| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have really enjoyed how Pathfinder 2nd edition has limited power creep, which I think can be demonstrated in how, despite all the new classes over the years, the initial ones remain relevant. However, I’ve noticed some warning signs in Pathfinder Society (PFS) and believe this warrants a broader discussion as even those who only play in home games should be aware and join in the conversation.
First the context: in a recent PFS game, a player brought a 1st level dragonkin character to the table. It was described as coming from a boon that allowed him to use that 2E Starfinder ancestry in PFS because of his participation in the Starfinder play test. As we played through the scenario, his dragonkin character was able to easily fly himself and others over a chasm with a slippery bridge because dragonkin get unlimited flight right out of the gate. With low level assumptions between adventure design in PF and SF being so different, if more of these unintentional slippages occur, I’m worried that we’re headed for a landslide of power creep in Pathfinder. The only way I see around this is by making these types of assumptions explicit and possibly allowing for some control (at least in home games).
I understand that people have more control in their home games by limiting to only common options or just allowing things out of certain books, etc. However, for PFS the GMs do not have that kind of control. So for other PFS GMs, have you seen this type of power creep and how has it affected your games? For home GMs, does this lowering the barriers by having a shared ruleset between PF and SF affect you? If so, in what ways?
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't allow Starfinder rules in home games. Easy fix.
For PFS it strikes me as a non-issue. PFS is Pathfinder easy mode by design, so as to better facilitate the onboardong of new players. Someone playing a slightly busted character doesn't really change any of the outcomes.
That said, I do agree that there is a risk of power creep that we've not seen before.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does star finder have rules for letting PCs carry other characters while flying or using special movement speeds? It doesn’t feel like PF should allow this unless maybe the rest of the party is tiny?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't normally act as a mount for a fellow PC unless they're two sizes smaller than you (Most Dragonkin are large). There is a 5th level feat that lets them have a rider one size smaller than them, but unless you take a specific heritage you can only do that for a single PFS character you designated at character creation. Outside of combat, It's up to the GM whether you can carry someone in a non-mounted fashion, but there's no rule against Dragonkin and Contemplatives flying while encumbered, so I can see some players arguing that if they can carry a dead body of a PC, they should be able to carry a living one as well
The chapter on system compatibility in the SF2 GM Core does say GMs can mkve ancestral flight and climb speeds to feats in home games, though, as well as potentially making feats tied to special senses higher level.
So ultimately it's down to GM discretion outside of PFS.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's specifically a problem for a GM to navigate with rules going from SF to PF or vice versa based on assumptions of the setting. One of them is "everybody in the future has access to really good ranged attacks" so "unlimited flight from level 1" is specifically not a problem, whereas many things you fight in Pathfinder stay firmly rooted on the ground and want to end you with claws and teeth.
So I'm not sure why PFS would give that boon to begin with. A curated list of SF2 options you could use would be a much better choice.
Generally I think using rules back and forth works better in a context where you know each other and someone is making a good faith effort to make a character that works outside of their native setting. Like you can absolutely play an Envoy in Pathfinder, but you would want to avoid stuff like "Guns Blazing" and "Infosphere Director" for your subclass (the other four are fine.) Like you should avoid things that involve the computers skill, rather than asking the GM to seed the world with computers for you to use.
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
This sounds more like a PFS failing than the system itself. We've known from the get-go that mixing SF2e and PF2e will come with issues like flight from level 1.
I don't know how much you can argue something is power-creep when it's from an optional ruleset that explicitly flags this as a problem. It'd be another thing if Dragonkin was a printed ancestry in Pf2e.
Don't allow Starfinder rules in home games. Easy fix.
For PFS it strikes me as a non-issue. PFS is Pathfinder easy mode by design, so as to better facilitate the onboardong of new players. Someone playing a slightly busted character doesn't really change any of the outcomes.
That said, I do agree that there is a risk of power creep that we've not seen before.
You’ve got a good point here about PFS being an easy mode campaign. I was hoping with the new ‘hard’ and ‘easy’ mode adjustments that might change, but with the issue of no or minimal firewall between the two gaming systems it might be time for me to decide I just want to limit myself to home games.
When SF was created because of the success of Iron Gods (at least that is my partial understanding of it), I did not expect to see SFS mixed in with PFS. I enjoyed Iron Gods, but that is very different from the SF campaign mixing with PFS (and the power landslide it entails).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's specifically a problem for a GM to navigate with rules going from SF to PF or vice versa based on assumptions of the setting. One of them is "everybody in the future has access to really good ranged attacks" so "unlimited flight from level 1" is specifically not a problem, whereas many things you fight in Pathfinder stay firmly rooted on the ground and want to end you with claws and teeth.
So I'm not sure why PFS would give that boon to begin with. A curated list of SF2 options you could use would be a much better choice.
Generally I think using rules back and forth works better in a context where you know each other and someone is making a good faith effort to make a character that works outside of their native setting. Like you can absolutely play an Envoy in Pathfinder, but you would want to avoid stuff like "Guns Blazing" and "Infosphere Director" for your subclass (the other four are fine.) Like you should avoid things that involve the computers skill, rather than asking the GM to seed the world with computers for you to use.
That boon (a couple of SF Ancestries usable if you did enough of the SF2 playtedt stuff during the playtest) IS a curated short list. It isn't bringing in any other SF content.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Add me to the list of: "Flight at 1st level isn't game-breaking."
As a second point:
*It would definitely be interesting if Paizo intentionally created a crossover AP though. Would they go Connecticut Yankee (future PCs go back), Buck Rogers (fantasy PCs go forward), or throw them both into some alternate dimension?
I believe that Paizo is considering a PF2 "sequel" AP to Iron Gods in Numeria for a PF2e/SF2e crossover at some point.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it an amazing indication of how little power creep is in this game if the main example shown is "A person used an ancestry from a different game in pathfinder". And one that specifically tackles the "this is a major divergence from pf 2e" topic that starfinder devs have brought up essentially day 1((ease of access to flight)).
Yeah not seeing much of an issue. PF2E AP products are not written on the assumption of SF2E options and tech allowed.* If your table starts doing that, its up to you to do the balance work.
I'm kinda surprised to hear PFS "crosses the streams," but I don't play it, so [shrug].
*It would definitely be interesting if Paizo intentionally created a crossover AP though. Would they go Connecticut Yankee (future PCs go back), Buck Rogers (fantasy PCs go forward), or throw them both into some alternate dimension?
They wanted people to try out the SF2 playtest so that was an incentive. I don't think you can get it now, so the overall impact isn't going to spread that far.
Though it's sometimes frustrating at a table when someone got some cool boon that it's now impossible for someone else to get, especially when they didn't know it existed when it was available.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
and the power landslide it entails
You keep talking about power landslide.. but your OP essentially just boils down to one specific feature, not some fundamental systemic shift.
Like, I do think level 1 flight is probably something most GMs should stay away from in PF2 and it's a lot stronger than most level 1 ancestry features, but I also think it's somewhat telling that the 'landslide power creep' here is one character being able to overcome a specific skill challenge... but only personally so the actual challenge still remains an obstacle for the party as a whole unless they all take this specific quirk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and the power landslide it entailsYou keep talking about power landslide.. but your OP essentially just boils down to one specific feature, not some fundamental systemic shift.
Like, I do think level 1 flight is probably something most GMs should stay away from in PF2 and it's a lot stronger than most level 1 ancestry features, but I also think it's somewhat telling that the 'landslide power creep' here is one character being able to overcome a specific skill challenge... but only personally so the actual challenge still remains an obstacle for the party as a whole unless they all take this specific quirk.
‘Power creep landslide’ is somewhat overstated, but I also don’t think it’s the minimal impact you are mentioning. There are two players with that boon in our local PFS group. It is not just a matter of trivializing a specific skill challenge. That skill challenge was in the context of a combat where enemies used terrain to their advantage. As I and others have stated, at lower levels encounter design is not predicated on the assumption that two flyers are able to grab two other party members and fly them over complicating terrain.
If others also see it as a problem, then it was worth the conversation. How it plays out might be insignificant, but if the discussion got people to think through implications and possibilities… well, that’s why I keep returning to these forums.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That boon (a couple of SF Ancestries usable if you did enough of the SF2 playtedt stuff during the playtest) IS a curated short list. It isn't bringing in any other SF content.
Then I disagree with the curation for that list. Since one thing you should do in curating a list of SF2 ancestries to be PF2 appropriate without reference to the specific campaign is "filter out everything that has access to unlimited flight at early levels."
Like I don't even have whatever Starfinder book this Dragonkin thing is in, of the ones in the Player Core the only one that would have balance problems is the Barathu, which is mostly a core ancestry because "we want to demonstrate how SF2 is less restrictive in how ancestries can work than PF2 is."
Contributor
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I'm not sure why PFS would give that boon to begin with. A curated list of SF2 options you could use would be a much better choice.
1) As Hammerjack noted, this was from a short curated list.
2) There are Pathfinder ancestries that also get flight at level 1. I recognize that the Dragonkin has a longer flight speed, but I still don't think that this is game breaking. What was game breaking in this context was having the PC ferry the other players. There are rules for PCs being mounted by other PCs, and as a GM I would have applied those rules to the challenge.
3) The amount of playing the SFS Playtest that you had to do to get the Dragonkin in PFS was extensive. You had to playtest it at Level 1, Level 5, Level 10 and Level 15 and you had to play through two separate SFS Playtest AP volumes. I suspect that very few players qualified for it. I barely managed to complete the list, and I was totally dedicated to making sure that I playtested everything.
It was an appropriate reward for the amount of work and scheduling involved.
Yours,
Hmm
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the standard for unlimited flight at level 1 in PF2 are "a GM can make an allowance for it when it makes sense for an ancestry to have it, with the understanding that this is going to force the GM to make a lot of changes to adventures since flying will trivialize a lot of stuff at low levels." But there are no PF2 ancestries that have unlimited flying by default at level 1, because this is something that generates additional work for the GM and should be something a GM has to sign up for.
The same standard should be applied to bringing flying ancestries from SF2 into PF2. If you're allowing Barathu and Dragonkin into a PF2 game you should also allow Strix, Sprites, etc. to have unlimited flight at level 1 per the optional rule on Page 66 of the Lost Omen's Ancestry Guide (also on Page 9 of Howl of the Wild.) If you're not going to allow the latter, you shouldn't allow the former.
Like I would say rule #2 about bringing SF2 content into PF2 (after "don't use anything that depends on technology unavailable in the fantasy setting") is "be careful with flying ancestries" since they're both about "understanding that the assumptions of the two settings are different." If you make Strix PCs do the jump flight -> limited true flight -> true flight progression through ancestry feats, you should under no conditions allow Barathu or Dragonkin PCs in a PF2 game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like the main culprit here is the lack of a clear conversion guide between Starfinder and Pathfinder, and I'm quite surprised Society play allows cross-compatibility without any adjustments in this kind of situation. This "power creep" goes both ways, as well, since picking a resistance to energy damage like Nephilim Resistance can completely negate the weaker damage of Starfinder's guns and trivialize combat encounters.
In this respect, it's not that Starfinder power creeps Pathfinder, even if SF2e in my opinion is a much rougher-balanced game with some wildly overtuned options, so much that the two games run on slightly different design assumptions in order to engineer their respective vibe. In order to preserve balance in both games, these differences ought to be laid out clearly and accounted for via a list of adjustments and suggested bans when porting content from one game to the other. Although Pathfinder and Starfinder are advertised as compatible, it's more compatible*, emphasis on the asterisk. The two games can have their content combined, but you're going to get some hiccups if you don't adjust like in OP's example, so it would benefit us all to have some kind of easily-accessible reference sheet to see what the key differences are at a glance and what adjustments to make, which PFS/SFS should start applying if they want to include cross-play content without disrupting balance.
|
2) There are Pathfinder ancestries that also get flight at level 1. I recognize that the Dragonkin has a longer flight speed, but I still don't think that this is game breaking. What was game breaking in this context was having the PC ferry the other players. There are rules for PCs being mounted by other PCs, and as a GM I would have applied those rules to the challenge.
Carrying someone across a gap sounds far more like using the Bulk of Creatures rule than PCs as mounts rule.
OP didn't mention those being carried trying to take actions mid-lift.I do think OP's story is a good cautionary tale about mixing PF2 and SF2 not being quite as harmonious as top level discussions have indicated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does star finder have rules for letting PCs carry other characters while flying or using special movement speeds? It doesn’t feel like PF should allow this unless maybe the rest of the party is tiny?
I don't think either game has rules preventing using a fly speed or other movement types to carry other characters.
There are rules for using a PC as a mount, but those only restrict how many actions you get.
There are bulk limits, but being Encumbered only lowers your speeds by 10 feet (to a minimum of 5 feet). It doesn't prevent you from using the movement speed.
What Starfinder does have is guidelines on cross compatibility.
Even though the rules are compatible, some options from Starfinder aren't a great fit for a Pathfinder game, and the reverse is true as well. For example, it's much easier to get darkvision and flight in Starfinder than in Pathfinder. If you find this interferes with your campaign, you could restrict access to any equipment, feats, or spells from Starfinder that grant darkvision, or limit ancestries and equipment that grant flight at 1st level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure I consider a flying PC ferrying party members across a gorge game breaking, to be honest. Given PFS scenarios are by necessity somewhat on rails, the party skipping an obstacle that represented at most 5 minutes of gameplay isn't a big deal. And if a scenario hinges on the PCs taking a long time in game or out of game to cross a gap, I'd just tell the Dragonkin's player that this was an old module written without knowledge that there would be large flying PCs who could bypass a huge portion of the module if they carried people across, and ask them how they want me to invent a reason they can't/won't do that
One issue Contemplatives, Dragonkin, and Skittermanders (of the scrabbler heritage) do introduce is the ability to stay indefinitely out of reach of a melee only enemy while still maintaining use of a set of arms with witch to use ranged weapons, but unless the entire party can do that, most combats will be fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2) There are Pathfinder ancestries that also get flight at level 1. I recognize that the Dragonkin has a longer flight speed, but I still don't think that this is game breaking. What was game breaking in this context was having the PC ferry the other players. There are rules for PCs being mounted by other PCs, and as a GM I would have applied those rules to the challenge.
Carrying someone across a gap sounds far more like using the Bulk of Creatures rule than PCs as mounts rule.
OP didn't mention those being carried trying to take actions mid-lift.I do think OP's story is a good cautionary tale about mixing PF2 and SF2 not being quite as harmonious as top level discussions have indicated.
Yeah, this. We have bulk rules so a princess carry is possible that wouldn't give the carried person the actions they would if in a mounted position. I can't see enforcing mounted rules UNLESS the character is actually mounting the other PC in some way like a Sprite on a Dragonkins shoulder.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One issue Contemplatives, Dragonkin, and Skittermanders (of the scrabbler heritage) do introduce is the ability to stay indefinitely out of reach of a melee only enemy while still maintaining use of a set of arms with witch to use ranged weapons, but unless the entire party can do that, most combats will be fine.
Although I do agree that this is a problem, and have witnessed this trivialize fights in D&D, I question how this is any different from the case of the Dragonkin trivializing the obstacle: if we're okay with the party skipping bits of exploration gameplay entirely, what's wrong with the party shortening encounters by the same amount by taking potshots at the melee enemies from the air until they die? Is it really okay for any part of the game to be trivialized in either manner when Society play normally aims to avoid this kind of situation?
One issue Contemplatives, Dragonkin, and Skittermanders (of the scrabbler heritage) do introduce is the ability to stay indefinitely out of reach of a melee only enemy while still maintaining use of a set of arms with witch to use ranged weapons, but unless the entire party can do that, most combats will be fine.Although I do agree that this is a problem, and have witnessed this trivialize fights in D&D, I question how this is any different from the case of the Dragonkin trivializing the obstacle: if we're okay with the party skipping bits of exploration gameplay entirely, what's wrong with the party shortening encounters by the same amount by taking potshots at the melee enemies from the air until they die? Is it really okay for any part of the game to be trivialized in either manner when Society play normally aims to avoid this kind of situation?
The difference is one of scope. While I don't recognize the scenario the OP mentions, what was skipped here was probably a round or two of skill checks. The core experience of overcoming an obstacle still happened, just in an unanticipated way. Maybe if the GM really feels players need to roll dice, they can have a surpise gust if wind call for an athletics check to hold onto the passenger.
Although now that I think about it, I was wrong to single out combat. Flight could be equally disruptive in exploration *If* the entire party has it. If only part of the party can fly, time pressure and danger cam be used to encourage the PCs to be more inventive. But if the entire party can fly, things get tricky. I can think of a number of PFS scenarios involving scaling mountains or other heights where a continuously flying party can bypass huge portions of the adventure (Although one of the ones that came to mind might actually have a good justification for the party to stay grounded, now that I recall).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This sounds more like a PFS failing than the system itself. We've known from the get-go that mixing SF2e and PF2e will come with issues like flight from level 1.
I don't know how much you can argue something is power-creep when it's from an optional ruleset that explicitly flags this as a problem. It'd be another thing if Dragonkin was a printed ancestry in Pf2e.
Yeah, this seems like purely a PFS mistake.
Low level PF2 adventures aren't designed with permanent or even temporary flight in mind. So SF2 ancestries in PF2 should not get those speeds for free at level 1.
It is a failure of PFS that they (seeemingly) don't have a rule for that.
I actually wrote something up for that a while ago. Primarily focussed around Barathu and Contemplative,but should also work for Dragonkin.
Yes the reason in SF2 flight is no big deal is basically everybody is expected to not only have a ranged weapon but for the bulk of people to be predominantly ranged based attackers. If you move something with innate fly speed to PF2 need to adjust it a bit or something like a contemplative just floats around blasting things that can't fight back.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The difference is one of scope. While I don't recognize the scenario the OP mentions, what was skipped here was probably a round or two of skill checks. The core experience of overcoming an obstacle still happened, just in an unanticipated way. Maybe if the GM really feels players need to roll dice, they can have a surpise gust if wind call for an athletics check to hold onto the passenger.
Right, but that round of skill checks is still important, otherwise there would be no reason to include it. Not only that, navigating obstacles like this is something players invest part of their build towards as well, whether it's putting skill increases into Athletics, getting rope, having spells like gecko grip, and so on. Normally, the earliest one can access full flight in Pathfinder is with a fly spell at 7th level, and it's a major investment at that point. All of that just kinda collapses when you start introducing cheap 1st-level options that accomplish all of this at no resource cost. This is fine in Starfinder, because Starfinder's obstacles account for flight and impose different challenges instead, but Pathfinder treats flight as a thing you only get at higher levels, and going against that has meaningful consequences in all aspects of play, particularly with the prospect of all-flying parties.
|
|
I do think OP's story is a good cautionary tale about mixing PF2 and SF2 not being quite as harmonious as top level discussions have indicated.I have not seen a single compatibility discussion where the flight issue wasn't explicitly mentioned.
Because I am the one that mentions it, if nobody else did!
Absolutely, forum goblins like us are the ones discussing it.
It's the promotional material that will talk about the games being fully compatible and gloss over the peculiarities that don't work so nicely. That's what I meant by "top level discussions".
TBT I think the Commander granting everyone a Climb or Swim speed will be a much more common problem for PFS low-level scenarios than a few PCs with ancestries from SF2.
A low level Commander has what, 5 tactics known and 3 active? If they've invested 2 known and at least one active one into that and it happens to come up, then that's their class investing a chunk of power into being able to do that.
That's not even a new thing: back in PF1 whenever anyone even hinted an adventure might have water to deal with, someone would immediately spend prestige to go buy wands for things like Touch of the Sea, because no one wants to deal with that.
That's not even a new thing: back in PF1 whenever anyone even hinted an adventure might have water to deal with, someone would immediately spend prestige to go buy wands for things like Touch of the Sea, because no one wants to deal with that.
A bit off topic, but I wonder why companies insist of making non-ground combat suck when all it does is either that players do not engage with it at all or they search for ways to ignore or remove its downsides? I feel both water and flying combat could be simplified and it would be for the better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A low level Commander has what, 5 tactics known and 3 active? If they've invested 2 known and at least one active one into that and it happens to come up, then that's their class investing a chunk of power into being able to do that.
Mountaineering/Naval Training are ones I'D take if I thought there was any chance I'd run into those checks if I was playing a Commander as just preparing it allows the use of your Warfare Lore for Climb/Swim checks so you don't have to worry about low Str and/or Athletics. You can also swap out tactics in 10 min, so as long as it's not an Immedient need, you can swap them in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although I do agree that this is a problem, and have witnessed this trivialize fights in D&D, I question how this is any different from the case of the Dragonkin trivializing the obstacle: if we're okay with the party skipping bits of exploration gameplay entirely, what's wrong with the party shortening encounters by the same amount by taking potshots at the melee enemies from the air until they die? Is it really okay for any part of the game to be trivialized in either manner when Society play normally aims to avoid this kind of situation?
The difference between "skipping exploration material" and "trivializing obstacles" is that the game basically works by setting a rhythm for alternating "you can do what you want here" and "you need to overcome this hurdle to progress". When players skip exploration material they are looking to get to the next obstacle quicker, but ideally there are still obstacles that create challenge and drama. If the party would make the obstacle trivial or otherwise uninteresting, a GM should either tweak it or skip it entirely.
My understanding is that PFS GMs are supposed to run the adventure exactly as written, but the person writing the scenario can't account for how many obstacles the party can simply bypass with "one PC who can fly". For a given session it could hypothetically be every single obstacle or it could just be one obstacle. Ideally every PC should get to feel special occasionally because of their capabilities being useful, but it shouldn't be one person most of the time for just a single choice they made.
So flying PCs seem acceptable in Pathfinder games where the GM knows the capabilities of the party in advance and can plan to challenge them appropriately, but they really shouldn't be in PFS.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difference between "skipping exploration material" and "trivializing obstacles" is that the game basically works by setting a rhythm for alternating "you can do what you want here" and "you need to overcome this hurdle to progress". When players skip exploration material they are looking to get to the next obstacle quicker, but ideally there are still obstacles that create challenge and drama. If the party would make the obstacle trivial or otherwise uninteresting, a GM should either tweak it or skip it entirely.
I don't think that's really a difference either, though, since players trivializing combat encounters would similarly just get to the next obstacle quicker, and there'd ideally be a more challenging encounter further down the line. The problem with flight is that it easily trivializes challenges that would normally be interesting at low level in Pathfinder, which makes gameplay that much more brittle overall.
So flying PCs seem acceptable in Pathfinder games where the GM knows the capabilities of the party in advance and can plan to challenge them appropriately, but they really shouldn't be in PFS.
I agree to an extent, which is why I think a conversion guide would really help. Ideally, there should be multiple options outlined for the GM depending on how they want to handle Starfinder content in Pathfinder and vice versa: for flight at level 1, there should be the straightforward option of converting that to a series of less disruptive mobility improvements to avoid needing to adjust obstacles or encounters, but then it would be good to also have an outline of Starfinder's exploration and encounter design around flight, so that a GM can port that over to their Pathfinder games if they want to allow flying PCs at level 1. Effectively, make the implicit or tacit design rules explicit, so that the GM has all the tools they need to deliver a suitably challenging experience.
Important to note though is that all of this increases overhead for the GM, even with a straightforward guide: one of 2e's advantages in my opinion is that compared to some other rules-heavy TTRPGs, it doesn't expect the GM to also be a game designer in order to be able to run a game session smoothly. By default, the GM doesn't have to expect to fill in many blanks or house rule fixes to broken game elements, and above all they don't have to proof their adventure against a PC potentially breaking entire bits of their campaign over their knee with some specific feat or spell. This I think starts to introduce some of that proofing that many GMs switched systems just to avoid, and for that reason I think it's going to be important going forward to respect GMs who don't want to take on this extra homework. Something tells me there's going to be a lot of players pushing their GMs to include Starfinder content at their Pathfinder table, and a lot of online discussion handwaving the extra effort this requires on the GM's part. We need to watch out and push back against this, lest we start putting GMs in an uncomfortable position where they're expected to bend over backwards just to cater to their players' wishes and make their game work at the same time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A low level Commander has what, 5 tactics known and 3 active? If they've invested 2 known and at least one active one into that and it happens to come up, then that's their class investing a chunk of power into being able to do that.Mountaineering/Naval Training are ones I'D take if I thought there was any chance I'd run into those checks if I was playing a Commander as just preparing it allows the use of your Warfare Lore for Climb/Swim checks so you don't have to worry about low Str and/or Athletics. You can also swap out tactics in 10 min, so as long as it's not an Immedient need, you can swap them in.
I'd do the same thing. They're good tactics. But that's someone investing a chunk of their class power into being able to do that specific thing for the team.
So I don't think its a great comparison to "someone got a boon to bring over an ancestry from another game that can simply bypass this because it has something no PF2 character can have at this level."
|
TBT I think the Commander granting everyone a Climb or Swim speed will be a much more common problem for PFS low-level scenarios than a few PCs with ancestries from SF2.A low level Commander has what, 5 tactics known and 3 active? If they've invested 2 known and at least one active one into that and it happens to come up, then that's their class investing a chunk of power into being able to do that.
Compare it to Raging Athlete: you spend a level 4 feat to get a Climb and Swim speed just for yourself.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's almost impossible to power creep PF2. I'd have to see it happen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's almost impossible to power creep PF2. I'd have to see it happen.
Timber Sentinel sends its regards waits there, menacingly, for 1 minute.
I am honestly worried about power creep, tbh.
I started playing Alchemist before Treasure Vault, and oh boy, there has already been a hecking lot of power creep within alch items.
I was delving into the Abomination Vaults before the whippersnappers were drinking their fancy Numbing Tonics, or throwing their stinky Sunk Bombs!
Imo powercreep is also becoming more undeniable other areas, such as new spells.
Even (non AP!) archetypes are pushing that line more and more, imo. Spirit Warrior, etc. Even Firework Tech.
and I'm not an old player who is comparing this in a "powercreep is not as bad as it used to be in ___ system" manner. I'm a pretty blank ttrpg slate. I do honestly think many old options are already being rendered obsolete. And we will soon see issues with old content being designed around the old power level, while newer content considers the present-moment power level. That's what really starts to screw up the fun/playability of a system like this.
I think that some people messes power creep with powerful options.
Power creep is something that affects the game balance negatively. The know if something becomes a power creep, you need to answer these 3 questions:
For example:
SF2e lvl 1 flight:
SF2e ranged weapons:
Timber Sentinel:
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't understand what timber sentinel is power creeping. Power creep is when an older option is rendered obsolete by a newer option which is stronger.
Timber sentinel being a stronger guardian tree isn't power creep, because nobody in their right mind is going to take a kineticist dedication just for timber sentinel because it's stronger protector tree.
Same with numbing tonic. What's that completely replacing?
As yuriP said. Something being above baseline =/= power creep. There's above baseline options in the legacy PHB.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't understand what timber sentinel is power creeping. Power creep is when an older option is rendered obsolete by a newer option which is stronger.
Timber sentinel being a stronger guardian tree isn't power creep, because nobody in their right mind is going to take a kineticist dedication just for timber sentinel because it's stronger protector tree.
Same with numbing tonic. What's that completely replacing?
As yuriP said. Something being above baseline =/= power creep. There's above baseline options in the legacy PHB.
I don't know about numbing tonic, but multiclass kineticist for Timber Sentinel is very much a thing. The main reason it isn't widespread is because outside of games where you control an entire party (e.g. Dawnsbury Days), it's *boring*.