Using Pathfinder 2 classes in Starfinder 2 will certainly be forbidden in environments like SFS and around most tables I expect it to be limited by the GM. Both games are compatible but it still means some work to include a PF2 character in SF2.
But I'm wondering about Archetypes. Pathfinder 2 has a lot of Archetypes (and class Archetypes), which are mostly compatible with Starfinder 2. In terms of balance, I don't expect an Archetype to mess up with SF2 balance to the point of being an issue. And there's no real work to allow these Archetypes: A Soldier with Barbarian Dedication stays a Soldier first and foremost.
So I'm opening this conversation about PF2 Archetypes in SF2.
I personally feel it'd be a good thing to allow them all across the board, including during the playtest. A Soldier with a spellcaster Archetype will definitely be a thing once SF2 will be live and as such I feel that testing such a character is definitely a good thing for the playtest. Similarly, the Solarian has a feat to grab a second weapon, it should definitely be tested with abilities like Double Slice or Twin Takedown (unless SF2 Dual Weapon combat is meant to be completely different than PF2's but I question why it'd be the case and what it'd be supposed to be then).
As a GM, I think I'll allow PF2 Archetypes. And as a player, I wonder how you'd react if one of your players bring an SF2 character with a PF2 Archetypes.
I also think about the future: In my opinion, PF2 Archetypes should be generally accepted as part of Starfinder 2 the same way PF2 spells are currently considered part of it. This is really a big bunch of compatible content with low chances of being disruptive, players will certainly be happy to dive into them.
So, what's your opinion?
I think cross system class archetypes will cause problems because if the playtest class feats stay the same there are some that are strict upgrades on PF2 class feats.
For example: Butterfly Effect (Witchwarper level 8) is in most respects clearly superior to Second Thought (Wizard 18), and even as an archetype you can take it sooner! Or compare Elusive Target (Operative 1) to Exploit Blunder (Investigator 2). The former is less restrictive in target application. Swift Reposition (Operative 2) is somewhat comparable to Flashy Roll (Swashbuckler 8). And so on.
I think all creatures should be compatible both ways (mechanically, if not thematically if it's a serious tech creature), and most spells will make sense to share, if more so PF2 -> SF2 than the other way around.
I frankly don't think there is as much reason to ban Pathfinder classes in a home Starfinder game, as most of what exists in Pathfinder will exist in Starfinder.
Ban may be a strong word, but I expect some GMs to limit these options. At least, they will ask for an interesting justification. And I can imagine a GM limiting these options to one or 2 characters at the table.
I think cross system class archetypes will cause problems because if the playtest class feats stay the same there are some that are strict upgrades on PF2 class feats.
I see your point but I was thinking more of using PF2 archetypes in SF2 than the other way around. PF2 is really complete for a game so bringing a bit of content from SF2 shouldn't be that important. On the other hand, SF2 strongly lacks content and bringing as much content from PF2 as possible would really improve the early experience for most players.
Also, it's much easier to justify a low tech option in a high tech setting than a high tech option in a low tech setting.My opinion is a bit different for the playtest, however, where the goal is to get a feel for the new stuff as much as possible, and as close to the baseline as possible. In playtest games I'm a bit more gunshy of using PF2E archetypes, like how I'm also not inclined toward Free Archetype.
The Solarian has a feat to get a second Solar Weapon but no feat to actually use 2 weapons. I really feel it's a broken feature.
Similarly, the melee Soldier has 1 feat per level that speaks about melee.Even if I agree that the playtest content should be used first and foremost, I wonder if it's really helping Paizo that every melee Soldier people test have the exact same build. In my opinion, having feedback about interactions between SF2 and basic PF2 content (like Double Slice which is the base of most 2-weapon builds) should also bring useful information.
Paizo could have approached archetypes for Starfinder in a way that mirrored the tiered way that they released them for PF2 (and again for Remaster): The first player core book being limited to multiclass dedications for that book's classes, then the second player core book including ones for the second wave of classes but also presenting other kinds of archetypes.
However, this first playtest doc didn't include ANY dedication feats, despite including the human ancestry feat Multitalented, which grants a multiclass dedication. That feat just refers you to the Player Core rules for dedication feats, but doesn't give any indication of HOW the devs wanted us to playtest the feat. I get that they want us to concentrate on thoroughly testing the core classes as they exist now, but then why even include Multitalented at this stage?
Multitalented isn't unique here. There's also an ancestry feat on one of the psychic ancestries that interacts with animal companions despite there being none. There's a non-zero amount of content in the playtest books that assumes more rules coverage than actually exists at the moment. Archetypes just happen to be one of them.
|
Using Pathfinder 2 classes in Starfinder 2 will certainly be forbidden in environments like SFS and around most tables I expect it to be limited by the GM. Both games are compatible but it still means some work to include a PF2 character in SF2.
But I'm wondering about Archetypes. Pathfinder 2 has a lot of Archetypes (and class Archetypes), which are mostly compatible with Starfinder 2. In terms of balance, I don't expect an Archetype to mess up with SF2 balance to the point of being an issue. And there's no real work to allow these Archetypes: A Soldier with Barbarian Dedication stays a Soldier first and foremost.
So I'm opening this conversation about PF2 Archetypes in SF2.
I personally feel it'd be a good thing to allow them all across the board, including during the playtest. A Soldier with a spellcaster Archetype will definitely be a thing once SF2 will be live and as such I feel that testing such a character is definitely a good thing for the playtest. Similarly, the Solarian has a feat to grab a second weapon, it should definitely be tested with abilities like Double Slice or Twin Takedown (unless SF2 Dual Weapon combat is meant to be completely different than PF2's but I question why it'd be the case and what it'd be supposed to be then).
As a GM, I think I'll allow PF2 Archetypes. And as a player, I wonder how you'd react if one of your players bring an SF2 character with a PF2 Archetypes.
I also think about the future: In my opinion, PF2 Archetypes should be generally accepted as part of Starfinder 2 the same way PF2 spells are currently considered part of it. This is really a big bunch of compatible content with low chances of being disruptive, players will certainly be happy to dive into them.
So, what's your opinion?
Org play is strictly not done for SF2 and the team will have to balance a lot of demands and interest here, so I would not worry too much.
That said, I see no good reason to limit access to archetypes like medic in SF2 (even the playtest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using Pathfinder 2 classes in Starfinder 2 will certainly be forbidden in environments like SFS and around most tables I expect it to be limited by the GM. Both games are compatible but it still means some work to include a PF2 character in SF2.
While I can't comment on SFS, I don't really see a GM limiting Pathfinder classes in Starfinder significantly more than they would limit Pathfinder classes in Pathfinder (like the Gunslinger and Inventor are specifically rare classes.) So I likewise don't see any reason to limit any archetypes that aren't thematically inappropriate (like you're not going to become a Lion Blade when you can't find Taldor on any map.)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't rule out options from Pathfinder someday being playable in SFS. I think there is a big difference between using a PF2e class or archetype to make a Starfinder character and making a Pathfinder character to play in Starfinder. If organized play was to allow mixing things between the two timelines I think the first option would be most likely.
A space goblin inventor makes a great Starfinder character who is a starship mechanic but uses the inventor class because they never went to mechanic school. A fighter in Starfinder is someone who studies martial arts or is a Doshko specialist. Investigators born in Starfinder still investigate. Someone studying ancient magic in Starfinder could become a wizard. That's a lot different then having a wizard from the Pathfinder timeline time travel into your Starfinder game. Another option is a character from the Starfinder timeline, but they come from a low-tech planet where Pathfinder classes are still common.
Another and I think the very likely option is organized play specials like Perils of the Past and Fate in the Future, and in this case, actually having characters being able to go back and forth in the timelines could be an option.
That's just my wild guess.
Outside of organized play it's up to each table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My guess is that the "does SFS allow PF2 classes" is going to be based more on demographics for class choice than it does thematic incompatibility.
Like ideally you won't sit down to a lot of SFS games with a Cleric, a Bard, a Rogue, and a Fighter. Ideally people would instead play a Mystic, Envoy, Operative, and Soldier.
But there's too much potential fun with mixing and matching rules content from the game to put a blanket ban on this sort of thing. A lot of PF2 archetypes (Acrobat, Celebrity, Bounty Hunter, Archaeologist, etc.) work perfectly in a SF2 context with minimal editing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My guess is that the "does SFS allow PF2 classes" is going to be based more on demographics for class choice than it does thematic incompatibility.
Like ideally you won't sit down to a lot of SFS games with a Cleric, a Bard, a Rogue, and a Fighter. Ideally people would instead play a Mystic, Envoy, Operative, and Soldier.
But there's too much potential fun with mixing and matching rules content from the game to put a blanket ban on this sort of thing. A lot of PF2 archetypes (Acrobat, Celebrity, Bounty Hunter, Archaeologist, etc.) work perfectly in a SF2 context with minimal editing.
And now I'm imagining a book dedicated to converting content between the two games. Including feats meant to be used in different games. Like Soldier feats for use solely in PF and Acrobat feats for use solely in SF.