So Pathfinder 1e and Starfinder 1e are both "complete" games now and have been for a while.Which one was the better game overall?
>>96704303Pathfinder is a functional 3.5 cloneStarfinder is some d20 modern tier dogshit
did starfinder ever get ship-to-ship space combat?
>>96704325Yes. Starship Operations Manual, I think, basically allowed for individual fighter ship dog fights that can voltron together for the CRB structured big ship combat.>>96704314Starfinder was good, but if you judged it by the published adventures or the Beginner's Box (that cut out like 2/3 of the combat rules and core concepts), I absolutely understand thinking it was shit.It had a lot of flaws. The two AC types that were frequently just a point or two different was a retarded bit of extra fluff because they never really leaned into it. The economy was retarded, no real defense for it.However, the game itself functioned well and the setting was whatever the hell you wanted it to be given that it was literally a universal scale game. You can have a lot of fun with it for very little effort.The Alien Archives are some of the best bestiaries in gaming too. Not only does it have a lot of enemies, but also heaps of playable species, AND different crafting bits and bobs you can harvest from a lot of them too.
>>96704303>Which one was a getter game overall Nope.
>>96704303pathfinder because they produced it as an actual game and not a gussied up side game like they did with starfinder 1e and are preparing to do again with 2e
>>96704902Was SF a shitty side game?
>>96704303Starfinder was better in a lot of ways.Having Stamina Points baked in instead of optional rules that nothing is really balanced around makes back to back combat more manageable.Having the HP be low as fuck because of the baked in SP rules makes diseases and poisons absolutely lethal shit you really want to avoid.
>>96704303PF1e was decent 3.5 clone with some good ideas, and interesting enough kitchen sink setting.SF1e was Paizo original build upon PF1e, with half-assed rules, mechanics, barebones setting, and shitton of superficial crap piled on top of it. Like half the player races do not even have a named homeplanet, or even a picture.
>>96704325>did starfinder ever get ship-to-ship space combat?Technically. Problem is its designersa) Couldn't even into third grade mathb) Didn't know shit about space wargamesc) Just were fucking lameSo, technically it works. Practically it's such a mess you are better off ignoring it or bolting on a completely different system for space combat and hoping it works.
>>96704942my complaint is in how they fail to make starfinder as broadly produced or as detailed as pathfinder so it feels like a small theme park in a gigantic empty field. they do primarily small adventures with short level spans, the bestiaries have less entries (once excusable by having more setting info and other useful things but pf2e has the same thing with more monsters now), no dedicated setting lines, they changed the setting between editions less based on the outcome of adventure paths and more on meta-plots they prioritized over them, - it all contributes to sf feeling like a side-venture they won't fully invest in in case it's less viable than pathfinder
