the realm of traits and Resis/Weak

"In addition, weaknesses are pretty uncommonly used and listing a bunch of separate weaknesses/resistances makes stat blocks harder to read. This is why EAC vs KAC is faster."

1) They don't actually 2) they're no harder to read than the EAC/KAc entry, or the Saves entry

"Finally, they still don't distinguish Energy vs Physical as well as separate AC does, since it interacts with the degrees of success system less effectively and weaknesses don't care about how much damage of the triggering type you deal. As such, a physical weapon that deals a pip of fire damage does just as much damage as the equivalent energy weapon that does only fire damage, since the weakness is strictly additive."

They do if the target has Resistances, also that comparison isn't all that damning, this creature weak to fire takes more fire damage from fire. Star/Pathfinder doesn't do exponential/multiplicative increases with anything to my knowledge.

Also having EAC/KAC doesn't make a creature immune to the other, and on some creatures could even be indistinguishable.


Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

"Energy Shields are stronger than physical armor" is much faster than listing out separate damage types and prescribes a much different flavor than being specifically weak or resistant to a given damage type."

Not really, Weak to penetrating, weak to fire, weak to concussive, ect, plus there's only two things, energy stronger than physticla, physical stronger than energy, there's more variety in the realm of traits and Resis/Weak

"In addition, weaknesses are pretty uncommonly used and listing a bunch of separate weaknesses/resistances makes stat blocks harder to read. This is why EAC vs KAC is faster."

1) They don't actually 2) they're no harder to read than the EAC/KAc entry, or the Saves entry

"Finally, they still don't distinguish Energy vs Physical as well as separate AC does, since it interacts with the degrees of success system less effectively and weaknesses don't care about how much damage of the triggering type you deal. As such, a physical weapon that deals a pip of fire damage does just as much damage as the equivalent energy weapon that does only fire damage, since the weakness is strictly additive."

They do if the target has Resistances, also that comparison isn't all that damning, this creature weak to fire takes more fire damage from fire. Star/Pathfinder doesn't do exponential/multiplicative increases with anything to my knowledge.

Also having EAC/KAC doesn't make a creature immune to the other, and on some creatures could even be indistinguishable.

A clearly legible, singular number that's always in the same spot is just objectively easier to find than picking out a weakness or resistance in a large list meant to emulate that number.

In addition, AC differences naturally create multiplicative damage increases, which is why KAC and EAC as separate statistics would work well. These can then be used in conjunction with the weakness/resistances for an ultimately simpler, more elegant solution.

Not sure what you're trying to say with the immunity bit.

Dark Archive

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

Was there any particular reason to use kinetic weapons over energy weapons ever in starfinder 1e though besides that energy resistances were more common? Like I remember it being more efficient to always switch to energy weapons eventually and just having multiple backups in case of immunities

That said, while it would have been cool to have damage bonus to projectile weapons or something to reward harder to hit kac, that might have been bit complicated huh


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"A clearly legible, singular number that's always in the same spot is just objectively easier to find than picking out a weakness or resistance"

... what do you think Weakness/Resistance is?

"In addition, AC differences naturally create multiplicative damage increases, which is why KAC and EAC as separate statistics would work well."

They don't though? Unless you're talking about crits, which is another reason to not carry forward with separate ACs, since that's two different crit tracks to keep track of.

"These can then be used in conjunction with the weakness/resistances for an ultimately simpler, more elegant solution."

You keep saying Simpler and elegant, you haven't actually provided anything that proves that.

"Also having EAC/KAC doesn't make a creature immune to the other, and on some creatures could even be indistinguishable."

Just pointing out that having a high of the two ACs in SF doesn't actually make the character immune/those weapons worthless, which was a feeling in the conversation.

As I stated and Corvus spelled out more after a certain point you stop using Kinetic weapons.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Kinetic ranged weapons were less accurate, more expensive to fire, had ammo that was useless for anything else instead of being versatile, and couldn't be recharged on the fly. In exchange, they did slightly more damage and generally got around resistances.
EAC/KAC was a huge improvement over touch AC, and I'm not saying it wasn't interesting interesting, but I wouldn't really want it going forward.

Dataphiles

I'm on the other side and really didn't like Energy and Kinetic AC.
This is something that Paizo has trouble with a lot anyhow, but the definition of what was Energy and what was Kinectic was one small paragraph in the book with no idea where to look it up.

Maybe Weapons could have a more generic damage type extension, so it would be 1D8 E (F) for Fire or 1D6 K (P) for bullet but that wouldn't be as compatible with PF2e. They do seem to have "Groups" which could work?

In practice though, I'd much rather just take their attack, see if it hits, and then see if the armour absorbs part of it.

.... maybe armour could have "bonus vs group" stats? that could cause complications with PF2e yet again though, cause if you have "bonus vs Laser & projectile" Pathfinder has Bow, Firearm, Sling, etc


I don't think there are any particular mechanics the game would need to ensure it still has. Feel and style are sort of more important I suppose.

A technomancer should still be able to feel like a technomancer, even if it works very differently mechanically. The mystic for example should probably have Connections and probably have some form of telepathic powers, but how exactly those manifest can be highly varied depending on the needs of the game.


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

upgrades and augments just need to be expanded


CorvusMask wrote:

Was there any particular reason to use kinetic weapons over energy weapons ever in starfinder 1e though besides that energy resistances were more common? Like I remember it being more efficient to always switch to energy weapons eventually and just having multiple backups in case of immunities

That said, while it would have been cool to have damage bonus to projectile weapons or something to reward harder to hit kac, that might have been bit complicated huh

At high levels kinetic dice pulled so far ahead of energy weapon dice that the expected damage from kinetic was higher even with KAC being 1-2 points higher (half the time either one, rarely higher or lower than that).


I’m al little confused, and super interested at the same time. I was wondering upon hearing about SF2 how things like EAC/KAC, Stamina/Resolve etc and starship combat are…resolved in the shift to SF2. Now some people have posited that SF2’s complete compatibility with PF2 (that I, as someone who has only played a couple games of SF and truly welcomes “gaining” SF stuff for PF2) is really just making a new sci-fi campaign setting for PF2, and I have some sympathy for that. So, what is it that SF2 will have mechanically that will make it its own thing?

Tech equipment? Power armors, lazors and assault weapons ?
Spell lists specific to SF classes?
Races?

I don’t see anything there, that, if they use the one ruleset makes Starfinder mechanically distinct. And if there are no mechanically distinct rules (i.e. germane only to Statfinder) then I’d have to agree with the concept of Campaign setting over new edition or ruleset.

Which ultimately doesn’t matter a whit to me. No horse in this race and all that. But I’d like to know if there are rules SF2 will have, while still 100% “compatible” with PF2 that aren’t part of PF2.

It just feels funny to think of “100% compatible” as being distinct from “one ruleset”.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm also on the side of leaving KAC/EAC behind. They weren't really doing what they were advertised to, and the name was annoying anyway.

I'm not married to any specific SF1 mechanic, but I did enjoy the unwieldy weapon concept that enabled big eff off guns.


WatersLethe wrote:

I'm also on the side of leaving KAC/EAC behind. They weren't really doing what they were advertised to, and the name was annoying anyway.

I'm not married to any specific SF1 mechanic, but I did enjoy the unwieldy weapon concept that enabled big eff off guns.

I'm not sure how the mechanics will work out exactly, because I assume in SF2 they will implement the 3 action economy like they did in PF2. So where it was a serious trade off to lock yourself out of 3+ attacks in SF (for classes that had baked in extra attacks) it's not as big a deal when most of the time you weren't going to make more than 2 attack in a round, and probably even then you were only going to make more than 1 attack in a round 50% of the time.

Like you could accomplish having unwieldy weapons, but I think the damage difference is going to to have to be a lot less significant so it doesn't become "too good".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

For me, it's actually just the unique subsystems-- I'm most interested in having very fleshed out stuff for starships and fighters.


Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

"A clearly legible, singular number that's always in the same spot is just objectively easier to find than picking out a weakness or resistance"

... what do you think Weakness/Resistance is?

"In addition, AC differences naturally create multiplicative damage increases, which is why KAC and EAC as separate statistics would work well."

They don't though? Unless you're talking about crits, which is another reason to not carry forward with separate ACs, since that's two different crit tracks to keep track of.

"These can then be used in conjunction with the weakness/resistances for an ultimately simpler, more elegant solution."

You keep saying Simpler and elegant, you haven't actually provided anything that proves that.

"Also having EAC/KAC doesn't make a creature immune to the other, and on some creatures could even be indistinguishable."

Just pointing out that having a high of the two ACs in SF doesn't actually make the character immune/those weapons worthless, which was a feeling in the conversation.

As I stated and Corvus spelled out more after a certain point you stop using Kinetic weapons.

Again, weaknesses and resistances often appear in lists, so it's easier to gloss over any individual weakness or resistance. When a creature has 5 or 6 resistances, it's easier to miss or forget one of them.

Even without crits, different AC values create multiplicative damage differences due to accuracy. If you hit on a 15 instead of a 17, you're dealing, on average, 40% more damage.

It's simple and elegant because it: A) Is easy to understand and B) Builds off of the core resolution mechanic of the game.

I'm still not sure how you got the feeling that having a higher one of the two ACs makes the corresponding weapons worthless. The idea is that having two separate ACs encourages using multiple weapons, and carries some unique risk/reward when it comes to switching between weapons.

While the implementation in SF1e was flawed (EAC being generally easier to hit but energy weapons dealing less damage instead of an equal distribution of high KAC and EAC monsters with equally damaging weapons), the premise carries significant value both thematically and mechanically.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Staminia/Hit points.

PF2 characters seem to spend a LOT of time horizontal even with a dedicated healer in the group. Starfinders stam/hp system let any group of mixed nuts just run into the adventure with a six pack of calden cayden healing serums and heroically brave the laser fire.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:

I'm also on the side of leaving KAC/EAC behind. They weren't really doing what they were advertised to, and the name was annoying anyway.

I'm not married to any specific SF1 mechanic, but I did enjoy the unwieldy weapon concept that enabled big eff off guns.

Oh yes, having two different AC values, which in practice were 90% of times 1-2 points from each other, BUT forced you to stop and consider which ones you are targeting was one of the most obtuse elements of the SF1 ruleset.

I was initially horrified when this was replicated in PF2 playtest, but luckily the playtesters shot that down and we have a single AC value now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

“When a creature has 5 or 6 resistances, it's easier to miss or forget one of them.”

I don’t think that’s even a thing?

“Even without crits, different AC values create multiplicative damage differences due to accuracy. If you hit on a 15 instead of a 17, you're dealing, on average, 40% more damage.”

No, we’re not doing the armchair statistic crafting, the damage isn’t multiplicative.

“It's simple and elegant because it: A) Is easy to understand and B) Builds off of the core resolution mechanic of the game.”

1) “it’s simple because it’s simple” is not a compelling answer
2) One AC is MUCH simpler and elegant than two different ACs for different weapons/traits.
3) what does B even mean here?

“I'm still not sure how you got the feeling that having a higher one of the two ACs makes the corresponding weapons worthless.”

You’re stance is that weapon swapping is outright required because of the two ACs, at least that’s the impression I’m getting. That isn’t true.

“ The idea is that having two separate ACs encourages using multiple weapons, and carries some unique risk/reward when it comes to switching between weapons.”

Yeah that didn’t end up happening though.

“the premise carries significant value both thematically and mechanically.”

It doesn’t though, there’s no thematics to it that can’t be done equivalently or even better with the use of traits and weaknesses/resistances, and mechanically it didn’t pan out. When mechanics don’t work out you fix them. Not keep throwing it at the wall and expecting a different outcome.

All the AC divide does is require extra bookkeeping with little reward to justify itself, in addition to one more step away from being compatible with P2.

Scarab Sages

Definitely keep EAC and KAC. Stamina and Resolve also need to be there though better implemented than how they work in PF2. Also good powered weapons that I can reload outside of combat and forget about needing to track. Capacity 5? miss me with that, 20 or gtfo

I really enjoyed Starship Chases they worked out a way to make Starship Roles matter equally and make skill challenges that don't go on forever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Staminia/Hit points.

PF2 characters seem to spend a LOT of time horizontal even with a dedicated healer in the group. Starfinders stam/hp system let any group of mixed nuts just run into the adventure with a six pack of calden cayden healing serums and heroically brave the laser fire.

This is a great point about the feel of Starfinder. With Stamina, I've never really been worried headed into a combat. I'm basically always at full health for every fight. PF2 accomplishes this too, but requires medicine to do so (or someone is spending a lot of limited resources, or a lot of extra time via focus spells). I would prefer medicine be useful for in combat healing, and keep stamina as a means to have character rest between fights and restore their fighting vigor.

Comparing Starfinder to PF2, I don't feel like my Starfinder characters ever needed to spend much time retreating or being concerned about being knocked unconscious. However the reasons for that are a lot more complex than just having stamina vs not. To be honest...I think SF2 will end up being like PF2 in this case, because it's driven a lot more by the relative NPC attack numbers vs AC numbers of PCs. I'm not expected they'll tweak the system from what they've established in PF2.


Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

“When a creature has 5 or 6 resistances, it's easier to miss or forget one of them.”

I don’t think that’s even a thing?

There are several creatures with laundry lists of immunities and resistances, particularly constructs, undead, and outsiders.

Quote:

“Even without crits, different AC values create multiplicative damage differences due to accuracy. If you hit on a 15 instead of a 17, you're dealing, on average, 40% more damage.”

No, we’re not doing the armchair statistic crafting, the damage isn’t multiplicative.

This isn't "armchair statistic crafting," it's literally just how damage and accuracy work and players don't even need to do extra work to understand that more accuracy == more damage.

Quote:

“It's simple and elegant because it: A) Is easy to understand and B) Builds off of the core resolution mechanic of the game.”

1) “it’s simple because it’s simple” is not a compelling answer
2) One AC is MUCH simpler and elegant than two different ACs for different weapons/traits.
3) what does B even mean here?

The simplicity comparison was between KAC/EAC split and damage reduction, the former of which is much simpler since its handled up front. B refers to how KAC/EAC interact with the d20 roll, with the d20 roll and degrees of success being the core resolution mechanic of the entire system. Something small and simple that interacts with the core systems to produce a wide array of novel behaviors is a textbook definition of elegance in game design.

Quote:

“I'm still not sure how you got the feeling that having a higher one of the two ACs makes the corresponding weapons worthless.”

You’re stance is that weapon swapping is outright required because of the two ACs, at least that’s the impression I’m getting. That isn’t true.

That was never the case? You're reading text that just wasn't there. My stance was that weapon swapping was encouraged and added a level of risk vs reward and target evaluation.

Quote:

“ The idea is that having two separate ACs encourages using multiple weapons, and carries some unique risk/reward when it comes to switching between weapons.”

Yeah that didn’t end up happening though.

It did, but it tapered off with level and had a flawed implementation that can be improved upon.

Quote:

“the premise carries significant value both thematically and mechanically.”

It doesn’t though, there’s no thematics to it that can’t be done equivalently or even better with the use of traits and weaknesses/resistances, and mechanically it didn’t pan out. When mechanics don’t work out you fix them. Not keep throwing it at the wall and expecting a different outcome.

All the AC divide does is require extra bookkeeping with little reward to justify itself, in addition to one more step away from being compatible with P2.

This is just flat-out incorrect. Using weaknesses/resistance is effective for individual damage types, but not for entire categories of attacks. That's like saying you can use weaknesses/resistances in place of different types of saving throws.

And yes, I agree that mechanics should be fixed, not discarded entirely. That's like if 3e threw out rolling a d20 to hit because THAC0 was unintuitive.

The AC divide is not just extra bookkeeping, it's extra decision-making. Again, compare it to targeting different saves. In a mixed target environment, it poses a question to the player of what weapon they should use for both the current situation and to potentially save on action costs in the future.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Between the stated goal of full PF2 compatibility and the preview monsters, it's relatively clear that EAC/KAC are not going to make a return.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
Between the stated goal of full PF2 compatibility and the preview monsters, it's relatively clear that EAC/KAC are not going to make a return.

What if most EAC weapons end up with the Agile trait instead? This makes them more likely to hit on multiple attacks in a turn without needing new rules in the system.

Second Seekers (Jadnura)

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

Not sure this is a mechanic, per se, but I want to retain the mechanical design space that comes with "The Cantina Feel," which is, I think, not conducive to the way PF2 creates and publishes Ancestries.

By that, I mean, I want as many bizarro species to play as possible, with interesting and unique (and, yes, potentially PF2-convention-breaking) species abilities, right out of the gate. I want my strix to be able to fly at level 1, my dragonkin to have a breath weapon at level 1, and my skittermander to have full use of all six arms at level 1, without having to wait to take an Ancestry Feat at level 5, or 9, or whatever, to get those species-defining things.

Yes, it's cool that the PF2-style Ancestries get more 'narrative' and options from their feats, but it also means that they're that much harder to create, develop, and fine-tune. And that is directly at odds with The Cantina Feel. I don't want five space-Ancestries (Spancestries?) with ten pages of feats each; I want fifty species with one page each. (And, yes, ideally with an Interstellar Species supplement to back up those one pages each, but, that's like a Year 2 consideration :D)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not really a specific mechanic, but SF1 seemed to have a higher "expected accuracy" for both players and enemies. Generally when fighting level-appropriate enemies, you could expect to hit a lot more than miss. It also helped when summoning monsters - even though their overall stats weren't great, since attack was higher than AC, they could still hit enemies a reasonable amount of time despite being lower level.

After having played Age of Ashes from 1-20 in PF2, one point of annoyance for the players was just how hard it was for them to hit enemies that were 2 or so levels higher (and the adventure had quite a few encounters like that). Even with the highest possible value in their stat and a levelled weapon, it wasn't uncommon for players to see 50% or worse odds to hit on their highest attack bonus, with secondary attacks being even lower.

I know the crit rules in PF2 make it dangerous for accuracy to be too high, but I really don't want enemy defenses to get too out of control.

I also really liked the huge variety in weapons, with lasers, disintegration beams, sonic guns, flamethrowers, etc. Definitely hope we get some cool variety there and fun rules for power armor.

Wayfinders

I'm really curious about what, if anything, will replace themes. If we lose themes what will replace Ace Pilot?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Driftbourne wrote:
I'm really curious about what, if anything, will replace themes. If we lose themes what will replace Ace Pilot?

Thematically, backgrounds. Mechanically (after first level), archetypes. I will miss themes, though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

With every edition there's always the concern that the game will turn into something you don't like.

If starfinder 2 was going to wait for enhanced to come out, see how many problems that fixed, and then took another whack with Starfinder 2 I would be worried, sure. But at least I'd have the angel and demon thing going on where half my brain was doing the eyore "this will be terrible" and the other half was going "Squeeeee come on come on this could be awesome..."

With the stated goal of moving to PF2's engine that isn't just a worry it's a near certainty. I really don't like pf2 and I think the things I dislike about it are too far baked in to pry out. Eyore has the whole brain. (what little of it there is)

One of the things I love about the 3.x engine is a chance to really build your character. Here's a bucket of legos, go nuts. PF2 does not give me that feeling. It seems more like picking a character. The combination of the math being so tight and things being linked to other things (for example, needing to play a fighter to get an 18 strength) Means that your options are kind of limited and your characters are a little samey.

You could theoretically deviate from that, but then you're worse not different. Which is the other problem with the math being so tight. Its kind of hard for the cookie cutter is optimized character to feel heroic sometimes with a 50 50 success rate. Or when the monster comes up to you crits you on a 14 and ... yup you're horizontal again.

I really like being able to adjust the character the way i want it to work around preconceptions, paradigms, and perceived shortcomings. If wisdom isn't doing a lot for a mystic without offensive spells, I can send my int to the stratosphere (and beyond!) and make a skill monkey. I can put an 18 strength on a mystic, go to town biting people and only be a point or two off its no big deal. In pathfinder2 its a huge deal.

Different is worse, and worse is too bad to be really heroic.

I dislike the ultimate intrigue esque nature of PF2's skill feats. They are very constraining compared freeform the baseline skills with the assumption that they cover just about anything an adventurer would want to do. For example, if you want to swipe The vesk diplomats Com unit, reprogram his ringtone for the base commander to be the theme song to Your Petite Equine ,and put it back it would just be a slight of hand check a computers check and a slight of hand check. But in pf2 skills only do EXACTLY what they say and slip things onto someone isn't on the list. So you need to get the pick pocket feat AND the plant evidence feat to even try that by raw. It constrains a lot of creativity.

Pathfinder 2's combat gets really risky without the four basic food groups. Or a LOT of time sitting around for an hour hoping the healer rolls an 8+ this time on their medicine skill. Starfinders stamina and resolve system let any bag of mixed nuts grab a six pack of calden cayden healing serums light up the jetpack and go guardians of the galaxy style. Rougher healing might suit Firefly a little better but thats at the opposite end from starfinder.

Isn't this a little early to say the sky is falling?

Well...No. I don't think they're going to change away from doing a pf2 style game. That gives a MUCH better preview than you usually have at this stage, or at any stage short of publication really.


Not really starfinder exclusive, but needs "how to add IRL items" thingy.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
One of the things I love about the 3.x engine is a chance to really build your character. Here's a bucket of legos, go nuts.

Go nuts, build yourself a multiclass Rogue/Monk/Sorcerer, representing your very cool and thematic idea of a temple thief who dabbled in magic but decided to join a monastic order to atone for his crimes, join a PF1 game, first few levels are OK, and then you discover that one other PC is a Shatter Defenses/panic spam Slayer, another is a Vital Strike abuse Cave Druid and the last one is Sacred Geometry/Persistent/Bouncing Spell Wizard because the GM said "anything from Paizo books is fine".

Fights are over in 1-2 rounds before you get a chance to position yourself for your beloved sneak attack or cast a spell that anything will save against because of your low casting stat and not having powergamed the DC to the top. Come level 7 or so; things are starting to go sour.

And then you're sitting there in the corner, having realised that these guys/gals won the game and will have fun while you'll be there mumbling into your beard about cursed dice while the reality is that PF1 rewarded system mastery and punished the lack of it, and guess what, these folks read all the guides and forums, and you had a fun idea for a PC, but that's not how 3.5/PF1 works.


Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
One of the things I love about the 3.x engine is a chance to really build your character. Here's a bucket of legos, go nuts.

Go nuts, build yourself a multiclass Rogue/Monk/Sorcerer, representing your very cool and thematic idea of a temple thief who dabbled in magic but decided to join a monastic order to atone for his crimes, join a PF1 game, first few levels are OK, and then you discover that one other PC is a Shatter Defenses/panic spam Slayer, another is a Vital Strike abuse Cave Druid and the last one is Sacred Geometry/Persistent/Bouncing Spell Wizard because the GM said "anything from Paizo books is fine".

Fights are over in 1-2 rounds before you get a chance to position yourself for your beloved sneak attack or cast a spell that anything will save against because of your low casting stat and not having powergamed the DC to the top. Come level 7 or so; things are starting to go sour.

And then you're sitting there in the corner, having realised that these guys/gals won the game and will have fun while you'll be there mumbling into your beard about cursed dice while the reality is that PF1 rewarded system mastery and punished the lack of it, and guess what, these folks read all the guides and forums, and you had a fun idea for a PC, but that's not how 3.5/PF1 works.

The ‘bag is right. I had a fun idea once….a couple times actually. But other folks had…read stuff online and…took all the fun away. A sad, but true story. Or…stories.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, internet access has made it possible for everyone to copy paste the build only one geek in 100 would come up with before. This isn't new. ( An advanced dungeons 2e character could do a lot more damage with darts than a greatsword for example)*

Optimization is like tennis or chess. You need to play within about one standard deviation of what you're doing or its not going to be any fun. That's much easier to regulate as a group than it is to put mechanical options into a game that seems dead set on keeping everyone level.

Even with uber builds, many pfs players would hold back the barrels of whoopass to not roflstomp their fellow players or the scenario. (Not as often as some people would like. But come on. geeks have a reputation to maintain)

I'd rather sit through the occasional session with popcorn in one hand and umbrella protecting me from blood splatter with the other than sit through every session with people being the same.

I think starfinder is finding a pretty good balance between those two. The ceiling and floor aren't quite so far apart, and you can make some pretty weird stuff. Starfinder has a lot of problems (a lot of what I call fidget spinner design, where you have these complicated systems that don't amount to doing anything, pistols not doing anything for non operatives) but players can work around that. Players can't work around buying off the rack that PF2 holds people to.

*this is also why i need to keep saying pf2e instead of just 2e. In my head 2e is the one with the charging knight on a horse on the cover


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Something that probably isn't hugely important to most people, but I really need to stick around for narrative reasons is that the armor in Starfinder needs to continue to provide pretty much complete environmental protection assuming your have your helmet on.

It may not seem like a lot, but having hot/cold temperatures, noxious inhaled poisons, and even radiation just not be a challenge to you if you have a level appropriate armor are important features to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

Something that probably isn't hugely important to most people, but I really need to stick around for narrative reasons is that the armor in Starfinder needs to continue to provide pretty much complete environmental protection assuming your have your helmet on.

It may not seem like a lot, but having hot/cold temperatures, noxious inhaled poisons, and even radiation just not be a challenge to you if you have a level appropriate armor are important features to me.

I'm absolutely on board with this- and I'd also like to suggest (in even milder terms) that the Con-based feat to get various environmental immunities permanently would be nice to keep around. Not that it's particularly practical, but having a character who can take their helmet off on a normally incompatible alien planet is a fun treat.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I do sometimes feel like 2e gets criticized on things that apply to all other paizo systems as well(lot of them are side effect of system essentially being built for combat as primary goal) or things that feel baffling to me since I don't feel like that based on my campaign playthrough. Like is heroic nowadays "You easily beat weaklings up"?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
Like is heroic nowadays "You easily beat weaklings up"?

I'll assume thats to me...

competent. If you're supposed to be amazeballs at something you should probably succeed more than about half the time at it.

Pathfinder 1 went a little nuts with that, "Ok, my 5th level level lore oracle has 5 ranks, is trained for three, has a 6 charisma, 3 because the headband adds to charisma, 2 from a pathfinder chronicle oh and I'll use the revelation to pop 20 on there. Oh drat I rolled a 1. Whats a 40 get me?"

In Pathfinder 2 you can be trained or expert for.. a difference of +2. You can be all in on a skill and easily fail half the time because you need to roll an 8 to succeed.

I think starfinder found the right balance with that. Channeling most things into the insight bonus caps a lot of the crazy. Sure, a 5th level dilitante with 3 ranks 3 trained and a +2 int bonus might beat an uber engineer with a lucky roll, but its nowhere near the cointoss of PF2.

Hitting things isn't quite that bad, but you HAVE to be maxed to the hilt to have a reasonable chance of hitting something 2 levels over you like the boss. Again, pf 1 was kinda nuts with that. Pf2 channeled everything into flat footed the way starfinder did insight, and eliminated a lot of sources of + hit. Starfinder has a balance between the two that I like a lot more.

I see a lot of players in pf2 get frustrated with the miss miss miss fail fail. A small change in the math increases the odds for the polyhedrally challenged to spend the night or an important combat missing most of the time.

We did agents of edgewatch as players new to PF2 but with more decades of experience between the players than most of us would want to admit having. After a hard fight with a rust monster, the owlbear can basically walk up to anyone not spending all three actions to run away and crit drop crit drop Pc's twice in a row. Can't really save the townsfolk without a spine.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I think starfinder is finding a pretty good balance between those two.

LMAO, no, in order to have in any way an enjoyable SF1 Mystic 1-20 experience you need to know that you have to max your Dex and dump all your feats on long arms, so you have a gun that shoots reasonably well on all those turns when you're not using any of your preciously few spell slots because SF1 nerfed full casters (good move) but unlike PF2 didn't give them at-will autoscaling cantrips (bad move).

This is, frankly, worse than PF1 because in PF1, for the most part, you don't need to actively contravene your character's thematic image to be playable. A "flimsy space cleric with a honkin' big gun" is entirely antithetical, yet that's the only way to have a pleasant experience unless your GM was nice enough to let the scaling cantrips variant rule from Galactic Magic available.

Don't even get me started on how later SF1 classes are "idk, you can summon a bush from far future for 3 rounds, cool" while CRB Operative is still king of the hill with their DPR and skills through the roof. Enhanced will likely fix some of that now that designers won't have to worry about where the floor and the roof are.


Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:


LMAO, no, in order to have in any way an enjoyable SF1 Mystic 1-20 experience you need to know that you have to max your Dex and dump all your feats on long arms,

I don't know about play above level 15 but I really don't care. Below that I've enjoyed playing mystics by

1) Buying spell gems. Since nearly everything in starfinder is ultimately a consumable, ignoring the gun and loading up on extra spell gems lets you cast nearly every round.

2) Having a good dex, a good wisdom, and a very high int. Dip Biohacker. Shoot things with a long arm. Yeah, it takes versatile specialization and maybe weapon focus. But you don't need to mainline dex to hit.

3) Dragonkin xenodruid with the medic archetype, healing channel secondary revelation and big sharp pointy teeth. Wrecks things with the wrecking fists revelation.

Quote:
yet that's the only way to have a pleasant experience unless your GM was nice enough to let the scaling cantrips variant rule from Galactic Magic available.

Skimp on the gun, skimp on the armor, buy a boatload of spell gems and keep your vesk alive.

Quote:
Don't even get me started on how later SF1 classes are "idk, you can summon a bush from far future for 3 rounds, cool" while CRB Operative is still king of the hill with their DPR and skills through the roof. Enhanced will likely fix some of that now that designers won't have to worry about where the floor and the roof are.

I think thats the fundamental difference. With starfinder a lot of the PARTS are broken but there are enough pieces lying around to fix things with. As a player I can pick up different parts, work around the broken ones, and apply duct tape as needed. In PF2 the things I don't like are inherent in the system. They deliberately don't trust players with the parts to build a rocketship anymore because of what we did with the last rocket ship we had.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Claxon wrote:

Something that probably isn't hugely important to most people, but I really need to stick around for narrative reasons is that the armor in Starfinder needs to continue to provide pretty much complete environmental protection assuming your have your helmet on.

It may not seem like a lot, but having hot/cold temperatures, noxious inhaled poisons, and even radiation just not be a challenge to you if you have a level appropriate armor are important features to me.

Can you expand on why it's important that it's attached to armor?

For example, what if it was just a Guardians of the Galaxy style helmet that was a universal item, just like a comm unit?

Or what if there was a "planet acclimation module" that handwaved specific planet issues? Or is it less about planets and you don't like environmental effects in general?

Dark Archive

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

Thing is though, Edgewatch IS meatgrinder, even more so than Age of Ashes and Extinction Curses was. Its very much biggest example of "pathfinder devs weren't used to 2e encounter design, so they made things much harder than they probably intended".

When I run JR converted to 2e, I've never really gotten feeling that players are incompetent or just failing all the time. Heck when I run beginner box, it was very much case of "players oneshot almost everything but the dragon". To me "suddenly you start having hard time when you run into something powerful" isn't sign of incompetence.

Starfinder starts having skill math issues sometimes post level 7, but main reason why it avoids Pathfinder 1e style rusty shank town issue is that in starfinder low level enemies have like ac of 10/12, compared to PF1e giving enemies ac 16-18 even at CR 1


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:


LMAO, no, in order to have in any way an enjoyable SF1 Mystic 1-20 experience you need to know that you have to max your Dex and dump all your feats on long arms,

I don't know about play above level 15 but I really don't care. Below that I've enjoyed playing mystics by

1) Buying spell gems. Since nearly everything in starfinder is ultimately a consumable, ignoring the gun and loading up on extra spell gems lets you cast nearly every round.

2) Having a good dex, a good wisdom, and a very high int. Dip Biohacker. Shoot things with a long arm. Yeah, it takes versatile specialization and maybe weapon focus. But you don't need to mainline dex to hit.

3) Dragonkin xenodruid with the medic archetype, healing channel secondary revelation and big sharp pointy teeth. Wrecks things with the wrecking fists revelation.

See, you're proving my point, besides whether any of those actually fix the problem. System mastery is required for the enjoyment of SF1, especially if other people at your table are good at system mastery. If you don't, you'll just sit there frustrated.

PF2 might not have as many options as PF1 had (regardless of the length of publishing thing and the fact that PF2 has already a staggering number of player stuff), what matters is that it has guardrails against people unintentionally gimping their experience or building OP PCs that win the game. I take that over having to explain to some socially challenged dude that the fact that game lets him break it does not mean he should be doing that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:


See, you're proving my point, besides whether any of those actually fix the problem. System mastery is required for the enjoyment of SF1, especially if other people at your table are good at system mastery. If you don't, you'll just sit there frustrated.

That mystics require some system mastery and not obvious thinking for YOU to meet the baseline levels of optimization doesn't mean that its required for all classes and all players. I want to whack things with a doshko, Ok I need strength... works just fine. I've played a lot of games with Obozaya and never seen her NOT wreck face just because she's a hair (scale?) off of max optimization here and there.

Nothing in the game is so complicated that a five minute google search for the hive mind can't turn up some ways to tweak your character to play the way you want a little better. Or asking someone in your group to help you.

Quote:
what matters is that it has guardrails against people unintentionally gimping their experience or building OP PCs that win the game.

And you think that's universally "good" design as opposed to a taste in preference? It's not. People that like to gain system mastery prefer systems where that's relevant.

Those guardrails prevent freedom to build and constrain interest. Every system has some sort of trade off between those two extremes. Preferring fewer guardrails and more freedom is different, not wrong. Champions RP G exists even if it needs to have a note "We know you can Make Dr. Herbiomnicide who can nuke 37 square city blocks from their lazy boy and exclude themselves from the blast but please work with your group to set a reasonable baseline"


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I expect base classes in the core rulebook of a game to provide a similarly enjoyable experience without reading online guides or what True Elite Gamers argue about on forums. SF1 fails this test. If a game requires you to consult the community to discover what the unwritten rules or assumptions are, it's bad design.

How popular is Champions RPG these days? How well is it selling? My knowledge is that it's "extremely niche" in popularity. There's a reason for that, and it's that it's a game that completely misses the contemporary player base, while other games in the superhero genre hit it much better, such as Masks, Icons, or the much more streamlined current ed of Mutants and Masterminds (and everyone will tell you that by today's standards, M&M is super crunchy).


Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

I expect base classes in the core rulebook of a game to provide a similarly enjoyable experience without reading online guides or what True Elite Gamers argue about on forums. SF1 fails this test.

The alchemist.

Mic Drop


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

I expect base classes in the core rulebook of a game to provide a similarly enjoyable experience without reading online guides or what True Elite Gamers argue about on forums. SF1 fails this test.

The alchemist.

Mic Drop

Yes, I play one and have one played in my PF2 games, what do you want to know about it?

1 to 50 of 192 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Second Edition Playtest / Playtest General Discussion / What Starfinder Exclusive Mechanics Do You Want To Return? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.