I like how this wole thing develops, interestint at the very least.
I just hope there is something in for my girlfriend who refuses to play anything besides the mesmerist since the playtest :P
I wonder if there are magic options for the envoy...that would probably suit her quite nicely
Phrenic Adept archetype on an Envoy sounds like it might be her thing.I like how this wole thing develops, interestint at the very least.
I just hope there is something in for my girlfriend who refuses to play anything besides the mesmerist since the playtest :P
I wonder if there are magic options for the envoy...that would probably suit her quite nicely
Wasnt that a Soldier thing? or are there Archetypes for multiple classes now?
Yeah they mentioned a bunch of archetypes would be universal. I forget where though.
Wasnt that a Soldier thing? or are there Archetypes for multiple classes now?Phrenic Adept archetype on an Envoy sounds like it might be her thing.I like how this wole thing develops, interestint at the very least.
I just hope there is something in for my girlfriend who refuses to play anything besides the mesmerist since the playtest :P
I wonder if there are magic options for the envoy...that would probably suit her quite nicely
All archetypes currently planned should to be universal. They explained it during the twitch charity Q&A.
These last couple of posts have dramatically reduced my enthusiasm for Starfinder. I was really looking forward to a universally compatible game that would allow me to introduce more Sci-Fi elements to my Pathfinder games (and vice versa). Making changes to things as fundamental as armor class, hit points, and iterative attacks means that I can't just hand my players books from both systems and say "go to town".
Very disappointing.
And yet, they made it clear all along that it would not be that way.
I, for one, am very happy that the game isn't going to be what you described.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
These last couple of posts have dramatically reduced my enthusiasm for Starfinder. I was really looking forward to a universally compatible game that would allow me to introduce more Sci-Fi elements to my Pathfinder games (and vice versa). Making changes to things as fundamental as armor class, hit points, and iterative attacks means that I can't just hand my players books from both systems and say "go to town".
Very disappointing.
And yet, they made it clear all along that it would not be that way.
I, for one, am very happy that the game isn't going to be what you described.
From a mechanical backbone standpoint Starfinder is looking like the Pathfinder 2.0 that everyone interested in such a thing wanted. The resident martial has a good will save and more skills. There seems to be a universal archetype and grit system. Numerical bonuses are replaced with interesting effects. I imagine that people would be more interested in backwards conversion rather than trying to fit Pathfinder stuff to Starfinder.
But there are still plenty of options to make Pathfinder with more scifi. Between Aethera, Anachronistic Adventures, Starjammer, and the Technology Guide there's a lot to work with. But... last year I've been running a Pathfinder in space and the backbone of Pathfinder doesn't exactly work, or rather a lot of things get fugly. Handing out advanced stuff at level 1 is very overpowered very early, touch AC, when combined with flat-footed AC, energy damage gets hard to keep track of. Everything technically works but its a pain in the butt to deal with.
Actually one thing that makes me happy is that so many of the changes I had to make with Pathfinder in space seems to be winding up in Starfinder. All the different Armor Classes got annoying and difficult to deal with so we just got rid of it. Skills got cumbersome so we just used a modified consolidated skill list. The action economy got weird so we used a version of the Revised Action Economy. We used a lot from Anachronistic Adventures so most everyone shared a universal archetype system and had a point pool. I feel that if you do Pathfinder in space you'll have to tweak things to be closer to what Starfinder is looking like anyways just to reduce the amount that you have to keep track of
When it comes to available races for crossbred Path/Starfinder games, will we be able to use the Androids from Starfinder Core and/or Inner Sea?
I'm pretty sure, for all intents and purposes, they're all the same Androids with regard to game mechanics.
|
When it comes to available races for crossbred Path/Starfinder games, will we be able to use the Androids from Starfinder Core and/or Inner Sea?I'm pretty sure, for all intents and purposes, they're all the same Androids with regard to game mechanics.
I think the answer for that is most likely: Ask your GM.
It also depends on which core rules you're going to use, pathfinder or starfinder. If most is pathfinder use the Inner Sea version. If most is starfinder, use the Starfinder version. Makes less hassle for any conversion that needs to be done.
Developer, Starfinder Team
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
are there Archetypes for multiple classes now?
The Starfinder archetype rules are set up so it's easy for an archetype to be used by every class, and both the archetypes we present in the core rulebook work that way. I could see us doing some small number of archetypes that were not universal in future products (if we did some sort of special spellcaster a an archetype, we'd likely limit that to spellcasting classes), but they'd be very much in the minority.
All archetypes currently planned should to be universal. They explained it during the twitch charity Q&A.
That seems like a pretty great idea.
The Starfinder archetype rules are set up so it's easy for an archetype to be used by every class, and both the archetypes we present in the core rulebook work that way. I could see us doing some small number of archetypes that were not universal in future products (if we did some sort of special spellcaster a an archetype, we'd likely limit that to spellcasting classes), but they'd be very much in the minority.
Maybe try how to avoid that, if not only for design focus reasons, but for consistency's sake?
All archetypes currently planned should to be universal. They explained it during the twitch charity Q&A.Wasnt that a Soldier thing? or are there Archetypes for multiple classes now?Phrenic Adept archetype on an Envoy sounds like it might be her thing.I like how this wole thing develops, interestint at the very least.
I just hope there is something in for my girlfriend who refuses to play anything besides the mesmerist since the playtest :P
I wonder if there are magic options for the envoy...that would probably suit her quite nicely
How would universal Archetypes work? Is it like Variant Multiclassing? Are there certain tiers of Character traits every class has in one way or another? Or can you just stick one Archetype of your choice on every class?
The Starfinder archetype rules are set up so it's easy for an archetype to be used by every class, and both the archetypes we present in the core rulebook work that way. I could see us doing some small number of archetypes that were not universal in future products (if we did some sort of special spellcaster a an archetype, we'd likely limit that to spellcasting classes), but they'd be very much in the minority.Maybe try how to avoid that, if not only for design focus reasons, but for consistency's sake?
I wouldn't mind spellcaster archetypes for extra flavour.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For example, every first-level Starfinder character is likely to have armor that protects against extremes of temperature and pressure, and provides breathable air, thus protecting them from gaseous poisons or even complete vacuum for up to 24 hours. In Pathfinder, that level of protection isn't available until much higher level, and many characters never acquire it
Um, this is 4th (if crafted) to 6th level (earliest to buy):
Necklace of adaptation: The magic of the necklace wraps the wearer in a shell of fresh air, making him immune to all harmful vapors and gases (such as cloudkill and stinking cloud effects, as well as inhaled poisons) and allowing him to breathe, even underwater or in a vacuum.Only reason one wouldn't have it is due to needing neck slot for other fun things.
For example, every first-level Starfinder character is likely to have armor that protects against extremes of temperature and pressure, and provides breathable air, thus protecting them from gaseous poisons or even complete vacuum for up to 24 hours. In Pathfinder, that level of protection isn't available until much higher level, and many characters never acquire it
Um, this is 4th to 6th level:
Necklace of adaptation: The magic of the necklace wraps the wearer in a shell of fresh air, making him immune to all harmful vapors and gases (such as cloudkill and stinking cloud effects, as well as inhaled poisons) and allowing him to breathe, even underwater or in a vacuum.Only reason one wouldn't have it is due to needing neck slot for other fun things.
I just want to point out that's 9k gp. A 5th level character is assumed to have about 10k worth of gear... so sure, at 5th level you could have one, if you want to spend almost everything you've got on such a situational item.
I think new connections for the mystic would be a stronger and simpler way to handle oracle curses compared to porting the class whole cloth. The phantom could even be a weird kind of mechanic drone potentially.I guess classes has been my biggest concern. Though looking at this and the previous blog post... the bigger question might be whether it's best to convert a Pathfinder class or expand on a Starfinder class.
High of my list, for instance, are the Oracle and Spiritualist. And while curses and phantoms offer things that Starfinder doesn't at first glance, it might be less invasive to create new connections for the Mystic class using Pathfinder as a basis.
I agree with the curses... but I'm putting a boot on the mechanic drone phantoms.
The appeal of taking phantoms into Starfinder is having that moment where ghost walks through an airlock door to "greet" the borders on the other side. It's taking the horror of ghosts in space and makes it work for the player rather than against them.
Looking at the engineer and their mechanical pets will be important, but we still don't know what level of customization that either the engineer or mystic will have nested within their primary choices. Or the technomancer, for if you want a spell caster who places with drones they might be your better choice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think new connections for the mystic would be a stronger and simpler way to handle oracle curses compared to porting the class whole cloth. The phantom could even be a weird kind of mechanic drone potentially.I guess classes has been my biggest concern. Though looking at this and the previous blog post... the bigger question might be whether it's best to convert a Pathfinder class or expand on a Starfinder class.
High of my list, for instance, are the Oracle and Spiritualist. And while curses and phantoms offer things that Starfinder doesn't at first glance, it might be less invasive to create new connections for the Mystic class using Pathfinder as a basis.
I agree with the curses... but I'm putting a boot on the mechanic drone phantoms.
The appeal of taking phantoms into Starfinder is having that moment where ghost walks through an airlock door to "greet" the borders on the other side. It's taking the horror of ghosts in space and makes it work for the player rather than against them.
I was imagining something like a "ghost in the machine" possessing a mechanical shell or a mechanic for phasing through the airlock that could be shared between an incorporeal spirit and a sufficiently small nanobot conglomerate.
Honestly though, Archetypes eating feats is a far easier design choice to make, you dont have to cripple any core class ability progressions or be enslaved to a past design choice to make all future classes follow the same style of progression so that they can be compatible with Archetypes.
As an example,there seems to be an assumption that things like jetpacks are going to be easily available at a relatively low level, taking that away from a class in exchange for an unrelated ability would leave a character roadblocked at something that is trivial to everyone else.
Eating away feats would be rather crippling for some character (well also depending on how feat dependent the chars are here) I for example think that vmc (at its core at least) was very good but usually didnt have enough feats to spare (if i was not fighter)
So simple giving all classes a rogue talent counterpart and exchanging some or all of them (depending on the archetype) i guess would make a good optionas for the second part
I would also assume that the exchanged abilities are most likely the ones you have options to pick them either way, so if you dont exchange all you can still have your jetpack, only on another level then planned maybe
and if you run into a roadblock because you can't pick one of the probably many options I would guess you have done something wrong in your character design
Its hard to say which is easier to trade out wihthout having the book in hand, and i completely agree that a lot of Pathfinder classes need feats to make them really workable, but in my ideal world class abilities are far more important than feats because by their very nature feats are the nice to have add ons while class abilities are those things that let you really believe a character is capable of being called Soldier/Operative/Mechanic etc.Honestly though, Archetypes eating feats is a far easier design choice to make, you dont have to cripple any core class ability progressions or be enslaved to a past design choice to make all future classes follow the same style of progression so that they can be compatible with Archetypes.
As an example,there seems to be an assumption that things like jetpacks are going to be easily available at a relatively low level, taking that away from a class in exchange for an unrelated ability would leave a character roadblocked at something that is trivial to everyone else.
Eating away feats would be rather crippling for some character (well also depending on how feat dependent the chars are here) I for example think that vmc (at its core at least) was very good but usually didnt have enough feats to spare (if i was not fighter)
So simple giving all classes a rogue talent counterpart and exchanging some or all of them (depending on the archetype) i guess would make a good optionas for the second part
I would also assume that the exchanged abilities are most likely the ones you have options to pick them either way, so if you dont exchange all you can still have your jetpack, only on another level then planned maybe
and if you run into a roadblock because you can't pick one of the probably many options I would guess you have done something wrong in your character design
That is true, on the other hand think simply of some of the usual feat sinks.
If you want a lot of combat maneuvers you first had to take either combat expertise (which was utter crap if you ask me, I was so happy when they released dirty fighting) or power attack (which is a nice to have) and than at least one feat for every maneuver you want to use just so you don't get hit in the face for tryingOr if you want to be a dexterity based character you need weapon finesse to hit in melee, agile maneuvers for, well maneuvers in melee (+ the maneuver feat sink) and if you want to do some damage you need to either be mythic or weapon focus + slashing grace and might not get the weapon of your choice.
I am for one relieved that you don't need to sink a dozen feats into maneuvers just to be able to use them without getting hit but depending on what you want to play feats are as essential as the class abilities
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly though, Archetypes eating feats is a far easier design choice to make, you dont have to cripple any core class ability progressions or be enslaved to a past design choice to make all future classes follow the same style of progression so that they can be compatible with Archetypes.
As an example,there seems to be an assumption that things like jetpacks are going to be easily available at a relatively low level, taking that away from a class in exchange for an unrelated ability would leave a character roadblocked at something that is trivial to everyone else.
Eating away feats would be rather crippling for some character (well also depending on how feat dependent the chars are here) I for example think that vmc (at its core at least) was very good but usually didnt have enough feats to spare (if i was not fighter)
So simple giving all classes a rogue talent counterpart and exchanging some or all of them (depending on the archetype) i guess would make a good optionas for the second part
I would also assume that the exchanged abilities are most likely the ones you have options to pick them either way, so if you dont exchange all you can still have your jetpack, only on another level then planned maybe
and if you run into a roadblock because you can't pick one of the probably many options I would guess you have done something wrong in your character design
The worst part about VMC is that some options were literally objectively worse than just feats. Let's take a peek at Gunslinger for an example:
At level 3, you trade a feat to gain the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (firearms) feat. In effect, you gain no benefit at all over simply selecting that as your feat, just locked in progression.At level 7, you trade a feat to gain the Gunsmithing feat. In effect, you gain no benefit at all over simply selecting that as your feat, just locked in progression.
At level 11, you trade a feat to get the Amateur Gunslinger feat. In effect, you gain no benefit at all over simply selecting that as your feat, just locked in progression.
At level 15, far above the maximum level of most campaigns, finally, for the first time in your progression, you gain something that isn't a feat - a 3rd level deed. Aka something that was relevant 12 levels ago and is probably worse than a feat at this point.
Same situation at level 19.
I was imagining something like a "ghost in the machine" possessing a mechanical shell or a mechanic for phasing through the airlock that could be shared between an incorporeal spirit and a sufficiently small nanobot conglomerate.
Those would both still have the issue of the character needing to be a Mechanic though, which doesn't fit most spiritualist concepts.
I think people will just have to accept Starfinder wont be able to cover a tonne of PF character types (which makes sense considering it's only the Core book so far).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was imagining something like a "ghost in the machine" possessing a mechanical shell or a mechanic for phasing through the airlock that could be shared between an incorporeal spirit and a sufficiently small nanobot conglomerate.Those would both still have the issue of the character needing to be a Mechanic though, which doesn't fit most spiritualist concepts.
I think people will just have to accept Starfinder wont be able to cover a tonne of PF character types (which makes sense considering it's only the Core book so far).
Why doesn't mechanic fit a spiritualist concept? It has the available companion game mechanics to allow the phantom, and the "concept" could be handed by your choice of theme or archetype.
Class and concept are not the same things. A class is simply the game mechanics you use to generate your abilities. This has always been the case in Pathfinder, but with the addition of themes Starfinder seems to be taking that further.
Why doesn't mechanic fit a spiritualist concept?
It will fit some spiritualist concepts (I can see many people wanting to have a ghost in the machine). It still doesn't fit most, because when most people think "I want to play a spiritualist" they aren't thinking of playing the person with all the class features about interacting with tech.
Class and concept are not the same things. A class is simply the game mechanics you use to generate your abilities.
If the mechanic class has nothing to do with interacting with tech it should be renamed. I'm all for reflavouring, but the classes should have some link between flavour and mechanics, otherwise the game would be bland and I can't really see them doing that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I find feats to be one of the most important mechanics to character customization. I'd rather give up class features than feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I find feats to be one of the most important mechanics to character customization. I'd rather give up class features than feats.
Just goes to show to each their own. I usually deal with feats last and pretty much unwillingly. It seems (to my 100% subjective personal tastes!) that there's this weird mix of way too many feats to sort through, but also rarely ever anything that fits what I want to do (or I need to take 3 or 4 feats I'm not at all interested in to get to the one I am). I'd personally be happy never having to pick feats again. ;)
(Again, just my personal preference - not saying it's wrong, or broken, or bloated, or whatever, just it's like mint chocolate chip ice cream. My wife can't get enough, and I really don't like it.)
Class abilities and archetypes, however, I absolutely love! I usually find far more that I'm interested in than I can ever play.
I'm glad that Pathfinder (and by extension hopefully Starfinder) are flexible enough to meet both of our desires. That is a sign of a great RPG.
When I hear that the Archetypes are universal, i think less about Pathfinder archetypes and more about D20 Modern/Anachronistic Adventures, where thwy aren't desifned to swap anything oyt but designed to be tacked on. Especially since there is now a universal point pool. Is tbat what's happening? If so I'm in favor of it since I used Anachronistic Adventures a lot in my Pathfinder space campaign.
When I hear that the Archetypes are universal, i think less about Pathfinder archetypes and more about D20 Modern/Anachronistic Adventures, where thwy aren't desifned to swap anything oyt but designed to be tacked on. Especially since there is now a universal point pool. Is tbat what's happening? If so I'm in favor of it since I used Anachronistic Adventures a lot in my Pathfinder space campaign.
No, archetypes still replace class features. It's currently assumed that all classes have something of equal worth at the same levels (perhaps like talents) that these archetypes replace, hence why they can be universal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm guessing the jetpack abilities mentioned in the soldier class write up fall into this catagory. So a Phrenic Adept Soldier doesn't learn to use a jet pack.
Actually the designers have stated that jetboots and jetpacks are equipment that ANYONE can buy and use. It is just that Soldiers will probably be good with the skills necessary to use them more effectively.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I find feats to be one of the most important mechanics to character customization. I'd rather give up class features than feats.Just goes to show to each their own. I usually deal with feats last and pretty much unwillingly. It seems (to my 100% subjective personal tastes!) that there's this weird mix of way too many feats to sort through, but also rarely ever anything that fits what I want to do (or I need to take 3 or 4 feats I'm not at all interested in to get to the one I am). I'd personally be happy never having to pick feats again. ;)
(Again, just my personal preference - not saying it's wrong, or broken, or bloated, or whatever, just it's like mint chocolate chip ice cream. My wife can't get enough, and I really don't like it.)
Class abilities and archetypes, however, I absolutely love! I usually find far more that I'm interested in than I can ever play.
I'm glad that Pathfinder (and by extension hopefully Starfinder) are flexible enough to meet both of our desires. That is a sign of a great RPG.
See, I agree with you. While I do feel feats are my preferred method of character customization, I also feel that feat trees are too long and have too many prereqs. That's one of the reasons I'm excited for starfinder.
The mechanic should have a giant robot shape on thier list.
That seems more technomancer to me.
