The middle point of exactly the same and totally different is commonly referred to as "similar" Also you keep saying Wizard in Space. I'm saying Space Wizard. There is a difference, which I've explained and you've ignored. If you're genuinely looking at the class for Technomancer and seeing no difference between it and the PF1 Wizard conceptually outside of gear, I don't know how I can continue this discussion, because many of the SF1 wizards class features dealt with technology and scifi tropes. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous
I don't want it to do everything, I want it to be as adaptable a class as it was in 1e. I will admit I had missed the close Quarters fighting style. I was very turned off by all of the language of description in the initial released playtest being focused on heavy weaponry and AOE focused. That felt like a narrowly focused class compared to the generalist frame the class had been. I would still like to avoid Soldiers being pigeonholed soley as face tanks with big weapons, but given how PF2 works that might be unavoidable. Hopefully the base chassis will be at least adaptable enough to make for a functioning "generic warrior that can cover a wide array of fighting styles depending on build" That being said: January 27th: WOTC formally abandons plans to deauthorize the OGL, and releases the SRD 5.1 into Creative Commons, leaving Starfinder and other 3.x based games still at the mercy of them messing with the OGL in Future. March 8th: Paizo announce Starfinder Enhanced, and stress it is not a new edition, strongly imply a new edition is not in the card just yet in comments sections.
If a soldier is specialised in AOE damage to the extent that has been communicated to us, does that mean we can't make a lethally precise soldier? Or a soldier dedicated to mixing it up in melee? An honour-driven corporate samurai? All of those were not only possible in the SF1 soldier chassis, but absolutely normal. If theres one thing I especially valued about Starfinder it was the ability to use multiple classes to build towards the same general concept. It might be addressed differently, but you could do it. I am worried that in the rush to distance the Soldier from the Fighter, and the Mystic from the Cleric, they are also distancing the Soldier from the Soldier and the Mystic from the Mystic. Of course, the Mystic could already have been distinct from the Cleric just fine by not having 10th level spells, but apparently that decision was written in stone long before we were even told there would be a 2nd edition. Probably back when Paizo were still vehemently claiming that 2nd edition wasn't on the horizon while promoting Starfinder Enhanced.
A lot was made when PF2 came out of the quote "Complexity is the currency with which we buy depth" and I don't disagree with that. But as a comparison I'd argue that genericness is the coin with which we buy compatibility. I would hope that Paizo were wise enough to avoid sacrificing all uniqueness of Starfinder as a setting on the altar of turning it into a PF2 expansion that while fully compatible, no longer feels like starfinder. I'm not convinced that will be the case, but I hope I'm wrong
I will say, any justification of "we don't need x class in Starfinder because it already exists in Pathfinder" is a failure state for me. In no uncertain terms- if Iconic Scifi characters can't be made in Starfinder without Pathfinder classes being imported, Starfinder is no longer its own game, but just an expansion pack for Pathfinder that I need to adapt Pathfinder classes into in order to have a whole game. Maybe that's the direction Paizo wants to go. It is not something I would purchase. It is certainly not something I would GM.
Thurston Hillman wrote:
I will say, I find this response quite dismissive and upsetting. It's a legitimate concern that with the change to PF2 style ancestries, there will by neccessity be a lot less ancestries to play with in SF2 compared to SF1, especially given Starfinder's much slower release schedule. Seeing that very reasonable concern responded to with "The sky is not falling" doesn't actually fill me with confidence
I think it was hamstrung by Paizo severely reducing the amount of Starfinder Adventure content. As it was, outside of an Adventure Path (technically 2 but by the barest technicality) the rest of the stories Paizo told in the Drift Crisis were kind of dancing around the edges of it- Before the Storm was pretty good, and I do think would make an excellent first session in any Drift Crisis themed campaign. I think ultimately the problem I had was, as a society gm at least, the crisis only felt like a crisis when the scenario was tying into it. Otherwise it was business as usual. I'd have liked to have seen Season 5 tying directly into the Drift Crisis, maybe focused around, if not a resolution, then some kind of amelioration. That ties more into my general frustrations with Season 5 though, which felt kind of lacking an identity compared to previous seasons.
Mika Hawkins wrote:
I mean, the concern is that we're going almost a year between any Adventure content for Starfinder that isn't organised play...
I think it would be easier to swallow if there was anything else to fill the gap? Knowing we are at least 10 months away from a new Adventure Path or Module really hurts, especially when that next one is repackaged Society content. And that's not to slam on the idea- Scoured Stars as an AP is such a good idea I already did it last year. If we had even a single Module in the rough Octoberish period I feel like this would go down better. The lack of transparency in the announcements, with us being told "theres big things coming we swear" in one breath with a mumbled "in 2 years maybe" implied through actual product schedules is very frustrating. It's just hard to get excited when every scrap of news we seem to get for Starfinder's adventure content, the side I'm personally most interested in, seems to be delays and reductions.
Yeah not gonna lie, if they can't get a single hardcover of reprinted material out without a 6 month delay, it doesn't bode well for the line. This is how systems like Starfinder die. It's never an announcement that the lines ending, just less and less and less content, in a vicious cycle- less content and especially less adventure content means fewer players and new campaigns, so paizo redirect more resources to PF2, and it goes on and on till theres nothing left.
Yeah I don't see the appeal of bad pseudoscience driven by an ideological hatred of the big bang theory being awkwardly forced into an RPG. Especially since Plasma Cosmology exists (nominally) to explain the exact same universe, what on earth would this book even seek to change about the universe of Starfinder? All it would be is a paper thin propaganda piece for a discredited scientific theory.
That's good to hear. I'm just champing at the bit because while Scoured Stars is a great product I'm sure a lot of people are going to enjoy...I had the idea for running it a full 2 years before it was announced, made my own version and finished it, so I'm not super jazzed to run it again, you know? Any hints we can get about "Unannounced rulebook"?
garsceg wrote:
I'm pretty sure water in a vacuum would actually boil! https://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/244-What-would-happen-if-you-pour-w ater-into-space-#:~:text=Water%20poured%20into%20space%20(outside,it%20does %20at%20sea%20level.
MurderHobo#6226 wrote:
Drift is moving to Proof of Stake any day now we swear
Aaron Shanks wrote:
Considering that one shots are way smaller them modules, and Free RPG day adventures have been a thing since year one of starfinder, this doesn't in any way make it seem like there's not going to be less Starfinder content going forward. Like, if Paizo has bandwidth problems and has to cut back, and starfinder once again is getting the short end, that's whatever. Business happens, material reality is what it is. But it is happening, and pretending it isn't or trying to obfuscate that is really disappointing. I'd hope for more honest communication from Paizo on the subject.
I know there have been formal studies done where identical applications were sent out where the only difference was John/Juan or similar markers, and on a statistical scale that definitely made a difference, where such applicants were contacted less frequently. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/black-sounding-names-study_n_561697a 5e4b0dbb8000d687f
Gender neutral characters exist, and gender neutral (non binary etc) people exist. And as society becomes both more aware of that fact and more tolerant, languages need to evolve to reflect that. The purpose of language is communication, and if a rule of a language hinders communication it usually gets changed by the weight of society ignoring it. Its not an overwriting of culture, just an evolution of it.
I've seen some push to using Latine as a gender neutral construction instead of Latinx. I have no data or knowledge on the thoughts of the relevant communities on its use though. Regardless latinx certainly isn't a slur, but language is an evolving process and finding the word that handles what latinx is supposed to handle is ongoing. Certainly noone here is trying to be derogatory.
Lets go further- do you enjoy being paid legal currency, rather company scrip? Do you enjoy your employer having a duty to provide relevant safety equipment for your profession, as well as a duty of care to ensure a safe working environment? Cause those are all things that labour unions ensured for you. Those rules are written in the blood of workers that corporations literally attempted to murder for unionising. And that last sentence isn't hyperbole. I'm being very literal.
I've run homebrew, I've run modules, I've run society. There are definitely trash modules out there, as well as GM's that are bad at running AP's (though I've never run into one who I thought that would be better at running a homebrew or sandbox game) Games are games, and personally, I can't imagine being beset with so much choice for people to GM that I'd be turning my nose up just because it's an AP. Also...who's surprised to discover 1d4chan is still a thing?
Aaron Shanks wrote:
I would like to state for the record that as someone who has been running paizo games on roll20 for nearly a decade, selling those high resolution maps to customers, even as unformatted pdfs... I would pay for that. It is eminently frustrating having to either make due with blurry maps or remake them in programs like dungeon painter etc.
Honestly it wouldnt hurt to add a little extra in anyway. Starfinder APs are notoriously stingy cause they count every bit of treasure as full value rather then sell value. My plan is to give players a bonus cash payment on top of BP equivalent to 50 times level per BP earned. This represents their profit margin on trades. So at level 4, if they pull off a 15 BP profit, they get 3000 credits between them
|