Starfinder and the Pathfinder Classes


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 96 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Will there be rules for playing the Pathfinder classes in Starfinder.

Will there information for how the old classes could fit into the new setting.

Will there archetypes/alternate rules for the old classes to fit into the new setting.

Do all the old classes still exist in the Starfinder setting.


1. probably a limited set, remember that Starfinder is a vastly different more modern setting, so not everything that's midieval is going to be ag ood fit.

2. probably

3. doubtfully

4. most likely not, given that flintlocks have given way to more modern firearms and lasers and are far more common.

I'm going to make the guess that the closest comparison for how things will wind up will be the Dragonstar setting produced for 3.0 by Fantasy Flight Games, which was abandoned when WOTC transited to 3.5.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I suspect that the old Pathfinder classes would be mostly limited to "primitive" worlds, and would not be of much use in regular play. This will probably stem from the base classes in SF being at higher power level than the PF ones, if only because the idea of a barbarian in hide armor wielding an axe beating a power-armored space marine wielding a chainsword is just silly.(I believe one of the developers {Sutter} said much the same thing in the Game Informer interview.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In the most recent interview with James Sutter, he did mention that there will be a (small) portion of the book with suggestions/guidelines on how to adapt Pathfinder material to Starfinder and vice versa. Also some stuff sounds like it might be usable with no conversion, like monsters.

I am really curious to see how easy it would be to run a soldier in Pathfinder, and if that class doesn't resolve some of the complaints folks have about the Fighter. At the very least, I expect 3pp folks will probably come out with products to merge the systems in different ways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not that hard to imagine the whole "flintlock vs lasers" situation either in part or in full, or readily doing away with the flintlock equipment while keeping the same classes. It already exists to an extent with the Pathfinder Technology guide, and all the other stuff. A good handful of classes already have Technology based archetypes, and its not hard to imagine the futuristic technology using the same armour types (Light, Medium, Heavy).

But ignoring the rules factor now to focus on "is there a good explanation in-verse for the old classes to show up?" There's a few scenarios to keep in mind; Temporal Stasis spells, demi-planes with different temporal qualities, and many immortal characters of existing classes. Any of which could still be around having gotten used to skills available in the distant past, and adapt their skills to face the strain of the current situation.

What I do expect to happen, is that the Starfinder Classes might end up being stated to be Alternate Class versions of existing classes. Which will likely bridge the gap a bit, in that they will be largely the same class but tweaked to suit the demands of a Future Fantasy setting.

Side note: I can just imagine Pathfinder characters waking up in Starfinder and promptly becoming space pirates. Only thing preventing many Pathfinder groups turning into well meaning pirates is that they don't have a ship... Or are afraid to get on one due to "YARGH! KRAKEN OFF THE STARBOARD BOW!" and other weird sea monsters an over eager GM wants to spring on you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
At the very least, I expect 3pp folks will probably come out with products to merge the systems in different ways.

Fixed that for ya.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

How about some man of science class like the alchemist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What Dragonstar did was a combination of new classes, such as pilot, and technomancer, and old classes with changes to reflect a technological society. (Rangers using guns or laser-guided bows, wizards using tablets for spellbooks.)

Given that Starfinder is a "guns, guns, guns, everywhere" setting, there might not be a modern "gunslinger' class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's armed characters, and then there's guys and gals like Michael Garibaldi, Marcus Boone, Blain Cooper, Mark Drake and Jenette Vasquez who were adept heavy weapons specialists.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wouldn't most of them slip in rather comfortably? You could even give them starting option/feat like 'Civilized' that trades out proficiencies and skills for updated version.

Or hell, leave as is and have fun with it. A chainsaw sword probably wouldn't handle that differently once you got past 'Never test how sharp it is with your thumb'.


I am one of those that was suitably impressed by Dragonstar when it came out. I can see where the core classes can be ported over just fine as well as how some of the other classes might fit although in some cases depending on what the new classes bring to the table I would still want to look at concept before pigeon holing anyone into anything. When I play the game I usually play a ranger and that class can be rather ubiquitous in how I see can be played in medieval settings, modern settings or futuristic settings. But I am also content to adopt a wait and see attitude when it comes to this.


I hope we get options for old classes to be brought over arch-types or what have you.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Want a reason for grandfathering 'archaic classes' into modern society?

Medieval dungeoncrawling as a sport. If someone has levels in barbarian, samurai, druid, ninja, monk, cavalier, shaman, etc., it's because they are involved in the Starfinder equivalent of the Society for Creative Anachronism. They are reenactors and LARPers, keeping it 'old school' for the sake of nostalgia and tradition.


Hopefully most classes will not need archetypes to function in SF. The kineticist would fit well in the setting unless the rules are that different that they wouldn't work mechanically.


Matthew Shelton wrote:

Want a reason for grandfathering 'archaic classes' into modern society?

Medieval dungeoncrawling as a sport. If someone has levels in barbarian, samurai, druid, ninja, monk, cavalier, shaman, etc., it's because they are involved in the Starfinder equivalent of the Society for Creative Anachronism. They are reenactors and LARPers, keeping it 'old school' for the sake of nostalgia and tradition.

This.....actually sounds awesome.


pulseoptional wrote:
Matthew Shelton wrote:

Want a reason for grandfathering 'archaic classes' into modern society?

Medieval dungeoncrawling as a sport. If someone has levels in barbarian, samurai, druid, ninja, monk, cavalier, shaman, etc., it's because they are involved in the Starfinder equivalent of the Society for Creative Anachronism. They are reenactors and LARPers, keeping it 'old school' for the sake of nostalgia and tradition.

This.....actually sounds awesome.

It does sound awesome. I haven't had a chance to try it, myself.


Malefactor wrote:
I suspect that the old Pathfinder classes would be mostly limited to "primitive" worlds, and would not be of much use in regular play. This will probably stem from the base classes in SF being at higher power level than the PF ones, if only because the idea of a barbarian in hide armor wielding an axe beating a power-armored space marine wielding a chainsword is just silly.(I believe one of the developers {Sutter} said much the same thing in the Game Informer interview.)

So you're saying that the ability modifiers are going to be +1 per every point over 10 and the BAB for melee types will likewise be +2 per level? Because without some similar changed mechanic, the "power levels" will be the same. There is no real difference between a barbarian with a laser gun and the appropriate feat and a soldier with same, if they are both human. Otherwise, the monsters (which are supposedly usable with no conversion) would not be useable.

Your comparison also makes no sense in that even in the 40K universe, a space marine is a freakish monster. Next to the average soldier of the Imperium or worker in a factory, he's a Large size Construct or augmented humanoid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Shelton wrote:
There's armed characters, and then there's guys and gals like Michael Garibaldi, Marcus Boone, Blain Cooper, Mark Drake and Jenette Vasquez who were adept heavy weapons specialists.

Garibaldi is more like an investigator... then again in a guns, guns, guns, everywhere setting, having firearms proficiency isn't the big deal it would be in Golarion. So you'd have a soldier class that would include other things such as shoulder missle launcher proficiency, tatical strategy, and the skills needed for computer use.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bruunwald wrote:
Malefactor wrote:
I suspect that the old Pathfinder classes would be mostly limited to "primitive" worlds, and would not be of much use in regular play. This will probably stem from the base classes in SF being at higher power level than the PF ones, if only because the idea of a barbarian in hide armor wielding an axe beating a power-armored space marine wielding a chainsword is just silly.(I believe one of the developers {Sutter} said much the same thing in the Game Informer interview.)

So you're saying that the ability modifiers are going to be +1 per every point over 10 and the BAB for melee types will likewise be +2 per level? Because without some similar changed mechanic, the "power levels" will be the same. There is no real difference between a barbarian with a laser gun and the appropriate feat and a soldier with same, if they are both human. Otherwise, the monsters (which are supposedly usable with no conversion) would not be useable.

Your comparison also makes no sense in that even in the 40K universe, a space marine is a freakish monster. Next to the average soldier of the Imperium or worker in a factory, he's a Large size Construct or augmented humanoid.

Well, Sutter has said that they are trying to make it so that classes are more balanced against each other at both low and high level, which logically means that Soldiers are going to need some nice abilities and the like to keep up with Mystics and Technomancers. As for your "barbarians with lasrifles" idea, sure a barbarian could use a gun, but which are better with guns, Gunslingers or Fighters? THe answer is clearly Gunslingers, as they were MADE to harness this tech. Sure you probably could use a gun if you picked one up and started going to the shooting range with it, but in all likelihood you aren't going outshooting a Navy SEAL anytime soon, because that is (one of) the thing(s) that their skill set is based around. So, while we may not be expecting a complete system overhaul, I would expect that the differences in between SF and PF are going to be at least the same amount of difference in between PF and 3.5, both in Making it so your average Pathfinder monster would be 1-2 CRs lower for SF parties (Oh, its touch AC is that low?) and general tightening up of the system (i.e. Paizo's had nearly a decade more experience in how to make a good RPG).


Barbarians should get laserchainsaws clearly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
andygal wrote:
Barbarians should get laserchainsaws clearly.

I don't know how that would work but I am willing to give it a try.

*Combined chainsaw roar and lightsaber hum in background*


Malefactor wrote:
Bruunwald wrote:
Malefactor wrote:
I suspect that the old Pathfinder classes would be mostly limited to "primitive" worlds, and would not be of much use in regular play. This will probably stem from the base classes in SF being at higher power level than the PF ones, if only because the idea of a barbarian in hide armor wielding an axe beating a power-armored space marine wielding a chainsword is just silly.(I believe one of the developers {Sutter} said much the same thing in the Game Informer interview.)

So you're saying that the ability modifiers are going to be +1 per every point over 10 and the BAB for melee types will likewise be +2 per level? Because without some similar changed mechanic, the "power levels" will be the same. There is no real difference between a barbarian with a laser gun and the appropriate feat and a soldier with same, if they are both human. Otherwise, the monsters (which are supposedly usable with no conversion) would not be useable.

Your comparison also makes no sense in that even in the 40K universe, a space marine is a freakish monster. Next to the average soldier of the Imperium or worker in a factory, he's a Large size Construct or augmented humanoid.

Well, Sutter has said that they are trying to make it so that classes are more balanced against each other at both low and high level, which logically means that Soldiers are going to need some nice abilities and the like to keep up with Mystics and Technomancers. As for your "barbarians with lasrifles" idea, sure a barbarian could use a gun, but which are better with guns, Gunslingers or Fighters? THe answer is clearly Gunslingers, as they were MADE to harness this tech. Sure you probably could use a gun if you picked one up and started going to the shooting range with it, but in all likelihood you aren't going outshooting a Navy SEAL anytime soon, because that is (one of) the thing(s) that their skill set is based around. So, while we may not be expecting a complete system overhaul, I would expect that the differences in between SF and PF are going to be at least the same amount of difference in between PF and 3.5, both in Making it so your average Pathfinder monster would be 1-2 CRs lower for SF parties (Oh, its touch AC is that low?) and general tightening up of the system (i.e. Paizo's had nearly a decade more experience in how to make a good RPG).

Part of me wants to bring something up, seeing as we're still stuck on Barbarians.

Quote:

Savage Technologist (Barbarian Archetype)

Rather than rejecting technology, Savage Technologists wield technology's own weapons against it. A savage technologist has the following class features.
Class skills: Acrobatics (Dex), Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (local) (Int), Perception (Wis), Sense Motive Wis), Perception (Wis), Ride (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Str).
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: A savage technologist is proficient with all simple and martial weapons, all firearms, light armor, and shields (except tower shields).
Rage (Ex): A savage technologist can enter rage as a barbarian, except she gains a morale bonus to Strength and Dexterity instead of Strength and Constitution, and she does not take a penalty to Armor Class. She retains the bonus on Will saving throws. When a barbarian ability would increase the savage technologist's Strength while raging, it increases her Dexterity instead. This ability alters rage.
Sword and Gun (Ex): At 2nd level, when a raging savage technologist wields a one-handed firearm in one hand and a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other, she can make ranged attacks with the firearm without provoking attacks of opportunity. She also gains the benefits of the Two Weapon Fighting feat, but only if all attacks are made with those weapons. This ability replaces Uncanny Dodge.
Primal Magnetism (Ex): At 3rd level, a savage technologist adds her Strength modifier on Diplomacy checks when interacting with tribal cultures. She can expend 2 rounds of rage (even if not raging) to add a bonus equal to 1/2 her barbarian level on a Diplomacy check.
Crack Shot (Ex): At 5th level, a savage technologist adds her Dexterity modifier to her damage rolls when making ranged attacks with a firearm while raging. This ability replaces Improved Uncanny Dodge.

I've bolded the TL;DR version of a point I was trying to make before. There's already an Archtype for Barbarians that allows for Barbarians to be essentially Space Marines already.

Part of me wants to see someone here ask about the Pathfinder Spellcasters and if they'll show up, or if they'll need any adjusting at all... But part of me knows that the ability to banish someone to hell or create a demi-plane, is always useful. And chances are unless the Technomancer and Mystic are the new Wizard and Cleric respectively, its quite likely Wizards and Clerics will still be common out of shear usefulness; even in the future.


Luna Protege wrote:
Malefactor wrote:
Bruunwald wrote:
Malefactor wrote:
I suspect that the old Pathfinder classes would be mostly limited to "primitive" worlds, and would not be of much use in regular play. This will probably stem from the base classes in SF being at higher power level than the PF ones, if only because the idea of a barbarian in hide armor wielding an axe beating a power-armored space marine wielding a chainsword is just silly.(I believe one of the developers {Sutter} said much the same thing in the Game Informer interview.)

So you're saying that the ability modifiers are going to be +1 per every point over 10 and the BAB for melee types will likewise be +2 per level? Because without some similar changed mechanic, the "power levels" will be the same. There is no real difference between a barbarian with a laser gun and the appropriate feat and a soldier with same, if they are both human. Otherwise, the monsters (which are supposedly usable with no conversion) would not be useable.

Your comparison also makes no sense in that even in the 40K universe, a space marine is a freakish monster. Next to the average soldier of the Imperium or worker in a factory, he's a Large size Construct or augmented humanoid.

Well, Sutter has said that they are trying to make it so that classes are more balanced against each other at both low and high level, which logically means that Soldiers are going to need some nice abilities and the like to keep up with Mystics and Technomancers. As for your "barbarians with lasrifles" idea, sure a barbarian could use a gun, but which are better with guns, Gunslingers or Fighters? THe answer is clearly Gunslingers, as they were MADE to harness this tech. Sure you probably could use a gun if you picked one up and started going to the shooting range with it, but in all likelihood you aren't going outshooting a Navy SEAL anytime soon, because that is (one of) the thing(s) that their skill set is based around. So, while we may not be
...

True, but as I've said, if you want to play a character that uses guns, you'd be best off playing a Gunslinger.


Malefactor wrote:
Luna Protege wrote:
Malefactor wrote:
Bruunwald wrote:
Malefactor wrote:
I suspect that the old Pathfinder classes would be mostly limited to "primitive" worlds, and would not be of much use in regular play. This will probably stem from the base classes in SF being at higher power level than the PF ones, if only because the idea of a barbarian in hide armor wielding an axe beating a power-armored space marine wielding a chainsword is just silly.(I believe one of the developers {Sutter} said much the same thing in the Game Informer interview.)

So you're saying that the ability modifiers are going to be +1 per every point over 10 and the BAB for melee types will likewise be +2 per level? Because without some similar changed mechanic, the "power levels" will be the same. There is no real difference between a barbarian with a laser gun and the appropriate feat and a soldier with same, if they are both human. Otherwise, the monsters (which are supposedly usable with no conversion) would not be useable.

Your comparison also makes no sense in that even in the 40K universe, a space marine is a freakish monster. Next to the average soldier of the Imperium or worker in a factory, he's a Large size Construct or augmented humanoid.

Well, Sutter has said that they are trying to make it so that classes are more balanced against each other at both low and high level, which logically means that Soldiers are going to need some nice abilities and the like to keep up with Mystics and Technomancers. As for your "barbarians with lasrifles" idea, sure a barbarian could use a gun, but which are better with guns, Gunslingers or Fighters? THe answer is clearly Gunslingers, as they were MADE to harness this tech. Sure you probably could use a gun if you picked one up and started going to the shooting range with it, but in all likelihood you aren't going outshooting a Navy SEAL anytime soon, because that is (one of) the thing(s) that their skill set is based
TL;DR
True, but as I've said, if you want to play a character that uses guns, you'd be best off playing a Gunslinger.

No disagreement here, in fact, baseline Gunslinger is also the most likely to be most suitable for SF out of the box, just by nature of being built around guns... If it wasn't for one small detail.

You see, in case we all forgot, there ARE going to be melee weapons in SF, and in fact, one Class in SF is indeed a Melee specialist; and basically a Jedi. So I'm pretty sure if anyone argued that Gunslinger is the only viable Pathfinder choice in SF because its a world of guns... Will likely find themselves having to rationalize away the Solarion in the room.

For some reason, I'm beginning to suspect a large number of players will Variant Multiclass Solarion with all the old Melee classes, and then re-enact Star-Wars.


Luna Protege wrote:
Malefactor wrote:
Luna Protege wrote:
Malefactor wrote:
Bruunwald wrote:
Malefactor wrote:
I suspect that the old Pathfinder classes would be mostly limited to "primitive" worlds, and would not be of much use in regular play. This will probably stem from the base classes in SF being at higher power level than the PF ones, if only because the idea of a barbarian in hide armor wielding an axe beating a power-armored space marine wielding a chainsword is just silly.(I believe one of the developers {Sutter} said much the same thing in the Game Informer interview.)

So you're saying that the ability modifiers are going to be +1 per every point over 10 and the BAB for melee types will likewise be +2 per level? Because without some similar changed mechanic, the "power levels" will be the same. There is no real difference between a barbarian with a laser gun and the appropriate feat and a soldier with same, if they are both human. Otherwise, the monsters (which are supposedly usable with no conversion) would not be useable.

Your comparison also makes no sense in that even in the 40K universe, a space marine is a freakish monster. Next to the average soldier of the Imperium or worker in a factory, he's a Large size Construct or augmented humanoid.

Well, Sutter has said that they are trying to make it so that classes are more balanced against each other at both low and high level, which logically means that Soldiers are going to need some nice abilities and the like to keep up with Mystics and Technomancers. As for your "barbarians with lasrifles" idea, sure a barbarian could use a gun, but which are better with guns, Gunslingers or Fighters? THe answer is clearly Gunslingers, as they were MADE to harness this tech. Sure you probably could use a gun if you picked one up and started going to the shooting range with it, but in all likelihood you aren't going outshooting a Navy SEAL anytime soon, because that is (one of) the thing(s) that
...

Yeah, and Jedi are a viable choice in Star Wars Saga Edition... but guns are still better because you don't need to get near them to damage them. Really the reason why ranged weapons are good in the game is the same reason they are good in real life; You can do damage to someone else without putting yourself in direct harm. Look up a lot of the optimized builds for classes and you will find that most of them advocate a ranged role.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the Solarion can learn powers that can do jedi-choke, jedi-mana-blast, or jedi-erase-your-mind from farther away than you can hit them with an antimatter mortar shell, Solarions will not be so obsolete out of the box as one might think. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't forget deflecting laser blasts. Classic jedi trope.


Distant Scholar wrote:
pulseoptional wrote:
Matthew Shelton wrote:

Want a reason for grandfathering 'archaic classes' into modern society?

Medieval dungeoncrawling as a sport. If someone has levels in barbarian, samurai, druid, ninja, monk, cavalier, shaman, etc., it's because they are involved in the Starfinder equivalent of the Society for Creative Anachronism. They are reenactors and LARPers, keeping it 'old school' for the sake of nostalgia and tradition.

This.....actually sounds awesome.
It does sound awesome. I haven't had a chance to try it, myself.

I have played XCrawl, but in name only. We always use the d20 Modern classes for it. I honestly forgot it came with some of its own.

And it is just as much fun as you think, effectively playing tabletop Smash TV.


Malefactor wrote:
Luna Protege wrote:
Malefactor wrote:
Luna Protege wrote:
Malefactor wrote:
Bruunwald wrote:
Malefactor wrote:
I suspect that the old Pathfinder classes would be mostly limited to "primitive" worlds, and would not be of much use in regular play. This will probably stem from the base classes in SF being at higher power level than the PF ones, if only because the idea of a barbarian in hide armor wielding an axe beating a power-armored space marine wielding a chainsword is just silly.(I believe one of the developers {Sutter} said much the same thing in the Game Informer interview.)

So you're saying that the ability modifiers are going to be +1 per every point over 10 and the BAB for melee types will likewise be +2 per level? Because without some similar changed mechanic, the "power levels" will be the same. There is no real difference between a barbarian with a laser gun and the appropriate feat and a soldier with same, if they are both human. Otherwise, the monsters (which are supposedly usable with no conversion) would not be useable.

Your comparison also makes no sense in that even in the 40K universe, a space marine is a freakish monster. Next to the average soldier of the Imperium or worker in a factory, he's a Large size Construct or augmented humanoid.

Well, Sutter has said that they are trying to make it so that classes are more balanced against each other at both low and high level, which logically means that Soldiers are going to need some nice abilities and the like to keep up with Mystics and Technomancers. As for your "barbarians with lasrifles" idea, sure a barbarian could use a gun, but which are better with guns, Gunslingers or Fighters? THe answer is clearly Gunslingers, as they were MADE to harness this tech. Sure you probably could use a gun if you picked one up and started going to the shooting range with it, but in all likelihood you aren't going outshooting a Navy SEAL anytime soon, because that
TL;DR
True, but as I've said, if you want to play a character that uses guns, you'd be best off playing a Gunslinger.
Totes, but not always guns
Yeah, and Jedi are a viable choice in Star Wars Saga Edition... but guns are still better because you don't need to get near them to damage them. Really the reason why ranged weapons are good in the game is the same reason they are good in real life; You can do damage to someone else without putting yourself in direct harm. Look up a lot of the optimized builds for classes and you will find that most of them advocate a ranged role.

Under what's currently considered typical combat circumstances, you'd be right simply for the fact that if two people are at range, and one has a gun... The person with a gun is actually able to hit the other.

However, in the environment that usually shows up in an adventurer's life, its mostly confined quarters and distances ranging from 10 feet to 35 ft, often in an urban environment or rugged wilderness with plenty of cover that can be used to get closer; rather than a warzone pre-prepared for assuring long flat distances to be able to see you coming. This diminishes the usefulness of the gun somewhat, but not entirely.

...And then you get to the reason why the military hasn't forsaken the military knife, because once you get into melee its very easy to find ways to keep their muzzle pointed anywhere but at you, and doing that while attacking with a knife at the same time isn't too difficult.

By the way I seem to recall there being rules in some games, where "shooting into melee" is a major no-no; either having rules where the shooter takes penalties for trying to shoot someone who's in melee with an ally, or a shooter who is in melee takes penalties for trying to shoot the person who is in melee with them. The former of which implies yet another issue, once you're in melee with someone, your opponent gives you some measure of cover that you can manipulate and move to prevent shots coming from their allies. Shot coming from behind you? Just slip behind your opponent and you have cover.

This is all ignoring the fact that for some reason, all the ranged specialists wear very little in the way of armour.

Needless to say, this all means that Ironically, the Barbarian and Monk will have an extremely useful role in a world of guns simply for being able to cover greater distance to deal with Ranged enemies up close; where the advantage of guns becomes nulled by how easy it is to prevent that gun being used while grappled.

Side Note: I can also argue another point, namely that its better to have a diverse range of skills and combat mechanics than "just guns" when having more options allows you to cover for the weaknesses in each other's Classes.

Noah Antweiler pointed out that while AD&D wasn't balanced, there was still a reason to play Classes like Fighter even though that wasn't the "Best" option, mainly because while the Wizard could nuke the room, you still needed someone to keep the enemies at a distance from the Wizard.

Or to put it another way... Party Composition trumps Solo-ability.


Luna Protege wrote:
Malefactor wrote:
Luna Protege wrote:
Malefactor wrote:
Luna Protege wrote:
Malefactor wrote:
Bruunwald wrote:
Malefactor wrote:
I suspect that the old Pathfinder classes would be mostly limited to "primitive" worlds, and would not be of much use in regular play. This will probably stem from the base classes in SF being at higher power level than the PF ones, if only because the idea of a barbarian in hide armor wielding an axe beating a power-armored space marine wielding a chainsword is just silly.(I believe one of the developers {Sutter} said much the same thing in the Game Informer interview.)

So you're saying that the ability modifiers are going to be +1 per every point over 10 and the BAB for melee types will likewise be +2 per level? Because without some similar changed mechanic, the "power levels" will be the same. There is no real difference between a barbarian with a laser gun and the appropriate feat and a soldier with same, if they are both human. Otherwise, the monsters (which are supposedly usable with no conversion) would not be useable.

Your comparison also makes no sense in that even in the 40K universe, a space marine is a freakish monster. Next to the average soldier of the Imperium or worker in a factory, he's a Large size Construct or augmented humanoid.

Well, Sutter has said that they are trying to make it so that classes are more balanced against each other at both low and high level, which logically means that Soldiers are going to need some nice abilities and the like to keep up with Mystics and Technomancers. As for your "barbarians with lasrifles" idea, sure a barbarian could use a gun, but which are better with guns, Gunslingers or Fighters? THe answer is clearly Gunslingers, as they were MADE to harness this tech. Sure you probably could use a gun if you picked one up and started going to the shooting range with it, but in all likelihood you aren't going outshooting a Navy SEAL
...

Okay, I think we've derailed this thread for long enough. We should either A) Move this discussion to a new thread, or B) carry it on using private messaging.


Right then... I'll try and get back on a point I keep wanting to discuss more on, but we keep missing the chance to discus. So from the top.

Dragon78 wrote:

Will there be rules for playing the Pathfinder classes in Starfinder.

Will there be information for how the old classes could fit into the new setting.

Will there be archetypes/alternate rules for the old classes to fit into the new setting.

Do all the old classes still exist in the Starfinder setting.

I've already discussed question 3 with "archtypes already exist", and question 1 can pretty much be answered with "that would be redundant". So onto these two questions that are almost the same question.

Assuming the Technomancer is a pure hacker and not a Wizard with an iPad, the Wizard is likely going to be a universal constant in a universe where magic exists. They're scientists in a sense, and so long as magic continues to work they will always have a place in the world and continue to exist, simply because their understanding of the Arcane is essential to understanding the underpinnings of the world as they know it. I'm not sure how many times I've said this, but I've certainly typed it out enough times just to focus on another point.

Similar points can be made for the other Spellcasters:
Sorcerers: So long as people continue to breed, bloodlines will continue to be a thing, and so long as they continue to be a thing, there will be people willing and able to get as much of an advantage as they can out of the power their heritage provides them.
Clerics/Paladins: The gods aren't dead yet, and as long as they exist, there will be people to champion their ideals.
Alchemists: Same case as Wizards.
Oracles:See all of the above.
... And so on, the same case gets made several times over until we get to Druids.

I'm not actually sure how much Druids will continue to be a thing, at least in the context of the any spacefaring Druids, given that seems to be the last place I'd expect them to be... Except for that one Archetype that focuses around the wildlife that lives in cities (Foxes, sewer-rats, etc.), but I can imagine that a few would still exist, largely trying to bring life to worlds undergoing ecological crises.

For classes I GENUINELY think have a lesser chance of being around as a thing, there's Magus, simply because while a lot of other Classes have at least some archetype that gives them options with guns (The Savage Technologist being a good example since their DEX can go through the roof), the Magus is specifically stuck with swords... And only swords. I don't think their techniques will disappear, but I do think nobody in that time is going to take it as a primary class.

Bards on the other hand I DO think are going to have an existential crisis. Half the reason they exist is to tell stories whether true or false, serving as dual entertainment and news source. The problem is, they have a small issue with "the Gap" in that they likely can't remember any good stories at this point, and if they did, they're outdated, and there are likely quicker ways to spread information. As for entertainment, think about what today is like, we are saturated in entertainment. The other half of their existence, being the Charismatic Support Class, is now being taken up by the Envoy, making the Bard as a Class entirely redundant.

(That latter point could be made for Rogues as well... If it wasn't for the fact that Rogues will still exist even when Operatives do, if only for the fact that average people who exist outside the law in order to eke out a living will always exist, and Operatives are most specifically not that, if their flavouring is any indication.)

The remaining Classes, largely already have an archetype that makes them compatible with a futuristic world. Often via proficiency with guns, or some other technological compatibility. (Not sure about Ranger, though, I'll have to check.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Luna Protege wrote:
Quote:

Savage Technologist (Barbarian Archetype)

Rather than rejecting technology, Savage Techno...

I've bolded the TL;DR version of a point I was trying to make before. There's already an Archtype for Barbarians that allows for Barbarians to be essentially Space Marines already.

Part of me wants to see someone here ask about the Pathfinder Spellcasters and if they'll show up, or if they'll need any adjusting at all... But part of me knows that the ability to banish someone to hell or create a demi-plane, is always useful. And chances are unless the Technomancer and Mystic are the new Wizard and Cleric respectively, its quite likely Wizards and Clerics will still be common out of shear usefulness; even in the future.

It has been mentioned that in Starfinder, science and technology can produce many of the same things magic does, often faster and cheaper as well, so Clerics and Wizards will lose a lot of their usefulness and "uniqueness".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Luna Protege wrote:

Right then... I'll try and get back on a point I keep wanting to discuss more on, but we keep missing the chance to discus. So from the top.

Dragon78 wrote:

Will there be rules for playing the Pathfinder classes in Starfinder.

Will there be information for how the old classes could fit into the new setting.

Do all the old classes still exist in the Starfinder setting.

Assuming the Technomancer is a pure hacker and not a Wizard with an iPad, the Wizard is likely going to be a universal constant in a universe where magic exists. They're scientists in a sense, and so long as magic continues to work they will always have a place in the world and continue to exist, simply because their understanding of the Arcane is essential to understanding the underpinnings of the world as they know it. I'm not sure how many times I've said this, but I've certainly typed it out enough times just to focus on another point.

Similar points can be made for the other Spellcasters:
Sorcerers: So long as people continue to breed, bloodlines will continue to be a thing, and so long as they continue to be a thing, there will be people willing and able to get as much of an advantage as they can out of the power their heritage provides them.
Clerics/Paladins: The gods aren't dead yet, and as long as they exist, there will be people to champion their ideals.
Alchemists: Same case as Wizards.
Oracles:See all of the above.
... And so on, the same case gets made several times over until we get to Druids.

I'm not actually sure how much Druids will continue to be a thing, at least in the context of the any spacefaring Druids, given that seems to be the last place I'd expect...

There might be wizards around, but those left might be ancient high level immortals/liches/vampires. There simply may not be interest in pursuing the path of wizard (or similar high level caster), if tech replaces a lot of low level magic. I mean most of those who study to be a wizard never make it to the high level reality changing stuff.

It sound like magic will be somewhat scaled down from pathfinder levels. Advice for converting classes is only going to be a tiny part of the book, so you will need a GM willing to allow you to convert and otherwise support the character. Even then something like a wizard, depending on what changes are made in the ruleset, may not work well in the game.


MMCJawa wrote:
There might be wizards around, but those left might be ancient high level immortals/liches/vampires.

The bulk of them would have disappeared along with the planet.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
There might be wizards around, but those left might be ancient high level immortals/liches/vampires.
The bulk of them would have disappeared along with the planet.

Presumably though Golarion is not the only planet in existence where wizards existed


MMCJawa wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
There might be wizards around, but those left might be ancient high level immortals/liches/vampires.
The bulk of them would have disappeared along with the planet.
Presumably though Golarion is not the only planet in existence where wizards existed

Not even the only planet in what used to be Golarion's solar system.

Wonder what's happened to all those undead wizards from Eox.


Technomancers are BOTH hackers and Wizards with an iPad.


Barbarians- Yes(primitive worlds)
Bards- Yes
Clerics- Yes(rare)
Druids- Yes(primitive worlds)
Fighters- Maybe(archetypes)
Monks- Yes
Paladins- Yes(very rare)
Rangers- Yes
Rogues- Yes
Sorcerers- Yes(rare)
Wizards- Yes(very rare)

Alchemists- Yes(rare)
Cavaliers- Maybe(archetypes)
Inquisitors- Yes(rare)
Oracles- Yes(rare)
Summoners- Yes(rare)
Witches- Yes

Gunslingers- Yes
Magus- Maybe(archetypes)
Ninjas- Maybe
Samurais- Maybe(archetypes)

Arcanists- Maybe
Bloodragers- Yes(primitive worlds)
Brawlers- Yes
Hunters- Yes
Investigators- Yes
Skalds- Maybe(primitive worlds)
Shamans- Yes(primitive worlds)
Slayers- Yes
Swashbucklers- Yes(archetypes)
Warpriests- Yes(rare)

Kineticist- Yes
Medium- Yes(rare)
Mesmerist- Yes
Occultist- Yes(rare)
Psychic- Yes
Spiritualist- Yes(rare)

Vigilante- Yes(archetypes)


thejeff wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
There might be wizards around, but those left might be ancient high level immortals/liches/vampires.
The bulk of them would have disappeared along with the planet.
Presumably though Golarion is not the only planet in existence where wizards existed

Not even the only planet in what used to be Golarion's solar system.

Wonder what's happened to all those undead wizards from Eox.

Also keep in mind, high level Wizards also tend to own their own demi-planes. So they may not have been on Golarion at the time.

... Not to mention, we still don't know HOW the habitants of Golarion that weren't on it managed to get to Absolom station, or when they got there. For all we know, all remaining life on Golarion might have been teleported there overnight in the middle of it all right before it disappeared.

It's all up for interpretation at that point though. So I can't really justify saying much more on this tangent

IonutRO wrote:
Technomancers are BOTH hackers and Wizards with an iPad.

Took me a while to notice that was true. If they're capable of any of the high end stuff Wizards are, I could switch to saying "Wizards have evolved into Technomancers"... But if they aren't, then well...

If they're missing some of the really fun spells like Create-Demiplane, Mind-Swap, clone, Polymorph any Object, or any other of that fun stuff that allows for bending all of the lines of space, bodies, and minds, I will be disappointed, and probably end up trying to ram a packet of Wizard into it.

Yes... I am the kind of person who would probably cast Polymorph any Object on a human just to turn them into a Kobold.


Luna Protege wrote:


IonutRO wrote:
Technomancers are BOTH hackers and Wizards with an iPad.

Took me a while to notice that was true. If they're capable of any of the high end stuff Wizards are, I could switch to saying "Wizards have evolved into Technomancers"... But if they aren't, then well...

If they're missing some of the really fun spells like Create-Demiplane, Mind-Swap, clone, Polymorph any Object, or any other of that fun stuff that allows for bending all of the lines of space, bodies, and minds, I will be disappointed, and probably end up trying to ram a packet of Wizard into it.

Yes... I am the kind of person who would probably cast Polymorph any Object on a human just to turn them into a Kobold.

IIRC the kind of high end magic high level wizards do in Pathfinder no longer exists, it's lost knowledge because technology has replaced most of its uses.


IonutRO wrote:
Luna Protege wrote:


IonutRO wrote:
Technomancers are BOTH hackers and Wizards with an iPad.

Took me a while to notice that was true. If they're capable of any of the high end stuff Wizards are, I could switch to saying "Wizards have evolved into Technomancers"... But if they aren't, then well...

If they're missing some of the really fun spells like Create-Demiplane, Mind-Swap, clone, Polymorph any Object, or any other of that fun stuff that allows for bending all of the lines of space, bodies, and minds, I will be disappointed, and probably end up trying to ram a packet of Wizard into it.

Yes... I am the kind of person who would probably cast Polymorph any Object on a human just to turn them into a Kobold.

IIRC the kind of high end magic high level wizards do in Pathfinder no longer exists, it's lost knowledge because technology has replaced most of its uses.

Certain magics are also unnecessary. From a combat standpoint, although a the pathfinder rules don't show it. The action of casting a spell involves a lot of precise movement. While a wizard is channeling energy into a massive fireball, a sniper could simply kill him, ending the spell and the caster. My hopes is to have the technomancer be something that uses the processing power of a technological device as a sort of psuedo-component, allowing the caster to wear armor and making them a legitimately effective force on a futuristic battlefield. A an old man in a robe shouting magic words into the sky for 6 whole seconds is a lot less threatening when you have a laser gun. But a man in kevlar armor shooting a pistol and holding a computer running some sort of magical code to form a fireball is a lot more effective.


IonutRO wrote:
Luna Protege wrote:


IonutRO wrote:
Technomancers are BOTH hackers and Wizards with an iPad.

Took me a while to notice that was true. If they're capable of any of the high end stuff Wizards are, I could switch to saying "Wizards have evolved into Technomancers"... But if they aren't, then well...

If they're missing some of the really fun spells like Create-Demiplane, Mind-Swap, clone, Polymorph any Object, or any other of that fun stuff that allows for bending all of the lines of space, bodies, and minds, I will be disappointed, and probably end up trying to ram a packet of Wizard into it.

Yes... I am the kind of person who would probably cast Polymorph any Object on a human just to turn them into a Kobold.

IIRC the kind of high end magic high level wizards do in Pathfinder no longer exists, it's lost knowledge because technology has replaced most of its uses.

For one, the assumption they can just "lose" that knowledge is silly in the face of "IMMORTAL WIZARDS!" who never seem to forget; especially when some of them spend the rest of their immortal lives in quiet hermit like calm in their private demi-plane, meditating on their arcane art so that their art will never be forgotten.

And second, try to think for a minute the scale of energy required to create a hole in space. Do you really think a power source of that scale is as portable as, say... A book or Ipad? If you have to call in a tank-sized generator in order to summon the highest level of angels in a sudden and unexpected emergency, you're not doing it right.

Meanwhile, there's Polymorph, which has no way you can get that to work and not just be "kill the people and use the matter to build a new thing" unless you're working on an essentialist model of reality, which is not something a physical technology can do, and in order to create a technology that does work under that principle, it requires being designed as a magitech device by a wizard who understands that process in order to program it to do it.

I know somebody is going to say something like "Nanomachines" to replace polymorph, and the thing I think you need to take note of is that doing anything that way is a long drawn out process that AT BEST would take many hours realistically, and at least a few minutes of searing agony and pain to do it any quicker even when straining suspension of disbelief. The only exception being if the object or person in question is already comprised ONLY of nano-machines... And last I checked anyways, the only beings in the pathfinder universe that I am aware of that are currently comprised entirely of nanomachines are 20th level Nanite bloodline Sorcerers, which leaves only a minority of people able to use them to suddenly turn themselves into a dragon.

And here's the thing, the rest of the universe is NOT conveniently comprised entirely of nano-machines, so its not like you can just use nanomachines in that same fashion to turn anyone who isn't you into something else.

I'm sure someone also likely wants to say "why would anyone use Polymorph?", and I say... You really think nobody is going to find SOME way to use it to use it for revenge, fun, or profit? If not espionage?

Seriously, turn yourself into a rat, hide inside the hollow walls, its better than a spy cam, because people check for spy cams, but a mouse? A mouse is beneath suspicion.


Luna Protege wrote:
For one, the assumption they can just "lose" that knowledge is silly in the face of "IMMORTAL WIZARDS!" who never seem to forget; especially when some of them spend the rest of their immortal lives in quiet hermit like calm in their private demi-plane, meditating on their arcane art so that their art will never be forgotten.

That's assuming such wizards are still around. And I don't mean forgotten by individuals, I meant forgotten by society as a whole, the same way we have forgotten the secret to greek fire, the knowledge of certain spells may have been lost, and may only be found now in musty old tomes on far away planets or planes. And even if there are immortal wizards still around, why would they give away the secrets to powerful magics only they still know?


Not only should magic not stagnate, it should also expand into spells that were unknown or thought impossible in former times. Technology should expand too, of course. Except perhaps for sorcerers, it is not in the habit of magic users to discard old spells when one has learned something better or more useful. Therefore it would be reasonable to expect that for any desired game effect X, there is both a magical means of making it happen, and a technological means of making it happen.

There will be some effects that magic is and will probably always be more effective and time-efficient in doing, such as healing wounds and polymorphing people. But we can expect advanced soft-sci-fi technology to do better and faster than magic quite easily in other areas. Three things that come to mind are weapons of mass destruction, teleportation of really big things like starships, and growing a cloned body.

As well, unlike magic, many technological effects will be permanent or are less likely to dissipate or decay as long as the power source remains uninterrupted. Technologically produced hallucinatory terrain, walls of force, personal shields, and the like could stay active as long as the devices creating them don't break down or run out of power.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Should they design the game based on the logical consequences of extending the setting into the future?

Or on how they want the mechanics of a more sci-fi game to work? How they think it will be better balanced and more fun to play.


There should be multiple solutions to nearly every kind of problem built into the game. They do not have to be equally efficient, nor equally costly, nor easily available in every sector or every planet, but they do need to be there. Basically, given unlimited time and resources, most things a party would want to try should have a magical and a mundane technological solution to.

There should also be checks and balances for everything. No matter what it is, there should be some way to counter it. This will hopefully mitigate the 'golden hammer' phenomenon, which multiple solutions also works toward eliminating or at least reducing the likelihood of, for a given situation.

We can agree to disagree but that's the kind of game I would like to see, ideally.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Should they design the game based on the logical consequences of extending the setting into the future?

Or on how they want the mechanics of a more sci-fi game to work? How they think it will be better balanced and more fun to play.

Exactly. The setting should build it's common classes around what works for a generic science fantasy game, and not necessarily the assumptions of Pathfinder. Given that wizards are a frequent complaint in criticisms of poor class balance in regular Pathfinder, I am more than happy to handwave there absence in Starfinder, especially if Technomancer or Mystic is a much more balance alternative that fills the same niche.

It sounds like there is going to be a tiny section of the book that will talk about updating Pathfinder stuff to Starfinder, but it's very possible that updating a Wizard to Starfinder will have a strong unbalancing effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
IonutRO wrote:
Luna Protege wrote:
For one, the assumption they can just "lose" that knowledge is silly in the face of "IMMORTAL WIZARDS!" who never seem to forget; especially when some of them spend the rest of their immortal lives in quiet hermit like calm in their private demi-plane, meditating on their arcane art so that their art will never be forgotten.
That's assuming such wizards are still around. And I don't mean forgotten by individuals, I meant forgotten by society as a whole, the same way we have forgotten the secret to greek fire, the knowledge of certain spells may have been lost, and may only be found now in musty old tomes on far away planets or planes. And even if there are immortal wizards still around, why would they give away the secrets to powerful magics only they still know?

For money to get reagents most likely, Wizards that old tend to have tendencies to take up some esoteric experiments or projects that often require a number of reagents to complete. Needless to say, capitalism still applies to Wizards, even if they live the life of a Sage.

As for your "Greek Fire" example, keep in mind that people do have a fair idea on what they might have used for it, and the likely mechanics (chemistry) behind that invention are actually more well known today even if the exact materials used in the mixture are not.

To translate this into a Pathfinder/Starfinder analogy, its like if a bunch of people found a half torn scroll depicting a spell from ages past along with some conveniently intact illustrations of its effects, they don't know the whole schematic of the spell the scroll dictates, but they've got similar spells that do the same job already in their archive because their Technomancers use spells like that to allow a certain machine to function. So with a minimal amount of effort required, they can piece together a spell that roughly resembles the original in form and function; and turns out to be more efficient.

Why is it more efficient? Well... It's already been said.

Matthew Shelton wrote:

Not only should magic not stagnate, it should also expand into spells that were unknown or thought impossible in former times. Technology should expand too, of course. Except perhaps for sorcerers, it is not in the habit of magic users to discard old spells when one has learned something better or more useful. Therefore it would be reasonable to expect that for any desired game effect X, there is both a magical means of making it happen, and a technological means of making it happen.

There will be some effects that magic is and will probably always be more effective and time-efficient in doing, such as healing wounds and polymorphing people. But we can expect advanced soft-sci-fi technology to do better and faster than magic quite easily in other areas. Three things that come to mind are weapons of mass destruction, teleportation of really big things like starships, and growing a cloned body.

As well, unlike magic, many technological effects will be permanent or are less likely to dissipate or decay as long as the power source remains uninterrupted. Technologically produced hallucinatory terrain, walls of force, personal shields, and the like could stay active as long as the devices creating them don't break down or run out of power.

Here's a good rule of thumb to remember when it comes to Magic in a Science Fantasy setting:

"Magic is a Science"

The advancement of magical disciplines and technological disciplines run parallel, intertwine, and roughly follow the same ups and downs. Anything that causes one to stagnate will cause the other to stagnate, because as far as a world where magic is as ingrained as our laws of thermodynamics, Magic and Science are two sides of the same coin, and you can't hurt one without hurting the other; and more importantly, you can't progress one without some understanding of the other and how it might effect your design.

Much of the time, that knowledge is sometimes only used to mitigate the effect of it... Imagine a Starfinder Technomancer asking themselves "Hmm... How do I prevent a wizard turning this robot into a rat?" and then scrawling wards on the inside to prevent polymorph, when those wards can only be made by knowledge of how polymorph spells work.

Which leads to likely the real reason why some High Level Wizard spells are likely not used in Starfinder; its likely because everybody knows them, they just don't use them because they're obsolete compared to modern spells just by the nature of counter play. We invented armour to protect from swords, but then we made guns and we had to invent a different kind of armour since that one did nothing, and then when that armour got too good, we made bullets specifically to pierce THAT armour.

Let's say the Polymorph Other spells ends up not being used in SF, it won't be because they forgot, it will be because there's enough measures in place to prevent its use on anything important, so its typically not worth using like that. And if "Form of the Dragon" is no longer used, then its probably because they have Mobile Suits the size of a Dragon of those sizes, and those likely exist because people kept using those spells so often they needed something to use to punch dragons in the face with.

... Of course, this also likely means that instead of using "Form of the Dragon", many prominent Wizards have probably taken to making a new spell to either store a mobile suit in a demi-plane, or to manufacture or summon one right there. And thus their 9th level spell goes from being a Fireball-ish thing to "open a portal that an orbital space laser will fire through".

Side Note:
If Level 20 Pathfinder Characters are like Dragon Ball Z characters... Level 20 Starfinder will probably be like Gurren Lagann


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Except that may be something they don't want in the game, even if it's a logical outgrowth from a Pathfinder with high tech and centuries of development. They may not want a crank the dial up to 11 approach.

If so, then they may choose to make magic less common and effective than it was back in the old days. That's not a bad decision. Design your game mechanics around game play, not around theories of how magic should have developed alongside technology.


However it ends up I'm so psyched for technomancers.

1 to 50 of 96 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Starfinder General Discussion / Starfinder and the Pathfinder Classes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.