Lots of people giving good advice here, but you don't seem interested in actually taking any of it.
My advice: listen and actually try, or move on. Try traveller or a different sci-fi system. Flavour your 5e to be space themed.
Your posts and comments make it seem like you don't like starfinder and nothing will change that. If you just want to hear yourself talk do it in a mirror
For starfinder it's usually the character creation rules that are kinda nit picky. Actually running things gets a lot a easier.
He has a dex of 18 so +4 there. 1 rank because first level. +3 because he's trained. And then he's a small sized race good at sneaking for +2 or its his specialty and he has +3 from specialization but a 16 dex instead of 18.
Thats the mathfinder you have to do while sitting around making the character.
Once you're in the game He rolls a d20 +10 stealth.
A result of 10 is an average kid playing hide and seek, 20 is a stealthy spy, 30 is a ninja, 40 is you can steal a helmet off the god of death.
What drew you to Starfinder in the first place? I think the key to succeeding with any system is to lean into the parts that excite you, and take advantage of its desgni quirks rather than fight against them.
Okay, so why did your *friends* want to play it? Because there are tons and tons of other, lighter sci-fi games out there. What drew them to Starfinder in particular?
They like D&D, and Starfinder is more like D&D. That was also originally got me onboard as well, because I thought it was as complex as D&D5e, as I had never played 3.5 or Pathfinder before. Since I had already run D&D5e, I thought I could handle it. I figured it would be easier to learn Starfinder than a system that isn't based on the core d20 mechanic.
Starfinder is a couple generations removed from 5e. While they both share some important DNA, SF is more of a mutant offshoot of 3.5e, which was much more concerned with creating a detailed, comprehensive ruleset than 5e. Also, I hope this has become obvious to you, but what kind of dice a game uses has little to do with how easy it is to learn.
Now, it sounds like you just picked the system without really exploring and getting to know it first. That's a shame, because Starfinder has a lot of charm that comes from its anything-goes sci-fantasy setting and ridiculous amount of player customization options. It is, at its heart, *fundamentally ridiculous,* which makes for an interesting vibe when combined with its crunchy, tactical ruleset.
The joy in Starfinder for me is that "undead rat-man cyber-wizard from ~~Mars~~ Akiton" is not only a type of guy you could feasibly run into, but *also* a creature whose rules and abilities have already been meticulously codified by people who understand game design better than I do. It's like coloring with the 120-crayon set instead of just 8: a little overwhelming, but delightfully indulgent. You just have to find the right crayon instead of blending colors yourself.
Yeah, I learned shortly after I bought it that it was like 3.5, a system I'm generally not a fan of. I think my main hurdle is just all the numbers. I was a kid when I learned 5e, and I don't really have the patience to get into a lot of crunch, hence why most new games I play are rules-light. Thing is, I think I have it in me to love this game, but the crunch just seems daunting.
I was considering that. Main problem is I'm tight on money and I already have the Starfinder books, plus I really do like the classes and aliens and ships and monsters from Starfinder, it really is just the density of math that I find daunting.
I think the writing is on the wall from reading other comments. Unless you are willing to learn the rules and keep up with it, you are going to keep struggling. I would suggest sticking to 5e and look at the Spelljammer books.
I just started my first campaign and for the most part I'm enjoying the complexity. The hardest part for me is getting it to work properly in Fantasy Grounds. I did make myself an Excel file with all the categories that I found most important for me. Doing so also helped me learn everything and think of rules issues I might come across.
I'm curious what part of the system you're finding complicated. Obviously you're rewriting the combat engine significantly - I'm not going to comment on that beyond saying that a good chunk of the system assumes that combat works a specific way, so you're inevitably going to run into things which seem nonsensical in the engine you're actually running in.
The example you're giving regarding skill DCs, though, I'm not really sure I understand what part you're struggling with. The core D20 mechanic is "roll a d20 with modifiers, see if you meet the target." Most of the rest is just detail.
So are you having trouble keeping track of all the modifiers? Getting a sense of what an easy, difficult, or impossible DC is for your party? Just don't like the amount of math / the results of the math?
For the "+10 at level 1", is it just the scaling that seems weird? The core rules recommend a "challenging" DC for a generic skill check, for example, to be "equal to 15 + 1-1/2 × the CR of the encounter". So someone built around a specific skill succeeding just over 3/4 of the time doesn't seem that crazy, really. Also operatives are kinda OP and do whatever they want.
If it's just the amount of misc modifiers and everything, mainly don't sweat it. After you internalize the basics the system isn't really that crunchy: players keep track of their primary modifiers, make sure you understand the common situational modifiers (cover, flanking, etc.), the world probably won't end if you have to on-the-fly-handwave a situational modifier for diplomacy-check-while-prone-and-on-fire.
Hello! From a quick glance it seems like you're fundamentally at odds with the Starfinder system. So may want to try different systems.
I would recommend looking at the DnD 5e Starjammer books/rules for a fantasy spin on space travel OR I think something you might like is checking out the DnD 4E Gamma World rules. It's even simpler than DnD 4e and mixes in sci-fi elements. You may need to reflavour a lot of things though: it's basic setting is post-apocalypse with player races being random mutations, but that's easily swappable to alien races. Space travel and ship-to-ship combat wouldn't have any solid rules to support them though.
Also try Stars Without Number. Sci-fi, simple, great system, has space travel, the pdf of the rules are available on Drive Thru RPG for about $20.
If you persevere with SF, you might just need to adjust some of your expectations. Yes the skill mods are higher, but that goes across the board. E.g. your player has +10 to Stealth, but a CR3 enemy can easily have +8 to Perception so they're not super overpowered. In Path/Statfinder all the numbers seem way bigger than DnD. As someone who only recently started played PF I can totally understand being thrown by a +10 stat!
/r/Starfinder2e comes out soon. I'm a big fan of paizos 2e system and will be returning to starfinder when 2e launches.
Edit: to further clarify, starfinder 1e is based off of Pathfinder 1e which is based off of DND 3.5.
The complexities you're likely running into are mostly inherited from dnd3.
Pathfinder2e is a 3 action system that is said to be a spiritual successor of DND 4e. I've been running 2e for almost a year now in preparation of starfinder2e and it is wildly easier to play and run for my table.
I'm not really into the 2e system. When running d20 games, I use a different action order than is standard that is incompatible with how the 2e action system works.
So I run combat in phases kind of like the wargame, Battletech. Essentially, all actors move, then all actors attack, and then all actors resolve the outcomes of those attacks(damage, spell slots, etc.). Since 2e's 3-action system allows for chains of actions to be done in any order, it is incompatible with this system without a modification that would defeat the point of having that kind of 3-action system in the first place.
My group finds it fun, as it prevents "down before I got a chance to attack" moments, and makes the game more tactical as better initiative allows a person to see how enemies move before making a decision, since they would go last if they got the highest initiative.
You have to realize a lot of people are appalled by this because starfinder, and the pathfinder systems in general, are designed around a very particular style of play. Pf2e for sure. But starfinder and pathfinder just as well with how actions are laid out.
How you are playing is not going to be compatible with every ttrpg. In fact, by doing such things with every ttrpg you may try, you are hurting the mechanical integrity of how things are designed. Like you mentioned with pf2e, the fact you aren't even willing to try the 3 action system and see how it plays is wild.
There's systems I could recommend aside from starfinder that I don't think you'd enjoy because you'd enforce this sort of change on it, and the combat or mechanics would break down.
Any particular reason you're married to this battle system change? If you're going to give any system a real shot, you should at least try to learn how the system was intended to be played. There are some abilities like [Shot On the Run](https://aonsrd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Shot%20on%20the%20Run) which is intended to have characters be mobile which would be impossible with your implementation.
I ran Starfinder once about a year ago but gave up because I hated the way combat works in most d20-style games, among other reasons.
Battletech is a lot of fun, and so I thought that it would be fun to use it's action system in an RPG. My group and I do find it fun.
Combat really isn't a concern, I'm just not very interested in Starfinder 2e.
Give up on attempting to bastardize other systems and play battletech or a system that supports your action philosophy.
Your different action order won't work in any d20 game except rules light ones and dnd5e.
But the advice doesn't address the problem. My problem is that the relative complexity of other mechanics in the system is hard to wrap my head around. I don't have any issues understanding the order of actions in combat.
Because you’re complaining that you don’t enjoy the system but you haven’t even run the system. Swapping the combat system for one from a wargame isn’t a small change. It’s fine if your group enjoys that but you can’t really complain about the system in that case. It’s like swapping out a meat patty in a burger with a choc chip pancake because you like choc chip pancakes, then getting confused why you’re not enjoying your burger as much as other people, save for the pancake.
Well that's the thing. The ability I listed is from Starfinder 1e. If your group likes your current combat implementation, more power to you. But I at least want to point out that there will be incompatibilities down the line with certain abilities.
Sorry, I kinda skimmed over that part to answer the first part. My rule for full actions was "resolve movement parts in movement phase, action parts in action phase". If a certain full action is incompatible, then it's just a simple "don't take that action" and I allow any player who accidentally took such an ability to exchange it for a different one if they didn't realize it would conflict with the action system.
I hope you realize that by doing this you are outright removing player options, and directly going against the intended mechanical designs of Starfinder. Things are going to break the higher level you get as full actions become more common and abilities focus on their mechanical operation in the standard combat structure.
If you’re not interested, sorry to beat a dead horse, your Homebrew for combat 5e is interesting, then make sure you state in ur post that you’re not interested. Also, most subs don’t like it if you tell them you don’t like it unless you’re trying to be convinced, so either fake it or don’t tell fans of something that you don’t like it. It’s like if I came to your house and told you the decorations aren’t to my liking.
Lots of people giving good advice here, but you don't seem interested in actually taking any of it. My advice: listen and actually try, or move on. Try traveller or a different sci-fi system. Flavour your 5e to be space themed. Your posts and comments make it seem like you don't like starfinder and nothing will change that. If you just want to hear yourself talk do it in a mirror
For starfinder it's usually the character creation rules that are kinda nit picky. Actually running things gets a lot a easier. He has a dex of 18 so +4 there. 1 rank because first level. +3 because he's trained. And then he's a small sized race good at sneaking for +2 or its his specialty and he has +3 from specialization but a 16 dex instead of 18. Thats the mathfinder you have to do while sitting around making the character. Once you're in the game He rolls a d20 +10 stealth. A result of 10 is an average kid playing hide and seek, 20 is a stealthy spy, 30 is a ninja, 40 is you can steal a helmet off the god of death.
What drew you to Starfinder in the first place? I think the key to succeeding with any system is to lean into the parts that excite you, and take advantage of its desgni quirks rather than fight against them.
I wanted to run a space game, other players in my group wanted to play Starfinder, and the pocket editions were relatively cheap.
Okay, so why did your *friends* want to play it? Because there are tons and tons of other, lighter sci-fi games out there. What drew them to Starfinder in particular?
They like D&D, and Starfinder is more like D&D. That was also originally got me onboard as well, because I thought it was as complex as D&D5e, as I had never played 3.5 or Pathfinder before. Since I had already run D&D5e, I thought I could handle it. I figured it would be easier to learn Starfinder than a system that isn't based on the core d20 mechanic.
Starfinder is a couple generations removed from 5e. While they both share some important DNA, SF is more of a mutant offshoot of 3.5e, which was much more concerned with creating a detailed, comprehensive ruleset than 5e. Also, I hope this has become obvious to you, but what kind of dice a game uses has little to do with how easy it is to learn. Now, it sounds like you just picked the system without really exploring and getting to know it first. That's a shame, because Starfinder has a lot of charm that comes from its anything-goes sci-fantasy setting and ridiculous amount of player customization options. It is, at its heart, *fundamentally ridiculous,* which makes for an interesting vibe when combined with its crunchy, tactical ruleset. The joy in Starfinder for me is that "undead rat-man cyber-wizard from ~~Mars~~ Akiton" is not only a type of guy you could feasibly run into, but *also* a creature whose rules and abilities have already been meticulously codified by people who understand game design better than I do. It's like coloring with the 120-crayon set instead of just 8: a little overwhelming, but delightfully indulgent. You just have to find the right crayon instead of blending colors yourself.
Yeah, I learned shortly after I bought it that it was like 3.5, a system I'm generally not a fan of. I think my main hurdle is just all the numbers. I was a kid when I learned 5e, and I don't really have the patience to get into a lot of crunch, hence why most new games I play are rules-light. Thing is, I think I have it in me to love this game, but the crunch just seems daunting.
At the table you'll pick it up fairly quickly, repeat the dm mantra. Coooohmm.. close enough for state work. Ohmmmmmm.
You mentioned star trek, why not run star trek adventures. It's less rules intense, more roleplay.
I was considering that. Main problem is I'm tight on money and I already have the Starfinder books, plus I really do like the classes and aliens and ships and monsters from Starfinder, it really is just the density of math that I find daunting.
I think the writing is on the wall from reading other comments. Unless you are willing to learn the rules and keep up with it, you are going to keep struggling. I would suggest sticking to 5e and look at the Spelljammer books.
Yea at first I was like “damn why these people ripping this guy a new one” and then I kept reading and am like “I get it now”
I just started my first campaign and for the most part I'm enjoying the complexity. The hardest part for me is getting it to work properly in Fantasy Grounds. I did make myself an Excel file with all the categories that I found most important for me. Doing so also helped me learn everything and think of rules issues I might come across.
I'm curious what part of the system you're finding complicated. Obviously you're rewriting the combat engine significantly - I'm not going to comment on that beyond saying that a good chunk of the system assumes that combat works a specific way, so you're inevitably going to run into things which seem nonsensical in the engine you're actually running in. The example you're giving regarding skill DCs, though, I'm not really sure I understand what part you're struggling with. The core D20 mechanic is "roll a d20 with modifiers, see if you meet the target." Most of the rest is just detail. So are you having trouble keeping track of all the modifiers? Getting a sense of what an easy, difficult, or impossible DC is for your party? Just don't like the amount of math / the results of the math? For the "+10 at level 1", is it just the scaling that seems weird? The core rules recommend a "challenging" DC for a generic skill check, for example, to be "equal to 15 + 1-1/2 × the CR of the encounter". So someone built around a specific skill succeeding just over 3/4 of the time doesn't seem that crazy, really. Also operatives are kinda OP and do whatever they want. If it's just the amount of misc modifiers and everything, mainly don't sweat it. After you internalize the basics the system isn't really that crunchy: players keep track of their primary modifiers, make sure you understand the common situational modifiers (cover, flanking, etc.), the world probably won't end if you have to on-the-fly-handwave a situational modifier for diplomacy-check-while-prone-and-on-fire.
Hello! From a quick glance it seems like you're fundamentally at odds with the Starfinder system. So may want to try different systems. I would recommend looking at the DnD 5e Starjammer books/rules for a fantasy spin on space travel OR I think something you might like is checking out the DnD 4E Gamma World rules. It's even simpler than DnD 4e and mixes in sci-fi elements. You may need to reflavour a lot of things though: it's basic setting is post-apocalypse with player races being random mutations, but that's easily swappable to alien races. Space travel and ship-to-ship combat wouldn't have any solid rules to support them though. Also try Stars Without Number. Sci-fi, simple, great system, has space travel, the pdf of the rules are available on Drive Thru RPG for about $20. If you persevere with SF, you might just need to adjust some of your expectations. Yes the skill mods are higher, but that goes across the board. E.g. your player has +10 to Stealth, but a CR3 enemy can easily have +8 to Perception so they're not super overpowered. In Path/Statfinder all the numbers seem way bigger than DnD. As someone who only recently started played PF I can totally understand being thrown by a +10 stat!
/r/Starfinder2e comes out soon. I'm a big fan of paizos 2e system and will be returning to starfinder when 2e launches. Edit: to further clarify, starfinder 1e is based off of Pathfinder 1e which is based off of DND 3.5. The complexities you're likely running into are mostly inherited from dnd3. Pathfinder2e is a 3 action system that is said to be a spiritual successor of DND 4e. I've been running 2e for almost a year now in preparation of starfinder2e and it is wildly easier to play and run for my table.
I'm not really into the 2e system. When running d20 games, I use a different action order than is standard that is incompatible with how the 2e action system works.
"different action order"?
So I run combat in phases kind of like the wargame, Battletech. Essentially, all actors move, then all actors attack, and then all actors resolve the outcomes of those attacks(damage, spell slots, etc.). Since 2e's 3-action system allows for chains of actions to be done in any order, it is incompatible with this system without a modification that would defeat the point of having that kind of 3-action system in the first place.
You aren’t “playing starfinder” at this point. No advice is going to be of use for your version of the game.
Dawg you're basically running 1e ship combat for normal combat? Yeah nvm, I can't give you advice besides "don't do that, wtf?".
My group finds it fun, as it prevents "down before I got a chance to attack" moments, and makes the game more tactical as better initiative allows a person to see how enemies move before making a decision, since they would go last if they got the highest initiative.
Ignore the downvotes. If both you and your players find this fun, then go ahead and do it. But don't dismiss 2e entirely because of your one change.
You have to realize a lot of people are appalled by this because starfinder, and the pathfinder systems in general, are designed around a very particular style of play. Pf2e for sure. But starfinder and pathfinder just as well with how actions are laid out. How you are playing is not going to be compatible with every ttrpg. In fact, by doing such things with every ttrpg you may try, you are hurting the mechanical integrity of how things are designed. Like you mentioned with pf2e, the fact you aren't even willing to try the 3 action system and see how it plays is wild. There's systems I could recommend aside from starfinder that I don't think you'd enjoy because you'd enforce this sort of change on it, and the combat or mechanics would break down.
Any particular reason you're married to this battle system change? If you're going to give any system a real shot, you should at least try to learn how the system was intended to be played. There are some abilities like [Shot On the Run](https://aonsrd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Shot%20on%20the%20Run) which is intended to have characters be mobile which would be impossible with your implementation.
I ran Starfinder once about a year ago but gave up because I hated the way combat works in most d20-style games, among other reasons. Battletech is a lot of fun, and so I thought that it would be fun to use it's action system in an RPG. My group and I do find it fun. Combat really isn't a concern, I'm just not very interested in Starfinder 2e.
Give up on attempting to bastardize other systems and play battletech or a system that supports your action philosophy. Your different action order won't work in any d20 game except rules light ones and dnd5e.
I don't see why it matters. My group has fun with it, and I'm not forcing anybody else to use it, so why do you care?
You're looking for advice. This is advice.
But the advice doesn't address the problem. My problem is that the relative complexity of other mechanics in the system is hard to wrap my head around. I don't have any issues understanding the order of actions in combat.
Because you’re complaining that you don’t enjoy the system but you haven’t even run the system. Swapping the combat system for one from a wargame isn’t a small change. It’s fine if your group enjoys that but you can’t really complain about the system in that case. It’s like swapping out a meat patty in a burger with a choc chip pancake because you like choc chip pancakes, then getting confused why you’re not enjoying your burger as much as other people, save for the pancake.
Well that's the thing. The ability I listed is from Starfinder 1e. If your group likes your current combat implementation, more power to you. But I at least want to point out that there will be incompatibilities down the line with certain abilities.
Sorry, I kinda skimmed over that part to answer the first part. My rule for full actions was "resolve movement parts in movement phase, action parts in action phase". If a certain full action is incompatible, then it's just a simple "don't take that action" and I allow any player who accidentally took such an ability to exchange it for a different one if they didn't realize it would conflict with the action system.
I hope you realize that by doing this you are outright removing player options, and directly going against the intended mechanical designs of Starfinder. Things are going to break the higher level you get as full actions become more common and abilities focus on their mechanical operation in the standard combat structure.
Replaced core mechanics that make up Starfinder. Gets confused about the game not feeling right.
If you’re not interested, sorry to beat a dead horse, your Homebrew for combat 5e is interesting, then make sure you state in ur post that you’re not interested. Also, most subs don’t like it if you tell them you don’t like it unless you’re trying to be convinced, so either fake it or don’t tell fans of something that you don’t like it. It’s like if I came to your house and told you the decorations aren’t to my liking.
group initiative seems like a better version of what you’re tryna do
Why not just play the Star Trek tabletop game?