PF1 and Starfinder similarities?

[Aotrs Commander]

The newest edition to our weekly group is looking at running a Starfinder game at some point. I'm aware of, but ultimately unfamiliar with Starfinder; Pathfinder is part of the 3.5/PF hybrid 3.Aotrs I use myself, so I'm pretty familiar with it (or at least the large chunks I crib, anyway).

Is my understanding correct that, essentially, Starfinder is mechanically PF with Space Stuff (i.e., akin to (pre-Legacy) Star Wars D20 to 3.x)? I.e, basically just different classes and technology and stuff? (He's sending me some information tonight, supposedly, but I figured I might as well ask as well.)

Basically, I'm wondering about how compatible is would be to 3.Aotrs and thus whether we will in, reality, need to learn much of anything of note that is majorly different aside from new classes and stuff - and thus how much I can potentially help with suggestions on stuff like when he has to beef up the modules he's going to run, having done it so frequently myself (for the six-seven character parties we have) and as an impartial rules-person source. (The player is new to roleplaying pretty much generally.)

(If Starfinder is essentially PF-with-different-flavour, it will certainly make life easier for everyone, since we're all familiar with the core system.)

[Psyren]

It's not just a sci-fi coat of paint; there's definitely some core mechanical differences. Health is different, action economy is different, full-attacks are different, concentration and spellcasting are different, AoOs are different. One of the bigger mechanics to grok is a resource called Resolve that drives several other subsystems, from costly spells to recovering between fights to dying. Skills were consolidated even further (down to 20 from PF's 35, which was itself a big reduction from 3.5.) Some things have been greatly simplified as well, like Point Buy, critical hits, and carrying capacity.

With all that said, a number of things are the same too. The action types are mostly the same (Standard/Move/Swift/Reaction/Free). Cover and concealment work more or less like they did.

Some things were specified in far greater detail. States of Awareness for example, uses the more detailed terminology that came from Ultimate Intrigue. Readying actions is much more granular now too. Sleep deprivation actually has rules now. Things like that.

Bottom line, you'll want to read through the CRB to truly get your head around the changes - but if you run the game and rule something works the way it did in PF, it shouldn't break too much.

[Resileaf]

I think the biggest change in SF is weapons and armor. In 3.5/Pathfinder, equipment progression follows magic items getting +1 to +5 plus whatever quality you want the item to have.

In Starfinder, all equipment pieces have item levels, which dictate the access that characters have to them. The higher the item level, the more powerful it is, and characters will only have access to them when they are high enough level.

[Psyren]

I think the biggest change in SF is weapons and armor. In 3.5/Pathfinder, equipment progression follows magic items getting +1 to +5 plus whatever quality you want the item to have.

In Starfinder, all equipment pieces have item levels, which dictate the access that characters have to them. The higher the item level, the more powerful it is, and characters will only have access to them when they are high enough level.

It's not that big a change in all honesty. It's mechanically similar to the PF/3.5 "you should spend no more than 50% of your wealth on a single item" rule; the idea is that you shouldn't be able to concentrate your wealth into one OP item simply because you can afford it on paper. Item levels apply the same principle by simply keeping items too powerful for your current level from showing up in the shops at all. (By default that is; the GM can of course have whatever they want be available for purchase wherever they want.)

[Resileaf]

It's not that big a change in all honesty. It's mechanically similar to the PF/3.5 "you should spend no more than 50% of your wealth on a single item" rule; the idea is that you shouldn't be able to concentrate your wealth into one OP item simply because you can afford it on paper. Item levels apply the same principle by simply keeping items too powerful for your current level from showing up in the shops at all. (By default that is; the GM can of course have whatever they want be available for purchase wherever they want.)

Imo it's a big change because it puts the character's powers in their weapons and armor. In PF, the difference between a greataxe and a +5 greataxe is less important than all the other buff items the barbarian is wearing. If he were to lose that greataxe, he could pick up any random sword and still deal massive damage.
In Starfinder, a lvl 20 weapon will deal 6d12 damage while the lvl 1 version does 1d6.

[OgresAreCute]

Imo it's a big change because it puts the character's powers in their weapons and armor. In PF, the difference between a greataxe and a +5 greataxe is less important than all the other buff items the barbarian is wearing. If he were to lose that greataxe, he could pick up any random sword and still deal massive damage.
In Starfinder, a lvl 20 weapon will deal 6d12 damage while the lvl 1 version does 1d6.

To add to this, AC now actually scales and the to-hit rates of both players and creatures remain relatively constant throughout the game.

There's also some differences in how monsters are statted, with their stats being derived from their CR in a super simplified array-based system rather than having an approximate CR based on their abilities. They also have kinda low AC and REALLY high to-hit numbers, somewhat overtuned saving throws and moderate damage per hit.

For example, a PF Ogre (CR 3) has:
30 HP, 17 AC and an attack that deals 2d8+7 damage at +7 to hit.
An SF Urog (CR 3) has:
35 HP, 15/14 AC and an attack that deals 1d4+4 damage at a whopping +10 to hit.

[Psyren]

Imo it's a big change because it puts the character's powers in their weapons and armor. In PF, the difference between a greataxe and a +5 greataxe is less important than all the other buff items the barbarian is wearing. If he were to lose that greataxe, he could pick up any random sword and still deal massive damage.

In Starfinder, a lvl 20 weapon will deal 6d12 damage while the lvl 1 version does 1d6.

Fair point, it is a difference compared to PF's itemization - so I'll walk back my earlier statement. Yes, you're absolutely right, it makes gear more important - but that's the nature of a sci-fi/cyberpunk game. It encourages the PCs to make contacts with shady arms dealers on the black market who have the good stuff, or to become beholden to ultra-sleek corporations, military and mercenary outfits with proprietary or even experimental technology. See also sci-fi games like Mass Effect, Borderlands, Fallout, or Deus Ex.

With that said, to reiterate - nothing is stopping the GM from making higher-quality (read: higher-level) guns and armor available to the PCs regardless of level, whether for purchase or as rewards - the item level guideline is merely there for the ones who are less comfortable monkeying with this aspect of the game balance, and like PF's 50% WBL guideline it does not have to be cloven to in every instance or every session of a campaign.

[Resileaf]

I think monster to hit has been upgraded because of the changes to full attack rules. Attacking once may have +10 to hit, but attacking twice has both attacks being +6.


Fair point, it is a difference compared to PF's itemization - so I'll walk back my earlier statement. Yes, you're absolutely right, it makes gear more important - but that's the nature of a sci-fi/cyberpunk game. It encourages the PCs to make contacts with shady arms dealers on the black market who have the good stuff, or to become beholden to ultra-sleek corporations, military and mercenary outfits with proprietary or even experimental technology. See also sci-fi games like Mass Effect, Borderlands, Fallout, or Deus Ex.

With that said, to reiterate - nothing is stopping the GM from making higher-quality (read: higher-level) guns and armor available to the PCs regardless of level, whether for purchase or as rewards - the item level guideline is merely there for the ones who are less comfortable monkeying with this aspect of the game balance, and like PF's 50% WBL guideline it does not have to be cloven to in every instance or every session of a campaign.

I am in full agreement with that. It really adds to the atmosphere of the game when everything down to the high level equipment is mass-produced.

[Aotrs Commander]

Skimming through the rules now. Yeah, I can see it's more different than I thought it might be (though, admittedly, not more so than Star Wars D20/Stargate D20/Dredd D20, so not that much...!)

Does mean I WILL have to do a (more extensive) new character sheet again though.

As no roleplaying system EVER has done a character sheet that is not made of suck.

[Crake]

Fair point, it is a difference compared to PF's itemization - so I'll walk back my earlier statement. Yes, you're absolutely right, it makes gear more important - but that's the nature of a sci-fi/cyberpunk game. It encourages the PCs to make contacts with shady arms dealers on the black market who have the good stuff, or to become beholden to ultra-sleek corporations, military and mercenary outfits with proprietary or even experimental technology. See also sci-fi games like Mass Effect, Borderlands, Fallout, or Deus Ex.

With that said, to reiterate - nothing is stopping the GM from making higher-quality (read: higher-level) guns and armor available to the PCs regardless of level, whether for purchase or as rewards - the item level guideline is merely there for the ones who are less comfortable monkeying with this aspect of the game balance, and like PF's 50% WBL guideline it does not have to be cloven to in every instance or every session of a campaign.

I have no problem with there being expensive, and awesome gear in the game, but I much prefer that to be utility gear, things like a personal cloak, or force field. For weapons, a gun is a gun. You shoot someone in the head, they should die, the end, and the strength of a weapon should be in how good the wielder is at using it. But in starfinder, that's not the case, and that's what kinda annoys me about the whole system. Newbie with awesome gun one shots a veteran by shooting him in the foot. Veteran with terrible gun grazes the newbie when he shoots him in the head.

[Psyren]

I have no problem with there being expensive, and awesome gear in the game, but I much prefer that to be utility gear, things like a personal cloak, or force field. For weapons, a gun is a gun. You shoot someone in the head, they should die, the end, and the strength of a weapon should be in how good the wielder is at using it. But in starfinder, that's not the case, and that's what kinda annoys me about the whole system. Newbie with awesome gun one shots a veteran by shooting him in the foot. Veteran with terrible gun grazes the newbie when he shoots him in the head.

1) Veteran has Weapon Specialization and a bunch of Stamina that the newbie does not have, so there is a lot of damage you're ignoring for the sake of this specious example.

2) If you didn't take down the target's Stamina, then by no means did you "shoot him in the head," like at all.

[OgresAreCute]

I have no problem with there being expensive, and awesome gear in the game, but I much prefer that to be utility gear, things like a personal cloak, or force field. For weapons, a gun is a gun. You shoot someone in the head, they should die, the end, and the strength of a weapon should be in how good the wielder is at using it. But in starfinder, that's not the case, and that's what kinda annoys me about the whole system. Newbie with awesome gun one shots a veteran by shooting him in the foot. Veteran with terrible gun grazes the newbie when he shoots him in the head.

I agree. Character progression being wealth/item-based rather than class-based is the fatal flaw in starfinder and makes the whole game kinda dull. I guess they want more focus on die rolling rather than flat modifiers making the dice meaningless, but
a) they could have just made weapons scale in number of damage dice by level al á 4E
b) rolling 14d8 isn't exactly practical

[Psyren]

I agree. Character progression being wealth/item-based rather than class-based is the fatal flaw in starfinder and makes the whole game kinda dull. I guess they want more focus on die rolling rather than flat modifiers making the dice meaningless, but
a) they could have just made weapons scale in number of damage dice by level al á 4E
b) rolling 14d8 isn't exactly practical

1) Progression is both class-based and wealth-based - just like D&D/PF.

2) How is that any less practical than a mage's 14d6 fireball/lightning? I think y'all are complaining to complain.

[Aotrs Commander]

Mmm, got to say, I am not overly impressed with the mechanics changes, personally. (But, then again, this is the reason I never adopted Pathfinder directly. Some of their ideas were genius (the ways skills are done) and some unfathomably stupid (the nerf to Power Attack).)

The whole multiple attacks nerf is something everyone seems to do (and I think it is as ridiculous here as everywhere else).

I can certainly say that, with spells, from a cursory glance, being less powerful AND back to AD&D standards of "no, if are in melee you entire class feature might as well be disabled" with no concentration or defensive casting, I'm not going to be playing a magic-user (which is normally my go-to...), because frack that noise!



But, as they say, my opinion is not hugely relevant, since I'm not the DM, and I only need to know these rules insofar as it helps the game along (and helps the DM, because just because I don't agree with all the rules doesn't mean I won't play with them as judiciously as I do when I run my own).

(I mean, I'm not especially fond of 4E or Dungeon Crawl Classics, but if I'm not DMing, I'll play almost anything!)

[Crake]

1) Progression is both class-based and wealth-based - just like D&D/PF.

I find there's much less class-based progression compared to 3.5 and pf, it weighs FAR further toward wealth-based progression, and in 3.5/pf, the wealth-based progression is far less impactful. You could spend 60-80% of your wbl on a weapon, and it will only give you + a tiny bit of hit and damage. Regular weapon compared to +5 weapon in 3.5/pf, when placed next to 1d4 pistol and 20d4 pistol, you can't really give me a straight face and say they're on the same level.


2) How is that any less practical than a mage's 14d6 fireball/lightning? I think y'all are complaining to complain.

I mean, the argument could be made that the mage doesn't fire off 14d6 fireball/lightning every round, let alone potentially multiple times per round. But the practicality of the rolls isn't high on my list when 16d8 vital strikes are a thing in pathfinder.

[StSword]

I don't know if you'd be interested, but Arcforge: Star*Path provides conversion rules between pathfinder and starfinder.

i know I prefer Pathfinder in SPACE...ACE...ACE. A game in which you could have technomancers and druids? Yes please.

Or use it's rules to incorporate pathfinder material you might not want to do without in a starfinder game, if that would be something you're interested in.

[Aotrs Commander]

G'wan then, folks, having read through the core classes (and, frankly, a bit underwhelmed - is it me or is the Solarian a bit particularly pants), what's some interesting stuff? Not looking for game breakers (though it might be useful to knoiw about any so as we can avoid/deal with 'em) but something a bit more clever than just [class] 20.

Since y'know, I don't get to build characters very often, I might as well try and eke as much fun out of it as possible...



Idelly considering a shooty mechanic with floatly gun thingy or possibly some operative in there, I dunno.

[Telok]

Starfinder is OK as a game if you stay within it's limits.

Don't think too hard about having to be 3rd level to buy a quad-copter when 1st level characters can own a starship. Don't ask how the starship can generate 5 nuclear missiles between fights an unlimited number of times. Don't use radiation weapons. Don't calculate the mass/volume ratios of anything, ever. Don't think about low level characters with laser pistols being unable to break a lamp. Don't look at the math of grenades, grenade arrows, or full auto attacks.

Do check the FAQ and revised skill DCs.

Oh, and hover drones can't really hover.

[Psyren]

I find there's much less class-based progression compared to 3.5 and pf, it weighs FAR further toward wealth-based progression, and in 3.5/pf, the wealth-based progression is far less impactful. You could spend 60-80% of your wbl on a weapon, and it will only give you + a tiny bit of hit and damage. Regular weapon compared to +5 weapon in 3.5/pf, when placed next to 1d4 pistol and 20d4 pistol, you can't really give me a straight face and say they're on the same level.

Remind me, which pistol is doing 20d4 again? Got a page number I can check?



I mean, the argument could be made that the mage doesn't fire off 14d6 fireball/lightning every round, let alone potentially multiple times per round. But the practicality of the rolls isn't high on my list when 16d8 vital strikes are a thing in pathfinder.

A rogue's 28d6 sneak attack on a TWF full attack "every round" then :smallsigh: point stands.

[Aotrs Commander]

Remind me, which pistol is doing 20d4 again? Got a page number I can check?

...

What is UP with those weapon stats? I don't think I've ever seen such a randomly bizarre and apparently largely arbitatry set of weapons in an TT RPG.

Is it me, or is melee a FAR superior option that ranged? By, like, MILES? I mean, having taken away the logical option of giving guns a higher rate of fire where it would make sense to have them deal less damage compartiively so as not to be just better, but...

Why are small arms so utterly crap?

I also like how it basically forces you into weapon choice by the fact that weapons are a straight progression. So, no, forget about having that cool dual-wielding pistol dude; the guy standing next to you with a rifle will always out-damage you, as will the bloke in melee. Great.

As this is in the "it's you gear, not you," system.

What a downright assinine design decision.




A rogue's 28d6 sneak attack on a TWF full attack "every round" then :smallsigh: point stands.

Psh! 28D6! 28? Not even trying! Shandy drinking damage, that is! Is your rogue even stabbing, dude!

...

Seriously, I've seen a rogue/ninja/invisible blade/swordsage hit 10/11D6 per attack (granted, at about 17th); might you, even my 11th level party's current rogue could get up to about ABOUT ten or eleven now (that's including his rapier damage, though, and with the bard Inspirational Boosting Dragonfire and he only gets two attacks. (I made a feat up that means there is some merit to rogues not using TWF, which adds a flat +2 bonus for every SA dice and dOES multiple on a crit.) No, tell a like, I forgot Assassin's Stance, so another, what +2D6 to that?

Lessee... D6 rapier + D6 weapon crystal + 5D6 SA + 2D6 SA (Assassin's Stance) + 3D6 Dragonfire Inspiration + D6 Burning Blade plus, what, something like +25-ish (about six from IL, +14 from aforementioned feat, circa +5 from the various party buffs they always put up (Inspire Courage/Good Hope/Elation/Dragon Shaman's power aura etc), plus whatever is strength and magic weapon is, which is probably about four or five total). Something like that.

Huh. Okay, so maybe he isn't far off 28D6 if he and the party are making a particular effort.

[OgresAreCute]

...

What is UP with those weapon stats? I don't think I've ever seen such a randomly bizarre and apparently largely arbitatry set of weapons in an TT RPG.

Is it me, or is melee a FAR superior option that ranged? By, like, MILES? I mean, having taken away the logical option of giving guns a higher rate of fire where it would make sense to have them deal less damage compartiively so as not to be just better, but...

Why are small arms so utterly crap?

I also like how it basically forces you into weapon choice by the fact that weapons are a straight progression. So, no, forget about having that cool dual-wielding pistol dude; the guy standing next to you with a rifle will always out-damage you, as will the bloke in melee. Great.

As this is in the "it's you gear, not you," system.

What a downright assinine design decision.

Melee actually isn't that much better than a sharpshooter soldier at higher levels, and most likely will be outdamaged by the soldier since the soldier doesn't need to move, which means they get more full attacks and more damage.

Small arms and operative melee weapons are completely unusable by anyone that isn't an actual operative, and operatives don't deal much damage to begin with. If you're playing a class like Envoy, just drop your level 1 and 3 feats on Longarm proficiency and Versatile Specialization so you can pretend to kinda deal damage.

Dual Wielding is terrible. You get nothing from it, unless you get a feat that gives you a +1 to hit on full attack with it, and since your damage progression is based on WBL, needing to buy several weapons is even more terrible than it was in 3.5/PF.

Small arms and operative melee weapons being so terrible is one of my least favorite things about the system among many grievances. They're essentially useless to everyone but a single class, which happens to be the class that cares least about their weapon's damage. Operative itself is actually the best designed class in the game in my opinion though.

[Psyren]

Why are small arms so utterly crap?

Small arms are weaker because the only folks who really should be using them are casters and operatives*; they're a fall-back option for the former and the latter get damage boosts / extra attacks. It's thus understandable that sidearms should be less powerful than rifles, rocket launchers, miniguns et al. In addition to smaller damage ranges overall and fewer options (e.g. no full auto, no snipe, no blast/boost etc.) they also only get half damage from Weapon Specialization (i.e. 1/2 level to damage instead of full level.)

*Envoys use them too, but they're the bard - force multipliers for the entire group rather than damage gods themselves.



I also like how it basically forces you into weapon choice by the fact that weapons are a straight progression. So, no, forget about having that cool dual-wielding pistol dude; the guy standing next to you with a rifle will always out-damage you, as will the bloke in melee. Great.

Wait, so you want casters doing more weapon damage than soldiers? This seems like a no-win situation.



Psh! 28D6! 28? Not even trying! Shandy drinking damage, that is! Is your rogue even stabbing, dude!

Oh I was *just* talking sneak attack there, i.e. 7d6 hitting 4 times with TWF. Definitely if you throw in weapon damage, properties and other stuff you'll be rolling even more dice; thanks for proving my point :smallamused:

[Aotrs Commander]

Wait, so you want casters doing more weapon damage than soldiers? This seems like a no-win situation.

I mean, maybe it's just nearly thirty years of SpaceMaster speaking, but, sod the casters (and considering how naff spells are...), I'd like my soldier to have the option to be a twin-pistol wielding guy or a guy that has laser rifles or a guy that has projectile rifles and be at least be comparable, not having some weapons be dramatically inferior (the top laser rifle is hugely inferior to the projectile rifle - even IF you crit and get the extra burn damage, and that's only 5% of the time. (Is Improved Critical even a thing?)

I mean in SM, some weapons are better than others, sure (otherwise what would be the point), but at least laser, plasma and projectiles are equally comparible at the same level and the big difference is the skill anyway And if you pick a more exotic weapon like an electroblaster (i.e. what shoots lightning) it will, at least, not be markedly inferior to the laser pistol. (I mean, it'll likely use the same attack table, but will do different criticals.)

I mean, SW D20 and Stargate D20 had weapon stats which were much more in-line with each other. (And in PF, the difference between the weapons matter much less than the stuff on it.)

As it is, SF seems more like a Rogue-like like Diablo 2 or something, where you will, in fact, sod any thematic thing you might have, just be swapping always to the weapon that has better stats, regardless of what it is. Especially since the stuff like the elemental weapons seem so... pants. I guess that's the point though, I guess. It just seems a really odd thing for Paizo, of all people, to basically take away any flavour elements in favour of "well, this stuff is just objectively better."

[Resileaf]

The projectile weapons are generally stronger because Kinetic AC is usually higher than Energy AC, which all energy weapons have to beat. There is therefore a power discrepency in the name of balance, so that projectiles weapon are less likely to hit, but will deal more damage, while energy weapon are more likely to hit and have special crit properties, but deal less damage.
And AoE weapons are in a weird place because you can hit really easily with them, but despite historically being the most devastating weapons for a reason, they are weirdly weak in Starfinder.

[Telok]

Melee has higher damage potential at the cost of taking more damage and having to get into melee range. The melee focused monsters tend to hit harder and more often, or be swarmers with additional effects like poisons.

The light weapons are crap because they're intended for opreatives, who have a damage bonus that only works with those weapons, or they're the default for classes that get to do things other than weapon damage in combat. Plus the two feats to graduate into decent weapons aren't a bad tax mostly because there are so few good feats.

Energy weapons are slightly less damaging than projectiles because, overall, everythings EAC should be 2 to 4 points lower than KAC. Plus the ammo usage, and the difference between rounds and rechargable batteries, can actually matter if you leave civilization for long enough.

Overall the damage ratings are soldier and operative at the top, solarion and exocortex mechanic, people who shelled out feats for decent weapons and casters using all spells for combat damage, and all non-soldiers who made build mistakes at the bottom. Generally the top two of those categories are reasonably close in output, probably only really a 10% or so difference. The next two are about 2/3 and 1/3 of that.

For all my complaints about the system the combat math is really tight and well set when fighting appeopriate monsters. For critters that have numbers past the intended +/- 3 CR range things break down. It's totally possible for a CR+3 critter with slightly higher than normal AC to be essentially unhittable by a normal group. Then with the way monsters are built a group of enough 'too low' CR critters to make an 'appropriate' fight can have such a numbers advantage that they'll stomp the PCs if they are played as anything but holding idiot balls.

The math surrounding skills is considerably less well thought out. And grappling has no size restrictions.

[Madsamurai]

Having multiple weapons is not that hard. I found that in our campaign you would almost never spend money on armor or weapons as it was much more efficient to pick them up off a dead guy rather then spend half your wealth on it and have it become obsolete after a few levels, or finding a better piece of armor the very next session and being out 90% of the purchase price :smallfurious:

All the non-weapon and armor equipment is super cool though. Armor upgrades are easily my favorite part of the system.

[OgresAreCute]

Having multiple weapons is not that hard. I found that in our campaign you would almost never spend money on armor or weapons as it was much more efficient to pick them up off a dead guy rather then spend half your wealth on it and have it become obsolete after a few levels, or finding a better piece of armor the very next session and being out 90% of the purchase price :smallfurious:

All the non-weapon and armor equipment is super cool though. Armor upgrades are easily my favorite part of the system.

Well, looted equipment you actually use still counts towards WBL.

I like how movement speed penalties are a flat number in this game (though I'd prefer to see them go completely) and I also like how AC actually has a level/equipment progression now so that AC doesn't end up falling far behind to-hit numbers.

[Psyren]

Having multiple weapons is not that hard. I found that in our campaign you would almost never spend money on armor or weapons as it was much more efficient to pick them up off a dead guy rather then spend half your wealth on it and have it become obsolete after a few levels, or finding a better piece of armor the very next session and being out 90% of the purchase price :smallfurious:

All the non-weapon and armor equipment is super cool though. Armor upgrades are easily my favorite part of the system.

Gear you find counts towards WBL - this is once again no different than 3.5/PF :smallconfused:



And AoE weapons are in a weird place because you can hit really easily with them, but despite historically being the most devastating weapons for a reason, they are weirdly weak in Starfinder.

AoE weapons are meant for groups of weaker enemies. And I'm not sure a historical viewpoint is particularly valuable here - it's not like we had forcefields, power armor, or aliens to deal with historically. (That we know of, anyway.)


Melee has higher damage potential at the cost of taking more damage and having to get into melee range. The melee focused monsters tend to hit harder and more often, or be swarmers with additional effects like poisons.

Yeah, running up to melee a tentacled monstrosity with more mouths than eyes, or a titanic killbot that outweighs you by several factors, might not be conducive to your long-term health. Range offers more tactics and survivability. Keep in mind though that Haste (including from a Haste module) lets everyone pounce in Starfinder.



Plus the ammo usage, and the difference between rounds and rechargable batteries, can actually matter if you leave civilization for long enough.

Ammo is craftable too, and given the low item levels of standard ammo, you can usually cobble quite a bit together during an adventuring day once you hit mid levels.



For all my complaints about the system the combat math is really tight and well set when fighting appeopriate monsters. For critters that have numbers past the intended +/- 3 CR range things break down. It's totally possible for a CR+3 critter with slightly higher than normal AC to be essentially unhittable by a normal group. Then with the way monsters are built a group of enough 'too low' CR critters to make an 'appropriate' fight can have such a numbers advantage that they'll stomp the PCs if they are played as anything but holding idiot balls.

Given that CR+3 is "epic difficulty" that seems to be intended. Even CR+1 is "challenging."

[OgresAreCute]

Given that CR+3 is "epic difficulty" that seems to be intended. Even CR+1 is "challenging."

Indeed, these kinda "tight math" systems generally work better when you don't get wild with the CR disparities. Of course, the CRB does include explicit warnings about that and recommends having diverse groups of enemies roughly around party level in CR that have different roles in combat, which I think is both a good idea in general and especially in systems like this.

Pretty sure I remember a lot of people complaining in the PF2 thread about this and related problematics.

[Aotrs Commander]

Well, frankly, having discovered the... interesting decision to make racial ability modifers basically largely irrelvant, and for humans to never be worse than average at anything without deliberately gimping your character for the sake of gimping your character, I am finding, just like with 4E, this "must make it a mathmatically level playing field" idea to be really rather ridiculous. Oh no, the Elf could be 5% better than the dwarf at something elves are supposed to be slightly better at! Better make sure that can't happen! *skullflange*

Really, why even bother with racial stats if you're going to make it so that they are inconsequential (or, at worst, tacitly encouraging people to pick a race whose dump stat syngergies with their class...)

Starfinder seems to have been designed by someone who was allergic to modifiers and only made it D20 because someone threatened to eat their children or something...



Ho hum. Anyhoo, when I'm not DMing... Leaning towards a goblin operative (halfling if that won't fly), maybe with a level or two of something else. I'd like to say mechanic, but really, they don't syngergise at all well. (I question the point of even having multiclassing when each class is so written that the features are all mostly mutually exclusive...) Maybe sharp-shooter soldier for a 1-level dip...

[OgresAreCute]

Well, frankly, having discovered the... interesting decision to make racial ability modifers basically largely irrelvant, and for humans to never be worse than average at anything without deliberately gimping your character for the sake of gimping your character, I am finding, just like with 4E, this "must make it a mathmatically level playing field" idea to be really rather ridiculous. Oh no, the Elf could be 5% better than the dwarf at something elves are supposed to be slightly better at! Better make sure that can't happen! *skullflange*

Really, why even bother with racial stats if you're going to make it so that they are inconsequential (or, at worst, tacitly encouraging people to pick a race whose dump stat syngergies with their class...)

Starfinder seems to have been designed by someone who was allergic to modifiers and only made it D20 because someone threatened to eat their children or something...



Ho hum. Anyhoo, when I'm not DMing... Leaning towards a goblin operative (halfling if that won't fly), maybe with a level or two of something else. I'd like to say mechanic, but really, they don't syngergise at all well. (I question the point of even having multiclassing when each class is so written that the features are all mostly mutually exclusive...) Maybe sharp-shooter soldier for a 1-level dip...

Racial modifiers actually matter a bit because of the really weird point-buy Starfinder uses. An android operative could for example start with 18 dex, 16 int and 8 cha (and a +1 to something from theme), whereas a race like shirren would get you 18 dex, 12 con, 12 int, 12 wis, 8 cha which is less useful for you. It doesn't actually make you better at your specialty though, it just lets you save points for your side job. The weird point buy thing is also pretty rough for MAD classes, especially MAD melees like Solarian.

Not being better than your fellows in your specialty regardless of race choice is just a casualty of the "tight math" thing, which you'll see many of as you familiarize yourself with the system.

[Psyren]

Well, frankly, having discovered the... interesting decision to make racial ability modifers basically largely irrelvant, and for humans to never be worse than average at anything without deliberately gimping your character for the sake of gimping your character, I am finding, just like with 4E, this "must make it a mathmatically level playing field" idea to be really rather ridiculous. Oh no, the Elf could be 5% better than the dwarf at something elves are supposed to be slightly better at! Better make sure that can't happen! *skullflange*

Really, why even bother with racial stats if you're going to make it so that they are inconsequential (or, at worst, tacitly encouraging people to pick a race whose dump stat syngergies with their class...)

Starfinder seems to have been designed by someone who was allergic to modifiers and only made it D20 because someone threatened to eat their children or something...

Can you elaborate on this? I feel like you don't fully grasp how SF point buy works. Not a knock against you, it's a dense book as I mentioned up top, but some of your previous statements (plus the, well, snarky tone of your reactions) makes it very difficult to separate true issues you might be having from hyperbole or inaccuracy.


Ho hum. Anyhoo, when I'm not DMing... Leaning towards a goblin operative (halfling if that won't fly), maybe with a level or two of something else. I'd like to say mechanic, but really, they don't syngergise at all well. (I question the point of even having multiclassing when each class is so written that the features are all mostly mutually exclusive...) Maybe sharp-shooter soldier for a 1-level dip...

What do you want out of an Operative/Mechanic specifically? There might be feats or other options that get the job done just as well.

[Aotrs Commander]

Can you elaborate on this? I feel like you don't fully grasp how SF point buy works. Not a knock against you, it's a dense book as I mentioned up top, but some of your previous statements (plus the, well, snarky tone of your reactions) makes it very difficult to separate true issues you might be having from hyperbole or inaccuracy.

You start at base 10 for stats, then you add your race stats (from what I recall, the same allocation as PF, i.e. typically two +2s and a -2), add one point from theme and THEN and only then add ten more points (point-for-point) with the cap of 18. (You're not allowed to swap, though the game says basically "you can make yourself a dumb fighter if you want to drop your intelligence down, but you just lose those stat points." (?)

Which means, unlike every prior edition of D&D and PF, that your race bonus can't change your maximum stat, which remains 18. Nor can anyone have any more than the one 8 IF their race depends on it.

(It also is at great pains to flatly forbid anything hgher than a 18 if you roll stats as well.)

So it means the most agile elf and the most agile dwarf and the most agile goblin possible are the same agility, and the strongest orc and halfling are ALSO the same strength. And because OF the allocation of stats, it is EXPECTED you will have 18 in you primary stat (their default stat array, is like 18/14/11/10/10/10), which means that... it's trivial to buy-off the -2 unless you explictly are using it as your one and only dump stat.

I also can't understand WHY they gave you an odd point, since they give you stats every 5 levels, not four (so you only get +4 over twenty levels), and there doesn't appear to be any stat boosting item (and Wish doesn't allow inherenty bonuses) so why even bother giving you an odd number of points in the first place! Just... Don't give that extra point for theme, it's not like it matters, and have everything even! Given the number of occasions that a +1 will come up, mit falls into the "if it's less than 5%, ignore it" rule, because you're using a D20!




What do you want out of an Operative/Mechanic specifically? There might be feats or other options that get the job done just as well.

I kinda liked the idea of the drone a minion to flat around and shoot stuff, actually, to start with, and also some of the mechanic exo-gubbins stuff was pretty cool, but became increasingly unenthused as I read on. So I thought "well, maybe multiclass if I want to be good at shooting, since me and robot-minion wouldn't be great at it, given that realistically, as APs don't run to 20th level so as that is actually the point the combat robot sort of gets to the point it';d be cool, even if it does, the game's over..." (Why allow the class feature to split between drone and exo-guff at level 17, of all places?)

So, because I like multiclassing and doing stuff like that, because I take a child-like joy in putting pieces together to make something cool...

... and actually that statement pretty much defines my entire life and unlife, from playing with LEGO, to hybridising rules, to my preference to 3.x, to my ability to take random bits of plot from throw-away stuff and weave a complex universe, well that's an interesting moment of self-analysis...

... I started looking at that and I realised they had done a good job of ensuring that there was very little synergy between classes and just more about different options. (Mechanic remains my second choice, though.)

I seriously considered soldier, but I was distinctly unimpressed by the combat styles and I REALLY want to be able to play a PF-style rogue or ninja (or, since i stole the PF witch's class features, Hexblade), so operative seemed like maybe the option.


(I was also slightly gobsmacked that they spent all the time telling you about what class features you lose from archetypes and then only gave you two, really underwhelming (and one barely complete) ones to go on. Sure they'll add to that later on, but... Really?)

Still, it will probably be at LEAST six months before we actually play this, since that's about how long it'll take us to get through the next book of Rise of the Runelords, so maybe they'll be more options out by then? Wait, Starfinder's been out for a couple of years, now though, hasn't it?




Not being better than your fellows in your specialty regardless of race choice is just a casualty of the "tight math" thing, which you'll see many of as you familiarize yourself with the system.

If it is so sensitive that an additional 5% would throw it off, the design is... I'll be polite and not say what I actually think and say "poorly concieved."

Plus, WHY would you draw the line at +4 and not +5 (on a D20, where +5 is 25% and a logical mathmatical end-point - oh, no, wait, I get it - because what they actually WANTED was to have everything basically +/-2, didn't they, except they hid it behind +1 being the average, not +0. That's so stupid. If you actually don't want to use the granularity of a d20 beyond +/+-10% don't use a D20! Idiots.) Yeah, they can take their "tight maths" and they can [Aotrs Censor Warning: the following text has been automatically censored from voice-to-text operation as being unsuitable for children, adults, equines, undead or eldritch horrors beyond the concept of space/time. We apologise for the inconvenience.]

[Psyren]

You're correct that ability score increases happen every 5 levels now instead of every 4. But what you're forgetting is that unlike 3.5/PF, you get to increase 4 ability scores at that point instead of just one. On top of that, if any of the scores you're increasing are 16 or lower, you get to boost it by 2 points instead of 1.

What this means is that this concern (like several others you've been apoplectic over) is very overblown. Starting at a 16 and starting at an 18 is a minor difference for the first 5 levels and gets even smaller after that. It also means that MADness matters a lot less than it did in PF, not that many classes are MAD anyway. (There's Solarian, maybe Envoy... that's about it.) Moreover, given how Stamina and Resolve interact with your KAM, you can get away with lower Con (10-12) than you usually would in PF.

This also answers your question about the odd score; stick it in one of the tertiary scores you plan to increase.



I seriously considered soldier, but I was distinctly unimpressed by the combat styles and I REALLY want to be able to play a PF-style rogue or ninja (or, since i stole the PF witch's class features, Hexblade), so operative seemed like maybe the option.
...
(I was also slightly gobsmacked that they spent all the time telling you about what class features you lose from archetypes and then only gave you two, really underwhelming (and one barely complete) ones to go on. Sure they'll add to that later on, but... Really?)
...
Still, it will probably be at LEAST six months before we actually play this, since that's about how long it'll take us to get through the next book of Rise of the Runelords, so maybe they'll be more options out by then? Wait, Starfinder's been out for a couple of years, now though, hasn't it?

There are indeed more books, and archetypes, that are out right now - and more coming this year. But I get the feeling you don't actually want any build help, you just want to vent and spew disdain at the system. Which is certainly your prerogative, but it does mean I have better things to do than waste my time helping someone who's clearly made up their mind.

[Aotrs Commander]

You're correct that ability score increases happen every 5 levels now instead of every 4. But what you're forgetting is that unlike 3.5/PF, you get to increase 4 ability scores at that point instead of just one. On top of that, if any of the scores you're increasing are 16 or lower, you get to boost it by 2 points instead of 1.

What the what?!

But...

Then...

That makes the 18 cap make EVEN LESS sense! As well as the start from base ten!

That's... Uuuurgh.




There are indeed more books, and archetypes, that are out right now - and more coming this year.

I looked at the archetypes on the SRD wiki and didn't see anything there that looked... Interesting, unfortunately.




But I get the feeling you don't actually want any build help, you just want to vent and spew disdain at the system. Which is certainly your prerogative, but it does mean I have better things to do than waste my time helping someone who's clearly made up their mind.

So in that, Starfinder is no different to any other system (including baseline 3.x) in that it contains a number of... poor... design decisions.

Let me put it to you this way - there has NEVER existed a set of rules that I felt worked as written, because of one thing or another. Not Rolemaster, not OD&D, AD&D, 3.0, 3.5, 4E or Pathfinder 1, not Star Wars D6, not Dredd, Star Wars or Stargate D20, not Sidewinder, not BESM, not GURPS, not whatever-the-hell-version-of-Vampire-I once-played, not Warhammer (RPG, Fantasy Battle or 40K), not Full Thrust or BattleTech or MechWarrior or DBM or Dirtside II or Stargrunt 2 or Silent Death or Maneouvre Group or Sea Strike or frickin' HeroQuest. Hell, not even my OWN starship rules have come away without some effectively homebrew modifications. So, I am ALWAYS going to be tearing holes in any set of rules mechanics.

But, as with 4E, I don't have to particularly like it, but I do have to play it. (Or, y'know, never get to play any characters.)



I am, however, probably more disappointed with Starfinder than I might have been, as I was expecting it to basically be Pathfinder (the mechanics) in Space and it... isn't that. I was hoping for LEGO it to be LEGO, but it is, at best, contempory LEGO, not LEGO as it was thirty years ago... (Or possibly MegaBlocks. Tente if I'm being mean.)

But hell, it's not Spelljammer, so I guess I should put that into perspective.



But I'll shut up now, if everyone has had enough. I'm afraid Voicing My Opinion On Forums is about all I have been up to this week, which is why I'm blithering on and not playing more Deadfire or something. (Blame ponythread, actually, for being mostly dead, 'cos if I'm not blithering safely away there, I find somewhere else to blither...)

[Resileaf]

What the what?!

But...

Then...

That makes the 18 cap make EVEN LESS sense! As well as the start from base ten!

That's... Uuuurgh.


It prevents people from stacking a single stat and completely overpowering any sort of challenge. They made a conscious decision to favor game balance instead of letting a couple of builds dominate everything.

[Psyren]

So, I am ALWAYS going to be tearing holes in any set of rules mechanics.

Well, you don't need my help to do that; good luck.

[Telok]

Given that CR+3 is "epic difficulty" that seems to be intended. Even CR+1 is "challenging."

That's nice but if you're playing the adventure paths they like to put a couple of those "epic" fights in each book.

I really do remember a number of fights where the PCs got hit on 6+, hit the opponent on 15+, and it was just a hit point attrition race. A couple fights with the technomancer just standing around shooting because everything would always make the saves, and they just ignored him because even with max dex and an at-level long arm he wasn't doing enough damage to be a target. One fight where the mystic and technomancer blew all their spell slots on magic missiles while the rest of the party just soaked damage and got knocked out, because even with flanking, flat footed, and the envoy boost we could only hit on 17+. All by-the-book fights.

The combat math for pc vs npc is really really tight. Which means pcs can't have very different bonuses without creating some optimal build choice. All characters end up with about the same stats, just in different attributes. Ac often ends up with about a 3 point difference between light and heavy. And the npcs end up pretty similar too. Only actual monster critters have much variety.

Weirdly there is a one-true-way best spaceship build.

[GrayDeath]

Maybe a bit late to the party, but for the one (short) campaign we played we decided to allow racial Mods (and ONLY those!) to let you get above 18 (with the caveat that you needed 2 points from your levelup points to get from 19 to 20).
It allows for more versimilitude without doing too much against balance.

Also played a Solarian in that Campaign, and found it to be quite good (and ahve great fluff). Just another opinoion.

But overall I ahve to agree,t ehy could ahve done soo muc better with either capoing PF similarities totally or being more PF in Space isntead of this strange mix...

[noob]

In PF1 by default even with no loot a standard team will fare well(1 fighter, one rogue, a cleric, 1 wathever)
In starfinder you need a special team to manage lootless worlds

[Aotrs Commander]

So, just as a coda, the DM is so keen we're actually starting this Monday as we just hit the break between books four and five of Rise of the Runelords.

I am going for Space Goblin operative (probably ghost, but gadgeteer is a possibility if, for instance, someone else wants to), Xenoarcheologist, I plan on dipping in a level of soldier, probably for sharpshooter, but blitz is a secondary consideration ("how high can I get my running, then climbing and maybe swimming speed with moderate investment" is the secondary character goal). I am working on the basis that I will have no more than 13 levels to work with (since at the moment, that's about as far as the official APs go), so a soldier dip will mean no quad attack... But if it's possibly only the last level of the game anyway, it probably doesn't matter.

Skrath (surname pending) was found/rescued and essentially raised by his Master (which the DM has made an android named Cedona, which might mean more to you than me (I have been explictly asked not to google because spoilers for the AP he's running, so please don't enlighten me) before... Being turned loose on the Pact Worlds. He wants to be Good, but he just doesn't really quite... get it, because Space Goblin. He also wants to chronicle goblin history especially, made possible by the phenominal power of the awesome artifact Sour Anchor Pendant master gave him which stops words from taking out his soul1.



1Which is actually just a worthless trinket placebo Master gave him after that MAYBE apocraphal incident when he got lost in the hospital and mistook the maternity ward for one of those self-serve cafeteria, you know, the ones where the food is in a box and you put your money in (Master caught him before comedy could become tragedy) so he could y'know, read the signs. (Admittedly, it does radiate a slight magic aura, but only because Skrath is too far from stupid for it to work otherwise...)