| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any interest in a Pathfinder/Starfinder hybrid book. I think it could be fun to see a book that discusses best practices for bringing elements from on setting into the other setting, while also providing a lot of additional options to use in both settings. And, this is probably a me thing, but I would love to see the Shifter Class and the Evolutionist Class blended together as a class designed for both settings.
It would be great to hear everyones thoughts on a hybrid book.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this would be best if it addressed the differences between the settings. I don’t really see a ‘best practices’ book, but more an exploration of how it’s been done in the past, the limits of that, and how things might be taken. For example, the Numerian advanced technology is a far cry from Starfinder tech, with a much grittier feel. I would like to see that updated for Pathfinder but am not really interested in bringing any Starfinder technology into my game.
I'm personally a big proponent of a conversion guide, for sure, and I definitely agree that the Shifter and Evolutionist are two sides of the same coin. In addition to this, it'd be interesting to have a bit of content specifically oriented towards hybrid play, including new cross-play character options and even a Gap-crossing AP. There's a lot of fun gaming content to be made around this, and Paizo is uniquely positioned to leverage the strengths of two different games and one underlying system here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would be more interested in something specific, like a Numerian setting book. That's got a particular focus, rather than needing to cover all the different ways there are to blend the games, and ending up a GM Core rehash. It can provide PF2-balanced tech without needing to worry about every SF2 weapon.
For a dedicated hybrid book, I think that's better once Starfinder has reached the point where Pathfinder got mythic. That gives it some time to settle into its own, and any guidelines will have the benefit of a few years of player feedback from mixing the two.
In fairness, I have zero interest in an official crossover adventure. For me, home games with their own settings are where a hybrid game shines. Since those are going to have their own blend, official conversion rules aren't actually very useful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would welcome a sequel to Iron Gods, Lost Omens: Numeria, or a planet hopping adventure path about the pre-gap Golarion System. SF2e is still in its infancy, though, so I think we need to wait for a few books beyond Tech Core before full blown crossovers are planned.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually like the idea, but specifically designed to be for Starfinder 2e, with new ancestry feats for Golarion ancestries and Class feats for the PF2e classes when they get to space, especially since they moved the existing classes away from being "Rogue IN SPACE" and "fighter IN SPACE"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's so much open space where the character creation could intersect just waiting to be filled! Everything from a "Hacker" Rogue racket built around the Computers skill to an Exemplar Icon for area weapons. Spectra Eidolon, alien ranger companions, space-age Apparitions, zero-g Monk stances!
In fairness, I have zero interest in an official crossover adventure. For me, home games with their own settings are where a hybrid game shines. Since those are going to have their own blend, official conversion rules aren't actually very useful.
I question this logic; home games are where conversion guidelines would be the most useful in my opinion. Official APs are written by Paizo who know the full design assumptions behind things like exploration puzzles and encounters, whereas homebrew campaigns are written by GMs who only have the rulebooks and existing APs as secondary references. Because Pathfinder and Starfinder rely on different assumptions for many such challenges, it would be particularly useful for a GM to have a conversion guide to avoid any unforeseen snags.
Just to list a couple of examples: Starfinder ancestries can fly at level 1, Pathfinder ancestries can't. A GM who designs a low-level Pathfinder-style environmental puzzle without flight in mind in their crossover adventure would run the risk of their setpiece getting trivialized by a Barathu or a Dragonkin, as reportedly happened in a PFS scenario where the latter ancestry was enabled. This by itself is more or less covered by SF2e's GM Core and its rules for handling Speeds, but it doesn't cover things like player-sided resistances.
So, for example two: the GM designs a severe encounter of six aeon guard troopers against a level 5 party: the troopers are ruthless and tactical, using cover and focus fire to take out the party one by one... except the party has Pathfinder-grade resistance to fire, such as Nephilim Resistance or the Kineticist's elemental resistance. The 1d8 + 2 damage on their aeon rifles drops from 6.5 to just 1.5 average damage against those party members, frequently dealing no damage at all and causing a tense encounter to fall apart.
All of which is to say: PF2e and SF2e follow slightly different conventions for balance and design that GMs homebrewing their own adventures may not be aware of, which could end up having a significant impact on the balance of their challenges. A conversion guide would therefore most certainly be to their benefit.
In fairness, I have zero interest in an official crossover adventure. For me, home games with their own settings are where a hybrid game shines. Since those are going to have their own blend, official conversion rules aren't actually very useful.I question this logic; home games are where conversion guidelines would be the most useful in my opinion. Official APs are written by Paizo who know the full design assumptions behind things like exploration puzzles and encounters, whereas homebrew campaigns are written by GMs who only have the rulebooks and existing APs as secondary references. Because Pathfinder and Starfinder rely on different assumptions for many such challenges, it would be particularly useful for a GM to have a conversion guide to avoid any unforeseen snags.
Just to list a couple of examples: Starfinder ancestries can fly at level 1, Pathfinder ancestries can't. A GM who designs a low-level Pathfinder-style environmental puzzle without flight in mind in their crossover adventure would run the risk of their setpiece getting trivialized by a Barathu or a Dragonkin, as reportedly happened in a PFS scenario where the latter ancestry was enabled. This by itself is more or less covered by SF2e's GM Core and its rules for handling Speeds, but it doesn't cover things like player-sided resistances.
So, for example two: the GM designs a severe encounter of six aeon guard troopers against a level 5 party: the troopers are ruthless and tactical, using cover and focus fire to take out the party one by one... except the party has Pathfinder-grade resistance to fire, such as Nephilim Resistance or the Kineticist's elemental resistance. The 1d8 + 2 damage on their aeon rifles drops from 6.5 to just 1.5 average damage against those party members, frequently dealing no damage at all and causing a tense encounter to fall apart.
All of which is to say: PF2e...
As you mentioned, flight is already covered by the existing conversion guidelines, and I'm fine with something like example two happening in a home game. Party has an easy time, and the GM can adjust after the one easy encounter. Most tables won't run into it at all, and it's a smaller adjustment than most I see a home-game GM needing to make. Next encounter with the Azlanti forces, the enemy commander shouts, "Shock setting only!" and there you go. Or the GM gives them some cantrips next time to use the caster trait on their guns to switch the damage type.
Paizo could go put out another book with even more detailed conversion guidelines. If they do it now, I think it'll still have similar minor gaps like not addressing player resistances, since not much has changed since the GM Core. I'm fine with those gaps, but that's why I'm fine with what we got. That's also why if we do get something more in that vein, I'd rather it be some years in, when the guidelines can have the benefit of plenty of feedback from people's games.
As you mentioned, flight is already covered by the existing conversion guidelines, and I'm fine with something like example two happening in a home game. Party has an easy time, and the GM can adjust after the one easy encounter. Most tables won't run into it at all, and it's a smaller adjustment than most I see a home-game GM needing to make. Next encounter with the Azlanti forces, the enemy commander shouts, "Shock setting only!" and there you go. Or the GM gives them some cantrips next time to use the caster trait on their guns to switch the damage type.
Just because you're okay with gross imbalances in your games does not mean everyone else is. 2e sells itself on balance and reliability, and many players have come to PF2e in particular specifically because they were promised a consistent experience that wouldn't require constant rejigging as the GM to work. Having playtested SF2e, I can also say that damage reduction does in fact come up a lot more often than you think given the existence of so much machinery with Hardness, and these resistances significantly affected the balance of certain encounters in some of the playtest adventures. Just because the GM technically can homebrew changes to specific monsters doesn't mean it's not a problem when those resistances functionally turn into immunities without said changes.
Paizo could go put out another book with even more detailed conversion guidelines. If they do it now, I think it'll still have similar minor gaps like not addressing player resistances, since not much has changed since the GM Core. I'm fine with those gaps, but that's why I'm fine with what we got. That's also why if we do get something more in that vein, I'd rather it be some years in, when the guidelines can have the benefit of plenty of feedback from people's games.
I do agree that any crossover content could benefit from some waiting time. SF2e I think has yet to find its footing, and is still missing large bits of content that many players would consider pretty essential to the setting, such as the tech we're getting in an upcoming rulebook. Once the essentials get released and the developers become more comfortable working with 2e, that I think is also when the designers are likely to be most keenly aware what the differences are between Starfinder and Pathfinder, which ought to make for much better conversion rules than the vague and half-complete guidelines we received in SF's GM Core.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like a series of hybrid books. :3
I'd like that too, there's so much potential to hybrid adventures that it need not all be contained within a single book. I suppose it'll be up to us players to express our demand for this, but I'd personally quite like one or more crossover APs in addition to at least one rulebook for hybrid play. There's definitely an opportunity for at least one character guide there too, and as TheTownsend mentions it'd be fun to see Pathfinder classes given Starfinder-oriented options as well as the opposite, such as a Robin Hood-style Envoy or a Doom Slayer Soldier who wields Hell-forged medieval weapons and armor against fiends.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like a series of hybrid books. :3
I would like this as well!
Community & Social Media Specialist
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
While you all know I can't spoil anything, I'm more than happy to just express the things I would personally enjoy as a member of the community as well. Right now we've seen iconics from both settings appear in art and short fiction (in a blog), but yes, it would be nice to have more. I'd like to have both rule setting books as well as fiction books too?