Starfinder Starfinder vs Aethera: sell me PF in Spaaace!

[Robyo]

I want to add some sci fi to my Pathfinder collection, but only want one book. I know very little about either campaign setting, so feel free to elaborate.

Just from what I've read online, Aethera looks really awesome fluff-wise with some cool races and one neat class (cleric variant), but a slew of archetypes. It uses the standard PF core rules. Starfinder is a complete game in one book, but doesn't have as compelling of fluff. The races and classes are a mixed bag? The mechanics are a major step away from standard PF?

Do both books have decent gear sections? Monsters? Ship Combat?

 

[Robyo]

No responses.. What's up? No one's looked at Aethera yet? Is there anyone here who's played StarFinder and cares to share their experience?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I have literally never heard of Aethera.

The Starfinder mechanics are far enough away from Pathfinder that I would not be comfortable inserting any of the races or classes from Starfinder into Pathfinder. They're less compatible than Pathfinder is with 3.5, by a significant margin.

 

[jimtillman]

the starfinder races mostly work fine in pathfinder though the large creatures would be a bit op in pathfinder

i have never heard of Aethera.

but love starfinder
i am glad that the pact book is only a month away,
starfinder is still new and more splats are welcome
particularly ones with new races and archtypes

 

[Robyo]

Aethera has been out for a few years, but I only heard about it recently. Looks pretty cool though. 600 pages for the setting book. Uses the PF rules without the new SF differences.

http://www.aetherarpg.com/

 

[Thomas Bowman]

How about comparing Pathfinder with D20 Modern and Future? D20 Future is much more compatible with Pathfinder than Starfinder is. You can play Pathfinder creatures as is without major surgery in D20 Modern/Future. the main difference between D20 Modern and the D&D its derived from is the Defense Score which increases per level as opposed to armor. I think game designers like to design games and write complicated sets of new rules, always trying to outdo previous editions of the game. I really wish they had simply stuck with D&D 3.5, that is what attracted me to Pathfinder in the first place, but then in their next game they threw out what made the successful with Pathfinder. I don't like to spend time learning new rules, especially when I think those new rules are unnecessary. I don't understand for instance why Starfinder has two types of armor classes, one for kinetic attacks and the other fr energy attacks, I think the real problem is the difference between bullets and arrows and swords. As far as I'm concerned, blaster bolts fired from laser weapons are just a fancy replacement for bullets fired out of a gun. There is no reason to treat a person firing a laser weapon any different from a person shooting a gun firing bullets, there is no reason to have different armor classes against energy weapons and kinetic weapons when the real difference is between bullets and arrows and swords. Also Pathfinder just has classes, archetypes are optional, but not in Starfinder, they are an integral part of building your character. I like simple character builds because then I build NPCs the same way, Starfinder has abandoned the philosophy which made Pathfinder such a success. I really wish they made a Pathfinder version of D20 Modern/Future instead.

 

[jimtillman]

aethera looks ok but not as good as starfinder "to me anyways"

 

[Robyo]

I do have D20Modern/D20Future, as well as D20StarWars Revised, and Dragonstar. All are great for kit-bashing (if not decent systems on their own), but I want something a little more modern and compatible with PF Archetype system.

@Thomas Bowman, I totally agree that a lot can be done with just re-skinning certain things, ie: crossbows and long bows become pistols and rifles. Certain spells and abilities can be refluffed as cybernetics or nanotech. It's doable, just takes a little imagination, maybe some houserules.

 

[Thomas Bowman]

With Starfinder there are two armor classes KAC and EAC, I think there should be three. I would have KAC, EAC, and just AC. AC takes care of every weapon that is not a firearm which is in the D&D player's Handbook or the Pathfinder Core Rulebook if you prefer. EAC is for Energy weapons such as lasers for instance, and KAC is restricted to projectiles fired from guns, whether pistols or rifles. I don't know why Starfinder lumps in KAC with just AC. I think a suit of full plate male should be able to deflect a swords blow or an arrow fired from a bow a lot better than a bullet fired from a rifle. Thus I think a suit of plate mail and other armor types should have an AR of 8, a KAR of 4 and maybe an EAR of 2, does that sound reasonable? Now to explain things AR stands for Armor Rating, Armor Rating is a Component of Armor Class (AC) before you add things like Dexterity bonus and size to create the AC of a character, KAR is the Kinetic Armor Rating against high speed projectiles fired from guns, and that goes into KAC, and EAR is the Energy Armor Rating against energy weapons, which is those weapons that fire a beam of energy at the target, this goes into EAC or Energy Armor class. That is the house rule I would modify D20 Modern/Future with. This makes modern firearms more effective against armor than D&D melee and missile weapons and also makes energy weapons superior to weapons that fire bullets. D20 Modern treated all weapons the same regardless of whether they were swords, rifles or laser weapons, and I think the game needs that correction.

 

[jimtillman]

the point of kac and eac was to help simplify pathfinders ac system.
there would be no benefit to adding a 3rd ac