|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've said before that Starfinder's biggest problem is that it lives in PF2's shadow, and boy do the past four days really bring that home.
As someone who only plays Starfinder, and doesn't play PF2, it feels like this announcement isn't for me; its for PF2 Enjoyers. The language in the blogs and Field Test #1 aren't directed at me, a Starfinder player - they're directed at PF2 Players. "We’ve included some rules for futuristic weaponry and a couple of creatures for you to toss into your games" (from the Blog) or "feel free to whip up a soldier and give it a test and let the team know whatcha think!" (from Field Test #1) have an implicit "have fun with the new toys, Only PF2 Players!" attached, because the stuff released obviously isn't for the existing SF(1) rules.
An announcement for Starfinder players could have addressed some of the current Starfinder pain points, like speaking to the plan for Starship Combat, or Operatives overshadowing other class's skills, or enemies reliably and consistently saving against PC Spell DCs starting at mid-level (since NPC saves are built to measure against 10+½ character level, not 10+spell level).
Now I get why: ORC and all that, plus Paizo is a business, and it's allowed to want to make money. And, if you're trying to grow the Starfinder player base, then the nearest well to drink from is the PF2 player base (and, vice versa - although I'd wager that there probably aren't many others in my boat of only playing SF.)
Perhaps I am looking at this wrong. After all, when most systems have a new edition announced, existing players usually don't get immediate rules stuff to play with; so that is just par for the course, I suppose. PF2 players getting a sneak peak, as it were, isn't a dig at SF players, but rather a bonus for the PF2 players who are in the happy position of already knowing the rough shape of the final rules engine.
To finish on a positive note, I do have a huge amount of faith in, and goodwill for, the SF Team: the Star Chamber is the best Chamber, after all. Plus, there's still like, two years to go, so it's super early days. Too early for the doom-and-gloom. Mostly, I just wanted a place to put my thoughts down. I looks forwards to future announcements and reveals that speak to me - and, in the meantime, I guess I need to learn what a Free Archetype is :D
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the starfinder only crowd, its "we're moving to the system that... you didn't move to 3 years ago..."
|
Paizo has said they want to get Starship combat right in Starfinder 2e But I don't think that will be the first thing they work on. I can't imagine that not becoming part of the playtest at some point.
I play both games currently Starfinder is my favorite of the two settings wise but don't have a preference for either rule-wise. The biggest change for me I'm excited about is not mixing up rules going back and forth.
Business wise this will be good for Starfinder in many ways. I don't play on VTTs but this will make it much easier to get Starfinder supported on VTTS.
Paizo has said the Core rules will be 100% compatible but the game meta doesn't have to be the same, that's good news for Starfinder.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I genuinely empathize with people who don't want to see their preferred system have a subsequent edition that moves it in-line with a system they do not enjoy. (It almost happened to me with PF2, but the playtest solved almost all my problems.)
But you have to understand, there are a lot of Starfinder players who aren't playing Starfinder because the system is keeping them at bay. To those people, this news is like manna from heaven. I personally enjoyed Starfinder 1e, having come fresh from PF1 which I also enjoyed. However I was unable to continue playing unless I was willing to handhold everyone I game with through it, and maybe even bribe them with money. Then I hopped into PF2 and now I wouldn't even want to go back to SF1 because of how much more I enjoy the PF2 system.
You may feel that this is PF2 players taking your game from you, but to our group, SF1 players trying to keep the rules as-is are akin to squatters keeping a fantastic game from reaching its potential.
|
I genuinely empathize with people who don't want to see their preferred system have a subsequent edition that moves it in-line with a system they do not enjoy. (It almost happened to me with PF2, but the playtest solved almost all my problems.)
But you have to understand, there are a lot of Starfinder players who aren't playing Starfinder because the system is keeping them at bay. To those people, this news is like manna from heaven. I personally enjoyed Starfinder 1e, having come fresh from PF1 which I also enjoyed. However I was unable to continue playing unless I was willing to handhold everyone I game with through it, and maybe even bribe them with money. Then I hopped into PF2 and now I wouldn't even want to go back to SF1 because of how much more I enjoy the PF2 system.
You may feel that this is PF2 players taking your game from you, but to our group, SF1 players trying to keep the rules as-is are akin to squatters keeping a fantastic game from reaching its potential.
I think that it is more of a matter of either not being familiar or liking the Pathfinder Second Edition game engine. Obviously, there will be changes with the Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster. As the remaster comes out first, Starfinder players may have some good suggestions on how to tweak the remastered engine for better play in Starfinder.
You may feel that this is PF2 players taking your game from you, but to our group, SF1 players trying to keep the rules as-is are akin to squatters keeping a fantastic game from reaching its potential.
I do feel like there is a middle ground between the two, where the game gets a second edition that does whatever would be best for starfinder. I imagine it would take a lot from PF2e, but that it not being a direct 100% compatibility means that you are going to end up with decisions that don't necessarily align well with the game like the PF2e ancestry model.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not a Starfinder-only player, but a Starfinder player.
I found the FAQ to be the most Starfinder-player-oriented section. It's addressing a lot of the concerns about various things that might go away.
I don't think existing Starfinder issues got brought up because there is actually a product working to help fix some of those in SF1. Casters are getting ways to spend resolve on making key spells harder to resist. Starship combat is getting a more narrative version. Four classes are getting reworks, which... might address some skill overshadowing? It would also be a list of complaints about Starfinder, which is probably a little too adversarial for folks who aren't keen on the move. It prompts defensiveness, y'know?
As for the "playtest with PF2", yeah, I think it's best to think of it as just a preview. There's no survey, and not enough levels to really make a character long-term. It's a better way to give both sides the gist of SF2 without just describing it.
SF1 didn't get a public playtest, and PF2 kind of came crashing in as a surprise, and something of an explanation about what had been up with Shifter. This seems like a more open approach, and maybe part of that means the "cool new stuff!" has to be aimed at the PF2 crowd a bit (because that's what's compatible with the new content), while the "don't worry, a lot of the things people love about Starfinder will be carried over" stuff has to be aimed at the SF1 crowd (because that's where the old stuff is).
Anyway, just some of my thoughts. It's late enough that they're probably a bit rambling.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's honestly heartbreaking to me is that a new edition launch tends to hurt the people who love the game most. It sucks to know that that this thing you've made a part of your life for so long won't be getting any new content anymore, while tons of other people will hop onto a version that strips out the parts you liked best.
And it happens every time. D&D 3e alienated people who liked things simple, flexible, and open, despite it offering the detail and clarity that many other people craved. 4e felt too structured and videogamey to people who loved all the idiosyncracies of pen and paper, despite some delighting in the leveled playing field and deep tactical potential. 5e abandoned that tight, balanced approach for a looser, more narrative focus, and while that led to the most accessible game yet, it felt like a shallow shell to 4e's dedicated fans.
And then you're stuck feeling like some kind of curmudgeonly old grognard while everybody else sings the praises of the new system and reminisces on how awful those outdated mechanics were. Doubly so in this case, where Starfinder--the last bastion of the 3e era--is explicitly being remade in the image of its more popular and explicitly new-school sibling. It's gotta feel like one of those horrible makeover scenes in a romcom, where a character who had a unique and endearing style is done up to look more like everyone else's idea of pretty, and you get pulled out of the movie because it's trying to insist that this glow-up is something you should want.
It's a bummer, you know?
I'm personally glad games change. All my favorite games wouldn't exist if their authors had never thought to try something different. But I empathize a lot with people who not only have to mourn how their favorite thing just won't get the love it used to anymore, but also need to endure a deluge of fandom chatter and marketing buzz that can make you feel like no one but you actually ever loved it in the first place.
I hope the next two years of Starfinder 1e are the passionate and amazing last hurrah the system deserves, even if I personally can't stand it and desperately await an edition I can actually enjoy. I hope SF2 preserves the soul of what you loved about its predecessor, so you can keep playing and watch new people fall in love like you did. And if the worst comes to pass--if SF2 just so happens to be the most unpleasant experience you've ever had at the table--then I hope the SF1 community stays strong and keeps the original edition alive.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean it does genuinely feel like "its gonna be like P2" is the only real selling point which is meh. And I do play both games alot. *gestures towards his glyphs and novas*
Im not really happy or sad about the new edition.
I like P2 well enough but its old hat by this point. I know what it is at this point its not exciting or sexy or anything like that in and of itself. There isnt a whole lot of mystery waiting to be unfolded.
That's more what I think Kish is getting at - its not got any real selling point for people who actually like Starfinder already beyond "hey your games not getting moth balled".
Itll maybe be nice to see some new faces at the starfinder table I guess but thats like two years away still.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are advantages to the PF2 system, the main one being that the skill DCs don’t become nearly impossible to balance at high levels.
I am hopeful that the new edition will be an improvement. I can imagine a number of things that could be improved by using the PF2 system and I must say that I have come to really enjoy the three action system.
Although the two systems will use the same rules, I expect there to be differences in how they are used. As an example, I expect the Medicine skill to be quite different. I will be disappointed if a Master in Medicine with a Med Bay can not Resuscitate a person. There are already ways for characters to use an Advanced MedKit as if they had a Med Bay. There are also vehicles that can provide a Med Bay.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are advantages to the PF2 system, the main one being that the skill DCs don’t become nearly impossible to balance at high levels.
I am hopeful that the new edition will be an improvement. I can imagine a number of things that could be improved by using the PF2 system and I must say that I have come to really enjoy the three action system.
Although the two systems will use the same rules, I expect there to be differences in how they are used. As an example, I expect the Medicine skill to be quite different. I will be disappointed if a Master in Medicine with a Med Bay can not Resuscitate a person. There are already ways for characters to use an Advanced MedKit as if they had a Med Bay. There are also vehicles that can provide a Med Bay.
That's true but this is something that is expected from a Sci-fi universe like Starfinder. Flying is another example, can't fly? Well, buy a Jetpack... Things like these are easy and accessible with technology.
If they do remove this things to make more balanced with the Low Tech adventures of pathfinder... yeah it sure won't look like a Starfinder game.My group stopped playing Starfinder because the system really became unbalanced at high levels. PF2e has a really tight math at all levels, to me this is really good news.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are advantages to the PF2 system, the main one being that the skill DCs don’t become nearly impossible to balance at high levels.
I am hopeful that the new edition will be an improvement. I can imagine a number of things that could be improved by using the PF2 system and I must say that I have come to really enjoy the three action system.
Although the two systems will use the same rules, I expect there to be differences in how they are used. As an example, I expect the Medicine skill to be quite different. I will be disappointed if a Master in Medicine with a Med Bay can not Resuscitate a person. There are already ways for characters to use an Advanced MedKit as if they had a Med Bay. There are also vehicles that can provide a Med Bay.
That's true but this is something that is expected from a Sci-fi universe like Starfinder. Flying is another example, can't fly? Well, buy a Jetpack... Things like these are easy and accessible with technology.
If they do remove this things to make more balanced with the Low Tech adventures of pathfinder... yeah it sure won't look like a Starfinder game.My group stopped playing Starfinder because the system really became unbalanced at high levels. PF2e has a really tight math at all levels, to me this is really good news.
They’ve explicitly said they’re not balancing the games around each other like, early/easy access to flight will still be a thing in SF2.
The rule sets are compatible is the goal. That means if you allow a Soldier with a Jetpack into your P2 game you now have a Soldier with a jetpack in your game and everything that opens up. Just like when your players get teleport.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are advantages to the PF2 system, the main one being that the skill DCs don’t become nearly impossible to balance at high levels.Oh? In PF2 a high-level PC will only have about a 1-in-3 chance of success at most high-level skill DCs. That does not seem particularly well balanced to me.
They'll be better than that at a very small number of skills, but that's the baseline.
I think the important part of the original post is "impossible to balance". If you tweaked the DCs as a GM in PF2 in order to hit, say, an expert-profiency baseline, everyone will end up with three or six (for Rogue and Investigator) skills they roll above the expectation on. If you tweaked the DCs as a GM in SF1 to assume +3 insight from a feat, anyone without full BAB would have one or two skills above that, Envoy would have six, and Operative auto-succeeds everything with Take 10.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are advantages to the PF2 system, the main one being that the skill DCs don’t become nearly impossible to balance at high levels.Oh? In PF2 a high-level PC will only have about a 1-in-3 chance of success at most high-level skill DCs. That does not seem particularly well balanced to me.
They'll be better than that at a very small number of skills, but that's the baseline.
As QuidEst says above, it is the huge variance in expected values that becomes the problem.
In PF2 at high level if you are targeting a Trained level in Acrobatics, you can expect a large percentage of characters to have that. The person who is Legendary in Acrobatics should crush the DC, while those who are only Trained will have some problems. Considering Uneven Ground requires Acrobatics checks, this is a real situation. Flight also uses Acrobatics.
Try to assume something like that in Starfinder. You will find some characters still have the same chance of success as they did at level 1. You are forced by the normal DCs to commit full ranks into a skill in order to have a reasonable chance of success and just can not get there if you don’t have an Insight bonus and a Class bonus with the skill.
There is also less variance in what the top end skill bonus will be. It will be dominated by level and proficiency, with Attribute Modifier (sorry, don’t remember the remaster term for this) and Item bonus providing smaller bonuses. Someone that isn’t an expert at the system is still likely to be within 4 of the maximum value.
In Starfinder, the maximum value is difficult to even compute because you have to figure out if that skill gives a way for non-operatives to get ann Insight bonus to it. Every class has different ways of giving the Insight bonus and some don’t have an in-class way to get the bonus. Not all skills have the same maximum. This causes different builds to have wildly difference bonuses to skills, making it hard to figure out if something would even be a reasonable challenge.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are advantages to the PF2 system, the main one being that the skill DCs don’t become nearly impossible to balance at high levels.Oh? In PF2 a high-level PC will only have about a 1-in-3 chance of success at most high-level skill DCs. That does not seem particularly well balanced to me.
They'll be better than that at a very small number of skills, but that's the baseline.
I would like to point out that misrepresents what "balancing" means. Those high-level skill DCs are specifically set so that only somewhat specialised PCs have a good chance at beating them. PCs that are only marginally skilled will need a lot of luck, but can still succeed or at least help. Meanwhile heavily specialised characters will have it easier and easier the longer the game goes on, but soemthign that's supposed to be a challenge for your level is never completely trivial. Only people who have invested basically nothing into a skill will not be useful.
That is what "balanced" means. It allows most people to contribute and specialization to shine without trivializing everything. It works very well in practice.
It's also important to understand that not all DCs scale with your level.
As for OG's concerns, I am 100% certain that this not something aimed at or against any specific subset of the Paizo community, including PF2 players. In one of the interviews after the announcement, Hillman said that these Field Tests are there purely so that the fans can see what is happening; for transparency. Instead of hammering out the announcement and going "welp, see you in a year for the playtest, kthxbye".
That the interested part of the PF2 section will initially "profit" more from this is purely incidental.
I'm actually a bit jealous ^^. We had to spend time on so many more absolute basics while you will get all of that time to get into the actual juicy bits. Well, I guess I'm along for the ride now, so that helps a lot with the jealousy ^^
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo isn’t forcing or “requiring” you to switch, nor badmouthing you if you don’t.
You’re more than welcome to play the version of the game you enjoy more, you’re not wrong for doing so but the victim complex is of your own making.
“If I wanted to play Pathfinder I probably would be playing pathfinder.”
This statement is completely irrelevant from my perspective. Starfinder is Starfinder, even with “pathfinder” rules it’s still Starfinder, which is a silly statement in and off itself since S1 was based on P1. S2 being based on P2 doesn’t break or diverge in that regard, and both groups being able to use content from each other to build each other up is a good thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like losing hundreds of playable species and that unique Cantina feel and everything that makes starfinder special, to convert it to a campaign setting for Pathfinder players, because the current position is that Pathfinder players find it to confusing to flip between two sets of rules. I preferred starfinder as its own game and it didn't need to be pathfinder. If I wanted to play Pathfinder I probably would be playing pathfinder.
I get being disappointed that your beloved product will no longer be supported in a while, but where do you get this certainty from that all of the stuff that makes Starfinder unique will go away? We barely have any information on the game. Hell, the developers themselves aren't even in the playtesting stage for another year.
And everything we do know directly contradicts your assumptions that it will just be a glorified reskin. They explicitly stated that while the systems will be compatible, they won't be the same. The meta differences alone make it obvious - nearly everybody uses ranged weapons, flight is easy to get, vehicles are considerably more important and so on.
There are advantages to the PF2 system, the main one being that the skill DCs don’t become nearly impossible to balance at high levels.
Remastered is supposed to be looking into that. You could do it as simply as getting a +2 Experience bonus to skills at level 10 and a +2 epic bonus to skills at 15.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to point out that misrepresents what "balancing" means. Those high-level skill DCs are specifically set so that only somewhat specialised PCs have a good chance at beating them. PCs that are only marginally skilled will need a lot of luck, but can still succeed or at least help. Meanwhile heavily specialised characters will have it easier and easier the longer the game goes on, but soemthign that's supposed to be a challenge for your level is never completely trivial. Only people who have invested basically nothing into a skill will not be useful.See, in my view that's bad balance. Given that a typical character starts with 6 + Int trained skills, but can only increase three of them to proper levels, that means more than half your skills will be mostly useless at high levels. I think a better way to balance skill DCs would be to set them so a trained character has about a 60% chance of success, and just accept that a high-level character who has sunk all their skill increases into being good is going to completely crush any task that challenges that particular skill. They are, after all, masters or legends in their field. You never see Parker fail to navigate across a maze of lasers, or fail to pick a lock. You will see her challenged by trying to talk her way out of a situation, but succeed more often than not.
Failing that, the system should provide the means to boost lower-level skills. For example, maybe for every skill increased to Master, you could increase one skill from Trained to Expert, and for every skill increased to Legendary you could increase one Expert to Master (which in turn would trigger another Trained to Expert increase).
That kind of balance is fine in a singleplayer game, but in a game with multiple people, that is an absolute no-go. Not only does this trivialize all skill challenges ever, inherently robbing them of any stakes and thus investment by the players. After about the midpoint of the game, they would effectively cease to be a part of the game.
More importantly, it also robs the players of being excited about doing their cool thing. Sooner or later, everyone invests more heavily in certain parts of their character. In return, they want to express that part of their character. If the GM just goes "you don't need to roll, you succeed" after like level 7, then I can 100% guarantee you that player will become dissatisfied very quickly. Winning automatically is only cool so many times.
This kind of balancing also assumes something that is inherently not true - that later skill checks are automatically just regular tasks but with a higher DC. While that is the case in some instances, the vast majority are actually appropriate for people of that skill level. Climbing literally featureless walls, persuading high level officials to allow you access to important state secrets, Skyrim stealth, actually stealing the shirt off someone's back and so on.
With about 4 years of experience, I can say the current PF2 skill balance works very, very well all the way up to 20. Your version would fall apart at level 7.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m here for the adventure ideas, aliens, and the planets.
A rules changes doesn’t really affect that.
More importantly, it also robs the players of being excited about doing their cool thing. Sooner or later, everyone invests more heavily in certain parts of their character. In return, they want to express that part of their character. If the GM just goes "you don't need to roll, you succeed" after like level 7, then I can 100% guarantee you that player will become dissatisfied very quickly. Winning automatically is only cool so many times. ...
Well, operatives have their take 10 I win button in starfinder. Since it's not on every skill (generally only the two where they get skill focus for free) it's still enjoyable to "hah, i win" that skill but then have to roll dice for the others. Since only about the same number of skills I'd expect the effects to be similar.
If my biohacker operative Takiten Norveg gets a little higher I'll let you know if it's still fun.
More importantly, it also robs the players of being excited about doing their cool thing. Sooner or later, everyone invests more heavily in certain parts of their character. In return, they want to express that part of their character. If the GM just goes "you don't need to roll, you succeed" after like level 7, then I can 100% guarantee you that player will become dissatisfied very quickly. Winning automatically is only cool so many times. ...
Well, operatives have their take 10 I win button in starfinder. Since it's not on every skill (generally only the two where they get skill focus for free) it's still enjoyable to "hah, i win" that skill but then have to roll dice for the others. Since only about the same number of skills I'd expect the effects to be similar.
If my biohacker operative Takiten Norveg gets a little higher I'll let you know if it's still fun.
I have limited knowledge about the SF meta, but isn't that one of the main complaints leveled at the Operative - that they make everyone else irrelevant?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
with the OGL debacle in the rear view mirror, "abandoning the OGL-powered guts that power the system" was literally the only option available to Paizo. Switching to a system that should be somewhat familiar to at least a portion of your audience is a far better option than "here's a brand new system."
Like a plausible way to do the Starfinder 2nd edition would be "here's all the ideas we have for the 3rd edition of Pathfinder" but that would be harder for everybody to adapt to, so this is better. There is, after all, considerable empirical evidence that the unified proficiency system and the 3 action system that are the guts of PF2 are robust, versatile systems.
Starfinder characters work different than Pathfinder characters should be primarily represented by gear and character options. Like no one on Golarion really understands black holes well enough to be a Solarion and nobody there knows how to build a jetpack or a plasma cannon, but it's not like "future people are inherently more capable" is a good idea.
but isn't that one of the main complaints leveled at the Operative - that they make everyone else irrelevant?
After our first two or three games our group had a gentleman's agreement not to play Operatives because it wasn't fun for the non-operatives.
|
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be clear, I'm not upset that SF is getting a 2nd Edition, and I'm not upset that it's running on the PF2 rules engine. My problem isn't with the message's content, but with its delivery. The blog and the Field Test really feel more like "oh goodie, PF2's getting vesk and soldiers" and not "oh goodie, I'm getting 3 Action Economy." Like I said at the start, Starfinder has always felt like "that other Paizo game," so I don't think it's difficult to understand how it could be upsetting for Captain Concierge to be pointedly talking to PF2 players. That said, though, I am now working on re-framing it in my head away from "these are shiny new toys, just for PF2!" because that's not particularly helpful. Of course they're going to use the perfectly fine rules engine that's already built and de-OGL'd. That there is already another game that uses the same rules engine that SF2 will end up using isn't a detraction from SF, 1 or 2.
And, credit where credit's due, the FAQ, and the SF Team's comments really do make me feel better. It's very reassuring to hear that Starfinder species can still fly at level 1, the cantina is not closing, and so on. Plus, have you seen the pahtra iconic art <3 A lot of the FAQ entries are very reassuring, and - my bad - I really should have read the FAQ sooner :D If anyone else hasn't, go do it! I do feel heard, reading those answers and Thursty's replies, in a way that I didn't after only reading the Field Test.
You may feel that this is PF2 players taking your game from you, but to our group, SF1 players trying to keep the rules as-is are akin to squatters keeping a fantastic game from reaching its potential.
Presumably, there are other people like me who've been SF-exclusive, who are now going to be stepping into the wider Paizo player pool and PF2 world for the first time. Can I suggest you re-think your welcome message - maybe try "here's some of the biggest differences between the rules, to help you join the party!" instead of "you're a squatter who has held Starfinder back."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plus, have you seen the pahtra iconic art <3
Seriously. One of my favorite Starfinder designs already, and improved my overall impression of the class.
Also, glad you feel more heard after reading some more of the stuff out there! I was hoping that'd be the case.
@Staffan Johansson: What you seem to be describing is a story that has no challenge to it - where the main character never experiences any setbacks or difficulties.
And you are absolutely right that Pathfinder2e does not give that type of experience for its stories. It has different design goals and tells different stories.
Every story that has violent conflict in it has at least one of three things:
* Stormtroopers - enemies are completely unable to harm the main characters.
* Red Shirts - enemies are able to harm only allies of the main characters.
* Death Eaters - enemies are able to maim and kill main characters.
Pathfinder2e (and most TTRPG game systems) have Death Eaters. Your characters will be challenged by challenging things.
To be fair, Pathfinder1e and Starfinder1e only allowed you to wade through the story stormtrooper style in a very few number of things that you built your character to do. Sure you could build a character that had such a broken level of thievery bonus that they could pick any lock. But that only applied to thievery. It wouldn't help you with diplomacy. You had to also build your character to be broken levels of good with diplomacy too in order to do both. And you would run out of build before you could be powerful in all things.
Pathfinder2e gives more generally powerful characters. Even things that you haven't put a ton of investment into, you can still be good enough at to have a good chance at success. But yes, it also caps the power level of what you can build any one particular facet of a character up to. Again, that is done so that it is possible to set a DC that everyone can at least attempt to participate in the challenge for.
No one really enjoys a scenario where: "Well, this isn't what I built my character for. I guess I will just mentally check out of the game for an hour or two."
To be fair, Pathfinder1e and Starfinder1e only allowed you to wade through the story stormtrooper style in a very few number of things that you built your character to do.
There's some composition problems with looking at things that way
For starters that varies VASTLY by character build. In Either PF1 Or SF1 getting uber at all skills under the same attribute is fairly easy. Many classes also let you be a pretty good combatant on top of that. So if you want a character that is really good at a lot of things youc an make one. The average character is irrelevant when considering the character you want to make.
In PF2, theoretically your character with level + 2 in everything is a lot better at a wider variety of skills compared to PF1 or SF1 characters with +0 modifiers. In practice you have a wide variety of things that you're going to fail at with a level relevant DC. Whether you're going to fail or fail a lot functionally doesn't matter because if you're going to fail you don't try that thing.
In PF1 or SF1 you can be REALLy good at quite a few things, bumping your success rate to 75% and beyond. In PF2 that accuracy is REALLY bounded and set kind of low.
Neither system does anything all that interesting with skills. Pf 2s skill feats are either incredibly niche, or create a problem and then give you a solution (you must have pick pockets to avoid a penalty to picking pockets. You must have plant evidence to reverse pick pocket people. you must have master proficiency to see this lock)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's pretty interesting to see these non-PF2 players rehashing the accuracy debate from so long ago. Being able to reliably succeed 75%+ of the time (frequently 100% in PF1) at ostensibly level appropriate tasks is a fundamentally easier game. If you want that level of reliability and low game difficulty, it is trivially easy to implement by a vast array of knobs PF2 gives you to turn.
Weak template on enemies, calculating encounters and DCs based on lower APL, selection of primarily static DCs instead of auto scaling DCs (don't forget static DCs are still a thing), giving bonus proficiencies, Dual Class variant.
Since the math is so stable in PF2, you can target pretty much exactly the difficulty you want. The fact is the majority decided that the default should be on the slightly more challenging end of the scale for level appropriate *challenges*, so if you want it easier you're going to have to adjust for your table.
Edit: The majority decided on the desired default difficulty for *Pathfinder*, there's nothing stopping Playtesters for Starfinder to campaign for lower baseline difficulty. It would be as simple as editing the DC by level table, encounter building guidelines, or a mix of other knobs.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 is balanced around one fairly simple proposition- an enemy that is your level ought to be one that has an even chance of beating you. After all, if you were fighting your exact duplicate you should literally have a 50/50 chance of winning, and what level should that be?
The other guiding principle is that you can't have level appropriate challenges where either a specialist cannot possibly fail, or a dabbler cannot possibly succeed, since either of those situations is uninteresting.
Within these two bounds many things should be possible. Starfinder perhaps could be more amennable to specialists for things like skills since "item bonuses to skills from tech" might be fairly common. We also got the first Pathfinder Class that can have a built in status bonus to a skill and that sort of thing might be common in SF2.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's pretty interesting to see these non-PF2 players rehashing the accuracy debate from so long ago. Being able to reliably succeed 75%+ of the time (frequently 100% in PF1) at ostensibly level appropriate tasks is a fundamentally easier game. If you want that level of reliability and low game difficulty, it is trivially easy to implement by a vast array of knobs PF2 gives you to turn.
Weak template on enemies, calculating encounters and DCs based on lower APL, selection of primarily static DCs instead of auto scaling DCs (don't forget static DCs are still a thing), giving bonus proficiencies, Dual Class variant.
Since the math is so stable in PF2, you can target pretty much exactly the difficulty you want. The fact is the majority decided that the default should be on the slightly more challenging end of the scale for level appropriate *challenges*, so if you want it easier you're going to have to adjust for your table.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you. Just pointing out that variant rules are not available in organized play. I think a lot of the disagreements on the forums come from the different ways to play the game.
1: People that homebrew everything are least affected by the changes, they can change anything they don't like.
2: People that play AP as written still have the option to allow variant rules and adjust encounters, without having to homebrew anything.
3: People playing organized have the most restriction on how they can adjust the game, and therefore most affected by the change.
These are very generalized categories as there is no one way or three ways to play the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also an only Starfinder player here. Not just that, but have never played Pathfinder 1 or 2. Plenty experienced with White Wolf games in the 90s and 2000s, and loved Planescape and Shadowrun. (frankly just not very interested in standard fantasy settings overall)
While the info we have now is extremely limited, these are my main thoughts.
Pros:
- * Some Starfinder classes feel like they are still in beta (witchwarper, operative for opposite reasons) and class fixes really belong in core books, not supplemental books like Enhanced. Also, I've played Starfinder for years and still feel some classes (vanguard, evolutionist) are too convoluted to start learning how to use.
* Compatability with PF2 means more attention on the series and maybe more frequent releases, plus things like licensed video games.
* Equipment/wealth and starship combat never completely worked in this system (smoothly).
* The barrier to entry with the crunchy ruleset is very high, and makes it hard to recruit players based on friendship rather than "well this nerd has played this for years and won't give up during character creation."
Cons:
- * Even harder to find a GM for the AP about the Drift Crisis probably. This was hyped so much for a while, and now no one seems to be running it.
* Will character death be more frequent due to loss of resolve points?
* The imminent shelf life for character builds based on the still unreleased content in Enhanced (at least in Society play). This will still be a cool book, but it feels strange for it to have it's obsolescence announced before its release.
* The flipside to the big plus of way more players (which usually helps to get more content): the con of a player base that might be more into the looter/shooter aspect than first contact, exploration, and some truly alien PC cultures, physiology, and lore.
I know that last one might not be an actual problem in reality. But I think it's worth mentioning that there's fear that the con table experience (as opposed to home GM experience) could change.
Overall this is more positive than negative for me. Don't let the fact that the negative points are mentioned last trick you into thinking otherwise. ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will agree with the OP that regardless of the actual substance of the news, the messaging for this announcement has been horribly aimed for Starfinder players. The FAQ was better, but it sucks feeling like an afterthought for the second edition of the game we actually were buying and running.
I'll very gently challenge the announcement messaging complaint. I think it was geared towards players who like both Starfinder and PF2, and generally are excited for compatibility. Marketing wise, it also makes sense to build on the hype (thinking of the video in the GenCon announcement, which was pretty exciting in mood) rather than focus on why it's not going to be such a difficult transition for a smaller player group.
However I think everything OP mentioned is still valid feedback.
Managing Creative Director (Starfinder)
|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good OP here, and feedback I'll take into consideration if, God help me, we do yet another edition change in the future ;)
Jokes aside, crafting messaging about new editions is always tricky. The focus on the PF2-compatibility angle is strong messaging because it's really one of the only "FIRM NOT CHANGING" elements of what we're working on. We're THAT early in the process here.
For SF1 folks, one things that's really important is that we don't have our messaging about switching now, but instead about building excitement on the remaining 2 years of SF1 content, which while it's going to be just a few more products, there's still ample time to start up a campaign and get into the SF1 ecosystem. The game isn't "dead" yet, and I suspect SF1 is going to be a vibrant community for MANY years.
And don't worry, I'll be proselytizing about all the great reasons to switch to SF2 as we get closer to locking in all those great reasons! :)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game isn't "dead" yet, and I suspect SF1 is going to be a vibrant community for MANY years.
Checking the math on this. Let's say I start a new character today, and assume that the scenario release schedule for the next two years is identical to last year's (5-05 to 6-06). I'll even give the benefit of re-arranging the timeline so the low-level games are released earlier in the year for each year.
If I bring in one module each year like 'Operation Seaside Park', in the first year I can get to level 6.3, then have to wait for the second year for more mid-tier games. At that point, shuffling through the 2 seasons available, I can get to level 10.3 - not quite reaching the one tier 11-14 game each season. I can use the remaining games to get a second character to 4.6.
So, as of this announcement, I get to make ONE-AND-A-HALF MORE CHARACTERS.
I know there's a push (that I support) to get the focus for the next two years shifted to higher level games. But these new characters will have even less ways to get to them.
Heading off likely objections:
"But back catalog" - due to the slow release schedule of seasons 4 and 5, I've already played them all.
"GM some" - sure, I can and do, but not every player will.
"evergreens" - helps, but if your solution is 'keep playing what you've already played' it doesn't help the argument that the game isn't 'dead'.
This also requires that I play none of the 14 characters I already have scattered from levels 3 to 13 (mostly at 7 & 8)
Now, one way that sf1 shines above pf2 is that at any level, I can dip into other classes and try new things. So if a year from now a new class supplement comes out that I like, I can easily add it to this character I'm working on. Which DOES keep the line alive during the next two years. If it was pf2 advancement, I'd be out of luck, because your class is locked in at level one and anything new after that would be pointless.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Venture Captain hat)
When PF2 was announced, within a month I had several pf1 players drop from my community because "What's the point if they'll be unsupported in a year?' I've ALREADY had one of my players say they're dropping from SF because of the same reasons.
|
Managing Creative Director (Starfinder)
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Venture Captain hat)
When PF2 was announced, within a month I had several pf1 players drop from my community because "What's the point if they'll be unsupported in a year?' I've ALREADY had one of my players say they're dropping from SF because of the same reasons.
A lot of the logic I'm reading here is around Organized Play and the consumption of content as it comes out. In most cases, all but the most devoted of fans consume the content at an incredibly slow pace. Sure, there are people who are going to play all the scenario and all the APs, but that's not the standard player.
I say this coming as someone from Organized Play, that OP mega-fans are just one facet of the community we have to look at when building a successful game. In the case of SF1, I'll say that the amount of books that were flying off the shelves at Gen Con seemed to really show that there's a renewed interest in the game right now.
I really don't understand someone who says "The system is changing I'm quit until the new system get ready" with such great time distance. I would understand if the was be relased in next 2 months no in next 2 years. Because in the end you're just not playing. It's not like you're going to switch from one hour to the next.
But IMO this is an exception. Things that I expect from this is players coming to PF2 to test and to better adapt themselves to the new core rules and players that will stay playing SF1 while wait the game become more mature with more options from supplements because for obvious reasons when the SF2 was release in term of options and content the SF1 will stay way more material avaliable for some years.
I can say this because I saw this happening in PF2 with players keep playing their campaigns in PF1/5e until complete their current AP and/or until more supplemental books with more options for the new system to be released.
Even now there are players coming from PF1/5e to PF2 (just check the advice forum) after finishes some AP or because some book that they feel interesting was released.
|
|
(Venture Captain hat)
When PF2 was announced, within a month I had several pf1 players drop from my community because "What's the point if they'll be unsupported in a year?' I've ALREADY had one of my players say they're dropping from SF because of the same reasons.
I think most people that stick with an old edition either own a lot of adventures that they have not had time to play yet or homebrew. People that play organized play fast enough to keep up with content as it comes, if they're not willing to move to a new edition, that's pretty much the end of the road, there's nothing you can do about that. If people jump ship as soon as there is an announcement for a new edition, even if it's years off, I don't understand the logic behind doing so. Again there's nothing you can do about that either, it's their choice.
You might have lost someone at your table now, but I think the new edition will help grow the community a lot. It's interesting how old players are willing to give up on a game they love years before the new edition is out, while new players are still willing to buy in at the same time. Human logic does not make sense
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Venture Captain hat)
When PF2 was announced, within a month I had several pf1 players drop from my community because "What's the point if they'll be unsupported in a year?' I've ALREADY had one of my players say they're dropping from SF because of the same reasons.
I can say my scene has been on life support for some time. If I lose even 2 of these people we dont have a scene and the state of the current releases has made it hard to onboard newer people while still serving the surviving few.
The pandemic really kinda murdered SFS here hard in ways it didnt PFS2. I felt it really gathering momentum hard coming out of season 2 and the 2 years of online play just took the wind right out of the sails in profoundly disappointing ways. I myself almost resigned because it felt like the campaign was dead.
But the announcement does have people asking me about the game again for the first time since the pandemic. I think a lot of people had kind of left it for dead and are delighted to see that not be the case.
As for compatibility, I think a lot of people expected SF2 to use big chunks of the P2 "engine" but not, to torture the analogy, the transmission, brakes and power steering. And that is what "compatibility" hits a lot of ears as, including my own at first glance. I have now seen you in many places say its not your intention to make things 100% directly compatible. The former makes it sound like SF2 is like...a campaign setting for P2 a la Spelljammer and the latter makes it sound like SF2 might be to PF2 what SF1 was to PF1.
|
|
I was hoping to start a local SFS, but after three years of trying have only met one person in the local PFS that had played Starfinder, but they stopped when PF2e came out. They said they might try again when Enhanced comes out, but now I bet they will wait until SF2e. A few weeks ago through the discord of the local store I play Armada and X-wing, I actually got 6 people interested. We were trying to work out a day and time when some MG came along and took two or three players for their home game, and the rest gave up trying to get the game going. Sadly the one person new to the game wanting to learn was one of the people left out. So I'm still just playing Play by Post. I know the local PFS lost about 75% of its player to the pandemic and now has a hard time filling 6 seats some weeks. So hoping Starfinder helps bring new interest again in both games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Staffan Johansson: What you seem to be describing is a story that has no challenge to it - where the main character never experiences any setbacks or difficulties.Oh no, not at all. But I don't want characters finding things that are within their specialty to be difficult. Challenge characters outside of their specialty, but let them shine within it.
Two thoughts.
One, PF2 does that with Skill Feats. You want to be a stealth expert that literally cannot be spotted as you scout an enemy camp? Terrain Stalker. You want to make sure that you and your party never go hungry in the wilderness? Forager. Things like that.
Two, what allowing specialties that you never fail at does is makes it so that you never attempt anything else. If all you have is a hammer, you treat everything like a nail.