For Sorcerer, I would absolutely agree. But how much word count is Witch or Summoner spending on one particular tradition?Enough that it adds up, and cuts into design space as opposed to Mono Tradition casters.
And how about compared to how much word count Kineticist is spending on each of the various elements separately?Apples to pizza comparison, arguments can be made for what Traditions Witch should use, there's not an equivalent argument for restricting elements from the Kineticist.
Some would and some wouldn't. It depends on if the class is defined by its type of spells.
Druid - absolutely should be Primal tradition only.
Oracle - not sure why we don't have Oracles with different traditions. Ancestors Oracle screams Occult. Flames and Tempest could be Primal.
I don't disagree, and Mystic will fill this niche I'm pretty sure. I rather Pick-a-Lists be the exception rather than the standard so the class can stand on it's own.
|
Well, I mentioned a new magic tradition on the last page, but what if we went a different way.
Instead of a "Digital" magic tradition, what if it were a "Cosmic" spell tradition. a moe encompassing magical tradition.
It would not only make sense to have a new magical tradition, but also be one not available in PF2e as it isn't really discovered yet, and represents a more advanced understand of magic than simply Arcane Vs Divine Vs Occult Vs Primal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For Sorcerer, I would absolutely agree. But how much word count is Witch or Summoner spending on one particular tradition?Enough that it adds up, and cuts into design space as opposed to Mono Tradition casters.
I'm still not seeing what you are talking about.
This is what I see for the differences in wording between Witch and Summoner (which are pick-a-list) and Wizard and Cleric (which are single tradition).
Skills
Trained in one skill determined by your patron
Trained in one or more skills determined by your eidolon
Trained in Arcana
Trained in Religion; Trained in one skill determined by your choice of deity
Spellcasting Proficiency
Trained in spell attack rolls of your spellcasting tradition, determined by your patron
Trained in spell DCs of your spellcasting tradition, determined by your patron
Trained in spell attack rolls of your spellcasting tradition, determined by your eidolon
Trained in spell DCs of your spellcasting tradition, determined by your eidolon
Trained in arcane spell attacks
Trained in arcane spell DCs
Trained in divine spell attacks
Trained in divine spell DCs
Spell Selection
Your familiar starts off knowing 10 cantrips, five 1st-level spells, and one additional spell determined by your patron's theme. You choose these spells from the common spells of the tradition determined by your patron or from other spells of that tradition you gain access to.
Each time you gain a level, your patron teaches your familiar two new spells of any level you can cast, chosen from common spells of your tradition or others you gain access to.
At 1st level, you learn two 1st-level spells of your choice and five cantrips of your choice. You choose these from the common spells from the tradition corresponding to your eidolon, or from other spells from that tradition to which you have access.
You add to this spell repertoire as you increase in level. Each time you get a spell slot (see Table 2–4: Summoner Spells per Day), you add a spell of the same level to your spell repertoire. At 2nd level, you select another 1st-level spell. At 3rd level, you add the first 2nd-level spell to your repertoire. At 4th level you gain your second and your spell repertoire reaches its maximum size of five spells.
At 5th level, in addition to adding two 3rd-level spells to your repertoire, you lose your lowest level of spell slots.
You start with a spellbook worth 10 sp or less, which you receive for free and must study to prepare your spells each day. The spellbook contains your choice of 10 arcane cantrips and five 1st-level arcane spells. You choose these from the common spells on the arcane spell list or from other arcane spells you gain access to.
Each time you gain a level, you add two more arcane spells to your spellbook, of any level for which you have spell slots.
At 1st level, you can prepare two 1st-level spells and five cantrips each morning from the common spells on the divine spell list or from other divine spells to which you gain access.
As you increase in level as a cleric, the number of spells you can prepare each day increases, as does the highest level of spell you can cast
Your deity also adds spells to your spell list. You can prepare these just like you can any spell on the divine spell list, once you can prepare spells of their level as a cleric. Some of these spells aren't normally on the divine list, but they're divine spells if you prepare them this way.
Class Feats
Witch: has no feats that reference tradition.Summoner: has some feats like Magical Understudy that use the wording "its tradition" or maybe "your tradition" instead of specifying a particular tradition like "Divine tradition" or "Arcane Tradition".
Wizard: Has no feats that reference tradition. There are some that reference spells in your spellbook, which is somewhat similar since they have to be arcane spells.
Cleric: Has some feats like Divine Weapon that reference "Divine spells" specifically.
----------
The difference in word count seems trivial. I haven't counted out each word, but it feels like Cleric actually has more word count for tradition than Witch does.
And the difference in complexity of the classes due directly to their spellcasting tradition is also trivial. (Yes, summoner is a very complex class. So is Oracle.)
So if there is some big difference that I am missing, what is it?
|
I'm still not seeing what you are talking about.
On the word count I will agree, I was misremembering from the playtest and it just shows up in Themes and Focus Spells, so apologies there.
I do stand by it being bad for the design space though, as opposed to if it had just been an Occult caster and they focused on it instead of Pick-a-List and putting so much on the Familiar, which I don't think anyone asked for.
I'd argue that pick-a-list classes are actually a way to save on word count.
But instead, they're all bundled into being "sorcerers", but with different lists.
This is a horrible idea.
Tempted to complain about sorcerers, but I won't. Given what sorcerers are, and given they will remain in the game, they have a claim to pick-a-list and I would say witches have this claim too, particularly in that most witch concepts would be primal, not occult. They started as tri-tradition for a good reason. Divine witches still seem wrong to me, but people made the case so whatever
Tempted to complain about sorcerers, but I won't. Given what sorcerers are, and given they will remain in the game, they have a claim to pick-a-list and I would say witches have this claim too, particularly in that most witch concepts would be primal, not occult. They started as tri-tradition for a good reason. Divine witches still seem wrong to me, but people made the case so whatever
What is a Cleric but a Divine Witch without a familiar and extra spell slots?
What is a Cleric but a Divine Witch without a familiar and extra spell slots?
And Divine Font, and knowing all of their tradition list common spells for free automatically, and having a subclass option to get weapon and armor proficiency. lol. Yeah, there is a reason that Witch is getting reworked rather than just remastered.
Anyway, class hazing aside...
Divine Witch, Divine Sorcerer, and Oracle are all somewhat similar to Cleric in that they have the divine tradition list and tend to focus on healing and buffing other party members. One thing that all of those classes don't have that Cleric does is the direct and mandatory hard link to a deity. And each of them has a different take on how to get their spellcasting abilities instead.
And of course there is also divine tradition Summoner. But that is quite a bit different than the others since it is a hybrid martial class rather than just a spellcaster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh, I thought I replied to the OP on this thread.
In any case, I’m coming around more to the idea that mystics should be occult. We’ll see what direction they’re going with it soon enough to see if that’s still true, but all the major themes of occult (connection, syncretism, artistry, and even the old flavor “contacting weird, unfathomable entities”) seems like something the mystic would be best at of all SF classes.
Pick a list makes sense too of course, no arguments there.
I think occult makes the most sense given the overall spell list and breadth of flavor of the connections (several of them are definitely occult, but obviously xenodruid is primal, healer is primal/divine, and the fire one is arcane/primal and plenty of others are non-occult as well), but reportedly they're looking at divine/primal tradition and a life link/network healing class feature focus of the class.
I can sort of see it. Mystic had some minor force and sonic blasts that you can find on the divine list in PF2 (and the upcoming remaster change to spirit damage would fit fine with Mystic stuff), Call Cosmos is a SF spell I could see being primal in PF2, etc.
The truth is that both Mystic and Witchwarper spell lists covered a lot of ground, Technomancer less, Precog a lot less. The most special thing about Mystic was its monopoly on healing, which is obviously a primal/divine thing if we're adopting PF2 spell mechanics. Mind Thrust (a big OGL name no-no anyway) will be gone, but some sort of spirit damage blasts will be there or you can go primal for a xenodruid or elemental connection to do energy blast spells.
Mind Thrust (a big OGL name no-no anyway)
Wait, that's OGL? Do you know where it originated from?
The most special thing about Mystic was its monopoly on healing, which is obviously a primal/divine thing if we're adopting PF2 spell mechanics.
Occult totally has healing. Soothe is healing.
Mind Thrust (a big OGL name no-no anyway)Wait, that's OGL? Do you know where it originated from?
Mind Thrust, Ego Whip, Id Insinuation, and Intellect Fortress are all derived from the same names of powers from AD&D or even earlier's psionics system (googling around, I think it was earlier in original D&D, AD&D 2e already had lots more psionic powers with less famous names). It originally was a sort of rock/paper/scissors with offense and defense modes using those names. Mind Blank's name originated from that system, too, so we won't be seeing that name in the remaster I'm sure.
Psionic Blast and Psychic Crush were two others from the original psionics system that I don't think ever got used in Paizo products. Probably because Psionic Blast was the Illithid standby from what I can remember.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We already know SF2 is doing PF2 traditions (they said everything was going to be fully compatible and that the mystic is currently a primal/divine focus), and it was also a big retcon to the PF1 to PF2 setting.
From the blog announcing SF Second Edition:
Along with the first Field Test, we also wanted to announce the first four classes to be included in the upcoming Starfinder Playtest Rulebook.
The mystic is a spellcasting class that focuses on the divine and primal traditions and has the unique ability to form a bond with their closest allies.
Mind Thrust, Ego Whip, Id Insinuation, and Intellect Fortress are all derived from the same names of powers from AD&D or even earlier's psionics system (googling around, I think it was earlier in original D&D, AD&D 2e already had lots more psionic powers with less famous names).
I clearly recall Ego Whip, Id Insinuation, and Tower of Iron Will being in AD&D 1e. Intellect Fortress sounds about right as well, and I'm willing to believe Mind Thrust, though I can't confirm it independently.
Thought Shield was another original D&D psionics one.
We already know SF2 is doing PF2 traditions (they said everything was going to be fully compatible and that the mystic is currently a primal/divine focus),
It is very unlikely that each class will have its own spell list. PF2 does have one separate list for Elementalist, but I honestly think that doing that was a misstep. Because each time that a new spell gets added, it has to be added to all of the spell lists.
For the tradition lists, that is easily done by adding the tradition names to the tradition entry of the spell itself.
For Elementalist list, it has to be added to the list somehow. Which means errata, printing a specific addition list, or reprinting the archetype - which they did with Secrets of Magic: Elementalist and Rage of Elements: Elementalist.
But I don't think that is sustainable for something as central to the game as each class's spell list.
it was also a big retcon to the PF1 to PF2 setting.
Mechanically it was. Narratively, less so. Though the change in spell lists for particular characters would be one place where it is more noticeable.
Thought Shield was another original D&D psionics one.
The names themselves can't be copyrighted alone. Name and description probably could as long as it isn't so generic that it would be considered public domain.
So Shield may lose the ability to block Magic Missile.
It wouldn't be a huge leap lore-wise to merge all four skills into Mysticism and say that these days the sort of insight that used to only be available to the most learned sages is now common knowledge.
And then the core rules would not be mechanically compatible.
It wouldn't be a huge leap lore-wise to merge all four skills into Mysticism and say that these days the sort of insight that used to only be available to the most learned sages is now common knowledge.And then the core rules would not be mechanically compatible.
We already know that this level of "incompatibility" is expected, since Piloting and Computers are in the works. Consolidating the magic skills helps keep the total array of skills to something a party can get decent coverage of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We already know that this level of "incompatibility" is expected, since Piloting and Computers are in the works. Consolidating the magic skills helps keep the total array of skills to something a party can get decent coverage of.
Having one tradition of magic instead of four seems like a lot larger of a change than having a new skill or two and losing some others.
We already know SF2 is doing PF2 traditions (they said everything was going to be fully compatible and that the mystic is currently a primal/divine focus), and it was also a big retcon to the PF1 to PF2 setting.
From the blog announcing SF Second Edition:
Along with the first Field Test, we also wanted to announce the first four classes to be included in the upcoming Starfinder Playtest Rulebook.
The mystic is a spellcasting class that focuses on the divine and primal traditions and has the unique ability to form a bond with their closest allies.
Just to be clear, I think everyone is aware of this. The original post of this thread was asking if it should be those two traditions, not questioning what the first draft is going to be.
We already know that this level of "incompatibility" is expected, since Piloting and Computers are in the works. Consolidating the magic skills helps keep the total array of skills to something a party can get decent coverage of.Having one tradition of magic instead of four seems like a lot larger of a change than having a new skill or two and losing some others.
I agree with that statement, but it's also not relevant? A technomancer could use arcane magic, and a Mystic could pick divine, but that doesn't mean that the system inherently requires one skill per magic tradition.
PF2's current system seems more janky as it is, with the Arcana-specialized high-Int Wizard just shrugging whenever demonic magic shows up. "Come back when the magic involves math" isn't a key part of the fantasy, and there's even a skill feat for legendary Arcana so that it can stop being an issue at high levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF2's current system seems more janky as it is, with the Arcana-specialized high-Int Wizard just shrugging whenever demonic magic shows up. "Come back when the magic involves math" isn't a key part of the fantasy, and there's even a skill feat for legendary Arcana so that it can stop being an issue at high levels.
And only Arcana gets that skill feat. And only Nature gets the skill feat that lets you grow plants faster or have local birds be an early warning system. And only Religion lets you deal damage with a skill check. And Occultism lets you do an equivalent of Demoralize an additional time on an enemy.
These skills are pulling a lot more weight than just 'the skill to know about spells and identify creatures with'.
I find it unlikely that the tradition lists themselves are going away. It is a bit more likely that there will be one skill for all of them, but I don't find that to be very likely either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not entirely sure what point you are making here. It sounds like you just don't like having four skills - one each for the magic traditions.
But PF2 has been running with that since the beginning. Plenty of people don't like it, but that is still how it is designed.
So is there an actual game design reason that you are presenting for why the SF2 developers are, or should, combine these four skills together into one skill? The only one I have heard is 'legacy player expectations' with the Mysticism skill from SF1. But that isn't a very strong argument for the SF2 system that is going to be mechanically compatible with PF2.
I think the game would be worse if the magical knowledge skills were collapsed, and it would be MUCH worse if the spell lists were collapsed. I'll definitely weigh in to oppose such a change during the playtest.
I'm not entirely sure what point you are making here. It sounds like you just don't like having four skills - one each for the magic traditions.
But PF2 has been running with that since the beginning. Plenty of people don't like it, but that is still how it is designed.
So is there an actual game design reason that you are presenting for why the SF2 developers are, or should, combine these four skills together into one skill? The only one I have heard is 'legacy player expectations' with the Mysticism skill from SF1. But that isn't a very strong argument for the SF2 system that is going to be mechanically compatible with PF2.
My main point is that Starfinder really shouldn't have traditions at all, because SF1 lore explicitly rejects them. It's all magic. Class-based spell lists are more appropriate.
If tradition spell lists have to be in because of Pathfinder compatibility and/or concerns about expandability, magic lore should still be a single skill in order to make room for other skills, and the Mystic class in particular should use Occult magic because almost everything about it in Starfinder 1e (at least the core) is psychic-themed with only a little "Some think their Connections come from deities" spice on top. The SF1 Mystic is only divine if you believe that they need to be divine casters because they are healers.
In the grander theme of things, I think Starfinder 2e would be best served as its own thing by not being "100% compatible" with Pathfinder. It would work best as a game that uses the same rules engine: three-action rounds, saving throws, proficiencies, spell ranks, and so on. But it shouldn't need to bother with how those things are generated. It's OK if the games have different available feats, skills, classes, weapons, spells, and so on, as long as those things work the same way.
Basically, Starfinder and Pathfinder should speak the same language even if they don't agree on what to say. The mystic spell psychokinetic...
SF1e had so few spellcasters that the streamlining provided by traditions wouldn't really pay the dividends that it has for P2e. If SF2e follows suit (heck, two of the casting classes are being merged) then yea I agree, instituting traditions would cause more problems than they would solve. Of course if the devs are planning to have PF amounts of caster proliferation in the new edition then it would definitely be smart to cover their bases
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the game would be worse if the magical knowledge skills were collapsed, and it would be MUCH worse if the spell lists were collapsed. I'll definitely weigh in to oppose such a change during the playtest.
Agreed. "A spellcaster is a spellcaster is a spellcaster" leads to less options for character diversity.
It also ends up being self-fulfilling. If there is only one overall method of casting magic, then we need fewer spellcasting classes. Therefore justifying the combining of magical traditions.
But I like having different types of spellcasters. Sure, even classes that share a tradition can feel quite different - like Psychic and Bard. But Oracle and Druid feel even more different than either of those two.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you can certainly continue holding out hope for class-specific spell lists. But I don't forsee it happening. The notes for Mystic already reference tradition.
And I have already mentioned why. Class-specific spell lists have to be updated every time that a new spell gets printed. And when a new class gets printed it adds to the number of lists that have to be maintained. Both of that together is going to disincentivize creating new classes and spells. PF2 currently has 10 spellcasting classes. SF1 currently has 3. I want SF2 to have closer to the 50% spellcasting class percentage that PF2 has. Which almost certainly means having tradition spell lists instead of class spell lists.
If you want to make a themed spellcaster in PF2, you certainly can. Just pick spells from the tradition list that are appropriate.
PF2 is willing to give classes spells outside of their assigned tradition because of choices made in building that character (e.g. Sarenrite clerics can cast fireball, which is not normally a divine spell).
I imagine that's how SF2 is going to do it too. You get the spells based on the four tradition lists, plus other thematic spells from other traditions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot was made when PF2 came out of the quote "Complexity is the currency with which we buy depth" and I don't disagree with that. But as a comparison I'd argue that genericness is the coin with which we buy compatibility.
I would hope that Paizo were wise enough to avoid sacrificing all uniqueness of Starfinder as a setting on the altar of turning it into a PF2 expansion that while fully compatible, no longer feels like starfinder.
I'm not convinced that will be the case, but I hope I'm wrong
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that anyone wants Starfinder2e to just be a clone of Pathfinder2e with a thin veneer of technology over the top of it. Not the game developers, not the Starfinder players, not even us PF2 fans.
I point out the various things in PF2 that are available as a way of showing what is possible. Why migrating to the Pathfinder2e game core mechanics is a good thing. That it creates a game system that is easy to play casually and for fun, while still allowing a lot of depth, creativity, and character and world building. I'm trying to show that the fun things that are possible in Starfinder are still going to be possible in Starfinder2e.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
But then I hear things like "We already have the Fighter class as a generalist combat dude, so we decided to make the Soldier a face tank specializing in AOE damage" and "The Mystic is a divine/primal caster", and that feels like Starfinder is being influenced by a lot more than just the Pathfinder engine,
I read that same quote, and that is how I come to the realization that the game developers are working hard to not to make Starfinder2e just be a thin skin over the top of Pathfinder2e.
The easy/cheap way of building Soldier is just reprint Fighter with a bit of flavor/lore changes to it. Get some new artwork with fancy futuristic gizmos and weapons like a comm unit and a Dhosko, and it is good to go. Mystic can just be a Cleric with similar changes.
But they aren't doing that. They are taking the time and effort to give these classes the treatment that they deserve. These are classes for characters that are native to the space age. Everything from the ground up is going to be based on that. Not just their lore and artwork, but their game mechanics too.
But then I hear things like "We already have the Fighter class as a generalist combat dude, so we decided to make the Soldier a face tank specializing in AOE damage" and "The Mystic is a divine/primal caster", and that feels like Starfinder is being influenced by a lot more than just the Pathfinder engine,I read that same quote, and that is how I come to the realization that the game developers are working hard to not to make Starfinder2e just be a thin skin over the top of Pathfinder2e.
The easy/cheap way of building Soldier is just reprint Fighter with a bit of flavor/lore changes to it. Get some new artwork with fancy futuristic gizmos and weapons like a comm unit and a Dhosko, and it is good to go. Mystic can just be a Cleric with similar changes.
But they aren't doing that. They are taking the time and effort to give these classes the treatment that they deserve. These are classes for characters that are native to the space age. Everything from the ground up is going to be based on that. Not just their lore and artwork, but their game mechanics too.
Exactly. Making the classes meaningfully distinct is the right decision for both games. The 3 action system may serve both games, but the underlying expectations for each are meaningfully different in tangible ways (melee vs ranged combat, for example). The classes should reflect that. That we can make them fit with each other is nice, and probably takes some of the pressure off of the devs, but the real purpose is to give each game its own identity.
But then I hear things like "We already have the Fighter class as a generalist combat dude, so we decided to make the Soldier a face tank specializing in AOE damage" and "The Mystic is a divine/primal caster", and that feels like Starfinder is being influenced by a lot more than just the Pathfinder engine,I read that same quote, and that is how I come to the realization that the game developers are working hard to not to make Starfinder2e just be a thin skin over the top of Pathfinder2e.
The easy/cheap way of building Soldier is just reprint Fighter with a bit of flavor/lore changes to it. Get some new artwork with fancy futuristic gizmos and weapons like a comm unit and a Dhosko, and it is good to go. Mystic can just be a Cleric with similar changes.
But they aren't doing that. They are taking the time and effort to give these classes the treatment that they deserve. These are classes for characters that are native to the space age. Everything from the ground up is going to be based on that. Not just their lore and artwork, but their game mechanics too.
But that leaves Starfinder without a Generalist combat dude, and reliant on importing a PF2 class if you want that functionality.
Does it need a generalist combat character?
What means of combat are cut off with the Soldier overhaul?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a soldier is specialised in AOE damage to the extent that has been communicated to us, does that mean we can't make a lethally precise soldier? Or a soldier dedicated to mixing it up in melee? An honour-driven corporate samurai? All of those were not only possible in the SF1 soldier chassis, but absolutely normal.
If theres one thing I especially valued about Starfinder it was the ability to use multiple classes to build towards the same general concept. It might be addressed differently, but you could do it. I am worried that in the rush to distance the Soldier from the Fighter, and the Mystic from the Cleric, they are also distancing the Soldier from the Soldier and the Mystic from the Mystic.
Of course, the Mystic could already have been distinct from the Cleric just fine by not having 10th level spells, but apparently that decision was written in stone long before we were even told there would be a 2nd edition. Probably back when Paizo were still vehemently claiming that 2nd edition wasn't on the horizon while promoting Starfinder Enhanced.
so we also decided that soldiers are your default class for
using big guns and big weapons
Fighting styles:
Armor StormBombard
Close Quarters
So Melee Soldier is still absolutely blatantly a thing.
"a lethally precise soldier?" What is this even mean? A sniper? From the playtest they showed snipers are still a thing. If you're just asking for a build of "I'm super accurate" that's N/A, it's built in by the nature of the system.
"An honour-driven corporate samurai?" That's an aesthetic not a class.
Your complaint is you want the Soldier to do literally everything? Again I ask what means of combat have been cut off?
Probably back when Paizo were still vehemently claiming that 2nd edition wasn't on the horizon while promoting Starfinder Enhanced.
Before or after WotC started yeeting Pinkertons at people and torpedo the OGL?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want it to do everything, I want it to be as adaptable a class as it was in 1e. I will admit I had missed the close Quarters fighting style. I was very turned off by all of the language of description in the initial released playtest being focused on heavy weaponry and AOE focused. That felt like a narrowly focused class compared to the generalist frame the class had been. I would still like to avoid Soldiers being pigeonholed soley as face tanks with big weapons, but given how PF2 works that might be unavoidable. Hopefully the base chassis will be at least adaptable enough to make for a functioning "generic warrior that can cover a wide array of fighting styles depending on build"
That being said: January 27th: WOTC formally abandons plans to deauthorize the OGL, and releases the SRD 5.1 into Creative Commons, leaving Starfinder and other 3.x based games still at the mercy of them messing with the OGL in Future.
March 8th: Paizo announce Starfinder Enhanced, and stress it is not a new edition, strongly imply a new edition is not in the card just yet in comments sections.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You might not be aware, but PF2 offers a high level of build diversity from archetypes. If you want to play a soldier who uses knives, you'll be able to pick up something like Knife Master which gives you a suite of feat choices for such a build.
In Starfinder classes had to try to catch everything they could because there was basically no customization outside of your main class choice (archetypes and multiclassing were almost completely borked).
Class in the PF2 engine gets you a set of default proficiencies, a few class specific powers and options, and a list of feats. If the class feats don't suit you, you can just go elsewhere
That being said: January 27th: WOTC formally abandons plans to deauthorize the OGL, and releases the SRD 5.1 into Creative Commons, leaving Starfinder and other 3.x based games still at the mercy of them messing with the OGL in Future.
March 8th: Paizo announce Starfinder Enhanced, and stress it is not a new edition, strongly imply a new edition is not in the card just yet in comments sections.
Minor thing but it was announced in February some time, that’s not a lot of lead time from the end of January and they also didn’t have a half-book done in only a month, Enhanced was in the works before that.
Also: Pinkertons
Also also: S2 isn’t coming any time soon, it’s gonna be like 2 years, enhanced is out in a month or so right? So that’s 2 years you have that book before S2 comes out.
I don't think they knew they were going to be making SF2 when they started work on Starfinder Enhanced, but I'm damn sure they knew by the time they announced Starfinder Enhanced, despite strongly stating SF2 wasn't on the horizon.
I'm not complaining about the closeness between Enhanced coming out and then being subverted by SF2. That's a consequence of WOTC's actions. I don't mind that.
What I do take a little objection to is being told that a new edition wasn't in the works when it very evidently was. I especially object to being told that "noone was asking for things like Resolve or 6th level spellcasting limit to be in SF2" when we had been told that there wasn't an SF2 on the horizon. I would go as far to say that going by what people complain about (and i freely admit, many people loudly, constantly wanted a PF2 compatible starfinder) Paizo have opened themselves up to massive selection bias in the feedback they have weighed.
That's why I asked if there had been any actual data driven surveys of what players actually wanted in SF2, especially for design philosophy decisions made way in advance of any playtesting.
Paizo can of course run their business any way they please, and I don't think they should be beholden to random a$+&@$~ fans like me. (listening to my opinions sounds like a terrible way to run a business, honestly, since I'd argue for dropping PF2 adventure paths in favour of making content that I buy, like Starfinder Adventure paths, given the opportunity) but I do think they would have benefited from actual formal data collection, rather then listening to the squeaky wheels in the fandom.