Reports from the Field: Starfinder Second Edition Playtests

Thanks for this great preview!

Loving that Aeon Advance idea. Great for flushing out the PCs.

Curious to hear more about Operative and Witchwarper, I wasn’t guessing the latter would be in the Core (and maybe it won’t be) and some folks I’ve been talking with were figuring that the Operative would be too close to a rogue in feel to need to keep operative in the game. I’m still hoping that Mechanic and Technomancer are in, but guess we’ll wait and see.

Also glad that Grenades are just based on Class DC for now! Are you thinking of them as being significantly different from Alchemical Bombs in PF2, or do they have a similar design idea at the moment?

Excellent write up and I am excited to see where things go.

Question: Did you modify a PF2e game system on Foundry VTT for the test? Or was it a complete rewrite?

(all hail the Foundry PF2e community)

Excellent write up and I am excited to see where things go.

Question: Did you modify a PF2e game system on Foundry VTT for the test? Or was it a complete rewrite?

(all hail the Foundry PF2e community)

well they had inspire courage going(i assume from the mystics song ability or w/e), so im going to guess they just used pf2e system and changed the name of a few things. and it looks like they might have even manually rolled damage(when needed).

Yeah, Cover is *very* powerful in PF2, so I imagine it's even more important in SF2. So I'm looking forward to all the different options you come up with to ignore cover, drive people out of cover, etc.

As a witchwarper stan, I cannot WAIT to see more about the new witchwarpers <3 <3 <3

Thanks for the great write-up!

P.S.: Even the devs use Foundry, amazing XD

Sounds like the precog is being rolled up into the witchwarper? Seems reasonable, they're pretty similar in concept.

some folks I’ve been talking with were figuring that the Operative would be too close to a rogue in feel to need to keep operative in the game.

With the vague description given so far, it feels more like it is somewhere between a Ranger and a Swashbuckler. Ranger because your targeting action (Hunt Prey) doesn't require a roll, and Swashbuckler because your damage boosting action (Panache => Finisher) only works for one attack.

Ooo, really hope witchwarper being tested here means that it is confirmed for the core book. It's one of the two classes (other being biohacker) that I would be most excited for. I wonder what exactly the precog anomaly entails.

I havent even seen the mechanics for witchwarper yet and can already feel the migraine coming on reading about it.

Do all operatives aim for extra damage or just the sniper? I love trick attacks as they are funny and thematic and want to keep using them in 2e.

Also is the mystic Miyu from the Veskarium/Pulonis scenarios or another pahtra with the same name?

I’ve been talking with were figuring that the Operative would be too close to a rogue in feel to need to keep operative in the game

I'd be extremely surprised if PF classes had any impact on what SF does based on what they've said about the "meta" states of the game. Compatibility, sure but they shouldn't otherwise directly impact one another.

Not sure where to say this, but I would highly encourage y'all to focus on what makes Starfinder good rather than what makes Pathfinder players feel good. You're building a whole separate game on the core engine with a whole separate meta state, and it's going to feel weird to Pathfinder players who aren't grokking that.

A lot of Pathfinder communities seem to be treating Starfinder like it's going to be a Pathfinder expansion pack, and their feedback when polled in surveys is going to skew away from really honing in on what makes Starfinder a good game and toward critiquing these abilities from a Pathfinder-meta perspective.

I'm saying this as someone who has played tons of Pathfinder but very little Starfinder: please focus on the Starfinder fans!

(I guess it mostly seems like you are already so please continue to do so! Everything here sounds very exciting.)

Definitely interested in seeing Operative follow in Soldier's footsteps and forge a new identity outside of just 'Space-Rogue'.

Love the write-up. Enjoyed getting to read about some of the enemy NPC abilities.

I like the idea of groups (both NPCs and PCs) having to balance between grouping up or spreading out. I know that already sort of happens with AoE spells and stuff...but it seems like with the abilities we're seeing right now, that choice is going to be getting more important.

Also, glad that there are discussions about adventure design paradigms for the new system. While that 30' square scenario was sort of painful when a party had 0 snipers (or 1 with bad luck rolls), if the adventures start, from the beginning assume more 10' squares that would open things up a lot (might also discourage all the melee builds we saw in SF1e, to just a handful instead)

Loved it! The HYPE is huge!!!

Definitely interested in seeing Operative follow in Soldier's footsteps and forge a new identity outside of just 'Space-Rogue'.

I kinda like them being a Space Rogue... =)

This looks neat so far. Oh, and FANTASY GROUNDS > Foundry =P

Can’t wait until we get to playtest!

This looks neat so far. Oh, and FANTASY GROUNDS > Foundry =P

We love all our VTT partners and are glad that there are enough options that everyone can find the system that works best for them and their playgroup. Paizo employees using one VTT over others for internal playtests, streams, etc. is not a value judgment on other VTTs. We don't do edition wars here, so let's also not do VTT wars.

This is making me excited to see more starfinder 2e classes x'D Is it too late to add more classes to core rulebook? (Probably yeah)

It sounds like the Operative will be more combat focused than the Rogue, which honestly is a great way to distinguish between the two and (more importantly) to make it work well with the Soldier. Both Soldiers and Operatives will have their niche, and they should be able to work well with each other.

I wasn't expecting the Witchwarper, but I like it. Both the choice, and the way it seems to play. Both the Witchwarper and the Mystic have offensive spells, but they also have clearly defined niches. Most promising! I also caught the subclasses for both. A Song connection works well for a worshiper of Zon-Shelyn (and their possible girlfriend Desna), and the Precog anomaly indicates that the Precog will be rolled into the Witchwarper. CriticalQuit's analysis of the two classes is pretty spot on, so combining them makes sense.

So.... sounds like people like this type of content and would enjoy seeing more of it in the future?

Yes please. This is fun to see little snap shots of what the team has cooking.

I just hope people keep in mind that everything is still in development. So things are in a state of flux and even what is previewed may change.

That being said, this was a lot of fun to see and I would love to see more.

Love all of this! I want to play all four of those classes!

Can't wait to see what you do with starship combat. One of the many reasons I love Starfinder is the thematically natural way we can transition from big ship battles to mechs/land/air vehicles to ground combat to urban or underground. It just seems to work better than Pathfinder for some reason!!

The 2e Mystic seemingly being a first-party take on the old (awesome!) 3pp Vitalist makes me jump for joy. That's SO cool! Most adventuring parties already act psychically-linked, so having that be textual is really fun for me.

I like the Operative's seeming refocus in class fantasy. Alternatives to the Gunslinger are always good news for me.

Core Witchwarper is very exciting news (especially for the odds of seeing Starfinder Kobolds in 2e sooner, rather than later), but I admit to being surprised at no obvious tech-y class. The PF2 Inventor is obviously eating up a lot of real estate, but still... no grease monkey in the high-tech space game's corebook? Who fixes up the ship when it breaks?

So.... sounds like people like this type of content and would enjoy seeing more of it in the future?

That's a Texas-sized 10-4.

I'd be extremely surprised if PF classes had any impact on what SF does based on what they've said about the "meta" states of the game. Compatibility, sure but they shouldn't otherwise directly impact one another.

They literally say it's part of their thought process in the first field test on why Soldier got changed from generic fighter to focus on just heavy weapons.

I loved playing an Ysoki Soldier in Powered Armour.

Is there a future for Powered Armour in SF2?

I've already seen some use this preview to say there won't be any mechanic or technomancer classes in SF, hoping that ends up inaccurate.

I'd assume that the Mechanic, Technomancer, and possibly Nanocyte will be part of a Tech focused book.

Excellent write up and I am excited to see where things go.

Question: Did you modify a PF2e game system on Foundry VTT for the test? Or was it a complete rewrite?

(all hail the Foundry PF2e community)

I don't know what they did specifically but I can give some insight on how you would run a comprehensive playtest in Foundry. I am one of the system devs for PF2e on Foundry, and did the module for the Starfinder Field Test.

The PF2e system on Foundry built out a lot of homebrew tools, allowing GMs to quickly add traits, languages, damage types, etc to the system and then the way we automate most things, rule elements, let anyone tie proper automation to their new homebrew traits. For a playtest this kind of stuff should change often, likely even mid session, so setting up automation beforehand may be overkill. But for things that are stable in the game you can solidify them either inside a test world or as a module which could be shared among testers by just sending a zip file around.

We have a guide on how to make modules and have those modules contain some basic automation like pre-registering custom traits, adding trait descriptions for easy reference on hover, custom base weapons, etc. Once rules become more locked in place it's easy to add them in to things like that for automation purposes. Stuff like class features, etc require more knowledge of rule elements which is a specific skill but it's easier to pick up that skill than it is to learn to code and we have a wiki detailing how to use them if you want to implement your own automation for something. Simple things like a bonus to X in Y circumstance is easy to do because we have a form for that kind of rule element. More complex things like selecting class features, granting abilities, modifying how rolls are made, implementing auras, etc are all doable but require a deeper dive into the system.

If we get more official field test documents I will happily update the module to reflect the new rules, and yes we will put out a module for the upcoming class playtest when we can just like we did for Kineticist, Magus, etc when they were in playtest.

Do all operatives aim for extra damage or just the sniper? I love trick attacks as they are funny and thematic and want to keep using them in 2e.

I would not be surprised if operatives have a general "When you do X and then attack, you get bonus damage" ability, with X varying based on subclass.

Haven't posted much lately, but want to say all this news lately is putting my creative life into overdrive. I'm so on board with everything Paizo's doing, between making the world of Golarion more wholly its own thing, distinct from D&D, and marrying Starfinder and Pathfinder into a fully compatible system. That last thing is, like, a seismic moment for Paizo in general. The system will be able to tell many more types of stories now, which I am counting on for things I've been cooking up for my own table.

I'd assume that the Mechanic, Technomancer, and possibly Nanocyte will be part of a Tech focused book.

I wonder if there's a possibility moving forward of Pathfinder and Starfinder essentially sharing select classes, perhaps publishing an alternate version of a class chassis with feats and features that more fit the fantasy of the game's setting. Pathfinder is really going to benefit from the Envoy chassis, I think, and would benefit even more from options geared more specifically toward a fantasy setting. Inventor, on the other hand, does so much of what Mechanic does and does it really well, but there are some features, like the custom rig or exocortex, that would probably work better baked-in to a tech-focused Starfinder class than as an optional feat. Having the classes exist simultaneously in both systems could effectively double player options for them right out of the gate, and we'd get to avoid Mechanic's "what even am I anymore" existential crisis entirely. Also mitigate bloat.

I’m with the majority here, I very much enjoyed this post. (Sounds like the Operative is the next field test, was kinda hoping for the mystic honestly). But either way, I’m looking forward to the next field test.

Also count me down as 1,000% loving this style of blog content. I always like hearing where the designers' heads are at, both because it's just cool seeing what you guys are cooking up, and because I feel like it can help me more clearly articulate my own feedback when it comes time to give it.

It sounds like the Operative will be more combat focused than the Rogue, which honestly is a great way to distinguish between the two and (more importantly) to make it work well with the Soldier. Both Soldiers and Operatives will have their niche, and they should be able to work well with each other.

I wasn't expecting the Witchwarper, but I like it. Both the choice, and the way it seems to play. Both the Witchwarper and the Mystic have offensive spells, but they also have clearly defined niches. Most promising! I also caught the subclasses for both. A Song connection works well for a worshiper of Zon-Shelyn (and their possible girlfriend Desna), and the Precog anomaly indicates that the Precog will be rolled into the Witchwarper. CriticalQuit's analysis of the two classes is pretty spot on, so combining them makes sense.

I feel weird about the witchwarper and precog being melded, mostly because I really enjoy both concepts, tapping into alternate realities and tapping into alternate timelines, and am kinda sad that I won't be having two classes devoted to that thematic space anymore. Absolutely loving what I'm hearing so far though, and also that they'll be core.

I'd assume that the Mechanic, Technomancer, and possibly Nanocyte will be part of a Tech focused book.

That's what I'm really hoping for, personally. It would also fit with the recent releases of classes we've been seeing. I think we'll be seeing a lot, if not all, of the SF1E classes released in duos or trios to help with not making anybody go insane from having to analyze so much playtest data. I don't envy Thirsty and the rest having to craft six classes at a go!

I'm really looking forward to any future playtests aimed at how these classes may play with melee combat. Gunplay is great, and obviously SF2E should focus on it, but I'd also like to hear how a soldier with a gravity hammer might fair, or an operative with ultrasonic vibro-stilettos.

Oh, yeah, I should've said: this peek behind the curtain is *super* appreciated! Being able to understand design intentions and see the sausage get made is a blast.

It’s a great that was given. If we seeing under hood the stuff, I would love to see the game design math. Example what is the range of math for average hit by the Operative? How does that compare with ancestry that specifically focuses on dex?

Sounds like a fun playtest.

It seems that the Operative and Soldier share very similar roles. Unsure as to why Technomancer and Mechanic weren't tried out, as they have some of the best Starfnder flavour there is.

Moving to a 2e like system gives the chance to really run rampant with subclasses due to the flexibility of build paths.

Wonder if it would be better to absorb Operative into Soldier, having it as a soldier subclass via feats, and bringing Mechanic in as a class with Technomancer as a subclass option for that.

As it stands reading through the post it felt like you have 2 people playing different Soldier builds, 1 mystic, and a witchwarper.

Operative as it is thematically is just like Soldier, but sneakier. You could achieve that by having subclass feat options in the Soldier class itself under the 2e system rather than have Operative as a class all on its own. Would give you breathing space design wise.

Sounds like a fun playtest.

It seems that the Operative and Soldier share very similar roles. Unsure as to why Technomancer and Mechanic weren't tried out, as they have some of the best Starfnder flavour there is.

Moving to a 2e like system gives the chance to really run rampant with subclasses due to the flexibility of build paths.

Wonder if it would be better to absorb Operative into Soldier, having it as a soldier subclass via feats, and bringing Mechanic in as a class with Technomancer as a subclass option for that.

As it stands reading through the post it felt like you have 2 people playing different Soldier builds, 1 mystic, and a witchwarper.

Operative as it is thematically is just like Soldier, but sneakier. You could achieve that by having subclass feat options in the Soldier class itself under the 2e system rather than have Operative as a class all on its own. Would give you breathing space design wise.

By this logic, a Rogue is just a Fighter but sneakier.

The SF2 niche for the Soldier is clear: a heavy, someone who wields the biggest weapons in the game for devastating effect and can take a beating like nobody else in the new corebook. Compared to that, an accuracy-driven Operative with more focus on stealth, skills, and/or movement feels plenty distinct from that.

More importantly, anything trying to do both is going to feel pretty shapeless.

I'd assume that the Mechanic, Technomancer, and possibly Nanocyte will be part of a Tech focused book.

So make Starfinder space opera with no science or technology until a later book? Although I wouldn’t mind a tech focused book, I do want some characters that work with tech in the core book.

As someone who has played Starfinder since release, I am excited by the possibilities that the 2e engine brings. I am also very curious about how some of it will be handled.

Nevaritius wrote:

Sounds like a fun playtest.

It seems that the Operative and Soldier share very similar roles. Unsure as to why Technomancer and Mechanic weren't tried out, as they have some of the best Starfnder flavour there is.

Moving to a 2e like system gives the chance to really run rampant with subclasses due to the flexibility of build paths.

Wonder if it would be better to absorb Operative into Soldier, having it as a soldier subclass via feats, and bringing Mechanic in as a class with Technomancer as a subclass option for that.

As it stands reading through the post it felt like you have 2 people playing different Soldier builds, 1 mystic, and a witchwarper.

Operative as it is thematically is just like Soldier, but sneakier. You could achieve that by having subclass feat options in the Soldier class itself under the 2e system rather than have Operative as a class all on its own. Would give you breathing space design wise.

By this logic, a Rogue is just a Fighter but sneakier.

The SF2 niche for the Soldier is clear: a heavy, someone who wields the biggest weapons in the game for devastating effect and can take a beating like nobody else in the new corebook. Compared to that, an accuracy-driven Operative with more focus on stealth, skills, and/or movement feels plenty distinct from that.

More importantly, anything trying to do both is going to feel pretty shapeless.

I disagree. A heavy that focuses on big weapons, and an accuracy driven stealth operative differ only in the style of fighting. They're thematically the same thing, with different areas of focus. An operative is a stealthy Soldier who likes to use skills to overcome situations. Alternatively, a soldier is an operative who likes to use big guns to force his way through something.

They're the same thing, and pretending like they're so vastly different as to be completely separate classes doesn't make sense to me when as seen in the play test above, they've given some of the Precog's abilities to the Witchwarper.

I would argue that the witchwarper/precog situation has a similar relationship as the operative/soldier. They have a similar play style that differs only in how they approach a situation.

Keeping classes separate that could otherwise be combined will inhibit build creativity and party inclusiveness, I think.

keftiu wrote:

Nevaritius wrote:

Sounds like a fun playtest.

It seems that the Operative and Soldier share very similar roles. Unsure as to why Technomancer and Mechanic weren't tried out, as they have some of the best Starfnder flavour there is.

Moving to a 2e like system gives the chance to really run rampant with subclasses due to the flexibility of build paths.

Wonder if it would be better to absorb Operative into Soldier, having it as a soldier subclass via feats, and bringing Mechanic in as a class with Technomancer as a subclass option for that.

As it stands reading through the post it felt like you have 2 people playing different Soldier builds, 1 mystic, and a witchwarper.

Operative as it is thematically is just like Soldier, but sneakier. You could achieve that by having subclass feat options in the Soldier class itself under the 2e system rather than have Operative as a class all on its own. Would give you breathing space design wise.

By this logic, a Rogue is just a Fighter but sneakier.

The SF2 niche for the Soldier is clear: a heavy, someone who wields the biggest weapons in the game for devastating effect and can take a beating like nobody else in the new corebook. Compared to that, an accuracy-driven Operative with more focus on stealth, skills, and/or movement feels plenty distinct from that.

More importantly, anything trying to do both is going to feel pretty shapeless.

I disagree. A heavy that focuses on big weapons, and an accuracy driven stealth operative differ only in the style of fighting. They're thematically the same thing, with different areas of focus. An operative is a stealthy Soldier who likes to use skills to overcome situations. Alternatively, a soldier is an operative who likes to use big guns to force his way through something.

They're the same thing, and pretending like they're so vastly different as to be completely separate classes doesn't make sense to me when as seen in the play test above, they've given some...

So you're telling me that the Sniper and Spy (operatives) in TF2 play identically to Heavy and Soldier (soldier)? Wow. I've had the wool pulled over my eyes this whole time.

1 square = 30 feet sounds interesting. If they ever try to make all types of combat work together (Small starships, mechs, vehicles, individual characters) this would be the scale to try it at. At this scale, it would take forever for individual characters to cross the map. That would make using vehicles more important to use to get to where you need. Currently, there is almost never a reason to need a vehicle. Small spaceships could be used to get around the map as well. Having your ship on the map puts it in danger of being captured. Or gives you a location you need to get back to escape the fight or complete a rescue mission.

The SF2 Soldier is likely using their choice of doshko, greatsword, minigun, or rocket launcher - and again, they're the tank of the group, the sturdiest class to start off with. A lot of their damage hits many enemies at once, or otherwise acts as some form of crowd control.

I think compared to that, a glass cannon who moves with more finesse (and is explicitly focused on things like pistols or sniper rifles) is plenty distinct. It sounds like the SF2 Operative takes aim at one specific target and shoots them dead, a more Rogue-y playstyle of deleting individual battlefields threats with focus.

Their average combat turn looks very, very distinct. The beefy guy roaring, covered in blood as he sprays full-auto is a wholly separate fantasy from that of being a lethal, efficient assassin. This Soldier isn't sneaking up on anyone.

Cool stuff, I liked the preview battle that gives context to proposed changes! I also hope mechanic finds it way to core to bring sci to the fi

Grankless wrote:

Nevaritius wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Nevaritius wrote:

Sounds like a fun playtest.

It seems that the Operative and Soldier share very similar roles. Unsure as to why Technomancer and Mechanic weren't tried out, as they have some of the best Starfnder flavour there is.

Moving to a 2e like system gives the chance to really run rampant with subclasses due to the flexibility of build paths.

Wonder if it would be better to absorb Operative into Soldier, having it as a soldier subclass via feats, and bringing Mechanic in as a class with Technomancer as a subclass option for that.

As it stands reading through the post it felt like you have 2 people playing different Soldier builds, 1 mystic, and a witchwarper.

Operative as it is thematically is just like Soldier, but sneakier. You could achieve that by having subclass feat options in the Soldier class itself under the 2e system rather than have Operative as a class all on its own. Would give you breathing space design wise.

By this logic, a Rogue is just a Fighter but sneakier.

The SF2 niche for the Soldier is clear: a heavy, someone who wields the biggest weapons in the game for devastating effect and can take a beating like nobody else in the new corebook. Compared to that, an accuracy-driven Operative with more focus on stealth, skills, and/or movement feels plenty distinct from that.

More importantly, anything trying to do both is going to feel pretty shapeless.

I disagree. A heavy that focuses on big weapons, and an accuracy driven stealth operative differ only in the style of fighting. They're thematically the same thing, with different areas of focus. An operative is a stealthy Soldier who likes to use skills to overcome situations. Alternatively, a soldier is an operative who likes to use big guns to force his way through something.

They're the same thing, and pretending like they're so vastly different as to be completely separate classes doesn't make sense to me

...

They could just give more skill proficiencies instead of higher ones; PF2e rogues and investigators are skill monkeys AND still cant overshadow other people rolling skills. No need to have soldier subsume the operative (imo).

Having martial classes with identity is better than just having 1 "martial class" imo. Not really sure how the game would benefit from forcing nearly all non-magical characters into a single class.

Evan Tarlton wrote:

I'd assume that the Mechanic, Technomancer, and possibly Nanocyte will be part of a Tech focused book.

So make Starfinder space opera with no science or technology until a later book? Although I wouldn’t mind a tech focused book, I do want some characters that work with tech in the core book.

As someone who has played Starfinder since release, I am excited by the possibilities that the 2e engine brings. I am also very curious about how some of it will be handled.

It makes sense. A metric Smurf ton of internal resources got suddenly and unexpectedly tied up a few months ago. The Starfinder offices would have been affected by that as well. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that the SF2 core book was trimmed down because the Remaster needed all hands on deck. In fact, I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case.

(This is probably the big reason for the Field Tests as well; a longer playtest period should mean less crunch time)

Fortunately, the general setup will allow for some tech right from jump. I expect the SF2 core book to have archetypes and skill feats so that all classes can play with it*. I also wouldn't be surprised to see some Envoy and Operative-specific tech abilities.

*-- I am also expecting a few to show up in PF, and I'm starting to think it'll be sooner rather than later. The focus on gods and the SF2 development of advanced tech are both quite conducive to a Broken Lands book.