Omnius |
If they turn Pathfinder into 3.875, I really hope they learned some lessons they really failed at in Starfinder.
Like... divergent modifiers break the game. When the difference in modifiers on your randomizer exceeds the scale of your randomizer for things relevant to everyone, there's nowhere you can put a number that actually works and is balanced. When the difference between the highest and lowest X save in a party at high levels can be 20, there's no reasonable value you can set a debilitating saving throw at, and as you go up in level, those effects you're saving against become more and more debilitating.
And there's the ongoing problem that persists even in Starfinder, that gold cannot serve as a setting element, and there cannot be an economy of any sort of sense, because while HP and attack bonus generally scale with level, AC and damage generally scale with wealth, locking wealth to level as a secondary XP track that, if you deviate from it significantly, you break the math of the game.
They ran into it hard with ships, when they realized they literally cannot give ships and their component a price because if the party invests too much or too little money into the ship compared to what they expect, the game broke.
If they're gonna iterate the system, they've gotta fix some of these legacy issues.
James Martin RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32 |
Regardless of whether you personally like or dislike Starfinder, you cannot deny that it has been an invaluable laboratory for potential changes to the Pathfinder system. And while I enjoy Pathfinder, the system cannot be a static thing or it will die out after its popularity runs its course. It needs to evolve or it will disappear.
Yakman |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually they didn’t put a price on ships because they didn’t want it to be used as a gatekeeping method. You need a ship to adventure off world.
indeed. you don't pay for a starship - you adventure in a starship.
Yakman |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, let me separate out monsters from NPCs. Monsters can pretty much be built however the designer wants - who's to say what abilities an imaginary critter has? But I do like the incredible detail in stat blocks because sometimes the PCs make friends with the lich/demon/gibbering mouther/whatever, and suddenly they're asking it about the plot MacGuffin and I need to know if it has Knowledge(history) or not. Giant, more complete stat blocks help me present a consistent world to the players.
NPCs, by which I mean characters of PC races with learned abilities,...
a DM is perfectly free to use the PC-creation system to make an NPC. Go right ahead - that system is there.
The genius of the Alien Archive creation system is that I can make any NPC or monster, and give them a ton of variety/abilities/customization in about 60 seconds.
I know what skills they have. I know what they can do. And they can all be unique. Boom boom boom.
I don't need to sit down and puzzle out feats and statblocks and use some arcane means of figuring out how strong A is or what B's skills are based on what CR or whatever. It's all right there.
In a way it's sort of a flashback to the old "HD level monsters hit this hard" from early D&D.
Ryan Freire |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless of whether you personally like or dislike Starfinder, you cannot deny that it has been an invaluable laboratory for potential changes to the Pathfinder system. And while I enjoy Pathfinder, the system cannot be a static thing or it will die out after its popularity runs its course. It needs to evolve or it will disappear.
Pathfinder really isn't that old, and there are examples of systems that HAVE been mostly static things for decades and are still around.
James Martin RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32 |
James Martin RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32 |
GURPS sprang to mind, but it's been revised and re-released several times. RIFTS I believe is the same. The chassis might be the same, but the paint and the trim has been changed numerous times. Same with Call of Cthulhu. I honestly cannot think of a thriving, living RPG that hasn't revised or released new versions. It's the model.
ryric RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32 |
ryric wrote:First, let me separate out monsters from NPCs. Monsters can pretty much be built however the designer wants - who's to say what abilities an imaginary critter has? But I do like the incredible detail in stat blocks because sometimes the PCs make friends with the lich/demon/gibbering mouther/whatever, and suddenly they're asking it about the plot MacGuffin and I need to know if it has Knowledge(history) or not. Giant, more complete stat blocks help me present a consistent world to the players.
NPCs, by which I mean characters of PC races with learned abilities,...
a DM is perfectly free to use the PC-creation system to make an NPC. Go right ahead - that system is there.
The genius of the Alien Archive creation system is that I can make any NPC or monster, and give them a ton of variety/abilities/customization in about 60 seconds.
I know what skills they have. I know what they can do. And they can all be unique. Boom boom boom.
I don't need to sit down and puzzle out feats and statblocks and use some arcane means of figuring out how strong A is or what B's skills are based on what CR or whatever. It's all right there.
In a way it's sort of a flashback to the old "HD level monsters hit this hard" from early D&D.
Having written up an old 3.0 epic level (35th) spellcaster NPC in under 5 minutes, I've never grokked the "time" argument for NPC creation.
You actually shouldn't use PC generation rules in Starfinder to create opponents, unless you want them to lead to frustrating fights. PC attacks and defenses aren't balanced against each other, deliberately to devalue mind control effects. NPCs have stronger attack rolls and lower AC by design.
Omnius |
GURPS sprang to mind, but it's been revised and re-released several times. RIFTS I believe is the same. The chassis might be the same, but the paint and the trim has been changed numerous times. Same with Call of Cthulhu. I honestly cannot think of a thriving, living RPG that hasn't revised or released new versions. It's the model.
Well, the phrase used was "mostly static."
And RIFTS has never released another edition. Only more supplements.
Ryan Freire |
James Martin wrote:GURPS sprang to mind, but it's been revised and re-released several times. RIFTS I believe is the same. The chassis might be the same, but the paint and the trim has been changed numerous times. Same with Call of Cthulhu. I honestly cannot think of a thriving, living RPG that hasn't revised or released new versions. It's the model.Well, the phrase used was "mostly static."
And RIFTS has never released another edition. Only more supplements.
Rifts released one new edition, basically completely compatible with their old supplements. Gurps has released new editions that are frankly all but indistinguishable from the ones prior, primarily being reprints with errata and rules tightening, no major shifts. Both still have their die hards, both are large enough properties to be recognized in the gaming community.
The examples of major shifts in a game being good for the game are few and far between. nWod, 4th ed D+d, Several shadowrun editions that were almost DOA. RPG history is littered with the bones of people who felt they needed to "shake up" a winning system.
James Martin RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32 |
D&D's had multiple systems, each with its detractors and champions. Each time it seems to rise back to a position of prominence. I don't think you can reasonable argue that it's suffered from any measurable, concrete and lasting damage. On the contrary, it keeps chugging on.
GURPS is the larger of the minor followings. It's not what I expect Paizo is aiming for. And each revision, while similar to the one before it, is new and different enough to justify revision.
Rifts is, well, Rifts. I only know it in passing, so I cannot comment with any real expertise.
I think the point remains: you either evolve or stagnate.