Field Test #2: Putting the Fantasy in Science-Fantasy

I personally prefer if sf2e spellcasting classes can focus more on their non-spellcasting feature compared to pf2e. As it is right now, spellcaster of same tradition can fall trap into feeling same-y since they shared the same pool of spells.
Something like psychic or summoner would be good. Although psychic as it is has no justification for their 2-slot casting, so the comparison should be buffed up psychic. I hope you guys can make interesting spellcasting that felt uniquely starfinder!

I'm not particularly experienced when it comes to casters, but I'm looking forward to messing with this tomorrow ^^

Is song of the sphere 40 ft or 60 ft?

Hope that paizo live hints at a very much alive technomancer and/or mechanic!

The justification for psychic two-slot casting was that stripping down to two slots per level was what freed up the build resources for all of the other cool stuff they got.

...but we're not here to talk about that.

What about Cloud Storage? Like, sneak a 4th-level mystic into a treasure room, and they can transport the contents halfway around the world if they have a friend there to pull it back out again. Opens up all sorts of potential shenanigans.

It's also interesting to see "slightly weaker heal" as a focus spell.

other interesting thing - the base pool size scales pretty well... but the recharge doesn't. At lower levels, you can be busting those clutch heals out of the pool on the regular, but as you advance, you have to fit other bits of kit into the space that opens up. It'll always be useful, but as the levels pass it shifts more and more from a "per turn" resource to a "per fight" resource.

Some of the spells seem weirdly weak, though. Like... recharge weapon. It has to be touch range, it only refills enough for a single attack, and it inherently limits itself to the cheap stuff. Feels like most of the time, you'd be better off just taking the time to reload manually. Still, I guess it is a cantrip. Might be useful if you somehow have a gun whose recharge actions per shots-in-clip ratio is greater than 1 to 1?

The justification for psychic two-slot casting was that stripping down to two slots per level was what freed up the build resources for all of the other cool stuff they got.

Yeah it being a 4 slot caster like wizard and sorcerer feels weird when it has better hp and armor.

I love Chk Chk with every fiber of my being, and I'm so excited for this new Mystic!

Yeah it being a 4 slot caster like wizard and sorcerer feels weird when it has better hp and armor.

Well, SF2 has different assumptions than PF2 does. It also has less spell flexibility than, say, the Sorcerer. Sorcerer gets a spell repertoire of equal number to its slots, plus the spells from its bloodline. Mystic gets spell repertoire of equal number to its slots, and the spells from its connection spells are mandatory first picks.

Oh, and Martial Disciple. Martial Disciple absolutely raises the question of which deities out there have favored weapons that are simple firearms... or simple grenades, I suppose.

Go forth and be mystical!

So, will we be able to take classes from Pathfinder and vice versa and be able to slot them into each game with little issue or no? Just curious.

MEATSHED wrote:

Yeah it being a 4 slot caster like wizard and sorcerer feels weird when it has better hp and armor.

Mystic gets spell repertoire of equal number to its slots, and the spells from its connection spells are mandatory first picks.

That is also how sorcerers work, it's worded the exact same just with bloodline replaced with connection.

Oh, and Martial Disciple. Martial Disciple absolutely raises the question of which deities out there have favored weapons that are simple firearms... or simple grenades, I suppose.

I would assume some would also get updated if you are playing in a starfinder setting, abadar doesn't seem like the type to keep using light crossbows in the space age.

MEATSHED wrote:

Yeah it being a 4 slot caster like wizard and sorcerer feels weird when it has better hp and armor.

Well, SF2 has different assumptions than PF2 does. It also has less spell flexibility than, say, the Sorcerer. Sorcerer gets a spell repertoire of equal number to its slots, plus the spells from its bloodline. Mystic gets spell repertoire of equal number to its slots, and the spells from its connection spells are mandatory first picks.

That's not true, your sorcerer bloodline spells count towards your repertoire normally.

At 1st level, you learn two 1st-level spells of your choice and four cantrips of your choice, as well as an additional spell and cantrip from your bloodline.

Two 1st-level spells + bloodline gets 3 1st-level spells, same as the number of daily spells you have at level 1.

When you gain access to a new level of spells, your first new spell is always the spell granted by your bloodline, but you can choose the other spells.

First spell of a new spell level has to be the one granted by your bloodline.

So, will we be able to take classes from Pathfinder and vice versa and be able to slot them into each game with little issue or no? Just curious.

Basically? Yes. They've got different setting assumptions, so there's a bit of potential disconnect there, but structurally, you should be able to just pick up an ancestry, an archetype, a class, or a whole character from the one and drop it in the other without need to change anything about the associated rules, and have it continue to work just fine. If you as GM decide that you want the Technic League to be populated by SF2 characters, or have your newly discovered primitive planet be filled with stuff straight out of the PF2 book, you can do that, and it will work just fine. If you start out a brand new SF2 campaign, and one of your players desperately wants to play a dhampir? The rules are already there.

That is also how sorcerers work, it's worded the exact same just with bloodline replaced with connection.

Ah. My error. I'd misread.

It does seem that the Mystic is getting some rather nicer bennies than the sorceror does. Might be a PF2->SF2 thing. Might be that the remaster effects are pushing things a bit. Not clear.

So, will we be able to take classes from Pathfinder and vice versa and be able to slot them into each game with little issue or no? Just curious.

The rules will permit it and be designed to make them compatible. Your GM may not permit it.

I would assume some would also get updated if you are playing in a starfinder setting, abadar doesn't seem like the type to keep using light crossbows in the space age.

Galactic Magic had tech weapon favored weapons for use with a specific divine feat for each core god. Abadar had the crossbolter line.

It does seem that the Mystic is getting some rather nicer bennies than the sorceror does. Might be a PF2->SF2 thing. Might be that the remaster effects are pushing things a bit. Not clear.

They're paying with bad focus spells (not that all Sorcerer 1 focus spells are worthwhile).

They're paying with bad focus spells (not that all Sorcerer 1 focus spells are worthwhile).

I wouldn't call "slightly weaker Heal" a bad focus spell.

A total lack of imagination (see also "much weaker Inspire Courage") is bad!

Gonna be doing my best Fire Bomber impression with a future Rhythm Connection Mystic, because I can't wait to make the universe Listen To My Song!!!!

I was a huge fan of the 1e Vitalist, a 3pp psionic class that had a similar (albeit not half as elegant) psychic connection to their party, so the 2e Mystic is very much speaking to me! Making the “party hivemind” a tangible thing is always fun, and a support class who has more to do with HP than just give it (more stuff like the Feat that turns 4 network HP into a +1 on a Save, please!) is fascinating.

Clerics and Druids blending together into a class that represent the bonds of the cosmos is a flavor win to me.

Some of y'all seem to jump over this line:

"Let us be clear: Starfinder Second Edition is not an expansion for Pathfinder Second Edition. Both games are independent from one another, and Starfinder Second Edition is simply using the core rules engine that powers Pathfinder."

So, will we be able to take classes from Pathfinder and vice versa and be able to slot them into each game with little issue or no? Just curious.

They've essentially said as much. Probably sources from the other "universe" would be considered Rare/Uncommon, but mechanically it should just work.

New field test!

The vitality network and all the feats that interact with it are really interesting, since they're just not used for healing. The Memory Bank feat in particular is my favorite.

Also crossing my fingers for something (a Connection maybe?) that'll make it easier to heal for parties with mixed alive and undead (and constructs?) members.

I like that the psychic connection has some heft. Like, you have the heals, and also it can be used to target spells, and also you can sense the wellbeing of the others in your group and also you can actually pass items to them. That's all great.

Spending a reaction and 4 HP out of the pool to give someone a +1 to a single save prior to their roll seemed a bit anemic, though. Maybe it's just me. I guess the mystic doesn't have much for reactions.

New field test!

The vitality network and all the feats that interact with it are really interesting, since they're just not used for healing. The Memory Bank feat in particular is my favorite.

Also crossing my fingers for something (a Connection maybe?) that'll make it easier to heal for parties with mixed alive and undead (and constructs?) members.

Transfer Vitality does not have the vitality trait and works great for healing your undead and construct teammates.

Chk Chk calling on Zon-Shelyn's darker aspects to inflict suffering on his enemies, seeking balance by replenishing his vitality pool by calling on the lighter aspects? Cool, and very fitting for the iconic in particular.

The fact that the ability is called "Void Warranty" sets you up to not picture cool things like that.

"Doom Scroll" is a hilarious spell.

Are we going to see more of the same with spellcasters being generalists? I'm really hoping to see something more interesting. Though I do enjoy the spontaneous healer deal.

I once again express my dismay at losing EAC and KAC as separate things. Adds really good flavor honestly, and would allow for some funky builds using pf2e engine.

I feel like primal for the rhythm connection is really really weird. Almost none of the sound, music, or dance related spells are on the primal list, while I think all of them are on the occult list. The occult list can heal, so why can't we have occult mystics? The occult list is all about connections between people, just like the mystic, and has so much potential for things like entropy or aberrations. Primal works for some connections no doubt, but rhythm? Is rhythm supposed to be throwing out fireballs and turning into a bear, but not making people clap or dance? If you don't want the mystic to be an occult caster for whatever reason, at least make it divine. Music and rhythm seemed to be connected to the spiritual essence, and while that best fits the occult tradition, it does fit the divine tradition as well, and the divine tradition has way more thematic spells then the divine, although still not as many as occult.

I feel like primal for the rhythm connection is really really weird. Almost none of the sound, music, or dance related spells are on the primal list, while I think all of them are on the occult list. The occult list can heal, so why can't we have occult mystics? The occult list is all about connections between people, just like the mystic, and has so much potential for things like entropy or aberrations. Primal works for some connections no doubt, but rhythm? Is rhythm supposed to be throwing out fireballs and turning into a bear, but not making people clap or dance? If you don't want the mystic to be an occult caster for whatever reason, at least make it divine. Music and rhythm seemed to be connected to the spiritual essence, and while that best fits the occult tradition, it does fit the divine tradition as well, and the divine tradition has way more thematic spells then the divine, although still not as many as occult.

I feel this too. I like the idea of choosing between divine and primal spellcasting depending on your choice of connection, but rhythm just doesn't fit with my idea of primal. And if they're doing variable spell traditions for Mystic, why not include Occult as an option? I get that the designers want to differentiate the Starfinder spellcasters by giving them different spell traditions, but I don't think this is the best way to do it.

Loving the class design in general. I do agree with people's thoughts on Rhythm giving you the Primal tradition being a little weird, although being a metal head I can see it. I'd make the flavor of it a bit more Skald-y though in that case. Oh wait we're high tech so I can just say make it more metal.
Not gonna lie though. I think you're trying too hard with some of these feat and spell names. I'm looking at you Void Warranty.

I think Primal is an interesting choice for rhythm. I assumed it was going to be divine, but primal does mean you can play rock/punk connection and get a lot more bombastic magic.

Maybe I missed it but I don't think I saw how many spell slots they have per rank.

I still kinda feel like Mystics should have their own tradition to use with different essence combinations than the traditional four

Maybe I missed it but I don't think I saw how many spell slots they have per rank.

There is a table at the bottom of of page six, they're a full 4-slot caster

I prefer WILD BOND has restriction from bonded creature, especially move speed

Loving the mystic so far. At first I thought the vitality pool subtracting points for effects would be confusing, but it doesn't look all that difficult to grasp after reading for a minute or two. It feels like a new take on focus points, which I'm all for. I'm actually getting a nagging feeling that mystics might be getting a bit too much? Between their healing pool, refreshable focus spells, and having four rather than three slots per rank.

I still kinda feel like Mystics should have their own tradition to use with different essence combinations than the traditional four

Same. I mean, I get why that might not be happening, that's a lot of work making a new tradition, particularly if they also want to port PF2E's spells over at some point, but a mental/vital tradition would fit mystics perfectly IMO. Could be a fun homebrew project.

I will echo the sentiment that 4 slots per rank doesn't feel justified on the mystic given how the wizard and sorcerer look to have comparably powerful or even weaker class features while also having far less survivability. We can bring up how SF2e isn't PF2e, but this doesn't feel like an intended meta difference, so unless the Pathfinder remaster is buffing caster slots per rank or the mystic has a tremendous drawback we're all missing, I'm not seeing the reason for them to not be a 3-slot caster.

I also would still really like to see the mystic access the occult tradition: yes, occult is a tradition that probably fits every Starfinder caster, so we need room for other traditions too, but I feel the better way to go about that would be to include more non-occult traditions, rather than exclude occult from classes the tradition would otherwise pair with nicely.

That aside, though, I absolutely love the mystic's vitality network and mental bond features. The vitality network in particular looks like a really fun resource to play with and plug into with feats, and looks to do an excellent job of letting the mystic heal effortlessly while using their spell slots to do other stuff too. There also seems to be a particular effort made to make healing an easy, readily available third action for the mystic at early levels especially, at a time when players tend to feel resource constraints on casters the most, which I really appreciate. The mental bond feature I think also does a great job of framing the feel of tapping into The Force or a similar mystical framework, with interactions with feats like Cloud Storage making for some potentially hilarious heist shenanigans. The class just looks really fun to play and theorycraft around, and I'm keen to start playtesting as soon as I can.

Not related to the Mystic, but I like how the team talks about Starfinder 2e having a greater focus on ranged combat rather than melee.
I feel this opens an interesting design space for the Vanguard, as a class to disrupt ranged attacks, either by setting up protective barriers for their allies, or by rushing into enemy ranks to break up their formation or create confusion the rest of the party can abuse to their advantage.

I will echo the sentiment that 4 slots per rank doesn't feel justified on the mystic given how the wizard and sorcerer look to have comparably powerful or even weaker class features while also having far less survivability. We can bring up how SF2e isn't PF2e, but this doesn't feel like an intended meta difference, so unless the Pathfinder remaster is buffing caster slots per rank or the mystic has a tremendous drawback we're all missing, I'm not seeing the reason for them to not be a 3-slot caster.

I'm happy that SF2 is willing to deviate from the in my opinion unnecessarily conservative PF2 caster chassis design. One of the big reasons I don't want to play a caster is that they basically have to choose between meaningful class-exclusive mechanics and resources for their primary method of contribution. Not to mention the abyssmal proficiencies. It always feels like you are penalized twice for wanting to cast spells.

Here we finally have a caster with a really cool minigame, enough casting resources to not be constantly super stingy and that even has some proficiencies! That sounds like fun and should be encouraged!

Okay, so my thought on the "Rhythm" connection is much like everyone else's: This subclass should have been for the Occult spell casting tradition

"The Quantum Web" would have been a better theme for Primal, the interconnectedness of all things in the cosmos, the Harmony being that any bonded ally can, as a free action at the start of their turn automatically draw Hit points from the Vitality Network (10 minute cooldown for them) The Focus spell would have been "In Many, One", you cast the spell and can transfer a bonus or penalty from one bonded Allie to yourself or another. This does not alter the duration, and the normal limits of bonuses and penalties are still in effect." and it lasts until the start of your next turn.

Also, with this focus on your vitality network, and your 10 closest allies... you're basically a living MySpace page... or is it Spacebook?

Okay, so my thought on the "Rhythm" connection is much like everyone else's: This subclass should have been for the Occult spell casting tradition

"The Quantum Web" would have been a better theme for Primal, the interconnectedness of all things in the cosmos, the Harmony being that any bonded ally can, as a free action at the start of their turn automatically draw Hit points from the Vitality Network (10 minute cooldown for them) The Focus spell would have been "In Many, One", you cast the spell and can transfer a bonus or penalty from one bonded Allie to yourself or another. This does not alter the duration, and the normal limits of bonuses and penalties are still in effect." and it lasts until the start of your next turn.

Also, with this focus on your vitality network, and your 10 closest allies... you're basically a living MySpace page... or is it Spacebook?

I completely agree with this. Music makes sense for the mystic, but is also a theme connected very strongly to spiritual energy, which is part of the occult and divine traditions but not the primal tradition. It would be better in my opinion to tie the music of the spheres to an occult mystic subclass, and find another way of including a primal mystic (the quantum web as described above I think is absolutely spot-on).

I'm happy that SF2 is willing to deviate from the in my opinion unnecessarily conservative PF2 caster chassis design. One of the big reasons I don't want to play a caster is that they basically have to choose between meaningful class-exclusive mechanics and resources for their primary method of contribution. Not to mention the abyssmal proficiencies. It always feels like you are penalized twice for wanting to cast spells.

Here we finally have a caster with a really cool minigame, enough casting resources to not be constantly super stingy and that even has some proficiencies! That sounds like fun and should be encouraged!

I'd be on board with this if this means balancing appropriately everywhere else that applies: if we're buffing casters, that's great... but then that means challenges and monsters ought to be balanced around a range of classes that are more powerful, if we want to maintain a consistent standard of balance. It should also mean buffing martial classes too, in my opinion, so that they don't get overshadowed yet again, as prior d20 games have shown can easily happen when casters are given too many toys to play with relative to everyone else. Given that Starfinder 2e is a brand-new game in the making and Pathfinder 2e is on the cusp of a remaster, this could be feasible, but would also involve a lot of work to do right.

The justification for psychic two-slot casting was that stripping down to two slots per level was what freed up the build resources for all of the other cool stuff they got.

...but we're not here to talk about that.

What about Cloud Storage? Like, sneak a 4th-level mystic into a treasure room, and they can transport the contents halfway around the world if they have a friend there to pull it back out again. Opens up all sorts of potential shenanigans.

It's also interesting to see "slightly weaker heal" as a focus spell.

other interesting thing - the base pool size scales pretty well... but the recharge doesn't. At lower levels, you can be busting those clutch heals out of the pool on the regular, but as you advance, you have to fit other bits of kit into the space that opens up. It'll always be useful, but as the levels pass it shifts more and more from a "per turn" resource to a "per fight" resource.

Some of the spells seem weirdly weak, though. Like... recharge weapon. It has to be touch range, it only refills enough for a single attack, and it inherently limits itself to the cheap stuff. Feels like most of the time, you'd be better off just taking the time to reload manually. Still, I guess it is a cantrip. Might be useful if you somehow have a gun whose recharge actions per shots-in-clip ratio is greater than 1 to 1?

Situational spells like Cloud Storage are better for prepared casters than spontaneous ones, I think.

Transporting a treasure can be a fun shenanigan to do, but investing a permanent resource on it is less appealing then memorizing a spell once for that particular day.

I think the 4 slot per Rank thing is about helping them keep up with the martial in the new paradigm. Like they mention, they are assuming most combat is ranged with ranged weapons. And we saw with the Soldier that this will be some heavy firepower. So giving casters those extra slots is probably about helping them keep up.

Also, Cloud Storage isn't a spell... it's a feat, no resource (other than Network vitality) required

Karmagator wrote:

I'm happy that SF2 is willing to deviate from the in my opinion unnecessarily conservative PF2 caster chassis design. One of the big reasons I don't want to play a caster is that they basically have to choose between meaningful class-exclusive mechanics and resources for their primary method of contribution. Not to mention the abyssmal proficiencies. It always feels like you are penalized twice for wanting to cast spells.

Here we finally have a caster with a really cool minigame, enough casting resources to not be constantly super stingy and that even has some proficiencies! That sounds like fun and should be encouraged!

I'd be on board with this if this means balancing appropriately everywhere else that applies: if we're buffing casters, that's great... but then that means challenges and monsters ought to be balanced around a range of classes that are more powerful, if we want to maintain a consistent standard of balance.

The major difference between a 4 slot caster and a 3 slot is sustain. In a single fight, which monsters are balanced around, the difference is fairly minimal, so there wouldn't need to be any adjustments. The Mystic is also still squishy, so that doesn't change anything either.

It should also mean buffing martial classes too, in my opinion, so that they don't get overshadowed yet again, as prior d20 games have shown can easily happen when casters are given too many toys to play with relative to everyone else. Given that Starfinder 2e is a brand-new game in the making and Pathfinder 2e is on the cusp of a remaster, this could be feasible, but would also involve a lot of work to do right.

This might be different for other people, but I don't see a reason for me - as an almost exclusive martial player - to be worried. They're basically a Cleric with a healing mechanic less focused on burst healing and possibly - if primal - better CC. Those improvements benefit me directly and their general idea has very little overlap with my area of expertise. They still can't take a hit, dish out tons of damage at the drop of a hat or have highly impactful resourceless abilities on demand.

Even if one of the classes turns out to be a premier blaster, then changes like these don't make a major difference. I'm still eating them and their entire output for breakfast.

My only reaction to casters getting an overall QoL/fun buff like this is "cool, now my friends can have more fun and we can win together more often".

I like the direction. Give it access to occult and it'll be golden for me

The major difference between a 4 slot caster and a 3 slot is sustain. In a single fight, which monsters are balanced around, the difference is fairly minimal, so there wouldn't need to be any adjustments. The Mystic is also still squishy, so that doesn't change anything either.

I don't think the difference can really be minimized when we already can clearly see how expensively that extra slot per rank is costed. Four slots per rank means being able to either have good output for one extra encounter, or extra-good output for the same number of encounters, and so far has been enough to warrant 6 HP per level, no armor proficiency, and intentionally weak subclasses that mostly aim to limit the breadth of that 4th slot, e.g. school restrictions or needing to take on bloodline spells. The mystic has most of the latter restriction, but neither of the former two, and even their subclass arguably provides more than the sorcerer's. +2 HP/level and up to +2 starting AC may not sound like much, but those are significant survivability buffs in 2e.

This might be different for other people, but I don't see a reason for me - as an almost exclusive martial player - to be worried. They're basically a Cleric with a healing mechanic less focused on burst healing and possibly - if primal - better CC. Those improvements benefit me directly and their general idea has very little overlap with my area of expertise. They still can't take a hit, dish out tons of damage at the drop of a hat or have highly impactful resourceless abilities on demand.

Even if one of the classes turns out to be a premier blaster, then changes like these don't make a major difference. I'm still eating them and their entire output for breakfast.

My only reaction to casters getting an overall QoL/fun buff like this is "cool, now my friends can have more fun and we can win together more often".

As much as I'd like to agree with you, this reasoning is effectively the game balance version of trickle-down economics, and in my opinion doesn't really work in practice. Even supportive casters don't spend all of their spell slots supporting, and spells are there to output power and draw the table's focus on the caster in some way or another. When one character, or range of characters, outputs visibly more power and draws more focus than everyone on your average game session, it is perfectly valid to question why that imbalance exists, and why some characters are entitled to a bigger contribution to the narrative than others. Worth noting that this exact reasoning of allowing some classes to be overpowered "because they're supports" was a major contributor the CoD madness of D&D 3e/3.5e, and prior d20 systems should generally be a warning that even supports can be unhealthy for the game when made too powerful. This is why 2e has aimed for balance across all classes so far, even supportive classes.

LOVE the flavour of this class. Love the vitality network ability. It seems super useful and flavourful.

I agree with most people in that Rhythm being primal seems a bit odd. I get what the idea behind it is but it doesn't seem to fit the primal theme.

Karmagator wrote:

The major difference between a 4 slot caster and a 3 slot is sustain. In a single fight, which monsters are balanced around, the difference is fairly minimal, so there wouldn't need to be any adjustments. The Mystic is also still squishy, so that doesn't change anything either.

I don't think the difference can really be minimized when we already can clearly see how expensively that extra slot per rank is costed. Four slots per rank means being able to either have good output for one extra encounter, or extra-good output for the same number of encounters, and so far has been enough to warrant 6 HP per level, no armor proficiency, and intentionally weak subclasses that mostly aim to limit the breadth of that 4th slot, e.g. school restrictions or needing to take on bloodline spells. The mystic has most of the latter restriction, but neither of the former two, and even their subclass arguably provides more than the sorcerer's. +2 HP/level and up to +2 starting AC may not sound like much, but those are significant survivability buffs in 2e.

And I simply don't agree with Paizo's reasoning on that front. They price an extra spell slot per level like it's the legendary progression in attack rolls and more, but from everything I've seen the two aren't even remotely close. In my experience, the extra spells go into the group being able to fight another encounter or overcoming a niche non-combat challenge that skills can't really solve (or only with excessive sidetracking). Only occasionally do I see one extra higher-level spell going into a particularly difficult fight. The former two are inherently desirable for everyone at the table and don't change encounter balance at all. If anything, they are a great QoL improvement for the party. The last one can be very influential, but hardly rivals something as strong as increased proficiency.

That said, my perspective is limited and subjective. In the last 4 years, I've seen maybe 12-ish different people play a caster for extended periods of time (100+ hours). Paizo obviously have a much, much larger data set.

On the survivability front, I disagree with Paizo as well. You are absolutely correct, it is a pretty good upgrade, as it probably allows you to take an additional hit now and then. But even 8HP and light armor is pretty bad on anything that doesn't main DEX. You just fold like cardboard instead, so it doesn't change the fact that your team has to protect you. There is also the fact that this often doesn't matter anyway. The vast majority of damage - or even all in more than a few fights - gets eaten up by the frontline, if we do our job right. So I really don't see a good enough reason for the 6HP/no armor gang either.

Edit: Now that I think about it, SF2 caster will actually have to be more durable, because they will be much more threatened than in PF2. AoE abilities and ranged attackers will both be very common, so my previously mentioned paradigm - frontliners are the ones eating all the damage - will probably no longer hold true.

Karmagator wrote:

...

As much as I'd like to agree with you, this reasoning is effectively the game balance version of trickle-down economics, and in my opinion doesn't really work in practice. Even supportive casters don't spend all of their spell slots supporting, and spells are there to output power and draw focus on the caster in some way or another. When one character, or range of characters, outputs visibly more power and draws more focus than everyone on your average game session, it is perfectly valid to question why that imbalance exists, and why some characters are entitled to a bigger contribution to the narrative than others. Worth noting that this exact reasoning of allowing some classes to be overpowered "because they're supports" was a major contributor the CoD madness of D&D 3e/3.5e, and prior d20 systems should generally be a warning that even supports can be unhealthy for the game when made too powerful. This is why 2e has aimed for balance across all classes so far, even supportive classes.

That's just the thing, based on everything I've experienced so far, this isn't going to meaningfully change the power dynamic in the group. I expect that all this will really do is allow them to have more fun and to contribute longer, rather than being the reason why the group has to retire "early". The action economy alone puts a fairly hard cap on everything. There will be the occasional "star moment" that wouldn't have happened otherwise, but at the end of the day, I just don't fell like I'm under any sort of threat here.

But there is obviously a substantial difference in our starting viewpoints that causes these different opinions. You, understandably, consider the current PF2 balance state to be normal. I on the other hand consider PF2 caster class chassis to be almost universally underpowered (the exception being the Bard).

6HP casters are going to have a tough time against group threats with ranged weapons when there isn't a common class with reactive strike (or easy feat to take it on several other classes) to stand between the rarer melee threats with a reactive strike. Focus fire is not your friend. If they have 6HP mystics are just going to reserve more of their vitality network for themselves.

I don't love the uses of the vitality network beyond HP restoration. Spot Boost is a trivial extra cost, whatever. But Vital Boost isn't so great that I would obviously take it and use it much even if the HP cost were zero. I'm spending 40 HP and ten reactions per save that is actually influenced by this. I'd rather spend those 40 HP keeping up allies for 1-2 more hits and get a better reaction like a shield block. The Cloud Storage cost is mostly just a bookkeeping gimmick and waste of time both in and out of combat unless we're talking power armor smuggling, bywhy.jpeg. Mental Interference seems worth the cost, though.

Soul Surge's HP cost is totally unreasonable whether it can be mitigated by the vitality network or not. +2d6 single target scaling, and you want me to pay HP for it? C'mon, man! The drained 1 on crit and extra 2d6 to start aren't close to worth that sort of self inflicted damage when there's the Phanasmal Killers and Fireballs out there.

But there is obviously a substantial difference in our starting viewpoints that causes these different opinions. You, understandably, consider the current PF2 balance state to be normal. I on the other hand consider PF2 caster class chassis to be almost universally underpowered (the exception being the Bard).

I can definitely respect this, even if I disagree. My experience with casters has been very different, in that I've found that spells are often significantly more impactful than they're initially perceived, but I can empathize with having a solid understanding of Paizo's design philosophy around 2e's casters and still wanting something more out of them. My main fear is simply that it is very easy for casters in any tabletop system to be secretly or not-so-secretly overpowered in ways that hurt gameplay, particularly around any descendant of D&D 3e, and I wouldn't want this to befall 2e when this is one of the main things the developers wanted to avoid.

Edit: Now that I think about it, SF2 caster will actually have to be more durable, because they will be much more threatened than in PF2. AoE abilities and ranged attackers will both be very common, so my previously mentioned paradigm - frontliners are the ones eating all the damage - will probably no longer hold true.

I think it would be a bit sad for 6 HP/level characters to have no place in Starfinder, and I don't think switching to more ranged combat ought to also involve durability bloat by default. A world in which the back line can be hit more easily is a world in which I feel squishier characters should be making more use of cover, and the mystic as implemented is already deceptively survivable even without their inflated base stats (you can effectively heal 4 HP per round as a single action if you want, and that's before factoring in spells). It also raises the question of how tanks are meant to be tanking if enemies can just whoosh attacks past them, and rather than make everyone tankier, I'd prefer to make it so that the classes who are meant to tank as part of their role give their enemies good reason to focus them instead of the squishies.

Cloud Storage cost does actually seem to have a useful rate-limiting function. You can sustainably transfer one bulk every thirty seconds when you get it at fourth level. (Putting up to four bulk in is free for two actions, but you can't spend an action to pay for the other side withdrawing it.) Refocusing for ten minutes recharges twenty-two bulk of retrieval. It seems important for not being able to empty any place out to the other side of a planet. It's still really generous, but I think that the bookkeeping is there for a practical reason. Without that, it jumps from two bulk per minute to twenty-five per round.

(It does make me think that the best vaults are probably extradimensional to stop this and many similar shenanigans using other pocket spaces.)

Soul Surge's HP cost is totally unreasonable whether it can be mitigated by the vitality network or not. +2d6 single target scaling, and you want me to pay HP for it? C'mon, man! The drained 1 on crit and extra 2d6 to start aren't close to worth that sort of self inflicted damage when there's the Phanasmal Killers and Fireballs out there.

Sanctified spells are always a bit worse than other same level spells when you don't trigger the extra damage. Plus divine casters don't get the Phantasmal Killers or Fireballs.