Reports from the Field: Starfinder Second Edition Playtests

I really like the idea of "1 square = 30 feet" but could you make that "1 hex = 30 feet" instead.

For me, hexes lend themselves to better represent elevation changes. Something that the BattleTech maps tend to do well. I would love to see this element introduced in longer ranged Starfinder battles.

Ah, fatal damage dice. I was worried when I didn't see this appear in the Field Test. I believe it's a great mechanic in that it only raises the average damage by a little while making guns feel deadly. I wouldn't mind it being increase a bit more for modern weapons... maybe 2d12 instead of 1d12?

Love the blog, keep it up please!

This system-meshing might finally pull me into Starfinder...

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?

Mostly speculation, but I'd guess that they are a mix of spell scrolls and bombs. Alchemical bombs are balanced with the Alchemist in mind, who can have a great number of them for free, which grenades don't have to bother with. On the other hand, I doubt grenades will be gated behind a specific activity or tradition-like system with all that entails, so they will have to be slightly weaker than scrolls.

So grenades will probably be about as expensive as bombs, but the effects should be between bombs and spell scrolls in terms of power. So focus spell level I guess? Mechanically, "placed area effects with a limited range and [using] Class DC" sounds more like a spell. Probably "range x" (without range increments, as those don't do anything for DCs) and then determine the effects from that point.

Scaling? I'd say literally copy the focus spell format (minus the spell-only parts) to save space, but readability probably dictates a variant system like bombs have.

Overall, if this is roughly true, it sounds like a great "scrolls for martials" system. Not that casters couldn't use them as well ^^. It could be something to set SF2 apart. Before PF2 "steals" it, because it sounds cool.

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 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.

When Keftiu says your suggestion would feel shapelesss, she means that implementing it would probably require removing all the current base chassis abilities in order to offer choices at each of those points instead. Much like the SF1 soldier in fact, which is exactly that shapeless, as everything is determined by your fighting style. They are going a different direction with the soldier at the moment.

Honestly, I think that's the right call. We can see in PF1 what happens, such as on the alchemist and the ranger, when your class covers too many archetypes; feats feel really spread out with only 1 option for your subclass or style per level, and sometimes none at all. I think the decision to have soldiers focus on Area weapons, including finding ways to make area weapons work in situations that they are not necessarily designed to shine in (such as with single target fighting) is a good design direction. That will let soldiers mechanically interact with combat in a unique way that other SF classes wouldn't offer, leaving room for those classes to approach combat in mechanically distinct fashions. That area weapons use your class DC and sniper style shooting the operative seems to favor requires attack rolls will also help them feel different, and also will need very different feats and class abilities to support.

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

...

It's actually a lot more relevant than you think considering the "meet the heavy" trailer was cited as one of the inspiration to the vibe they wanted with the new solider to take.

So grenades will probably be about as expensive as bombs, but the effects should be between bombs and spell scrolls in terms of power. So focus spell level I guess? Mechanically, "placed area effects with a limited range and [using] Class DC" sounds more like a spell. Probably "range x" (without range increments, as those don't do anything for DCs) and then determine the effects from that point.

Shouldn't using class DC already inherently limit their effectiveness? I think that limiter would allow grenades to have a bit more baseline power. The rest of your post I agree with though.

I think it's pretty interesting that grenades would be based entirely on class DC (and if I'm guessing right would use the Area tag) instead of attack roll plus splash, but that soldiers would have the option of using their attack roll with them via the primary target ability. I'm curious how that will shake out, and if soldiers will get a grenade specific fighting style.

As far as combining the Witchwarper and Precog, I'm semi conflicted but not entirely surprised. Thematically, and when you get down to their "class feat", both cover similar ground and offer similar enough options that with work you could rewrite either class's options so that they'd feel like they were intended for the other.

I have more to say, but work calls and I need to think about it. Suffice to say this has me even MORE interested in the upcoming rewrite of the witchwarper. I've said before it's my second favorite SF class, and what I feel is the design intent of its mechanics is a big draw for me. However, the precog currently has some elements that I feel are missing on the witchwarper, subclass options and a daily resource pool (besides resolve). Neither are needed of course, I honestly love the class's mechanical expression just as it is (while acknowleging that the balance feels off), but I'm curious if the rewrite will add those features, and if so how it will be implemented. If they do get added, then I can begin to see how the two classes would play close enough both mechanically and thematically to be combined into a single class.

Edit: sorry for all the posts btw, this has me excited again.

So it seems clear to me now with this that the thing they really don't want to do is to have their classes be boiled down to "Pathfinder class in space" where in Starfinder 1e, that's a lot of what they were. Envoy was bard in space, Operative was rogue in space, Solider was fighter in space, Mystic was cleric in space, etc etc.

I think when viewed in that light, it's interesting to see that the developers are trying to tighten the reigns and carve out more of an identity for these classes to occupy. It reminds me of Mark Seifter speaking about the wizard and the problem with wizard and the schools of magic. The basic gist is having schools of magic, and then making a class whose gimmick is "I know every school of magic" created a "green eyed monster" of design space that wanted to gobble up every other spellcasters gimmicks. And that you couldn't have a necromancer when necromancy was a school of magic, because then you run into the problem oif why the wizards not got all the spells the necromancer has.

The point of that being, I think the developers want to avoid classes that can do too much at once. They want classes to have a more defined role than what currently exists, where a class can select an option and just fundamentally change the entire way it plays. That may suck to hear, but it does also allow more design spaces to open up. Like instead of having an operative that's good at exploration and stealth and martial arts and assassination and persuasive arguments and medical treatment, you can narrow the scope of operative, and then make a class that's good at, say, Exploration and Medical treatment, and another for Martials Arts, and let operative be good at Stealth and Assassination.

That's just my view on it based on what seems to be the current trend. Less in the short term but more in the long term is how I see it.

I'm definitely looking forward to this, I played PF1 and SF1 for many years, eventually switching over to PF2. I really enjoyed Starfinder but I can see how it would really benefit from many of the design changes in PF2. Tracking KAC, EAC, HP, SP, RP, and often an additional type of point such as evolution points and possibly spell slots on top of all of that got really tiresome after a while. I would welcome the change to just AC, HP, and focus points. Hopefully that's the direction they are going!

So it seems clear to me now with this that the thing they really don't want to do is to have their classes be boiled down to "Pathfinder class in space"

You could do this when the systems were different. The operative works on different rules than the rogue. But once you combine the systems a space rogue really is just a rogue.

I'm glad y'all seem to enjoy the blogs and Field Tests! :D

I'll paraphrase something I shared on discord for folx here:
Our team's intention is to build up and remaster SF1's existing content plus add new goodies, so bundling a class with another is a decision we don't make without what we feel is good reason. The person who wrote the precog class, Thursty, is the one who had the idea to bundle it into the witchwarper class, as he felt the concepts meshed really well and would be stronger together.

On an unrelated note, there are some rules we want to take our time with and make sure we get right. Alas, some things won't fit into the core book(s), like, just to pick a totally random example out of a hat, MECHS!, but are going to show up down the line because they're important to the game and we know people like playing with them.

I can't confirm or deny anything in this specific discussion, but please don't worry! We aren't taking away your toys, but we may need more time in the bay to tune them up so they're performing at optimal levels before we get them back to you, if that makes sense! ^_^

[...]

I can't confirm or deny anything in this specific discussion, but please don't worry! We aren't taking away your toys, but we may need more time in the bay to tune them up so they're performing at optimal levels before we get them back to you, if that makes sense! ^_^

That makes perfect sense, thank you ^^

I always prefer developers taking more time, but delivering a solid product at the end. Especially when the usual alternative is including stuff "because it has to be there" and it not working out very well. After the initial judgment, fixing anything major is a monumental task. Though maybe that's just my experience with video games in the last 15-ish years talking.

Eh, while the SF1e classes definitely had some elements of PF classes in them, be they thematic (like the Operative) or mechanical (like the Mystic), I wouldn't call most of the classes just "X in space."

While the Operative certainly resembles "Space Rogue," Trick Attack and Sneak Attack are wildly different mechanics despite having similar fiction. Trick Attack doesn't need any setup and doesn't feel any different from most other attacks, while Sneak Attack actively rewards specific tactics like flanking and combines more organically with combat maneuvers.

That makes perfect sense, thank you ^^

I always prefer developers taking more time, but delivering a solid product at the end. Especially when the usual alternative is including stuff "because it has to be there" and it not working out very well. After the initial judgment, fixing anything major is a monumental task. Though maybe that's just my experience with video games in the last 15-ish years talking.

Absolutely! We also know that the final product will likely never be perfect in spite of our best efforts, but we are striving to make sure the foundation is solid, the new game mechanics are fun to play and support the game's narrative, and that we address as many big community concerns and fix as many bugs as possible before we send finished content out into the universe. Wish us godspeed 'cuz we have a lot of work to do. o7

I’m hoping my bet that Kineticist plays like a weird Kineticist is on the money.

I’m hoping my bet that Kineticist plays like a weird Kineticist is on the money.

I think you're in luck on that one.

That said, I agree. I think it would be cool to see Solarian share some Kineticist DNA, especially if it allowed Element crossover.

That said, I want that mostly as a PF2 player, and the Solarian is supposed to be a Starfinder thing.

I mean, as far as I'm concerned, the Kineticist is the coolest thing we've ever had on PF2. I'm not exactly wishing them ill. At the same time... well, I get the distinct impression that there's a feel that in Starfinder, it's expected that every class should be able to pack a gun, and be reasonably competent in its use... and that actually kind of breaks the kineticist model a bit. They might still wind up with the "spend feats, buy powers, use at will" schtick. I feel like that would suit what I know of them pretty well. I'm thinking, though, that even if that is the structure, those powers are much more likely to be designed to augment existing martial attacks than to be standalone direct attacks like the kineticist gets. I'm guessing they also won't really have the same aura mechanic. I could be wrong, though.

Eh, while the SF1e classes definitely had some elements of PF classes in them, be they thematic (like the Operative) or mechanical (like the Mystic), I wouldn't call most of the classes just "X in space."

While the Operative certainly resembles "Space Rogue," Trick Attack and Sneak Attack are wildly different mechanics despite having similar fiction. Trick Attack doesn't need any setup and doesn't feel any different from most other attacks, while Sneak Attack actively rewards specific tactics like flanking and combines more organically with combat maneuvers.

Maybe it's cause my group is just starting to play Starfinder, but I'm playing an operative and to say that trick attack "Doesn't require much set up" feels like it's a cope. I'm landing it about as often as sneak attack as despite a +14 acrobatics as a daredevil, my +3 to hit the enemy has completely screwed over hitting. I've had to resort to eating the penalty to two-weapon shoot my guns to do reliable damage.

So yeah, at least early level Trick and Sneak attack are about equally unreliable methods of getting extra damage. Yes, even with the automatic flat-footed from succeeding the trick attack skill check.

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.

But "style of fighting" is a very big part of a PF2 class's mechanical chassis. Take a class like the Ranger. You probably feel that a ranger has a fairly strong flavor as a wilderness person and stuff like that. But the only class ability they have that isn't directly combat relevant is Trackless Step, and most of their class feats are also combat-focused. The non-combat stuff mostly lives in Skills, Skill feats, and to some degree Ancestry feats – and that stuff is open to everyone (even if I'd prefer if all classes had Rogue-level skill access).

But "style of fighting" is a very big part of a PF2 class's mechanical chassis. Take a class like the Ranger. You probably feel that a ranger has a fairly strong flavor as a wilderness person and stuff like that. But the only class ability they have that isn't directly combat relevant is Trackless Step, and most of their class feats are also combat-focused. The non-combat stuff mostly lives in Skills, Skill feats, and to some degree Ancestry feats – and that stuff is open to everyone (even if I'd prefer if all classes had Rogue-level skill access).

So... I'm going to point out that the Ranger is actually a terrible example to try to use for this, as the fact that it has very little in the way of thematic consistency is something of a running joke over on the PF2 boards. The classic description is "Ranger is six archetypes inside of a trenchcoat labeled 'Hunt Prey'", and it's pretty much true. Of all of the classes in PF2, the Ranger is the one with the least thematic consistency.

That said, the general statement that many of the classes spend the significant majority of their build budget on combat-related things? That's true. Most classes are going to scrounge at least a little bit of noncombat utility somewhere along the way, and some classes more than others, but your class is where you're getting most of your combat effectiveness from, and it's built accordingly. Similarly, you're correct that the ancestry feats, skills, skill feats, and sometimes general feats are pulling a lot of weight on the noncombat utility side. Archetypes often pitch in too. Some classes (investigator, most casters, kineticist, alchemist) get more noncombat utility than others, but even they don't take it but so far.

I enjoyed this post - and, yes, I appreciate that it wasn't specifically addressed to PF2 players :D Thanks, Thurston!

Lots of info to digest. Operatives are still in the game - I'm keen to learn more about their "identity," beyond just "Not-Space-Rogue."

Interesting, if Precog is becoming a 'subclass' for Witchwarper! The two classes definitely share a lot of thematic flavour - alternate realities, alternate timelines, pulling from the past/present. Mechanically, they are very different, though - witchwarpers have lots of flexibility and AoE, whereas precogs have a lot of build diversity, between dedicated caster, ranged threat, or even a decent build path for a melee fighter, which the OG witchwarper can't replicate. I hope that that build diversity is still possible - grizzled, "you ain't seen what I seen," time warrior (with full level Base Attack Bonus, even, at higher levels!) is such a cool vibe!

Ye precog being dex keystat int caster was cool vibe that I don't see 1e witchwarper itself replicating

The sniper operative was consistent, with strong capabilities of popping lower-level threats through crits and dealing reliable damage with their aimed shots, which made us concerned about the overall damage the class could put out (more on that in our next playtest!).

We'll have to see the actual mechanics ofc, but I'm not particularly worried. While SF2 is its own thing, we still have to keep the PF2 competition in mind. After all, we can use classes from both games, so measuring them against each other is important.

And just looking at the PF2 "main" ranged lineup, there is some stiff competition, especially with the focus changes. If the Operative starts easily beating the Starlit Span Magus, Eldritch Archer Fighter and Fighter with Ranger Archetype, then it deserves a strong second look. If it doesn't - ideally by "just" being comparable to those monsters - then I call that "mission accomplished".

I just hope we take another crack at the name.

Witchwarper has always struck me as just an awful sci-fi name.

Witchwarper has always struck me as just an awful sci-fi name.

I remember similarly not thinking much of the name "witchwarper" when it was first announced, but I admit it's grown on me.

What I am not in love with, though, is "quantum" as a catch-all word for "weird science-y stuff," as in this witchwarper quantum aura. It's already an often-used word in SF1. I'm not a quantum physicist, so I can't speak to the scientific accuracy of using it to describe everything from uncertainty missiles to breaking molecular bonds to moving through walls to clones to extradimensional trapping, but even if it can, it's repetitive in the context of a gaming adjective, to see "quantum" applied to so many things.

Like a witchwarper whose powers came from quantum superscience, sure, go ahead with your quantum aura. But for a Witchwarper who uses magic, or force of personality to force realities across, or a precog subclass leaning in to the timey-wimey side? "Quantum" sounds out of place. Maybe if their 'weirdness' aura was an Absolute Terror (AT) Alternate Reality (AR) field, or an Alternate Wyrd (AW) field, or...I dunno, Happenstance Rebalancing aura, or SAaaD aura, or something IDK :D

What I am not in love with, though, is "quantum" as a catch-all word for "weird science-y stuff,"

I know. And that isn't limited to just Starfinder. If anything, Starfinder is just following the pattern of loose language shown by the general public in turning the word 'quantum' into a buzzword.

A 'quantum' in quantum physics means 'a specific amount of energy'. An electron only exists at certain discrete values of energy. So to move from one energy state to another, the electron will accept a particular specific amount of energy (a quantum of energy) in order to make the change. Too little energy and it would ignore it and not change. Too much energy and it would also ignore it and not change.

I'm a software engineer and I have absolutely no idea why 'quantum computers' are named that other than because it was a cool weird futuristic science-y name for a computer that is so far only hypothetically able to be built. The description of a quantum computer doesn't seem to have anything to do with how much energy it takes to operate.

'What’re quantum mechanics?'
'I don’t know. People who repair quantums, I suppose.'

A 'quantum' in quantum physics means 'a specific amount of energy'. An electron only exists at certain discrete values of energy. So to move from one energy state to another, the electron will accept a particular specific amount of energy (a quantum of energy) in order to make the change. Too little energy and it would ignore it and not change. Too much energy and it would also ignore it and not change.

Because "quantum superimposition", which is what "quantum" is often used to refer to, isn't as fun to say.

In all seriousness, Quantum is so often used as shorthand for "quantum superimposition" that I personally hadn't realized it had its own discrete definition. It's never been something I had more than a passing interest in, but I'm still surprised I never came across the correct definition before now.

Alright, first leading with the positive: this is definitely the kind of post I like! I LOVE being able to get a look at the behind-the-scenes nuts and bolts of design and testing, and certainly look forward to more Field Tests and the eventual Playtest next year =]

But, on to the core reason for this response: I am -extremely- disappointed to have it confirmed that Precog is just being rolled into another class. While I can understand some of the reasoning, it feels much more like a logistics choice than a design or flavor choice. Personally, I always felt the Witchwarper and Precog were very distinct from one another: the WW bends reality and reaches into other dimensions, where the Precog actively edits the timeline on the fly. Sure, you *can* flavor a WW's powers as conjuring or shunting different timelines, but that's very different from the feel I personally got from the Precog.

Further, as someone that manipulates time in a proactive way, the Precog presented a MASSIVE opportunity and incredible design space to really play deeply with the Action system, Fortune/Misfortune, and the underutilized Circumstance modifier. Imagine a Precog spending their reaction to give another character an extra reaction, or (ala the Kineticist's Four Winds) spending actions to allow other characters to move, or attack, or take cover, etc.

And aside from allies, imagine them being able to manipulate the actions of enemies. An enemy is using a Step to get away? The Precog spends a reaction to make those spaces Difficult Terrain, so now they can't step and instead have to stride, which could trigger a Reactive Strike from an ally also adjacent to the enemy. Or that could just be a passive aura the Precog can lay down as a stance!

And it's not invalid if the team just needed to trim down content to make it work and be ready for '25, that's totally fine. I'm just REALLY bummed out because, of all the things I was looking forward to in Starfinder 2E, a redesigned Precog was near, if not at, the top of the list for me </3

And it's not invalid if the team just needed to trim down content to make it work and be ready for '25, that's totally fine. I'm just REALLY bummed out because, of all the things I was looking forward to in Starfinder 2E, a redesigned Precog was near, if not at, the top of the list for me...

Well... on the bright side, there is still time, and the idea of a precog that's a variety of witchwarper doesn't necessarily need to be the death of your dreams. I mean, the witchwarper bends reality. Time is part of reality, right? From the lore standpoint, this could be more a case of broadening the witchwarper's scope, rather than cramming the precog into the existing space.

So... let's suppose that Precog is a Witchwarper class path, but that the lore of "witchwarper" is still pretty malleable, and the class path is pretty significant. What would you want to see in this version of the precog? What would make you say "You know what? This is actually pretty cool after all."

After all, if you want to make something awesome, one of the best places to start looking is the people who love that thing, and you've just outed yourself as loving the precog. So... what would make it awesome?

breithauptclan wrote:

A 'quantum' in quantum physics means 'a specific amount of energy'. An electron only exists at certain discrete values of energy. So to move from one energy state to another, the electron will accept a particular specific amount of energy (a quantum of energy) in order to make the change. Too little energy and it would ignore it and not change. Too much energy and it would also ignore it and not change.

Because "quantum superimposition", which is what "quantum" is often used to refer to, isn't as fun to say.

In all seriousness, Quantum is so often used as shorthand for "quantum superimposition" that I personally hadn't realized it had its own discrete definition. It's never been something I had more than a passing interest in, but I'm still surprised I never came across the correct definition before now.

Ah. So there is an additional term that makes it make more sense.

The idea of a nondeterministic computer has been around for a while (it is what the 'N' in 'NP problem' or the question 'P =? NP' actually means). But they aren't able to be built. Using quantum superposition to try and do it seems like an idea that at least has potential.

LoreMonger13 wrote:

And it's not invalid if the team just needed to trim down content to make it work and be ready for '25, that's totally fine. I'm just REALLY bummed out because, of all the things I was looking forward to in Starfinder 2E, a redesigned Precog was near, if not at, the top of the list for me...

Well... on the bright side, there is still time, and the idea of a precog that's a variety of witchwarper doesn't necessarily need to be the death of your dreams. I mean, the witchwarper bends reality. Time is part of reality, right? From the lore standpoint, this could be more a case of broadening the witchwarper's scope, rather than cramming the precog into the existing space.

So... let's suppose that Precog is a Witchwarper class path, but that the lore of "witchwarper" is still pretty malleable, and the class path is pretty significant. What would you want to see in this version of the precog? What would make you say "You know what? This is actually pretty cool after all."

After all, if you want to make something awesome, one of the best places to start looking is the people who love that thing, and you've just outed yourself as loving the precog. So... what would make it awesome?

"Outing" myself is kind of a weird turn of phrase, but to your questions: I had mentioned earlier in my post the things I would have hoped they could delve into with someone who manipulates time, ie being able to do interesting things with their Actions, as well as that of allies and enemies (ex: burn their reaction to give an ally an extra reaction, or force an enemy trying to Step away to Stride instead, spending their actions to give allies additional actions, etc), and leaning into the Fortune/Misfortune mechanic and Circumstance modifiers to bring some of what Paradox was used for in SF1E.

But a lot of these design choices would be core to the class design itself, so unless Witchwarper is going to be able to do a lot of the aforementioned (trading Actions, utilizing Fortune/Misfortune, etc), it feels like adding Precog to them is purely for flavor and expediency, rather than taking full advantage of a design space that someone capable of manipulating the flow of time presents.

Obviously, this is an initial impression based on VERY limited information provided, and maybe when the Witchwarper drops in possibly a future Field Test or the Playtest next summer we'll see more and then it could be a totally viable route to take with them and maybe they DO manage to pull off both the themes and mechanics that the Precog could.

To be clear, this is not a "deal-breaker" for me, I'm still looking forward to SF2E. I'm just really disappointed that it looks like it was decided that the Precog did not present a strong enough theme or design space when I would personally feel it really could've stood out on its own next to the Witchwarper as it already has been doing plenty well in SF1E.

I just hope we take another crack at the name.

Witchwarper has always struck me as just an awful sci-fi name.

I've still not entirely squared it, either. It doesn't roll off the tongue, at least for me. I'd considered warpwitch as an alternative, being a witch/spellcaster who warps/manipulates things, but then I kept imagining Hermes from Futurama yelling "My warpwitch!"

Witchwarper still sounds like a breed of anti-caster to me. They warp witches, whatever that means.

Is a witchwarp a defined thing in Starfinder? If not, that could be a cool bit of lore to add in. A witchwarp is the state of superposition of two different states of reality caused by magic.

There are witches on Star Wars, I don't see why Witchwarper would be out of place in Starfinder. But perhaps some more lore about their origins might help them fit in better.

There are witches on Star Wars, I don't see why Witchwarper would be out of place in Starfinder. But perhaps some more lore about their origins might help them fit in better.

My issue isn't with their place in the setting--they fit perfectly as far as I'm concerned--it's entirely to do with the name.

Warpwitch is 300% better then Witchwarper, and I can't believe I didn't see that till this moment.

Kishmo wrote:

What I am not in love with, though, is "quantum" as a catch-all word for "weird science-y stuff,"

I know. And that isn't limited to just Starfinder. If anything, Starfinder is just following the pattern of loose language shown by the general public in turning the word 'quantum' into a buzzword.

A 'quantum' in quantum physics means 'a specific amount of energy'. An electron only exists at certain discrete values of energy. So to move from one energy state to another, the electron will accept a particular specific amount of energy (a quantum of energy) in order to make the change. Too little energy and it would ignore it and not change. Too much energy and it would also ignore it and not change.

I'm a software engineer and I have absolutely no idea why 'quantum computers' are named that other than because it was a cool weird futuristic science-y name for a computer that is so far only hypothetically able to be built. The description of a quantum computer doesn't seem to have anything to do with how much energy it takes to operate.

Actually, "Quantum" in physics refers to essentially anything that has to do with quantum machanics (which started from the observation that various things that were assumed to be continuous are in fact discrete, hence the name). This includes quantum superposition, quantum entanglement, quantum teleportation, and indeed quantum computer (which is a concept that only makes sense because of quantum mechanics).

I do agree that the term is way overused though, and my pedantic part would definitely like it to be reigned back.

I've read way too much 40k, so "witch" fits naturally into a sci Fi setting from my experience

Reading that Witchwarper and Precog are potentially being blended is very interesting! It does seem pretty fitting, and both mechanically and thematically inspiring. Of course I can’t not think about other classes the same way now, even as just a fun thought experiment. A Technomancer + Mechanic that combines the spell cache with exocortex tracking/multitasking, to simulcast a spell while hacking, quick crafting, or piloting? Solarian with a Vanguard-based entropy/vitality option, instead of photons/gravitons (sounds like a page count nightmare lol)?

I’m excited to see where it all leads, and what things change (or don't!) over the coming months. Mystic and Operative are sounding just as intriguing, even this early on. And the Soldier field test was real promising. None of those seem to be so directly mixed with other classes, so I can only imagine what kind of fun bolt of inspiration struck and led to it being considered with two of the non-SF1e Core Rulebook ones.

Also, as much as I loved Witchwarper as a class name in 1st edition; I do wanna echo the folks who wonder if it might be renamed. Though for seemingly different reasons?

I still think it has some extremely fun flavour to it, and I don't think it feels out of place for fantasy sci-fi or anything. But in a setting where a Witch can technically also exist as a pretty different concept, it feels a little less uniquely defining to be the lowercase witch? The increased system compatibility for PF/SF2e compared to 1e means folks might see them both at their table occasionally, or at least more frequently than in 1e. It could be a tiny bit confusing, especially when longer names are more prone to being shortened for convenience. Having strong, individual class identity and terminology feels pretty important, even if the systems are still very much separate?

If the class does end up taking Precog into itself, and if we think about space/time/alternate dimensions and timelines with the flavour from the description of the Witchwarper in SF1e (cloth, tapestry, veils etc). A class that manipulates concepts related to the fabric of reality, or disrupts the weave/existing pattern of things? Weavewarper? Warpweaver? Eh, I dunno. So many good, descriptive terms like “locus” are already part of the PF/SF2e system. It'd also be a real shame to lose the fun alliteration of Witchwarper, haha.

As enjoyable as speculating on this stuff myself is, I’m definitely much more interested in just following along with what the team comes up with over the next few years. Y’all must be practically overflowing with ideas and putting endless amounts of thought into everything as it is. Especially when so much isn’t anywhere near pinned down yet!

If the class does end up taking Precog into itself, and if we think about space/time/alternate dimensions and timelines with the flavour from the description of the Witchwarper in SF1e...

Something involving "Wyrd" could be neat, as the old definition of the word denoted someone or something that could manipulate fate. But in general, leaning into the "Weave" theme and making sure that the Precog is well-represented would be cool.

Considering they're taking a big step of "deleting" another class, the onus is on Paizo now to show us that was a good idea and that those who enjoyed the Precog can still play that kind of character in the Witchwarper (or, hopefully, whatever name it falls under in future)

Actually, "Quantum" in physics refers to essentially anything that has to do with quantum machanics (which started from the observation that various things that were assumed to be continuous are in fact discrete, hence the name). This includes quantum superposition, quantum entanglement, quantum teleportation, and indeed quantum computer (which is a concept that only makes sense because of quantum mechanics).

I do agree that the term is way overused though, and my pedantic part would definitely like it to be reigned back.

That's exactly what I am complaining about.

The first use of the word was for the quantity of energy. The latin root word (quantus: how much) gives us similar words like quantity and quantify.

But it was quickly generalized to mean 'anything strange having to do with sub-molecular phenomena'. By making the field of research sound cool and interesting and mysterious, they also stripped any actual meaning from the word quantum.

My entire point in bringing this up in the first place was to point out that it was the IRL scientists and popular culture that did it, not the Starfinder design team and writers.

nonbinarysunset wrote:

If the class does end up taking Precog into itself, and if we think about space/time/alternate dimensions and timelines with the flavour from the description of the Witchwarper in SF1e...

Something involving "Wyrd" could be neat, as the old definition of the word denoted someone or something that could manipulate fate. But in general, leaning into the "Weave" theme and making sure that the Precog is well-represented would be cool.

Considering they're taking a big step of "deleting" another class, the onus is on Paizo now to show us that was a good idea and that those who enjoyed the Precog can still play that kind of character in the Witchwarper (or, hopefully, whatever name it falls under in future)

Wyrdweaver?

Something involving "Wyrd" could be neat, as the old definition of the word denoted someone or something that could manipulate fate. But in general, leaning into the "Weave" theme and making sure that the Precog is well-represented would be cool.

Since SF2e was announced (and Rage of Elements reminded me that they exist), I've been very taken with the idea of having a game where a Comozant Wyrd turns up lashed to the side of of a party's ship, or chilling on a random Multifold G7 Autohauler or something. I dunno if having overlap there would be ideal! Though yeah, when writing that first post I did think that Warpwyrd/Wyrdwarper or something would be an extremely unique experience for the eyes to parse. Very... sharp or pointy (?) combination of letters, lol.

Further, as someone that manipulates time in a proactive way, the Precog presented a MASSIVE opportunity and incredible design space to really play deeply with the Action system, Fortune/Misfortune, and the underutilized Circumstance modifier.

For the latter two, the Witchwarper already had big inroads into these categories. They have all the reroll spells that precog does, including those that grant them to allies - they just flavored how this was accomplished differently. It's also hard to see how a circumstance modifier granted by manipulating a timeline can't be done by manipulating reality/probability.

As far as action manipulation, you mentioned forcing enemies to stride instead of step. The WW always had access to 95% of the spells that created difficult terrain, as well as that being one of the earliest things that Infinite Worlds could do. Same thing, different flavor as to how they're doing it.

WW also has Reality Bend spell (later shared with Precog) that let you trade your standard action to move an ally 10'. Or in PF2 terms, two actions for two steps by an ally. And of course slow/haste is a universal for action manipulation, this has never been anything special to the precog.

I've still not entirely squared it, either. It doesn't roll off the tongue, at least for me. I'd considered warpwitch as an alternative, being a witch/spellcaster who warps/manipulates things, but then I kept imagining Hermes from Futurama yelling "My warpwitch!"

I like the name, except that Witch is already a class in Pathfinder, and Warpwitch sounds like it's a witch subclass.

Witch is already a class in Pathfinder, and Warpwitch sounds like it's a witch subclass.

And that in turn sounds like a good candidate concept to include in a Starfinder2e crossover book that gives Starfinder themed options to Pathfinder2e classes, ancestries, and weapons.

My bet is that the name isn't going to be changed because you don't wanna lose that connecting thread from SF1E, so I'd more advocate for a witchwarp being defined somewhere, probably in the witchwarper's class description. Something along the lines of,

The Universe is filled with strange and wondrous magical phenomena. One of the more notable is the witchwarp--a superposition of two states of reality over one another brought on by mystical forces. Usually witchwarps are naturally occuring, but not so for you.

You are a witchwarper, able to conjure up zones of reality-defying magic with a mere thought. Your quantum aura represents this potential, allowing you to reach in to parallel dimensions and alternate timelines to help your allies, hinder your foes, and reshape the battlefield to your whims. Your mastery of witchwarping also allows you to see into these alternate paths reality could have taken, granting you strange knowledge of events that are yet to happen, or could have come to pass in some other time.

Removed a couple of off topic/harassing posts

Since the SF2 crew is around this comment section - any chance we get psionics in this new interaction of the game?

It just matches so perfectly with the theme.

Since the SF2 crew is around this comment section - any chance we get psionics in this new interaction of the game?

It just matches so perfectly with the theme.

Part of full compatibility with PF2 means you can play a Psychic right out the gate. You won’t see a separate psionics system - it’s just a kind of magic in this setting.