Starfinder Archetypes

"Phrenic Defense (Ex): Your psychic powers give you additional defenses against mental attacks. The first time you fail a saving throw against a spell or effect with the emotion, fear, mind-affecting, or pain descriptor (see page 269), you can spend 1 Resolve Point as a reaction to immediately reroll the failed saving throw.

Even if the second saving throw fails, your stronger defenses might reduce the effect of the spell or ability. If the spell or ability deals damage, reduce the damage done by an amount equal to your class level. If the spell or ability has a duration of 2 rounds or longer, reduce its duration by half."

The wording on it reads pretty clearly that it is refering to when " you fail a saving throw against a spell or effect with X descriptors" and doesnt have any other qualifiers. i am not an English major but wouldnt the launguage default to the first time you fail a save against each specific event unless it specifies some other time frame such as day/round/combat etc? Basically i didnt see where the agrument could come from until i looked at it as if there was information missing from the write up.

Although the first time i read it i actually missed the part about getting a benefit even on a failed save, that is pretty neat and has a nice scaling effect to it. I wonder how often you will see damage effects with those descriptors... and if you reduce the damage from a pain effect to zero does it still even take effect? It sounds similar to DR which counts as a miss if its entirely negated but its not clearly stated so it leaves a weird situation where some crazy torture spell doesnt actually cause pain but could leave you with debuffs related to the pain you didnt feel.

Torbyne wrote:

Mashallah wrote:

Damanta wrote:

Mashallah wrote:

Quote:

The first time you fail a saving throw

The first time per day? Per encounter? Per lifetime?

The way I read it: per save and as long as you have resolve points to spend.

The wording would definitely benefit from being cleaned up.

Possibly but i would not have interpreted it as anything other than first time per event that provokes a save without seeing the confusing here.

Well, it's not as clear for me as the first reading that came to my mind was "once per day".

If you want to empower your mind as a phrenic adept in Starfinder, you must let go of your preconceived notions left over from Pathfinder. Ooommmmmmm... :)

So I think the larger point people missed on this is that actions and action labeling is changing.

Reaction instead of Immediate action.

Can we get some more meat posted around how actions may be
changing in Starfinder?

So I think the larger point people missed on this is that actions and action labeling is changing.

Reaction instead of Immediate action.

Can we get some more meat posted around how actions may be
changing in Starfinder?

Good catch, i read over that and just assumed it was referring to a free action but they have been pretty good at calling out free actions as such in their products so this might be a new term.

"Phrenic Defense (Ex): Your psychic powers give you additional defenses against mental attacks. The first time you fail a saving throw against a spell or effect with the emotion, fear, mind-affecting, or pain descriptor (see page 269), you can spend 1 Resolve Point as a reaction to immediately reroll the failed saving throw.

Even if the second saving throw fails, your stronger defenses might reduce the effect of the spell or ability. If the spell or ability deals damage, reduce the damage done by an amount equal to your class level. If the spell or ability has a duration of 2 rounds or longer, reduce its duration by half."

The wording on it reads pretty clearly that it is refering to when " you fail a saving throw against a spell or effect with X descriptors" and doesnt have any other qualifiers. i am not an English major but wouldnt the launguage default to the first time you fail a save against each specific event unless it specifies some other time frame such as day/round/combat etc? Basically i didnt see where the agrument could come from until i looked at it as if there was information missing from the write up.

Although the first time i read it i actually missed the part about getting a benefit even on a failed save, that is pretty neat and has a nice scaling effect to it. I wonder how often you will see damage effects with those descriptors... and if you reduce the damage from a pain effect to zero does it still even take effect? It sounds similar to DR which counts as a miss if its entirely negated but its not clearly stated so it leaves a weird situation where some crazy torture spell doesnt actually cause pain but could leave you with debuffs related to the pain you didnt feel.

I believe this ability will make more sense in regards to game balance when we have the entirety of the rules to read and consider. The limiter against abuse with this ability is the resolve points, which is a limited pool per day. Also, you will likely have other abilities you will want to spend those resolve points on in addition to using them to heal. I have seen players make these meaningful choices during my Starfinder game at PaizoCon. A player deliberated on when was best to use his remaining resolve for his soldier to heal versus wanting those resolve points for other abilities. The wording of this phrenic adept ability is not as worrisome as many of you might think. You are looking at a tree in a forest through glasses colored by Pathfinder game balance when it you may want to put on Starfinder glasses and see the whole forest. Admittedly, we don't really have those Starfinder glasses yet since only some of us have perused early prints of select chapters and played a game or two at PaizoCon.

From the playtest at PaizoCon, we found out each character had 1 standard action 1 move action, and 1 reaction each round. An attack of opportunity was a reaction, for instance. Hope that helps a little.

That would be kind of nice to just have two major and one minor action every round instead of worrying about using an immediate now or a swift later.

Yes, I think having "immediate" and "swift" actions under the same name is a lot less confusing.

Sounds interesting, Owen.

So multi-classing is a thing in Starfinder, that´s cool.

Do you have to take ALL of an archetype´s alternate class features (like in Pathfinder) or can you choose for instance to take the first possible replacement power but not the second?

How does this work with multi-classing?

If have one level of soldier and gain a level, you decide to take the phrenic adept archetipe and gain "Phrenic Defense" instead of what you would have gotten as a 2nd level soldier.

Then later, you decide to make your 3rd level a mystic level.
As you level up to level 4, do you have to replace that levels class feature with the 4th level "Phrenic Adept" alternate class feature?

And on top of that comes one single theme i guess?

Thank you.

It sounds like the archetype gets attached to a class. So I go from Soldier 1 to 2 and add Phrenic Adept as an archetype. Then I multiclass to Mystic, So I'm a Phrenic Soldier 2/Mystic 1. I believe i this example I could add as many Mystic levels as I want and I'd never gain another Phrenic Adept ability, since I attached it to my Soldier class. Once I hit Soldier 4, I'd get more Phrenic stuff.

Least that's how I understood it.

It sounds like the archetype gets attached to a class. So I go from Soldier 1 to 2 and add Phrenic Adept as an archetype. Then I multiclass to Mystic, So I'm a Phrenic Soldier 2/Mystic 1. I believe i this example I could add as many Mystic levels as I want and I'd never gain another Phrenic Adept ability, since I attached it to my Soldier class. Once I hit Soldier 4, I'd get more Phrenic stuff.

Least that's how I understood it.

You got it.

What happens if you take the archetype on both classes, do you get the level 4 archetype ability at level 2 of your multiclass?

What happens if you take the archetype on both classes, do you get the level 4 archetype ability at level 2 of your multiclass?

You can't put the same archetype on more than one class.

Torbyne wrote:

What happens if you take the archetype on both classes, do you get the level 4 archetype ability at level 2 of your multiclass?

You can't put the same archetype on more than one class.

So no Phrenic Soldier/Phrenic Mystic?

Nope. Archetypes look like they are going to work the best for single classed characters. Except for the archetypes that end early, like the Forerunner only replaces abilities up to 6th level, so taking a 7th in something else might not screw up getting an archetype ability.

Nope. Archetypes look like they are going to work the best for single classed characters. Except for the archetypes that end early, like the Forerunner only replaces abilities up to 6th level, so taking a 7th in something else might not screw up getting an archetype ability.

And honestly, I don't think that's such a bad thing. Building versatile base classes and giving you access to a bunch of customization via themes and archetypes should lead to less multiclassing being needed to achieve your character concept. Now, maybe it'll still be "needed" for charop purposes, but if the need for it can be reduced that's awesome.

It does seem like multiclass characters function a lot better in Starfinder though. I'm sure a lot of casters will appreciate their caster levels from both classes stacking. Combine that with a Mystic Theurge-esque Prestige class and you have a functional multi-class caster!

It does seem like multiclass characters function a lot better in Starfinder though. I'm sure a lot of casters will appreciate their caster levels from both classes stacking. Combine that with a Mystic Theurge-esque Prestige class and you have a functional multi-class caster!

Assuming they do do prestige classes at all. So far there are no plans for that.

This is the way that Phrenic Defense was worded on my character sheet in the level 5 preview:

Phrenic Defense (Su) The first time each day you fail a save against a mind-affecting effect, you may reroll the save. If the second save fails, the effect does half damage or half the duration.

None of that says anything about it costing Resolve Points, so I don't know if that was made using an earlier build of the game rules or what.

James Krolak wrote:

Damage. Both of the level 5 Envoys could only do 1d2+2 dmg with their guns. The Soldier was regularly doing 13+ dmg per hit. And that jumped up to 35+ once the Technomancer realized his most effective move was to cast Overload Weapon (or something like that) to give +4d6 dmg to the Soldier's gun each round.

The iconic Envoy was at least built like a Bard in that she could spend a Move Action to boost allies' attacks. Actually, she had 2 different Move Actions like that available, so she could do both each round. My Envoy didn't have any of that. Instead, he had 1 ability that was an Intimidate, but it never seemed to work. Not sure if the DCs are just a lot harder than in Pathfinder for Intimidate or if the stuff we fought was immune to that or what.

Wait, is that a typo? Your level 5 character was shooting for 1D2+2? that sounds... really bad, like to say you have options on what to do with damage output like that or using a class ability would be rather misleading.

If it was a typo, then the same typo was done on the iconic Envoy 'cuz that player was right next to me and her character sheet said the same damage with her pistols.

There is no pistol in the game that does 1d2 damage.

There is no pistol in the game that does 1d2 damage.

The plot thickens! Did someone just really bung up her sheet?

It sounds like the pregens were using simplified rules or were based off an early draft of the rules. Mr. Seifter said in antoher thread that the level 5 Soldier had their damage calculations lower than they should have been as well. I think he was specifically referring to the ranged weapon options. And we have already seen two versions of Phrenic Defense now with one looking far more expanded than the other.

The always giving up the same abilities aspect of this bothers me. I have played a fair number of Rogues in Pathfinder, it seems like every archetype designer ever decided that a Rogue didn't need trapfinding. So I've stopped even looking at archetypes for Rogues.

This feels like you've designed an entire system around that inflexible concept.

I should probably stop reading these previews and wait for the book.

This feels like you've designed an entire system around that inflexible concept.

Yes, but it's a lot more like saying every archetype that gives you something at 2nd level swaps out the rogue's 2nd level talent.

So you aren't always giving up something at 2nd (an archetype might not have a 2nd level ability), and if you do you are giving up a selection of new powers, rather than a core class power you can't get any other way.

Basically the options most classes trade away in archetypes are something that can be "bought back" at a later iteration of that class ability?

Basically the options most classes trade away in archetypes are something that can be "bought back" at a later iteration of that class ability?

It seems casters give up 1 spell known for that level and other classes give up one of their selectable talents.

Basically the options most classes trade away in archetypes are something that can be "bought back" at a later iteration of that class ability?

I think it depends on the class. From what I recall reading, caster give up a spell known, which for spontaneous casters, is usually hard to replace.

So you aren't always giving up something at 2nd (an archetype might not have a 2nd level ability), and if you do you are giving up a selection of new powers, rather than a core class power you can't get any other way.

Just as I thought, doesn't sound so bad at all.

Still wondering if the archetype gets spellcasting

Starfinder feels somewhat like "Advanced Class Guide: The Game" in a good way :).

I'd love to see an 'Investigator' Archetype that just gives Inspiration or a 'Inquisitor' Archetype that just gives Judgment to any class that wants it in exchange for class abilities that were a menu of customization options themselves.

Starfinder feels somewhat like "Advanced Class Guide: The Game" in a good way :).

I'd love to see an 'Investigator' Archetype that just gives Inspiration or a 'Inquisitor' Archetype that just gives Judgment to any class that wants it in exchange for class abilities that were a menu of customization options themselves.

I am not sure that is the direction they are going. One of the classes previewed already seems to have "inspiration" locked in for that specific class. i honestly cant remember if it is the Operative or the Envoy at the moment though.

... you are giving up a selection of new powers, rather than a core class power you can't get any other way.

Thanks, Owen.

This has allayed my fears somewhat, I'm much happier with the concept of giving up something I can always take at a higher level if I want to.

Azih wrote:

Starfinder feels somewhat like "Advanced Class Guide: The Game" in a good way :).

I'd love to see an 'Investigator' Archetype that just gives Inspiration or a 'Inquisitor' Archetype that just gives Judgment to any class that wants it in exchange for class abilities that were a menu of customization options themselves.

I am not sure that is the direction they are going. One of the classes previewed already seems to have "inspiration" locked in for that specific class. i honestly cant remember if it is the Operative or the Envoy at the moment though.

Inspiration might have been the wrong example to use. But there are *so* many archetypes in Pathfinder that are basically just giving something like The Slayer's studied target ability to a class.

Much better to have one general 'Assassin' or 'Slayer' archetype that can be applied to any class as a replacement for one of their class abilities that is a customization option for them anyway.

Much better to have one general 'Assassin' or 'Slayer' archetype that can be applied to any class as a replacement for one of their class abilities that is a customization option for them anyway.

I really like that Idea, in the end there are so many possibilities to be an assassin - and every one is valid for the average murder-hobo

Or a 'Tracker' archetype that gives favored enemy to any class that wants it. If you want to play a Technomancer that really hates space goblins for some reason then there you go!

I can see this making it very easy to make custom archetypes too because of the standardized nature of it. Just pick and choose from the hundreds of Pathfinder class ability options and just drop those abilities in!

The Starfinder Forerunner could be the tracker - it seems like the starfinder society is basically sci-fi pathfinder society so they are seekers of knowledge
and since they possible have to visit a sh**load of worlds and need people who scout ahead (forerunners) they could be a survival/ranger-esque class archetype

I'm guessing Forerunner is inspired by the Pathfinder Chronicler PRC, with a hint of ranger tracking, and maybe some form of HIPS.

I feel like this new definition of Archetypes is probably one way to implement something similar to what I was hoping could be ported from Pathfinder: Bloodlines.
Archetype ability trades have the same number of abilities that can be traded out or in as how many Bloodline Powers per bloodline there are after all. Six abilities.

Will it happen like that? I don't know, but I've really been hoping that there'd be a way to add some of the more iconic bloodlines into Starfinder. But thinking this over, it might be a case that it's just something to homebrew up.

... That said, it seems like a ridiculously easy thing to homebrew. I imagine the first thing I'd do is Homebrew up a "Draconic" Archetype to allow me to play a Draconic Technomancer.... Or a Draconic Operative... Or even a Draconic Solarion.

Not sure what kind of book this would show up in if they actually did that though... the equivalent to Ultimate Magic? Advanced Player Guide? Ultimate Combat? Advanced Race Guide?

... Actually, I think that last one would probably get called "Xenology Unchained" for Starfinder... No idea why... But either way that's one tangent too far.

... Actually, I think that last one would probably get called "Xenology Unchained" for Starfinder... No idea why... But either way that's one tangent too far.

If you haven't picked up First Contact, yet, you should take a look at it. The introduction mentions that Starfinder monster creation is based on the monster creation system in Pathfinder Unchained (and poisons and diseases use the Pathfinder Unchained rules).

I know you're talking about player character options, but it seems like the concept of applying variations to a core set of building blocks is a big part of Starfinder's design philosophy.

TBH one thing I'm actually not fond of with these new archetypes is a side effect of their being universal, which is that it will make it that much harder to expand upon the options within a single class. Yeah at least most every class so far has their 'talent' system, but what if, for instance, a later book wanted to, say, take a look at a mechanic that didn't have an AI companion, or even just add different options for the AI and related abilities based on that. In Pathfinder this would be easily done through an Archetype, but now... well, depending on how variant the concept is from the base class it might just not be possible. For instance, look at stuff like the Mindblade and Eldritch Archer Magi. Maybe a talent could manage Ranged Spellstrike, but Mindblade would virtually have to be a new class.

TBH one thing I'm actually not fond of with these new archetypes is a side effect of their being universal, which is that it will make it that much harder to expand upon the options within a single class. Yeah at least most every class so far has their 'talent' system, but what if, for instance, a later book wanted to, say, take a look at a mechanic that didn't have an AI companion, or even just add different options for the AI and related abilities based on that. In Pathfinder this would be easily done through an Archetype, but now... well, depending on how variant the concept is from the base class it might just not be possible. For instance, look at stuff like the Mindblade and Eldritch Archer Magi. Maybe a talent could manage Ranged Spellstrike, but Mindblade would virtually have to be a new class.

Really not following what your getting at in the least bit. Read it thrice an i'm still lost.

TBH one thing I'm actually not fond of with these new archetypes is a side effect of their being universal, which is that it will make it that much harder to expand upon the options within a single class. Yeah at least most every class so far has their 'talent' system, but what if, for instance, a later book wanted to, say, take a look at a mechanic that didn't have an AI companion, or even just add different options for the AI and related abilities based on that. In Pathfinder this would be easily done through an Archetype, but now... well, depending on how variant the concept is from the base class it might just not be possible. For instance, look at stuff like the Mindblade and Eldritch Archer Magi. Maybe a talent could manage Ranged Spellstrike, but Mindblade would virtually have to be a new class.

I actually had some of the same concerns, and still do at some level. One of the things that helped me though is that that might actually be incorrect. While I'm not sure that every class is like this, it feels like Starfinder did take some cues from 5e, whether intentional or not. The themes/backgrounds thing is the easiest to see, but where this helps us is with subclasses. It appears that new subclasses will be one of the better ways to customize classes in Starfinder, and they might be able to release new ones every main book.

Like how a Mystic picks Connections or Operatives pick Specializations. I suspect on some level, Connections are more important to your character than Domains were. Very similar to how Domains are more important in 5e than they are in Pathfinder. But I'm not sure that every Starfinder class has subclasses actually.

That said, originally, archetypes weren't actually part of Pathfinder in the first place. And Pathfinder has been really good about allowing customization outside of Archetypes too. The Fighter is a really good example of that. As the game grows, I'm sure character customization will still continue to grow as well.

Starfinder's archetypes seem to be much broader than a Pathfinder Archetype and themes look like they are meant to be a subclass with a completely different skill set from your main class. I am not certain about this but the feeling i have gotten is that the specific specializations that were the focus of Pathfinder Archetypes are now baked into the classes as the abilities chosen from a list every few levels. It looks like every class has something like this already, a list of abilities, some with level requirements and other that require you to take prerequisite class abilities first but you build your Pathfinder equivalent archetype out of those options. If that is the case than it is actually much easier to support and add new abilities to classes, just publish a 4 line write up, ie, "any mechanic of at least 6th level can choose this option to gain a bonus equal to half their level to use unknown alien technology" if they want to let mechanics entirely build around alien technology then make an 8, 10 and 14 level ability that build off each other and you effectively have an archetype that you can freely dip outside of and still get some iconic ability from the normal class progressions.

I for one really dislike the subclass style of archetype system for the same reason I dislike it in 5e... It's directly losing one of the greatest benefits of archetypes.

In PF, if I make an alchemist where it doesn't make sense for them to have bombs, I can trade that away. Not all mechanics are going to want an exocortex or a drone... but now they have to if they want to be the tech-guy, and there never will be an archetype which removes that because that's not one of the abilities which get traded by archetypes.

I for one really dislike the subclass style of archetype system for the same reason I dislike it in 5e... It's directly losing one of the greatest benefits of archetypes.

In PF, if I make an alchemist where it doesn't make sense for them to have bombs, I can trade that away. Not all mechanics are going to want an exocortex or a drone... but now they have to if they want to be the tech-guy, and there never will be an archetype which removes that because that's not one of the abilities which get traded by archetypes.

But that is what i am trying to say in my post just above yours, at release there are only two options for the mechanic to pursue. it is easy for them to release an option in a later book that is something else, vehicle savant or something, where instead of drone or exocortex the mechanic gets bonus ship points and can customize a hover bike like a mount class feature. but by making it an option for any mechanic they dont have to trade away some other class ability that maybe they really wanted.

Mecha Pilot

Just sayin

It could be that "Vehicle Savant" could even be a way that the "Artificial Intelligence" class feature expresses itself in the future, rather than Exocortex or Drone. Maybe now it's expressly something that helps you pilot vehicles or Mechs and gives you major bonuses to doing so.

Mecha Pilot

Just sayin

The "Ace Pilot" theme seems broad enough to include that already.

TBH one thing I'm actually not fond of with these new archetypes is a side effect of their being universal, which is that it will make it that much harder to expand upon the options within a single class. Yeah at least most every class so far has their 'talent' system, but what if, for instance, a later book wanted to, say, take a look at a mechanic that didn't have an AI companion, or even just add different options for the AI and related abilities based on that. In Pathfinder this would be easily done through an Archetype, but now... well, depending on how variant the concept is from the base class it might just not be possible. For instance, look at stuff like the Mindblade and Eldritch Archer Magi. Maybe a talent could manage Ranged Spellstrike, but Mindblade would virtually have to be a new class.

That's not true even in Pathfinder, with archetypes as they exist now. Consider, for example, the druid option of druid herbalism. It's just presented as a different option for the nature's bond class ability, no archetype needed. In the same vein, you could easily print a new option for the mechanic's "Artificial Intelligence" class ability without needing to come anywhere near an archetype.

TBH one thing I'm actually not fond of with these new archetypes is a side effect of their being universal, which is that it will make it that much harder to expand upon the options within a single class.

It shouldn't. Obviously for classes with selectable options its easy to add more, so envoy inspirations, operative talents, technomancer magic hacks, mechanic tricks, solarian inspirations, and soldier gear boosts (for example) can all be expanded with no effort at all.

Shinigami02 wrote:

TBH one thing I'm actually not fond of with these new archetypes is a side effect of their being universal, which is that it will make it that much harder to expand upon the options within a single class.

It shouldn't. Obviously for classes with selectable options its easy to add more, so envoy inspirations, operative talents, technomancer magic hacks, mechanic tricks, solarian inspirations, and soldier gear boosts (for example) can all be expanded with no effort at all.

But also, we can create alternate class features, similar to what Pathfinder did for inquisitions for inquisitors, or sub-domains, or the elemental schools for wizards.
Even if we wanted to play with one powerful option in place of three weaker ones (which I suspect we won't do except for very rare cases), that can still just be presented as an alternate power.

This makes Sense, especially considering that many skills are not based on number-crunching