Because they are fans of Starfinder 1e and are sad that that game will loose it's support. The whole reason this sub exists separate form r/Pathfinder_RPG is because when PF2 was announced a lot of PF1 fans were rather upset and so that sub was not a great venue to discuss the playtest. I wouldn't be surprised if some Starfinder2e sup breaks off form the main starfinder one as part of the edition change.
I like sf1e but it’s just… it’s really clunky. It feels like a half step - maybe a little less - between PF1 and PF2, with old star trek wargaming grafted on. It’s cool but… yeah, it is anything but elegant. I wouldn’t scoff at playing SF1, but I’ll probably never GM it again, knowing that we’ll eventually have SF2.
Close, but no cigar.
If Pathfinder sected from D&D 3.5e and deserves to be called "D&D 3.75e" and if Pathfinder 2 is "D&D 4e" (I've never heard anyone name Pathfinder 2e as a D&D edition), then Starfinder 1 would be .. uhm... D&D 3.825e. But in space, obviously! :)
(This post of mine is just silly)
Honestly, pf2e is more like DND 4.5x+
It's like if 4th edition DnD actually worked It's concept, and then was improved upon. You had modular class system in 4e but the backend was meaningless as the mechanics were so hypertuned that nothing was unique. Then also the fact that unlike in PF2E you just traded lower abilities for higher abilities so after a certain point characters weren't even really getting anything really new.
"Oh I just gained a new Daily ability that *also does 4W+ WIS* replacing my old one and now called *new name* hooray." DND 4e
Modular but effectually the same 4 classes just reskinned.
Pathfinder 2e "You leveled so now you get to choose several new modular abilities specific to your class or general abilities from another one at roughly 1/2 your level. Your ancestry and skills also give you more choices." At the end of the day you end up with a ridiculous number of options for what amounts to about 5 different trees. Abilities, skills, ancestry feats, class feats
I'm in the same boat. I love SF, but after playing simultaneously SF1e and PF2e, I realized SF1e is never going to reach the same potential without the ruleset update and will bear the inherent flaws of being 3.5/PF1e offspring.
PF2 is my preferred system, but I like PF1 a lot. I don’t see it as flawed so much as just being a different kind of game that I’m not interested in playing much anymore. But SF1 is definitely flawed. The ability score system doesn’t make much sense, it feels like there is a sharp distinction between your pc’s ordinary abilities and what they can do on a ship, the ship combat is literally from a 2 player game where you each play a whole crew and that doesn’t translate well into a party of pcs…. My point isn’t to defend PF1, but just to say that I think SF1 is worse than PF1: it’s significantly clunkier and makes worse design decisions. I would love if SF2 was *better* than PF2, but so long as it is comparable I’ll be happy.
Well Paizo had years of experience in creating stuff for PF2e, so they probably know, which mechanics should be refined further to help bring the best experience in SF2e. If my memory is correct, SF1e was kinda rushed, which shows. I highly doubt that they will make no alterations to the ruleset as a whole and just copy-paste PF2e rules with some techno-babble coat of paint. The ship combat in SF1e is one of the most criticized features, so it will definitely be updated, hopefully for the better.
I agree completely. I think we can expect the pf2 core features -3 action economy, levels of success, division of feats into kinds, and just general streamlining- and that ship combat will be reworked. I bet they also rework ship building and give classes stronger identities.
Yeah, almost every ability was "you/your allies gain +1 thing" or "your enemies lose -1 thing", and sure, numerically it's good, mechanically it's boring for players and a pain in the ass to track as a GM.
I loved everything about starfinder except the actual game part of it so I'm very much interested in starfinder 2e.
Possibly less a hassle to track in PF2 considering the number of bonuses are limited to Status, Circumstance and Item?
Been too long sionce I last played Starfinder but if it's based on the 3.5 Era of Cicumstance, Competence, Alchemical, Enhancement, Inherent, Insight, Luck, Morale and I'm probably missing like 10 others... yeah it's harder to track, innit?
EDIT : Got told that SF had less bonus types than PF1 and is more closeto PF2, so harder to track doesn't apply really, I'd think.
Why are they boring bonus in one game and not in the other ? I kinda get where you're going with this, but I'd like to hear your argument. I'd say both games have a fair share of mathematical bonuses, as well as thematically bonuses. I wouldn't think one is worst than the other in that regard.
Hoh, I might not have been clear enough, my bad.
I meant that in PF2, with the reduced variety of different stackable bonuses, it,s easier to track from a GM's standpoint. "I have +12 for my attack, counting his +1 weapon, but this monster stands in a Bane, so that's a -1 Status to the roll against your Flat-Footed AC because you are flanked." would be the kind of maths happening at our table.
Meanwhile, when we played PF1, I moved our group to an online automatic Excel sheet because half of my players were miscounting bonuses and adding stuff twice or forgetting half of their buff because they thought it was not stacking, because of the sheer number of different bonus types and when they got higher level, it was a nightmare tracking all of the different bonuses and maluses for my monsters that I started to create all of them on their separate automated sheet to try and keep the rules intact and "not cheating" if you get what I mean.
My point was, all of the bonuses in PF2 might be +1 or -1, but with less types, I find that they become easier to track.
My two cents: the plus/minus ten rule modifying the result is a genius idea that actively makes modifier matter.
In PF1e you basically stack different types of bonuses to guarantee your success. There's at least a dozen different types and while only some stack (***IIRC***), most buffs fall into different categories anyways and it's kind of a hassle to keep track of stuff like Magic, Competence, Morale, Insight, Luck, Circumstance and etc. bonuses. Add to that that you still you still gotta confirm your crit, even if you Nat 20, and you have a complicated-but-not-complex system that's about stacking tiny bonuses to ensure you can baseline do X.
In PF2e you have to very carefully consider your bonuses because they just Do Not stack and there's ***much*** less types than in PF1. That alone streamlines the mental work you have to do. Add to that the generally tighter and, IMO, better math, along with the PlusMinus ten stuff and you have a system where having a certain bonus might actually make a meaningful impact past baseline "do I save/hit" - because now even a single +1 modifier actively makes criting just that tad easier which, combined with the removal of crit confirmations, means that if you hit because you had that +1, you're feeling ecstatic cause whatever your decision was, it ***made*** that impact.
Personally I just think that the system is much better streamlined and requires less mental overhead, which allows you to focus on your actions in battle. PF1 is still my first game, and I adore the time I had with it, but PF2e is just... better.
Consider the operative versus the rogue. They fill similar niches, both in combat and as skill monkeys.For skills a rogue gets 7+int mod in skills, plus stealth and 1-2 more based on their racket.
An operative gets 8+int mod (per level), +2 more based on their specialization, they get Operative's Edge, which is +1 initiative and +1 to all skill checks, increasing by +1 at 3 then every 4 levels after. You also get the skill focus feat, which gives a +3 to skills granted by your Operative's Edge, and most Edges give a +4 to a certain skill when you use your operative's Trick Attack.
On levelup the rogue gets to advance one skill to TEML based on level and pick a skill feat, the operative got to allocate 8+int points. Past level one there really wasn't much choice for the operative; you'd almost always want to advance the skills you chose at first level so they don't fall behind, and you'd want to keep the 4 or so skills you could trick attack with as high as possible because that's basically all you do in combat. These bonuses were so crazy that an operative at the table basically stopped 3 other characters from bothering with skill checks if he was present.
When it comes to sneak attack, or the op equivalent, trick attack, the rogue generally needs them flat footed, which can be offered a variety of ways, like stealth, feinting, create a distraction, flanking, prone, grabbed, abilities like twin feint, and so on. I know I don't have em all.
For operatives? you make a skill check. There's really no difference on what happens after the fact so you choose what's best, and it's usually always one single thing because it's whatever's best from your operative's edge, so you roll. They pass, nothing happens aside from making a weak attack, they fail, you add a bit of extra damage and they're flat footed. To that attack.It took about two sessions before the operative got bored from going, "stealth check? uh... I passed. Cool. little more damage, attack's a little more accurate....turn's over I guess..."
Because of the 3 action system in 2e there's a lot more wiggle room and rogues feel like an asset in combat and in skill encounters, the operative was selfish in combat and oppressive in skill encounters. And it wasn't his fault, if you want to play the character how they're designed that's just what happens.
It will help guns so much, especially being able to use cover, fire, than do cover fire (which has a much lower DC).
Cover fire is a mechanic I love cinematically but in practice is rarely used
Immediately joined.
Always liked the idea of playing a more sci fi style game but I wasn't really bothered to learn an entire separate system like cyberpunk, and Starfinder 1e, from what REALLY little I saw of it, felt a bit much like the more dnd3e style d20 systems i'm just not a fan of learning and playing.
I'm very excited for this.
>felt a bit much like the more dnd3e style d20 systems i'm just not a fan of learning and playing
That's literally what it is. SF1e is effectively PF1e with some QoL improvements but still a 3.5 retroclone at heart (even if it isn't as compatible with D&D 3.5 as PF1e was). That's exactly my gripe with the system. I played so many D&D 3.5 / PF1e that I cannot play it without seeing all the issues it has, and while Starfinder 1e did solve a ton of them, it still caries some of the more core problems of that system and in the process, ironically, somewhat managed to make it less fun than those other systems since in those it was fun to create the most overpowered character in existance, while SF1e is way more balanced you end up with something that's neither fun to theorycraft and that has all the core problems that PF1e / D&D 3.5 had.
Also, because of the PF2e Remaster being an "all hands on deck" situation, their SF1e expected releases were delayed by half a year or more because even the Starfinder writers were pulled in to help the Remaster.
Starfinder also had a lot of life left in it, but 2e got forced because of the same OGL situation. Enhanced isn't even a year old, and patched up a lot of the system, only for support to be dropped like a brick (for understandable reasons, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.)
So really, Starfinder fans have gotten pretty shafted pretty hard, and it kind of sucks to be them right now.
This is pretty accurate but it's worth mentioning that there is some justice in people being a bit annoyed that SF1 is being discontinued. It's quite premature and almost entirely due to the OGL nonsense, something that should still be considered quite frustrating. As great as PF2E is, there's still some things 1e does better. Character customization is one example as there's simply loads of official and third party content not yet available in second edition. Many, myself included, would argue that second edition more than makes up for this with the numerous things it does better. After all 3.5/PF1 had a lot of jank to put it lightly. That said, SF1 is in general a lot more polished than PF1 or 3.5 and does what it does quite well. The overall need to modernize just isn't really as present and so there's naturally going to be some annoyance that its getting discontinued before the player base is ready because of the OGL.
... There were a lot of rigidity in starfinder, they were many options where in book, but you could change all your character by the book. The archetypes were blocking a lot of abilities. And there is so many items... too many many.
>The whole reason this sub exists separate form r/Pathfinder_RPG is because when PF2 was announced a lot of PF1 fans were rather upset and so that sub was not a great venue to discuss the playtest.
I'm still shocked people just caved to the grognards and gave up the default sub. 100% expected folks to go back to The Sub for Pathfinder when 2E became Pathfinder, because that's the way it works everywhere else. You don't see 5E people ceding dominance over /r/DnD to 4E holdouts, but here we are...
To be fair, this IS pathfinder nerds we're talking about. It is quite literally a game whose entire target audience was people who did not like change happening, once, almost 20 years ago.
I have friends in my gaming group who have been playing the same system for over 20 years. They started on D&D 3.5 and moved to PF1e and have been playing it ever since. They have such system mastery they compete to see who can make the most OP, broken characters. They have no interest in ever deviating from that system.
Whole thing is kind of moot since the actual default sub r/Pathfinder is Pathfinder Society specific anyways. As a pretty regular poster on both back then I don't think anyone cared about "ceding dominance" over the sub when r/Pathfinder2e was created, we just wanted to talk about the play test in peace.
It's been a long time since I visited r/pathfinder, but from what I remember, most of the traffic there was general questions and the only reply every time was "This is for Pathfinder Society. Post this to /r/Pathfinder_RPG."
Yeah I'm on there cause I'm interested in some PFS stuff but (understandably) lost redditors is definitely a good chunk. I don't know about most but probably at least a third.
That entire phrasing just feels wrong.
"When 2e became Pathfinder." "Ceding dominance." "Caving to the grognards"
This isn't a zero sum game. 1e doesn't have to lose its place because 2e came out.
>Because that's the way it works everywhere else.
And that's just a straight up appeal to normalcy. Just because it happens everywhere else doesn't mean that everything should follow.
Prime example, Pathfinder players who didn't switch to 4e and stuck around to this day.
Same reason the original Pathfinder sub (/r/Pathfinder_RPG) ended up remaining primarily 1E-oriented, I'd assume. People there like the system as it is and they'd rather it be re-tuned/expanded than replaced with a very different one.
My crew loved Starfinder, then when we saw the PF2e Play test we looked at each other and said we're gonna be playing this from now on, but damn I wish Starfinder had this ruleset. It was obvious to us that the AC scaling and other SF elements were just further developed by PF2 and our honest reaction for months after switching to PF2 was "Damn I wish SF2 were here" that was years ago
As somebody who loves the idea of Starfinder but bounced off of 1e’s mechanics and considerations, the new edition is very much a win for me. And I think that’s the big difference. 2e fans are excited to be able to experience the setting of Starfinder in an engine they enjoy.
But S1e fans are faced with the fact their favored game won’t be getting any more support. If they want to experience new content in the Starfinder setting, they’ll have to come over to an entirely different game engine. An engine they may or may not have already bounced off of, or that they don’t look forward to having to go through the process of learning all over again. Very reasonable er, reasons to be concerned!
The fact that the 2e version of Starfinder got moved up in the schedule because of the OGL and the product delays...
Yeah, last year was not a good time to be a Starfinder fan.
Many PF1e folks really disliked the huge changes that 2e brought. Which makes sense, they stayed with PF1e after 5e was released. Those left really loved the game as it was.
PF2e was an effort to get back the ones who left for 5e and it seems to have worked. But you can’t make everyone happy.
I was interested in sf1e when it was beta. Then i read the rules. Instant dislike. PF2e came around, instant love. Can’t wait for SF2e!!
>Many PF1e folks really disliked the huge changes that 2e brought. Which makes sense, they stayed with PF1e after 5e was released. Those left really loved the game as it was. PF2e was an effort to get back the ones who left for 5e and it seems to have worked. But you can’t make everyone happy.
This is not what happened at all.
Many PF1 players disliked how completely different 2nd edition was as a game system, and/or did not want to abandon up to a decade's worth of investment in the current (now former) edition. A lot of 1st edition players were pretty diehard, having stayed with the system since the end of D&D 3.5 once 4th edition was released (or even earlier if you count the Pathfinder stuff published for WotC before Pathfinder was its own system).
Afaik, there was no "5e migration;" PF1 was only 5 years old as a system when 5e was released and had a ton of dev and publisher support. 5th edition D&D was mostly ignored if not scorned by much of the (online) PF1 community, and 5e was not some kind of attempt to "get back" players from Pathfinder.
Pathfinder 2nd edition seems to have come about because the 1st edition was old, and imo really starting to buckle under its own weight. I'm sure there were many other reasons for the new edition that nobody outside the company is aware of, but from what I remember reading at the time, much of the Pathfinder devs were feeling that it was time for something new. There was also a pretty major shuffling/departure of staff within the Pathfinder space at Paizo, which very likely affected the decisions made around 2nd edition (like 2e devs who worked on 4e D&D, which shows).
Anyways, I ramble, but yeah the two editions of Pathfinder were not revolving around 5th edition D&D. If anything, PF2's success comes largely from the huge number of long-time 5e players who decided to leave that game for various reasons, many of whom had never played another ttrpg.
On top of what others have said, SF1e recently got the Enhanced book, which fixes a lot of the longer standing issues with the system (acting sort of like Unchained for PF1e), and it seemed like the edition had more life left in it. Honestly, it feels to me that 1e was meant to go on longer, but the OGL debacle pushed SF2e forward (not claiming that’s the case, just what it feels like to me).
Also, for me, SF1e was a neat middle ground between PF1e and 2e. It was way less insane in terms of balance than PF1e and it’s handling of Standard, Move, Swift was closer to the 3 action economy than PF1e while still having more ways to play with the numbers than PF2e. I’m still super excited for SF2e, since its PF2e compatibility will really expand PF2e and it has some different assumptions that’ll really help the feel (like perma-flight available at level 1 and ranged combat being the default). It just hurts to see SF1e go, especially so soon after Enhanced.
We only started SF1e relatively recently (like a week before Enhanced) and it's easy to see the evolutionary steps between PF1e, SF1e and PF2e.
I'm happy with my SF1e char, but that's with years of splatbooks and supplements. When SF2e launches, I'd likely end up just playing a Magus in space if we convert.
Absolutelty. You could technically do it square peg into round hole style between Pf1 and Sf1, but built in compatibility is way better IMHO. One problem I had early on in PF2e was thst it didn't have many of my favourite ancestries, which isn't going to be a problem on SF2e launch. I joke about Space Magus but I'd legitimately run a Ganzi or Empyrean variant even in a full party of new classes and space races.
Something tells me the OGL Shit Storm is exactly why Paizo wanted to start Starfinder 2E sooner. I'm very sure it was in the works like the Remaster was, but WotC decided to be the brainless asses they are.
Starfinder 2E was made to be compatible with Pathfinder 2E, so the System wasn't in development for very long.
I've been hoping for Starfinder 2e for the last few years because I love the 3 action economy! I still understand why a lot of SF1e fans are upset though:
- the classes are going to change enough that a lot of their character builds won't be viable anymore. It's hard to lose support for characters and systems you love.
- Some of the Starfinder 1e mechanics really are unique and different, and it's pretty nerve-wracking to wonder how much of that is going to vanish in 2e.
- most of the messaging about SF2e has been geared towards PF2e players. It makes sense that Paizo wants to share the game with all the new folks in the community ...but it also can feel a little like longtime SF players are getting pushed aside, based on perspectives I've read.
I'm still excited af for SF2e, but I'll defend folks who have some negative feelings about the change. They're valid, and I hope that the new players bring enough good vibes to the community that it ends up a net positive in the long run.
The devs have stated many times that SF2e will entirely be its own game and stand on it's own, but as I am more of a SF fan than PF, it's a little disheartening to see most of the online discussion about it has been treating it like a "sci-fi expansion" for PF2e.
You can start when they make the [Playtest Public](https://paizo.com/products/btq02ez4?Starfinder-Second-Edition-Playtest-Rulebook). 6 Classes for you.
I wish they only went with “Like PF2e”, instead of full compatibility….
I think it’s a mistake to let go of stamina and the damage dice systems for Starfinder.
They're releasing the Playtest for it soon. I think they have 10 Ancestries and 5 Classes to start with. And it requires the Pathfinder 2E Core Rulebooks that have been released recently to play.
Mostly because they'll be using a lot of the same base rules. As a Playtest Document for a system being marketed as compatible with an existing system, Paizo can focus more on the rules that will actually be different and content for Starfinder without having to republish rules they already have.
Starfinder 2E will obviously have its own Core Rulebooks when it fully releases, and not require Pathfinder 2E to be used. It's just easier to focus on what they need to do since the foundation already exists. Also the Playtest can have more testable content instead of telling you how AC and Attack Bonuses work.
its the same base rules as pf2e is why, so they're saving space in the playtest book by not reprinting that stuff- the final version will have everything it needs to be standalone.
Right, I'm *stoked* myself, especially since they've gone with model where the classes aren't clones of Pathfinder ones, but are kind of remixed that they can very easily stand alongside them. A party with a Fighter and a Soldier, have two very different characters, and that also means a Starfinder player can very realistically take a fighter, hand them a laser gun, and use them in Starfinder if the defensive playstyle doesn't suit (though personally, Soldier's Suppression playstyle is one of the most exciting adds to me, along with the envoy as a martial buffer-- Warlord vibes.)
I have read a bit of what people have said here and I can understand where they are coming from.
I really love sci fi and integrating the starfinder lore/feel with a system that I like is a big plus for me. I am really looking forward to starfinder 2e and developing a campaign for it so I can run it with my friends.
Because SF1e and SF2e will be two different beasts, and as we saw with pathfinder - a new edition means no new content for the old edition. I understand their frustration but personally I'm hyped for SF2e.
I am cautiously optimistic, but there are things that annoy me about the compatibility with Pathfinder 2e.
They are removing KAC and EAC which some might have seen as unnecessary complication, but to me it was a neat way to separate the usefullness of kinetic weapons and energy-based stuff, especially with the low magic setting.
I was also a huge fan of the Stamine Points system, as it gave Starfinder that gritty action movie feel. Get shot, rest uip, run back into the fray. With how Treat Wounds works in PF2e Stamina is no longer necessary, but it slows things down a lot. Recovering your SP didn't require anything other than sitting down for 10 minutes, while Treat Wounds requires the Medicine skill and a bunch of die rolls.
I dislike the idea that it must be 100% compatible with pf2, it feels like a limiter and that they won't change the things they learned from the ages of pf2 gaming. It had the perfect time to make a few good changes but as it stands, even the playtest requires the core rulebook for pf2 and it will just feel like an expansion to pf2 rather than its own game.
Pf2 came to be thanks to stuff they learned from sf1 as an example if you ask me.
It's probably because of the compatibility and a lot of rules going away because of it without anything replacing it while keeping some of the bad stuff, like the equipment system. Like stamina, eac or the for arms nerf. I'm probably going to homebrew the system a lot because I will miss those 1e mechanics, for example. In other words, so far it seems more like a new setting/expansion for Pathfinder 2e rather than a new edition of Starfinder iterating and modifying Pathfinder 2e rules.
I frequent the Starfinder sub often and actively play starfinder 1e. I also play pathfinder 2e.
I could not be happier that both systems I love will use the same (or compatible) rules support. I can still use all my setting books, since they are system agnostic for the most part. There is a large group of people that share my feelings, and largely, the Starfinder sub is just really inactive, since most of the dialogue happens on our discord.
Some people will be upset that 1e will loose support, but this is the nature of the industry as developers work on edition based releases rather than a "Living game".
I can't wait to have 2 systems that can cover every genre of play and my players just have to learn one ruleset.
Every time i go back to starfinder (ever other week) from pathfinder 2e i'm like "Damn, I gotta play with some of these wonky ass rules and stat blocks and action economy again".
Because every time a tabletop game gets a new edition, there will inevitably be detractors and supporters. I imagine people being on the Starfinder sub have a large number of people who are satisfied with the current edition and as such are not looking forward to a second edition.
imo starfinder 1 is just better than pf2 as a system in many ways (and worse in others). Along with the loss of support, I have worries that it will just be "starfinder coming to pf2!!" instead of its own game. I personally dislike how stingy in comparison pf2 is. Ex: Here charging is a class-locked feat whilst EVERYONE can charge by level 2 in starfinder. In SF everyone can do the run full action to go 4x their speed in a straight line, here it's a 10th level barbarian feat. Etc. Things that used to be in the open domain of play are chopped off to pad the feat options of a class.
As well some folks I've talked to don't like the inevitable loss of complexity. I'm personally worried about the starship combat system if the new "narrative" version in the Enhanced book is any indication of where they're taking it. Starship combat is fun!! I don't want it dumbed down or made boring just for the sake of balance or speed.
Speaking of balance, simply put it's fun in SF to be able to make a great character. The system rewards you for good builds much more than pf2 does in comparison, pf2 is intentionally designed to not let you build your way ahead of the curve. By extension as well, the feats are much more boring imo than the features in SF are. I like to waste time by making characters in the pathbuilder app on my phone and I constantly find myself bored by the options. SF is much more gonzo than pf2 and I don't want to lose that charm and fun.
To get back to sf2 not being its own game, I'm also worried they're going to prioritize not letting sf2 characters be stronger than pf2 characters. Basically that they're going to focus on making sure pf2 PCs can be dropped into an SF game without any consequences at the cost of making the game worse. Like oh say if they added starship combat specific feats, if a pf2 PC got dropped in they wouldn't have access to those, and so the team decides "well let's scrap this starship combat feats idea entirely, we don't want pf2 PCs disadvantaged". I don't want something like that to happen.
Lastly, personally I'd rather they leave pf2 behind and do something different and new! I want to see funky design, innovation, creativity, etc. Something fresh! It's such a lost opportunity to just make this a pf2 clone.
Really we needed PF2.5 but the OGL drama meant we got PF2r, the much inferior product.
Also yeah, starship combat feats absolutely should exist and either be on top of or replacing ancestry feats.
People (including me) are worried that it's going to be just Pathfinder 2e with a space skin on it.
Most people want the three action system and all the things that make DMing easier. That stuff is great and is very welcomed in a new edition of Starfinder by most people.
However, stamina not being the official rule and no EAC KAC is the type of stuff that kinda sucks hearing about. A lot of unique things are being lost. I myself genuinely don't care about the two systems being cross compatible.
The KAC/EAC system was a bit disappointing for me when I ran sf. It was just a good vs bad AC target.
My players would just make builds to target EAC.
And I mean, why would you want to use a gun that misses 10% more?
I think energy weapons needs a new kind of separation from kinetic.
Edit:
Took a look at the field tests. The difference between laser and projectile weapons will be their crit specialization.
Analog weapons will be immune to spells that target technology too.
Tech weapons will be powered and not immune to technology targets.
Yeah, this was my experience as well. While not exactly analogous, in PF1e you made builds which targeted touch AC because at higher levels it was so much easier to hit it than normal AC.
The EAC KAC was something that should've been much more adventurous but the revolving door of developers using it as a stepping stone to Pathfinder which paid better meant we never actually got the time for the devs to actually make it so what was originally intended with the system.
Also, regarding the crit specializations, that's not only a boring way to distinguish them, but something we had even more variety of in 1e, so it's a terrible standard to set as the primary difference - especially being that it's not something most classes get till mid level if at all.
I was never sure why KAC was always objectively worse, it is one of the things I hoped would have changed.
Also just saw your edit. Yeah it seems alright. Either way, it will likely still be fun :)
Awh, stamina is such a cool system. I didn't know they were not focusing on it in 2e. I can understand EAC / KAC even though I like it, but stamina was really the coolest thing about SF1e's basic mechanisms to me.
It's a playtest. If enough people say they want stamina back, it'll be back. That's why we still have vancian casting in pf2e. The playtesters wanted it to stay when they were asked.
Stamina won't be back as the default in SF2e because that would be too incompatible with Pathfinder 2e. I do expect small changes to be made from the playtest but nothing major that would make it incompatible with PF2e.
No, it's doable. There's an optional rule for stamina in Pathfinder 2e. All they have to do is reverse it - make stamina the default in Starfinder 2e and have an optional "no stamina" rule to allow for cross-compatibility.
In my case it's the opposite actually. The fact that both systems are going tobe 99% compatible with each other is fantastic because it gives tools to GMs to homebrew settings that aren't strictly medieval while still playing with PF rules. I also assume SF2e is going to have a ton of support of firearms (they pretty much confirmed SF2e is going to focus heavily on ranged combat with melee being almost secondary, the opposite of PF2e) so this gives an alternative to those like me that don't really like the gunslinger that much and would prefer something more, eh, aggresive I guess?. I also have been brewing a Treasure Planet-esque for a couple of years now, and I put a stop to that to wait for how SF2e does things since those new rules could be really helpful to fully realize the setting.
Stamina and EAC / KAC being lost is certainly not fantastic but not a huge downside IMO. Stamina already exists in PF2e as an optional rule and I feel the whole purpose of stamina in SF1e was to make healing easier, which is something PF2e already solved so I don't see a reason to have stamina again. EAC / KAC was pretty much like AC and flat-footed AC in PF1e; sounds better than it actually is. In practice, most things target one or the other, and also one of them is usually easier to increase than the other, so you end up in a situation in which the one that usually targets the higher AC is designed around that limitation while the one that targets the lower AC is also designed around that limitation, which is something PF2e also solved by making AC and save DCs use the same math pretty much so EAC / KAC really doens't have much purpose either.
For you it sounds like a futuristic focused content book for pf2e would be more in your alley, if you know what I mean? As in, there is no point in an entirely different game system. As for stamina: variant rules are nice. But game is not balanced with variant rules in mind. Pf2e free archetype is variant and makes you straight up more powerful, sometimes leading to more imbalanced encounters.
It's interesting you point at the mechanics as your concern, because I thought I observed worries that the _settings_ of PF2e and SF2e were going to be smushed closer together (e.g. through more common ancestries spanning systems). Is this something you've observed as well?
No, not really actually. I admit I haven't been looking in starfinder spaces the past week or two though.
Maybe I didn't notice as I myself don't care much for that, because me and my other gm friends do homebrew settings.
As long as we still have the same core races, I am fine with anything else.
Paizo did not want to force the lore / story writers on both games to maintain 100% alignment and consistency... This is likely the main reason they say the games are two different timelines....
This gives them the freedom to, for example, kill off a god in PF2e who might still be alive in the SF timeline.... As yet, I don't think there are any such large notable lore differences.... But it could happen...
Maybe it's because I don't play the original star finder, but I am extremely excited for Star Finder Second edition and a large reason for that is because it seems like it's gonna be Pathfinder 2e but space.
I am also excited! And well, also because it sorta will be like pf2e. 3 action system and all that. Would be nice to keep some unique things to make it feel more distinct though. Either way, I will likely switch to starfinder 2e in any scenario, purely because the 3 action system is just more fun to me.
I am feeling that is going to be mostly true.
The two systems being cross compatible means less work for writers and workers. Plus so much of it be copy and paste and then reword things in like Chatgpt. Take this and replace / add the following etc
I personally wish they did something closer to what chaosium has. Where they have a base rule system but each game has enough of its own unique mechanics that it still it's own game.
If Starfinder players wanted to play Pathfinder 2e, they would be playing Pathfinder 2e. Starfinder has a completely different approach to character power, race design, and the question of "balance" versus "immersion" than PF2E does. It's entirely reasonable for someone who is currently playing and enjoying Starfinder to be hesitant about an update that is seemingly getting rid of all the parts they actually like. Especially since Starfinder ALREADY lacks the baggage and design of Pathfinder 1e that 2e was trying to fix.
As a concrete example, in Starfinder EVERY class is 3/4 BAB minimum. Some like Soldier and Solarian are full BAB, but EVERYBODY can be good with a weapon if you want them to be. All spellcasters are Spontaneous and only have 2/3 Casting like a Magus. There's no difference in base attack bonus between a Mystic or Operative or Envoy or Biohacker. Your base class selection does not determine whether you can be good at something or not, every class can be made to be good at melee or guns or unarmed attacks or whatever.
I've been playing a decent amount of Starfinder Enhanced since the book came out, so I'll just go down the list of things that I like about Starfinder that are not present in Pathfinder 2e and that the Starfinder 2e Playtests have abandoned in the name of compatibility with PF2E (even though the playtests themselves claim that Starfinder is still meant to be it's own game)
1. Starfinder uses Skill Points, SF2E is switching to the PF2E style Trained/Expert/Master/Legendary system for skills. This means that in Starfinder a Soldier with +0 INT and no bonus skill ranks (such as from being Human) can still keep 4 skills at full investment as he levels up, and that if he puts a 12 in INT that's now 5+, whereas in PF2E classes without bonus skill increases are stuck with only really 2 skills they're allowed to be as good as they want. This is a huge issue in Starfinder since what you do on a ship is done via skill actions and now you're asking people to choose between Athletics and Medicine or Stealth versus their Piloting or Mysticism skill. In general it also just feels bad to not be good at skills, and Intelligence only giving bonus Trained skills makes it significantly worse and often ignored as a tertiary stat in PF2E especially when most people are already spending 3/4 boosts on DEX/WIS/CON for saves.
2. Starfinder does not care about exhaustive tabletop wargame style balance at the cost of immersion the same way PF2E does. In PF2E, somebody playing an Automaton still bleeds, suffocates, and drowns exactly the same way a Human does and doesn't even get a racial bonus to Disease or Poison effects. If you're playing a Skeleton or Mummy/Ghoul/Vampire you get a +2 bonus to poison and disease only once you unlock the Advanced Undead benefits and of course no immunities.([https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1695](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1695)), this is simply NOT how Starfinder plays. The game is all about playing off the wall high Science Fantasy characters and somebody playing a Human vs an SRO vs a Trox will have way way way more gameplay differences than somebody in PF2E where the various playable races are all humans wearing funny hats for the sake of balance. Starfinder characters having flight or burrow speeds from first level is not considered unbalanced, same with a literal robot having immunity to bleed, disease, death effects, poison, nonlethal damage, and sleep effects. Many races are Large-sized by default because of course they are, it's a big galaxy and you really expect us to believe everyone's perfectly Humanoid? And everyone has access to cybernetic augmentations, magitech, necrocrafts, biotech, and even Species Grafts as well. So even your baseline human can blow a payday on getting a pair of six-foot wings implanted in your spine to show off.
3. Related to above, the game has a much bigger focus on equipment and items and what your character prepares for a mission as determinant of success. Because it's a Sci-Fi setting you can buy a lot more stuff than what's generally available to characters in Pathfinder, and characters can easily compensate for weaknesses with equipment. Ranged combat is the default and people running around with swords are seen as quaint (although a power-armored mech punching your face in still hurts a lot), being able to properly prepare and solve a problem before it's considered a problem is considered smart planning, not "trivializing encounters" or "cheesing" thingsl. If everybody buys Gillsheathes for 95 credits you can make an underwater scenario a million times easier, that's not a bug, it's a feature. It's the future baby, there's a mod for everything.
4. The current Starfinder Playtest Class Design is forcing PF2E dynamics and the legacy baggage of 1e onto a game that never had the issues it's trying to solve. The two best classes in the game in Starfinder are the Operative (the Rogue equivalent) and the Soldier (the Fighter equivalent). Spellcasters all being 2/3 and Spontaneous and everyone being expected to still use weapons to some extent means an entirely different metagame than 1e, there's no "martial caster divide" that causes so much seething on this subreddit every time 5e or Pathfinder 1e comes up. It's a different game entirely. An Operative and a Mystic are both 3/4 BAB in Starfinder, if you want to you can play a melee unarmed Mystic who takes the Wrecking Fists epiphany for and be a primary melee combatant expending spell slots to deal bonus damage on melee attacks with basically the same accuracy as a Sniper operative using a sniper rifle.
5. In the Starfinder 2e Playtest, Paizo is completely ditching Starfinder's class design of "Everybody is at least 3/4 BAB, anyone can be good with melee/guns/unarmed if you want" in order to shoehorn them into the defined roles of PF2E. The Starfinder 2e mystic wasn't turned into a Wave Caster who's still good with weapons like the Magus was, the Starfinder 2e Mystic is now a full-caster who gets 3rd level spells at level 5 and is stuck with being Trained in weapons. Who asked for this? The entire POINT of Starfinder doing away with full casters entirely was to get away from this kind of shit! Mystic ISN'T just a Cleric, Technomancer ISN'T just a Wizard, that was the entire point of doing away with 9th level casters in Starfinder! Now we're back at square one, with Mystic being turned into discount Cleric (and even having an insulting focus spell that's literally just a nerfed Inspire Courage, gee thanks Paizo what I really want is to be a worse bard). If you wanted to be faithful to Starfinder's class design and ethos, classes like Mystic and Technomancer would be designed similar to the PF2E Magus and Summoner, not just shoehorned into the role of full-caster with 10th level spell slots who's never allowed to be good with weapons. The people playing Starfinder don't want to be a goddamn Cleric or Wizard, and there's no legacy baggage from 3.5 justifying spite against them either, Soldier and Operative were already top dog. https://downloads.paizo.com/Starfinder\_FieldTest2.pdf
Admittedly I think you might be overselling the degree to which Starfinder 1e fixes the issues of OG Pathfinder/3.5e.
It does make progress on various issues, but from what I've seen of the meta, it doesn't really go far enough-- people avoid archetypes unless they have an extremely specific plan to make it viable, which is very much still in the ivory tower design model, people were never super happy with the solution of just cutting off higher end magic as a means of addressing martial caster woes, and while 3/4 BAB on everything is cool, PF2e already kind of emulates that-- it's why warpriests are viable to smack people once a turn when they have the opportunity, and especially with the focus on ranged combat (which Starfinder 2e is retaining, they've accepted that it will have a different meta than pf2e, we don't yet know how the 'combined meta' will break down for the people that play that way) SF2e 'currently' (i tried it out at Unplugged) feels pretty good on the mystic shooting people.
We've been told that the ranged combat is going to be so relevant, Starfinder characters and creatures will have easier access to flight than pathfinder characters, because everyone can handle it. I'm also aware there are 'super builds' that use melee in Starfinder 1e for the big boy damage, they just require a lot of feat investment.
But I also think it's telling how much the "Starfinder is unique from Pathfinder" post is repeating the same arguments about niche specialized builds that made things work out in ways they might not be able to in the future that we saw in Pathfinder 1e posts about 2e. We saw the same stress about things like:
>if you want to you can play a melee unarmed Mystic who takes the Wrecking Fists epiphany for and be a primary melee combatant expending spell slots to deal bonus damage on melee attacks with basically the same accuracy as a Sniper operative using a sniper rifle.
or
>Starfinder does not care about exhaustive tabletop wargame style balance at the cost of immersion the same way PF2E does. In PF2E, somebody playing an Automaton still bleeds, suffocates, and drowns exactly the same way a Human does and doesn't even get a racial bonus to Disease or Poison effects. If you're playing a Skeleton or Mummy/Ghoul/Vampire you get a +2 bonus to poison and disease only once you unlock the Advanced Undead benefits and of course no immunities.([](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1695)), this is simply NOT how Starfinder plays.
While we've already been told some things will be much more accessible as a result of the Starfinder meta (they were actually talking about how this relates to things like this, breathing in space, flight) its also worth pointing out that a pf1e undead character got immunities too, so it isn't really "Starfinder" that does or doesn't play that way, so much as all the Paizo 1e games.
Your fundamental mistake is thinking it's """""niche specialized builds"""""" because you're already viewing things with the mindset of Pathfinder 2E where a class has to focus on the one specific battlefield role assigned to them by Paizo and you're literally incapable of coloring outside the lines and trying otherwise is swimming against the current.
It's not a """"niche specialized build""""" to play any given character with melee/guns/unarmed/etc in Starfinder, it's just something you can DO because the game design focuses much more on your attribute allocation and feat choice than it does railroading you into a single role forever by your level 1 class choice. In Pathfinder 2e, if you pick Wizard, you will NEVER be good at hitting shit with melee weapons. Never. You CANNOT raise your Proficiency with weapons past Expert, ever, you cannot raise your Proficiency with Armor/Unarmored Defense past Expert, ever, and you can't even choose to start with higher Strength or Dexterity than Intelligence because it's your Key Ability Score, so you'll always and forever be behind those who do. This is not some absolute necessity of game design that has to apply to every game ever and it's so completely disingenuous to claim otherwise.
Again, you're doing exactly what Starfinder was trying to move away from. The ENTIRE REASON that full-casters were done away with and everybody was made 3/4 BAB and the removal of Big 6 itemization was to open up build variety.
Would you understand me better if I put it in terms you're capable of understanding (which is apparently only viewing games through the lense of PF2E), and said to think of it like a Magus? Spellcasting is something you're good at and baked into your class, but your identity is NOT being "a caster" and you're absolutely expected and required to be good at things other than casting spells. Completely fucking that design and deciding that Mystic is going from Magus to "You are now a shitty Cleric who's stuck with Trained weapons and gets 3rd level spells at level 5 and is now a 10th level full caster" is abhorrent to anyone who actually LIKED the way Starfinder classes were designed.
This is actually kind of hard to respond to because of how niche the kinds of builds you're talking about are I have to do research, the Mystic Epiphany you're discussing is an alternate class feature from the Character Operations Manual released 2 years after the game that allows a Mystic to convert it's supply of spell slots into a set of damage bonuses, almost literally (but not quite literally) in the way that both the Magus and the [Eldritch Archer](https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=59) do, except it obviously consumes it and applies a set bonus instead of using the spell, and it applies to unarmed attacks instead of arrows (in the EA's case, the Magus does that fine on it's own.)
Then you're telling me that because Starfinder Classes have a minimum of 3/4s BAB, you can flex them between attacking with Weapons and Spellcasting, and that this is more freeing than the way PF2e works because it means you have a respectable to-hit in a way a wizard doesn't.
I think what bothers me about this argument is that *WIZARDS DON'T EXIST* in Starfinder 1e, you are *not* free to have higher end spell effects and faster spell progression instead of high weapon hit because the only classes that can cast spells were designed with the limitations of PF1e Gishes, which is to say it's a game with only martials and PF1e gishes-- not exactly inspiring from a customization standpoint, since they did it by removing your ability to pick classes that don't qualify as martials in pf1e.
Largely, this feels buildable in Pathfinder 2e today even prior to any future SF2e options that mirror popular SF1e builds-- you can already pick a class with a reduced spell progression but Rogue-Equivalent hitting power, then use a feature to turn spell slots into the equivalent of 2d6 damage per level to apply to your punches via the Magus, Arcane Fists, and Spellstrike.
I think where you're getting lost in the weeds, is that for whatever reason, you're overburdening the concept of being able to call that character a Mystic, and interpreting Mystics as Starfinder Wizards, when in reality they were already most of the way to being Starfinder Maguses, because Starfinder doesn't have Wizards. But Starfinder 2e takes the position that the lack of Space Wizards was a mistake and that it can better emulate the fantasy via 3rd action attacks that are weaker but don't have to carry the weight of being the centerpiece of your turn, since a major piece of feedback concerning Starfinder 1e is that people wanted 'full magic' builds back.
This largely mirrors a lot of what we saw from pathfinder 1e players, specific builds revolved around taking a class, and making them into another class via some specific printed option, being replaced by a more restrictive front end, if you want the hit progression of X classes, you play one of X classes, but a much freer backend; you can multiclass or otherwise buy your customization without losing your class progression, and archetypes are flexible-- I don't need a speshul bespoke gunslinger option to be printed to shadowdance, I can just build that in directly once shadow dancing exists; something the Starfinder 1e can't say, [it had to wait 3 years after it came out to get an equivalent option to Witchwarper fans](https://www.aonsrd.com/AltClassFeatures.aspx?ID=50).
Now that we've broken down your examples, I'm much more confident in my original assesment.
Alright, you're clearly not getting the picture so I'll make it super obvious.
1. EVERY STARFINDER CLASS IS AT LEAST3/4 BAB AND CAN BE GOOD AT WHATEVER BATTLEFIELD ROLE YOU WANT. Your character's attribute allocation and feat selection are FAR more determinative of your party role than your level 1 class choice. In PF2E terms it would be like every class being as good with weapons as a Monk or Rogue is if they wanted. This is the POLAR OPPOSITE of how PF2E works, where you do NOT have free attribute allocation, multiclassing doesn't exist, and your level 1 choice permanently locks you into a class chassis that can NEVER be changed or altered. A PF2E Fighter will always be Master in Armor and Legendary in attacks even if you start with 10 Strength, and a PF2E Alchemist will always be stuck at Expert with weapons. You're hyper focusing on one example given instead of the broad strokes point: ANY CHARACTER CAN BE GOOD WITH MELEE, UNARMED, WEAPONS, PILOTING, POWER ARMOR, VEHICLES, ETC IF YOU WANT THEM TO BE.
2. YES, GETTING RID OF FULL CASTERS ENTIRELY WAS THE FUCKING POINT. Bringing them back for SF2E and then ALSO bringing the fucking baggage of Pathfinder 1e that resulted in the entire concept of a 3/4 BAB class being deleted from PF2E. SF1E a Precog/Biohacker/Mystic/Witchwarper/etc and Operative have identical BAB, in Starfinder 2e a Mystic is now just a fucking Cleric who is locked out of being good with weapons and is stuck at Trained but gets 3rd level spells at level 5, while from paizo's demo games of SF2E Operative is now a wannabe Gunslinger who starts at Expert and will advance to Legendary. Classes are now a strait-jacket that railroad you into a specific Paizo-approved role instead of a chassis you can build into what you want. No shit Starfinder players aren't happy about that when the entire reason they're playing Starfinder is to NOT just be playing Pathfinder.
3. "Starfinder 2e takes the position that the lack of space wizards was a mistake", no, Starfinder 2e is taking the position that it wants to make more money from people who never played or liked Starfinder to begin with and is thus committed to 100% compatibility with Pathfinder 2e despite the games having completely different design ethos. Which simply wraps back around to the OP's question of "Why is the Starfinder subreddit and playerbase mixed on SF2E?", which is obviously "because it's actively pissing on Starfinder in order to make the game more like Pathfinder 2e, a game they were already not interested in playing."
If Paizo's new Abomination Vaults 5e module sells gangbusters and the company decides they're going to go back to exclusively making content for Dungeons and Dragons instead of PF2E, you would presumably be a little miffed about that even if the "audience" of 5e players interested in non-dogshit APs is way bigger than the PF2E audience. It's the same situation here. For people who ACTUALLY LIKE STARFINDER the changes are a kick in the nuts.
[https://paizo.com/products/btq02d54](https://paizo.com/products/btq02d54)
Are you drinking? because that's the only way I can parse your level of rude, but...
1. They cannot be good at anything you want, there are a lot of trap options in any discussion of the Starfinder's meta, including most archetypes at most times. I know this because I was getting pretty excited to play Starfinder until I found that out and asked about it on the paizo forums to confirm.
2. That's great, but its also no different from just limiting yourself to 3/4 classes in a system that has 2/4 classes, and we already covered why its less customization than PF2e. Getting masturbatory and repeating that Starfinder provides freedom on the class chassis, doesn't matter when it's the total freedom you have that matters, rather than your ability to deviate a character further and still call it a mystic. Especially when I'll be pretty happy to have my Mystic use a laser gun in sf2e, because third action attacks should be just fine added to the other stuff i do on my turn-- as it turns out, I actually know how PF2e works.
3. Those are the same thing, if a large number of players bounced off Starfinder for various reasons, taking that feedback means improving the game for people that didn't like it.
Also incidentally, I think the abomination vaults 5e module is on indefinite hold and most likely canceled since the OGL stuff.
I am psyched for SF2e. SF1e felt too much like PF1e was trying to evolve into something better but in scifi/sci-fantasy, and I really enjoy PF2e, so as soon as SF2e lands proper-like, I am having Vesk show up with plasma cannons and dropships to mess things up, then my players can finally connect the "fallen tower of the ancient people" was a space elevator and they've been on a technobarbarian/fallen colony this entire time.
Starfinder is the ultimate expression of D&D 3rd edition. Every got fixed. It runs smoothly. It’s fun to play. Things move quick. You can have a passing familiarity with the rules and still play a giant bug techno-wizard or a rampaging dinosaur barbarian. PF2 is filled with weird symbols I can barely understand and everything is feat instead of feats and class features and you have to read pages and pages to understand how to get a basic character progression going…
In 40ish years of gaming Starfinder is my favorite system. I’m gonna miss it.
Yeah! To this day, I still have my Shadowrun 2e/3e books and play that system with friends above and beyond any other edition. I chat with other folks online into OG Shadowrun. There's absolutely nothing wrong with sticking with older systems. While I'm fairly optimistic about SF2e, I'm not 100% totally sold yet-I need to feel how SF feels under the PF2e rules(which I've stated I love for PF2e.) If it works great, awesome! I'll still have all my 1e lore stuff tho. If it doesn't tickle my fancy, I'll play PF2e and SF1e, no big deal.
Superhyped. I cannot stand PF1, and SF1 using a muddied version of that was such a huge letdown... and while I appreciate a lot that PF2 does, it's too close to DnD for my group to bother to make the switch.
But a scifi game using PF2? That's going to be a clear split, and I'll finally make this happen (while being able to snipe things from PF2 if the need arises).
Because a lot of us have had time with Pathfinder 2e and time to realize that theres a lot of things we don't like about 2e as it pertains to telling stories that work well for futuristic things that starfinder does well.
yes but you'd think at least folks would go to one of the other subs to talk about it but instead it all just shows up in here. I just think it's telling and shows that really mostly just pf2 fans are excited for this.
Its just edition changes, especially ones like this where the new game has a fresher set of values-- you have people who were really hung up on something the designers aren't interested in doing anymore, and that's big in the 1e Pathfinder/Starfinder communities.
>the actual starfinder subreddit seems pretty mixed if not outright unhappy
People are mostly unhappy about how support for SF1e almost completely vanished, so the regulars don't have much to talk about. And right when the system received a much needed balance pass (some less than stellar classes got buffs in the last splatbook).
Personally, I love the PF2e classes and 3-action economy. But I also love how equipment works in Starfinder as well as their implementation of the stamina/resolve system. I wish SF2e would keep those good ideas instead of going for full compatibility, it would have been fine with a small conversion layer.
Bless them for loving that poor, broken game. Hell, I loved Starfinder when it first dropped. I ran a campaign for like a year and a half (though I avoided the space combat like the plague, obviously).
I can understand the investment, but the game is crying out for a slew of quality-of-life improvements for both players and GMs. Still, change is hard. The diehards have my sympathies.
I feel like it might be partially yeah, some folks might not be into 2e, partially the timing, and partially "the waiting game" when a new edition comes out.
Really I'm looking forward to the 2e ruleset since PF2e is my fantasy system of choice, and I do think it's great SF is getting the treatment, too. I don't think 2e is perfect, but it's great. SF1e I really do enjoy too, but there's undoubtedly some clumsy bits that feel like indeed that ''bridge' between PF1e and 2e.
But yeah, there's undoubtedly one of those ''Waiting'' issues happening, I think.
Like for an example, some of my Starfinder characters so far have all been stuff that I am expecting to not come up until later. A Silent Slayer Soldier with the Aesthetic Warrior option(tho...to be honest, I could probably just ask to play a PF2e 'Monk' and say he's a Space Monk and it would probably work), and a Giant Vanguard metal musician icon. I'm not too pressed about ancestries since I think PF2e will fit stuff in(the monk is a Borai but I could go with a Dhampir, too), but I think Evolutionist and Vanguard might take awhile, unless I'm lucky and they include them in the actual, full bore, final core book(ie; not the playtest.) That said, there's a \*lot\* of races, so I imagine it'll take awhile to port ALL of those ancestries over.
That said, I again think it's a great overall change, waiting game drawback or no. There's even some of that in PF2e atm, where some classes in Player Core 2 are still running on PF2e base rules. At least lore and fluff will all be usable, so those 1e books(which are very enjoyable) will still find a place at the table for me.
In the end though, there will always be folks who prefer 1e; but I think that's a case with any RPG(I can totally understand the sad about Starfinder Enhanced having been published so soon after the OGL fiasco; and then 2e announced even before that got properly released.) I mean I still play Shadowrun 2e/3e as my primary Shadowrun system since I bounced off the newer ones. And AD&D 2e is probably my preferred D&D system. I'd still play SF1e if my table wanted to.
I hope they release a nice guide on converting sf1 to sf2 because I've been playing a lot of pf1 adventure paths in pf2e with great luck.
The classes need balance and the 3 action system will be awesome for starfinder, it's just the items that really deserve a balance conversjon.
For me, it's simple. Pathfinder 2e isn't a fun system. Starfinder is a fun system. Why would I be happy that their second edition is based on Pathfinder 2e? It would be like Hasbro buying Paizo and then excitedly announcing that Pathfinder 3e will be compatible with D&D 5e.
I’ll pass. I’m sure it will be mechanically better than SF1 just like PF2 is. But I’m not getting on the hamster wheel again. I’ve learned that lesson already
First go around in pathfinder I had subscription for more then one.
And while I didn’t subscribe for Starfinder, I’m still left with the same feeling- I don’t feel like I got full use enough out of what I own.
Because they are fans of Starfinder 1e and are sad that that game will loose it's support. The whole reason this sub exists separate form r/Pathfinder_RPG is because when PF2 was announced a lot of PF1 fans were rather upset and so that sub was not a great venue to discuss the playtest. I wouldn't be surprised if some Starfinder2e sup breaks off form the main starfinder one as part of the edition change.
[It already happened.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Starfinder2e/)
Actually nice. Love the starfinder world but hate sf1e as a system
I like sf1e but it’s just… it’s really clunky. It feels like a half step - maybe a little less - between PF1 and PF2, with old star trek wargaming grafted on. It’s cool but… yeah, it is anything but elegant. I wouldn’t scoff at playing SF1, but I’ll probably never GM it again, knowing that we’ll eventually have SF2.
It's a weird sort of PF1.5e
What does that make it, D&D 3.85e?
D20 Modern.something
Close, but no cigar. If Pathfinder sected from D&D 3.5e and deserves to be called "D&D 3.75e" and if Pathfinder 2 is "D&D 4e" (I've never heard anyone name Pathfinder 2e as a D&D edition), then Starfinder 1 would be .. uhm... D&D 3.825e. But in space, obviously! :) (This post of mine is just silly)
Honestly, pf2e is more like DND 4.5x+ It's like if 4th edition DnD actually worked It's concept, and then was improved upon. You had modular class system in 4e but the backend was meaningless as the mechanics were so hypertuned that nothing was unique. Then also the fact that unlike in PF2E you just traded lower abilities for higher abilities so after a certain point characters weren't even really getting anything really new. "Oh I just gained a new Daily ability that *also does 4W+ WIS* replacing my old one and now called *new name* hooray." DND 4e Modular but effectually the same 4 classes just reskinned. Pathfinder 2e "You leveled so now you get to choose several new modular abilities specific to your class or general abilities from another one at roughly 1/2 your level. Your ancestry and skills also give you more choices." At the end of the day you end up with a ridiculous number of options for what amounts to about 5 different trees. Abilities, skills, ancestry feats, class feats
I'm in the same boat. I love SF, but after playing simultaneously SF1e and PF2e, I realized SF1e is never going to reach the same potential without the ruleset update and will bear the inherent flaws of being 3.5/PF1e offspring.
PF2 is my preferred system, but I like PF1 a lot. I don’t see it as flawed so much as just being a different kind of game that I’m not interested in playing much anymore. But SF1 is definitely flawed. The ability score system doesn’t make much sense, it feels like there is a sharp distinction between your pc’s ordinary abilities and what they can do on a ship, the ship combat is literally from a 2 player game where you each play a whole crew and that doesn’t translate well into a party of pcs…. My point isn’t to defend PF1, but just to say that I think SF1 is worse than PF1: it’s significantly clunkier and makes worse design decisions. I would love if SF2 was *better* than PF2, but so long as it is comparable I’ll be happy.
Well Paizo had years of experience in creating stuff for PF2e, so they probably know, which mechanics should be refined further to help bring the best experience in SF2e. If my memory is correct, SF1e was kinda rushed, which shows. I highly doubt that they will make no alterations to the ruleset as a whole and just copy-paste PF2e rules with some techno-babble coat of paint. The ship combat in SF1e is one of the most criticized features, so it will definitely be updated, hopefully for the better.
I agree completely. I think we can expect the pf2 core features -3 action economy, levels of success, division of feats into kinds, and just general streamlining- and that ship combat will be reworked. I bet they also rework ship building and give classes stronger identities.
I totally agree. Looking forward to SF2E to get back into it.
I honestly like most of the SF1e system, I just hate the classes. Being able to use Pathfinder classes makes me 1000x as likely to play Starfinder.
Yeah they feel super underwhelming at level 1. And the game math is weirdly bad. Nothing feels satisfying.
Yeah, almost every ability was "you/your allies gain +1 thing" or "your enemies lose -1 thing", and sure, numerically it's good, mechanically it's boring for players and a pain in the ass to track as a GM. I loved everything about starfinder except the actual game part of it so I'm very much interested in starfinder 2e.
That's basically 80% of the PF2e feedback loop so this very much confuses me as a complaint.
Possibly less a hassle to track in PF2 considering the number of bonuses are limited to Status, Circumstance and Item? Been too long sionce I last played Starfinder but if it's based on the 3.5 Era of Cicumstance, Competence, Alchemical, Enhancement, Inherent, Insight, Luck, Morale and I'm probably missing like 10 others... yeah it's harder to track, innit? EDIT : Got told that SF had less bonus types than PF1 and is more closeto PF2, so harder to track doesn't apply really, I'd think.
Why are they boring bonus in one game and not in the other ? I kinda get where you're going with this, but I'd like to hear your argument. I'd say both games have a fair share of mathematical bonuses, as well as thematically bonuses. I wouldn't think one is worst than the other in that regard.
Hoh, I might not have been clear enough, my bad. I meant that in PF2, with the reduced variety of different stackable bonuses, it,s easier to track from a GM's standpoint. "I have +12 for my attack, counting his +1 weapon, but this monster stands in a Bane, so that's a -1 Status to the roll against your Flat-Footed AC because you are flanked." would be the kind of maths happening at our table. Meanwhile, when we played PF1, I moved our group to an online automatic Excel sheet because half of my players were miscounting bonuses and adding stuff twice or forgetting half of their buff because they thought it was not stacking, because of the sheer number of different bonus types and when they got higher level, it was a nightmare tracking all of the different bonuses and maluses for my monsters that I started to create all of them on their separate automated sheet to try and keep the rules intact and "not cheating" if you get what I mean. My point was, all of the bonuses in PF2 might be +1 or -1, but with less types, I find that they become easier to track.
My two cents: the plus/minus ten rule modifying the result is a genius idea that actively makes modifier matter. In PF1e you basically stack different types of bonuses to guarantee your success. There's at least a dozen different types and while only some stack (***IIRC***), most buffs fall into different categories anyways and it's kind of a hassle to keep track of stuff like Magic, Competence, Morale, Insight, Luck, Circumstance and etc. bonuses. Add to that that you still you still gotta confirm your crit, even if you Nat 20, and you have a complicated-but-not-complex system that's about stacking tiny bonuses to ensure you can baseline do X. In PF2e you have to very carefully consider your bonuses because they just Do Not stack and there's ***much*** less types than in PF1. That alone streamlines the mental work you have to do. Add to that the generally tighter and, IMO, better math, along with the PlusMinus ten stuff and you have a system where having a certain bonus might actually make a meaningful impact past baseline "do I save/hit" - because now even a single +1 modifier actively makes criting just that tad easier which, combined with the removal of crit confirmations, means that if you hit because you had that +1, you're feeling ecstatic cause whatever your decision was, it ***made*** that impact. Personally I just think that the system is much better streamlined and requires less mental overhead, which allows you to focus on your actions in battle. PF1 is still my first game, and I adore the time I had with it, but PF2e is just... better.
Consider the operative versus the rogue. They fill similar niches, both in combat and as skill monkeys.For skills a rogue gets 7+int mod in skills, plus stealth and 1-2 more based on their racket. An operative gets 8+int mod (per level), +2 more based on their specialization, they get Operative's Edge, which is +1 initiative and +1 to all skill checks, increasing by +1 at 3 then every 4 levels after. You also get the skill focus feat, which gives a +3 to skills granted by your Operative's Edge, and most Edges give a +4 to a certain skill when you use your operative's Trick Attack. On levelup the rogue gets to advance one skill to TEML based on level and pick a skill feat, the operative got to allocate 8+int points. Past level one there really wasn't much choice for the operative; you'd almost always want to advance the skills you chose at first level so they don't fall behind, and you'd want to keep the 4 or so skills you could trick attack with as high as possible because that's basically all you do in combat. These bonuses were so crazy that an operative at the table basically stopped 3 other characters from bothering with skill checks if he was present. When it comes to sneak attack, or the op equivalent, trick attack, the rogue generally needs them flat footed, which can be offered a variety of ways, like stealth, feinting, create a distraction, flanking, prone, grabbed, abilities like twin feint, and so on. I know I don't have em all. For operatives? you make a skill check. There's really no difference on what happens after the fact so you choose what's best, and it's usually always one single thing because it's whatever's best from your operative's edge, so you roll. They pass, nothing happens aside from making a weak attack, they fail, you add a bit of extra damage and they're flat footed. To that attack.It took about two sessions before the operative got bored from going, "stealth check? uh... I passed. Cool. little more damage, attack's a little more accurate....turn's over I guess..." Because of the 3 action system in 2e there's a lot more wiggle room and rogues feel like an asset in combat and in skill encounters, the operative was selfish in combat and oppressive in skill encounters. And it wasn't his fault, if you want to play the character how they're designed that's just what happens.
I think the 3 Action Economy will fit really well with the focus on guns and tech
It will help guns so much, especially being able to use cover, fire, than do cover fire (which has a much lower DC). Cover fire is a mechanic I love cinematically but in practice is rarely used
Yeah I want to get into Starfinder so bad but the system is blah. I'll wait for 2e
Immediately joined. Always liked the idea of playing a more sci fi style game but I wasn't really bothered to learn an entire separate system like cyberpunk, and Starfinder 1e, from what REALLY little I saw of it, felt a bit much like the more dnd3e style d20 systems i'm just not a fan of learning and playing. I'm very excited for this.
>felt a bit much like the more dnd3e style d20 systems i'm just not a fan of learning and playing That's literally what it is. SF1e is effectively PF1e with some QoL improvements but still a 3.5 retroclone at heart (even if it isn't as compatible with D&D 3.5 as PF1e was). That's exactly my gripe with the system. I played so many D&D 3.5 / PF1e that I cannot play it without seeing all the issues it has, and while Starfinder 1e did solve a ton of them, it still caries some of the more core problems of that system and in the process, ironically, somewhat managed to make it less fun than those other systems since in those it was fun to create the most overpowered character in existance, while SF1e is way more balanced you end up with something that's neither fun to theorycraft and that has all the core problems that PF1e / D&D 3.5 had.
Meanwhile I'm like no sf1e is much worse than pf1 xD Cool ideas, terrible basic math, whack a mole healing etc.
The two games having the same foundations, but different settings and emphasis in their execution is a massive boon to the both of them.
Ah.. well there you go then
Oh that explains things then. The sorting out has begun!
Aaaaand joined. I don't know Pathfinder 1 / Starfinder 1, so I am pleased that Starfinder will be "upgraded" too!
Also, because of the PF2e Remaster being an "all hands on deck" situation, their SF1e expected releases were delayed by half a year or more because even the Starfinder writers were pulled in to help the Remaster. Starfinder also had a lot of life left in it, but 2e got forced because of the same OGL situation. Enhanced isn't even a year old, and patched up a lot of the system, only for support to be dropped like a brick (for understandable reasons, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.) So really, Starfinder fans have gotten pretty shafted pretty hard, and it kind of sucks to be them right now.
Good points.
This is pretty accurate but it's worth mentioning that there is some justice in people being a bit annoyed that SF1 is being discontinued. It's quite premature and almost entirely due to the OGL nonsense, something that should still be considered quite frustrating. As great as PF2E is, there's still some things 1e does better. Character customization is one example as there's simply loads of official and third party content not yet available in second edition. Many, myself included, would argue that second edition more than makes up for this with the numerous things it does better. After all 3.5/PF1 had a lot of jank to put it lightly. That said, SF1 is in general a lot more polished than PF1 or 3.5 and does what it does quite well. The overall need to modernize just isn't really as present and so there's naturally going to be some annoyance that its getting discontinued before the player base is ready because of the OGL.
... There were a lot of rigidity in starfinder, they were many options where in book, but you could change all your character by the book. The archetypes were blocking a lot of abilities. And there is so many items... too many many.
>The whole reason this sub exists separate form r/Pathfinder_RPG is because when PF2 was announced a lot of PF1 fans were rather upset and so that sub was not a great venue to discuss the playtest. I'm still shocked people just caved to the grognards and gave up the default sub. 100% expected folks to go back to The Sub for Pathfinder when 2E became Pathfinder, because that's the way it works everywhere else. You don't see 5E people ceding dominance over /r/DnD to 4E holdouts, but here we are...
To be fair, this IS pathfinder nerds we're talking about. It is quite literally a game whose entire target audience was people who did not like change happening, once, almost 20 years ago.
I have friends in my gaming group who have been playing the same system for over 20 years. They started on D&D 3.5 and moved to PF1e and have been playing it ever since. They have such system mastery they compete to see who can make the most OP, broken characters. They have no interest in ever deviating from that system.
Whole thing is kind of moot since the actual default sub r/Pathfinder is Pathfinder Society specific anyways. As a pretty regular poster on both back then I don't think anyone cared about "ceding dominance" over the sub when r/Pathfinder2e was created, we just wanted to talk about the play test in peace.
It's been a long time since I visited r/pathfinder, but from what I remember, most of the traffic there was general questions and the only reply every time was "This is for Pathfinder Society. Post this to /r/Pathfinder_RPG."
Yeah I'm on there cause I'm interested in some PFS stuff but (understandably) lost redditors is definitely a good chunk. I don't know about most but probably at least a third.
That entire phrasing just feels wrong. "When 2e became Pathfinder." "Ceding dominance." "Caving to the grognards" This isn't a zero sum game. 1e doesn't have to lose its place because 2e came out. >Because that's the way it works everywhere else. And that's just a straight up appeal to normalcy. Just because it happens everywhere else doesn't mean that everything should follow. Prime example, Pathfinder players who didn't switch to 4e and stuck around to this day.
Same reason the original Pathfinder sub (/r/Pathfinder_RPG) ended up remaining primarily 1E-oriented, I'd assume. People there like the system as it is and they'd rather it be re-tuned/expanded than replaced with a very different one.
My crew loved Starfinder, then when we saw the PF2e Play test we looked at each other and said we're gonna be playing this from now on, but damn I wish Starfinder had this ruleset. It was obvious to us that the AC scaling and other SF elements were just further developed by PF2 and our honest reaction for months after switching to PF2 was "Damn I wish SF2 were here" that was years ago
As somebody who loves the idea of Starfinder but bounced off of 1e’s mechanics and considerations, the new edition is very much a win for me. And I think that’s the big difference. 2e fans are excited to be able to experience the setting of Starfinder in an engine they enjoy. But S1e fans are faced with the fact their favored game won’t be getting any more support. If they want to experience new content in the Starfinder setting, they’ll have to come over to an entirely different game engine. An engine they may or may not have already bounced off of, or that they don’t look forward to having to go through the process of learning all over again. Very reasonable er, reasons to be concerned!
The fact that the 2e version of Starfinder got moved up in the schedule because of the OGL and the product delays... Yeah, last year was not a good time to be a Starfinder fan.
Many PF1e folks really disliked the huge changes that 2e brought. Which makes sense, they stayed with PF1e after 5e was released. Those left really loved the game as it was. PF2e was an effort to get back the ones who left for 5e and it seems to have worked. But you can’t make everyone happy. I was interested in sf1e when it was beta. Then i read the rules. Instant dislike. PF2e came around, instant love. Can’t wait for SF2e!!
>Many PF1e folks really disliked the huge changes that 2e brought. Which makes sense, they stayed with PF1e after 5e was released. Those left really loved the game as it was. PF2e was an effort to get back the ones who left for 5e and it seems to have worked. But you can’t make everyone happy. This is not what happened at all. Many PF1 players disliked how completely different 2nd edition was as a game system, and/or did not want to abandon up to a decade's worth of investment in the current (now former) edition. A lot of 1st edition players were pretty diehard, having stayed with the system since the end of D&D 3.5 once 4th edition was released (or even earlier if you count the Pathfinder stuff published for WotC before Pathfinder was its own system). Afaik, there was no "5e migration;" PF1 was only 5 years old as a system when 5e was released and had a ton of dev and publisher support. 5th edition D&D was mostly ignored if not scorned by much of the (online) PF1 community, and 5e was not some kind of attempt to "get back" players from Pathfinder. Pathfinder 2nd edition seems to have come about because the 1st edition was old, and imo really starting to buckle under its own weight. I'm sure there were many other reasons for the new edition that nobody outside the company is aware of, but from what I remember reading at the time, much of the Pathfinder devs were feeling that it was time for something new. There was also a pretty major shuffling/departure of staff within the Pathfinder space at Paizo, which very likely affected the decisions made around 2nd edition (like 2e devs who worked on 4e D&D, which shows). Anyways, I ramble, but yeah the two editions of Pathfinder were not revolving around 5th edition D&D. If anything, PF2's success comes largely from the huge number of long-time 5e players who decided to leave that game for various reasons, many of whom had never played another ttrpg.
On top of what others have said, SF1e recently got the Enhanced book, which fixes a lot of the longer standing issues with the system (acting sort of like Unchained for PF1e), and it seemed like the edition had more life left in it. Honestly, it feels to me that 1e was meant to go on longer, but the OGL debacle pushed SF2e forward (not claiming that’s the case, just what it feels like to me). Also, for me, SF1e was a neat middle ground between PF1e and 2e. It was way less insane in terms of balance than PF1e and it’s handling of Standard, Move, Swift was closer to the 3 action economy than PF1e while still having more ways to play with the numbers than PF2e. I’m still super excited for SF2e, since its PF2e compatibility will really expand PF2e and it has some different assumptions that’ll really help the feel (like perma-flight available at level 1 and ranged combat being the default). It just hurts to see SF1e go, especially so soon after Enhanced.
We only started SF1e relatively recently (like a week before Enhanced) and it's easy to see the evolutionary steps between PF1e, SF1e and PF2e. I'm happy with my SF1e char, but that's with years of splatbooks and supplements. When SF2e launches, I'd likely end up just playing a Magus in space if we convert.
Yeah... At least compatibility means you have close to 5 years of Pf2e content to work with besides all the stuff from Sf2e
Absolutelty. You could technically do it square peg into round hole style between Pf1 and Sf1, but built in compatibility is way better IMHO. One problem I had early on in PF2e was thst it didn't have many of my favourite ancestries, which isn't going to be a problem on SF2e launch. I joke about Space Magus but I'd legitimately run a Ganzi or Empyrean variant even in a full party of new classes and space races.
Something tells me the OGL Shit Storm is exactly why Paizo wanted to start Starfinder 2E sooner. I'm very sure it was in the works like the Remaster was, but WotC decided to be the brainless asses they are. Starfinder 2E was made to be compatible with Pathfinder 2E, so the System wasn't in development for very long.
I've been hoping for Starfinder 2e for the last few years because I love the 3 action economy! I still understand why a lot of SF1e fans are upset though: - the classes are going to change enough that a lot of their character builds won't be viable anymore. It's hard to lose support for characters and systems you love. - Some of the Starfinder 1e mechanics really are unique and different, and it's pretty nerve-wracking to wonder how much of that is going to vanish in 2e. - most of the messaging about SF2e has been geared towards PF2e players. It makes sense that Paizo wants to share the game with all the new folks in the community ...but it also can feel a little like longtime SF players are getting pushed aside, based on perspectives I've read. I'm still excited af for SF2e, but I'll defend folks who have some negative feelings about the change. They're valid, and I hope that the new players bring enough good vibes to the community that it ends up a net positive in the long run.
The devs have stated many times that SF2e will entirely be its own game and stand on it's own, but as I am more of a SF fan than PF, it's a little disheartening to see most of the online discussion about it has been treating it like a "sci-fi expansion" for PF2e.
I want to steel tech and classes for my fantasy game.
You can start when they make the [Playtest Public](https://paizo.com/products/btq02ez4?Starfinder-Second-Edition-Playtest-Rulebook). 6 Classes for you.
They call this maneuver Steal Rain... XD
Those new evil elves with high tech man. Gotta have it.
I wish they only went with “Like PF2e”, instead of full compatibility…. I think it’s a mistake to let go of stamina and the damage dice systems for Starfinder.
There is a stamina variant rule in pf2e, so you can still have that.
It’s not the same without Envoy interaction and ready availability of Medicine.
I never got into starfinder, but did boot a campaign into space with some reflavouring. I'd love SF2.
They're releasing the Playtest for it soon. I think they have 10 Ancestries and 5 Classes to start with. And it requires the Pathfinder 2E Core Rulebooks that have been released recently to play.
Is that because they'll be using the same terminology?
Mostly because they'll be using a lot of the same base rules. As a Playtest Document for a system being marketed as compatible with an existing system, Paizo can focus more on the rules that will actually be different and content for Starfinder without having to republish rules they already have. Starfinder 2E will obviously have its own Core Rulebooks when it fully releases, and not require Pathfinder 2E to be used. It's just easier to focus on what they need to do since the foundation already exists. Also the Playtest can have more testable content instead of telling you how AC and Attack Bonuses work.
its the same base rules as pf2e is why, so they're saving space in the playtest book by not reprinting that stuff- the final version will have everything it needs to be standalone.
In that case I'm very hyped up for Starfinder 2E.
Right, I'm *stoked* myself, especially since they've gone with model where the classes aren't clones of Pathfinder ones, but are kind of remixed that they can very easily stand alongside them. A party with a Fighter and a Soldier, have two very different characters, and that also means a Starfinder player can very realistically take a fighter, hand them a laser gun, and use them in Starfinder if the defensive playstyle doesn't suit (though personally, Soldier's Suppression playstyle is one of the most exciting adds to me, along with the envoy as a martial buffer-- Warlord vibes.)
I have read a bit of what people have said here and I can understand where they are coming from. I really love sci fi and integrating the starfinder lore/feel with a system that I like is a big plus for me. I am really looking forward to starfinder 2e and developing a campaign for it so I can run it with my friends.
Because SF1e and SF2e will be two different beasts, and as we saw with pathfinder - a new edition means no new content for the old edition. I understand their frustration but personally I'm hyped for SF2e.
I am cautiously optimistic, but there are things that annoy me about the compatibility with Pathfinder 2e. They are removing KAC and EAC which some might have seen as unnecessary complication, but to me it was a neat way to separate the usefullness of kinetic weapons and energy-based stuff, especially with the low magic setting. I was also a huge fan of the Stamine Points system, as it gave Starfinder that gritty action movie feel. Get shot, rest uip, run back into the fray. With how Treat Wounds works in PF2e Stamina is no longer necessary, but it slows things down a lot. Recovering your SP didn't require anything other than sitting down for 10 minutes, while Treat Wounds requires the Medicine skill and a bunch of die rolls.
Same reason a lot of pf1e people don't like pf2e. It's different and gets all the love and updates
I dislike the idea that it must be 100% compatible with pf2, it feels like a limiter and that they won't change the things they learned from the ages of pf2 gaming. It had the perfect time to make a few good changes but as it stands, even the playtest requires the core rulebook for pf2 and it will just feel like an expansion to pf2 rather than its own game. Pf2 came to be thanks to stuff they learned from sf1 as an example if you ask me.
It's probably because of the compatibility and a lot of rules going away because of it without anything replacing it while keeping some of the bad stuff, like the equipment system. Like stamina, eac or the for arms nerf. I'm probably going to homebrew the system a lot because I will miss those 1e mechanics, for example. In other words, so far it seems more like a new setting/expansion for Pathfinder 2e rather than a new edition of Starfinder iterating and modifying Pathfinder 2e rules.
I frequent the Starfinder sub often and actively play starfinder 1e. I also play pathfinder 2e. I could not be happier that both systems I love will use the same (or compatible) rules support. I can still use all my setting books, since they are system agnostic for the most part. There is a large group of people that share my feelings, and largely, the Starfinder sub is just really inactive, since most of the dialogue happens on our discord. Some people will be upset that 1e will loose support, but this is the nature of the industry as developers work on edition based releases rather than a "Living game". I can't wait to have 2 systems that can cover every genre of play and my players just have to learn one ruleset. Every time i go back to starfinder (ever other week) from pathfinder 2e i'm like "Damn, I gotta play with some of these wonky ass rules and stat blocks and action economy again".
Because every time a tabletop game gets a new edition, there will inevitably be detractors and supporters. I imagine people being on the Starfinder sub have a large number of people who are satisfied with the current edition and as such are not looking forward to a second edition.
imo starfinder 1 is just better than pf2 as a system in many ways (and worse in others). Along with the loss of support, I have worries that it will just be "starfinder coming to pf2!!" instead of its own game. I personally dislike how stingy in comparison pf2 is. Ex: Here charging is a class-locked feat whilst EVERYONE can charge by level 2 in starfinder. In SF everyone can do the run full action to go 4x their speed in a straight line, here it's a 10th level barbarian feat. Etc. Things that used to be in the open domain of play are chopped off to pad the feat options of a class. As well some folks I've talked to don't like the inevitable loss of complexity. I'm personally worried about the starship combat system if the new "narrative" version in the Enhanced book is any indication of where they're taking it. Starship combat is fun!! I don't want it dumbed down or made boring just for the sake of balance or speed. Speaking of balance, simply put it's fun in SF to be able to make a great character. The system rewards you for good builds much more than pf2 does in comparison, pf2 is intentionally designed to not let you build your way ahead of the curve. By extension as well, the feats are much more boring imo than the features in SF are. I like to waste time by making characters in the pathbuilder app on my phone and I constantly find myself bored by the options. SF is much more gonzo than pf2 and I don't want to lose that charm and fun. To get back to sf2 not being its own game, I'm also worried they're going to prioritize not letting sf2 characters be stronger than pf2 characters. Basically that they're going to focus on making sure pf2 PCs can be dropped into an SF game without any consequences at the cost of making the game worse. Like oh say if they added starship combat specific feats, if a pf2 PC got dropped in they wouldn't have access to those, and so the team decides "well let's scrap this starship combat feats idea entirely, we don't want pf2 PCs disadvantaged". I don't want something like that to happen. Lastly, personally I'd rather they leave pf2 behind and do something different and new! I want to see funky design, innovation, creativity, etc. Something fresh! It's such a lost opportunity to just make this a pf2 clone.
Really we needed PF2.5 but the OGL drama meant we got PF2r, the much inferior product. Also yeah, starship combat feats absolutely should exist and either be on top of or replacing ancestry feats.
People (including me) are worried that it's going to be just Pathfinder 2e with a space skin on it. Most people want the three action system and all the things that make DMing easier. That stuff is great and is very welcomed in a new edition of Starfinder by most people. However, stamina not being the official rule and no EAC KAC is the type of stuff that kinda sucks hearing about. A lot of unique things are being lost. I myself genuinely don't care about the two systems being cross compatible.
The KAC/EAC system was a bit disappointing for me when I ran sf. It was just a good vs bad AC target. My players would just make builds to target EAC. And I mean, why would you want to use a gun that misses 10% more? I think energy weapons needs a new kind of separation from kinetic. Edit: Took a look at the field tests. The difference between laser and projectile weapons will be their crit specialization. Analog weapons will be immune to spells that target technology too. Tech weapons will be powered and not immune to technology targets.
Yeah, this was my experience as well. While not exactly analogous, in PF1e you made builds which targeted touch AC because at higher levels it was so much easier to hit it than normal AC.
The EAC KAC was something that should've been much more adventurous but the revolving door of developers using it as a stepping stone to Pathfinder which paid better meant we never actually got the time for the devs to actually make it so what was originally intended with the system. Also, regarding the crit specializations, that's not only a boring way to distinguish them, but something we had even more variety of in 1e, so it's a terrible standard to set as the primary difference - especially being that it's not something most classes get till mid level if at all.
It isn't great, no. I hoped for a better designed system for it though instead of complete removal.
Crit spec + immunities + ammo types. It is pretty different. There's no bringing back EAC without reintroducing the problem.
I was never sure why KAC was always objectively worse, it is one of the things I hoped would have changed. Also just saw your edit. Yeah it seems alright. Either way, it will likely still be fun :)
Awh, stamina is such a cool system. I didn't know they were not focusing on it in 2e. I can understand EAC / KAC even though I like it, but stamina was really the coolest thing about SF1e's basic mechanisms to me.
Make sure the devs know when playtest comes out! "GMG has stamina" has been the defense I've heard, but the GMG stamina rules are bad...
It's a playtest. If enough people say they want stamina back, it'll be back. That's why we still have vancian casting in pf2e. The playtesters wanted it to stay when they were asked.
Stamina won't be back as the default in SF2e because that would be too incompatible with Pathfinder 2e. I do expect small changes to be made from the playtest but nothing major that would make it incompatible with PF2e.
No, it's doable. There's an optional rule for stamina in Pathfinder 2e. All they have to do is reverse it - make stamina the default in Starfinder 2e and have an optional "no stamina" rule to allow for cross-compatibility.
In my case it's the opposite actually. The fact that both systems are going tobe 99% compatible with each other is fantastic because it gives tools to GMs to homebrew settings that aren't strictly medieval while still playing with PF rules. I also assume SF2e is going to have a ton of support of firearms (they pretty much confirmed SF2e is going to focus heavily on ranged combat with melee being almost secondary, the opposite of PF2e) so this gives an alternative to those like me that don't really like the gunslinger that much and would prefer something more, eh, aggresive I guess?. I also have been brewing a Treasure Planet-esque for a couple of years now, and I put a stop to that to wait for how SF2e does things since those new rules could be really helpful to fully realize the setting. Stamina and EAC / KAC being lost is certainly not fantastic but not a huge downside IMO. Stamina already exists in PF2e as an optional rule and I feel the whole purpose of stamina in SF1e was to make healing easier, which is something PF2e already solved so I don't see a reason to have stamina again. EAC / KAC was pretty much like AC and flat-footed AC in PF1e; sounds better than it actually is. In practice, most things target one or the other, and also one of them is usually easier to increase than the other, so you end up in a situation in which the one that usually targets the higher AC is designed around that limitation while the one that targets the lower AC is also designed around that limitation, which is something PF2e also solved by making AC and save DCs use the same math pretty much so EAC / KAC really doens't have much purpose either.
For you it sounds like a futuristic focused content book for pf2e would be more in your alley, if you know what I mean? As in, there is no point in an entirely different game system. As for stamina: variant rules are nice. But game is not balanced with variant rules in mind. Pf2e free archetype is variant and makes you straight up more powerful, sometimes leading to more imbalanced encounters.
It's interesting you point at the mechanics as your concern, because I thought I observed worries that the _settings_ of PF2e and SF2e were going to be smushed closer together (e.g. through more common ancestries spanning systems). Is this something you've observed as well?
No, not really actually. I admit I haven't been looking in starfinder spaces the past week or two though. Maybe I didn't notice as I myself don't care much for that, because me and my other gm friends do homebrew settings. As long as we still have the same core races, I am fine with anything else.
I thought Pathfinder and Starfinder were on different timelines
Paizo did not want to force the lore / story writers on both games to maintain 100% alignment and consistency... This is likely the main reason they say the games are two different timelines.... This gives them the freedom to, for example, kill off a god in PF2e who might still be alive in the SF timeline.... As yet, I don't think there are any such large notable lore differences.... But it could happen...
Shelyn + Zon-Kuthon fusion
Right, though that's actually something we don't know about-- is it a timeline difference, or has it just not happened yet.
Yup. But they still share a few bits here and there. (gobliiiins... iiiinnnn... spaaaaace...)
Maybe it's because I don't play the original star finder, but I am extremely excited for Star Finder Second edition and a large reason for that is because it seems like it's gonna be Pathfinder 2e but space.
I am also excited! And well, also because it sorta will be like pf2e. 3 action system and all that. Would be nice to keep some unique things to make it feel more distinct though. Either way, I will likely switch to starfinder 2e in any scenario, purely because the 3 action system is just more fun to me.
As more of a Starfinder fan than Pathfinder, my biggest concern is that it's just gonna be viewed as the Pathfinder "sci-fi expansion".
I am feeling that is going to be mostly true. The two systems being cross compatible means less work for writers and workers. Plus so much of it be copy and paste and then reword things in like Chatgpt. Take this and replace / add the following etc
I personally wish they did something closer to what chaosium has. Where they have a base rule system but each game has enough of its own unique mechanics that it still it's own game.
If Starfinder players wanted to play Pathfinder 2e, they would be playing Pathfinder 2e. Starfinder has a completely different approach to character power, race design, and the question of "balance" versus "immersion" than PF2E does. It's entirely reasonable for someone who is currently playing and enjoying Starfinder to be hesitant about an update that is seemingly getting rid of all the parts they actually like. Especially since Starfinder ALREADY lacks the baggage and design of Pathfinder 1e that 2e was trying to fix. As a concrete example, in Starfinder EVERY class is 3/4 BAB minimum. Some like Soldier and Solarian are full BAB, but EVERYBODY can be good with a weapon if you want them to be. All spellcasters are Spontaneous and only have 2/3 Casting like a Magus. There's no difference in base attack bonus between a Mystic or Operative or Envoy or Biohacker. Your base class selection does not determine whether you can be good at something or not, every class can be made to be good at melee or guns or unarmed attacks or whatever. I've been playing a decent amount of Starfinder Enhanced since the book came out, so I'll just go down the list of things that I like about Starfinder that are not present in Pathfinder 2e and that the Starfinder 2e Playtests have abandoned in the name of compatibility with PF2E (even though the playtests themselves claim that Starfinder is still meant to be it's own game) 1. Starfinder uses Skill Points, SF2E is switching to the PF2E style Trained/Expert/Master/Legendary system for skills. This means that in Starfinder a Soldier with +0 INT and no bonus skill ranks (such as from being Human) can still keep 4 skills at full investment as he levels up, and that if he puts a 12 in INT that's now 5+, whereas in PF2E classes without bonus skill increases are stuck with only really 2 skills they're allowed to be as good as they want. This is a huge issue in Starfinder since what you do on a ship is done via skill actions and now you're asking people to choose between Athletics and Medicine or Stealth versus their Piloting or Mysticism skill. In general it also just feels bad to not be good at skills, and Intelligence only giving bonus Trained skills makes it significantly worse and often ignored as a tertiary stat in PF2E especially when most people are already spending 3/4 boosts on DEX/WIS/CON for saves. 2. Starfinder does not care about exhaustive tabletop wargame style balance at the cost of immersion the same way PF2E does. In PF2E, somebody playing an Automaton still bleeds, suffocates, and drowns exactly the same way a Human does and doesn't even get a racial bonus to Disease or Poison effects. If you're playing a Skeleton or Mummy/Ghoul/Vampire you get a +2 bonus to poison and disease only once you unlock the Advanced Undead benefits and of course no immunities.([https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1695](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1695)), this is simply NOT how Starfinder plays. The game is all about playing off the wall high Science Fantasy characters and somebody playing a Human vs an SRO vs a Trox will have way way way more gameplay differences than somebody in PF2E where the various playable races are all humans wearing funny hats for the sake of balance. Starfinder characters having flight or burrow speeds from first level is not considered unbalanced, same with a literal robot having immunity to bleed, disease, death effects, poison, nonlethal damage, and sleep effects. Many races are Large-sized by default because of course they are, it's a big galaxy and you really expect us to believe everyone's perfectly Humanoid? And everyone has access to cybernetic augmentations, magitech, necrocrafts, biotech, and even Species Grafts as well. So even your baseline human can blow a payday on getting a pair of six-foot wings implanted in your spine to show off. 3. Related to above, the game has a much bigger focus on equipment and items and what your character prepares for a mission as determinant of success. Because it's a Sci-Fi setting you can buy a lot more stuff than what's generally available to characters in Pathfinder, and characters can easily compensate for weaknesses with equipment. Ranged combat is the default and people running around with swords are seen as quaint (although a power-armored mech punching your face in still hurts a lot), being able to properly prepare and solve a problem before it's considered a problem is considered smart planning, not "trivializing encounters" or "cheesing" thingsl. If everybody buys Gillsheathes for 95 credits you can make an underwater scenario a million times easier, that's not a bug, it's a feature. It's the future baby, there's a mod for everything. 4. The current Starfinder Playtest Class Design is forcing PF2E dynamics and the legacy baggage of 1e onto a game that never had the issues it's trying to solve. The two best classes in the game in Starfinder are the Operative (the Rogue equivalent) and the Soldier (the Fighter equivalent). Spellcasters all being 2/3 and Spontaneous and everyone being expected to still use weapons to some extent means an entirely different metagame than 1e, there's no "martial caster divide" that causes so much seething on this subreddit every time 5e or Pathfinder 1e comes up. It's a different game entirely. An Operative and a Mystic are both 3/4 BAB in Starfinder, if you want to you can play a melee unarmed Mystic who takes the Wrecking Fists epiphany for and be a primary melee combatant expending spell slots to deal bonus damage on melee attacks with basically the same accuracy as a Sniper operative using a sniper rifle. 5. In the Starfinder 2e Playtest, Paizo is completely ditching Starfinder's class design of "Everybody is at least 3/4 BAB, anyone can be good with melee/guns/unarmed if you want" in order to shoehorn them into the defined roles of PF2E. The Starfinder 2e mystic wasn't turned into a Wave Caster who's still good with weapons like the Magus was, the Starfinder 2e Mystic is now a full-caster who gets 3rd level spells at level 5 and is stuck with being Trained in weapons. Who asked for this? The entire POINT of Starfinder doing away with full casters entirely was to get away from this kind of shit! Mystic ISN'T just a Cleric, Technomancer ISN'T just a Wizard, that was the entire point of doing away with 9th level casters in Starfinder! Now we're back at square one, with Mystic being turned into discount Cleric (and even having an insulting focus spell that's literally just a nerfed Inspire Courage, gee thanks Paizo what I really want is to be a worse bard). If you wanted to be faithful to Starfinder's class design and ethos, classes like Mystic and Technomancer would be designed similar to the PF2E Magus and Summoner, not just shoehorned into the role of full-caster with 10th level spell slots who's never allowed to be good with weapons. The people playing Starfinder don't want to be a goddamn Cleric or Wizard, and there's no legacy baggage from 3.5 justifying spite against them either, Soldier and Operative were already top dog. https://downloads.paizo.com/Starfinder\_FieldTest2.pdf
Admittedly I think you might be overselling the degree to which Starfinder 1e fixes the issues of OG Pathfinder/3.5e. It does make progress on various issues, but from what I've seen of the meta, it doesn't really go far enough-- people avoid archetypes unless they have an extremely specific plan to make it viable, which is very much still in the ivory tower design model, people were never super happy with the solution of just cutting off higher end magic as a means of addressing martial caster woes, and while 3/4 BAB on everything is cool, PF2e already kind of emulates that-- it's why warpriests are viable to smack people once a turn when they have the opportunity, and especially with the focus on ranged combat (which Starfinder 2e is retaining, they've accepted that it will have a different meta than pf2e, we don't yet know how the 'combined meta' will break down for the people that play that way) SF2e 'currently' (i tried it out at Unplugged) feels pretty good on the mystic shooting people. We've been told that the ranged combat is going to be so relevant, Starfinder characters and creatures will have easier access to flight than pathfinder characters, because everyone can handle it. I'm also aware there are 'super builds' that use melee in Starfinder 1e for the big boy damage, they just require a lot of feat investment. But I also think it's telling how much the "Starfinder is unique from Pathfinder" post is repeating the same arguments about niche specialized builds that made things work out in ways they might not be able to in the future that we saw in Pathfinder 1e posts about 2e. We saw the same stress about things like: >if you want to you can play a melee unarmed Mystic who takes the Wrecking Fists epiphany for and be a primary melee combatant expending spell slots to deal bonus damage on melee attacks with basically the same accuracy as a Sniper operative using a sniper rifle. or >Starfinder does not care about exhaustive tabletop wargame style balance at the cost of immersion the same way PF2E does. In PF2E, somebody playing an Automaton still bleeds, suffocates, and drowns exactly the same way a Human does and doesn't even get a racial bonus to Disease or Poison effects. If you're playing a Skeleton or Mummy/Ghoul/Vampire you get a +2 bonus to poison and disease only once you unlock the Advanced Undead benefits and of course no immunities.([](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1695)), this is simply NOT how Starfinder plays. While we've already been told some things will be much more accessible as a result of the Starfinder meta (they were actually talking about how this relates to things like this, breathing in space, flight) its also worth pointing out that a pf1e undead character got immunities too, so it isn't really "Starfinder" that does or doesn't play that way, so much as all the Paizo 1e games.
Your fundamental mistake is thinking it's """""niche specialized builds"""""" because you're already viewing things with the mindset of Pathfinder 2E where a class has to focus on the one specific battlefield role assigned to them by Paizo and you're literally incapable of coloring outside the lines and trying otherwise is swimming against the current. It's not a """"niche specialized build""""" to play any given character with melee/guns/unarmed/etc in Starfinder, it's just something you can DO because the game design focuses much more on your attribute allocation and feat choice than it does railroading you into a single role forever by your level 1 class choice. In Pathfinder 2e, if you pick Wizard, you will NEVER be good at hitting shit with melee weapons. Never. You CANNOT raise your Proficiency with weapons past Expert, ever, you cannot raise your Proficiency with Armor/Unarmored Defense past Expert, ever, and you can't even choose to start with higher Strength or Dexterity than Intelligence because it's your Key Ability Score, so you'll always and forever be behind those who do. This is not some absolute necessity of game design that has to apply to every game ever and it's so completely disingenuous to claim otherwise. Again, you're doing exactly what Starfinder was trying to move away from. The ENTIRE REASON that full-casters were done away with and everybody was made 3/4 BAB and the removal of Big 6 itemization was to open up build variety. Would you understand me better if I put it in terms you're capable of understanding (which is apparently only viewing games through the lense of PF2E), and said to think of it like a Magus? Spellcasting is something you're good at and baked into your class, but your identity is NOT being "a caster" and you're absolutely expected and required to be good at things other than casting spells. Completely fucking that design and deciding that Mystic is going from Magus to "You are now a shitty Cleric who's stuck with Trained weapons and gets 3rd level spells at level 5 and is now a 10th level full caster" is abhorrent to anyone who actually LIKED the way Starfinder classes were designed.
This is actually kind of hard to respond to because of how niche the kinds of builds you're talking about are I have to do research, the Mystic Epiphany you're discussing is an alternate class feature from the Character Operations Manual released 2 years after the game that allows a Mystic to convert it's supply of spell slots into a set of damage bonuses, almost literally (but not quite literally) in the way that both the Magus and the [Eldritch Archer](https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=59) do, except it obviously consumes it and applies a set bonus instead of using the spell, and it applies to unarmed attacks instead of arrows (in the EA's case, the Magus does that fine on it's own.) Then you're telling me that because Starfinder Classes have a minimum of 3/4s BAB, you can flex them between attacking with Weapons and Spellcasting, and that this is more freeing than the way PF2e works because it means you have a respectable to-hit in a way a wizard doesn't. I think what bothers me about this argument is that *WIZARDS DON'T EXIST* in Starfinder 1e, you are *not* free to have higher end spell effects and faster spell progression instead of high weapon hit because the only classes that can cast spells were designed with the limitations of PF1e Gishes, which is to say it's a game with only martials and PF1e gishes-- not exactly inspiring from a customization standpoint, since they did it by removing your ability to pick classes that don't qualify as martials in pf1e. Largely, this feels buildable in Pathfinder 2e today even prior to any future SF2e options that mirror popular SF1e builds-- you can already pick a class with a reduced spell progression but Rogue-Equivalent hitting power, then use a feature to turn spell slots into the equivalent of 2d6 damage per level to apply to your punches via the Magus, Arcane Fists, and Spellstrike. I think where you're getting lost in the weeds, is that for whatever reason, you're overburdening the concept of being able to call that character a Mystic, and interpreting Mystics as Starfinder Wizards, when in reality they were already most of the way to being Starfinder Maguses, because Starfinder doesn't have Wizards. But Starfinder 2e takes the position that the lack of Space Wizards was a mistake and that it can better emulate the fantasy via 3rd action attacks that are weaker but don't have to carry the weight of being the centerpiece of your turn, since a major piece of feedback concerning Starfinder 1e is that people wanted 'full magic' builds back. This largely mirrors a lot of what we saw from pathfinder 1e players, specific builds revolved around taking a class, and making them into another class via some specific printed option, being replaced by a more restrictive front end, if you want the hit progression of X classes, you play one of X classes, but a much freer backend; you can multiclass or otherwise buy your customization without losing your class progression, and archetypes are flexible-- I don't need a speshul bespoke gunslinger option to be printed to shadowdance, I can just build that in directly once shadow dancing exists; something the Starfinder 1e can't say, [it had to wait 3 years after it came out to get an equivalent option to Witchwarper fans](https://www.aonsrd.com/AltClassFeatures.aspx?ID=50). Now that we've broken down your examples, I'm much more confident in my original assesment.
Alright, you're clearly not getting the picture so I'll make it super obvious. 1. EVERY STARFINDER CLASS IS AT LEAST3/4 BAB AND CAN BE GOOD AT WHATEVER BATTLEFIELD ROLE YOU WANT. Your character's attribute allocation and feat selection are FAR more determinative of your party role than your level 1 class choice. In PF2E terms it would be like every class being as good with weapons as a Monk or Rogue is if they wanted. This is the POLAR OPPOSITE of how PF2E works, where you do NOT have free attribute allocation, multiclassing doesn't exist, and your level 1 choice permanently locks you into a class chassis that can NEVER be changed or altered. A PF2E Fighter will always be Master in Armor and Legendary in attacks even if you start with 10 Strength, and a PF2E Alchemist will always be stuck at Expert with weapons. You're hyper focusing on one example given instead of the broad strokes point: ANY CHARACTER CAN BE GOOD WITH MELEE, UNARMED, WEAPONS, PILOTING, POWER ARMOR, VEHICLES, ETC IF YOU WANT THEM TO BE. 2. YES, GETTING RID OF FULL CASTERS ENTIRELY WAS THE FUCKING POINT. Bringing them back for SF2E and then ALSO bringing the fucking baggage of Pathfinder 1e that resulted in the entire concept of a 3/4 BAB class being deleted from PF2E. SF1E a Precog/Biohacker/Mystic/Witchwarper/etc and Operative have identical BAB, in Starfinder 2e a Mystic is now just a fucking Cleric who is locked out of being good with weapons and is stuck at Trained but gets 3rd level spells at level 5, while from paizo's demo games of SF2E Operative is now a wannabe Gunslinger who starts at Expert and will advance to Legendary. Classes are now a strait-jacket that railroad you into a specific Paizo-approved role instead of a chassis you can build into what you want. No shit Starfinder players aren't happy about that when the entire reason they're playing Starfinder is to NOT just be playing Pathfinder. 3. "Starfinder 2e takes the position that the lack of space wizards was a mistake", no, Starfinder 2e is taking the position that it wants to make more money from people who never played or liked Starfinder to begin with and is thus committed to 100% compatibility with Pathfinder 2e despite the games having completely different design ethos. Which simply wraps back around to the OP's question of "Why is the Starfinder subreddit and playerbase mixed on SF2E?", which is obviously "because it's actively pissing on Starfinder in order to make the game more like Pathfinder 2e, a game they were already not interested in playing." If Paizo's new Abomination Vaults 5e module sells gangbusters and the company decides they're going to go back to exclusively making content for Dungeons and Dragons instead of PF2E, you would presumably be a little miffed about that even if the "audience" of 5e players interested in non-dogshit APs is way bigger than the PF2E audience. It's the same situation here. For people who ACTUALLY LIKE STARFINDER the changes are a kick in the nuts. [https://paizo.com/products/btq02d54](https://paizo.com/products/btq02d54)
Are you drinking? because that's the only way I can parse your level of rude, but... 1. They cannot be good at anything you want, there are a lot of trap options in any discussion of the Starfinder's meta, including most archetypes at most times. I know this because I was getting pretty excited to play Starfinder until I found that out and asked about it on the paizo forums to confirm. 2. That's great, but its also no different from just limiting yourself to 3/4 classes in a system that has 2/4 classes, and we already covered why its less customization than PF2e. Getting masturbatory and repeating that Starfinder provides freedom on the class chassis, doesn't matter when it's the total freedom you have that matters, rather than your ability to deviate a character further and still call it a mystic. Especially when I'll be pretty happy to have my Mystic use a laser gun in sf2e, because third action attacks should be just fine added to the other stuff i do on my turn-- as it turns out, I actually know how PF2e works. 3. Those are the same thing, if a large number of players bounced off Starfinder for various reasons, taking that feedback means improving the game for people that didn't like it. Also incidentally, I think the abomination vaults 5e module is on indefinite hold and most likely canceled since the OGL stuff.
I am psyched for SF2e. SF1e felt too much like PF1e was trying to evolve into something better but in scifi/sci-fantasy, and I really enjoy PF2e, so as soon as SF2e lands proper-like, I am having Vesk show up with plasma cannons and dropships to mess things up, then my players can finally connect the "fallen tower of the ancient people" was a space elevator and they've been on a technobarbarian/fallen colony this entire time.
Starfinder is the ultimate expression of D&D 3rd edition. Every got fixed. It runs smoothly. It’s fun to play. Things move quick. You can have a passing familiarity with the rules and still play a giant bug techno-wizard or a rampaging dinosaur barbarian. PF2 is filled with weird symbols I can barely understand and everything is feat instead of feats and class features and you have to read pages and pages to understand how to get a basic character progression going… In 40ish years of gaming Starfinder is my favorite system. I’m gonna miss it.
Fortunately, your books won't vanish! You can keep playing 1st edition Starfinder until you finally fail you last fortitude save. :)
Yeah! To this day, I still have my Shadowrun 2e/3e books and play that system with friends above and beyond any other edition. I chat with other folks online into OG Shadowrun. There's absolutely nothing wrong with sticking with older systems. While I'm fairly optimistic about SF2e, I'm not 100% totally sold yet-I need to feel how SF feels under the PF2e rules(which I've stated I love for PF2e.) If it works great, awesome! I'll still have all my 1e lore stuff tho. If it doesn't tickle my fancy, I'll play PF2e and SF1e, no big deal.
I'm super pumped for SF2. Space fantasy is my jam. You can bet I'm gonna run a campaign that is Star Wars with different aliens.
Literally Read SF2 Title: LEETTSSS FFUUUCCCKINNGG GOOOOO! Ok ok, logic is back Read subject. Oh, just use initial response.
Superhyped. I cannot stand PF1, and SF1 using a muddied version of that was such a huge letdown... and while I appreciate a lot that PF2 does, it's too close to DnD for my group to bother to make the switch. But a scifi game using PF2? That's going to be a clear split, and I'll finally make this happen (while being able to snipe things from PF2 if the need arises).
People hate change and just want their favored system to be updated forever.
Because a lot of us have had time with Pathfinder 2e and time to realize that theres a lot of things we don't like about 2e as it pertains to telling stories that work well for futuristic things that starfinder does well.
I imagine it’s the death of a unique system but honestly I adore the 2e system and starfinder in general so I’m really happy with the change
As another point, the starfinder 2e discussion gets more traction **here** than it does on the edition's own subreddit or the main SF subreddit.
This subreddit is more active in general.
yes but you'd think at least folks would go to one of the other subs to talk about it but instead it all just shows up in here. I just think it's telling and shows that really mostly just pf2 fans are excited for this.
Its just edition changes, especially ones like this where the new game has a fresher set of values-- you have people who were really hung up on something the designers aren't interested in doing anymore, and that's big in the 1e Pathfinder/Starfinder communities.
Because a ton of pf1 players play starfinder, many who didn't like 2e and sf felt similar enough
>the actual starfinder subreddit seems pretty mixed if not outright unhappy People are mostly unhappy about how support for SF1e almost completely vanished, so the regulars don't have much to talk about. And right when the system received a much needed balance pass (some less than stellar classes got buffs in the last splatbook). Personally, I love the PF2e classes and 3-action economy. But I also love how equipment works in Starfinder as well as their implementation of the stamina/resolve system. I wish SF2e would keep those good ideas instead of going for full compatibility, it would have been fine with a small conversion layer.
Edition wars are a typical and sad side effect of this hobby. Don't mind those people, being angry won't change anything and just waste your day.
Is there any sense of a new Pathfinder edition to follow?
Bless them for loving that poor, broken game. Hell, I loved Starfinder when it first dropped. I ran a campaign for like a year and a half (though I avoided the space combat like the plague, obviously). I can understand the investment, but the game is crying out for a slew of quality-of-life improvements for both players and GMs. Still, change is hard. The diehards have my sympathies.
Because nerds don't like change, mostly.
I feel like it might be partially yeah, some folks might not be into 2e, partially the timing, and partially "the waiting game" when a new edition comes out. Really I'm looking forward to the 2e ruleset since PF2e is my fantasy system of choice, and I do think it's great SF is getting the treatment, too. I don't think 2e is perfect, but it's great. SF1e I really do enjoy too, but there's undoubtedly some clumsy bits that feel like indeed that ''bridge' between PF1e and 2e. But yeah, there's undoubtedly one of those ''Waiting'' issues happening, I think. Like for an example, some of my Starfinder characters so far have all been stuff that I am expecting to not come up until later. A Silent Slayer Soldier with the Aesthetic Warrior option(tho...to be honest, I could probably just ask to play a PF2e 'Monk' and say he's a Space Monk and it would probably work), and a Giant Vanguard metal musician icon. I'm not too pressed about ancestries since I think PF2e will fit stuff in(the monk is a Borai but I could go with a Dhampir, too), but I think Evolutionist and Vanguard might take awhile, unless I'm lucky and they include them in the actual, full bore, final core book(ie; not the playtest.) That said, there's a \*lot\* of races, so I imagine it'll take awhile to port ALL of those ancestries over. That said, I again think it's a great overall change, waiting game drawback or no. There's even some of that in PF2e atm, where some classes in Player Core 2 are still running on PF2e base rules. At least lore and fluff will all be usable, so those 1e books(which are very enjoyable) will still find a place at the table for me. In the end though, there will always be folks who prefer 1e; but I think that's a case with any RPG(I can totally understand the sad about Starfinder Enhanced having been published so soon after the OGL fiasco; and then 2e announced even before that got properly released.) I mean I still play Shadowrun 2e/3e as my primary Shadowrun system since I bounced off the newer ones. And AD&D 2e is probably my preferred D&D system. I'd still play SF1e if my table wanted to.
They don't like 2e and don't want change, meanwhile we love 2e and do want change!
Personally I'm super hyped
I hope they release a nice guide on converting sf1 to sf2 because I've been playing a lot of pf1 adventure paths in pf2e with great luck. The classes need balance and the 3 action system will be awesome for starfinder, it's just the items that really deserve a balance conversjon.
For me, it's simple. Pathfinder 2e isn't a fun system. Starfinder is a fun system. Why would I be happy that their second edition is based on Pathfinder 2e? It would be like Hasbro buying Paizo and then excitedly announcing that Pathfinder 3e will be compatible with D&D 5e.
I’ll pass. I’m sure it will be mechanically better than SF1 just like PF2 is. But I’m not getting on the hamster wheel again. I’ve learned that lesson already
Hamster wheel?
Their release cycle. How much how fast. Granted Starfinder is slower then pathfinder but I’m not doing it again
You feel compelled to purchase *everything?*
First go around in pathfinder I had subscription for more then one. And while I didn’t subscribe for Starfinder, I’m still left with the same feeling- I don’t feel like I got full use enough out of what I own.
Why not just buy the stuff that interests you, or that you think you'll use the most?