| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, a max R spell you can spam is quite dangerous from a powercreep PoV.
I literally used Multitalented to poach Timber Sentinel because it fit within the PC's flavor, and was incredibly powerful (more than expected). It was my first re-built PC after the remaster, and the plan was for it to give my now too-few alch items breathing room (because I didn't want to pick Medic yet again)
I underestimated how much TS just nullified Strikes as a danger to the party, and ended up inventing an in-story reason to only use it in emergencies. Yes, it is stupid powerful, so much so that I recommend GMs house nerf it, such as by down Ranking it 1 or 2, adding Overflow, etc.
.
The powercreep treadmill is about the addition of a new option causing the old to be no longer used. For that to happen, you either need new, previously impossible niche options that have greater appeal as a side-grade. Or, an already served niche / use-case is now *better* served by the new option; the old has been power-crept.
And new uncommons like Inflammation Flask have taken over (the math of) damage bombs. d6 damage, while imposing a no save weakness to 3 common types of damage? So a single weakness proc (from anyone) pseudo-upgrades to d8, and it only gets better from there? Can potentially steal actions to remove the weakness? Wow, wtf.
.
Numbing Tonic is a proactive elixir that can be used on full HP targets. Both it and the Elix o Lf have L9 versions. At L9, you need to benefit from 3 turns worth of Numbing tHP (30 tHP) to surpass the El o' Lf avg healing (29.5). That's the point where putting aside Numbing's side benefits, it outright does more HP work than *the* "healing elixir."
This is one that at first glance looks like a new niche example, but the issue lies in just how narrow of a job Elx o Lf has. The psn/disease buff has literally never made a difference at a table I've played at across 4 APs.
If El o Lf heals for less HP than Numbing is likely to prevent in the first place, then El o Lf goes into the trash can, maybe sticking around for the things Numbing cannot do, like get the Dying off the floor.
Numbing is so good as a prebuff tHP source, that it *asterisk* invalidates the existing implementation of "the healing elixir" item. For a designer intending to make a side-grade, that outcome is a disaster.
There's a lot of layers to why this "Numbing first" outcome has happened.
The nature of HP/tHP options is a binary "they are >0 HP, or they are KOed" state of affairs. So the only way for Numbing to even contextually perform worse is if someone is burst down before you get 3 ticks of benefit, etc.
Elix o Lf is powercrept, and is nowadays mostly used on targets who already have a Numbing in their system.
There is even more nuance I could ramble about, such as Soothing's addition removing the other use case for El o Lf, out of combat healing, but I'll cut myself off there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The power level of rogues before and after Gang Up is pretty hard to ignore, especially when comparing premaster and Remaster Gang Up.
Very much a "must have or feel weaker than others" type of option.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a pretty blank ttrpg slate. I do honestly think many old options are already being rendered obsolete.
Most of the stuff that's being 'rendered obsolete' are things that were niche or low value to begin with. From a certain perspective, it's less generalized power creep and more course correction on bad decisions.
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.
Paizo content is almost always designed with a lower common denominator. Everything trends on the easy side... and Paizo's most notoriously hard modules are some of the oldest ones, not the newer stuff. This just doesn't seem like a realistic concern on either level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The power level of rogues before and after Gang Up is pretty hard to ignore, especially when comparing premaster and Remaster Gang Up.
Very much a "must have or feel weaker than others" type of option.
It was a "must have" before the Remaster and now it is better. But it doesn't break the game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was a "must have" before the Remaster and now it is better. But it doesn't break the game.The power level of rogues before and after Gang Up is pretty hard to ignore, especially when comparing premaster and Remaster Gang Up.
Very much a "must have or feel weaker than others" type of option.
"Must have" and "breaks the game" are synonymous in my mind.
I've never seen a rogue take any other level 6 option. That lack of (practical) choice really hurts the game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was a "must have" before the Remaster and now it is better. But it doesn't break the game.The power level of rogues before and after Gang Up is pretty hard to ignore, especially when comparing premaster and Remaster Gang Up.
Very much a "must have or feel weaker than others" type of option.
I don't actually think Gang Up is a must have.
If the group has 2 or 3 melee martials playing intelligently Flanking is pretty easy to arrange anyway. Now, Gang Up makes it absolutely trivial (especially with a reach weapon) but there isn't a huge difference between "pretty easy" and "absolutely trivial".
Its very nice, of course, and a very common choice for a melee rogue. But I've played and seen played characters who took a different L6 feat for a particular build.
I underestimated how much TS just nullified Strikes as a danger to the party, and ended up inventing an in-story reason to only use it in emergencies. Yes, it is stupid powerful, so much so that I recommend GMs house nerf it, such as by down Ranking it 1 or 2, adding Overflow, etc.
IMO every impulse that is so strong as a spell of the same level should cost one more action + overflow to be balanced vs casters that can only use them only few times per day.
This would made Timber Sentinel something that would require the entire kineticist turn and would only repeatable only every 2 round and would cost your aura too.
About Alchemical Items. Even with your examples I still don't think that none of alchemical items are makes power creep. They are good but are also still limited to up to 6 quick alchemy per rank or daily limited. They aren't more powerful than a focus spell (just remember that a Lay on Hand heals 6 * rank +1 status bonus to AC at cost of only one action).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.Oh I dunno, that one, the healing ones, and a couple of the stances make it really tempting. Use-all-you-want on things where your attack or save DC doesn't matter are like this whole other dimension of niceness. IMO the thing holding the kineticist archetype back is not what you get but when you get it; waiting until L4 to get your first impulse, then getting 1 per 2 levels is kinda meh. I think a lot of other archetypes deliver a quicker 'hit' of benefit.
Okay but now we're talking about kineticist in general being strong. Kineticist has not entriely overshadowed prior options to the point where you're causing yourself problems by not taking it. I'm not denying it's a stronger-than-baseline ability. It obviously is.
My point is that it has not created a problem where anyone who would want to take protector tree is instead coaxed into taking kineticist dedication JUST for timber sentinel.
Again to go back to YuriP's point, Strong =/= power creep. It's why I don't think Numbing tonic is a strict upgrade to elixir of life. There are lots of situations where you want to pick one or the other.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would hardly call Gang Up a must have.
It is good? For sure, but since movement in combat is way more common in PF2e than in other systems I find flanking is pretty much the default state of most martials anyways. I see Gang Up being more useful on parties with casters since that exta positioning can be crucial for the caster to blast without worrying damaging an ally, but since neither I or the players I usually play with favor casters I find Gang Up to be a good but not mandatory option.
Timber Sentinel is a whole different story though.
I GM for a summoner with the plant eidolon that took the kineticist archetype just for Timber Sentinel and most of his turns revolve around spamming Tree Sentinel which pretty much makes the party immortal. I obviously know the party would probably won those encounters anyways and there's ways around it like AoE damage, but paired with the fact that there's a commander with the Plant Banner feat as well they usually end encounters mostly unharmed unless the enemies have AoE or are boss encounters. I wouldn't call it a "must have" exactly, but its certainly a huge defense boost to the party, and indirectly probably the best heal in the system.
It was a “must have” before the Remaster and now it is better. But it doesn't break the game.The power level of rogues before and after Gang Up is pretty hard to ignore, especially when comparing premaster and Remaster Gang Up.
Very much a “must have or feel weaker than others” type of option.
”Must have” and “breaks the game” are synonymous in my mind.
I've never seen a rogue take any other level 6 option. That lack of (practical) choice really hurts the game.
It's a must-have for rogues not for everyone. That's my point about power creep.
I don't see most martial characters needing to take a rogue archetype to empower their builds because there are many other ways to put the enemy off-guard.
In terms of be a must-have for “everyone”, exemplar archetype is under a way more dangerous position where you probably have some ikon that improve significantly your martial build and unless you don't have enough feat slots you have no reason to not take it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a must-have for rogues not for everyone. That's my point about power creep.It was a “must have” before the Remaster and now it is better. But it doesn't break the game.The power level of rogues before and after Gang Up is pretty hard to ignore, especially when comparing premaster and Remaster Gang Up.
Very much a “must have or feel weaker than others” type of option.
”Must have” and “breaks the game” are synonymous in my mind.
I've never seen a rogue take any other level 6 option. That lack of (practical) choice really hurts the game.
My problem with gang up is that it makes Rogues much less interesting once they get it, especially with opportune backstab waiting at level 8. Suddenly there is absolutely a best way to play a rogue, and that is melee, standing next to a tanky ally. Flanking goes out the window, stealth goes out the window, ranged attacks fall to a paltry back up option at best, and it just becomes do the same thing over and over again. That is the kind of overpowered options that I don’t want to see more of in the game (over powered vs any other option you could possibly choose in almost every possible circumstance). It is also an option available from the beginning so it isn’t really power creep.
I think flight at level 1 is similarly bad, but it is not something that is generally available, so it is not going to ruin anything, not even PFS. Very few players are going to have any characters with these options and those that do will have 1 that will level up and eventually not be a problem/different anymore.
|
I don't see most martial characters needing to take a rogue archetype to empower their builds because there are many other ways to put the enemy off-guard.In terms of be a must-have for “everyone”, exemplar archetype is under a way more dangerous position where you probably have some ikon that improve significantly your martial build and unless you don't have enough feat slots you have no reason to not take it.
This is a wild take, to me. Things can be power crept to the point of obviating previously existing options, but if those new things aren't so busted as to be considered mandatory in every related build, it's not a problem?
Imo this was precisely WotC's perspective going in to the printing of the Modern Horizons sets. Absolutely warped the format.
Up thread where they were discussing flyers picking up another character and flying with them would be difficult because of how bulk affects speed
I think you could give dragonkin a ancestry feat strong wings that would allow them to fly with 5 additional bulk paired with hefty hauler would give them 7 additional bulk that would allow them to fly non champions or defenders who are at 10 or more bulk.What would the group think of a feat for champions and defenders to half the bulk of their armor and shield at between 6 to 8 level.
Ravingdprk the two must have feats for rogues are Gang up at 6h and oppertune Backstab at 8th and for the Guardian Group Taunt at 8th level.
Bulk of Creatures, Player Core pg. 269
Tiny 1Small 3
Medium 6
Large 12
Nothing says those numbers are modified in any way by equipment worn by the carried PC: A naked PC and a fully equipped PC have the same bulk [difficult to handle, size, weight, and general awkwardness]. Or a DM could read it as JUST the PC but with the push in the errata to simplify and make bulk less punishing, I'd think having to add equipment would be noted if required.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was a "must have" before the Remaster and now it is better. But it doesn't break the game.The power level of rogues before and after Gang Up is pretty hard to ignore, especially when comparing premaster and Remaster Gang Up.
Very much a "must have or feel weaker than others" type of option.
"Must have" and "breaks the game" are synonymous in my mind.
I've never seen a rogue take any other level 6 option. That lack of (practical) choice really hurts the game.
I don't have a problem with it. It doesn't give anything trip doesn't give or regular flanking. It makes it easier for the rogue with a group benefit now. At higher level it becomes less necessary and you could switch it out. Rogue is so reliant on flanking or off-guard that a feat to make it easy is a must have without breaking the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Up thread where they were discussing flyers picking up another character and flying with them would be difficult because of how bulk affects speed
I think you could give dragonkin a ancestry feat strong wings that would allow them to fly with 5 additional bulk paired with hefty hauler would give them 7 additional bulk that would allow them to fly non champions or defenders who are at 10 or more bulk.What would the group think of a feat for champions and defenders to half the bulk of their armor and shield at between 6 to 8 level.
Ravingdprk the two must have feats for rogues are Gang up at 6h and oppertune Backstab at 8th and for the Guardian Group Taunt at 8th level.
Bulk of Creatures, Player Core pg. 269
Tiny 1
Small 3
Medium 6
Large 12Nothing says those numbers are modified in any way by equipment worn by the carried PC: A naked PC and a fully equipped PC have the same bulk [difficult to handle, size, weight, and general awkwardness]. Or a DM could read it as JUST the PC but with the push in the errata to simplify and make bulk less punishing, I'd think having to add equipment would be noted if required.
On the flip side, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that a naked human and a human wearing heavy armor with a bunch of large weapons, packs, and gear all stowed on their person are exactly the same difficulty to carry.
The rules don't say gear counts, but it also doesn't say gear doesn't count. But it leads to utterly nonsensical outcomes if gear doesn't count, like you can load up someone to max encumbrance and have someone else carry that person, and all that gear suddenly doesn't exist.
Bulk as a system just doesn't work very well as soon as you get outside the common scenario.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with gang up is that it makes Rogues much less interesting once they get it, especially with opportune backstab waiting at level 8. Suddenly there is absolutely a best way to play a rogue, and that is melee, standing next to a tanky ally. Flanking goes out the window, stealth goes out the window, ranged attacks fall to a paltry back up option at best, and it just becomes do the same thing over and over again. That is the kind of overpowered options that I don’t want to see more of in the game (over powered vs any other option you could possibly choose in almost every possible circumstance). It is also an option available from the beginning so it isn’t really power creep.
If its power creep or not is kind of a moot point, but I agree in general. Gang Up is far and away the strongest thing at its level, to the point that I've never seen anyone take anything else unless they were playing Ranged where it didn't work. In melee it's flat out the best option, full stop.
The big problem with it is that it eliminates the tactical play to get flanking, which in some fights actually takes some effort... or in a tight space may not be doable. No need to tumble through to get it, no need to move away from the Champion and take the risk on big enemies. Nope. You show up, you flank, full stop.
It's utterly baffling that it got buffed in the Remaster when it was already a must take. Remaster Rogue in general does have some power creep on it, since it was already really good and got buffed for no apparent reason whatsoever.
Timber Sentinel is a whole different story though.
I GM for a summoner with the plant eidolon that took the kineticist archetype just for Timber Sentinel and most of his turns revolve around spamming Tree Sentinel which pretty much makes the party immortal. I obviously know the party would probably won those encounters anyways and there's ways around it like AoE damage, but paired with the fact that there's a commander with the Plant Banner feat as well they usually end encounters mostly unharmed unless the enemies have AoE or are boss encounters. I wouldn't call it a "must have" exactly, but its certainly a huge defense boost to the party, and indirectly probably the best heal in the system.
Yeah, I always tetter on house rule nerfing Timber Sentinel. It's an infinite use max rank spell. What else in the game works like that?
Aside from making the actual spell look ridiculous in comparison (it's very expensive to cast vs getting it from Kineticist), it is often simply the best thing to do and because its so good, can lead to situations where a player feels like they should do it despite how repetitive it gets because it's so much better than their other options.
It's right on the edge of "this should be nerfed."
This is a wild take, to me. Things can be power crept to the point of obviating previously existing options, but if those new things aren't so busted as to be considered mandatory in every related build, it's not a problem?
I don't see most martial characters needing to take a rogue archetype to empower their builds because there are many other ways to put the enemy off-guard.In terms of be a must-have for “everyone”, exemplar archetype is under a way more dangerous position where you probably have some ikon that improve significantly your martial build and unless you don't have enough feat slots you have no reason to not take it.
Not as long as it is encapsulated within the class itself.
I'm not saying that isn't a design issue but while a must-have option is not something that extrapolate the class/ancestry space it still limited inside the its own context about bombers being the generally the best alchemist subclass or resentment witches being considered the best witch subclass or starlit span being the best magus class or the opposite like fury being the worse barbarian subclass. They are design problems about some inside unbalances of the classes that mainly impacts its own effectiveness, but not extrapolates it to a point of affect other classes.
The power creep really happens when something like CoDzilla happens and we start to have strong metas like happens in D&D when you will see someone say something like “doesn't take this class it's bad, you can do way better this another class”.
Currently, I see this a bit with swashbuckler and investigator when they are compared with rogues and disputes the same role both mechanically or thematically. Before remaster before these classes are slightly bad than rogues doing similar roles, after remaster because the rogue is now slightly better than these classes. We still aren't in a situation where this goes to a point where the difference is so big to a point to someone point that doesn't worth to play with these classes or that play as rogue is a general meta but we already can say that rogues is already a bit overpowered over same role alternatives.
|
|
In terms of be a must-have for “everyone”, exemplar archetype is under a way more dangerous position where you probably have some ikon that improve significantly your martial build and unless you don't have enough feat slots you have no reason to not take it.
Well yeah. Exemplar archetype was so transparently overpowered that it just got banned at an awful lot of tables. Problem solved :-).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The limit that I see with Timber Sentinel, and why it wasn't a problem in either campaign I saw it in, is that it can be overcome tactically with relative ease.
It takes damage from AOE.
3rd attacks that would miss other things can easily crit it.
Moving away from the Tree can make it very difficult to get much out of it defensively.
At a range of 30ft, a mobile/dynamic encounter can make it where the person casting/using it is doing nothing else.
Those things don't make it useless, and both the party I played with and the party I GM'd for was able to get a lot of damage mitigation from it over the course of a campaign, but smart enemies can get around it without nearly as much trouble as dealing with the gang up + opportune backstab rogue.
I feel like an overpowered ability that prevents/heals a lot of damage is less problematic than an overpowered ability that does a lot of damage. Since what you're doing by spamming timber sentinel is "you're allowing the other members of the party to do their thing for longer" as opposed to "you're rendering the rest of the party irrelevant."
The basic risk of bad intraparty balance is that you run the risk of ending up with a "main character" who solves the problems and their cheer squad is there too. If you're voluntarily taking on a support role, I'm not really worried if you're too good at it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've played a Kineticist up to level 20 and I've routinely run into situations where using Timber Sentinel did nothing due to common monster abilities, making me waste 2 actions for zero gain. It's certainly a very good ability, but there's just so many counters to it that only get more numerous the higher level you go that it's hard for me to say it's actually OP after using it extensively in a multiyear campaign. In fact, I'd sooner say that Protector Tree is underpowered as a slotted spell before claiming Timber Sentinel's OP.
My players never use Timber Sentinel. It's not a very satisfying way to use your actions, especially as you level up. The idea of using the same ability you get at level 1 over and over and over and over again is pretty unappealing.
I've played a Kineticist up to level 20 and I've routinely run into situations where using Timber Sentinel did nothing due to common monster abilities, making me waste 2 actions for zero gain. It's certainly a very good ability, but there's just so many counters to it that only get more numerous the higher level you go that it's hard for me to say it's actually OP after using it extensively in a multiyear campaign. In fact, I'd sooner say that Protector Tree is underpowered as a slotted spell before claiming Timber Sentinel's OP.
Although Protector Tree is unlikely to be overpowered at high level, I don’t think it’s a strong argument to claim this just because it’s being misused. I wouldn’t call slow a weak spell just because monsters with high Fort saves and Inexorable exist, either.
More generally, I’m not sure why we’re talking about specific Pathfinder mechanics here as instances of power creep. The remaster did make classes generally more powerful, and stronger options undeniably exist that make weaker alternatives less desirable, but I don’t think that necessarily relates to OP’s discussion of Starfinder and how it provides certain abilities for cheap. Flight at level 1 does run the risk of warping Pathfinder’s gameplay on a large scale, hence why there should probably be adjustments made when porting content across games.
Flight at level 1 didn’t get added directly to PF2 though. A handful of PFS characters are going to have it, but people are only going to be able to have one such character and past low levels with that character that access isn’t going to matter any more. If anything, it sort of creates a test opportunity that can be examined later.
I think it incredibly unlikely to result in massive errata to allow level 1 flight across the board, and to not do that but just introduce new material that does give level 1 flight would be a prime “power creep” example, but that isn’t what happened.
On the flip side, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that a naked human and a human wearing heavy armor with a bunch of large weapons, packs, and gear all stowed on their person are exactly the same difficulty to carry.
I don't really agree as Bulk itself doesn't make a lot of sense on its face as a useful measurement of anything. It encapsulates "size, weight, and general awkwardness" and I'd argue that the main factor in size and general awkwardness in a PC would come from the PC themselves as the rest is strapped/attached to the person: that leaves weight and that just isn't going to be as much of a factor as the game seems to minimize its relevance in favor of usability like how weighty things like 999 gold coins have no bulk even though they'd be heavy in weight while 1000 coins are as 'Bulky' as a staff even though the weight difference in an ounce and it had no discernible change in size or general awkwardness. Add to that that you can have a 7'5" 320 pound male Nagaji and a 4' 61 pound female Tengu both being the exact same 6 bulk and I just don't see how/why equipment is a factor.
The rules don't say gear counts, but it also doesn't say gear doesn't count. But it leads to utterly nonsensical outcomes if gear doesn't count, like you can load up someone to max encumbrance and have someone else carry that person, and all that gear suddenly doesn't exist.
The entire bulk system leads to utterly nonsensical outcomes as I can stuff a halfling in my backpack, have one under each arm and be perfectly fine for moving, attacking, ect all day. As such any 'it doesn't make sense' arguments about Bulk don't hold water with me. The low Bulk number for carrying PCs was clearly put there so you could easily move PC, like moving them to safety; having to add equipment means there would be no point in doing so as your equipment plus their equipment plus their bulk would likely push most PCs past their limit of 10+PS bulk. I can't imagine the only reason it was made was for dragging.
Bulk as a system just doesn't work very well as soon as you get outside the common scenario.
I'd say it's closer to 'Bulk as a system just doesn't work very well' and leave it at that.
PS: As a side note, I've seen both ways ruled in play.
Flight at level 1 didn’t get added directly to PF2 though. A handful of PFS characters are going to have it,
I don’t think anyone here is making the claim that Pathfinder is directly adding flight at level 1 to its own player options, but your claim is also an admission that it is now a possibility, and in PFS of all places. The root of the discussion here is the inclusion of Starfinder content in Pathfinder, which the developers have touted as a feature. I wouldn’t necessarily call it power creep either, though, so much as an incompatibility in the balancing of certain character abilities like flight, but the fact remains that this is something to to be wary of now that both games are released and are likely to have bits of their content included in each others’ sessions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bulk is one of those rules that I always felt pointless. I don't recall a single table I was in that used bulk rules, but GMs still asked players to not carry around 1000 things in their backpack because it didn't make sense. The few times I remember bulk being discussed it was usually for players searching ways to mostly ignore it, which usually isn't particularly difficulty (bags of holding being the easiest and most accesible option). Thats why I kinda ask myself if there's a ton of tables that don't use them (or don't use them RAW at least) and those who use them search for ways on how to ignore it, why don't make it a "a GM determines if you are overencumbered or not" rule and call it a day? It would also save a ton of page space if you removed the bulk of every single item.
Bulk is one of those rules that I always felt pointless. I don't recall a single table I was in that used bulk rules, but GMs still asked players to not carry around 1000 things in their backpack because it didn't make sense. The few times I remember bulk being discussed it was usually for players searching ways to mostly ignore it, which usually isn't particularly difficulty (bags of holding being the easiest and most accesible option). Thats why I kinda ask myself if there's a ton of tables that don't use them (or don't use them RAW at least) and those who use them search for ways on how to ignore it, why don't make it a "a GM determines if you are overencumbered or not" rule and call it a day? It would also save a ton of page space if you removed the bulk of every single item.
Agreed. I prefer the 'you can carry a reasonable amount of gear and if you pass that threshold the Dm can give you encumbered' houserule. I've seen RAW bulk to 100% ignoring it [and things like normal ammo, food, water] and I have yet to find a situation where I found Bulk added anything positive to the game. They could take the space used to explain Bulk and use it to explain how to use minions in modes other than encounter mode or what an instance of damage is and I'd be much happier.
Flight at level 1 didn’t get added directly to PF2 though. A handful of PFS characters are going to have it,I don’t think anyone here is making the claim that Pathfinder is directly adding flight at level 1 to its own player options, but your claim is also an admission that it is now a possibility, and in PFS of all places. The root of the discussion here is the inclusion of Starfinder content in Pathfinder, which the developers have touted as a feature. I wouldn’t necessarily call it power creep either, though, so much as an incompatibility in the balancing of certain character abilities like flight, but the fact remains that this is something to to be wary of now that both games are released and are likely to have bits of their content included in each others’ sessions.
I don't think one time events really get to decide "power creep" for a system. It is not the system itself breaking. SF2 is compatible with PF2 but will change many basic assumptions about the game. This is not something that should catch anyone by surprise. A lot of Starfinder content would "break" a lot of APs and and published content as far as narrative expectations. Soldiers showing up with laser guns in Outlaws of Alkenstar, for example, is not going to just flatly, mechanically overpower PF2 characters, but the whole narrative of the campaign is going to feel pretty weird.
The Society folks decided to essentially make some slightly overpowered skins options for players who have really put in time playtesting the partnered system and in return they will last for a couple of levels.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think one time events really get to decide "power creep" for a system. It is not the system itself breaking.
As mentioned already in the comment you are quoting, I am not claiming this is power creep, so I’m not sure where your reply is really coming from. I am, however, pointing out that the issue being discussed stems from cross-pollination between the two systems, which is not a “one time event”, and I don’t think you get to be the sole decider here of what does or doesn’t count as breaking the system, by whatever vague and undefined metric it is we’re even using. There clearly are issues porting content from one system to the other, and that much is worth acknowledging.
SF2 is compatible with PF2 but will change many basic assumptions about the game. This is not something that should catch anyone by surprise.
Perhaps not, but the specifics of what those assumptions are easily can and clearly did. Knowing that the two systems are different does not mean everyone will automatically know what to look out for, otherwise those flying ancestries would likely not have been allowed in PFS without adjustments. If we want to avoid more of this in the future, whether in Society play or at people’s tables, we should probably make explicit what those systems implicitly assume to be different, and Paizo could do with giving us a conversion guide.
I don't think one time events really get to decide "power creep" for a system. It is not the system itself breaking.As mentioned already in the comment you are quoting, I am not claiming this is power creep, so I’m not sure where your reply is really coming from. I am, however, pointing out that the issue being discussed stems from cross-pollination between the two systems, which is not a “one time event”, and I don’t think you get to be the sole decider here of what does or doesn’t count as breaking the system, by whatever vague and undefined metric it is we’re even using. There clearly are issues porting content from one system to the other, and that much is worth acknowledging.
SF2 is compatible with PF2 but will change many basic assumptions about the game. This is not something that should catch anyone by surprise.Perhaps not, but the specifics of what those assumptions are easily can and clearly did. Knowing that the two systems are different does not mean everyone will automatically know what to look out for, otherwise those flying ancestries would likely not have been allowed in PFS without adjustments. If we want to avoid more of this in the future, whether in Society play or at people’s tables, we should probably make explicit what those systems implicitly assume to be different, and Paizo could do with giving us a conversion guide.
The Starfinder GM core has a specific section for dealing with this, on page 246. It talks specifically about ancestries and movement types. So the tools you are asking for already exist.
In this one specific instance, Society decided to allow something that pushes against the default assumptions of the pathfinder system. That is not a systemic issue, and it is not even really that big of a society issue because of the one character, one time nature of the boon.
The OP of this thread was talking about whether this was a sign of the floodgates of power creep on the PF2 system...the answer to which is no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bulk is one of those rules that I always felt pointless. I don't recall a single table I was in that used bulk rules, but GMs still asked players to not carry around 1000 things in their backpack because it didn't make sense. The few times I remember bulk being discussed it was usually for players searching ways to mostly ignore it, which usually isn't particularly difficulty (bags of holding being the easiest and most accesible option). Thats why I kinda ask myself if there's a ton of tables that don't use them (or don't use them RAW at least) and those who use them search for ways on how to ignore it, why don't make it a "a GM determines if you are overencumbered or not" rule and call it a day? It would also save a ton of page space if you removed the bulk of every single item.Bulk specifically exists to simplify exactly that compared to the terrible old days of lbs, and I use it at my table. Notably, the way it's calculated, you only need about 20 things for it to matter on characters for which it'll matter (the smallest bulk is 1/10 and most people will have things with real bulk). The thing that comes up most often are low Str people (usually casters) wearing medium armour and trying to have a pile of consumables in easy reach. Trying to find the line for those guys is not easy without bulk!
But why we need rules for such a thing? If player wants to keep some realism they can choose to their own volition to not take too many items into their backpack. If a GM wants to enforce a similar thing in a campaign (because I think it can work for certain campaigns) then he can say "I won't allow you to have too many items in your backpacks". It doesn't make the game fun and it kinda slows down taking loot because it makes players need to calculate if they are encumbered or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bulk specifically exists to simplify exactly that compared to the terrible old days of lbs, and I use it at my table. Notably, the way it's calculated, you only need about 20 things for it to matter on characters for which it'll matter (the smallest bulk is 1/10 and most people will have things with real bulk). The thing that comes up most often are low Str people (usually casters) wearing medium armour and trying to have a pile of consumables in easy reach. Trying to find the line for those guys is not easy without bulk!
But they replaced math with... math. It seems like a side-grade at best. people that didn't like keeping track of equipment still don't while people that do find Bulks lack of coherent measurement not what they want. It didn't get rid of fractions, multiplication, subtraction or division: they just lowered how big the numbers got. It left me wondering 'why?'. The only reason seems to be to punish low str players for a few levels until they get a way to bypass it. For myself, it seems like a lot of work to keep someone from having a few extra consumables on hand.
It does feel like the issues with combining PF2 options with SF2 or SF2 options with PF2 are something the community could figure out. Like obviously we don't need "you should not give a Pathfinder character a rotolaser unless this related to the premise of the campaign" but instead to underline things that work well, or potential trouble spots or weirdness (like how Kineticists are better than Fighters at using Plasma Cannons.)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't worry about bulk unless players start stacking insane amounts of gear. My days of going "Encumbrance. Oooh realism" are long gone. Now bulk or encumbrance are "I don't care as long as you don't stack a ridiculous amount of gear."
(like how Kineticists are better than Fighters at using Plasma Cannons.)
I mean, only the soldier is really good at using area fire and related actions in SF2e. Its not only that the kineticist is better than the fighter (or other martials for that matter), the kineticist (and commander) is better than everyone that isn't a soldier at using a plasma cannon.
It kinda surprises me they didn't go for a "attack modifier + 10" route for the DC of area fire instead.
Casters still don't increase their class DC in SF2e so its not like they made it like this so casters could use them too.
I mean... 'this is a reason to have decent Str on non-melee characters or at least not go straight for Sentinel dedication' seem a perfectly good reason for me?
there is very little else a non-melee person would want with Str when Dex is right there: ranged attack, saves and AC: If I'm putting enough points into Str for it to matter for armor, I'm pretty much going to be melee since you aren't seeing better AC unless you have at least a +3 Str and can wear Heavy.
Yes, it's still math, but it's fairly easy math.
It was always easy math, they just moved a decimal point and lumped more things into the same groupings. IMO, it just seems like change to make both groups unhappy.
Yes, it's still math, but it's fairly easy math. And the ways to 'bypass' it are still a significant cost (in either feats of magic items) at low levels.
The feats might not be of significant value [depending on your skills, they might not be overly exciting and you can get Hefty Hauler from backgrounds] and Ant Haul is a 1st level spell that lasts 8hrs. Heck, since we're focused on low levels, A simple horse can carry any gear not needed for the next fight and has as many hp as the PC's. So it just goes from annoying at low levels [unless you're a Str character] to pretty much ignored at high [I mean, how much is a wand of Ant Haul past the first few levels? or a Spacious Pouch?].
Sure, you'll eventually reach the point where it doesn't matter, but that's also true of, say, climbing and swimming.
With how easy it is to get climb/swim speed, that point can easily be 1st and they aren't abilities that low their usefulness.
...I don't think one time events really get to decide "power creep" for a system. It is not the system itself breaking.As mentioned already in the comment you are quoting, I am not claiming this is power creep, so I’m not sure where your reply is really coming from. I am, however, pointing out that the issue being discussed stems from cross-pollination between the two systems, which is not a “one time event”, and I don’t think you get to be the sole decider here of what does or doesn’t count as breaking the system, by whatever vague and undefined metric it is we’re even using. There clearly are issues porting content from one system to the other, and that much is worth acknowledging.
SF2 is compatible with PF2 but will change many basic assumptions about the game. This is not something that should catch anyone by surprise.Perhaps not, but the specifics of what those assumptions are easily can and clearly did. Knowing that the two systems are different does not mean everyone will automatically know what to look out for, otherwise those flying ancestries would likely not have been allowed in PFS without adjustments. If we want to avoid more of this in the future, whether in Society play or at people’s tables, we should probably make explicit what those systems implicitly assume to be different, and Paizo could do with giving us a conversion guide.The Starfinder GM core has a specific section for dealing with this, on page 246. It talks specifically about ancestries and movement types. So the tools you are asking for already exist.
In this one specific instance, Society decided to allow something that pushes against the default assumptions of the pathfinder system. That is not a systemic issue, and it is not even really that big of a society issue because of the one character, one time nature of the boon.
The OP of this thread was talking about whether this was a sign of the floodgates of
"It is fine for this one character a player gets to play to have this one ability a few levels early" is really not the same at all as "lets make new ancestries that just give multiple high level feats away for free and never go back and touch old flying ancestries..."
...which I agree would be a very problematic power creep problem. I really don't think that is likely. It is good that there are narrative assumptions about Pathfinder that are different from Starfinder. They are two different games and they fill different genres, with different audience expectations. Even if it was decided it was fine to let flight be one of those 1st level common abilities in PF2, it would be problematic not to errata everything that should give a level 1 flight speed into just doing so. I just don't think such an effort would be worth while as it would span stuff from multiple different books and change word counts significantly for pages where an ancestry had multiple feats tied up in it. I just see no vaule in worrying that something like that is in the pipeline just because a couple of Society players got special access to making one character with a special cross-game ancestry.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Starfinder GM core has a specific section for dealing with this, on page 246. It talks specifically about ancestries and movement types. So the tools you are asking for already exist.
As already pointed out when someone else referenced these exact same rules on this thread, and made the effort to actually quote them that time, the guidelines for archaic adventures are vague and incomplete, as they only vaguely point to Pathfinder flying ancestry feats, which no longer follow a standard progression, don't cover what to look out for when taking Pathfinder content in to Starfinder. You'll notice that I keep mentioning a conversion guide: I hope you understand that a concise reference sheet listing exact mechanics to watch out for with a concrete list of adjustments is meaningfully different from asking someone to refer to page #246 of a large rulebook in order to be told to essentially just figure it out.
In this one specific instance, Society decided to allow something that pushes against the default assumptions of the pathfinder system. That is not a systemic issue, and it is not even really that big of a society issue because of the one character, one time nature of the boon.
The OP of this thread was talking about whether this was a sign of the floodgates of power creep on the PF2 system...the answer to which is no.
Experiencing the fallout of fundamental differences in two gaming systems is quite literally a systemic issue, and as once again pointed out to you already, this risk is not exclusive to Society play. The release of SF2e invites people to include content from one game in the other, and PFS doesn't appear to have set the best example here by not following their own guidelines, vague as they are. There needs to be more attention drawn to the differences between these systems, and I think the best answer ought to be a clear guide that sets out to help GMs with concrete indications and rules for converting content. I feel like I'm being made to repeat myself quite a bit here, and in general it doesn't really feel like your latest posts here have really been about engaging with the topic of discussion, so much as attempting to show superiority over everyone else by acting like we should all have known better.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Society is its own thing. The society folks deciding to reward people who sunk untold hours of unpaid labor into playtesting the new system with something that will prove unique but limited in scope, as it is one character who levels up past the point of these differences mattering, isn’t even something that has to be projected as a mistake. Just like how a GM could decide to allow multicharge energy weapons from SF into a PF game (maybe to do something with a homebrew Iron Gods continuation) and the game itself is nothing like as broken as bringing a RIFTs laser rifle into a Paladium Fantasy RPG (two other compatible RPGs).
I feel like several pages in the Starfinder GM core is enough official feedback. It really does cover the issue just fine and I don’t think Paizo as a company needs to be scolded or chastised for letting their society play folks have a special one time reward for really helping the company out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Society is its own thing. The society folks deciding to reward people who sunk untold hours of unpaid labor into playtesting the new system with something that will prove unique but limited in scope, as it is one character who levels up past the point of these differences mattering, isn’t even something that has to be projected as a mistake.
As also already mentioned to you several times, the issue being discussed is not exclusive to Society play. I also just find it intensely weird that you would try to dress up an unbalanced option in Society as some kind of reward for playtesting, particularly as the bulk of playtesting feedback did not come from Society play.
I feel like several pages in the Starfinder GM core is enough official feedback. It really does cover the issue just fine and I don’t think Paizo as a company needs to be scolded or chastised for letting their society play folks have a special one time reward for really helping the company out.
See, I don’t think it’s enough, as it clearly wasn’t, and I similarly find it bizarre that you would try to take the mild and constructive criticism being formulated on this thread and twist it into Paizo being “scolded” or “chastised”. I generally just don’t see the point in being this defensive, especially when the criticism isn’t even being directed towards you either.
I’d also say that whether or not you personally consider that section enough is irrelevant: I don’t, I’m not alone in this either, and that enough is justification enough for requesting something like a conversion guide. Your disagreement does not cancel out my feedback or anyone else’s.