|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I'll bite. I know I've been pessimistic about the balance points in PF2 that I'm not looking forward to in SF2. But there ARE some PF2 things that I'm looking forward to. So rather than being entirely gloom, sell me on things in PF2 that will make starfinder better!
Starting off: I like 3-action economy. I like the ancestry feat / class feat / skill feat system and how it progresses through levels (general feats could be better). The general structure of how you build a character.
I like magic items counting against an investment limit instead of getting 2 magic items and the rest eating into your armor mods.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The TAS and Profiency system, especially for skills, will be neat to see implemented, as well as the Species/Ancestry overhaul and expansion.
Also Space Bards.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm excited for how easy and fun running monsters is. PF2e made being the DM feel like being an additional player instead of solely a conductor
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Decoupling of skills from classes. You don't have to be a particular class to have a particular skill. A stealthy Soldier can be just as effective as a stealthy Operative. The Operative will likely have more class feat support for it and be able to do more than the standard stuff with stealth - especially in combat. But as far as sneaking into places it works just fine.
Skill feats. Which was an idea taken directly from Starfinder in the first place.
Basically, everyone gets Envoy's Expertise Talents.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ease of designing encounters. In short, these tables actually work. At all levels of play.
Absence of math boosting feats.
With the math being taken care of mostly automatically, when you gain a level and get a class feat or a skill feat or an ancestry feat, that means that you actually get something new and cool that you can do - you don't have to spend that feat slot on a math boosting feat like Great Fortitude or Skill Focus.
Now, to be fair, some feats similar to those are available. Canny Acumen being the most obvious. But they are a lot less necessary.
The proficency and Character building rules. I'm an operative with 17 dex at level 1, and starting with a +14 in actobatics(daredevil) and a +3 to hit anything with my semi auto pistols is painful for me. The disparity is constantly f#!+ing me up in my head.
Being able to start with even numbers in my stats, and having my to hit be something like +7 and like, +9 for expert in whatever stat I'd have the equivalent of skill focus in is something I look forward to. Starting levels are important and making them feel better by raising the numbers is nice.
|
I like that all the items in Pathfinder 2e could become things you find in ancient locations hidden away for thousands of years. Finding old tech from Iron Gods could fool you to think that all of Pathfinder was high-tech.
Finding old scrolls could be fun too. Cold be interesting if you had to learn how to read ancient magic texts to use them.
3-Action economy to be able to move from cover, throw a grenade and move back to cover.
3-Action economy to be able to take a guard step then move then safely fire a ranged weapon or cast a spell.
Lot's of feats, something at every level.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ease of explaining the rules to new players. I can get somebody good to go on a new low-level character pretty quickly, and the answers to questions tend to be pretty straightforward. Not always, of course, but it's also smoother than explaining Starfinder's action system and how class skills work. By itself, this isn't a big deal. I don't mind having to spend twice as long explaining stuff, since it's a one-time deal and Starfinder is definitely streamlined from PF1. The real benefit comes from having a bigger community in the long run.
More GMs who know the rules. Already have a PF2 GM looking at a crossover Treasure Planet game once we get the playtest rules. Even when SF1 first came out, it was still a non-trivial thing for a PF1 GM to run something in SF1, but bouncing back and forth between the systems for variety seems like it'll be easier.
Any character can build to be good at a skill they want- nobody is stuck forever being significantly behind another class. No class is automatically winding up at a -6 penalty.
Versatile heritages allow for more mix-and-match customization. It's not for every character, but allowing your Embri to have actual devil's blood or your Ysoki to have been swapped at birth by a hag adds a lot of possibilities.
Options for every ancestry. The core species in SF1 got plenty of alternate features, but venturing out further... pickings got pretty slim for any individual species. Being able to tinker regardless of what you play is nice.
Better organization. Look, the variety of weapons is neat, but I am gonna be a lot happier having most weapons exist with a first-level form and a regular upgrade chain. Having feats broken up by ancestry or skill is a lot easier than having a giant list with varied prereqs.
Common usage of the free archetype rule- or just having regular archetypes available more flexibly even when its not. Being able to be "your class" and something else is really nice, especially when it doesn't do something like "permanently reduce your damage".
Casters can be casters. Impactful cantrips, so that your laser pistol is supplemental, not the main way to avoid spending slots.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Archetypes that aren't all-or-nothing.
When you take an archetype, you can pick exactly how much of that archetype to include into your character and how many - and which - of your base class feats to give up to get it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters can be casters. Impactful cantrips, so that your laser pistol is supplemental, not the main way to avoid spending slots.I will say that I hope we still have a way for casters to be OK with their sidearms come the new edition. Starfinder's casters always felt more comfortable using weapons than Pathfinder's casters did, and I'm hoping there is some way to let that paradigm continue, if it's possible. Obviously giving them the same progression as martials with weapons isn't gonna be workable, but something. Maybe a cantrip that lets you fire magic ammunition.
Also, I'm looking forward to the ease of high-level play making it over. IIRC the vast majority of Starfinder adventures stop around levels 12 or 13; I'm really looking forward to that changing and us getting a proper 1-20 campaign.
Even if we get nothing else, "simple, common, one-handed, ranged weapons with enough ammo to shoot every round of combat without reloading" is already enough to make casters pretty happy. Cast a save-based spell/cantrip, then take a laser pistol shot if your action is free. Casters will also appreciate Haste more than in PF2 or SF1, since they can make an attack with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Archetypes that aren't all-or-nothing.
When you take an archetype, you can pick exactly how much of that archetype to include into your character and how many - and which - of your base class feats to give up to get it.
*shudders*
You reminded me of the gulf between trying to take an Archetype on Soldier vs taking it on a Solarion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Beyond what was already mentioned, the fact that you'll be able to use PF2 options in SF2 and vice versa without too much hassle.
Casters can be casters. Impactful cantrips, so that your laser pistol is supplemental, not the main way to avoid spending slots.I will say that I hope we still have a way for casters to be OK with their sidearms come the new edition. Starfinder's casters always felt more comfortable using weapons than Pathfinder's casters did, and I'm hoping there is some way to let that paradigm continue, if it's possible. Obviously giving them the same progression as martials with weapons isn't gonna be workable, but something. Maybe a cantrip that lets you fire magic ammunition.
If nothing else it will be easier to take advantage of 1 round status penalties from your spells that hit AC. A wizard in PF2 isn't personally likely going to benefit from 1 round of Clumsy 1 that a spell inflicts, but a mystic in SF2 will get an accuracy boost for his pistol shot.
It would also work with 1 round elemental damage weakness effects.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Balance, and associated character flexibility. You can have a dedicated CharOpper and a rank newbie each make a character, and the resulting characters will be able to both be in the same party and both contribute. There's a huge breadth of potential character concepts that you can build, and as long as you're willing to shrug and accept that there are certain requirements about where you put your high stats, that concept will work just fine and can play on the same team with the CharOpper and the newbie and, again, contribute.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Ease of GMing/Monster Design/Stable Math. PF2 has made it so much easier to whip up a combat or challenge on the fly and knowing exactly how difficult it's going to be. It's also so much easier to introduce new players to, which adds up on the ole GM workload.
2. Streamlined equipment. Every time my players leveled up and asked what they can do to increase their damage output, I'd have to spend the better part of an hour going over the weapon lists, weapon add-ons, and fusions to find out if there's anything reasonable they can buy at that level that's not too different from the weapon they already enjoy. It was the absolute worst. PF2 has well defined math increases that you can plan around, and it looks like the weapon lists are going to follow that exactly.
3. Removing Pure Math Feats. I can't wait to let players go to town building their characters without me having to step in and gently remind them that they should grab X, Y, or Z for their own good. Or having to rebuild a character because they didn't take Longarms and actually want to contribute in combat with their gun.
4. Spellcasting/10 Ranks of Spells/Staves. Having to wait *three* levels between getting new spell toys was brutal and unfun, and it made playing casters feel like an absolute slog. Built-in autoscaling cantrips and Staves giving powerful magic boosts to spellcasters just opens up wide swathes of magical themed characters that were underutilized in SF1.
5. Ancestry Feats. I cannot wait to be able to better customize my ancestry and how it affects play at all levels, not just early on. I also am excited to see high level space alien ancestry feats!
6. Medicine Healing. The medic concept is going to finally be unleashed to do real healing, much more in line with what players expected going into the game.
7. Archetypes/Multiclassing. I will be so happy to see functional archetypes and multiclassing return to starfinder, opening up so many new character concepts and combinations. I will finally not feel totally stifled during character creation in SF!
8. Skill feats/Skill Training. I'm so, so, so excited to see skills become more universal, rather than the sole purview of the few specialists. Skill feats don't compete with core class features, so you end up with a whole lot more versatility and character building options than in SF1 and you don't have to track fiddly ranks to each skill that you absolutely had to spend on the same skills every level or fall massively behind.
The 3 action economy and a whole new Starship system, perhaps 2 kinds, one with more crunch and maybe one with more narative, which we will know a bit more about once Expand comes out in under 2 months.
Tom
I was very tickled by the realization that Pathfinder already has rules for some of the stuff that Starfinder needs. Gunslinger is probably obvious... but Psychics are a Sci-Fi staple and Book of the Dead's undead archetypes means that playing Eoxians can happen day one.
I am also very much looking forward to Starfinder dieties getting Pathfinder domains, but that is just me.
I am excited to see all the complaints and unanswered questions about playing undead in PF2 transfer over to merge with all the previously existing complaints about SF1 undead options.
They will probably make more undead full ancestries. or they should, so you can make a vampire ancestry, with the vampire archetype, so you can be a double vampire.
They will probably make more undead full ancestries. or they should, so you can make a vampire ancestry, with the vampire archetype, so you can be a double vampire.
Not sure about allowing doubling up like that - it probably wouldn't be worth it since you are still constrained by the ancestry feats that you have.
What would be nice is to have Undead Archetypes like Marooned One and Derelict Shade to use instead of Mummy and Ghost.
What would be nice is to have Undead Archetypes like Marooned One and Derelict Shade to use instead of Mummy and Ghost.
"A derelict shade is an undead creature so immense that it functions as a starship (and thus engages only in starship combat)."
I'm not sure that works as a PC archetype.
"A derelict shade is an undead creature so immense that it functions as a starship (and thus engages only in starship combat)."
I'm not sure that works as a PC archetype.
Oh. Hah. I didn't read it closely enough.
Still, the concept of a ghost created by being left adrift in space sounds like a more Starfinder concept than just the general Ghost from Pathfinder.
"A derelict shade is an undead creature so immense that it functions as a starship (and thus engages only in starship combat)."
I'm not sure that works as a PC archetype.
Oh. Hah. I didn't read it closely enough.
Still, the concept of a ghost created by being left adrift in space sounds like a more Starfinder concept than just the general Ghost from Pathfinder.
they're called drift dead
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They will probably make more undead full ancestries. or they should, so you can make a vampire ancestry, with the vampire archetype, so you can be a double vampire.Not sure about allowing doubling up like that - it probably wouldn't be worth it since you are still constrained by the ancestry feats that you have.
What would be nice is to have Undead Archetypes like Marooned One and Derelict Shade to use instead of Mummy and Ghost.
Its a very "¿Por que no los dos?" situation in my mind. Ghosts and mummies shoudl be perfectly usable in Starfinder, but it would be nice if there was a Pact Worlds: Eox book to get some Starfinder-specific archetypes too.
Actually, speaking of that, I would love for Starfinder to adopt similar book types as Pathfinder 2e. A Pact Worlds and Near Space lore line would be fantastic!
Its a very "¿Por que no los dos?" situation in my mind. Ghosts and mummies shoudl be perfectly usable in Starfinder, but it would be nice if there was a Pact Worlds: Eox book to get some Starfinder-specific archetypes too.
Oh absolutely. I could definitely see using the PF2 Mummy archetype for a Lashunta Hounded Thief Operative that was caught and buried alive in the sands of Akiton.
But I also would like something different for undead created from people who died in space derelict vessels or marooned on asteroids. Mummy and Ghost mostly work. But I think Starfinder can do better even.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They will probably make more undead full ancestries. or they should, so you can make a vampire ancestry, with the vampire archetype, so you can be a double vampire.Not sure about allowing doubling up like that - it probably wouldn't be worth it since you are still constrained by the ancestry feats that you have.
What would be nice is to have Undead Archetypes like Marooned One and Derelict Shade to use instead of Mummy and Ghost.
Its a very "¿Por que no los dos?" situation in my mind. Ghosts and mummies shoudl be perfectly usable in Starfinder, but it would be nice if there was a Pact Worlds: Eox book to get some Starfinder-specific archetypes too.
Actually, speaking of that, I would love for Starfinder to adopt similar book types as Pathfinder 2e. A Pact Worlds and Near Space lore line would be fantastic!
Few things would make me happier than Starfinder getting the support level of a "Lost Omens" style line to accompany rulebooks and really get to expand the setting. Paizo's done a lot to embrace their rules and lore branches in the past couple of years and I'd love to see that attention shared with Starfinder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What would be nice is to have Undead Archetypes like Marooned One and Derelict Shade to use instead of Mummy and Ghost."A derelict shade is an undead creature so immense that it functions as a starship (and thus engages only in starship combat)."
I'm not sure that works as a PC archetype.
... Well now I want one.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I admit, having the party flying around in an undead ship that they've managed to make friends with has its appeal.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m now quite eager to play a Lashunta Animist.
Reminds me of the Dungeon ancestry
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not a huge fan of 2E overall, but there is one area where I think it can really improve the Starfinder experience.
Critical hit effects! There were so many cool crit effects in Starfinder 1, but they barely ever came up because you only got a crit on a 20. Assuming we're still using the crit = hit+10 rule, we should be able to see cool effects like lightning arcs and corrosion more frequently. I just hope AC doesn't end up super high on average for enemies.
Not a huge fan of 2E overall, but there is one area where I think it can really improve the Starfinder experience.
Critical hit effects! There were so many cool crit effects in Starfinder 1, but they barely ever came up because you only got a crit on a 20. Assuming we're still using the crit = hit+10 rule, we should be able to see cool effects like lightning arcs and corrosion more frequently. I just hope AC doesn't end up super high on average for enemies.
The PF2 crit rule is definitely in, as it is part of the core math. As for AC concerns, it really depends on what enemies you are fighting. But especially against enemies that aren't higher than your level, critting on an 18 is common even without any bonuses. If you apply some teamwork, getting it on a 15 or 16 is just as common. It's mostly just strong single enemies that play the "20 or bust" game when you don't apply penalties to them.
A chance to rework weapons...
I would love to have a customization aspect to them.
- Take every weapon type (pistol, assault rifle, sniper rifle, heavy cannon, sword, staff, axe, spear, etc.)
- Have them have slots
- Slap traits that affect damage input, damage type, range, critical effects and abilities
If I want a pistol that starts at 1d6 points of damage, deals both Piercing & Electric damage, at 60ft., with the Pulse critical effect, Analog, Operative and Professional traits, I should be able to do so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The PF2 crit rule is definitely in, as it is part of the core math. As for AC concerns, it really depends on what enemies you are fighting. But especially against enemies that aren't higher than your level, critting on an 18 is common even without any bonuses. If you apply some teamwork, getting it on a 15 or 16 is just as common. It's mostly just strong single enemies that play the "20 or bust" game when you don't apply penalties to them.
I never had problems with players critting against same levelled enemies, but in Age of Ashes there were so many encounters against APL +2 or +3 enemies that were exceedingly difficult for any of the PCs to hit.
I did hear AoA was overtuned, though, and encounter design got more reasonable later in development, so hopefully that holds true for SF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The PF2 crit rule is definitely in, as it is part of the core math. As for AC concerns, it really depends on what enemies you are fighting. But especially against enemies that aren't higher than your level, critting on an 18 is common even without any bonuses. If you apply some teamwork, getting it on a 15 or 16 is just as common. It's mostly just strong single enemies that play the "20 or bust" game when you don't apply penalties to them.I never had problems with players critting against same levelled enemies, but in Age of Ashes there were so many encounters against APL +2 or +3 enemies that were exceedingly difficult for any of the PCs to hit.
I did hear AoA was overtuned, though, and encounter design got more reasonable later in development, so hopefully that holds true for SF2.
Yeah, the early APs were developed alongside the rules, so they were kinda janky. AoA most of all. Newer ones are way more chill after people realized that that simply isn't fun.
SF2 benefits from years of experience with encounter balance and the really solid build-in guide for it, but especially with the shift from melee to ranged combat, we'll likely see a bit of a learning curve. But I seriously doubt it will be anything approaching AoA levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally the best part of PF2 are the Archetypes, the way multiclassing is now just an overlay to a basic class honestly fits amazingly. So, I'm really looking forward to seeing how they relate this to SF. It would be really fun to have a campaign which starts with the PF2 classes and then gains access to the SF2 archetypes as they start exploring the stars for the first time. Thematically this could be very fun.
Other aspects that I like from FP2 are 1) the 3-action economy; and 2) the +10/-10 for crits and fails.
However, the overall dumbing down of the system is not a good thing and I hope Starfinder learns from this (but I doubt it will). Remember this is why Pathfinder was started in the first place! D&D 4.0 was a terrible system, it completely dumbed down AD&D to a tactical miniature game... and now I see Paizo following the same track with the 2.0 system; it's not nearly as bad as what WotC did, but it is heading in that direction. I can mostly deal with the 2.0 rules system (except for the crafting rules, they're just bad), but when the 3.0 comes out I'm betting another company will come along and reforge the roleplaying experience yet again.
Historically speaking: It is rare for any institution to fix its problems for the better. Typically, things will continue to get worse until it completely fails (see what WotC is currently doing to both MtG and D&D). Please don't misunderstand, it's not out of the realm of possibilities to fix their problems and perhaps release a 2.5 version which deals with the dumbing down of the game; just that the chances are slim from a historical perspective and all.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, the overall dumbing down of the system is not a good thing and I hope Starfinder learns from this (but I doubt it will).
Okay, could you clarify what you mean here by "dumbing down"? It's really very vague and nothing immediately leaps to mind. I think I might like to respond to it, but I have no real idea what to respond to.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, the overall dumbing down of the system is not a good thing and I hope Starfinder learns from this (but I doubt it will). Remember this is why Pathfinder was started in the first place! D&D 4.0 was a terrible system, it completely dumbed down AD&D to a tactical miniature game... and now I see Paizo following the same track with the 2.0 system; it's not nearly as bad as what WotC did, but it is heading in that direction. I can mostly deal with the 2.0 rules system (except for the crafting rules, they're just bad), but when the 3.0 comes out I'm betting another company will come along and reforge the roleplaying experience yet again.
Look, "dumbed down" is kind of a rude way to describe it, and it's also unclear what you mean specifically. Trying to make your point by talking about 4e is worse. We're a decade past that, and Paizo hasn't handled things like WotC. You may know what you mean by those, but I can't tell if you don't like focus spells or want a thousand general feats.
Historically speaking: It is rare for any institution to fix its problems for the better. Typically, things will continue to get worse until it completely fails (see what WotC is currently doing to both MtG and D&D). Please don't misunderstand, it's not out of the realm of possibilities to fix their problems and perhaps release a 2.5 version which deals with the dumbing down of the game; just that the chances are slim from a historical perspective and all.
This doesn't seem to fit the reality of the situation to me. PF2 is doing much, much better than PF1 did. There isn't some big mistake where Paizo went too far and streamlined things so much that players are bouncing off the system as a result. Tons of people are enjoying it, playing it, and having a good time.
Don't get me wrong, I loved the chaotic crunchiness of PF1. I had a character with seven character sheets, and a caster who poisoned people and turned invisible before he touched his standard action. But when I sit down to try getting back into making a PF1 character, it's a chore, and enough of one that I stop. Usually when I've heard someone not feel that way, they're using HeroLab to do the heavy lifting. I used to kind of dread getting a brand new player, because of how much explanation would be needed to get them through just the action system and character creation.
It's also not like there's some huge loss of what sort of characters you can make or games you can run. Just for a personal example,
I can't exactly comment on what you mean in relation to SF2, but I can at least reassure you that Paizo didn't actually shoot itself in the foot with PF2 and it's doing quite well.
Not understanding how PF2 is dumbed down is such a huge self own I’m shocked to see people admitting it. Not to mention wildly ahistorical - how fast we went from “this new edition is simplistic and limited and therefore good for slower or less obsessed people who can come into the hobby now, and these are all good things” to people pretending they don’t even know this is obviously what happened.
Going from seven to three bonus types (which never stack, instead of sometimes) is dumbed down. Going to fixed class feat structure and no longer having custom class features and progression and numerous spell casting options is dumbed down. Tradition spell lists instead of hand picked class lists is very dumbed down.
I am greatful for many dumbed down, limited, and easy to use products in my life. This just wasn't one of them.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not understanding how PF2 is dumbed down is such a huge self own I’m shocked to see people admitting it. Not to mention wildly ahistorical - how fast we went from “this new edition is simplistic and limited and therefore good for slower or less obsessed people who can come into the hobby now, and these are all good things” to people pretending they don’t even know this is obviously what happened.
Going from seven to three bonus types (which never stack, instead of sometimes) is dumbed down. Going to fixed class feat structure and no longer having custom class features and progression and numerous spell casting options is dumbed down. Tradition spell lists instead of hand picked class lists is very dumbed down.
I am greatful for many dumbed down, limited, and easy to use products in my life. This just wasn't one of them.
I feel this misses the point, which is that there is a meaningful difference in tone and connotations between describing something as "simplified" or "streamlined" versus "dumbed down". I don't see anyone pretending that PF2e isn't simpler than PF1e, and in fact several commenters on here have described 1e's greater complexity at length. The issue people seem to be taking with, however, is specifically with describing that simplification as a dumbing down of things: when something is simplified or streamlined, the primary connotation is that the thing is improved by means of greater accessibility and usability. When that same thing is dumbed down, the implication is that the thing has been downgraded by losing important positive aspects tied to its complexity. The terms all describe a similar process, but the implications are completely different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not understanding how PF2 is dumbed down is such a huge self own I’m shocked to see people admitting it. Not to mention wildly ahistorical - how fast we went from “this new edition is simplistic and limited and therefore good for slower or less obsessed people who can come into the hobby now, and these are all good things” to people pretending they don’t even know this is obviously what happened.
Going from seven to three bonus types (which never stack, instead of sometimes) is dumbed down. Going to fixed class feat structure and no longer having custom class features and progression and numerous spell casting options is dumbed down. Tradition spell lists instead of hand picked class lists is very dumbed down.
I am greatful for many dumbed down, limited, and easy to use products in my life. This just wasn't one of them.
Oh, I definitely know how it's simplified, but that doesn't tell me what parts somebody is talking about and cares about. The three action system is also simpler, and that was mentioned as a positive. Just a general, hand-wavy "it's dumbed down" isn't useful, because most people don't want a game made more complicated for no reason. You can discuss something more specific, like the move from feature-heavy classes to "initial feature plus class feats", and that would get somewhere more productive.