|
...it will just feel weird (IMHO) to be playing what will essentially be two different RPGs.
That's the point: They're supposed to be two different RPGs. They may be in the same setting, but they are supposed to fill different niches in the RPG market with Pathfinder fitting the High Fantasy and Starfinder fitting into Science-Fantasy (which is one itch I've REALLY needed to scratch). The developers have talked about how they thought about making this as a Pathfinder supplement, but felt it would be to large and, if I remember, it didn't have the kind of rules support that they wanted for all the new kinds of content. So it's less that they're "tossing out old classes" and more "creating brand new classes for their shiny new rules system," which again, is separate from the Pathfinder system.
|
So it's less that they're "tossing out old classes" and more "creating brand new classes for their shiny new rules system," which again, is separate from the Pathfinder system.
Yet... close enough that you should be able to use the two together without too much difficulty. Similar to how most D&D v3.5 content can be used in Pathfinder with just a few tweaks.
|
|
So it's less that they're "tossing out old classes" and more "creating brand new classes for their shiny new rules system," which again, is separate from the Pathfinder system.Yet... close enough that you should be able to use the two together without too much difficulty. Similar to how most D&D v3.5 content can be used in Pathfinder with just a few tweaks.
The devs have said that they HOPE for that to be the case, but have also tried to temper that with warnings that it might not end up that way, and if given the choice between a better game and compatibility they would choose to make the game better. So by all means, hold out hope, but with the understanding that it might not happen. Like Half-Life 3 XP
So it's less that they're "tossing out old classes" and more "creating brand new classes for their shiny new rules system," which again, is separate from the Pathfinder system.Yet... close enough that you should be able to use the two together without too much difficulty. Similar to how most D&D v3.5 content can be used in Pathfinder with just a few tweaks.
This is completely my perception but based on things said, and when said....
They have talked about class conversion info, but the compatibility looks to be more the "use a monster from a bestiary" than "play as a fantasy class". Not that the second is not possible, but that the first is more the goal.
Developer, Starfinder Team
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Assuming cybernetics/grafts/magical golemlimbs are a thing in the game and that they can add limbs to characters, will their costs/drawbacks be significant enough to balance them with races that have inherent multiple usable limbs?
Certainly this is on our radar. And it's a perfect example of something where we don't have a final answer yet. There are a lot of moving parts to such an issue.
*How highly do we value extra limbs in a race write-up? What else do such races have going for them?*The answer to this must be based in part on how we are handle the rules for combat with multiple limbs. There's every chance they won't be the same as the Pathfinder rules. Each possible iteration must be considered, designed, the math on the results checked, and then the real-game impact playtested.
*Only after we know the answer to those things can we determine what we think the cost is compared to cyberlimbs. And for that we need to decide, are cyberlimbs just as useful? Or are they automatically not as good? Or they as good, but there's a limit to how much cybernetics you can haven, so a 4-arms rare can just augment themselves with reflex wires to offset the advantage a human gets from two extra cyberarms? Are cyberarms subject o sunder? (Are we going to have sunder? Even if we do, is sunder less useful in a game with lots of ranged weapons, making melee harder to pull off?)
*Can a 4-arm race just take on their own cyberarms to have 6 arms? And, if so, what are the rules for THAT option?
*How are weapon costs being balanced? Is it easy to have back-up weapons or weapons for extra limbs? (Probably, but if not that can also impact the value of 4-arms).
We can work all of those things out, but many of those answers are connected to broader systems. It's a lot like bootstrapping -- to know A I must compare it to B, which I must compare to C, but I can't write all those things simultaneously. So we much do drafts of A, B, and C with our best estimates of what will work well, but accept that NONE of it is in final form until we look at it all together and see how our estimates match up with reality.
Which is one big reason we tend to be very cautious about what we confirm, even fairly far along in the design process. I am 99% sure I know how 4-armed combat is going to work. But until every aspect of combat, combat maneuvers, equipment, cybernetics, feats, and every level of play are finalized, there's still a chance toward the end we may go "Oh! When we finished section M, it changed our assumptions about section G, which impacted section A. So, looking at where things are now... "
And then things might change.
I've done a lot of d20 System RPGs since 2000, and I know from experience that at least a few of the things I think we have settled will change at least a little toward the end of the design period.
So often we're cagey about our answers not because we haven't thought about the question, but because we have given it a LOT of thought, and we know it's a complex issue with more than one potential solution.
|
Developer, Starfinder Team
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Owen, James, and/or Rob
I assume there will be some form of starship design rules in the Starfinder book.
So do we.
How detailed are they going to be?
We really won't know until we do a final pagination for the whole book. I'm always in favor of robust startship[ systems, but having been part of the team that designed 3 Star Wars rpgs, and gamma World for d20, I know that there often just isn;t room for as complete a system as I would like.
So we just won;t know until we have a better idea how much space we have left. There's a realistic maximum to how big this book can be, and until we have enar-finished drafts of every section, we won't know if our ideal version of each section is going to fit.
Also which way are you guys leaning with wealth? Is it going to be GP like system (like standard Pathfinder)? or a wealth bonus like system like d20 modern?
I personally am very much leaning toward Credits, as a hard currency like Pathfinder GP, though that's certainly not exclusively my call.
Is Starfinder going to have Alignment?
lastly are Starfinder characters going to have the same reliance on stat boosting items as Pathfinder characters?
I'm pretty sure we have the answers to those, but we aren't revealing them yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you going to allow me to create mecha that work like RahXephon, Owen?
you know to me the real life issue with having multiple arms is coordination the more limbs the more brain power has to go to operating those limbs seems to me if there was going to be a multi weapon fighting it would have to give a greater and greater penalty per limb used usual minus 2 for 2 limbs (with feats) so it would be like what -4 on all attacks for 4 limbs -8 for 6 etc. if you had 8 arms you would be getting a huge penalty cause of how your getting yourself tangled up and trying to coordinate that you might not even try to make all those attacks. its also kind of founded on some realism or you could simplify it to like -2 per additional attack (to all attacks in the round) so 2 the usual -2 three would be minus four etc
I would kind of expect Starfinder to be a test run of what they could do with Pathfinder 2nd Edition. Not that every decision for Starfinder will be carried over to a Pathfinder 2nd Edition, but they can get a feel for things, and decide what they could use for P2E and what they might want to take a different angle on.
Why toss out all the old classes? It seems contrary to the 'add on' philosophy Paizo has pursued in the past...
They are even using essentially the same IP/setting, only further advanced in its timeline.
Unless Starfinder is meant to be a vehicle for sneaking in another rules upgrade for Pathfinder, it will just feel weird (IMHO) to be playing what will essentially be two different RPGs.
Ehm... Paizo is explicitly marketing this as a distinct RPG line separate from Pathfinder.
Why would add ons within Pathfinder be the frame of reference for a new game?And what does IP have to do with it?
Starwars has spawned many mechanically different RPGs, that doesn't in any way affect the coherence of the IP.
AFAIK, they indicated that standard classes will probably exist in some way, doesn't mean their Pathfinder statblocks will be directly playable (especially as standard power PCs), but I don't see why one couldn't expect NPCs or even PCs eventually with those sorts of builds, even if they are marginalized in-setting.
And yeah, Paizo has plenty of great game designers, so it would beggar belief that they WOULDN'T use this as an opportunity for more unfettered game design, possibly as mechanics laboratory to inform future editions of Pathfinder itself.
So often we're cagey about our answers not because we haven't thought about the question, but because we have given it a LOT of thought, and we know it's a complex issue with more than one potential solution.
Frankly that is the answer I wanted most. :)
Here's a good question: the soldier is said to be good at both ranged and melee. In a more high tech society, I can't help but wonder if strength and Dex will still be the primary means of hitting your opponent. Will there be some sort of new way of determining how you hit opponents? Some factor that will replace those stats, or perhaps add to the mix? Or is it just a soldier thing, and everyone else relies on the normal route?
Here's a good question: the soldier is said to be good at both ranged and melee. In a more high tech society, I can't help but wonder if strength and Dex will still be the primary means of hitting your opponent. Will there be some sort of new way of determining how you hit opponents? Some factor that will replace those stats, or perhaps add to the mix? Or is it just a soldier thing, and everyone else relies on the normal route?
I think it's mostly a soldier thing. I'd imagine there will be room for Dex and Str build Soldiers. Dex being more firearm/finesse oriented, while Str is more grenades and gravity hammers.
Personally I'd prefer it if there was a separate Fighting stat like some other systems. Skill as a separate factor from raw physical ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I'd prefer it if there was a separate Fighting stat like some other systems. Skill as a separate factor from raw physical ability.
Is that not what BAB is? Serious question.
Are you going to allow me to create mecha that work like RahXephon, Owen?We may do technosummoners with bardmecha eidlon-vehicles at some point, but I strongly doubt they'll be in the core rulebook. :)
Hey as long I can get my Shelyn bard to run around fighting Mu in it, I'm good! :)
Personally I'd prefer it if there was a separate Fighting stat like some other systems. Skill as a separate factor from raw physical ability.Is that not what BAB is? Serious question.
It's not. BaB is locked to a class chassis, for one thing.
Even then, with the way the 3.5-ish system works, you need that extra bit on top of your base fighting ability. The way the system normally handles it is Str to attack for melee, Dex to attack for ranged, and sometimes flip-flopped with investment (Str to attack with thrown, Dex to attack with finesse) and damage is the same way, though geared towards Str for all mostly.
A Fighting stat would separate that out so you could have a character with a high Dex who is not necessarily a good shot with a bow, and likewise a strong character who isn't much for melee.
Would also be interesting to make that disconnect for fighting styles so you could add Dex OR Str, your choice, to damage, but to-hit is governed by another stat entirely.
Particularly if, like for some systems, Fighting also governed your AC. Would fix all the griping about "Oh but Dex to damage is OP because Dex also adds to Init/Reflex/AC".
|
Particularly if, like for some systems, Fighting also governed your AC. Would fix all the griping about "Oh but Dex to damage is OP because Dex also adds to Init/Reflex/AC".
Or they could be divided up into Offense and Defense stats, as was the case in Mutants & Mastermind, so that one character might have a balanced offense and defense, another might be 'tankier' and have a stronger defense, but weaker offense, and another might be 'scrappier' and do more damage than he can take.
That way you can fine-tune to have a close-quarters martial artist who's great at blocking and dodging lots of attacks, but doesn't necessarily hit like a freight train, or an archer/gunslinger type who can accurately deliver the pain, but folds like a cheap suit when someone gets all up in their face.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mutants and Masterminds 3e was my main thought when talking about that, yeah.
A fighting stat, which I presume means an ability score exclusively governing fighting ability, is not something I would like to see. It would require constant boosting or you would essentially become obsolete as a combatant. It would turn the game into an escort mission, and as we all know, escort missions ain't fun. Now, if you made a skill, maybe. Oh, you're a soldier? That means combat is a class skill for you. Though that essentially make casters even more powerful.
A fighting stat, which I presume means an ability score exclusively governing fighting ability, is not something I would like to see. It would require constant boosting or you would essentially become obsolete as a combatant. It would turn the game into an escort mission, and as we all know, escort missions ain't fun. Now, if you made a skill, maybe. Oh, you're a soldier? That means combat is a class skill for you. Though that essentially make casters even more powerful.
d20 BESM and Silver Age Sentinels had a combat skill... i hated it...
A fighting stat, which I presume means an ability score exclusively governing fighting ability, is not something I would like to see. It would require constant boosting or you would essentially become obsolete as a combatant. It would turn the game into an escort mission, and as we all know, escort missions ain't fun. Now, if you made a skill, maybe. Oh, you're a soldier? That means combat is a class skill for you. Though that essentially make casters even more powerful.
This is different from the current paradigm how? A low Fighting character in this scenario would be no more or less effective than a character with a low appropriate attack stat in Pathfinder. A big 2H Fighter with 12 Str and a big 2H Fighter with 12 Fighting would be similarly crappy.
Because, it puts all your eggs in one basket. A single stat that controls all combat needs, it'd be worse than dexterity. Everyone would have to put points into it, or end up with a dead character.
A fighting stat would be lame, I am happy with BA+ Str or Dex.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because, it puts all your eggs in one basket. A single stat that controls all combat needs, it'd be worse than dexterity. Everyone would have to put points into it, or end up with a dead character.
Yes, that is the point of a Fighting stat. It governs Fighting ability. If you want to fight, you need the Fighting stat.
Just like if you want to have a high touch AC, you need the Dexterity stat.
If you want to deal a lot of damage, you need the Strength stat.
If you want to cast spells you need the Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma stats.
If you don't want to fight a lot, you don't need to touch it. If you do, yeah you'll need to put points into it. Again, how is this different from Str and Dex now? Except that instead of needing to split your points between them to be both an effective melee and ranged fighter, you only need to put points into one stat. "Putting all your eggs in one basket" isn't a bad thing here. It much more easily allows a lot of character archetypes such as the skilled pilot who's useless outside of a cockpit to function (because having the high Dex needed to pilot a ship automatically also means they're a crack shot for some reason). It likewise allows for the "weak, but skilled" character to exist. The wiry, almost sickly looking man that can take you apart without thinking twice about it.
Why is this a bad thing again? Because it's one stat instead of two?
Why make it another stat when it could be a calculation of some kind
Because a fighting stat only does ONE thing. But let's stop derailing this question forum, okay?
Marvel's FASE- RIP has fighting stat, and it works well. It helps perfectly to make a distinction between characters that are really good at fighting, such as Wolverine or Captain America, from characters that are merely really strong, like Doc Samson or Juggernaut. It makes sense in that Universe that Wolverine fights much better than Colossus, even if Colossus is several times stronger and they are arguabily the same level. And yes, there are feats, but "Weapon Focus: claws" is not going to offset the huge difference in base stats.
It helps to solve Pathfinder problem with brute-like creatures, like Ogres, where being a heavy-hitter also makes you an accurate attacker. This last part could also work if the rules to make creatures/npc could be dissociated from PC rules, so an ogre could have lots of HP, big strength, and terrifying damage, because it makes sense for an ogre, without meaning that he becomes instantly accurate because HD means BAB and STR adds to hit.
However, both things go against backwards compatibility, snd I don't expect them to happen
Marvel's FASE- RIP has fighting stat, and it works well. It helps perfectly to make a distinction between characters that are really good at fighting, such as Wolverine or Captain America, from characters that are merely really strong, like Doc Samson or Juggernaut. It makes sense in that Universe that Wolverine fights much better than Colossus, even if Colossus is several times stronger and they are arguabily the same level. And yes, there are feats, but "Weapon Focus: claws" is not going to offset the huge difference in base stats.
It helps to solve Pathfinder problem with brute-like creatures, like Ogres, where being a heavy-hitter also makes you an accurate attacker. This last part could also work if the rules to make creatures/npc could be dissociated from PC rules, so an ogre could have lots of HP, big strength, and terrifying damage, because it makes sense for an ogre, without meaning that he becomes instantly accurate because HD means BAB and STR adds to hit.
However, both things go against backwards compatibility, snd I don't expect them to happen
what we did for that was adapt a feat from d20 modern it negated an opponents str bonus to hit vrs you (there was a bit more to it and you had to do something for it to happen) be we used it for spiderman type characters worked really good to have the rhino vrs spidey feel. also in the marvel system wouldn't you still roll about the same when alls said and done you still roll fighting stats and str stat don't you? so really your just switching the dice up.
I think the traditional reason that str even adds to hit (instead of say dex like in some rpgs) is the ideal that you have to push that sword through armor as well as past there reflexs you could make it two seperate rolls (dodge roll then penetration roll) but it would take to long just look at warhammer 4 rounds takes hours. its also why i opposed ranged weapons being touch attacks cause it moves away from the idea that that the ability to hit require force and accuracy.
So is it safe to assume in starfinder that all guns won't be touch attacks? otherwise why have armor at all? (i suspose armor could be bonus hp hmmmmmmm but thats less compatable!)
Str adds to attack not only because of Armor Penetration, but also because being strong helps to swing faster. Otherwise, you should not be able to add str vs some enemied that might not have Armor or Natural Armor, like a naked monk or pixies or whatever.
Problem is that str is the easiest stat to bump. There are far more creatures with STR 28 than there are with any other ability at 28 (probably more than all the other stats combined), and you get huge size bonuses to STR, far greater thananything rlse you can get in any other stat.+16 STR for an eidolon Evolution, for example.
And this go back yo the "STR=Accuracy" problem. A Monster like an Hill Giant should swing extremelly dangerous but innacurate blows. It's a trope,part of how those brutes fight: they swing around a dead tree trunk, which the Hero dodges all the time because the brute is slow and dumb and poorly trained, but the danger is there,as a single hit is terrifying.
Problem is, high STR also makes you adeadly accurate fighter, so the brute doesn't miss that much. Then they have to introduce size penalty to hit for melee, which doesn't make much sense (it does for ranged, tho), just to counteract this.
A fighting abilty, different than Dex or Str, would help this very well. You could have a big fighting ability if you are fierce (like Marvel's Wolverine or a direbadger or aurumvorax, or if you are highly trained like Captain America or a Fire Giant or martial artist, or becsuse you are very fastand graceful like Daredevil or a panther or an elvrn swordmen. The fact it is disocciated from DEX or STR means you can make sone of those very good at fighting, without making them disproportionally strong or nimble. I think it helps to accurately descript many tropes.
But, again, I don't think they'll remove themselves from Pathfinder ruleset for this, and I don't think they should. PF rule compatibility is an appeal by itself, Abd anyway,fixing sone broken things with a different ruleset might break other things
Or you could tie accuracy to dex and damage to Str.
|
Developer, Starfinder Team
|
Will there be options for "no magic" space campaigns?
That's certainly not the focus, and I doubt it would be covered in the core rulebook. Starfinder is a Science fantasy campaign, and the fantasy part is important.
That said, technology does a lot more in Starfinder, and if you want to hand wave all magic as a form of psychic energy, that'll be easier.
What is neat to me is watching starfinder and alternity v2 being developed at the same time. Alas my wife is not going to like what I am likely appreciate me wanting two new systems next year.
Speaking of which:
Has there been any discussion between the team revamping alternity and the starfinder development team?
Or are those sorts of discussions something more likely to happen after the releases of both products at some convention?
Or you could tie accuracy to dex and damage to Str.
But then Wolverine would be a worse combatant than Spiderman (assuming same level), just because he is less agile. While in Marvel, Wolverine Fighting is Incredible (40) but his agility is just Remarkable (30), while Spidey has Amazing (50) agility, but his fighting is Remarkable (30). Or a better example, Thor, has Unearthly Fighting (100) but just excellent agility (20),because he is a God of war trained for millenia, but he is not an acrobat.
That's the beauty of Marvel's FASERIP system about combat. Those who should be good at fighting, get a high fighting stat. And they don't need to become good at carrying weight or sneaking around just becsuse fighting is tied to stats that fo different things, unrelated to fighting,b because Fighting itself is dissociated from other physical stats. Agility or strength are still useful (help to Dodge or do more damage), but the ability used to fight is different
*Only after we know the answer to those things can we determine what we think the cost is compared to cyberlimbs. And for that we need to decide, are cyberlimbs just as useful? Or are they automatically not as good? Or they as good, but there's a limit to how much cybernetics you can haven, so a 4-arms rare can just augment themselves with reflex wires to offset the advantage a human gets from two extra cyberarms?
*Can a 4-arm race just take on their own cyberarms to have 6 arms? And, if so, what are the rules for THAT option?
I might actually have an answer for this:
The human brain has two sets of two limbs with sensory input divided throughout the brain. It's possible that, even with the assistance of some kind of computer, the brain simply can't take much more input from additional limbs. This would mean that a normal humanoid's brain might only be able to adjust to one or two more arms before it strokes out while a four armed race, who is already pushing the upper limits of a humanoid brain, just can't handle additional limbs.
So if there's a multiverse-wide memory gap and there's no hints at all towards the origins of this memory gap, what's the point of trying to figure it out? Why try to find Golarion's fate when there's 0% clues or hints as to where it went? If something was able to prevent the entire multiverse, without exception, to forget everything about Golarion and have all possible records and hints of it completely eradicated, then that same something will be able to prevent any curious mortals from finding out as well.
Bear in mind I'm not expecting a canonical answer on Golarion's fate, no more than I'm expecting a canonical answer on Aroden's fate. I'm just curious on what motivates people in-setting, when every single possible thing they try to do to unravel the mystery of the Gap or whatever it's called to be all dead ends all the time.
I'm soon going to be playing in a Starfinder-like game wherein there is a sort of 'gap'. Except instead of no memories, the future setting is full of contradictory records and memories of how civilisation got there. In some histories, it's full magic until suddenly spaceships and cyborgs come out of nowhere. In others, it's the reverse. And plenty more that are a mixture of both, saying we naturally progressed into technology from a magical base or vise versa. Nobody is sure which origin is 'real' or if any of them are.
|
|
So if there's a multiverse-wide memory gap and there's no hints at all towards the origins of this memory gap, what's the point of trying to figure it out? Why try to find Golarion's fate when there's 0% clues or hints as to where it went? If something was able to prevent the entire multiverse, without exception, to forget everything about Golarion and have all possible records and hints of it completely eradicated, then that same something will be able to prevent any curious mortals from finding out as well.
Bear in mind I'm not expecting a canonical answer on Golarion's fate, no more than I'm expecting a canonical answer on Aroden's fate. I'm just curious on what motivates people in-setting, when every single possible thing they try to do to unravel the mystery of the Gap or whatever it's called to be all dead ends all the time.
Because The Gap is not the same across the entire multiverse, it frays at different points all across it. So while the Golarion system may remember 300 years ago, Say... the Androffa system can remember 305 years back.
At least, that's how I understand what the Devs are wanting this to be, and the motivation of the "Starfinder Society" would be to piece together as much as possible to see if they can make a breakthrough, but also just to do it for the sake of knowledge.
Hey guys, sorry if this has been asked before, I might have missed it in the earlier replies. I wanted to ask if you thought there were any issues or design aspects of Pathfinder that you found 'unsatisfactory' that you might be trying to address in Starfinder.
For example, I hear (I'm not really a veteran of 3.5 or earlier DnD) that 3.5 had a bloat problem, and that it was usually to the best interest of the player to multiclass their mind out. This was kind of addressed in pathfinder as most builds are purely one class.
I guess I'm wondering if Starfinder is (on top of being a completely new setting and system) an attempt to 'fix' some of pathfinder's deeper issues, and what you designers consider those issues to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Will Starfinder have the giff that keeps on giffing? And is "giff" pronounced "jiff", or "G-I-F-F"? How much discussion time is taken up trying to find an OGL loophole for giffs? 20%? 75%? Basic ballpark estimate.
I'm just taking it as a giffen that you've at least discussed it, of course.
your a strange little Kobold but i hope you get your answer in a jiffy...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if there's a multiverse-wide memory gap and there's no hints at all towards the origins of this memory gap, what's the point of trying to figure it out? Why try to find Golarion's fate when there's 0% clues or hints as to where it went? If something was able to prevent the entire multiverse, without exception, to forget everything about Golarion and have all possible records and hints of it completely eradicated, then that same something will be able to prevent any curious mortals from finding out as well.
Bear in mind I'm not expecting a canonical answer on Golarion's fate, no more than I'm expecting a canonical answer on Aroden's fate. I'm just curious on what motivates people in-setting, when every single possible thing they try to do to unravel the mystery of the Gap or whatever it's called to be all dead ends all the time.
Because The Gap is not the same across the entire multiverse, it frays at different points all across it. So while the Golarion system may remember 300 years ago, Say... the Androffa system can remember 305 years back.
At least, that's how I understand what the Devs are wanting this to be, and the motivation of the "Starfinder Society" would be to piece together as much as possible to see if they can make a breakthrough, but also just to do it for the sake of knowledge.
This is exactly where we're going with it.