Spellcasters willfully gimped? Why?


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 265 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Hello,

I've been playing a mystic (now level 3) and it's clear that this class (as well as the technomancer) has been willfully gimped. The core element of the class has been nerfed compared the sorcerer (the class which handles spells the same way). Mystics have a lot less spells per day and the fact that we know 1 more spells per level doesn't come close to making up the loss. We end up out of spells after a single combat.

Add to this that there are about only 2% of the feats that affect magic, the core part of this class.

I haven't yet reached the higher levels so I can't comment on the 6 vs 9 spell levels of magic. But I fear it will be another power loss.

I get that magic can be less powerful in Starfinder than in Pathfinder. But then again, if you're going to make playable classes, it would be fun to have them as closely matched as possible. The other classes that closely match the pathfinder classes don't feel gimped at all when compared.

Why decide to do magic classes and willfully gimp them?

Loa

P.S. I know the spaceship roles are a new element compared to pathfinder, but spellcasters have no inherent advantages when it comes to this, so it doesn't matter in this comparison.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I make most of my spellcaster comparisons to the likes of the Magus or Occultist, because I like some direct offensive presence with my support. As such, I'm perfectly fine with where the casters are

One of those Esoteric guys, huh? Listen, nothing but study works in a lab, and it may have worked before the Gap, but it won't help you out there where work needs to be done. Any half-decent armour will stop magical offence just the same as any other directed energy, so we need to spend time working on combat.

But don't get me wrong, I know a lot about improving magic. It's not even something picked up on the side, either. Standard tools of the trade if you're focusing on casting. Reach, Extend, Empower, Selective, Quicken effects are all technomancer spell hacks Personally, I'd like to think we've improved our magical knowledge, Gap be darned. Used to be, you couldn't do half the things I can with divine backing, and all undead creation was filtered through the Pallid Princess's questionable morals. I'm glad I can take machines as my summons, and not be forced to use creatures from that blasted First World. Why we didn't bulldoze it to get a head start on the Drift, I'll never know.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

How are spellcasters gimped? Yes, they have fewer spells per day, but they also have far more non-spell abilities, including better weapon and armor proficiencies, better combat bonuses, and better survivability. By 3rd level, a Mystic will have Mindlink, Healing Touch, their Connection skill bonus, and their first two Connection powers. By 3rd level, a Technomancer will have their Spell Cache, their Techlore skill bonus, Spell Focus as a free feat, and their first Spell Hack.

Perhaps your problem is the assumption that spellcasters should be doing nothing but casting spells, and so you run out early?


Metaphysician: Mindlink and healing touch are not necessarily things I would have chosen (and they don't fit well with some connections), and the connections are once again things you can't modify. You choose an entire package deal and, by reading other discussions here, most of them are considered "Meh" at best. Technomancers have it better (a bit more freedom), but not all that much.

In any case, by level 3, Sorcerers have 2 bloodline powers (same as connection powers), eschew materials and a bloodline spell. This is very similar to the mystic, but they know 2 more spells per day! Two!

Those two extra spells allow you, on average, to deal with 2 combats per day, not just one. Hell of a difference.

And yes, I'm one of those strange people that like his spellcasters to mainly cast spells.

Egil, I have no idea what, or to whom, you're talking about.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

He was assuming you were a member of an organization in SF that thinks that pre-gap magic was much better and that unlocking the secrets of it require rejecting higher technology. As a technomancer and clergy of a deity of tech, he's not amused.

The change from 1/2 to 3/4 BAB is significant. Even in PF, 3/4 BAB casters like the cleric and oracle can and do run martially-oriented builds. For an offensive caster in SF, this can also be considered necessary, since EAC is going to be way higher than touch AC. Metamagic is through class features rather than feats (and even PF core has more total feats than SF core).

Everything else stated is flavour: I like the lack of division between arcane and divine, because it lets me make characters like this.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

In PFS, the full casters usually buy a wand after their first adventure. In Starfinder, however, guns are just cheaper than magical consumables.

The shadowstaff in Alien Archive is a good weapon for a caster who wants to look old-school.

For a more-magic campaign, the GM can give out a bunch of spell gems as loot and maybe lower the cost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

First level spell gems don't cost much for level 2+ PCs, and since 1st level spells are better now (at least for the low-level caster), that makes for some good emergency magic.

And as has been mentioned, weapons.
Yes, it can ruin the "pure magic" look, but this is space fantasy where super-guru Yoda wields a tech weapon. At level 3, w/ weapon specialization, you can do decent damage every round, saving spells for tough situations (where they really shine BTW). SF has lower enemy ACs so w/ 3/4 BAB you will contribute, so it can be worth using 2 feats for longarm proficiency & specialization.

If you put a Sorcerer into SF, he'd have no armor, so no environmental protections and archaic weapons would hurt a lot. No Still Spell or Silent Spell if he did put on armor. He'd have more 1st level spells, but they'd be worse spells for the most part.
If he did bring an old-school wand along, like Magic Missile, it wouldn't be much better than a laser gun. It'd auto-hit, but not get weapon specialization nor ramp up when better weapons come along.

Anyway, that was an incomplete comparison I know, but I've played along spellcasters who were really, really important when we faced the BBEGs. And since it's harder to stockpile magic resources in SF, it's that much nicer to have a PC spellcaster around.
Cheers.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I agree that this is a problem compared to how I would like Starfinder to play. Then again, my Pathfinder full casters only ever touch a weapon to turn it into a torch. I have a mystic I try to play this way, and so she ends up using telekinetic projectile every combat. It doesn't do much, but at least she can feel she is contributing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think "gimped" means what the OP thinks it means? Apart from that, Starfinder really frustrates people who are comparing the classes to "full caster" classes from Pathfinder, and is a boon to people who hated the restrictions forced on "full caster" classes. There's not much else to say.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Loa wrote:
In any case, by level 3, Sorcerers have 2 bloodline powers (same as connection powers), eschew materials and a bloodline spell. This is very similar to the mystic, but they know 2 more spells per day! Two!

Your comparing Full Casters to non full casters, a flawed comparison IMO. It is probably better to compare their spells per day to Bards or Magus', who are also six level casters and not a 9 level, Caster Primary class.

I think you probably need to change your base assumptions about the casters in Starfinder. They are not meant to be 'space wizards' and 'space clerics'. They are meant to be more like 'space Magus' and 'space Warpriest'.

They are 3/4 BAB classes. Their primary offensive power is meant to be from weapons just like everyone else. Their magic is to bring utility and burst damage when needed.

The class assumptions are changed from Pathfinder because the setting and system intent has changed as well. Magic is supplemental now to the skills and tech. Not the classes primary focus.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber
Gilfalas wrote:
I think you probably need to change your base assumptions about the casters in Starfinder. They are not meant to be 'space wizards' and 'space clerics'. They are meant to be more like 'space Magus' and 'space Warpriest'.

I think a big part of the problem is that a lot of people (myself included) really wanted something closer to 'space wizards' or 'space clerics'.

(Personally, I would have vastly preferred 'space sorcerers' and 'space oracles' and 'space psions', but the position is similar. I really don't want to inherit the 'just play a wizard, they get that ability as a third level spell' trope. But I do want to be able to have the option to play a class who only does magic. I want more fantasy in my space-fantasy.)

Having 'space magus' is fine. Technomancers and Mystics both look awesome and interesting to me, personally. Heck, have a whole mess of hybrid casters for people that want to play them. But it isn't filling the full caster itch players and GM's like me want. Changing our base assumptions means we don't get what we want, ever. We're paying for the game, same as everyone else. It's not fair to argue that we should essentially just get over it and change what we want.

(I'm not saying that's what you, personally, were doing here. But that's how a lot of the arguments about full casters feel to those of us that wanted them and keep getting told, essentially, "that's not what you got.")


2 people marked this as a favorite.

^ Having the "full casters" from Pathfinder would involve a) downplaying the importance of tech and gear, since much of it duplicates what "full casters" would do; and b) reintroducing large problems of late-game balance that were inherent to "full caster" classes. That's not what you got, and the rest of us are thankful. This may make more sense to you when you get to actually playing the game.


I know it's a matter of opinion, but this is what discussion is for. I get the technomancer class as a hybrid 3/4 BAB with some gimped (which means handicapped) magic compared to a full spell caster class. I'd take the mystic back to 1/2 BAB and get the sorcerer spells/day in a second! What mystic player wouldn't?

But I believe, like pithica42 and probably a lot of others, that a full caster class would have been very viable in SF even with guns and armor arcane failure. I could live with a sorcerer with light armor and a 10%-20% spell miss rate, or pay for the still spell metamagic which does allow for armor even if it costs a higher spell slot (specifically state at page 83 of PF core rulebook).

Heck, even at 20% miss chance, the sorcerer would end up having the same number of successful spells as the mystic!

So yes it's a matter of choice and design, but a sorcerer would be fully viable in SF. Maybe I'll GM a game with such a change and see how it does one day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The big problem is solving the swing of relative uselessness to omnipotence that was always characteristic of "full caster" classes. Starfinder is designed to incorporate and make tech highly important while avoiding that problem. By all means have at it, but solving it in a way that doesn't annoy players who came to your game for features like what SF now possesses may not be as easy as you think.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

I'm well aware of the arguments against having full casters in the game, and the troubles that come along with them (having both played and GM'd for 20th level wizards and druids and clerics). I'm also aware that those problems are fixable (I have to fix them with house rules all the time in my games), especially for the spontaneous casters like Oracles and Sorcerers. I'm not asking for OP wizards, that isn't what I want. I'm asking for a balanced class that is built around spellcasting as their primary (nigh-exclusive) modus operandi. I want a non-broken full caster.

I also don't see how full casters would 'downplay the importance of tech and gear'. There's a bunch of technology that does what magic traditionally did in fantasy, cheaper and more reliably. A flashlight is 1 credit. A Gil Sheath is 95 credits. All armor has built in free environmental protection. You could go on like this all day. If anything, it's the other way around, tech and gear massively downplay magic's role. A full caster would feel like an anachronism, in a lot of ways, and I'd be totally okay with that. I just want that option (as a player and as a GM).


Spellcasters are more like bards in Starfinder than sorcerers or any 9th level casters.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

Yes, the Starfinder casters are weaker than a sorcerer. I think that's true even considering the other goodies they've gotten in the transition. But considering the fact that the sorcerer was one of the stronger Pathfinder classes, is making the caster classes somewhat weaker in Starfinder really that wrong?

I think if I had to point to one big weakness of Starfinder casters, its that their reduced spells/day is compounded by the fact that combats tend to last a few extra rounds each. You can't really cast round after round until well into the mid-to-high levels.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I would have to point that..
had this not been released without anyone else having played 9th elvel casters in a similar system..
That it probably wouldn't be that much of a comment on this.

In this game they're pretty balanced. They're weapon using casters rather than "never touch the stuff" casters.

They were never made to be "I do nothing but cast" classes.
They were made to be "Hey I got some ability that I use to suppliment my every day life" sort of thing. They trained magical ways, while a mechanic learned circuit boards, ai's and computers, while an operative trained skills, a soldier trained to kill, etc.

It is not a nerf, because this is its own game, even if tangentially story related to pathfinder, it is its own thing. and in this world the magic isn't omnipotent things.

These are folks who learned to combine their magics with their modern world.

now, there could be a "wow what a weird traditionalist living in the past" guy who focuses purely on magic in the future.. but that really is not something that would be common in that world. So it doesn't go in the main initial bookstorm. It'll be some suppliment down the road that concerns some part of the galaxy that was obscure, or a specific god had played as his own small space of development.

TLDR. Casters are only nerfed because folks are looking at the casters of Starfinder by comparing to Pathfinder or other d20 "do nothing but cast" casters.

Well that is how I view it anyway. This is a pretty subjective subject, due to point of reference.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, it could be chalked up to thematic differences. Magic users don't get the spotlight, because the game puts more emphasis on being science fiction with fantasy elements rather than being fantasy *cough* Pathfinder *cough* in space.

The Exchange

Name me one thing that helps a mystic use weapons other than his low base attack?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ralph Cauthorn wrote:
Name me one thing that helps a mystic use weapons other than his low base attack?

Weapon Specialization at 3rd level...


Ralph Cauthorn wrote:
Name me one thing that helps a mystic use weapons other than his low base attack?

Mind breaker connection, And healers are the bees knees at fighting undead.

The Exchange

Weapon specialization with the weakest weapons and which in no way helps him to actually hit.

Mind breaker connection at most makes them flat-footed and costs resolve and your standard action.

None of those are remotely close to making it a fair weapons user on its own merit.


Ralph Cauthorn wrote:

Weapon specialization with the weakest weapons and which in no way helps him to actually hit.

Mind breaker connection at most makes them flat-footed and costs resolve and your standard action.

None of those are remotely close to making it a fair weapons user on its own merit.

Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean they aren't answers. You asked for one thing, you were given three.

The Exchange

Azalah wrote:
Ralph Cauthorn wrote:

Weapon specialization with the weakest weapons and which in no way helps him to actually hit.

Mind breaker connection at most makes them flat-footed and costs resolve and your standard action.

None of those are remotely close to making it a fair weapons user on its own merit.

Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean they aren't answers. You asked for one thing, you were given three.

Two. And both only served to support the point that mystics suck at using weapons in combat compared to any of the other classes by a wide margin.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ralph Cauthorn wrote:
Name me one thing that helps a mystic use weapons other than his low base attack?

How is having the same BAB of all but 2 other classes considered low?


Ralph Cauthorn wrote:
Azalah wrote:
Ralph Cauthorn wrote:

Weapon specialization with the weakest weapons and which in no way helps him to actually hit.

Mind breaker connection at most makes them flat-footed and costs resolve and your standard action.

None of those are remotely close to making it a fair weapons user on its own merit.

Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean they aren't answers. You asked for one thing, you were given three.
Two. And both only served to support the point that mystics suck at using weapons in combat compared to any of the other classes by a wide margin.

Yes. The caster class is worse at using other weapons compared to the other classes that mainly use weapons. That isn't a big reveal.

Envoys are pretty weak when using weapons as well. They generally only really get buffs and debuffs, and no magic at all. I'm surprised you aren't calling out Envoys as being nerfed Bards as well.

The Exchange

Every other class has some way of dynamically supplementing that. Some examples are:
Envoy - Get em
Techonomancer - empowered weapon
Operative - trick attack and up to4 attack of full attack
Mechanic - exocortex tracking or just use your attack drone

I think envoys need help too. I put them with mystics as the weakest classes in Starfinder. But what was the thread title again?


Ralph Cauthorn wrote:

Every other class has some way of dynamically supplementing that. Some examples are:

Envoy - Get em
Techonomancer - empowered weapon
Operative - trick attack and up to4 attack of full attack
Mechanic - exocortex tracking or just use your attack drone

I think envoys need help too. But what was the thread title again?

Not everything is about pure ability to hit, you know.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ralph Cauthorn wrote:
Name me one thing that helps a mystic use weapons other than his low base attack?

Starlight Form - 3rd Level Star Shaman connection power: "you gain the benefits of concealment (20% miss chance). At 7th level, a creature that ends its turn adjacent to your starlight form must succeed at a Fortitude save or be blinded for 1 round"

See Invisibility - 2nd Level Spell


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, and 0-level spell, Fatigue. AC and a lot of other stuff is reduced by -1. So there's something to help a Mystic hit better.

The Exchange

I just love how hard the bottom of the barrel is being scraped to make it seem like the mystic does not suck at weapons usage in a game where a large part of combat revolves around using high-tech weapons.

It really just helps make the point.

I'm peacing out.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ralph Cauthorn wrote:

I just love how hard the bottom of the barrel is being scraped to make it seem like the mystic does not suck at weapons usage in a game where a large part of combat revolves around using high-tech weapons.

It really just helps make the point.

I'm peacing out.

Yeah, you've been proven wrong. It's not "scraping the barrel." You just won't be happy because it's not what you want. Well, give them a bit of time to work on making some caster-only classes that don't break the game. I'm sure they'll eventually put some out.

Grand Lodge

Ralph Cauthorn wrote:

I just love how hard the bottom of the barrel is being scraped to make it seem like the mystic does not suck at weapons usage in a game where a large part of combat revolves around using high-tech weapons.

It really just helps make the point.

I'm peacing out.

I think the real answer to your question is the players creativity and build. Making a combat better for a traditionaly less combat oriented character is doable.

In fact the answer to your question is in the main book- Crusader Chaplin. It is an example of how to make your Mystic better in combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mystics are probably the weakest damage class in the game, I'll admit. But my group would be dead with a capital D without our mystic healing and supporting us. They're REALLY good at support.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
derpdidruid wrote:
Mystics are probably the weakest damage class in the game, I'll admit. But my group would be dead with a capital D without our mystic healing and supporting us. They're REALLY good at support.

And there is nothing wrong with support classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Playing a techomancer doesn't feel like playing a gimp. Our mystic is an ace pilot and does that job well, including in a vehicle rather than a starship; she's better with a gun than I am and has weapon focus, I'm focusing on spells, skills, and items.


Part of the issue with introducing 'Now with full casting!' classes is that it would really take away from the Mystic and Technomancer, who are already fluffwise Next Evolution of Spellcasting. It would push them back to 'That guy who's not really a full spellcaster'.

That and the massive, massive balance issues that come with fullcasting. They'd need to introduce a lot more non-combat abilities for martial classes there (And honestly, some like the soldier already could do with such).


Zwordsman wrote:

I would have to point that..

had this not been released without anyone else having played 9th elvel casters in a similar system..
That it probably wouldn't be that much of a comment on this.

In this game they're pretty balanced. They're weapon using casters rather than "never touch the stuff" casters.

They were never made to be "I do nothing but cast" classes.
They were made to be "Hey I got some ability that I use to suppliment my every day life" sort of thing. They trained magical ways, while a mechanic learned circuit boards, ai's and computers, while an operative trained skills, a soldier trained to kill, etc.

It is not a nerf, because this is its own game, even if tangentially story related to pathfinder, it is its own thing. and in this world the magic isn't omnipotent things.

These are folks who learned to combine their magics with their modern world.

now, there could be a "wow what a weird traditionalist living in the past" guy who focuses purely on magic in the future.. but that really is not something that would be common in that world. So it doesn't go in the main initial bookstorm. It'll be some suppliment down the road that concerns some part of the galaxy that was obscure, or a specific god had played as his own small space of development.

TLDR. Casters are only nerfed because folks are looking at the casters of Starfinder by comparing to Pathfinder or other d20 "do nothing but cast" casters.

Well that is how I view it anyway. This is a pretty subjective subject, due to point of reference.

Unless paizo publishes some spells that help my mystic hit with his gun I'm definitely gonna be in the "never touch the stuff" category. I mean, I ain't gonna spend any appreciable amount of creds on a decent gun just to be taking potshots and missing more often than not. I'm resigned to just using my gun for covering/harrying fire, which I can do just as well with an azimuth laser pistol as any other weapon.

Summoning however might be pretty decent for damage-supplementation. Why buy a gun when I can summon an archon that shoots lasers for me? My damage output still ain't gonna be anything to write home about though, but at least I ain't gonna be blowing a hole in my creds account doing it.


Your a spell caster not a spell hose. Spell seem to be a secondary thing to use when the chips are down. With weapons, armor, weapon slots, armor slots, magic items, personal upgrades, cybernetic augmentation and genetic modifacations you don't really need as many spell. Most of those spell were replaced by the formentioned easier to produce tech.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
ghostunderasheet wrote:
Your a spell caster not a spell hose. Spell seem to be a secondary thing to use when the chips are down. With weapons, armor, weapon slots, armor slots, magic items, personal upgrades, cybernetic augmentation and genetic modifacations you don't really need as many spell. Most of those spell were replaced by the formentioned easier to produce tech.

But some of us still want to play a character for who spells are not secondary. We want to play a character who only casts spells and never uses weapons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Missing more often than not"? Mystics have the same BAB technomancers do, don't they?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it is more that due to the way spells work now, only highest 2 levels of spells will be any good for damage. The lower level damage spells will get phased out for utility or healing as you increase in levels since they don't increase in damage. 2d10 damage ain't worth that much when the monster can save for half and has 150hp.

Your highest level spells will still be very impressive when you cast them, so you'll still have some shine in boss fights. But considering what I can (or rather can't) achieve with a decent firearm I struggle to justify the cost of a firearm.

Right now, I don't think I have any incentive for my mystic to shell out credits for anything more than an azimuth pistol.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Redelia wrote:
ghostunderasheet wrote:
Your a spell caster not a spell hose. Spell seem to be a secondary thing to use when the chips are down. With weapons, armor, weapon slots, armor slots, magic items, personal upgrades, cybernetic augmentation and genetic modifacations you don't really need as many spell. Most of those spell were replaced by the formentioned easier to produce tech.
But some of us still want to play a character for who spells are not secondary. We want to play a character who only casts spells and never uses weapons.

Then Starfinder may not be the game for you.

Edit: And that's okay both ways. It's okay for you to not like Starfinder because it doesn't support the play style you want, but it's also okay for Starfinder not to support that because Paizo has learned to make a more balanced game where spell casters don't innately dominate the game.


FiddlersGreen wrote:

[

Unless paizo publishes some spells that help my mystic hit with his gun I'm definitely gonna be in the "never touch the stuff" category. I mean, I ain't gonna spend any appreciable amount of creds on a decent gun just to be taking potshots and missing more often than not. I'm resigned to just using my gun for covering/harrying fire, which I can do just as well with an azimuth laser pistol as any other weapon.

Summoning however might be...

(I'm not being snarky or anything as a preface)

I don't understand what you mean though.. Don't Mystics have just as much ability choice as say a mechanic ? (only class I really have to say)
Sure the exocortex has the ability to get long arms and pseduo full bab.
but the drone oen doesnt

Yeah the drone does gain an extra attack, and that is certainly valid. But I would have to say your spells in combat do weigh well against it.
but I feel like my base mechanic who invested pretty heavy in INT for their spot in the group, and the various abilities, shoots about as well as a mystic does.
More so with the elemental guns hitting pretty well.

I feel like I am missing some detail.

(and as others said, its perfectly fine to dislike Starfinder or not play it because it doesn't offer the style of play you like (at least as of yet). )


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't get me wrong there is alot I like about Starfinder. I'm even running a Dead Suns campaign and hoping to keep running it to the end of the AP.

I do acknowledge that the mystic's spells are nice. I think it is more that spells are a very scarce resource, and also that mystics don't have any mechanic to squeeze more mileage out of their gun, such as the exocortex tracking or even that thing that technomancers do to sacrifice spell slots to boost their attack rolls and damage.

And I cannot for the life of me figure out why only 1 of the 2 spellcasting classes in starfinder gets spellfocus for free, but that's another issue.

I do wonder whether there should be a feat that allows spellcasters to spend a resolve point when resting to regain some of their spell slots to give them more lasting power throughout the day without increasing their 'nova' potential.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Ralph Cauthorn wrote:

Every other class has some way of dynamically supplementing that. Some examples are:

Envoy - Get em
Techonomancer - empowered weapon
Operative - trick attack and up to4 attack of full attack
Mechanic - exocortex tracking or just use your attack drone

I think envoys need help too. I put them with mystics as the weakest classes in Starfinder. But what was the thread title again?

You have no idea how hard I laughed when I saw the drone comment. The most use I got out of a combat drone was having it faceplant on some mining cart tracks to try to derail the cart.

Mystics and Technomancers are both viable when built to do the assigned task. I'm playing a Soldier 1/Techno 4 right now in a home game and, with standard rules, I'm one of the primary melee combatants. I deal competitive damage and have competitive to-hit to other damage-focused characters in the party. Yes, I've invested in that role, with both Weapon Focus and Versatile Specialization to boost my combat capacity, but one might expect similar investment from other classes. A Soldier 1/Mystic (x) would be able to do similar things.

I think one of the lessons learned from Pathfinder was to be cautious with spells. It was really easy page filler in the early years to just add some spells without consideration for the whole picture. The deliberate pace associated with spells in Starfinder is a reaction to that. The lack of 9-level casters is a similar reaction, though I think part of the drive there is the popularity of the 6-level casters for their hybrid roles. While I have some words about the Technomancer spell list being on the weak side compared to Mystic, I don't have a problem overall with the design choices.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Reading through this thread and others, it seems like the general advice for combat effectiveness in the non-str/dex primary classes is to get longarm proficiency and dex. Otherwise you'll end up spending most of the fights just missing every round and, other than Envoy, you won't have much of anything else to do.
With the two caster classes (especially Mystic), it's a bit weird because they don't really have hybrid-type class abilities, but players are apparently expected to build them and play them like hybrids.

Grand Lodge

FiddlersGreen wrote:

Don't get me wrong there is alot I like about Starfinder. I'm even running a Dead Suns campaign.

I do acknowledge that the mystic's spells are nice. I think it is more that spells are a very scarce resource, and also that mystics don't have any mechanic to squeeze more mileage out of their gun, such as the exocortex tracking or even that thing that technomancers do to sacrifice spell slots to boost their attack rolls and damage.

There is a wonderful freedom in this though. With no expectation of being good with guns, you aren't beholden to keep up with the Joneses.

I weep when I look at the gold I will have to spend through my soldier's career to keep her relevant. She uses heavy weapons and just her last 20th level weapon alone is going to cost 722,000. With the other weapons I will need to get throughout to up my damage as I go and the weapon seals I'll need for the creatures that are immune to my guns energy type, I'm expecting a credit sink of 1.2 million.

What would your Mystic spend that on? I honestly think the answer to that will balance out any desire you have to be moderatly better at the shoot-bangs.

1 to 50 of 265 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Starfinder General Discussion / Spellcasters willfully gimped? Why? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.