I'm not saying it's a bad thing. It's just that a lot of it seems to just be different for the sake of being different.
Pick a difference I can probably take a reasonable stab at the reason
fewer aoos : because people wanted combat to be more mobile and pew pewy.
grappling: because PCs grappling things was overpowered and complicated (which.. starfinder may have made almost as bad)
changing full attack: So that high level martials weren't balanced around an assumption of full attacking when they usually weren't Now everyone has the same option and its easier to put into the math for everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying it's a bad thing. It's just that a lot of it seems to just be different for the sake of being different.
It's simplified. Pathfinder's system of bonuses in particular was kind of a trainwreck.
It's also broadened to include scenarios that weren't commonly part of Pathfinder, like starship combat and vehicle chases.
The math is tighter so that it at least marginally makes sense to be rolling d20s to decide anything at mid- to high-level play.
The magic system is rebalanced so that magic-using classes are effective at low levels and don't vault above everyone else to godhood at high levels.
It's different for the sake of being an improved system that can run science-fantasy effectively.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying it's a bad thing. It's just that a lot of it seems to just be different for the sake of being different.
If you want our guesses about why specific things were changed, please ask specific questions. I don't think a lot of things were changed just for the sake of being different. Typical reasons would be:
* They wanted to make things simpler. For example, you no longer have to explain what a "not an action-action" is.
* They wanted to make things better balanced. It's not as easy for PCs to get an AC so high monsters aren't scary anymore. On the other hand, CR now is a much better estimate of how scary a monster really is.
* It's the future, you're going to have to have rules for new things (telecommunication doesn't require level 4 spells anymore, just a comm unit; there's computer hacking; space suits make underwater and vacuum adventures much easier than in the dark ages; spaceship combat).
* They wanted combat to be more hit and run, less about pinning enemies in place. (Standing up from being tripped doesn't provoke anymore.)
* They wanted to make casters less almighty (spell concentration is easier to disrupt with attacks).
* They wanted to make ranged combat something almost everyone does (everyone is proficient with laser pistols, you don't need a Precise Shot anymore).
* Full attacks are a more interesting tactical choice. Because a 5ft step isn't free anymore, you have a meaningful choice: do I attack twice, and then let the monster attack twice; or do I attack and step back, so that the monster can only attack me once too?
* It's been over 20 years since some of the key concepts of D&D 3.x were launched. Stubbornly doing everything the same way would be silly.
* They wanted to make casters less almighty (spell concentration is easier to disrupt with attacks).
I think its pretty much impossible now . Readied actions don't work anymore, and you couldn't make the concentration check against an AOO anyway.
Focused Spellcaster feat is pretty sweet if you’re worried about AOOs. A must for NPCs you want to be able to teleport away even when surrounded.
Although it’ll be redundant on Technomancers if they ever errata Flash Teleport hack to be Su like the Witchwarper version.
|
|
* They wanted to make casters less almighty (spell concentration is easier to disrupt with attacks).
I think its pretty much impossible now . Readied actions don't work anymore, and you couldn't make the concentration check against an AOO anyway.
I've seen Pathfinder casters succeed at concentration checks to keep a spell going while damaged by a ready action/attack of opportunity. Though they fail more than they succeed.
Starfinder also doesn't allow defensive casting.
The game systems aren't that different at all and you can pretty much plop one thing into the other with minimal work. I think the biggest thing is that Starfinder had 10 years or so of Pathfinder hits and misses to work with.
Starfinder is a better system by far in my opinion for many reasons and I think Pathfinder 2E will be just as great when it comes out.
Paizo gives a damn whether we like and have fun with their products.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For all tabletop games, their game mechanics have to support the setting and the feel of the fictional world embodied.
Star Wars Edge of the Empire wouldn't be quite the same (in my opinion) if it was a simple d20 based system.
Shadowrun, in its gigantic dice pools also wouldn't be the same.
etc...
I think that one is truly better off thinking of Pathfinder and Starfinder as different systems with similarities, than the same system with differences.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing. It's just that a lot of it seems to just be different for the sake of being different.
Probably a good way for them to start testing other things and expand on their product range rather than just keep making things for the same core.