| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not interested in Starfinder and please keep your Starfinder out of my Pathfinder.
One of my sons was excited about Starfinder...until he saw how different it was from Pathfinder. He is no longer interested. Starfinder will not find it's way into my home. Pathfinder will never leave our hearts--mine or my 5 sons.
Pathfinder 2.0 is the day I stop playing. Invalidate my shelf and I'll just walk away.
If (when) they make a pathfinder 2.0, I doubt it would invalidate pathfinder 1.0. There is too much invested in a system that, basically, works. Yes it needs updating, so I would welcome a pathfinder 2.0, but unless they adopt a completely different system (like WoTC with 4E AD&D) I don't see why you couldn't keep using the pathfinder 1.0 splatbooks.
Similarly for the ~3000 Feats. I doubt they will get rid of the Feat system, so those ~3000 will still be there. They might remove some feat taxes, but I doubt they will get rid of them altogether so most of those ~3000 will still be relevant.
I would like to see streamlined maneuver rules (who remembers how to calculate CMD and CMB? I always have to look them up when updating characters, and tripping is not really much use at high levels), fewer (more relevant) archetypes, the folding of prestige classes into archetypes. Perhaps incorporate some of the newer classes back into the old (Arcanist Exploits on Wizards, Investigator talents on Rogues, etc.) or make them archetypes and do away with those classes. Of course those who prefer the pathfinder 1.0 variety would still be able to use them all so nothing would actually be lost, only gained.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So their was like 8 pages of posts. So I did not read them all.
I think they will run out of good idea's for new supplements that I would be interested in. I could still see another 2 years. planar adventures another 5 bestiaries etc. At some point it will move to a newer edition if Paizo remains in business. I like a lot of the startfinder changes. I think their is a lot that can be improved from the pathfinder line and moving it to a newer edition would give us that chance.
Made the mistakes of reading some posts.
so many people saying CHANGE IS BAD holy cow just because they make something for others doesn't mean you have to stop using what you got isn't their enough content between pathfinder and 3rd to keep your games going for a long time?
Not interested in Starfinder and please keep your Starfinder out of my Pathfinder.
One of my sons was excited about Starfinder...until he saw how different it was from Pathfinder. He is no longer interested. Starfinder will not find it's way into my home. Pathfinder will never leave our hearts--mine or my 5 sons.That's kind of creepy.
Pathfinder is a game, not a religion.
Right? Its so weird its like they treat it like a religion. Religion X is the only one I've ever subscribed to and I won't hear any others. Some people actually go out and see a variety so they can know for sure that their choice is the right one.
I personally have tried quite a few different games over the years. nothing wrong with trying new games. You won't get smote by the pathfinder gods (unless its Rovagog but he probably would of smote you either way)
There are LOTS of games out there. If you only ever try one, you'll never know what you're missing.
On the other hand, if you've tried a bunch and found which one works best for you, entertaining yet another option becomes pointless.
This is why (most people) don't keep shopping for a mate after getting married.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
first religion now marriage... so odd.
Our group currently plays Pathfinder, 5e, and Savage Worlds. We have Starfinder books, but no one is running a game right now. I was going too, but then I noticed Savage Worlds had sci-fi, horror, and fantasy expansions. So I'm running in Starfinder's lore with Savage Worlds mechanics.
See this game actually has mech rules, second-hand cybernetic rules, and spaceship rules that interact with player rules.
I'm excited to see what Starfinder can become. I want to see weapon and armor creation rules (as in making new stuff to fill out the dead item levels) and other gear.
What I can't get over is how lacking the classes feel. Mystic and technomancers are full casters shoved into partial casters and I just don't feel like they get enough but they get more than anyone else. The rest of the classes are mundanes and just don't get many decisions per level. I've already built every class once and I just don't see a lot of variation yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
first religion now marriage... so odd.
Look, it's like when you swear a Blood Oath to Yldrytchos in the Isocahedrarium. Most people aren't going to go round after that swearing blood oaths to, like, any Nephilim that manifests on the Sefirot Battlemat, are they?
As someone who has no idea what Starfinder does different other than "OH MI GOD SPACE!" and no idea for its mechanics, what does it do different over Pathfinder?
|
Once I've found one movie I like, why go see different ones?There are LOTS of games out there. If you only ever try one, you'll never know what you're missing.On the other hand, if you've tried a bunch and found which one works best for you, entertaining yet another option becomes pointless.
This is why (most people) don't keep shopping for a mate after getting married.
Once I find one genre, why bother with the others?
As someone who has no idea what Starfinder does different other than "OH MI GOD SPACE!" and no idea for its mechanics, what does it do different over Pathfinder?
Point-buy: 1 point for 1 attribute.
Every five levels a player can increase four ability scores.
Stamina points allow you to recover from minor injuries quickly without magic healing.
No negative HP - when on zero HP (the minimum) you leak Resolve Points until you die.
Separate Energy Armor Class and Kinetic Armor Class. EAC for energy attacks, KAC for more physical attacks. Flat-footed is -2 AC.
All equipment has an associated level - generally you have gear of your own level or a bit less.
You can only have two worn magic items.
Spells Cap at 6th Level.
You can take a Guarded Step (equivalent of 5-foot step) as a move action.
Critical hits no longer need to be confirmed.
Attacks of opportunity are only triggered by moving out of, casting a spell from, or making a ranged attack from a threatened square.
CMD and CMB are gone. To perform a combat maneuver, you just roll a to-hit roll versus KAC +8.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
While there are many things I like in Starfinder, there are also things that bother me, like:
The better your spaceship, the harder it is to fly it.
NPCs are built using "shortcut" rules that tend to end up with them being better than PCs at skills and attack rolls, but far fewer special abilities.
They fixed that.While there are many things I like in Starfinder, there are also things that bother me, like:
The better your spaceship, the harder it is to fly it.
NPCs are built using "shortcut" rules that tend to end up with them being better than PCs at skills and attack rolls, but far fewer special abilities.
Agreed.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
They fixed thatWhile there are many things I like in Starfinder, there are also things that bother me, like:
The better your spaceship, the harder it is to fly it.
Did they? The FAQ I saw still has the DCs scaling with your ship tier, just at a more reasonable rate that can actually be accomplished. There is still the issue that upgrading your ship (increasing its tier) makes it harder to fly.
Did they? The FAQ I saw still has the DCs scaling with your ship tier, just at a more reasonable rate that can actually be accomplished. There is still the issue that upgrading your ship (increasing its tier) makes it harder to fly.They fixed thatWhile there are many things I like in Starfinder, there are also things that bother me, like:
The better your spaceship, the harder it is to fly it.
Ah, gotcha.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
NPCs are built using "shortcut" rules that tend to end up with them being better than PCs at skills and attack rolls, but far fewer special abilities.
isn't that kinda how it should be?
it makes play for the NPC easier for the DM, and it makes the PCs rely on their special abilities (they are the SPECIAL HEROES after all).
NPCs should be hitting or casting or using one of their few special abilities in most cases. I mean... look at a Pathfinder monster block for a mid-level monster.
see all those feats? wha? why does a monster need a feat? those are just special abilities for players. monsters get special abilities.
why do we need to know what a monster's statblock is? what we need to know is what their modifier is for a d20 roll.
cmb? cmd? seriously?
a monster moves. it hits. it casts a spell. it uses a special ability. it rolls saves. it might hide or something. but asking DMs to play multiple monsters with the same level of care (or carelessness) that a PC does with their one character was always a silly idea.
a monster doesn't need a complete stat block. the PCs need that.
If we cut back on all the "IMPROVED CLEAVE" or whatever, the monster is using a simpler action economy. So, it's stronger - cuz it doesn't have bells/whistles which would boost that same monster in Pathfinder. those same bells/whistles which are most likely just going to be ignored in actual play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be fine with picking up some more unchained options, but I don't really have any interest in buying a new game. So I'd rather not see a Pathfinder 2.0 anytime soon.
Just give me more options to tweak the rules and such and I'm fine
A 1 to 1 point buy can be implemented in Pathfinder.
It always should have been.
A navigational computer should make the ship easier to steer.
It steers around stars and dark mater at warp speed.
There are LOTS of games out there. If you only ever try one, you'll never know what you're missing.
This. I love Pathfinder and Starfinder, but that doesn't stop me from trying new games with my cousins (new system and game each year).
first religion now marriage... so odd.Look, it's like when you swear a Blood Oath to Yldrytchos in the Isocahedrarium. Most people aren't going to go round after that swearing blood oaths to, like, any Nephilim that manifests on the Sefirot Battlemat, are they?
I heart you quibble
What don't you like IHIYC?
There are LOTS of games out there. If you only ever try one, you'll never know what you're missing.This. I love Pathfinder and Starfinder, but that doesn't stop me from trying new games with my cousins (new system and game each year).
The thing I feel that's important about being fluent in a bunch of different games is that nearly any competently executed game is going to do what it sets out to do better than a game that that sets out to do everything. You can do anything in GURPS, but GURPS does nothing* in particular better than than a thing that sets out to do just that. Likewise, you will likely never find a better game about "the confusion that arises when your body and your social world start changing without your permission" than Monsterhearts but Monsterhearts will probably never be anything except that (that game is absolutely amazing, FWIW.)
The sweet spot that things like Pathfinder hits is that these are broad appeal games that are less group dependent than a lot of your more intense things, and that's really handy. But you aren't going to do Paranoia better than Paranoia did, and sometimes you just want to play Paranoia. The Adventure Paths that were inspired heavily inspired by Call of Cthulhu don't really do Call of Cthulhu better than Call of Cthulhu does Call of Cthulhu (but it does Pathfinder way, way better than Call of Cthulhu does.)
*The exception is something like "GURPS IOU" for which the "craziness of having literally everything allowed by any rule happen all at the same time in the same place" is sort of the selling point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is better than Exalted.
I'm not sure I totally agree with that. Where Pathfinder is High Fantasy, Exalted is more "Epic Fantasy with Superheroes who engage in cosmic drama" which it sort of does better than Pathfinder does. The closest analogue in PF are the Mythic rules, and I think Exalted does a better job at that sort of thing than the Mythic rules do.
Since as much as the Mythic rules result in characters who are *really* powerful by the standards of Pathfinder characters, you don't really hit the same extremes that you can in Exalted where you can do stuff like "fire enough arrows in a single action to fell an entire army" as a capstone archery charm or "your ultimate attack fails to hit me because I am retroactively literally not present in this scene and never was because I have access to the backstage of reality and am officially sanctioned to cheat" like a capstone sidereal Dodge charm.
And there's a place for that, just like there's a place for superhero games. It's just hard to, in the same rules set support "you're Superman" and "you're just some guy" equally well.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
NPCs are built using "shortcut" rules that tend to end up with them being better than PCs at skills and attack rolls, but far fewer special abilities.isn't that kinda how it should be?
it makes play for the NPC easier for the DM, and it makes the PCs rely on their special abilities (they are the SPECIAL HEROES after all).
NPCs should be hitting or casting or using one of their few special abilities in most cases. I mean... look at a Pathfinder monster block for a mid-level monster.
see all those feats? wha? why does a monster need a feat? those are just special abilities for players. monsters get special abilities.
why do we need to know what a monster's statblock is? what we need to know is what their modifier is for a d20 roll.
cmb? cmd? seriously?
a monster moves. it hits. it casts a spell. it uses a special ability. it rolls saves. it might hide or something. but asking DMs to play multiple monsters with the same level of care (or carelessness) that a PC does with their one character was always a silly idea.
a monster doesn't need a complete stat block. the PCs need that.
If we cut back on all the "IMPROVED CLEAVE" or whatever, the monster is using a simpler action economy. So, it's stronger - cuz it doesn't have bells/whistles which would boost that same monster in Pathfinder. those same bells/whistles which are most likely just going to be ignored in actual play.
First, let me separate out monsters from NPCs. Monsters can pretty much be built however the designer wants - who's to say what abilities an imaginary critter has? But I do like the incredible detail in stat blocks because sometimes the PCs make friends with the lich/demon/gibbering mouther/whatever, and suddenly they're asking it about the plot MacGuffin and I need to know if it has Knowledge(history) or not. Giant, more complete stat blocks help me present a consistent world to the players.
NPCs, by which I mean characters of PC races with learned abilities, should be built using close to the same rules as PCs. Otherwise it begins to feel like the GM is playing a different game than the players, and it's especially bad if a player asks, "How can I learn that ability?" and the answer is that they can't because it's NPC only. Blech. I have minor issues with simplified NPC construction in principle, but my major issue is that the simplified construction in Starfinder creates NPCs who are just better than equal level PCs at certain things. Like skills and attack rolls. PCs shouldn't want to be NPCs to get advantages.
Starfinder feels like they sacrificed some immersion to make the game easier to GM.
1. Item level mechanics: You don't really have to track WBL. Just limit accessible item levels to class level instead of class level +1 or aka crafting limit.
2. Monsters and NPCs are easier to just throw together.
3. Skills and some other mechanics leave details to the GM.
4. PC numbers are pretty bounded and you have to worry less about someone being underpowered.
5. Space ship rules and player rules are different and can't interact.
I actually have problems with all 5 solutions. 4 bothers because I feel like classes just do less now and are less interesting. I applaud skills being made more meaningful but scaling DCs mean you are either a skill class or your ability at full ranks is pretty useless.
But regardless of that, Starfinder doesn't feel easier to run for me. I haven't actually ran it, but through reading all of the rules, I didn't feel like this would be all that much easier than Pathfinder and I'm not running Pathfinder or 5e either (5e is harder to run fairly than Pathfinder).
When I first read the rules SF seemed like an improvement, but I'm not so sure now.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not interested in Starfinder and please keep your Starfinder out of my Pathfinder.
Agreed.
Some of our table are interested, I'm just not.They have pointed out some of the mechanical changes (streamlined/easier) and that's exactly what I don't want.
If I wanted that....I would have gone with D&D when they made the change.
I certainly hope this is not what caused the Shifter to turn out the way it did (trying to simplify it)....if that becomes the trend....I guess I will have to focus on the AP's I have already collected and not played. I'm not willing at my advanced age to start over with a new system :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hm, I've only played one session of Starfinder and while it was fun (I'm with my friends so that's not really based on the system) it felt a little....vanilla for our tastes. Kinda like d20 Future. Meh.
Honestly though, Pathfinder 2.0 would need to take a serious look at the system of d20/SRD and figure out if the base is still worth pursuing as a structure. What I'm talking about are the things that have been basically dropped like Full-Attacks, depreciating attacks, feats that are basically worthless or don't scale (Starfinder has quite a few of these), etc. Will LFQW still be a significant issue in PF 2.0? I really hope not.
Starfinder feels like they sacrificed some immersion to make the game easier to GM.
1. Item level mechanics: You don't really have to track WBL. Just limit accessible item levels to class level instead of class level +1 or aka crafting limit.
2. Monsters and NPCs are easier to just throw together.
3. Skills and some other mechanics leave details to the GM.
4. PC numbers are pretty bounded and you have to worry less about someone being underpowered.
5. Space ship rules and player rules are different and can't interact.
I actually have problems with all 5 solutions. 4 bothers because I feel like classes just do less now and are less interesting. I applaud skills being made more meaningful but scaling DCs mean you are either a skill class or your ability at full ranks is pretty useless.
But regardless of that, Starfinder doesn't feel easier to run for me. I haven't actually ran it, but through reading all of the rules, I didn't feel like this would be all that much easier than Pathfinder and I'm not running Pathfinder or 5e either (5e is harder to run fairly than Pathfinder).
When I first read the rules SF seemed like an improvement, but I'm not so sure now.
I finally got the Starfinder book. I may have some idea what I'm posting about.
1-Actually, that encourages adventuring, so it's cool.2-The Starfinder Core has no instructions for building a goblin PC.
I need to get the Alien Archive.
3-Again, always good.
4-As they add races, such as mutants and goblins, the stat limits may be excepted.
5-If you are talking about person to ship combat, I agree. Trying to repair and salvage a derelict craft the computer will come back online probably crazy and hostile. There are rules for hacking and repairing computers, which is good.
In any case, a lot of this can be imported or exported either way.
You might consider just grabbing what you like and and grafting them into what you do play.
I grabbed the lore, the setting, knowledge names, the idea behind crafting and threw them into Savage Worlds.
When I refer to SF, I'm including the alien archive.
I would find 3 the opposite of good. I don't get a system so that I have to fill in the holes.
I feel though that any time you rebrand or revise, you get a chance to change the preconceptions people have about the product and you can hopefully change the mindset and the associations.
I mean, Coke didn't change the formula for Coke Zero when they made it "coke Zero Sugar"- they just changed the name and how it was presented in hopes that people who weren't already buying it would start.
I feel though that any time you rebrand or revise, you get a chance to change the preconceptions people have about the product and you can hopefully change the mindset and the associations.
I mean, Coke didn't change the formula for Coke Zero when they made it "coke Zero Sugar"- they just changed the name and how it was presented in hopes that people who weren't already buying it would start.
Coke Zero Sugar is a different formula and flavor from Coke Zero...
|
I would love to see a new fantasy game made by paizo. I don't want to see pathfinder 2.0 though. I think pathfinder is too stuck on the legacy of 3rd edition. If they make a new version of the pathfinder rules, they will continue to feel like they need to keep some backwards compatibility, and I do not want to see that at all. I like starfinder, but it is also held back by their desire for backward compatibility, and you can feel that influence in all the bad convoluted rules they couldn't let go of. I think the people at paizo could make a fantastic new game using their experience of designing rpgs, if they could let go of the old rules and re-write from the ground up. It is currently like the old windows OS, they had let go of DOS in order to move forward. Paizo needs to let go of 3ed in order to move forward.
Making something new doesn't mean you have to abandon what came before. Lots of people, including me, still enjoy playing pathfinder. They didn't stop making pathfinder in order to make starfinder. They could make a new fantasy game in addition to the old stuff.
In the end though, pathfinder has had a good run. If they do can it, I won't be sad. It has reached that point of 3.5 bloatedness where it is hard to control for GMs, and difficult to get in to for new players. Starfinder is something different, which is nice, but not a replacement. It is getting time for something new, or we're going to keep losing players to 5e and other games.
Coke Zero Sugar is a different formula and flavor from Coke Zero...
I would offer, however, that the difference between Pathfinder and Pathfinder 2.0, Pathfinder 1.5, Pathfinder Revised, or whatever we want to call it would be much more obvious than the difference between Coke Zero and Coke Zero Sugar...
Coke Zero Sugar is a different formula and flavor from Coke Zero...I would offer, however, that the difference between Pathfinder and Pathfinder 2.0, Pathfinder 1.5, Pathfinder Revised, or whatever we want to call it would be much more obvious than the difference between Coke Zero and Coke Zero Sugar...
I would hope not. Coke Zero Sugar is just better than Coke Zero.
The concept of "rules bloat" (I think what people actually mean here is option bloat) Was a thing back when 3.0 was around and you needed to get your hands on a book to see the option. That doesn't exist anymore. Flaws in the SRD sites and all, they work just fine as references to the options and will even show you what book you need to pick up if its an option you want to take to PFS or have available in home games where the GM/players demand the physical copy.
Just enjoy your starfinder and stop trying to convince paizo to take pathfinder away from the people who enjoy it, with all its options and depth.
Well, maybe not just like Starfinder. However, many elements from that game could be used to improve Pathfinder. D&D 3.5 still has some "baggage" inside Pathfinder, but it doesn't seem to be in starfinder. I would be all for a new edition for Pathfinder, As long as it wouldn't make all previous material obsolete.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note: I've already seen people complain about Starfinder having bloat and releasing things too quickly. Bloat is a completely stupid concept and is basically impossible to avoid unless you basically stop after the Core ook.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note: I've already seen people complain about Starfinder having bloat and releasing things too quickly. Bloat is a completely stupid concept and is basically impossible to avoid unless you basically stop after the Core ook.
Seriously, as of today there's like 2 books and half an adventure path!
Well, maybe not just like Starfinder. However, many elements from that game could be used to improve Pathfinder. D&D 3.5 still has some "baggage" inside Pathfinder, but it doesn't seem to be in starfinder. I would be all for a new edition for Pathfinder, As long as it wouldn't make all previous material obsolete.
3.0 to 3.5 couldn't even manage to "new edition without rendering old material obsolete" you don't remember the "Oh thats a 3.0 book" conversations?