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

Starfinder moment: Ysoki Mystic doing a terrible job of hiding something in her cheek pouches, gets a lot of unfriendly attention that's trying to get her to spit it out, using Very Emphatic Sign Language to try to claim there's nothing there, finally "swallows" the contents of said pouches into their network, then shows off her empty pouches as "proof". "See! I told you I didn't have anything in there!"

Role "distraction" executed with flying colors.

Oh! Also, it's not just a matter of "sneak the mystic in and let them loot the warehouse". You can also play the game where you leave the mystic at home with a bunch of random potentially useful stuff and let them act like an absurdly overpowered version of the prescient planner tree. Why, yes. I can provide you with 50 kilos of high explosive, one bulk at a time.

Karmagator wrote:

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.

Caster survivability and how frontliners are supposed to work now are definitely two critical points to look out for during the entire testing phase.

I'd like for the 6HP gang to be viable as well, class choice restrictions should almost exclusively come from the story. But I don't really see any good way for a dedicated SF2 caster to have defenses that low, they are simply too vulnerable to any amount of focus fire. Especially anything that can't cast mage armor is just dead, even with cover, if you are facing any kind of intelligent opposition. Cover will absolutely be critical for most characters now, but even with standard cover these guys barely exceed the standard AC, if that. The current Mystic should be relatively fine if they make good use of cover, though.

As for frontliners, we have already seen some of the solutions with the Soldier. They have some pretty good offense after the changes, so that already goes a bit in the direction you are wanting (me too btw). But the real clincher here is the suppressed condition, which I'd count under "giving the enemy a good reason to target you" as well. The speed penalty gives your party a chance to kite melees and the circumstance penalty to attack rolls is outright genius. Instead of using up reactions for shielding others or the like, which wouldn't stack with our precious cover either, they get a penalty against everyone. So your squishies should usually effectively have +3 AC when combined with their cover, which goes a long way. Then you have a choice to make - do you use cover yourself or do you use your better AC, HP and the suppression penalties to make yourself a juicy and slightly less hard target than your teammates? Preferably also block any avenues the enemy has to get around you in the process. So the Soldier seems to have a pretty good idea already ^^

With how a number of their abilities scale based on their proficiency with their connection skill it seems odd that they don't automatically scale that skill.

With how a number of their abilities scale based on their proficiency with their connection skill it seems odd that they don't automatically scale that skill.

I'm also wondering what the trade-off is meant to be if you don't raise that skill aside from getting a different one. As it stands it feels a bit like you have to increase that skill or you're leaving power on the table, which feels a bit icky.

On the other hand, I really like this experimental space of tying magical effects to skill proficiency. It's not something we've really seen much before, and it's super cool and has a bunch of potential.

With how a number of their abilities scale based on their proficiency with their connection skill it seems odd that they don't automatically scale that skill.

Yeah... really, the option to not invest in the skill is kind of a newbie trap here. I'm not going to say that they should get free scaling for it, but... possibly mandatory scaling? Just say that they're required to scale it up at first opportunity each time. They've got a literal connection to it inside their mind/soul/whatever. They can't help but internalize some of that information.

Shredderslash wrote:

With how a number of their abilities scale based on their proficiency with their connection skill it seems odd that they don't automatically scale that skill.

I'm also wondering what the trade-off is meant to be if you don't raise that skill aside from getting a different one. As it stands it feels a bit like you have to increase that skill or you're leaving power on the table, which feels a bit icky.

On the other hand, I really like this experimental space of tying magical effects to skill proficiency. It's not something we've really seen much before, and it's super cool and has a bunch of potential.

And rhythm also needs to improve performance too for its focus spell. So thats 2 skills locked in, which feels like way too many.

I think performance is the only skill that controls leveled class features. It’s the connection skill not the tradition (nature/religion) one for all master/legendary advancements, but it could be clearer.

We have some more info from the new Paizo Live. Thanks to EzekieruYT for the summary ^^

Even shorter summary for SF2:

- at least one Occult Connection for the Mystic is potentially on the table
- the increased durability of the Mystic is due to SF2 casters being much more likely to get damaged
- Connections will have more focus spells (probably why it is called an "initial" connection spell)
- they want to make sure that casters will have plenty of options for their 3rd action (one of the best QoL changes I can think of)
- the next Field Test focuses on Ancestries
- there will be a playtest stream on the 18th
- Envoy being the "skill monkey" means that they are good at pretty much everything (like a PF2 Rogue or Investigator can be)
- in contrast, the Operator is now really good at one skill instead (presumably based on their subclass), so they are now a real specialist (which is kinda new to the system)

I can't help it - called it on the Operative and the Mystic durability ^^

That all sounds cool. Especially interested in the operative, a true super specialist in a given skill will be interesting to see.

I have to say the Mystic is really awesome. It can heal, but importantly that isn't nearly all it does. The class really emphasizes teamwork and group cohesion to a degree we haven't seen, both narratively and mechanically. Exactly what I would like to see in a support! They've also really managed to make the class different from PF2 in a way that doesn't feel forced or different for the sake of being different.

Good job ^^

- the increased durability of the Mystic is due to SF2 casters being much more likely to get damaged

This explains many things different from PF2. The fact that ranged attack are more common not only allows to get fly earlier but also changes how the defenses need to be made.

To have a 6hp per lvl unarmored caster is way more dangerous in SF2 than it is in PF2.

The description of what kind of presence the mystic might be in their party is very appealing. As is the importance of their bonded allies to them. And Cloud Storage is a very fun idea for a feat!

This class is so delightfully flavourful and mechanically interesting so far that if it ends up with a connection based on dreams or something similar, I'm gonna have to consider whether my favourite psychic will continue being a psychic!

Doubly so if the mystic ends up with a level 20 feat that is in any way like psychic's Become Thought. There's a lot of fun ways a mystic could do conditional personal reconstruction after death, when they have cool features like bonded creatures and the vitality network to key off of.

I'm liking the "guy in the chair" feel of the Mystic so far. Cloud Storage lets you send your group whatever they need. Transfer Vitality's range is only limited by LoS and LoE. Network Spell lets you cast all your spells while in full cover and undetected.

I love the guy in the chair archetype, and I've always been jealous of the Cyberpunk 2077 netrunners who could hack me through their allies. I'm just super excited to try this out.

Awesome feedback, thanks everyone!

The team is continuing to iterate on the class, and we've already come up with some interesting takes on it since this Field Test went to print. One thing that we're going to experiment more with is the inclusion of some Occult options. Just note, we only have so much space in our books, so shifting the Mystic to touch on Divine/Occult/Primal options means that there won't be as many connections available to explore these options at first—damn word counts and such! ;)

Also, I've just come back from SkalCon in the Twin Cities, where I ran three different tables that tested out 5 of the SF classes in different situations. We're already incorporating a lot of changes to the Soldier based on Field Test #1, and then I've got some strong notes for other classes going forward.

Your feedback in this weird pre-Beta phase is INVALUABLE, so thanks a ton.

Can't wait to get more information out about our Streamed Playtest coming on the 18th.

I know it might dilute their identity as the vitality expert class, but I like the idea of mystic becoming a sneaky pick-a-list caster a lot. Most of their connections being divine or primal, but the occasional occult or possibly even arcane connection slipping in.

Having looser restrictions on what class can pick which traditions also feels like a good way to nod to the "all magic is just magic" vibe SF has going.

I do feel pretty strongly that arcane goes against both Mystic's identity being not the rote formulae of arcane, and equally against arcane's biggest limitation of not having healing magic. The class's focus on the bonds between people is very occult in feeling, but that doesn't carry over to arcane at all.

Awesome feedback, thanks everyone!

The team is continuing to iterate on the class, and we've already come up with some interesting takes on it since this Field Test went to print. One thing that we're going to experiment more with is the inclusion of some Occult options. Just note, we only have so much space in our books, so shifting the Mystic to touch on Divine/Occult/Primal options means that there won't be as many connections available to explore these options at first—damn word counts and such! ;)

To be expected, good sir. Besides, it leaves room for options in supplementary material!

Awesome feedback, thanks everyone!

The team is continuing to iterate on the class, and we've already come up with some interesting takes on it since this Field Test went to print. One thing that we're going to experiment more with is the inclusion of some Occult options. Just note, we only have so much space in our books, so shifting the Mystic to touch on Divine/Occult/Primal options means that there won't be as many connections available to explore these options at first—damn word counts and such! ;)

Also, I've just come back from SkalCon in the Twin Cities, where I ran three different tables that tested out 5 of the SF classes in different situations. We're already incorporating a lot of changes to the Soldier based on Field Test #1, and then I've got some strong notes for other classes going forward.

Your feedback in this weird pre-Beta phase is INVALUABLE, so thanks a ton.

Can't wait to get more information out about our Streamed Playtest coming on the 18th.

And I can't wait to get that info, even though I can't watch the stream live ^^.

I must say, I'm really glad that I didn't miss the bus on the playtest phase this time around. It is a lot of fun and we aren't even in the real playtest yet :D

I do feel pretty strongly that arcane goes against both Mystic's identity being not the rote formulae of arcane, and equally against arcane's biggest limitation of not having healing magic. The class's focus on the bonds between people is very occult in feeling, but that doesn't carry over to arcane at all.

While for the most part I agree, it's the least likely to get a connection and probably should be, don't forget that it's happened before.

This does look interesting and quite different than the SF I Mystic thats for sure, not sure I like it just yet.

Key for me is the mechanics for the general "slap on Med pack" check in SF II, (IE Treat Wounds in 10 minutes for PF II) when it shows up in the pre playtest here, or in the official one next year at GENCON. As anyone trained in Medincine and a healers kit (for us here a Med pack kit) I would thin has access to.

If thats kind of the same then the Mystic should have plenty of other options other than heal so that should add a lot of fun.

Mystics overall in my SF I games very rarly heal, way more combaty spell and gun focusedor skill checks in and out of combat, curious to see with the the Stamina being gone how this might change, if at all.

Fine with the extra spell slot, not so sure on Primal though....

Looking forward to the live stream I'll have to rewatch as I can't be there live sadly

Oh and live action reports that are sure to come from the SF II team as well, those are fun, how about a live play on those please :)

Tom

Looking through the feats, Cloud Storage and Void Warranty(!) are utterly hilarious! Seriously, whoever wrote Void Warranty has earned themself a confection of their choice. The general design of feats around the vitality network is also very lovely and is leaving me wanting for MOAR.

The spells are very flavourful in this field test. I'm particularly jazzed about more one-action cantrips, and Doom Scroll is hilarious.

With regards to the 4-slot-per-rank caster topic, I, as someone who fully intends to mix and match PF2 with SF2, am curious about how sorcerers, wizards, and witches will fare compared to the beefier mystic. (Potential material for a Pathfinder-Starfinder crossover supplement? Call it Path to the Stars? Would be very funny. Also the thought of a technomagus or honestly any PF2 class in a high-tech sci-fi makes me giddy.)

QuidEst wrote:

I do feel pretty strongly that arcane goes against both Mystic's identity being not the rote formulae of arcane, and equally against arcane's biggest limitation of not having healing magic. The class's focus on the bonds between people is very occult in feeling, but that doesn't carry over to arcane at all.

While for the most part I agree, it's the least likely to get a connection and probably should be, don't forget that it's happened before.

This feels like it would be in a Galactic Magic-esque supplement, and more likely as a class archetype of the Mystic than just a connection (mainly because the arcane spell list is designed to not have any healing at all).

With regards to the 4-slot-per-rank caster topic, I, as someone who fully intends to mix and match PF2 with SF2, am curious about how sorcerers, wizards, and witches will fare compared to the beefier mystic.

Of the three casters I'm playing in campaigns(well, when the scheduling actually lets them happen), I feel like it blows my primal sorc away, compares favorably to my life oracle, and only really the bard comes out ahead in my mind, though that is in large part because he's a buffer who heals on the side(and bard is really good at buffing). Time and playtesting will tell, but as is i think you could just make the mystic a 3 slot caster and it would still be really good.

A list of PF1 Mystic connections and how I think they match up with PF2 spell traditions. Fight me!

Akashic - Occult
Arcane - Arcane
Crusader - Divine
Delusion - Occult
Devastator - Divine
Dreamer - Occult
Empath - Occult
First World - Primal
Flamewalker - Primal
Geneturge - Primal (or none)
Glitchghost - (None)
Healer - Divine
Hive Mind - Occult
Melophile - Occult
Mindbreaker - Occult
Overlord - Occult
Shadow - Occult
Shaper - Arcane
Star Shaman - Divine
The Drift - Arcane (or none)
Third Eye - Divine
Trailblazer - Primal
Void Walker - Divine
Warmonger - Divine
Xenoambassador - Occult
Xenodruid - Primal
Zeitgeist - Occult

That gets me 11 for Occult, 7 for Divine, 5 for Primal, and 3 for Arcane. You can argue about some edge cases and that some should count for two traditions (you can approach an occult connection like shadow through a divine lens and it works fine), but it's really weird not to think of the PF1 mystic as dominantly occult in a way that no other caster was. And this is just subclass themes and powers - the specific spell list was more heavily occult than the precog or (especially) witchwarper.

[Footnote: the Starfinder Enhanced connections are Shaper (primal), Accord (probably divine), and Isolation (probably occult).]

im loving the mystic so far, I just have some questions/concerns on class balance and such for Starfinder 2e classes. I know the metas are different hence why certain options come online earlier such as flight but are the classes still meant to be comparable balance-wise to PF2e classes? If so, the mystic is currently REALLY strong (and I love it) but getting sorcerer amount of spell slots + a blood magic esque effect + a focus spell + vitality network + better hp and armor than a sorcerer means Id probably never want to pick a primal or divine sorcerer ever again with mystic on the table.
Understandably this is a very pre-sneak peek on the mystic and this is not a complaint, but I would like to ask if the whole "metas are different" thing is more meant to explain why certain options will be more useful or more common or if thats a way of saying that PF2E and SF2E won't be able to mix with each other without there being some balance wonkiness. They're based on the same core system and the FAQ says you'll be able to sprinkle a bit of starfinder into your pathfinder and vice versa which seems to imply that theyre meant to be comparable in terms of balance. I think it would be nice if that was clarified since I'm not sure how much I should be evaluating these classes to the baseline of PF2E Player Core if at all

also in terms other things mystic related, im loving the feats tbh, there's a lot of really fun and cool options! One of my biggest pet peeves about playing a caster in pf2e is that feats can often feel pretty underwhelming or uninteresting so seeing stuff like network spell or memory bank are really cool and interesting! (Animist is in a similar boat with having stance feats for a caster which is really fun)

One thought - SF2 casters do need to be beefier than the most fragile of the PF2 casters... but that shouldn't necessarily be free. Like, the Mystic is going to be soaking up some bullets with that HP, you know? That starts being part of their overall contribution.

Of course, it's possible that the SF2 classes are just a bit... better than their PF2 peers. It might even be reasonable to have it so.

Yeah, like, I'm not against SF2E casters being beefier to account for the firearms everyones gonna have, but if they're meant to be balanced against PF2E casters they should probably not have 4 spell slots per level like a sorcerer to justify the increase in defensive stats, vitality network & connection benefits

That being said, If SF2E classes are meant to be better than their PF2E peers im ok with that too but I just think it would be nice to know if thats the intent or if these are just some playtests that happen to be swinging pretty hard on power before they pull some stuff back just so I dont keep comparing them to say, sorcerer when I shouldnt be

I am not in love with the "vaguely tech-centric" names that a lot of the Mystic stuff presented here has. Things like Network Spell, Cloud Storage, Memory Bank, and Void Warranty feel like they should be the names of Technomancer stuff. To be clear, the abilities themselves are super cool, and Cloud Storage is going to be absolutely iconic; but the names sound too tech-focused to be Mystic spells/abilities, imo? And, it means that any hypothetical technomancer couldn't have an ability named Cloud Storage, which feels like a small shame.

(Unless there truly will be no technomancer in SF2, in which case, I need to go pour one out.)

The did give an explanaition that this is far enough in the future that in the ruins of "Ancient civilization" you'll find computers, laser weapons, and space ships.

Tech is just a fact of life, so of course those phrases would be a part of their vernacular, even in a class no focused around tech.

One thought - SF2 casters do need to be beefier than the most fragile of the PF2 casters... but that shouldn't necessarily be free. Like, the Mystic is going to be soaking up some bullets with that HP, you know? That starts being part of their overall contribution.

Of course, it's possible that the SF2 classes are just a bit... better than their PF2 peers. It might even be reasonable to have it so.

I would say at least the free defense buff is very much reasonable. Even with those their practical survivability is probably going to be drastically lower than that of PF2 casters. Realistically, this is more the softening of a massive nerf rather than a buff. Expecting them to pay for that with their class budget seems a little cruel, especially given that PF2 casters have a very limited budget outside of spellcasting.

I would say at least the free defense buff is very much reasonable. Even with those their practical survivability is probably going to be drastically lower than that of PF2 casters. Realistically, this is more the softening of a massive nerf rather than a buff. Expecting them to pay for that with their class budget seems a little cruel, especially given that PF2 casters have a very limited budget outside of spellcasting.

It's a clear, obvious, and significant buff, even taking the differences in assumption into account. Yeah, they might go down faster under focus fire, but things like taking cover continue to be available, and, like I said, that extra HP and armor means that they're contributing a bit more to the overall party HP pool. That leaves us with the following options:

1 - SF2 casters get the improved resilience, but they pay for it somehow.

2 - SF2 casters don't pay for it. SF2 martials are roughly equal to PF2 martials. Casters are doing better in SF2 as compared to their local martials than they are in PF2.

3 - SF2 classes are just better/stronger than PF2 classes overall. You should expect an SF2 party to be able to handle threats a bit better than an equivalent-level PF2 party could.

Declaring for #2 essentially means arguing that casters are a bit on the weak side in PF2. It's not an unreasonable position to hold, but it's a heck of a statement to be coming from Paizo, especially since (as far as I've seen) they're not particularly buffing casters in the Remaster. #3 is another interesting one - not inherently bad, per se, but it sure is a thing. If you don't want one of those two? Well, then you're at #1.

Now, for me? I'd been under the impression that PF2 casters were a touch on the weak side, so #2 wouldn't actually bother me much. #3 is something I find actively interesting if only because I'd love to pour some more love into the ancestry side of things. There's so many awesome things we could be doing with ancestries that just get choked hard by balance requirements. It's a shame in PF2, but a tolerable one. The required concept-nerfing would be downright sad in SF2. Still, I hadn't been under the impression that Paizo devs in general were intending to go with either of those... which leaves #1. Basically, I don't want to have a serious balance-shifting buff slip through by mistake. If you're going to do it, then own it.

Yeah and like, I don't know if thats the intent or not, maybe this is just an early playtest thats a bit stronger/overtuned than most pf2e casters because its a playtest but its a bit unclear if thats an intentional boosting of overall power or an accidental one

Karmagator wrote:

I would say at least the free defense buff is very much reasonable. Even with those their practical survivability is probably going to be drastically lower than that of PF2 casters. Realistically, this is more the softening of a massive nerf rather than a buff. Expecting them to pay for that with their class budget seems a little cruel, especially given that PF2 casters have a very limited budget outside of spellcasting.

It's a clear, obvious, and significant buff, even taking the differences in assumption into account. Yeah, they might go down faster under focus fire, but things like taking cover continue to be available, and, like I said, that extra HP and armor means that they're contributing a bit more to the overall party HP pool.

But the demand on that HP pool and more importantly your action economy and other resources are also significantly higher than in PF2. Instead of being able to use your 3 actions more or less as you want in most fights, you'll spend a lot more turns in Stride+Take Cover mode or at least your 3rd action will be heavily focused on Take Cover. You'll also have to use your spells and abilities to protect/heal yourself far more often, which lowers your party contribution as well. That is a very significant nerf compared to PF2.

The demand on party HP in general will also be significantly higher, as AoE attacks are expected to become common. It'll no longer be possible to always just concentrate the party buffs/heals on the one or two frontliners and have the rest be fine in most cases. Glass cannons like the Magus or Gunslinger will feel that even more than the casters.

So yes, the increased defense is a buff. But realistically this only means that you aren't a dead man walking, you are "only" always in significant danger and pretty much the highest priority target for any intelligent enemy. I highly doubt it will feel like a buff in practice.

That leaves us with the following options:

1 - SF2 casters get the improved resilience, but they pay for it somehow.

2 - SF2 casters don't pay for it. SF2 martials are roughly equal to PF2 martials. Casters are doing better in SF2 as compared to their local martials than they are in PF2.

3 - SF2 classes are just better/stronger than PF2 classes overall. You should expect an SF2 party to be able to handle threats a bit better than an equivalent-level PF2 party could.

Declaring for #2 essentially means arguing that casters are a bit on the weak side in PF2. It's not an unreasonable position to hold, but it's a heck of a statement to be coming from Paizo, especially since (as far as I've seen) they're not particularly buffing casters in the Remaster. #3 is another interesting one - not inherently bad, per se, but it sure is a thing. If you don't want one of those two? Well, then you're at #1.

Now, for me? I'd been under the impression that PF2 casters were a touch on the weak side, so #2 wouldn't actually bother me much. #3 is something I find actively interesting if only because I'd love to pour some more love into the ancestry side of things. There's so many awesome things we could be doing with ancestries that just get choked hard by balance requirements. It's a shame in PF2, but a tolerable one. The required concept-nerfing would be downright sad in SF2. Still, I hadn't been under the impression that Paizo devs in general were intending to go with either of those... which leaves #1. Basically, I don't want to have a serious balance-shifting buff slip through by mistake. If you're going to do it, then own it.

The environments PF2 casters and SF2 ones will face will be fundamentally different, so I don't think you can make a 1:1 analysis like this. Protection in PF2 is a far lesser priority for casters in PF2. Threats will be different and probably combat structure as well. Combats will also probably be longer. That's why they said that PF2 and SF2 will not necessarily be balanced against each other, so any decisions for the PF2 remaster don't mean much for SF2.

That said, I'm very much the guy for #2. I've said previously that I'm really not ok with many of the caster chassis balance decisions and that is definitely a hill I'm going to die on. Even Paizo have created casters that are a lot more equal than others, if you look at the Bard, Animist or Druid for example ^^

But #3 also sounds very interesting. Less so on the class side - aside from some imo much needed caster chassis buffs ^^ - but more for everything else. I definitely agree that Ancestries for example could use a bit more freedom. My other personal POI would be equipment. Aside from stuff like lvl 1 flight, buffing offensive equipment might even become necessary to counteract the slowness that combat will experience due to constant cover usage.

Raising the HP of squishy classes on the basis that they'll receive more ranged attacks I think raises the question of why anyone in this environment would need more HP per level than anyone else: if everyone is equally likely to get hit at any time, how does one even have tanks in this environment? The Soldier having 2 more HP per level and better armor proficiency is nice and all, but if enemies can consistently focus-fire the Mystic, and are intelligent enough to realize the benefits of taking down a squishier target, what's stopping them from doing that? Tanks in Pathfinder work because they have lots of mechanics that either prevent enemies from getting in range of their allies, or punish enemies for focusing other creatures besides them; so far, the Soldier doesn't really do either because enemies can still shoot regardless, and won't un-suppress themselves in the immediate by focusing the tank.

If we're operating on the assumption that Starfinder 2e is balanced differently from Pathfinder 2e, and that classes are generally stronger in SF, that's fine, if slightly more troublesome when trying to port characters from one game to the other. The real issue then becomes that of classes who are expected to take more hits than others, because so far we've seen no mechanic that engineers that at all. We're going to need the Soldier and other tanky classes to incentivize enemies shooting the tougher target, or else there will no longer be any such thing as a tanking role in SF2e, which I think would be a bit of a shame.

Karmagator wrote:

I would say at least the free defense buff is very much reasonable. Even with those their practical survivability is probably going to be drastically lower than that of PF2 casters. Realistically, this is more the softening of a massive nerf rather than a buff. Expecting them to pay for that with their class budget seems a little cruel, especially given that PF2 casters have a very limited budget outside of spellcasting.

It's a clear, obvious, and significant buff, even taking the differences in assumption into account. Yeah, they might go down faster under focus fire, but things like taking cover continue to be available, and, like I said, that extra HP and armor means that they're contributing a bit more to the overall party HP pool. That leaves us with the following options:

1 - SF2 casters get the improved resilience, but they pay for it somehow.

2 - SF2 casters don't pay for it. SF2 martials are roughly equal to PF2 martials. Casters are doing better in SF2 as compared to their local martials than they are in PF2.

3 - SF2 classes are just better/stronger than PF2 classes overall. You should expect an SF2 party to be able to handle threats a bit better than an equivalent-level PF2 party could.

Declaring for #2 essentially means arguing that casters are a bit on the weak side in PF2. It's not an unreasonable position to hold, but it's a heck of a statement to be coming from Paizo, especially since (as far as I've seen) they're not particularly buffing casters in the Remaster. #3 is another interesting one - not inherently bad, per se, but it sure is a thing. If you don't want one of those two? Well, then you're at #1.

Now, for me? I'd been under the impression that PF2 casters were a touch on the weak side, so #2 wouldn't actually bother me much. #3 is something I find actively interesting if only because I'd love to pour some more love into the ancestry side of things. There's so many awesome things we could be...

There's an alternate take on this: Casting is less valuable in SF2, relatively speaking.

In PF2, if the party runs into a boss with four lower level mooks, the party looks to the caster for an AoE. If the party comes across a thirty foot chasm they need to get across, they turn to the caster for flight across. Invisible enemy, magic to see it, reveal it, dispel it, or just hit the whole area.

In SF2, that's full-auto or a rocket launcher, jump jets or low-level ancestry flight, and thermal sensors.

If SF2 keeps the toned down approach to utility spells, such that they shouldn't replace a skill entirely, then casters don't have a monopoly on much and probably need casting a top-level spell to be a bit cheaper.

Raising the HP of squishy classes on the basis that they'll receive more ranged attacks I think raises the question of why anyone in this environment would need more HP per level than anyone else: if everyone is equally likely to get hit at any time, how does one even have tanks in this environment? [...]

Traditional PF2 tanks are really going to struggle for the reasons that you lined out. Especially the Champion, who can't deal with ranged combat at all.

But I think the Soldier already has a solid kit to do the job. I've given my take on that earlier in the thread (only the last paragraph). I would be surprised if the Soldier won't prove to be a solid tank.

At this point we should probably make a dedicated thread for the topic?

There's an alternate take on this: Casting is less valuable in SF2, relatively speaking.

In PF2, if the party runs into a boss with four lower level mooks, the party looks to the caster for an AoE. If the party comes across a thirty foot chasm they need to get across, they turn to the caster for flight across. Invisible enemy, magic to see it, reveal it, dispel it, or just hit the whole area.

In SF2, that's full-auto or a rocket launcher, jump jets or low-level ancestry flight, and thermal sensors.

If SF2 keeps the toned down approach to utility spells, such that they shouldn't replace a skill entirely, then casters don't have a monopoly on much and probably need casting a top-level spell to be a bit cheaper.

Less an alternative and more like an addition, imo.

But I think the Soldier already has a solid kit to do the job. I've given my take on that earlier in the thread (only the last paragraph). I would be surprised if the Soldier won't prove to be a solid tank.

At this point we should probably make a dedicated thread for the topic?

My response acknowledges yours and addresses it with this particular point:

Tanks in Pathfinder work because they have lots of mechanics that either prevent enemies from getting in range of their allies, or punish enemies for focusing other creatures besides them; so far, the Soldier doesn't really do either because enemies can still shoot regardless, and won't un-suppress themselves in the immediate by focusing the tank.

Shooting the Soldier instead of the Mystic will not break suppression, and so the Soldier's toughness simply means there is less overall reason for an intelligent enemy to focus them over the Mystic or any squishier character, which to me is pretty much the opposite of what a tank would want. If the Soldier's suppression had a clause that exempted attacks against the Soldier from the debuff, then perhaps that could be an incentive, but we don't have that either.

You're right that it might be better to have a fuller discussion in a separate thread, even though the subject does still relate to the Mystic due to their HP/level inflation. The underlying concern either way is that this approach feels like it can easily lead to a homogenization of HP due to what seems to be a lack of meaning to tanking in SF2e: either we still have tank classes who will draw incoming fire towards themselves, in which case we can still have 6 HP/level classes, or tanking in that respect is so ineffective that every class needs to be balanced on the assumption that they'll be taking fire at all times. I don't see the need to creep the minimum HP/level to 8 in a world where tanks would still be doing their job of soaking up damage just as well as in Pathfinder.

Karmagator wrote:

But I think the Soldier already has a solid kit to do the job. I've given my take on that earlier in the thread (only the last paragraph). I would be surprised if the Soldier won't prove to be a solid tank.

At this point we should probably make a dedicated thread for the topic?

My response acknowledges yours and addresses it with this particular point:

Ah, gotcha ^^. I'll make a separate thread in the general channel shortly and post the answer there.

Maybe I missed something about Cloud Storage. It doesn't seem like you can ever do more than 1 Bulk at a time, but it talks about costing points from the Vitality Network equal to the Bulk removed with a minimum of 1. That makes it sound like you could have bigger Bulk eventually but I don't see any way to increase it. Unless it is future proofing for possible future feats?

SF2e rules and mechanics are aligned with PF2e but there has been no statement or even hint that SF2e classes are balanced to be the same as PF2e, if anything its you can play these classes together but with strong tones of they are not balanced against each other.

Unless someone can point me to a source from Paizo that says otherwise SF2e is its own game with its own class balance and assuming that Mystic needs to be limited by what is possible for a cleric or sorcerer is a false assumption.

SF2e rules and mechanics are aligned with PF2e but there has been no statement or even hint that SF2e classes are balanced to be the same as PF2e, if anything its you can play these classes together but with strong tones of they are not balanced against each other.

Unless someone can point me to a source from Paizo that says otherwise SF2e is its own game with its own class balance and assuming that Mystic needs to be limited by what is possible for a cleric or sorcerer is a false assumption.

Well... the math goes like this:

- One of the easiest, most obvious things to crossover is the monsters. They're going to want to let Starfinder and Pathfinder mosnters freely swap and intermingle. That means that a Starfinder monster of a given CR and a Pathfinder monster of that same CR ought to be at least roughly equivalent.

- CR maps to PC power pretty directly. That tight coupling that says "If you put four characters of this level against a pack of monsters with these CRs, this is the challenge level that will result" is one of those things that GMs like a lot. They're not going to want to lose that.

- By extension, the overall power level of an SF2 character is highly likely to map fairly closely to the overall power level of a PF2 character of the same level.

Now, this is not a perfect unassailable argument armored in titanium or anything, but in the end there's a fair amount of incentive to at least have the overall power levels of characters of equivalent level line up... and between the classes, the ancestries, and the gear, I feel like if SF2 was going to short any of those in favor of the others, the class woudl be the one to short.

While I generally agree, Sanityfaerie, I can think of at least three aspects that they have pretty significant room for deviation without affecting the PC/NPC power dynamic too heavily.

1) Survivability

If you raise the survivability floor a bit - as has happened in the Mystic FT - then the encounter balance still works, as it makes no assumptions about what specific class you are playing.

2) Ranged damage

So long as your general output doesn't exceed that of melee martials, you can adjust it upwards quite a bit.

3) Better ranged abilities

PF2 ranged abilities are often weaker, more expensive or just not available compared to their melee counterparts. Since SF2 doesn't have the "ranged characters are safer, so they have to pay for that" principle, stuff like ranged knockdowns, aoe blasts and so on are possible.

So in all, some classes or rather general categories of classes can be stronger in SF2 than in PF2.

They have been pretty clear that the meta states of both games would be wildly different.

Flying PC's would be much more common in SF2e, ranged and ranged weapons is expected. I would see the higher spell slot level as another aspect of this

Also, This could also mean that the CR's of SF2e monsters DON'T map to PF2e, since they will be balanced around everyone having reliable ranged, and various energy attacks, not just the squishy casters.

Agreed, I think we can assume that, for the most part, PF2 CR will be similar to SF2 CR. But, there's definitely going to be situations where they're very different, for "meta state" reasons. I'm guessing this will be something GMs will have to keep an eye out for when moving systems.

For example: a swarm of incorporeal undead. Could be tricky for PF2, or a downright TPK at lower levels. SF2 having easy & assumed access to ranged weapons, energy weapons, and AoE weapons (not to mention the ranged, AoE, energy, weapons :D) makes that battle a lot easier.

We can be certain that, at the very least, the NPC's numbers as such will not be different. So the GM Core numbers will still be valid. Maybe not the area damage table, but that is a very uncertain maybe. What will be different is some of the distribution and the advice related to it, e.g. ranged attacks not having the low damage roll but maybe the moderate. And that most enemies will have some kind of ranged attack in the first place ofc.

But most stuff will be identical to PF2. The different meta states shouldn't substantially affect things on this level.

On what is this certainty based? I mean, we've barely seen anything, the first 5 levels of a couple of classes, an a couple of monsters and items. While it's going to use the same "game engine" as Pathfinder 2e, that doesn't mean all the numbers will be the same.

On what is this certainty based? I mean, we've barely seen anything, the first 5 levels of a couple of classes, an a couple of monsters and items. While it's going to use the same "game engine" as Pathfinder 2e, that doesn't mean all the numbers will be the same.

They have said that it's going to be same game engine to the degree you can use PF2e ancestries, classes, and monsters in SF fine. The core math is going to be the same.

Zoken44 wrote:

On what is this certainty based? I mean, we've barely seen anything, the first 5 levels of a couple of classes, an a couple of monsters and items. While it's going to use the same "game engine" as Pathfinder 2e, that doesn't mean all the numbers will be the same.

They have said that it's going to be same game engine to the degree you can use PF2e ancestries, classes, and monsters in SF fine. The core math is going to be the same.

Exactly. If you change the boundaries of the core math, the games wouldn't be compatible.

You could actually argue that applying the weapon potency modifier to the class DC already does that, but I don't see that continuing to other areas.

Oh, can you link to where a Paizo source mentioned they would be compatible enough to use classes from PF2e in SF2e? I hadn't seen that.

My understanding was that they had stated the meta-state of the games were going to be very different, which would lead to things like ancestries with flying at early levels, and classes with universal proficiency in ranged weapons that deal energy damage, and weapons that deal AOE damage. All of which would throw the power balance of a paty way out of wack from the current PF2e meta.