In Starfinder 1e, Engineering is the skill that you use to identify tech items. So far, I don’t think that we have any reason to assume that is changing in 2e, but who knows?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are several skills that I am curious about that exist in Starfinder that don't really have any equivalents in Pathfinder.
Computers
Engineering
Life Science
Physical Science
Piloting
In Pathfinder2e there are rules for vehicles. Those rules have Piloting as a Lore category. Which doesn't really seem very satisfying.
But as for the others, I am quite curious how they are going to be handled.
|
The playtest FAQ does say that new skills are within the scope of SF2, and the Computer Glitch Gremlin stat block in the Field Test even mentions it.
That said, the likes of Physical Science, Life Science, Piloting and maybe Engineering all seem like they might be relegated to being categories of Lore (though ones that might be referenced by specific parts of the game more than others, like how Engineering Lore and Piloting Lore come up in some PF2 archetypes and subsystems despite the Lores' otherwise fuzzy nature).
I'm not thrilled about how some PF2 skills might end up showing up in SF2 even if they don't quite fit (I sure hope we can get away with not having Performance in core, given the lack of bards and envoys not needing that flavor), but that's a different concern.
I'm not thrilled about how some PF2 skills might end up showing up in SF2 even if they don't quite fit (I sure hope we can get away with not having Performance in core, given the lack of bards and envoys not needing that flavor), but that's a different concern.
My biggest concern is if there are a different number of base skills. Because that would mean that classes would end up needing to have a different number of skill points - or else skills will end up costing a different amount between the two systems.
So with PF2 Performance becoming a Lore skill in SF2 that frees up some room for one of the Starfinder exclusive skills to be non-lore.
Let's see... My best guesses for how this is going to match up:
PF2 => SF2
Acrobatics => Acrobatics
Arcana => Arcana
Athletics => Athletics
Crafting => Engineering
Deception => Deception
Diplomacy => Diplomacy
Intimidation => Intimidation
Medicine => Medicine
Nature => Nature
Occultism => Occultism
Performance => _____
_____ => Computers
Lore => Lore
Religion => Religion
Society => Society
Stealth => Stealth
Survival => Survival
Thievery => Thievery
Perception => Perception
But that still leaves us with Piloting and Physical Sciences not accounted for.
I am guessing that Physical Sciences could be absorbed into Crafting/Engineering. The only thing that Physical Sciences does is crafting some types of items and recall knowledge - both of which Crafting does in PF2.
I don't like having Piloting not be a base skill. It works fine as a Lore type in Pathfinder because vehicles are not standard parts of the plot.
It's not a standard part of the plot in Starfinder either for anyone who isn't the designated pilot of the starship in starship combat either tbh and it'd probably be a good thing if starship combat wasn't tethered to being skill checks in a system that is immensely stingey about how many skills you can have at max.
Hey, it not because both games are compatible that they wont differ to adapt to the context
Long time ago, some games were all based on the same "compatible" system (I think it was name chaosium D100); RuneQuest, HawkMoon, Chtullu, ...
though they were using the same rule engine, the set of skills were adapted to each game context. we could also talk about the different book in the World of darkness (Vampire, WereWolf, Vampire, Changeling,...) using the same rules and 100% compatible.
I think that in the world of Starfinder, Magic is still present, Howerver, the distinction between Arcana, Nature, Occultism and religion is less important and will probably continue to be grouped under the label "Mysticism", leaving some space for Physical science, life science and piloting, the latest being more relevant in Starfinder settings.
Ok, some other skills could (or not) be renamed like
- Engineering to crafting (not fan of it, it's removing a part of the technological progress)
- Sleight of the hand into Thievery (yay !! )
- Culture into Society (I actually prefer culture)
- Sense motive moved to perception and thus not being a skill as such
I am not worried about those items, personally. The team behind SF2 is the team that has worked on drift crisis, they know and I think they enjoy Starfinder, its universe and the atmosphere that must be kept to ensure Starfinder 2 will provide the same experience as SFRPG
I don't really think that Starfinder needs all four of the different "Magic Tradition" skills from Pathfinder. If we were to merge two of them into "Mysticism" we might have some compatibility issues with questions like "how do I take the Wizard archetype" but not ones that are unsolvable.
I'm not sure that Performance needs to be a full skill- I've literally never seen anybody other than Bards take it in PF2. It might could be a lore, and we could expand the category of "fill in the blank" skills to cover stats other than INT.
I think SF2 should try to keep "about the same number of skills as PF2" but it doesn't necessarily need to have the same ones. I think it would also be acceptable to have PF2 and SF2 have the same skill with different names- like you could do Society/Culture and Craft/Engineering as one-to-one substitutions.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure that Performance needs to be a full skill- I've literally never seen anybody other than Bards take it in PF2.
My fortune-telling oracle in Pathfinder 2e uses fortune-telling Lore for telling fortunes for income telling fortunes. I use deception when I want to fake fortune-telling to encourage or persuade someone to do something or not. I use Performance for fortune-telling for entertainment income or as a distraction at social events. I realize that's a lot of skill overlap/overkill... but that's how I roll...
|
Crafting => Engineering
...
Thievery => Thievery
Oh, I hope this bit doesn't come to pass. I love that handling traps and locks is a thing that so many classes get access to, via Engineering. The number of Int-based classes, and classes with Engineering as a class skill, mean that we broke away from the oppressive 3e-ism of "gotta have a rogue in the party, or you'll fall into a spiked pit and die." Just like how you don't need a mystic, for fear of dying from 0 HP.
Crafting => Engineering Rename mostly. Would lose Disable Device action.Someone from Pathfinder shouldn't be able to use crafting to design or build a spaceship in Starfinder or prevent a reactor core from exploding. But they should be a way for them to learn Engineering.
Well, for one, I am not talking about Pathfinder. This is what I am anticipating (completely without evidence, mind) about what Starfinder is going to have in its own rules - a skill named Engineering that serves the same role as Crafting does in Pathfinder.
And if a class is imported from Pathfinder to create a Starfinder character, I would expect them to use the same skills as other characters in Starfinder.
You seem to only be considering the 'time travel' option for how to get Pathfinder content into Starfinder. There are other ways of doing that more natively.
Oh, I hope this bit doesn't come to pass. I love that handling traps and locks is a thing that so many classes get access to, via Engineering.Crafting => Engineering
...
Thievery => Thievery
Well we already know that Crafting is a skill still, since it's in the field test.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We know that it is a skill ... in the field test.
The field test is not the finished release.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the Pathfinder 2nd edition playtest had a class called "Paladin" in it.
We know that it is a skill ... in the field test.
The field test is not the finished release.
No one said it was the finished release?
Saying "This is the current way Paizo is handling it" is relevant info in a discussion where people are asking "how will Paizo handle it".
Crafting => Engineering Rename mostly. Would lose Disable Device action.Someone from Pathfinder shouldn't be able to use crafting to design or build a spaceship in Starfinder or prevent a reactor core from exploding. But they should be a way for them to learn Engineering.Well, for one, I am not talking about Pathfinder. This is what I am anticipating (completely without evidence, mind) about what Starfinder is going to have in its own rules - a skill named Engineering that serves the same role as Crafting does in Pathfinder.
And if a class is imported from Pathfinder to create a Starfinder character, I would expect them to use the same skills as other characters in Starfinder.
You seem to only be considering the 'time travel' option for how to get Pathfinder content into Starfinder. There are other ways of doing that more natively.
Well if you wanted to do a crossover, you could have characters from Golarion's past whom have not been in the future long enough to adapt (or somehow find themselves unable to adapt) might have a feat/disadvantage/trait applied to them that makes them Archaic which stops them from using certain items or skill uses requiring trained use of 'higher tech' items.
So if an Archaic character has crafting, they can fix a blade, or other analog weeapons or armor, but we could say they can't fix a laser or space suit, etc. They might be able to use a computer console to open a door untrained, if that's main purpose of the panel is to access the door, but wouldn't be able to use it to access the door log or other trained computer skill uses.
Having such a trait is certainly a do-able option. It also something that is part of many science fiction/fantasy stories.
Personally, I don't have a problem with bypassing physical device traps and/or locks with either crafting or thievery. A task like that doesn't have to only have one way to tackle it, if you ask me.
Actually, with that in mind, it isn't impossible to imagine that since we already have Archaic and Analog traits, we could have other traits that tier levels and families of technology. In pathfinder, we have Alchemical and Magical crafting branches, and I suppose Tattoo may fall into a similar less common branch. Starfinder has Magical Items, Hybrid Items, Biotech, cybernetics, Magictech, Necrografts as some quick example above an beyond just basic Tech.
Well if you wanted to do a crossover, you could have characters from Golarion's past whom have not been in the future long enough to adapt (or somehow find themselves unable to adapt) might have a feat/disadvantage/trait applied to them that makes them Archaic which stops them from using certain items or skill uses requiring trained use of 'higher tech' items.
Yeah. Absolutely. The 'time traveler' style crossover is fun.
But the system could also support a more native style. A Shirren character born and raised on Akiton who became an actual Wild Order Druid (rather than a Xenodruid Mystic) and has spent several years using laser pistols, spell gems, hovertrikes and polymorphing into an Electrovore to protect some pristine wildlands of Castrovel.
|
|
We have been told Starfinder 2e is going to be compatible with PF2e but doesn't have to have the same meta. To me turning Starfinder skills into lore just doesn't sound right to me. Mechanically it could be the same just not called lore, in starfinder we call it Profession, which also includes the Performance type skills.
I think Computer and engineering skills should still be their own skills if for no other reason than they are two of the most commonly used skills. The word count saved in an AP not having to ask for Profession Computers or Profession engineering every time could be significant.
Imho I don't think Pathfinder crafting or engineering lore and Starfidner engineering are equivalents. Could Leonardo da Vinci get a job at NASA? Sure but would still need to catch up his education first. Could Neal Degrasse Tyson make a suit of plate Armor? Sure with the right additional training.
The problem with turning things into lores is that it makes really awkward to make skill feats for it. And if you just make skill feats with that lore as the prerequisite, you might as well make that lore a skill.
There is also the issue of Additional Lore, which would make these "lores" vastly cheaper than other skills for no reason.
All in all, there is really no problem with just making Computers and Piloting a regular skill in addition to the existing PF2 ones, as Driftbourne already said. Apparently - and take this with a major pinch of salt - that's exactly what the current idea is. The PaxU character sheets had those skills.
|
|
What might help is an additional category of skill use besides trained and untrained, or if not a category some prerequisite for using it untrained like were you born someplace with advanced technology, or had other exposure to it. For example, someone in Starfinder can use piloting untrained, but someone from Pathfinder untrained in piloting would have no clue how to fly a starship.
I feel like there needs to be some official way for characters from one game setting to gain skills only found in the other setting but should require some effort to get them such as taking a feat or archetype, or training/retraining during downtime.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like there needs to be some official way for characters from one game setting to gain skills only found in the other setting but should require some effort to get them such as taking a feat or archetype, or training/retraining during downtime.
I feel like that is something that would be better handled by the instructions in a particular campaign that is going to be having mixed technology level characters, rather than a general rule for all campaigns that might or might not have such themes. The problem with the general rule is that specific campaigns may have different objectives and needs than others in this particular point.
Maybe something in the general rules that if you are importing a class from PF2 as a class for an in-setting character (someone who was raised in the high technology setting), then they should use the skill list of SF2 rather than the list the class has in PF2.
But how to handle skills for characters that are coming from a low-technology setting like a low tech planet or time traveling from Golarion of the past, that is something that should be handled as special campaign rules rather than general rules.
|
|
I feel like there needs to be some official way for characters from one game setting to gain skills only found in the other setting but should require some effort to get them such as taking a feat or archetype, or training/retraining during downtime.I feel like that is something that would be better handled by the instructions in a particular campaign that is going to be having mixed technology level characters, rather than a general rule for all campaigns that might or might not have such themes. The problem with the general rule is that specific campaigns may have different objectives and needs than others in this particular point.
Maybe something in the general rules that if you are importing a class from PF2 as a class for an in-setting character (someone who was raised in the high technology setting), then they should use the skill list of SF2 rather than the list the class has in PF2.
But how to handle skills for characters that are coming from a low-technology setting like a low tech planet or time traveling from Golarion of the past, that is something that should be handled as special campaign rules rather than general rules.
Good points. I like the idea of using PF skills as a way to build low-tech worlds in Starfinder. By campaign or maybe down the road a few years after SF2e is out as a rule option in a setting-neutral GMG type book could work too. But to keep the 2 games separate it's not something for the core rules books of either game.
Perception is an innate skill because anyone with some form of sense can perceive things. Piloting is already an untrained skill so anyone can try to piot. Assuming spaceships are as common as cars. Currently, only about 17% of the world's population owns a car.
That would make sense if we were looking at the design of a 'real life' simulator.
... but we aren't. We are looking at the design of an adventuring game.
For character balance needs, I could also see having Piloting be an auto-upgrade proficiency that every player character gets.
After all - perception in both PF1 and SF1 are a skill that you have to explicitly opt-in and buy with your skill points. PF2 decided because of the tight math and the needs for basic levels of competency of all characters that perception proficiency is given automatically along with saving throw proficiency.
If piloting a starship or vehicles is something that adventure writers are going to assume that all characters will have proficiency with - then all characters need to have proficiency with it.
Of course they're not going to suddenly assume all characters have proficiency with piloting. The reason untrained proficiency in PF2e doesn't add level to checks is because the player base was desperately angry at the idea that they couldn't suck at things they didn't invest in. The idea that every backwoods hick xenodruid off a no-tech planet is just as good at piloting as everyone else isn't going to happen.
Of course they're not going to suddenly assume all characters have proficiency with piloting. The reason untrained proficiency in PF2e doesn't add level to checks is because the player base was desperately angry at the idea that they couldn't suck at things they didn't invest in.
That is also true.
Even with that there are still people who complain that they can't invest in climbing while still sucking at swimming.
|
|
Perception is an innate skill because anyone with some form of sense can perceive things. Piloting is already an untrained skill so anyone can try to piot. Assuming spaceships are as common as cars. Currently, only about 17% of the world's population owns a car.That would make sense if we were looking at the design of a 'real life' simulator.
... but we aren't. We are looking at the design of an adventuring game.
For character balance needs, I could also see having Piloting be an auto-upgrade proficiency that every player character gets.
After all - perception in both PF1 and SF1 are a skill that you have to explicitly opt-in and buy with your skill points. PF2 decided because of the tight math and the needs for basic levels of competency of all characters that perception proficiency is given automatically along with saving throw proficiency.
If piloting a starship or vehicles is something that adventure writers are going to assume that all characters will have proficiency with - then all characters need to have proficiency with it.
Other than the all Mech adventures assuming the PCs all use solo mechs I can't think of any other published adventure that even benefits from all the PCs having the piloting skill. Even Redshift Rally doesn't assume all the PCs have piloting. Even if you don't have the piloting skill you can still use it unskilled. So I don't think there is any writer guideline that assumes all PCs have to have piloting.
I was recently in an adventure where we needed 2 of the PCs to drive different vehicles and we had no one in the party with the piloting skill. In another recent game, the entire party had to make separate piloting checks in a video game and only 2 of the PCs were trained at piloting. Both adventures played just fine, and we survived.
I even have a space goblin mechanic with ACE pilot as part of their character name. They have no points in the piloting skill or even the ACE pilot theme. That doesn't stop them from letting everyone know they are the best ACE pilot in the galaxy!
There's no reason for Starfinder to be based on a 'real life' simulator, so no reason why a PC adventurer might not come from a dystopic world where even less the 17% of the population has access to vehicles. or they are from a giant space station where no one owns vehicles because you don't need them inside the station. Maybe they are a member of the Cognates and just prefer to walk and not rely on technology.
Even if you don't have the piloting skill you can still use it unskilled.
Use it, yes. Use it effectively, no. Xenocrat is right in that in the PF2 engine during the playtest they did add back in the ability to suck at things that you don't invest in.
The DC for a level 8 task like piloting a level 8 vehicle is 24 at base. A level 8 character untrained in piloting with a +4 attribute bonus to - probably dexterity still - would need a nat-20 in order to succeed. Which would crit, but only because it both barely meets the number needed and is a nat-20. At vehicle level 9 when the DC is 26, the nat-20 rule upgrades the 24 roll result of failure into a success. In either case, anything other than a nat-20 fails and you have about a 50% chance of critical failure - which often has much more severe consequences than a regular failure.
So it becomes a case of 'at least one character in the party has to be trained or better in piloting' or else the scenario will auto-fail.
Edit: Any scenario that requires a check with a DC based on level. If you just need someone in the party to drive from one place to another and don't need a check, then simply having basic piloting actions be untrained accessible would be an option.
I can't guarantee that the Starfinder devs are going to make piloting an auto-proficiency like perception is. But I wouldn't be surprised if they do.
Or you could just turn on the ship's AI autopilot.
autopilot .
Yes. That qualifies as having the scenario designed such that it doesn't require a piloting skill check.
To restate my point another way - the two are linked. By not having Piloting be a skill that is given automatically to all characters, that will mean that scenario writers will have to write scenarios that don't have non-optional on-level piloting skill checks. Either the checks will be for perks and bonuses instead of required, they won't be on-level and will instead be at a fixed DC that can be passed without proficiency, or the checks will not be there at all and the actions can be done without checks.
If you instead want Piloting to be a common gating check in scenarios where failing them too many times or too frequently causes failure of the scenario overall, then you can't rely on someone in the party will surely take it.
Especially in organized play. Currently I am in a PFS scenario where we find that of the group of randos that showed up to the table, my character is the only one with training in Diplomacy... with a +0 CHA. Hope success on the scenario isn't gated on too many Diplomacy checks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How often do you think Piloting is needed in Starfinder Organized play?
Out of the 17 scenarios in the current season, 2 have the spaceship tag and 3 have the Vehicle tag. Checking the first 17 scenarios of season one there were 7 with Starships and 1 with Vehicles. Even more extremely rare is a scenario that needs more than one pilot at the same time.
The decline in starship use isn't because PCs were lacking piloting skills. I've only ever seen one party not have at least 1 PC with piloting. The big issue with Starship combat is many players don't like it and just skip it, many are not familiar with the rules because it comes up so rarely, and having to slow down an organized play game to explain rules when you have a limited amount of time to finish the scenario is problematic.
I just don't see the gateing problems with piloting that you do. There's only one pilot on a starship. Even if everyone in the party has the piloting skill you still only get one piloting roll per round. There are ways some of the rest of the crew can help out the pilot but it's not by making more piloting checks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What might help is an additional category of skill use besides trained and untrained, or if not a category some prerequisite for using it untrained like were you born someplace with advanced technology, or had other exposure to it. For example, someone in Starfinder can use piloting untrained, but someone from Pathfinder untrained in piloting would have no clue how to fly a starship.
I feel like there needs to be some official way for characters from one game setting to gain skills only found in the other setting but should require some effort to get them such as taking a feat or archetype, or training/retraining during downtime.
If you're doing a crossover you can do a sidebar "Pathfinders may not make untrained uses of computers or piloting"
Well, Perception also only comes up as a skill when searching for secret doors or on the extremely rare occurrence that an enemy tries attacking from concealment.
Granted, it is also the default for initiative.
But still, I'm not sure where the huge amount of pushback is coming from. Perception used to be a skill that you had to pay build power for. Now it is an inherent ability. And that was done for ease of gameplay and making sure that all characters have the minimum proficiencies that they need in order to work well in all scenarios.
I'm not seeing why it would be a detriment to do that for Piloting too. Is there some need that you have for building a character that sucks at piloting?
Why would people be automatically skilled in piloting vehicles and starships, but not computing, engineering, diplomacy, and bluffing people?
Why would people be automatically skilled in piloting vehicles and starships, but not computing, engineering, diplomacy, and bluffing people?
Because those are less likely to hard-gate a scenario.
If no one has piloting, the entire party can't participate in a vehicle scene that is intended to be a skill challenge. It would have to rely on autopilot.
If no one is trained in computers, that is equivalent to not being trained in diplomacy. There are other ways of going about designing a challenge to include alternate skills.
And depending on how Starship maneuvering and Starship combat is designed, then it may make that entire section of the game unplayable too. If Piloting is the default skill used for a lot of things on Starships, then it may be an auto-proficiency for the same reason as Perception being the default skill for initiative.
Like I said earlier - I don't see any problem with not having Piloting being slated as an auto-proficiency either. Having it just remain a skill that characters can opt-in to would be fine. But that is going to change how scenarios are written - and maybe how Starship mechanics are designed. And if the design goals is for piloting to be a fundamental assumption of scenario design or Starships, then it is likely to also be an auto-proficiency too. Otherwise it becomes a trap option. Sure you could have the entire party not take Piloting, but that means that the party composition fails to be able to play. So then Piloting just becomes a skill tax that people would wish they just got automatically.
Why would people be automatically skilled in piloting vehicles and starships, but not computing, engineering, diplomacy, and bluffing people?
Similarly, why would people from a backwater planet be automatically skilled in shooting guns, swinging weapons, and wearing armor?
Or searching locations for hidden objects or creatures? Why is that not a skill that has to be bought? Why are you not allowed to suck at searching for things?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would people be automatically skilled in piloting vehicles and starships, but not computing, engineering, diplomacy, and bluffing people?Similarly, why would people from a backwater planet be automatically skilled in shooting guns, swinging weapons, and wearing armor?
Or searching locations for hidden objects or creatures? Why is that not a skill that has to be bought? Why are you not allowed to suck at searching for things?
The differences between these are self evident. No one capable of understanding needs to have it explained, and anyone who needs it explained has bigger problems than I can help them with.