| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can get skill increases from multiclassing and archetypes!
Actually, it is not because both games will be compatible that they won't differ in terms of skills.
Most Probably arcane/nature/religion and Occult will be replaced by Mysticism and Piloting, life/physical science will be added
I anticipate that psychology will be replaced by perception (sens motive)
I'm doubtful that any skills will be replaced. Some skills will likely be added, but for compatibility nothing is going to overwrite others.
If we get too many skills it will be troublesome to add points to them, although sometimes it makes sense, no one knows everything.
For those that wish for a point buy system, whenever you would gain a skill proficiency, you would gain 2 skill points to add on skills of level lower than the proficiency. In other words, if you Get expert training you could raise 2 skills by one up to 4 points, a master up to 6, and a legendary 8. For trained you would still require to spend 2 points.
Actually, it is not because both games will be compatible that they won't differ in terms of skills.
Most Probably arcane/nature/religion and Occult will be replaced by Mysticism and Piloting, life/physical science will be addedI anticipate that psychology will be replaced by perception (sens motive)
I don't think they will be adding piloting. In PF2e all characters already know how to ride, so they will probably tell that every character know how to pilot.
For Mounted combat (bike or car) they could use the same rule as PF2e, "You must use the Command an Animal action to get your mount to spend its actions. If you don’t, the animal wastes its actions. If you have the Ride general feat, you succeed automatically when you Command an Animal that’s your mount." Instead of command Animal action, you could replace for Pilot ActionMounted Attack it's the same. But instead of animal replace for vehicle.
I mean this works nicely because you are concentrating in Piloting that you use your actions, when you attack and wish to use a weapon on your vehicle is only fair to have multiple atk penalties.
Artificial personalities on computers for extra trained skills will be all the rage.
The thing with skills and how they will convert is going to be problematic. Going from "x" number of points to spread around (or focus) to a "you have this number of skill proficiencies at trained" and then are limited to a single skill increase every so often can be daunting. Don't forget that in PF2e you add your level+stat bonus+proficiency to skills that you are at least trained in but it will seem very limiting and the ability for all classes to be the "jack of all trades" will be diminished
To be a bit more precise, Adding level+Proficiency only apply to skills that you are trained in. If you are not, you won't add your level, rolling only with your attribute modifier.
To be a Jack of all trades you would need to invest any new skill training into new skills.
Or pick Untrained Improvisation, which I bet will be in SF2 as well.
I'm doubtful that any skills will be replaced. Some skills will likely be added, but for compatibility nothing is going to overwrite others.
It's mostly going to be folding old skills into higher categories like in 2e, e.g. Bluff + Disguise into Deception. But I'd actually be very surprised if none of the skills were replaced. It's mostly renaming, i.e. Nature to Life Science and Crafting to Engineering. But there's simply a lot of skills that don't have an appropriate equivalent and don't fit into a higher category as easily.
For example, I could see Occultism and Religion fusing to Mysticism and the "open slot" being replaced with Computers.
Crafting appears to still be called Crafting, rather then being renamed to Engineering based on the glitch gremlin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would assume that Starfinder 2e would have the same total number of skills as Pathfinder 2e. Some will get new names eventually, I assume that a couple of the "magic" skills will be condensed so that we can make Piloting a skill rather than a "Piloting Lore" check like it is in PF2.
Probably the most likely source of slots is "combining the magic related skills". Which would give you 2-3 extra slots for things like Piloting and Computers.
Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, Diplomacy, Intimidation, Medicine, Society, Stealth, and Thievery are probably the same as PF2.
I would assume that Starfinder 2e would have the same total number of skills as Pathfinder 2e. Some will get new names eventually, I assume that a couple of the "magic" skills will be condensed so that we can make Piloting a skill rather than a "Piloting Lore" check like it is in PF2.
Probably the most likely source of slots is "combining the magic-related skills". Which would give you 2-3 extra slots for things like Piloting and Computers.
Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, Diplomacy, Intimidation, Medicine, Society, Stealth, and Thievery are probably the same as PF2.
From my perspective, there won't be piloting lore or skill.
Why?Riding skill is no longer present in PF2e, and you don't do tests for mounted combat, you spend one action to gain 2 for your mount.
Let's say you are driving a car and shooting, you would spend 1 action to drive (move the car or activate weapons) and 2 for firing your gun, that's it.
For more complex maneuvers, well probably reflex in case of a defensive action.
I think that Piloting is a bit more complex than riding a horse but, it's so much common in Sci-fi. But how well can you pilot? How well can you manuever?
I would assume that Starfinder 2e would have the same total number of skills as Pathfinder 2e. Some will get new names eventually, I assume that a couple of the "magic" skills will be condensed so that we can make Piloting a skill rather than a "Piloting Lore" check like it is in PF2.
Probably the most likely source of slots is "combining the magic-related skills". Which would give you 2-3 extra slots for things like Piloting and Computers.
Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, Diplomacy, Intimidation, Medicine, Society, Stealth, and Thievery are probably the same as PF2.
From my perspective, there won't be piloting lore or skill.
Why?
Riding skill is no longer present in PF2e, and you don't do tests for mounted combat, you spend one action to gain 2 for your mount.
Let's say you are driving a car and shooting, you would spend 1 action to drive (move the car or activate weapons) and 2 for firing your gun, that's it.
For more complex maneuvers, well probably reflex in case of a defensive action.I think that Piloting is a bit more complex than riding a horse but, it's so much common in Sci-fi. But how well can you pilot? How well can you manuever?
I seriously doubt that will happen.
Even in PF2, piloting is its own lore and is one of the options you use to drive a vehicle. That Driving action you are talking about would definitely use it. Given that some of the most common other skills - Nature (for the pulling animals) or Athletics (for physically moving parts of the vehicle) - are no longer applicable in SF, I doubt that Piloting Lore will be retired. It's basically only that and Crafting left for most mundane vehicles.
There is also another reason to keep it - it's a lore. Lores are much more narrow than full skills, so they're ideal if you only want to use a small subset of said skill. That fact also allows them to be much cheaper. A background/theme will get you up to trained as a neat little gimme and the cheap feats like Additional Lore are a great way to get very good at it easily.
I would assume that Starfinder 2e would have the same total number of skills as Pathfinder 2e. Some will get new names eventually, I assume that a couple of the "magic" skills will be condensed so that we can make Piloting a skill rather than a "Piloting Lore" check like it is in PF2.
Probably the most likely source of slots is "combining the magic-related skills". Which would give you 2-3 extra slots for things like Piloting and Computers.
Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, Diplomacy, Intimidation, Medicine, Society, Stealth, and Thievery are probably the same as PF2.
From my perspective, there won't be piloting lore or skill.
Why?
Riding skill is no longer present in PF2e, and you don't do tests for mounted combat, you spend one action to gain 2 for your mount.
Let's say you are driving a car and shooting, you would spend 1 action to drive (move the car or activate weapons) and 2 for firing your gun, that's it.
For more complex maneuvers, well probably reflex in case of a defensive action.I think that Piloting is a bit more complex than riding a horse but, it's so much common in Sci-fi. But how well can you pilot? How well can you manuever?
I seriously doubt that will happen.
Even in PF2, piloting is its own lore and is one of the options you use to drive a vehicle. That Driving action you are talking about would definitely use it. Given that some of the most common other skills - Nature (for the pulling animals) or Athletics (for physically moving parts of the vehicle) - are no longer applicable in SF, I doubt that Piloting Lore will be retired. It's basically only that and Crafting left for most mundane vehicles.
There is also another reason to keep it - it's a lore. Lores are much more narrow than full skills, so they're ideal if you only want to use a small subset of said skill. That fact also allows them to be much cheaper. A background/theme will get you up to trained as a neat little gimme and the cheap feats...
Yeah, Lore Skills, I did forget that Lore Skills come with many flavors in PF2e and they are not actually typed in the sheet.
I really, really can't emphasize enough how unlikely I think it is to condense or rename Arcana/Nature/Religion/Occultism, or any other skill for that matter. The magic skills are necessary skills for multiclassing, and many skills show up in archetypes as a granted bonus skill.
If it's not extremely clear which PF2 skill maps to which SF2 skill, it will be a huge headache for compatibility.
They could omitt some skills and make you write them in as they come up, but condensing skills or overwriting skills seems like a huge can of worms.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would be amusing if they balanced out some extra skills by just adding an extra step to character creation that was just "people in the future are expected to have higher education than in medieval times, get 1 extra free trained skill"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah that’s not how Golarion is set up or works
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's nothing less relevant to Starfinder than how Golarion does anything.
Like Starfinder absolutely needs a "Computers" skill or something analogous since there's lots of computer systems in space. By contrast no one on Golarion needs to know how to use a computer. I think there is a social process in which something starts out as a lore skill and eventually becomes a full skill and vice versa.
Like Pathfinder could have Occultism and Computer lore. Starfinder could have Computers and Occult lore. If you need to port over a multiclass archetype that requires occultism, just substitute occult lore.
Occultism is still relevant info in SF times I'd say. There is a lotta that vibe of stuff in the SF setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Piloting lore makes your team scientist the best pilot rather than the hotshot rogue though.
As far as compatability goes, I don't think it breaks compatibility if starfinder has skills that pathfinder doesn't like computers or fly spaceship. The skills just don't DO anything in PF1 because.. well. No one had a computer. (till you get to numeria anyway...)
Or they could just make flying part of acrobatics.
I think ultimately the reason for "don't add new skills in sourcebooks for Pathfinder" is "then you would have to update the character sheet." If you were to take the Pathfinder 2e system and apply it to a wide variety of different settings and genres, you should end up with a different set of skills (e.g. in a post-apocalyptic wasteland setting maybe you wouldn't have much use for "Society".)
I think there's a good argument for keeping the total number of skills the same, since we know that this approach more or less works.
Probably the most likely skill to get cut to make room for a new one is the Performance skill, which is kind of vestigial in PF2 anyway (Bards use it, no one else seems to.) "Any skill that isn't on the Charsheet but exists in another ORC game is a valid lore" seems like a reasonable way to handle this.
Performance could be dialed up to 11 in SF2, though. I think people really liked the idea of being rockstars in space. At least, I hope it's still around for my upcoming Best Band in the Universe game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example, I could see Occultism and Religion fusing to Mysticism and the "open slot" being replaced with Computers.
Computers being occult would explain A LOT
They could just say you access computers with Occultism and no one would bat an eye!
Computers being occult would explain A LOT
For example, I could see Occultism and Religion fusing to Mysticism and the "open slot" being replaced with Computers.
I would love that XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Piloting lore makes your team scientist the best pilot rather than the hotshot rogue though.
As far as compatability goes, I don't think it breaks compatibility if starfinder has skills that pathfinder doesn't like computers or fly spaceship. The skills just don't DO anything in PF1 because.. well. No one had a computer. (till you get to numeria anyway...)
Or they could just make flying part of acrobatics.
To me there is no big deal if they add a Skill that is relevant to the system or the world. A character made on Starfinder would still be compatible with Pathfinder.
What I mean is this: You can create your solder using the Pathfinder Sheet and use it in the game session of a Fantasy setting without too much effort. Or you could create a Fighter using PF2e Rules to use in Starfinder game using Starfinder Sheet and skills because they are relevant to the world.
To this is what it means when they are saying compatible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From my perspective, there won't be piloting lore or skill.
Why?
Riding skill is no longer present in PF2e, and you don't do tests for mounted combat, you spend one action to gain 2 for your mount.
That is only accurate for Minion type mounts.
If you go to a stable and get a random horse, you have to use the Command an Animal action. Which does require a skill check, and reallocates actions 1:1.
But if Starfinder 2 goes with the PF2 skill list as a base, you instead get Arcana, Nature, Occultism, and Religion. Now you need to take all four skills to know all the magic stuff.
Nature would be life science. So maybe the druidic magic works on the same principles as biology. You can identify or you know what a cheetah is normally supposed to look like and a saber toothed one just ain't right...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a sidebar that just explains the conversions:
"Replace Nature with Life Sciences, replace Thievery with Security, replace Craft with Engineering, etc." would be easy to manage.
Like the two games can have a "fantasy name" and a "sci-fi name" for what is basically the same thing, and have those names be different. Like your Pathfinder character who is an expert in Torag lore and Golarian geography needn't be able to apply those skills in a Starfinder context any more than a Computer expert needs to be able to apply those skills in a context where there are no computers around.
if Starfinder 2 goes with the PF2 skill list as a base, you instead get Arcana, Nature, Occultism, and Religion. Now you need to take all four skills to know all the magic stuff.
You only need one of them to know a good percentage of the magic stuff. Any one of the four skills can be used on things that are magical but don't have a specific tradition. Also, quite a few of items and most spells have a couple of the tradition traits and either would work.
So spitballing here - just going off of how my single tradition skill characters have fared: one skill is probably about 45% of things, and two skills is about 75%.
Also worth noting: One of the foundational concepts of Pathfinder2e is that it is designed around teamwork. No one character can do everything. Share the spotlight.
Even if you start off with more trained skills, you only get to have two skills at levels that are meaningful up to level 10 unless you go full skill monkey (rogue/investigator) in which case you get fully double the amount.
It also depends on what you mean by 'meaningful'. Trained is a very viable proficiency. Not ideal, but it is still pretty good. Sure, the difference between Trained and Legendary is 6 points. But even that is not going to outweigh the results of the d20 roll. Someone who is Legendary and rolls a 6 is not likely to succeed at a significant challenge. Someone who is trained and rolls a 13 or higher is going to have a better result. If a trained character rolls a 17, then they are likely going to succeed unless they are up against something that is outside of the expected encounter level range.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would be amusing if they balanced out some extra skills by just adding an extra step to character creation that was just "people in the future are expected to have higher education than in medieval times, get 1 extra free trained skill"
Just look at the average skill difference from 1970 to today. Today basic computers, cell phones, and social media are assumed survival skills.
While I think it would be ok to replace some skills, adding more on top doesn't seem like a good idea. The former works quite well with a conversion guide, the latter really doesn't. It would also require quite a bit of work to find the new balance point without adding very much to the game. I'd rather see certain skills converted into Lores rather than mess around with a system that works well.
Would be amusing if they balanced out some extra skills by just adding an extra step to character creation that was just "people in the future are expected to have higher education than in medieval times, get 1 extra free trained skill"Just look at the average skill difference from 1970 to today. Today basic computers, cell phones, and social media are assumed survival skills.
These are easier than learning shorthand and basic auto repair (1970).
Just look at the average skill difference from 1970 to today. Today basic computers, cell phones, and social media are assumed survival skills.These are easier than learning shorthand and basic auto repair (1970).
SQL and basic computer repair, however...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
These are easier than learning shorthand and basic auto repair (1970).Would be amusing if they balanced out some extra skills by just adding an extra step to character creation that was just "people in the future are expected to have higher education than in medieval times, get 1 extra free trained skill"Just look at the average skill difference from 1970 to today. Today basic computers, cell phones, and social media are assumed survival skills.
Which ^^ are easier than learning 1470s armor smithing. You could survive in 1970 without knowing shorthand and basic auto repair much easier than you could survive today without knowing basic computers, cell phones, and social media skills.
On the flip side, someone born and raised on a spaceship might starve if they suddenly found themselves on a farm in Pathfinder if they didn't have computer access to look up what really food even looks like.
I usually don't go into the math, but I wanted to give some examples of what skill training means. In Starfinder, putting 1 skill rank into a skill every level is analogous to being trained in a skill in Pf2. As you level up you will notice you slowly fall behind level appropriate challenges with that skill if you don't get things like Operative's Edge, however baseline skill activities like climbing a wall or surviving off the land you do eventually basically auto-succeed at. This is very similar to PF2 if you don't invest further by picking up higher training.
Long story short: Skill increases are *valuable* but they're more like modular versions of the class-granted skill boosts you'd get in SF1 rather than equivalent to putting ranks into skills. You can just get trained in a skill and still expect to use it at higher levels, but to excel at that skill you'll want to invest further.
Here are the skill examples I mentioned:
Level 1 Trained Bonus:
2(Trained) + 1(Level) + 3(Attribute Modifier) = +6
Chance of overcoming Trained DC (15) Basic Task = 55%
Chance of overcoming 1st Level DC (15) task = 55%
Level 15 Trained Bonus:
2(Trained) + 15(Level) + 4(Attribute Modifier) + 2(Items) = +23
Chance of overcoming Trained DC (15) Basic Task = 100%
Chance of overcoming 15th Level DC (34) task = 45%
Level 15 Expert Bonus:
4(Expert) + 15(Level) + 4(Attribute Modifier) + 2(Items) = +25
Chance of overcoming 15th Level DC (34) task = 55%
Level 15 Master Bonus:
6(Master) + 15(Level) + 4(Attribute Modifier) + 2(Items) = +27
Chance of overcoming 15th Level DC (34) task = 65%
Level 15 Legendary Bonus:
8(Legendary) + 15(Level) + 4(Attribute Modifier) + 2(Items) = +29
Chance of overcoming 15th Level DC (34) task = 75%
It's worth noting that this ignores the increasing access to status bonuses at higher levels from things like spells, ignores circumstance bonuses, and does assume you're using an attribute you're at least moderately invested in.
I imagine things like "Get an Insight Bonus to the Skill You're Supposed to be good at" in SF2 is going to be replaced with "get auto-scaling proficiency in that skill" (like the Inventor does with Craft.)
The advantage of Auto-scaling proficiency is that as seen above, Legendary proficiency in a skill is very valuable, and you're limited in how many skills you can get there. An additional 4 skill increases since you don't have to boost Engineering or whatever manually is pretty important. Like people spend a class feat for the Acrobat dedication for Swashbucklers to get auto-scaling on Acrobatics.
But trained is absolutely supposed to represent "you put a skill rank into this skill every level" (since that's mostly what you do anyway). Expert, Master, and Legendary represent things like Skill Focus and Skill Synergy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the flip side, someone born and raised on a spaceship might starve if they suddenly found themselves on a farm in Pathfinder if they didn't have computer access to look up what really food even looks like.
"Wait how do you make a hamburger?
"See if they have a UPB grinder that will fit the cow, turn he cow into UPBs , select the hamburger on the menu and press print."
Or in the future someone has discovered a universal theory of magic that unifies primal occult and divine so you just need to memorize one tetragramawamapentacle circle thingy and derive all your information from there.
|
|
On the flip side, someone born and raised on a spaceship might starve if they suddenly found themselves on a farm in Pathfinder if they didn't have computer access to look up what really food even looks like."Wait how do you make a hamburger?
"See if they have a UPB grinder that will fit the cow, turn he cow into UPBs , select the hamburger on the menu and press print."
Do they even still grow cows with legs? I thought most cow farms use vats now. Personally, I think there's nothing that tastes better than free-range vegetables allowed to roam free on a vegetable ranch. But now, with all the vegetable rights groups around, that kind of food is all most impossible to find. I found that using a welding torch on my UPB rations gives them a crunchier texture.
But now, with all the vegetable rights groups around, that kind of food is all most impossible to find. I found that using a welding torch on my UPB rations gives them a crunchier texture.
You mix up the Gorhan and the parsley ONE TIME.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would be amusing if they balanced out some extra skills by just adding an extra step to character creation that was just "people in the future are expected to have higher education than in medieval times, get 1 extra free trained skill"
100% would approve of this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(e.g. in a post-apocalyptic wasteland setting maybe you wouldn't have much use for "Society".)
IMO Society would be very important in a typical post-apocalyptic setting: instead of large(ish) national regions that are fairly culturally homogenous within a given area in a more normal setting, the PCs have to interact with multiple small communities and nomadic groups each with their own social mores and traditions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, and you can roll society to find info about pre-apocalypse resource stashes and whatnot.