Gonna field this to the group to get some input. I've got a 1-20 campaign in mind but idk if I'd be better off play testing with the playtest adventures and waiting to Homebrew a campaign with the final product.
Obviously we don't know what the playtest materials are going to look like yet, but I lean toward using those, myself. If they're anything like Doomsday Dawn, there will be sections purposely meant to stress test some of the baseline assumptions of SF2E.
There's also the fact that the more folks who playtest the same thing help with controlling for variables when the devs are combing through survey responses and stuff like that.
Granted, the flipside is that a smaller range of potentially disruptive circumstances will come up, which might iminish some of the effectivness of the playtest, but still.
That's fair, I should playtest the initial assumptions they wanted to field players against before getting wild with homebrew
Developer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they're anything like Doomsday Dawn, there will be sections purposely meant to stress test some of the baseline assumptions of SF2E.
Because the baseline assumptions of Starfinder Second Edition are the same as Pathfinder (at least in terms of the underlying mechanics and math), we have less of a need to "stress test" the system during this playtest. So, our playtest adventures aren't much like Doomsday Dawn in that respect.
We will have specific areas where we're looking for feedback, though, and playtest surveys to allow you to provide that feedback. We'll have a lot more to say about those in the coming weeks. Stay tuned for our PaizoCon panels!
I'd say you could sprinkle some of the currently released material into PF2e games and see how it performs.
I've got a 5th level soldier in a fun campaign I'm running. It's less of a Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court and more of a UNSC Marine in King Arthur's Court. Her player is having a ball applying a scattergun to an Elite Shambler Troop right now.
|
I know the two systems are designed to be compatible, but is it preferable to playtest using exclusively character options from the Playtest, or does it make no difference if I allow character options from PF2e as well?
If I'm able to playtest, I'm basically going to need to bully one of my current groups into giving it a shot, and one of those groups has been very... inertia-bound to 5e
I know the two systems are designed to be compatible, but is it preferable to playtest using exclusively character options from the Playtest, or does it make no difference if I allow character options from PF2e as well?
If I'm able to playtest, I'm basically going to need to bully one of my current groups into giving it a shot, and one of those groups has been very... inertia-bound to 5e
Well, you can't playtest what you don't play. So from that perspective, everyone who's playing a PF2 class isn't playing an SF2 class.
On the flip side, stuff like "How does this compare to and/or play alongside existing PF2 classes?" is one of the things that it's good to have information on.
My gut reaction is to say... if you want to maximize playtesting value, try to have at least half of your players with SF2 classes? It's a bit of a sliding scale. Going from 0 SF2 classes to 1 is obviously a big deal as far as the playtest value you can pull out. Going from three of four to four of four is much less so.
The SF2 playtest ancestries are really cleaving pretty close to PF2 ancestries, and don't matter as much, though if you can get a Stellifera in there somewhere, that might be cool.