Better yet... just don't feed the trolls.
Please take the 'dumbing down' discussion to another thread.
Normally I would say that as well, but I think this is enough on topic and important to the general discussion. It's worth having this discussion here.
Better yet... just don't feed the trolls.
I doubt they are actually trolling, though I'm never sure with some people. And that is an argument that will come up from non-trolls anyway, so we might as well have it.
no longer having custom class features and progression [...] is dumbed down.
If you mean unique features/progression for classes, then that's simply not true. We have that, if maybe only vaguely on the progression side in some cases.
If you are referring to replacement features/progression, then that isn't a limitation of the system, but of published material. Class archetypes are a thing.
From the previews, I was excited to start seeing unique species feats, like shirrens being able to get a major boost to saves against the Swarm.
From the previews, I was excited to start seeing unique species feats, like shirrens being able to get a major boost to saves against the Swarm.
Considering the wild choices we've got just in PF2e, I'm definitely excited for what they end up doing for SF2e ancestries. I wouldn't be surprised if we see fewer individual aliens but get much greater depth for them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like we let “institutions can never fix problems” slide waaaaaaay too quickly. Like, what?
I feel like we let “institutions can never fix problems” slide waaaaaaay too quickly. Like, what?
It's completely irrelevant to any discussion about Paizo's work, that's why.
To be fair, they said that historically, institutions rarely fix their own issues themselves. Which is afaik broadly true. The problem is that "institutions" in that context actually means state institutions or similar entities with significant power. Transferring that conclusion to a small entertainment company is complete nonsense.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not understanding the very basic premise that having fewer options to boost yourself is a tactically more difficult and challenging environment is such a huge self own I'm shocked to see people admitting it.
Going from 16+ bonuses to three changes the dynamics to the point that strategy and tactics are vastly more important, rather than the easy dumbed down method of stacking enough bonuses that the dice roll doesn't even matter.
I am grateful for many challenging, improved, and easy to use products in my life. This is one of them.
Has it been said that SF2 will have a separate setting book line? I’d love that, but don’t expect it unless outright stated.
Has it been said that SF2 will have a separate setting book line? I’d love that, but don’t expect it unless outright stated.
I don't think they've mentioned anything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To answer the topic: what I'm most excited about is seeing how the fundamental structure of 2e will affect the choices and rolls I'll be making in SF2e. Just the basics of the three-action system and four degrees of success I think will have a major impact on choices in encounters and variety of outcomes. Beyond that, 2e's way of structuring core class progression, different feat progression, and archetypes makes me look forward to see what kinds of character concepts I and the rest of the playerbase can come up with. 2e puts a lot of importance on balanced, tactically interesting gameplay and validity of choices, and I hope that gets to stay in SF2e while still enabling all of the unique aspects of Starfinder that are distinct from Pathfinder.
I'm excited that the tradition of magic will be used, I wish that we will get a new fifth tradition in SF2e, exclusive to this SF2e caster, I alaway love that PF2e have multiple tradition of magic, and I think another tradition only avalible in thr far future/numera, is fair.
Im excited for PF2e style multiclassong and archetypes. The class feat structure being mix and match without stunting the expected proficiency curves for encounters is a marvel to me. The best thing about not being able to change your math in character creation is the freedom to choose what you want as you level. Fingers crossed for a netrunning style archetype and a drone archetype that mirrors beast master in form/function
So, again, I have no real experience with SF1. It's possible that it does not suffer this problem so much... but in 3.x, there was a real thing where all of the important questions were answered in chargen. You could map out your build from lvl 1 to lvl 20, and the clearest path to power (particularly for non-spellcasters) tended to involve hyperfocus on one or two strategies that you would just apply again and again in very similar ways to every fight you were in. PF2 is a lot more tactical. It's not just a case of winding up a build and letting it run. A lot more of the thinking part takes place at the table, figuring out how to apply a somewhat varied toolbox (because your toolbox will be at least somewhat varied) to a variety of strange new enemies that have powers to deal with and weaknesses to exploit, and those powers and weaknesses are important because you can't just overpower them with the raw force of your One Strategy.
So... to the degree that SF1 does suffer from "chargen uber alles", I expect mixing in some PF2 will make that a lot better.
|
So, again, I have no real experience with SF1. It's possible that it does not suffer this problem so much... but in 3.x, there was a real thing where all of the important questions were answered in chargen. You could map out your build from lvl 1 to lvl 20, and the clearest path to power (particularly for non-spellcasters) tended to involve hyperfocus on one or two strategies that you would just apply again and again in very similar ways to every fight you were in. PF2 is a lot more tactical. It's not just a case of winding up a build and letting it run. A lot more of the thinking part takes place at the table, figuring out how to apply a somewhat varied toolbox (because your toolbox will be at least somewhat varied) to a variety of strange new enemies that have powers to deal with and weaknesses to exploit, and those powers and weaknesses are important because you can't just overpower them with the raw force of your One Strategy.
So... to the degree that SF1 does suffer from "chargen uber alles", I expect mixing in some PF2 will make that a lot better.
That is an EXCELLENT description of what I preferred in PF1 over PF2.
That is an EXCELLENT description of what I preferred in PF1 over PF2.
Okay. Why? I mean, it's getting off the topic a bit, but why is "I've finished chargen and build planning and now I really don't have a lot of tactical decisions to make from here on out." a Cool Thing?
Sure, 3.x build planning was fun as a sort of solo game unto itself, but once you got the result to the table?
I mean, that kinda feels like it would be better if you just skipped combat, or used a simpler system.
Eh? The 3.x chargen system was fun, especially with all of the weird little edge powers. I'm not a huge fan of what it did to the at-the-table gameplay part, but the chargen system itself was entertaining.