Where are these rules?

[Kreistor]

I am extremely concerned about the Starfinder 2E Player Core. I just watched an early access review and... I am stunningly disappointed in what was not reviewed. I am praying that what I did not find in it was just the reviewer skipping past what he thought was not important.

1) Where are the starfighter rules?
I was planning to run a Battlestar Gallactica style campaign... but the review had no sign of any starfighter combat nor any available starships. I didn't even notice a single car or aircraft rule. What about Firefly? Star Wars? This is STAR related... where are the STARS?

2) Where are the computer hacking rules?
We are 40 years beyond the 3D hacking of the cyberpunk genre. Has computer hacking been minimized to a single die roll, and if I want something more complicated I have to write the rules myself?

3) Where are the 0-G combat rules? This very much looks like 1G earth worlds only. No spacesuits for asteroid hopping. No mining gear for asteroid mining.

4) Where is the SCIENTIST class?
Or are we supposed to continue to use the medieval style inventor and alchemist? I see mystics and spell lists and magic items... but nothing even remotely scientific. Why do I need more mysticism? I could already create Luke with regular Pathfinder.

Please help me understand how this is NOT the Pathfinder 2E ruleset reprinted with different races and classes and art that have vague sci fi tones, but are really just more fantasy.

Because right now, I see zero reason to buy this book. It adds nothing that I need to run an interstellar campaign. I don't need new classes and races. I need a futuristic galaxy to play in. FUTURISTIC, not more medieval. The review strongly suggests that this is just a mostly transparent skin on fantasy Pathfinder 2E.

[moosher12]

Someone said wrote:

Where are the starfighter rules?

Starship combat is not going to be present until a later book. It is confirmed to come out, just not yet. I'd expect sometime in 2026? In the meantime, the GM Core will have a cinematic starship combat system that is simplified, but I understand that is not what you mean. I'd rest assured it is confirmed to come.

Someone said wrote:

Where are the computer hacking rules?

The Starfinder GM Core is confirmed to have computer hacking rules. That book is expected in August.

Someone said wrote:

QWhere are the 0-G combat rules?

The Playtest had zero gravity rules, so it should be in the Player Core (there are already spells that affect gravity, anyway). It was likely just not important enough to review. Books gonna be 450 pages, can't review everything. Try posting a response to the video asking about zero g stuff, they just might reply back with something more focused to it.

Someone said wrote:

Where is the SCIENTIST class?

Down the line. Mechanic can work as the engineering side of a scientist theme, and should come out next year. Other scientist coded classes like the Biohacker and Evolutionist will come in due time. Just be patient. Paizo will likely do at least 2 classes a year. 2026 is confirmed to be Mechanic and Technomancer, and both 2027 and 2028 will be choosing from the following list most likely: Biohacker, Evolutionist, Nanocyte, and Vanguard. Then from 2029 onwards it'll be new stuff.

And while Inventor and Alchemist are from Pathfinder, who says they have to be rennaisance? An alchemist can easily become a chemist, and an inventor just needs to change its aesthetic from clockwork to plastic. The effects work universally, just give them the modern equipment, and don't think of the iconic character art. You see an Alchemist's Fire, I on the other hand see a thermite grenade.

If what you want to do is run a custom system the way you describe, I'd recommend just waiting until the system has the content you want. No rush mate. The system will only get more feature complete. And you can always start using it when it has the features you want. Though if you want hard scifi, Starfinder probably isn't for you. It's Science Fantasy. There has always been a lot of magic, and there always will be a lot of magic.

[Torradin341]

1) Starfighter rules will theoretically be in a book next year. I don't think any of the devs have confirmed starfighters in particular, but they were in SOM, so hopefully we'll get them in 2e. Starship combat, in general, will be in GM Core ("cinematic starship combat"), with crunchier rules coming in the aforementioned book that will likely release next year. There will be a playtest for it first, so we'll know more then. (hopefully they release that at GenCon)

2) Computer Hacking rules will be in GM Core.

3) 0G combat rules will hopefully be in GM Core, but I'm not aware that they've specifically mentioned them.

4) There isn't one. Not yet, at least. The Mechanic (more of a combat engineer than the 1e greasemonkey) and the Technomancer will be in a book next year. We just had a playtest for them a couple of months ago, and frankly they're a mess (at least the Technomancer is), so I don't know if they'll do it for you, but that's all there is now. No word on the Biohacker or Nanocyte yet, but I wouldn't expect them until 2027 at the earliest at this point. Otherwise, the only Sci- in this Sci-Fantasy game really is just the equipment. And any vehicles that might be in Player Core. I don't have my book or pdf yet, so I can't say for certain, but yeah.

They cut most of the Sci out of the launch book, if the playtest was anything to go by. Mostly just there in the pop culture references in the names and a bit of flavoring. I was really hoping the full release would have more to it, and I'll hold my own judgement until I get my book, but this was my biggest criticism last year. It's disappointing to hear that I may have been right that this is more Player Core 3 than SF2.

[moosher12]

Biohacker was not released until 2 years after SF1E Core rulebook (4 years for the evolutionist), so it's a similar trend. Otherwise the current class release is mostly stuff from SF1E Core rulebook being modernized as the priority. Can't make the whole previous edition in 1 book.

[DMurnett]

I have to assume you haven't kept up with news for SF2e for very long because most of these aren't news.

1) Starship combat has been constantly and repeatedly said to be still in playtesting. The team want to make it the best it can possibly be, so they're delaying it to such a time that it's actually fun. I haven't heard great things about SF1e's ship combat so I do think this is a very reasonable decision. Additionally, the GM Core releasing not long after launch is advertised as having "cinematic starship combat" which I assume is a more simplified and freeform system for when it suits the narrative, and a gap-filler until full detailed rules come out.

2) I mean, other than the Computers skill which can absolutely be made more engaging than "a single die roll", one of the, again, GM Core's advertised features is a hacking subsystem.

3) The playtest had rules for various gravity levels including low- and zero-G, I would also be disappointed if the full release came with none. There is a chance it's another thing shunted into the GM Core but even I agree that'd be a copout.

4) There is none, nor should there be. That concept is far too broad. You don't want ALL of science to be compacted into one single class. There is currently playtest documents for the Mechanic however which will be fully releasing in a later Core book.

You seem to have a slight misunderstanding of what Starfiner is meant to be. It's not Sci-Fi, it's space fantasy. There is a sci-fi component to that but it's not the loadbearing pillar by any means. It seams like the team has made the decision to keep a lot of tech stuff for a later book, including classes like the Mechanic and Technomancer, and probably many other things. You're allowed to be unhappy with that of course, but it's still how things are.

[keftiu]

What did you like about Starfinder 1e?

EDIT: This is certainly an interesting choice for a first post on the forums!

In case you are genuinely new here and unfamiliar - Starfinder has always been "Pathfinder, but in the science-fantasy space future," deliberately building on the bones of things like Pathfinder 1e's very sword-and-planet Distant Worlds. The core mechanical pitch of SF2e from the start has been PF2 compatibility; it's never intended to be an all-purposes sci-fi toolbox like you seem to be looking for and furious to have not found here.

It's a little frustrating that you don't seem to think the setting/lore or the rules to create people from it in the book are worth anything. You're not going to get floating alien gas bags or a Versatile Heritage from the FTL dimension of the techno-god in Pathfinder, y'know?

[Driftbourne]

Kreistor wrote:

I am extremely concerned about the Starfinder 2E Player Core. I just watched an early access review and... I am stunningly disappointed in what was not reviewed. I am praying that what I did not find in it was just the reviewer skipping past what he thought was not important.

I'm guessing you haven't played SF1e?

Kreistor wrote:

1) Where are the starfighter rules?
I was planning to run a Battlestar Gallactica style campaign... but the review had no sign of any starfighter combat nor any available starships.

The narrative starship rules are in the GM core. You can see a small preview of those in use in the Free RPG Day adventure, Battle for Nova Rush. The entire adventure takes place on a starship during a starship battle.

The full Starship rules will be in a later book. Full starship rules, building, and combat in SF1e takes up most of a full book on its own.

Kreistor wrote:

I didn't even notice a single car or aircraft rule. What about Firefly? Star Wars? This is STAR related... where are the STARS?

On the galaxy map in the Gualixy Guide book. Two star systems have their own setting books in SF1e, and Starfinder is not limited to just thoses star systems. Note the Galaxy Guide is an overview of the setting not a deep dive, there's not enough room in one book for all of that. SF1e has 17 books.

A few examples from SF1e to show what Starfinder can do.

Fly Free or Die (Firefly like)

Against the Aeon Throne (Star Wars-like)

Attack Of The Swarm (Starship Troopers-like)

Mechageddon (Mech Combat)

Kreistor wrote:

2) Where are the computer hacking rules?
We are 40 years beyond the 3D hacking of the cyberpunk genre. Has computer hacking been minimized to a single die roll, and if I want something more complicated, I have to write the rules myself?

Dyanimic hacking ruels came out later in Starfinder 1e, but I supect that SF2e will likely use the 2e complex hazard system, which is an extreamly felxable and customizeable system. But subsystems temd to be in the GM core or later books related to the subject.

Kreistor wrote:

3) Where are the 0-G combat rules? This very much looks like 1G earth worlds only. No spacesuits for asteroid hopping. No mining gear for asteroid mining.

Starfinder has 4 level of gravity, Zero-G, and hazardous atmosphere ruels ruels. Since Most of these are enviroment things I'd supect they would be in the GM core, although Zero-G ruels are very tatical so likly in the Player Core.

Starfinder dosent have space suites, all most any Starfinder armor can have enviromental protection added to them. There are several SF1e adventures that take place in astroid mines.

Kreistor wrote:

4) Where is the SCIENTIST class?
Or are we supposed to continue to use the medieval style inventor and alchemist? I see mystics and spell lists and magic items... but nothing even remotely scientific. Why do I need more mysticism? I could already create Luke with regular Pathfinder.

Starfinder is Science-Fanatcy not Science-Fiction. The Technomancer and mechanic classes are in the 4th book not sure if it has a name yet but roumers it might be called Tech Core; until then, the playtest versions are available for play even in organized play. No news on the Biohacker class yet. Starfinder 1e never had a straight-up scientist class, Biohacker being the cloestest.

Kreistor wrote:

Please help me understand how this is NOT the Pathfinder 2E ruleset reprinted with different races and classes and art that have vague sci fi tones, but are really just more fantasy.

Because right now, I see zero reason to buy this book. It adds nothing that I need to run an interstellar campaign. I don't need new classes and races. I need a futuristic galaxy to play in. FUTURISTIC, not more medieval. The review strongly suggests that this is just a mostly transparent skin on fantasy Pathfinder 2E.

Although Stafinder is Science-fantacy and compatable with Pathfinder, it certetlly is it's own thing, and is futureristic at it's core and not medieval. Stafinder 2e plays like Pathfinder 2e rules wise but feels diffrent, no one in Pathfinder has live streamed fighting an alien creature on a reality video show.

[Driftbourne]

Kreistor wrote:

I didn't even notice a single car or aircraft rule.

All the rules are online for free at the Archive of Nethys. I'm not sure when the AoN will have their SF2e update online, but for now, I can show you what vehicles SF1e had.

Vehicle index

Keep in mind, all of that didn't come out in the Sf1e Core Rule book, and in SF2e the Core rule book is split up into Player Core and GM Core. If you want a full system day one, then SF1e might be better for you, especially if you don't care about compatibility with PF2e

[Kreistor]

Thank you all for the responses. I have my answers.

To address some of the insults:

I don't follow the "news" every day. I did at the beginning, but then the sheer weight of the delay to releasee caused me to just set the whole thing aside until there was an actual chance the "news" was relevant. I have no interest in reading massive amounts of tiny announcements that become irrelevant regularly because of arbitrary changes: coming in at release to find out what the product contains is the life of most people. You can let news on some product become your life cause... but I have games to run and no time for that.

I am not an utterly dedicated "Paizo can do no wrong" GM. Don't expect people to be. Most people are not.

I was not asking for everything in the first release. I wanted SOMETHING relevant in the initial release. There is NOTHING relevant in the first release. I listed all those questions because I needed to show how little new Paizo produced.

I don't need "settings": all of my comments are about missing rules. I want a RULES wrapper for my own settings. RULES require balance and testing, and one GM cannot reasonably do that. You should all have seen the grotesque failures that are home-grown classes that you can't let at your table. Those are easy... writing an entire system for interstellar combat is a whole world of difficulty worse. I've done it before.. I prefer not to because these take a team and group feedback.

All science fiction has an element of fantasy in it. Our real world physics currently strongly suggests that interstellar travel by awake humans is impossible because it has to be so slow (due to impacts along the way... interstellar space isn't a true void) that it would take 50 generations to get to the star that will approach to 1 LY in a million years or so. We suspend our disbelief to allow for pseudoscience to provide answers to question science cannot provide. Some fantasy is inherent in the beast of sci fi. But sci fi still has its foundation in science, with fantasy added where science fails. No science was added to Pathfinder with this release. It is just fantasy again.

But when we talk about STARfinder, it must be distinctly different or the STAR is just a grift to get you to buy something that otherwise you wouldn't bother with. And that is what this devolved to. The real work needed to be done on what I described above: something that makes common Sci Fi tropes available without massive GM effort to invent rules. Otherwise, this would just be a different way to portal between dimensions (or prime material planes) like the 1989 setting for a competing product. If there was an included method to get from one place to another... which it doesn't include.

That did not happen. At all. There is literally NOTHING in this book that justifies the STAR. Zero Sci Fi tropes have become available that weren't already available.

The entire Starfinder team should be embarrassed at this utter failure. I am sure most of you will buy it. They probably will not lose money. But the non-dedicated fans that are just looking for a useful product will not find it, and if they do buy it and find out how utterly useless it is... they won't continue with the system. The first product needs to represent what you will do with the system. All this represents is... that Paizo can't do a sci fi system at all because they have no clue what that is.

This will drive away the average GM. It shouldn't have been printed. It can do more harm than good to future releases.

[Justnobodyfqwl]

This is awesome. I wish I could get this mad about books I haven't read that contain most of the things that I want. I've never even considered getting upset at people telling me that I'm going to get everything I wanted.

[Master Han Del of the Web]

The prophecy of doom at the end was a very nice touch

[WatersLethe]

Justnobodyfqwl wrote:

This is awesome. I wish I could get this mad about books I haven't read that contain most of the things that I want. I've never even considered getting upset at people telling me that I'm going to get everything I wanted.

It's like watching an olympic event.

[Perpdepog]

On top of what's been said, I would expect a selection of vehicles to show up in GM Core, and then more in Tech Core, or whatever it's going to be called. PF2E's first vehicles came out in its GM Core, after all, and Guns & Gears, and SF1E's Starfinder Armory, the more gear-focused books, were where we saw a wider vehicle selection show up. Vehicle rules and related systems tend to come later in a game's lifespan simply because not everyone is going to use them, and SF2E needs to format itself with the assumption that whoever is picking it up could be getting into their very first TTRPG.
Which, you know, is a good thing. We don't want new players to the game, or even the hobby, feeling more confused, intimidated, and thinking they need to do more homework in learning what, to them, seems like a different game in PF2E. The ancestries and classes and items are going to be new to fit Starfinder's tone, and I'm sure that a few subsystems, like fighting in different kinds of gravity and dealing with more "sci fi" forms of hazard, like radiation, are going to be present, but much of what we see in these first couple SF2e books is going to look real similar to PF2E because it has to. SF2E is most interested in human-scale tactical combat, so its rules and options first and foremost need to flesh out how to do human scale tactical combat. If it didn't then it'd be a lot more like the "transparent skin" OP is talking about, and really would be just an expansion to PF2E as opposed to a new game that could stand on its own.

[Zoken44]

Wow, this guy is drinking some quality Delulu-lemonade.

Until that response no one had insulted you. I definitely just did, but now you've kinda earned it. people have told you that a lot of the rules you're looking for will be in the GM Core coming the following month. You are acting like this is completely unreasonable. Is this some bid for attention?

[pauljathome]

Kreistor wrote:

This will drive away the average GM. It shouldn't have been printed. It can do more harm than good to future releases.

By which I presume you mean "This isn't what I was looking for and CLEARLY MY tastes are the same as EVERYBODY else's tastes. If I don't like something, absolutely nobody will"

In all seriousness, it sounds like starfinder is absolutely NOT the game for you. It is providing something very, very different from what you're looking for.

Fortunately, there are lots of games out there that may be what you're looking for. My personal guess is that GURPS (starting with SPACE) may be a good fit.

[Perpdepog]

pauljathome wrote:

Kreistor wrote:

This will drive away the average GM. It shouldn't have been printed. It can do more harm than good to future releases.

By which I presume you mean "This isn't what I was looking for and CLEARLY MY tastes are the same as EVERYBODY else's tastes. If I don't like something, absolutely nobody will"

In all seriousness, it sounds like starfinder is absolutely NOT the game for you. It is providing something very, very different from what you're looking for.

Fortunately, there are lots of games out there that may be what you're looking for. My personal guess is that GURPS (starting with SPACE) may be a good fit.

I'm partial to Stars Without Number, myself, especially its starship combat.

[Squark]

You are... very passionate about a game release disappointing you.

As far as Starfinder 2e lacking certain thing, aside from the staggered launch of the GM core meaning we don't have the full system yet, what a system needs depends on what it's going for. To provide an example, my previous experiences with Sci-Fi/Science Fantasy games are with WotC's Star Wars Saga Edition and Fantasy Flights suite of Star Wars and Warhammer 40000 RPGs. Now, Star Wars RPGs obviously need some space combat mechanics, and WotC and FFG delivered, but most of the 40k RPGs didn't (Just Rogue Trader)- Because the protagonists didn't do much with the starships. And as to your second big area of complaint, none of those syatems had robust hacking systems, especially since it was likely one player (at most) had any way to engage with such a system (As a counter example, Rogue Trader had a very, very in depth system for navigating the warp, and it meant that the rest of the party had to sit each warp journey out if the party had a Navigator PC unless something went horribly wrong). What rules a roleplaying game goes into depth into depends on what the game is focused on. Star Wars RPGs have whole chapters for the force and space combat, but give hacking maybe three paragraphs. The small commando squads of Deathwatch don't care about massive space battles, so the system was light on support for those, but there were tons of mechanics about fighting hordes of aliens as a unit and as an individual. Meanwhile games like Cuberpunk or Shadowrun (which I only know through video games) have much more in depth rules for hacking and cybernetics, because that's what they want to focus on.

Starfinder is none of those games. It's farther on the Fantasy side of the science fantasy-science faction spectrum than even Star Wars. Tactical person to person combat like cinematic duels, shoot-outs in restaurants, and ambushes by horrible monsters are at the forefront. The GM Core will go into secondary focuses like (almost certainly) Negotiations, Infiltrations, Chases, and more. Is that what you want? Clearly not, since you mentioned you wanted a starfighter campaign.* That's fine. (Hopefully) you haven't spent any money on the game, so you haven't lost anything besides the time you spend responding to this thread.

*A wild tangent: I hear about Lancer RPG, and I think it's sort of silo'd design seperating vehicular combat from in person stuff would be a great fit for a starfighter campaign. Someone shoudl make that (Since Lancer is a game about Giant Robots, not starfighters)

[HolyFlamingo!]

Hey OP, take a chill pill and go play one of the dozens of other sci-fi TTRPGs out there that are more grounded and feature complete. I rec Stars Without Number, as it's free and easy to learn. Traveller's the other big one, if you want something crunchier.

Or, if you like the idea of Starfinder but don't want to wait a couple years for the new edition to flesh itself out, go play 1e. It's a lovely game.

SF2 not having enough content upon launch is a totally valid critique, but I think it's one you can articulate without throwing a temper tantrum on the internet.

[keftiu]

I've been waiting for SF2 for years, because I wanted PF2 rules for Lashunta (telepathic aliens) and Solarians (a class of Jedi-inspired STAR and black hole-themed mystical warriors). That's plenty STAR for me in the corebook, along with all that lore you don't value!

I think you'll have a great time with a generic sci-fi toolbox like Stars Without Number or the 2400 - certainly more fun than raging about a version of this game that was never going to exist.

[HolyFlamingo!]

Although, to be totally fair to OP, I'm also a little disappointed with SF2's weak launch lineup. It's Paizo's smallest to date, and (based on previews, playtests, and the Murder in Metal City PDF I'm reading) seems to lack the polish of its medieval fantasy big sister. The Starfinder team desperately needs more time, resources, and 2e engine expertise.

[Driftbourne]

Weak launch lineup?

Sfinder 2e product available at launch, not including things from the Play test.

Starfinder Player Core
Starfinder Galaxy Guide
The Gap

Starfinder Murder in Metal City Deluxe Adventure
Starfinder Society Scenario #1-01: Invasion's Edge
Starfinder Society Scenario #1-02: Mystery of the Frozen Moon
Starfinder Society Special #1-00: Collision's Wake
Battle for Nove Rush

Starfinder Infinity Deck Card Game
Era of the Eclipse, a Starfinder Novel (hardcover)
Starfinder Combat Pad (S2)

Starfinder Flip-Mat: Basic Terrain
Starfinder Flip-Mat: Planetary Terrain Multi-Pack
Starfinder Flip-Mat: Space Station
Starfinder Flip-Mat: Alien Ruins
Starfinder Flip-Mat: Derelict Starships
Starfinder Flip-Mat: Cityscape Multi-Pack

None of the other major releases in Paizo's history had to deal with tariff tantrums and distributor bankruptcy. Sf1e and PF2e didn't launch with a full AP. They launched with part 1 of an AP Starfinder also has a smaller team than PF2e does.

None of the other Paizo product lines launched compatible with another line. I'm skinning the PF2e beginners box to be an attraction at the Galorian World Theme Park (West World Style) and turning Malevolence into a Starfinder Ghostbusters adventure.

I had a lot of fun with the playtest adventures. I thought most of them played better than PF2e. I played most of the Playtest adventures after the official reporting deadlines, so I just played them as normal adventures.

[Torradin341]

Driftbourne wrote:

Weak launch lineup?

Yes, a weak launch lineup. The Gap doesn't count, it's an empty book. Galaxy guide counts only as much as any PF1 book does, since it's a repurposed SF1 book, though it does have some player rules for SF2, so I'll give you that.

Otherwise, PF2 launched with a full corebook, not half of a Player/GM split. It had twice as many classes. SF1's corebook had vehicles and starships, environmental rules every other rule system you would need to run a full game in it's launch book. PF2 also launched with Bestiary, so within two books that came out in the same day, you had everything you needed to run your own campaign.

Driftbourne wrote:

Sf1e and PF2e didn't launch with a full AP. They launched with part 1 of an AP

As a point of order, SF2 isn't launching with a full AP either. MiMC is a 64 page single-level adventure, not an AP. To be fair, it's rather cool looking, but it is only one adventure. PF2 launched with its own 64-page adventure (The Fall of Plaguestone), and the first volume of an AP. PF2 also had PFS scenarios, so PF2 definitely had stronger there. PF2 also had a FRPGD adventure (yes, it was technically a "playtest adventure", but it counts as much as Nova Rush).

As for accessories, PF2 had the GM screen, Character Sheet Pack, Combat Pad and the Condition Card Deck, which are all functional game aids. SF2 has a tie-in novel, a prop, and a Combat pad. And if you're going to throw the maps in there, the entire PF1 archive of maps exist, so PF2 also had that.

Looking at what we really get for SF2, we have a core book that has the fewest classes Paizo has ever released in a launch book, with only the terrestrial tactical combat rules and no other systems in it, one stand-alone adventure, a combat pad, and a setting book that released months before the core rulebook.

There are reasons for this (the OGL is far more to blame than either tariffs or Diamond), but it doesn't change the fact that we will be waiting until next month to reach a parity with SF1's single book, nor does it change that there isn't much here at launch.

I probably shouldn't post this. It's 5:30 where I am, and I haven't slept in two days. I'm just really tired of everyone lauding SF2 giving us less.

[HolyFlamingo!]

Seconding what Torradin341 said, as my complaints are basically the same. Although I don't think WotC's attempt to revoke the OGL is to blame so much as Paizo's nuclear response to it, coupled with a failure to give SF2 the company support that it needed. The product was pumped out at breakneck speed by a skeleton crew of designers, none of whom were part of the original PF2 or SF1 design teams.

When put in context of who they are and what they were given to work with, I think the SF2 designers did as well as they could without working themselves to death. Every complaint I have about SF2's details comes down to asking a small team with limited engine experience to basically remake one of the most content-rich, rules-heavy books in Paizo's lineup in a very short amount of time. At this point, I just hope the product is successful enough that Paizo's willing to invest more resources into it; otherwise we're going to get trapped in the vicious cycle of a game doing poorly because it wasn't given enough support, so they cut support because it did poorly, and then it does worse because it had less support, and on and on until it ultimately fizzles out.

So yeah, if Paizo manages to actually throw the Starfriends a bone, I feel like SF2 will be a phenomenal game in, like, a year from now. For the time being, it's a cute little futuristic expansion to PF2, if only because it doesn't quite have enough meat on its bones to stand independently just yet. Maybe the GMG and Alien Core will change that, but given how small AC is compared to other bestiaries, I'm not so sure.

On the bright side, what little we do have is g!~++&n delightful, despite being rough around the edges. The vision and passion are there. That tiny, tiny team of designers did their damndest to make it work and got most of the way there.

[WatersLethe]

Yeah, from everything I'm seeing, the Starfriends are doing a fantastic job with the schedule they had and the amount of work to be done.

I'm pretty confident that launching now with what they have is the right call. I've argued for a long time that the next Starfinder edition needs to get in sync with PF2, so that both can benefit from one another's advancements and successes. SF1 sales got demolished by the new hotness of PF2 coming out, and had to lumber forward being constantly compared to its younger sibling. Scifi already has a harder time selling than anything fantasy, and under those conditions it was a recipe for a tough downward trend. You had people like me running Starfinder stories using PF2 rules and completely abandoning SF1 subscriptions and purchases.

If they had waited for detailed Starship combat and the technomancer and mechanic to be ready, we'd be waiting for a Gencon release of 2026 at the earliest. History has shown that timing the release around such a major convention is critical for getting sales volume, so they wouldn't want to pop SF2 out at a random time.

Every year pushed back means another year of lack of synchronicity with PF2. PF2 got a bit of a lifetime extension with the remaster, and now is the best time to have the two systems link up and not step on each others toes in the future around edition releases.

So, we may not have everything we'd like with the Starfinder launch, but we're getting:

* a cleared future roadmap without a PF3 bugbear hiding around the bend
* a ton of compatible content from PF2
* a core system a significantly larger audience is already familiar with which should help onboarding and adoption rates
* a whole load of potential customers for SF2 content who might not even be playing SF2, which should help SF2's ROI
* much increased likelihood of jumping onto the wave of upcoming PF2-engine video games
* significantly smoother staffing problems, as designer system mastery is much easier to carry over between systems
* in general a better chance of the Starfinder setting to really break out without various factors stacked against it

[Maya Coleman]

Thank you all for sharing your feedback here! I want to be clear since OP's posts keep getting tagged as baiting, I don't find it baiting personally since it's just voicing a negative opinion about the book. Negative opinions are valid, and all feedback is read and considered. Community members who are upset are still part of our community. As long as you're not starting fights with people or giving direct insults, it's not baiting to me personally. We do hope you enjoy the book, but please always tell us your honest opinion regardless!

[Driftbourne]

Torradin341 wrote:

PF2 launched with a full corebook, not half of a Player/GM split. It had twice as many classes.

SF2e is not based on the original PF2e core rule book; it's based on the PF2e remastered Player Core and GM core, which is why the play test used those 2 books. At least to me, I'm not surprised that Paizo is using the remastered layout and roadmap for SF2e. Personally, I'm glad I no longer have to flip through all the GM section and subsystems just to make a character.

I think that Pathfinder is a much more class-heavy game than Starfinder, which is more ancestry-heavy. The playtest machanic and technomancer are allowed in organized play. Also, Precog and Witchwarper got combined into one class.

As someone who started with PF2e and switched to SF1e, I'm glad starship combat is not in the Player Core. I'm happy that the GM core is getting the simpler narrative starship rules first. It seemed like about half the SF1e players didn't like the Starship combat, and many just skipped it. I actually liked SF1e starship combat, but it took a 2nd book to make it work for all classes and a 3rd book to really put it in a better place. I'm glad Paizo is taking time to get it right. Meanwhile, I think Battle for Nova Rush did a great job of making the adventure feel like being on a starship during a starship battle.

Torradin341 wrote:

The Gap doesn't count, it's an empty book

It's not an empty book; it's a book erased by The Gap. I don't count The Gap as a book; I use it as a lore assecery in live games. New player asks about The Gap, GM asks for a recall knowledge check. Player passes the check, GM hands them the book, and says, "You learn all the information in this book." One of the best TTRPG books I've ever bought!

I think a lot of the difference in opinions about the rollout has to do with what game you played mostly before the rollout, how you play the game, and how often you play. Even with SF1e's slower release schedule, I could never keep up.

[Driftbourne]

HolyFlamingo! wrote:

For the time being, it's a cute little futuristic expansion to PF2, if only because it doesn't quite have enough meat on its bones to stand independently just yet.

The idea that SF2e is an expansion to PF2e has driven away some SF1e players. The way I see it is PF2e is an expansion for Starfinder players, and SF2e is an expansion for Pathfinder players. But I think the perception that SF2e is just a PF2e expansion is skewed because the number of PF2e players saying that outnumbers SF1e players.

It might be easy to add SF2e classes and species to PF2e, but unless you are playing a time travel or Iron Gods-like adventure, it's harder to add SF equipment to PF2e. Meanwhile, just about anything in PF2e fits into Starfinder; you might visit a low-tech planet or find PF2e equipment in ancient ruins, an antique shop, or a mesuiem. You can reskin PF2e adventures to be an attraction in the Galorian World Theme Park. In Pathfinder without time travel, Starfinder hasn't happened yet. In Starfinder, without time travel, by default, Pathfinder is the ancient history of Starfinder.

Coming to SF2e as an SF1e player (I plan on playing both editions of Starfinder and a bit of PF2e), I'm not even waiting for the release; I'm all ready playing SF2e. Ever since we found out that SF2e was going to be 100% compatible with PF2e and the SF2e playset was released, we knew all we needed to homebrew our own adventure, or convert SF1e or Pathfinder adventures. The local PF2e organized play group here didn't even form until after the first SF2e playtest ended, so we have been playing the playtest adventures just for the fun of it. We just finished the last playtest adventure last week, it felt like a normal game to me.

HolyFlamingo! wrote:

Maybe the GMG and Alien Core will change that, but given how small AC is compared to other bestiaries, I'm not so sure.

I never felt like SF1e was lacking creatures, and the SF1e Alien Archive had fewer than 60 types of aliens in it. SF2e Alien Core has over 200 something else to keep in mind. PF2e had 3 monster books, and Starfinder had 4

I think that much more so than in Pathfinder, having opponents that are also playable species is more common in Starfinder. In the original SF1e Alien archive, there are 22 playable species. Although I like how SF2e handles ancestries, one of the downsides of that is you can't fit playable species into the Alien book anymore due to the page count 2e ancestries take up. Although Paizo could include a non-playable version of what will later be a playable species.

Starfinder has more first contact-type scenarios, and to make those feel like a first contact, I think it helps to not have those species in an Alien Archive-type book.

But my point of view might be skewed, I'm here for the Starfinder setting, I don't care about rules or editions, I'll play Starfinder even if the core rules were based on checkers.

[QuidEst]

When Starfinder 1e launched, it did more or less exactly what you wanted! It launched with crunchy ship rules right away! Unfortunately... it turned out that jumping straight into something like that resulted in a framework that had some issues. Piloting got harder as you leveled, not easier. The "best" ships were turtles with tons of shields. A lot of characters didn't have much to do in ship combat, and some of the roles that existed felt superfluous. That's only focusing on the negatives, sure, and some of that was addressed through errata and an entire starship book later on. But this time around, the Starfinder team wants to get things right. So, they're putting out the basic character rules first. About two months after that, the GM core will come along with vehicles, some basics for running narrative ship encounters, and more in-depth hacking rules. Towards the end of the year, we get our first big book of creatures.

Once the system is out, and once the Starfinder team is happy with a crunchier ship system, we can get a playtest for that. It'll give you and others an opportunity to provide feedback on what can be improved. While that's not as nice in the short-term as getting everything right away, it does mean getting a better version of the game at the two- or three- year mark. Like you said, developing starship rules is a lot of work!

New systems can be a bit rough at the start. Starfinder 1e, or one of the other space games, probably will be a better fit for a while. It's okay if you want to just leave this for later and check back in after it's had some time to cook. At the very least, you'll want to wait two months for the GM Core.

It's also worth noting that Starfinder is a little bit smaller than Pathfinder. While I'm sure the team would like to have everything all ready to go day one, they're only so many people. Rather than "getting everything now", the realistic situation would be a release with everything taking until next year.

[Torradin341]

Driftbourne wrote:

Torradin341 wrote:

PF2 launched with a full corebook, not half of a Player/GM split. It had twice as many classes.

SF2e is not based on the original PF2e core rule book; it's based on the PF2e remastered Player Core and GM core, which is why the play test used those 2 books. At least to me, I'm not surprised that Paizo is using the remastered layout and roadmap for SF2e.

I am well aware that it is using the Remaster template, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. It does not, however, change the fact that Starfinder Player Core, by itself, is not a full game. Most of the rules systems that would make it distinct and standalone from PF2 will not be available until next month.

Comparing it to the Remaster is a false equivalence. The Remaster was not a new edition. It did not alter the fundamental rules in any way that would invalidate what had already been released. Indeed, when Pathfinder Player Core released, all of the tools from CRB, APG, GMG, and Bestiaries 1, 2, and 3 all still worked and made for a complete game right then and there. The Remaster was an errata - a much more thorough errata to be sure, but an errata nonetheless.

Starfinder 2e is a new edition, and the Player Core does not, in and of itself, have enough content to really sell it as such. As a Sci-Fantasy game, it is missing most of the subsystems folks from outside of the Paizo ecosphere would expect a game like this to have, as OP said. Those of us inside the Paizo ecosphere know what those features will be and when to expect them.

It does not change that Starfinder Player Core is the most feature-lite launch of a game of this type I have ever seen.

I am glad you are enjoying it, and I don't mean to dampen yours or anyone else's enthusiasm for the game. As much as I may gripe about these things, I believe the Starfriends have done the best they could with the situation they were given. While I will definitely be playing with a bunch of houserules to "fix" many of the things I have a problem with in this book, overall, I'm delighted to finally have this game in my hands.

While I'm disappointed that, to me at least, this feels more like an expansion to PF2, I'm hopeful that that exact thing will bring in far more people to Starfinder and that this game will be successful enough to go for years and earn an eventual 3rd edition that the devs will hopefully, finally, be able to take their time with.

[Eldritch Yodel]

Whilst it's fair to say it's annoying that there's the staggered release going on, it's also important to note that this honestly is kinda industry standard. Doing a quick check for example, DnD 3e, 5e, 2024, PF1, PF2, SF1, and the PF2 remaster all had at least some staggered releases in core products. It's annoying, but I hope that can make why people don't exactly feel this is an issue unique to SF2.

Of your four issues, two will be dealt on-release in Player Core in some fashion (0-G fighting and hacking rules), with both of them expected to get expansions in the core rulebook releasing right after Player Core, which will also give something for a third issue (lack of ship combat). That leaves "No designated scientist class" as the only thing which won't be solved within a month or so of release, which I agree is an honestly incredibly annoying thing. The Mechanic and Technomancer playtest classes will do a lot to help fill that niche, but we're still a fair bit off them getting an official release (and we still don't even know if we'll be getting the return of the Biohacker class ever, which fills the last niche of being a scientist class which doesn't care aboot building things or using magic).

Also, where did you hear Galaxy Guide getting stated it was a repurposed SF1 book? If you have a quote I'd love to see it as that'd kinda be a shock to me. Everything aboot it really does feel like it's written like a "First setting book in a new edition" not a "New book in a long line" (And would sorta feel like a weird release then, given how close it released to Drift Crisis which also kinda acted as a "Big book giving an update on the lore of the setting and setting up various new plot threads to be dealt with"). Again, it might be though so I'd love to see where you heard it so I can act with that knowledge more in future.

[OceanshieldwolPF 2.5]

Personally I’m tentatively excited for *some* of Starfinder 2’s rules. But I would echo Quid Est’s point that SF1 pretty much operated on landing, while SF2 will absolutely not have the same spread of functionality.

The OP made a bunch of fairly salient points, however histrionic, and for *anybody* to suggest, for example, using the *Inventor* as a stand in for….anything is incredibly unfortunate.

Mostly I find threads like this useful for seeing just how far people will bend to justify away anything even approaching considered criticism. Critiques, however presented, are incredibly useful, and slavish positivity does no service to the hobby you love.

[moosher12]

Okay, what part of the inventor class is mechanically exclusively medieval/rennaisance? If you saw the same class in a Starfinder book, with the same mechanics, but different art and flavortext, would you notice the difference? Please show me what mechanical parts of the class would flag it as exclusively rennaisance fantasy without using flavortext or the art.

[pauljathome]

moosher12 wrote:

Okay, what part of the inventor class is mechanically exclusively medieval/rennaisance? If you saw the same class in a Starfinder book, with the same mechanics, but different art and flavortext, would you notice the difference? Please show me what mechanical parts of the class would flag it as exclusively rennaisance fantasy without using flavortext or the art.

Caveat : Following all based on Playtest Starfinder 2e.

Uh, the part where one of the inventor subclasses plays around with weapons way, way inferior to the ones that can just be bought in starfinder while a second subclass plays around with armour that is way, way inferior to armour that can just be bought in Starfinder. Both mechanically and flavourwise.

The part where one of their core mechanics (Explode) can be done better with off the shelf weapons in Starfinder.

Compare a non construct inventor to a Starfinder soldier, both with level appropriate gear, and try and tell me that the Inventor is even close.

The construct subclass kinda can be made to work, at least until the mechanic comes along and eats its lunch.

[Torradin341]

Eldritch Yodel wrote:

Also, where did you hear Galaxy Guide getting stated it was a repurposed SF1 book?

Fair point calling me out on that. I definitely don't have sources for this, but I remember them talking about Galaxy Guide (not by name, but definitely by description) as one of the books they were working on for after Starfinder Enhanced, which was not supposed to be the last SF1 rulebook. Then the OGL happened, and they cancelled everything SF1 that wasn't already deep in development to work on SF2 (from my understanding of the situation).

Now, to be fair, GG would definitely have had work done to it, as they would have had to update all the fluff to be concurrent with the state of the galaxy post everything that's happened in the past few years, as well as all of the player content with the ancestries and faction archetypes. But my understanding was that they were not starting from zero with that book, but instead starting from what had already been in development. I could definitely be wrong about that, and having laid it all out like this, it does smack of rumor and assumption.

[moosher12]

First I'll say that the Inventor originates from an alternate class feature set for the Starfinder 1E Mechanic in the form of the Experimental Armor Prototype and Experimental Weapon Prototype Mechanics. See Character Operations Manual (2019) pg. 72. Versus Guns and Gears (2021).

pauljathome wrote:

Uh, the part where one of the inventor subclasses plays around with weapons way, way inferior to the ones that can just be bought in starfinder while a second subclass plays around with armour that is way, way inferior to armour that can just be bought in Starfinder. Both mechanically and flavourwise.

I don't think you've done much more than skim the inventor.

The Weapon Innovation works with ANY "level 0 common simple or martial weapon of your choice, or another level 0 simple or martial weapon to which you have access" This can be a Zero Knife, a Doshko, a Laser Rifle, or a Machine Gun. Your max level Machine Gun will have 4 upgrades, a +3 bonus and deal 4 damage dice. The Inventor's will have have 4 upgrades, a +3 bonus, deal 4 damage dice, plus have 3 weapon innovations.

I'll grant you having a point for the armor, being an archaic chassis, it would not come immediately with Environmental Protection, sure. Though that depends on rules interpretation. If it's treated as basic armor in the Starfinder realm, that environmental protection would likely become default. As for the armor itself being inferior? The power Suit has the same stats as a Defiance Series while being both lighter, having a lower speed penalty, and not being vulnerable to glitching. A Subterfuge Suit has the same statistics as a Freebooter Armor while having no speed penalty, and not being vulnerable to glitching. All of this is before your choice of going the rune path or the upgrade path, on top of various extra armor abilities from the armor innovation, I'd hardly call that "way inferior."

pauljathome wrote:

The part where one of their core mechanics (Explode) can be done better with off the shelf weapons in Starfinder.

I don't remember exploding being something that is strictly medieval/rennaisance? I guess experimental gadgets don't explode when redlined in the future. Interesting.

pauljathome wrote:

Compare a non construct inventor to a Starfinder soldier, both with level appropriate gear, and try and tell me that the Inventor is even close.

The inventor can buy all of the same gear and carry all of the same gear if they invest enough strength to hold the bulk. The only difference is they won't get all of the soldier-exclusive extra abilities that tie into Area and Auto-Fire weapons. But they can use Area and Auto-Fire weapons all the same. (Also literally every other Starfinder class except for the soldier lacks that capability, and an inventor would be even better-equipped than an envoy, as it has martial weapon proficiency and medium armor proficiency by default) Their invention can even be a Machine Gun, which is an Auto-Fire weapon, if they are a weapon innovator.

pauljathome wrote:

The construct subclass kinda can be made to work, at least until the mechanic comes along and eats its lunch.

I'll concede drones are objectively stronger in close quarters, but drones are vulnerable to glitching and have a 150-foot max radius of use, whereas a construct companion is both immune to glitch, and has no max range of use. There remains a valid decision point between one or the other. (Though a mechanic in Pathfinder does not have to deal with these problems. In a Pathfinder game, the only decision factor would be the max distance of use, which is a heavy buff for the drone, I'll concede, but this does apply in a Starfinder game, only in a Pathfinder game.

[Milo v3]

I think the main lack in the launch is npc/monster support, so I'm abit disappointed to hear people in this thread saying the monster book will be smaller then most when the monster building system of PF2e seems a lot slower and less GM friendly then the alive archives system and that we are going to need to be using it a lot given how melee focused the existing monster pool is.

[HolyFlamingo!]

Torradin341, the cancelled SF1 book you're thinking of was a guide to in-universe factions like the Stewards and Hellknights. There was also a planar guide in the works, as well as early concepts for a heavy armor caster. I can't find the source right now because I've already lied about going to bed twice tonight, but in one of the earlier interviews with SF2's designers, Thurston Hillman talked about how they had to quickly shift production and repurpose whatever they could. A lot of the information about factions and loose mechanical elements for their related archetypes made it into the Galaxy Guide.

[Torradin341]

THANK YOU!

I could not for the life of me remember where I'd heard any of that from, and the more I looked the more I started wondering if I'd just imagined it.

[Driftbourne]

Torradin341 wrote:

THANK YOU!

I could not for the life of me remember where I'd heard any of that from, and the more I looked the more I started wondering if I'd just imagined it.

To add to what HolyFlamingo! said. Some of the places in the Galaxy Guide first appeared on the SF1e galaxy map from Ports of Call, but were never more than just a name in SF1e, so less of a case of recycles and more a case of filling in the blank. I think it was said in a live stream that one of those places is someone at Paizos homebrew setting, it's a strange enough place that I wonder if it was going to first appear in the Planar Guide that didn't get to happen.

[WWHsmackdown]

OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote:

Personally I’m tentatively excited for *some* of Starfinder 2’s rules. But I would echo Quid Est’s point that SF1 pretty much operated on landing, while SF2 will absolutely not have the same spread of functionality.

The OP made a bunch of fairly salient points, however histrionic, and for *anybody* to suggest, for example, using the *Inventor* as a stand in for….anything is incredibly unfortunate.

Mostly I find threads like this useful for seeing just how far people will bend to justify away anything even approaching considered criticism. Critiques, however presented, are incredibly useful, and slavish positivity does no service to the hobby you love.

Meh, the histrionics just gets people sharpening spears for the troll hunt, so any beneficial criticism that could've been imparted by OP or similarly minded individuals gets drowned out by the ensuing online brawl. Criticism, much like judgement, is best served with cold impartiality.

[Master Han Del of the Web]

Yeah, no, the only salient point this guy made is that all the pieces of SF2e some people are looking forward to will not be there when the game initially releases. Additionally, while salient, it is not hard to point out the relevant factors outside of Paizo's control that contributed to that situation. Everything else has been answered pretty thoroughly by the community.

The initial responses ranged from polite help to, at most, matching his tone. They were, frankly, much politer than I would have been with him. He's the one who came back hotter and escalated the tone. In the end, he did not in fact have anything useful to contribute and was more interested in catastrophizing than having a constructive conversation. This thread was set up to fail from the start.

It is not coddling or white knighting for Paizo to expect some decent manners. The is a public space, even if you access this site from the comfort of your home. Do not be surprised when people appropriately judge someone acting inappropriately in public.

[Perpdepog]

Milo v3 wrote:

I think the main lack in the launch is npc/monster support, so I'm abit disappointed to hear people in this thread saying the monster book will be smaller then most when the monster building system of PF2e seems a lot slower and less GM friendly then the alive archives system and that we are going to need to be using it a lot given how melee focused the existing monster pool is.

While it is a bummer to hear Alien Core isn't going to be as big as Monster Core, and hopefully we get a big book of NPCs relatively soon, I wouldn't say building monsters is all that difficult. Or rather, it's not difficult if you're comfortable with the SF1E monster building system, since they're basically the same thing. Go down the table, plug in numbers out of a range of choices for a given level depending on what role you want your monster to play, give it an ability or two cribbed from another monster to save time, and you're good to go. Creating more ranged enemies shouldn't be too tough, either. Look at the attack table, slot in the values for to-hit and damage, and just give your monster a ranged attack. Plug in the damage dice of the weapon the monster is using for the damage formula if you're feeling fancy.

[pauljathome]

Perpdepog wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

I think the main lack in the launch is npc/monster support, so I'm abit disappointed to hear people in this thread saying the monster book will be smaller then most when the monster building system of PF2e seems a lot slower and less GM friendly then the alive archives system and that we are going to need to be using it a lot given how melee focused the existing monster pool is.

While it is a bummer to hear Alien Core isn't going to be as big as Monster Core, and hopefully we get a big book of NPCs relatively soon, I wouldn't say building monsters is all that difficult.

And there a whole bunch of PF2 monsters to be stolen and reskinned which also helps a great deal

[moosher12]

Alien Core may not be big as Monster Core, sure. But it is as big as Alien Archive 1 plus Alien Archive 2, so, so that means it'd take only an Alien Core 1 and an Alien Core 2 to encompass most all of the Alien Archives of 1E.

[Milo v3]

Perpdepog wrote:

While it is a bummer to hear Alien Core isn't going to be as big as Monster Core, and hopefully we get a big book of NPCs relatively soon, I wouldn't say building monsters is all that difficult.

I found it a tonne slower than the starfinder 1e set up.

pauljathome wrote:

And there a whole bunch of PF2 monsters to be stolen and reskinned which also helps a great deal

I disagree. The main game has barely any ranged enemies, which doesn't work well if you're trying to make a starfinder game with ranged meta, large battlefields, and cover that matters.

[Torradin341]

Milo v3 wrote:

The main game has barely any ranged enemies, which doesn't work well if you're trying to make a starfinder game with ranged meta, large battlefields, and cover that matters.

I have to laugh every time anyone brings up the "ranged meta". The only hint of it we've seen is the removal of melee options from classes. Most of the enemies and scenarios I've seen so far have been very melee oriented.

[Cleavis Morerats]

Milo v3 wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

While it is a bummer to hear Alien Core isn't going to be as big as Monster Core, and hopefully we get a big book of NPCs relatively soon, I wouldn't say building monsters is all that difficult.

I found it a tonne slower than the starfinder 1e set up.

pauljathome wrote:

And there a whole bunch of PF2 monsters to be stolen and reskinned which also helps a great deal

I disagree. The main game has barely any ranged enemies, which doesn't work well if you're trying to make a starfinder game with ranged meta, large battlefields, and cover that matters.

A well-dressed goblin enters the room.

"Did I hear the enemies don't have ranged weapons? Does anyone have their com unit number? I'd be more than happy to sell them ranged weapons, and don't forget the ammo, I love selling consumables! You can never have enough ammo. With enough ammo, you can stack it up and use it as cover! I'm an equal opportunity goblin merchant. I'll sell to anyone! So I just got one question: how much did you want to buy?

[Perpdepog]

Milo v3 wrote:

I found it a tonne slower than the starfinder 1e set up.

Interesting. I was exactly the opposite. The SF1E tables were basically incomprehensible to me while the statblock sections laid out for PF2E are dead easy for me to navigate.

[Driftbourne]

Torradin341 wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

The main game has barely any ranged enemies, which doesn't work well if you're trying to make a starfinder game with ranged meta, large battlefields, and cover that matters.

I have to laugh every time anyone brings up the "ranged meta". The only hint of it we've seen is the removal of melee options from classes. Most of the enemies and scenarios I've seen so far have been very melee oriented.

I have to laugh every time anyone brings flanking in melee.

My mystic character was surrounded by cybernetic zombies on all sides. They bravely pulled out their survival knife and yelled.
"What are you waiting for? I got them all flanked!

The sound of dead silence... Interrupted by gun and laser fire...
That moment when you realise no one else in the party has a melee weapon, and your best option is to drop a shock grenade on yourself...

I think the term "ranged meta" might be better called "ranged enabled meta." The biggest thing that ranged meta changes is that flying is allowed for players at 1st level in SF2e.

Ranged meta in combat is going to be different for every party. If you have a party of players that value big damage, then you will likely have a melee-heavy party. One problem I saw in the Playtest when playing a ranged character in a melee-heavy party made it hard to get clear shots, especially with ranged area effect attacks, because the rest of the party kept getting in the way.

I noticed that each playtest adventure seemed to be testing different aspects of the game, so not surprised they all didn't test ranged meta.
The Playtest encounters I found that tested for ranged meta combats were all maps in Wheel of Monsters (may depend on what random encounter was rolled), especially the last fight on the enormous city map. The boss fight in Rescue at Shimmerstone Mine and the outdoor encounter in Shards of the Glass Planet. I didn't get a chance to play Empire Devourered or It Came from the Vast.

In A Cosmic Birthday, we had a ranged dominant party; melee was only used as a last resort, despite most of the adventure happening at close range. The party had 2 mystics, 2 witchwarpers, an envoy, and an operative with a knife as a melee backup weapon. My witchwarper got 1 hit in with a battle glove.

So, to me, the biggest factor in whether a game plays with a ranged meta or not, is the party, not the encounter or the amount of damage melee vs ranged weapons do.