| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having your writers learn one system instead of two has some obvious perks I can imagine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do wonder how much they're going to use compatibility to 'solve' gaps in both systems. People have been asking for a while for a defensive character that tangled up in divine baggage in PF2 ... I wonder how much Paizo considers the tankier Soldier to be a potential solution to that.
Hard to see how the soldier's extreme offensive focus on AOE tech weapons can really be an answer to what PF2 players want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess our clamoring for a technology book really paid off! I can't wait to give my players their beloved rail guns and laser rifles again!Going to be a lot easier to run a Iron Gods or Distant World campaign, since you can just pull in stuff from Starfinder now.
I do wonder if this will cause balance/weirdness issues. It might clash with the aesthetics if someone wants to bring in a a character from Pathfinder into Starfinder and vice versa. It kind of feels wrong if a ranger with a bow and arrow is equally as effective as Space marine with high tech armor and rail guns.
I think I figured out how they are handling this based off a few items they snuck into APs already. Technological weapons will not be compatible with runes. A flechette launcher and +1 striking longbow might both deal 2d8 piercing damage and cost 100 gold (or whatever the Starfinder equivalent is,) but you can't enhance the flechette launcher further with runes. Instead, when you would upgrade to a +2 flaming striking longbow you'd be instead buying an incendiary rifle which deals 3d8 piercing and 1d6 fire.
I think I figured out how they are handling this based off a few items they snuck into APs already. Technological weapons will not be compatible with runes. A flechette launcher and +1 striking longbow might both deal 2d8 piercing damage and cost 100 gold (or whatever the Starfinder equivalent is,) but you can't enhance the flechette launcher further with runes. Instead, when you would upgrade to a +2 flaming striking longbow you'd be instead buying an incendiary rifle which deals 3d8 piercing and 1d6 fire.I guess our clamoring for a technology book really paid off! I can't wait to give my players their beloved rail guns and laser rifles again!Going to be a lot easier to run a Iron Gods or Distant World campaign, since you can just pull in stuff from Starfinder now.
I do wonder if this will cause balance/weirdness issues. It might clash with the aesthetics if someone wants to bring in a a character from Pathfinder into Starfinder and vice versa. It kind of feels wrong if a ranger with a bow and arrow is equally as effective as Space marine with high tech armor and rail guns.
I think the very last part isn't right. The tech weapons have upgrade slots that take tech upgrades (e.g. scopes, bipods, and bayonets) but also magic hybrid ugprades. The hybrids are probably the equivalent of property runes in SF2. But the accuracy increases and basic damage dice increases are built into increasing item level for tech weapons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The interesting thing about the starfinder side is that this isn't all they get. Like, the laser pistol goes from capacity 4 to capacity 8 when it gets that tracking(+1), and i saw other nudges in some of the other weapons. It allows for the idea of more interesting upgrade paths. Like... you might have a weapon that didn't get extra damage dice, and instead started adding debuff effects... or something. I mean, I'm not saying that that's necessarily something that they will do, but the door is open for it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Very pumped. I'm going to break time and space in my setting, so the players have to mix and match Pathfinder characters with Starfinder characters to fix the universe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And starship combat?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hopefully either handwaved or done the style of Stars Without Number, because SF1 spaceship combat was ugh horrible.
The interesting thing about the starfinder side is that this isn't all they get. Like, the laser pistol goes from capacity 4 to capacity 8 when it gets that tracking(+1), and i saw other nudges in some of the other weapons.
That's always been how Starfinder weapons work as they increase in levels. Damage, range, and capacity always trend up with item level.
The only change for SF2 is that the dice increase is now locked to when PF2 runes become available at the same levels, and they now get accuracy increases when PF2 runes do the same. The level names have also been homogenized to do away with all the fun and flavor they used to have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hopefully either handwaved or done the style of Stars Without Number, because SF1 spaceship combat was ugh horrible.
I never had the misfortune to try it, then. Was it remastered in the SF remastery thing where they altered Witchwarpers et al? Or was that a different timeline? I dunno, I like Starfinder in bit, mostly the tech aspects, and always wanted a magic-free hack of the system. I’m just happy SF2 is coming into the fold…then in 3rd Edition of both it win’t be Star- or Path- but….Gamefinder!!!! And the circle will be complete.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never had the misfortune to try it, then. Was it remastered in the SF remastery thing where they altered Witchwarpers et al?
You're in the right timeline but you've jumped back too far.
Xenocrat what are your sources for the information on SF2? Is there a dev video I missed?
Probably the first playtest document Field Test 1.
I haven't read it yet, kinda busy ATM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're in the right timeline but you've jumped back too far.
I never had the misfortune to try it, then. Was it remastered in the SF remastery thing where they altered Witchwarpers et al?
Dangit, I *hate* it when that happens. Or…then… that happens. I’m sooooo confused. Does this happen yet?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really looks 100% compatible.
Xenocrat what are your sources for the information on SF2? Is there a dev video I missed?Probably the first playtest document Field Test 1.
I haven't read it yet, kinda busy ATM.
Yes, this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It really looks 100% compatible.
It does. After looking at the Field Test info on the Soldier and its abilities, I’m pretty excited for the crossing of the streams,..
I’m kinda weirded out by the laser wolf image only having…three legs…
I wonder what they might do about weapons regarding this compatibility thing.
Like they mentioned playing a solarian in pathfinder without trouble, but looking at this document, playing a soldier without access to area/auto weapons seems kind of bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hypothesis: There will be six classes in the playtest, but there will be more than six classes in the book. One or more classes will be adaptations of PF2 classes, eg the operative will be an adaptation of the rogue. It will not be playtested because if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder what they might do about weapons regarding this compatibility thing.
Like they mentioned playing a solarian in pathfinder without trouble, but looking at this document, playing a soldier without access to area/auto weapons seems kind of bad.
Well, yeah. Imagine if you took a soldier from any of today's armies and chucked them through time to ancient Mesopotamia. They would be a lot more effective if they had a gun with them. Now send back a modern mixed martials arts expert. That's still gonna be an adjustment, sure, but the guy who has trained in techniques that don't require modern tech is going to do better without modern tech.
The compatibility thing isn't "We're adding all Starfinder classes as Pathfinder classes!" But it does mean that if you reflavor some AoE weapons as some sort of Alkenstar portable cannon that you could have some sort of tanky bombardier class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Technomancer - this also has a problem, in that it was largely "Wizard who uses technology" in 1e. You could end up with Technomancer being a class archetype for prepared (PF2e) spellcasters, if they choose to introduce THAT amount of interoperability. Alternatively, they could refocus the class on being a TRUE hybrid tech-user / magic-user class, which would give them a clear niche in SF2e. So, this is a strong possibility, but not a no-brainer.
I really have to disagree here. This class ended up with the combat prowess of a 3/4 bab class and had all manner of super cool technological components to it, like running spells as programs on your computer as a method of sustaining them, all of your spells being machines you magically construct including turrets, laser nets etc, as being able to run targeting software and what have you in order to be an effective ranged combatant. It already was a true hybrid. Even it's role aboard the ship was better served as science officer than whatever the magic role was. I really think out of all the classes this one deserves to make it into core
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder what they might do about weapons regarding this compatibility thing.
Like they mentioned playing a solarian in pathfinder without trouble, but looking at this document, playing a soldier without access to area/auto weapons seems kind of bad.
Honestly I'm hoping they rework the existing shotgun weapons (blunderbuss etc.) to use the area trait, that is a way better implementation of shotguns than the scatter trait.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if “they” don’t, it is going to be a buffet of options for tables and GMs.
Design Manager
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I'm hoping they rework the existing shotgun weapons (blunderbuss etc.) to use the area trait, that is a way better implementation of shotguns than the scatter trait.I wonder what they might do about weapons regarding this compatibility thing.
Like they mentioned playing a solarian in pathfinder without trouble, but looking at this document, playing a soldier without access to area/auto weapons seems kind of bad.
Only within the expectations of the system. Starfinder assumes ranged weapons as the primary arsenal of PCs, while Pathfinder assumes melee. Starfinder area weapons can cover more expansive areas because the people using them are the ones most likely to be at the arrow point of the formation; they won't be shredding their allies with every trigger pull and are just generally less likely to have mixed melee engagements.
Similarly, scatter is balanced around the character using it still being a high attack roll character with strong single target capabilities; SF heavy weapons assume the soldier's single target capabilities are much lower in exchange for it functionally being a kineticist whose element is "cannon". They're fulfilling different mechanical objectives for different game dynamics; changing scatter to act like SF area weapons would either mean that the best shotgun user in PF is the kineticist or the gunslinger needs to be rewritten to no longer be the best with fatal weapons, putting them behind the fighter with the weapon types most iconic to the character concept.
Only within the expectations of the system. Starfinder assumes ranged weapons as the primary arsenal of PCs, while Pathfinder assumes melee. Starfinder area weapons can cover more expansive areas because the people using them are the ones most likely to be at the arrow point of the formation; they won't be shredding their allies with every trigger pull and are just generally less likely to have mixed melee engagements.
Similarly, scatter is balanced around the character using it still being a high attack roll character with strong single target capabilities; SF heavy weapons assume the soldier's single target capabilities are much lower in exchange for it functionally being a kineticist whose element is "cannon". They're fulfilling different mechanical objectives for different game dynamics; changing scatter to act like SF area weapons would either mean that the best shotgun user in PF is the kineticist or the gunslinger needs to be rewritten to no longer be the best with fatal weapons, putting them behind the fighter with the weapon types most iconic to the character concept.
I'm not sure how that last point is relevant since the only fatal scatter weapon is the flingflenser, but the rest of your post does make sense. I should probably stop thinking about the poachability of the soldier, it's design makes a lot more sense if you are actually playing a scifi game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a reasonable point. I'm mostly just curious how the talk of compatibility interacts with some of these unique features. Will we see something like the Area property in PF2, or maybe we could see some sort of conversion guide, or maybe "some of your class features don't work if you crossplay" is just how it'll be.
|
Design Manager
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure how that last point is relevant since the only fatal scatter weapon is the flingflenser, but the rest of your post does make sense. I should probably stop thinking about the poachability of the soldier, it's design makes a lot more sense if you are actually playing a scifi game.
Scatter hews tightly enough to the gunslinger's single-target expertise that it doesn't change the fundamental mechanical dynamics of the class; it doesn't crit high like fatal but it does give higher base damage along with a minor chip damage AoE rider that doesn't change the gunslinger's main role or anticipated strengths, and it still uses an attack roll for its resolution. It "fits" the gunslinger.
If PF2 scatter weapons instead used the area weapon dynamics of SF2, the gunslinger would need to have either Legendary attack or Legendary class DC; it couldn't have both (note how the soldier isn't on the Legendary attack proficiency track). That means that inevitably, the gunslinger would be worse with an entire category of guns than either e.g. the fighter (for single target guns) or the kineticist (for area guns). As is, the gunslinger gets to be the best with their genre-appropriate weapons while playing within their genre.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Items in PF2 are all level set anyway, so it will jus be that powerful weapons will be more expensive and higher level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm looking forward to the compatibility of many things on the GM side. If SF2 is compatible with PF2, I can use all working mechanics of PF2. :)
The whole Victory Points subsystems, stuff like Influence encounters or the followers stuff. I can take a PF2 adventure and switch out or reskin monsters and have a SF adventure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One possible consequences of making the PF2 and SF2 rules very compatible, is that it will make a much more tempting for a computer game company to develop a solid core system that could be used to make games for either, running entirely alongside the ORC License with no OGL content to worry about.
This is indeed exciting, but I wonder if by the time such an engine would be made that people's interest would have already shifted to a PF/SF3e by then. Like a common take is that we're maybe halfway through PF2e's lifecycle and games take a while to make, especially games being made after a TTRPG that isn't even going to be out until 2025 or later is released. I know my interest in the Owlcat games was diminshed significantly because I just prefer the 2e rules so very much over 1e. Though maybe 2e being so much more robust than 1e means a longer lifecycle, and thus more time for video games to come out while 2e's still all the rage?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is soldier on the legendary class DC track? If not, that might be a good thing for them. I'm assuming lots of area weapons would care more about DCs than attack rolls necessarily, and applying a high DC to various kinds of heavy weapon effects would be a way for soldiers to emulate their Gear Boost class feature, which was always one of my personal favorites.
I liked the idea that the fighter was best if straight-up sword-to-face combat was required, but soldiers were the warriors who knew how to always squeeze that little bit extra out of their kit.
It is not on the legendary track as far as we know. And yes, area weapons each can use a two-action activity that is based on a basic Reflex save. Stuff like nade launchers or the cannon in the Fieldtest actually can only attack that way.
That said, the Soldier can't really be legendary as things stand. Because while Class DC itself is the same "discount spell DC" as in PF, SF2e's equivalent of potency runes (the tracking weapon trait) also applies to your Class DC for those special area damage activities. Tracking +1 comes in at level 2 and given that the systems are supposed to be compatible, tracking +2 will come in at 10th level. That means that starting at level 10, you are basically one proficiency step higher. If the Soldier were to scale to legendary, it would eventually end up +3 above legendary DC. And I don't think the system likes that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One possible consequences of making the PF2 and SF2 rules very compatible, is that it will make a much more tempting for a computer game company to develop a solid core system that could be used to make games for either, running entirely alongside the ORC License with no OGL content to worry about.This is indeed exciting, but I wonder if by the time such an engine would be made that people's interest would have already shifted to a PF/SF3e by then. Like a common take is that we're maybe halfway through PF2e's lifecycle and games take a while to make, especially games being made after a TTRPG that isn't even going to be out until 2025 or later is released. I know my interest in the Owlcat games was diminshed significantly because I just prefer the 2e rules so very much over 1e. Though maybe 2e being so much more robust than 1e means a longer lifecycle, and thus more time for video games to come out while 2e's still all the rage?
If we are half way through and PF2 only exists for 8 years, then I hope 3rd edition isn't hugely different. Maybe a new stat array like body, agility, dexterity, intelligence, wisdom and charisma, the GM spread. To make this a little more on topic, I hope the 3rd edition when it comes out, hopefully six or seven years from now and not four, we get a system designed from the ground up with PF and SF in mind as alternate version of the system or something. For now, in stoked on SF2
|
Design Manager
|
| 30 people marked this as a favorite. |
]
This is indeed exciting, but I wonder if by the time such an engine would be made that people's interest would have already shifted to a PF/SF3e by then.
Hard to predict the future, but some things to think about-
1) Kingmaker and then Wrath of the Righteous, the isometrics, came out after PF1 itself had slumped pretty far in sales and were still wildly successful, so the windows on those can be longer than the actual edition cycle.
2) The remaster likely extends the lifespan of PF2; a nonzero number of the refinements we made were things we thought we wouldn't get to do until PF3.
3) PF3 is likely to be much more like PF2 than PF2 was like PF1. The 3.x rules engine was pretty dated by the time PF2 rolled around, and wasn't super sturdy to start with. PF2 has a much more solid and modular foundation, so it's not unlikely that PF3 will be pretty similar, perhaps similar enough that a company that starts working on a new CRPG for PF2 could update to a PF3 foundation much more easily if the edition changed between releases.
Again, hard to say what could happen, but PF2 is likely set up for a longer lifespan than initially expected and is also likely to be more similar to the next edition cycle than was true the last time around.
]
This is indeed exciting, but I wonder if by the time such an engine would be made that people's interest would have already shifted to a PF/SF3e by then.
Hard to predict the future, but some things to think about-
1) Kingmaker and then Wrath of the Righteous, the isometrics, came out after PF1 itself had slumped pretty far in sales and were still wildly successful, so the windows on those can be longer than the actual edition cycle.
2) The remaster likely extends the lifespan of PF2; a nonzero number of the refinements we made were things we thought we wouldn't get to do until PF3.
3) PF3 is likely to be much more like PF2 than PF2 was like PF1. The 3.x rules engine was pretty dated by the time PF2 rolled around, and wasn't super sturdy to start with. PF2 has a much more solid and modular foundation, so it's not unlikely that PF3 will be pretty similar, perhaps similar enough that a company that starts working on a new CRPG for PF2 could update to a PF3 foundation much more easily if the edition changed between releases.
Again, hard to say what could happen, but PF2 is likely set up for a longer lifespan than initially expected and is also likely to be more similar to the next edition cycle than was true the last time around.
Exactly what I was hoping to hear
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, hard to say what could happen, but PF2 is likely set up for a longer lifespan than initially expected and is also likely to be more similar to the next edition cycle than was true the last time around.
I really hope it works out that way! 2e always feels like it came out forever ago and just yesterday at the same time. It might be 4 years, but given how easily "moddable" and silo'd the game is, it seems much shorter than that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Michael Sayre, thank you so much for dropping in and sharing your insights on class design!
I imagine (maybe I’m off) that a lot of PF2 players look at the solder playtest and think, “wow! That is cool design space! A tank that has very high staying power and controls and debuffs without having to be tie thematically to magic of any type.”
But I agree that it does feel pretty dependent on an economy and technology system outside to Golarion, which is good for it being a star finder class instead of a pathfinder class. I think the question many players might have then is whether a class existing in one of the games means nothing similar will cross back over?
|
Design Manager
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the question many players might have then is whether a class existing in one of the games means nothing similar will cross back over?
I think it's much too early to tell. They'll be separate, standalone game systems, so on the one hand I'm not sure I see our teams duplicating each other's efforts, but on the other hand, there's a lot of breathing room in "similar".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having both games compatible will open out some exciting possibilities. I'd love to see a Sword and Planet book someday. Or a book that covers the Veskarium or just Vesk Prime during the Pathfinder timeline. There are several planets outside the Golarion system mentioned in Pathfinder. I'd love to see those worlds explored in Starfinder. From the Starfinder side, I think it will be fun to have Pathfinder as an archaeological reference.
But will this cause a Peanut Butter & Chocolate problem?
Is it better to bash Science Fiction & Fantasy together or keep the two genres separated?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the question many players might have then is whether a class existing in one of the games means nothing similar will cross back over?I think it's much too early to tell. They'll be separate, standalone game systems, so on the one hand I'm not sure I see our teams duplicating each other's efforts, but on the other hand, there's a lot of breathing room in "similar".
Thanks again for the insight! I guess I am curious because I now see a melee focused support tank that is Con/Cha based, using their sturdiness to inspire immediate allies defenses and draw the focus of foes could be a very interesting approach to a seneschal new class.