Goblin TLDR: Me shiny thing seem broke once me see new shiny thing. Me now want smash shiny things together.
So I jumped all in on starfinder six months ago and I'm GMing a really enjoyable campaign.
So you'd think the announcement of Pathfinder 2 wouldn't impact me right!
But because like most people I'm not a rational being I keep glancing over at the new shiny thing with its fancy action economy and bells and whistles, and thinking Starfinder isn't as good anymore. While pathfinders move forward to a glorious land of fluid rules and non racist ancestries, us poor Starfinders will struggle on for years with an already defunct filesystem.
Now clearly this is nonsense, and in reality if PF2 is good I'll play that too or instead of Starfinder and still have a good time, but it's a known phenomenon called The Osbourne Effect that happens whenever a company announces a new product that supercedes or appears to supercede an old one.
Given that paizo surely had Starfinder in gestation when PF2 was conceived it would have been ideal if we could have got some sort of common core mechanics like the action economy etc and had a second layer of more specific/tuned rules for each.
Maybe we will someday when PF3/SF2 come out with a new XFinder Core Rules, until then I'll just have to glance out the window of my Kevolari Venture knowing that out there somewhere is another plane with shinier rules ;-)
Yeah, a bunch of Starfinder would have been better with PF2's action model - for example, it's fundamentally ridiculous that you can attack things multiple times, but can't harrying fire or covering fire multiple times, even though both are supposedly based on a single standard action attack. If the devs had been forced to work with the PF2 action system, denying them the ability to "type" actions and only being allowed to specify a cost, it would have been much better. I also suspect many of the weird issues surrounding Operative Trick Attack would never have arisen - they'd simply have Trick Attack be a 2-cost attack for one buffed shot and be done with it.
I agree im a bit jealous. I very much love the sound of whats coming in 2.0 and really like the sound of its action economy. I said exactly the same thing when it came out lamenting that more of what im seeing was not in Starfinder. That said I do love Starfinder and have no plans on jumping ship. My gaming group has enough love for both. I do look forward to seeing how both develop and influence on another as they progress.
Eh. Starfinder has me more than covered for the time being. Besides which I'm mindful of this from the FAQ:
Many of the rules innovations we debuted in last year's Starfinder Core Rulebook were born as changes to the in-development Pathfinder Second Edition game, so some of the "new" Pathfinder is already baked into the Starfinder system. It's possible that we'll learn things over the course of the Pathfinder Playtest that we're eager to apply to Starfinder, but that's putting the space horse considerably before the space cart.
If some of the better changes do eventually percolate into Starfinder, cool, but I'm in it for the space adventure. It's been a long time since I was anything more than a very casual player of D&D or Pathfinder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, side note. That phrase from the FAQ is backwards.
It's putting the cart before the horse that's bad. You always put the horse in front. It should be "space cart considerably before the space horse."
Sorry, it's got nothing to do with the conversation, that was just bugging me and I needed to vent it.
On Topic. I agree about including the Action Economy changes. I wish they had gone ahead and pulled that trigger, but that may have been something they came up with after SF was completed, so it may not have been an option. I also wish they had included the new spellcaster rules (whatever they are), but I've already beaten that dead space horse.
It's putting the cart before the horse that's bad.
Maybe in space, you need the cart to pull the horse. ;)
You're right of course. But I got what they meant.
There is a reasonable concern that we're looking at another SW Saga edition thing, where Starfinder is a bit orphaned. I'm percolating on a campaign built on the SF spine set in the Koprulu sector (works really well in Starcraft). I am a little hesitant now, though. There's a call for an Unchained that brings in the action economy fun, if the market is there. But I'm not sure it's there.
I'm not deeply upset on my home game front but I've stopped work on writing for publication using Starfinder.
There is a reasonable concern that we're looking at another SW Saga edition thing, where Starfinder is a bit orphaned. I'm percolating on a campaign built on the SF spine set in the Koprulu sector (works really well in Starcraft). I am a little hesitant now, though. There's a call for an Unchained that brings in the action economy fun, if the market is there. But I'm not sure it's there.
I'm not deeply upset on my home game front but I've stopped work on writing for publication using Starfinder.
I wouldn't worry about Starfinder. Its not going anywhere nor is it going to be Orphaned. it is its own thing. They clearly choose a different route for this game and there is plenty of products and life in this game for years to come. With the new shiney its just interesting to see what could of been or what might yet come in the form of advanced rules sometime in the future but its not going to be this year as this years products are already slated. They have plenty of products to release before they get to monkeying with Starfinder and would cut their own throat to going changing it drastically this early its its life span.
There is the Sci-fi Space and there is the Fantasy crowd and while there is certainly cross over they are clearly meant to be very different games.
I would say it is a bigger problem for Pathfinder than Starfinder.
With it announced that a new system coming out for their fantasy system, there are people who will most likely hold back on their Pathfinder purchases waiting for the new system.
Maybe there will be a Starfinder 2 Conversion Guide (from Paizo or Fans). As Torbyne mentioned it shouldn't be that difficult to add this to SF.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's putting the cart before the horse that's bad.Maybe in space, you need the cart to pull the horse. ;)
You're right of course. But I got what they meant.
Generally speaking, horses do not do well in space, and their EVA suits tend to get truly awful smells after a while.
So far the only thing I genuinely wish was in Starfinder is the streamlined action economy. "You have 3 actions, what do you want to do?" is a lot faster to pick up on.
I'm not sure backporting it is a good idea though. Pathfinder Unchained had a similar system ('Revised Action Economy') where you had three acts each turn, but since the Pathfinder wasn't designed for it there were a few issues and a crap ton of GM adjudication needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So far the only thing I genuinely wish was in Starfinder is the streamlined action economy. "You have 3 actions, what do you want to do?" is a lot faster to pick up on.
I'm not sure backporting it is a good idea though. Pathfinder Unchained had a similar system ('Revised Action Economy') where you had three acts each turn, but since the Pathfinder wasn't designed for it there were a few issues and a crap ton of GM adjudication needed.
100% agree love that action economy, would love to have seen it in Starfinder but clearly the game was designed and balanced around the current one so there would be balancing issues. Right now im content to let Starfinder be Starfinder and 2.0 be 2.0 and look forward to what they come up with next.
I would love the new action economy too, but I think converting to it would require a lot of re-balancing. Plenty of stuff is based around the -4 to attack for full attacks in SF, with some classes, feats, etc adding to it (extra attack, lower penalty, etc). With 3 action economy, it needs to be redone.
Starfinder will be 2 years old when PF2 is released. I think going forward, Paizo should have the two product lines offset by 5 years. That would mean SF2 would release in 2024, a little ahead of schedule, but after that each would get a 10 year edition cycle. In this way we get to drool over potential changes to game systems on an even balance back and forth between product lines. :)
No the Osbourne effect won't happen because people are on the average quite wise and intelligent, well able to separate the two concepts in their minds.
Also, its apples and oranges, really. One is Space Opera and the other is Dungeon Fantasy.
Honestly, Starfinder doesn't need PF2 to kill it. As much as I want to love it, and while I plan to finish my Dead Suns campaign, I don't think I will continue with this game afterwards. The gear grind is annoying as hell.
As for the Osbourne effect, well, there are always new shiny things all the time from many companies. I don't think it is relevant here. What might be relevant is that players with a huge PF1 investment realize they are about to start a new round or purchases, they might start considering 5E, Genesys, 2d20, etc.
Haven't noticed the "gear grind" myself. Maybe because Starfinder makes it easy to keep party wealth in line without resorting to weird stuff like the 50% item buyback rule or off-brand stuff like encouraging players to loot everything.