Starfinder Tech Class Playtest

RISE OF THE MACHINES

One thing I do like and want to highlight is how Robots have worse physical stats than animal companions (with whom they're expected to coexist with, based on the Second Contact PDF having an animal companion), but make up for it with customization and the ability to use true weapons.

It's here, FINALLY, hoping the extra 3 months really make this shine!!

Tom :)

Welcome to the Tech Class Playtest! Join the Starfinder Team for a brief video overview!

Oh man, hat's off to whoever came up with the Technomancer programming langauges' names & write-ups :D
...that said, I really hope the final version explicitly allows people to re-flavour those names (but keep the same mechanics, of course) just for funsies. "Choose a programming language from the options" implies you must use the names are presented, but c'mon, we all know the children yearn for the mines dumb puns and arch japes of made-up sci-fant progamming langauges.
inb4 COBOLd

I love both of these classes! Technomancer and mechanic both ooze flavor and versatility. From a quick skim it seems hard to find anything to complain about. My only suggestion is making the four slot casters 6 hp and the technomancer 8 hp since it's working with 3 slots. tweaks aside it all looks good enough to full send

Thanks for the news! I'm not able to take a look right now but, for those who have access and a bit of time, can your mechanic still ride the drone like a mount? I'm asking for a friend... (not really!)

Thanks for the news! I'm not able to take a look right now but, for those who have access and a bit of time, can your mechanic still ride the drone like a mount? I'm asking for a friend... (not really!)

There's nothing in the Drone mechanics that say you can't, and since they otherwise work like Animal Companions you can

Hell, it's about time.

Dynamic Frequency Scaling's Jailbreak:

Jailbreak If you use Jailbreak Spell to use this spellshape with a spell gem, it only becomes broken on a critical failure.

What does this mean? Did they mean to refer to Spell Chips here? Even if they did, it is unclear what that means.

Wasn't this playtest going to have the testing rules for spaceships? Will we have another playtest until the official version or will we only see it in Player Core?

Well, Multidisciplinary Mechanic sure opens us up to a world of flavor, doesn't it? "I am a man of Science! And these are my horrifying flesh constructs. Why are you screaming?"
Combined with the fact that your drone can be made to imitate a living ancestry…

Wasn't this playtest going to have the testing rules for spaceships? Will we have another playtest until the official version or will we only see it in Player Core?

I don't think any Paizo announcement said that the spaceship playtests would be included.

More bad news: spaceship rules aren't even going to be in player core. Basic rules will be coming in the GM Core, and the tactical rules are TBA. I'm not even sure they've confirmed a spaceship playtest at all.

Well, Multidisciplinary Mechanic sure opens us up to a world of flavor, doesn't it? "I am a man of Science! And these are my horrifying flesh constructs. Why are you screaming?"

Combined with the fact that your drone can be made to imitate a living ancestry…

It reminds me of Inventors+'s "Unconventions," where the inventor uses different power sources to energize their innovation, and gets a different ability than Explode. It's a cool ability, and makes me even more excited to make a borathu mechanic.

One thing I do like and want to highlight is how Robots have worse physical stats than animal companions (with whom they're expected to coexist with, based on the Second Contact PDF having an animal companion), but make up for it with customization and the ability to use true weapons.

Not only can you customize some of the abilities, it looks like they gain Construct Immunities which is huge.

From the Mechanic drone chassis, I'm guessing this is should be tactical or advanced:

Support Benefit Your robot companion mercilessly tears with

its saw. Until the start of your next turn, your Strikes that
damage creatures your robot companion threatens also
deal 1d6 persistent bleed damage. If your robot companion
is commercial or advanced, the bleed damage increases to
2d6.

The technomancer is Cool! Although, i miss the Gist of First edition

The mechanic seem closer to the tinker i imagine, but lacks Overcharge and the ability to add MOAR power to weapon.

The technomancer is Cool! Although, i miss the Gist of First edition

The mechanic seem closer to the tinker i imagine, but lacks Overcharge and the ability to add MOAR power to weapon.

I'd say it more than makes up for that with sheer flexibility. Inventor always felt really constrained to a single concept but Mechanic can reliably do battlefield control and swap damage types on the fly to hit enemy weaknesses.

Technomancer: Yo Dawg, we heard you liked spellshape, so we spellshaped your spellshape so you can cast while you cast.
Honestly once I read "You're here to hack reality" I could not read the rest in anything but a 90's cyberpunk edgelord voice, but I assume that's the authorial intent.

SITZKRIEG! wrote:

Thanks for the news! I'm not able to take a look right now but, for those who have access and a bit of time, can your mechanic still ride the drone like a mount? I'm asking for a friend... (not really!)

There's nothing in the Drone mechanics that say you can't, and since they otherwise work like Animal Companions you can

Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with PF2/SF2 rules and only played SF and PF1 when they came out. Previously the drone had a bespoke carve out letting you ride it based on size and a drone mod IIRC hence my question.

Well, Multidisciplinary Mechanic sure opens us up to a world of flavor, doesn't it? "I am a man of Science! And these are my horrifying flesh constructs. Why are you screaming?"

Combined with the fact that your drone can be made to imitate a living ancestry…

That's actually what I'm most interested in, lol! A barathu mechanic who births her own mini-me drones. :)

Technomancer: Yo Dawg, we heard you liked spellshape, so we spellshaped your spellshape so you can cast while you cast.

Honestly once I read "You're here to hack reality" I could not read the rest in anything but a 90's cyberpunk edgelord voice, but I assume that's the authorial intent.

Load HACK_THE_PLANET.mp4

Been really looking forward to both of these classes!

The ability where one of your mines can sprout legs and chase people is both amusing and terrifying. Depending on if you're the mechanic or the target of course.

I think there is a problem with the 14th level Mechanic feat Advanced Drone. It has a prerequisite of itself (Advanced Drone) and it mentions becoming an Advanced Companion. From what I understand the drones work like animal companions and the feats line up with that besides this one. 4th level - Tactical Drone (Mature Companion), 8th - Refined Chassis (Graceful or Burly I assume are analogs to Nimble or Savage), 18th - Elite Drone (Specialized Companion). You can't get more than 1 specialization unlike animals since its an 18th level feat so I am confused though on what Advanced Companion would be as I would have thought it was the Specialized companion.

Good to have some free Starfinder Tech Class Playtestin' stuff out there for SF2e, Paizo. ;)

Stop printing base Counterspell. It's so bad!

Wise_fuer wrote:

Wasn't this playtest going to have the testing rules for spaceships? Will we have another playtest until the official version or will we only see it in Player Core?

I don't think any Paizo announcement said that the spaceship playtests would be included.

More bad news: spaceship rules aren't even going to be in player core. Basic rules will be coming in the GM Core, and the tactical rules are TBA. I'm not even sure they've confirmed a spaceship playtest at all.

That's equal parts irksome and concerning.

Justnobodyfqwl wrote:

Wise_fuer wrote:

Wasn't this playtest going to have the testing rules for spaceships? Will we have another playtest until the official version or will we only see it in Player Core?

I don't think any Paizo announcement said that the spaceship playtests would be included.

More bad news: spaceship rules aren't even going to be in player core. Basic rules will be coming in the GM Core, and the tactical rules are TBA. I'm not even sure they've confirmed a spaceship playtest at all.

That's equal parts irksome and concerning.

Ship combat is such a huge part of the draw for me, and a mainstay of the genre.

...I think the idea is to actually take the time to get them right, though, which is ultimately probably a good thing. I play two space-themed TTRPGs and for one (which is not under active development) we use a complete homebrew rewrite of the space combat rules... And from what I have played of SF1 space combat, it's not a strength of the system. I don't dislike it as much as some people do, but I can at least see where they're coming from.

So I'm personally hoping for a nice system, not necessarily a quick one.

Justnobodyfqwl wrote:

Wise_fuer wrote:

Wasn't this playtest going to have the testing rules for spaceships? Will we have another playtest until the official version or will we only see it in Player Core?

I don't think any Paizo announcement said that the spaceship playtests would be included.

More bad news: spaceship rules aren't even going to be in player core. Basic rules will be coming in the GM Core, and the tactical rules are TBA. I'm not even sure they've confirmed a spaceship playtest at all.

That's equal parts irksome and concerning.

Ship combat is such a huge part of the draw for me, and a mainstay of the genre.

The Free RPG day adventure that comes out June 21st, before the SF2e Player Core is even out. Sounds like it takes place entirely on a starship, with combat in the ship, but also having to deal with an enemy ship nearby, maybe a chase. This might be a preview of the starship encounter rules from the MG core, but not sure. Either way, it shows starships are still part of the game even if full rules are out. Also, the RPG day adventure features the new SF2e iconic ship.

One of the reasons given for the entire year-long Drift Crisis event was to justify changes to the Drift to allow piracy to function better, so I'd expect more shipboarding-type combats in SF2e, which is something else that can be done without full starship rules.

Drone rules seem to have several errors/things to clarify. They basically say "use animal companion rules" but then invent new names for things anyway.

- 4th level has Tactical Drone, which makes it a mature companion
- 8th level has Refined Chassis, which lets it become "a graceful or burly companion" (let's pretend it says nimble/savage since graceful/burly aren't defined anywhere)
- 14th level has Advanced Drone, pictured above, (which we can pretend says it requires Refined Chassis and grants specialization like the druid/beastmaster feats at this level since advanced companion isn't defined anywhere)
- 18th level has Elite Drone, which requires Superior Drone (which doesn't exist, but is also a prereq for a level 16 feat that gives more options), which let's it become specialized (!!!) way later than equivalent other companions and makes the point of the 14th feat even less clear

Also 3rd-level mechanics with drones get an ability called Synchronized Step which is a flourish single action that allows both the mechanic and drone to stride. How that interacts with the normal companion action rules is completely unclear, so the safest thing to do is assume it doesn't and it's basically just an easy way to further break enhance the action economy of drone companions. Also there's a feat that gives drone companions (and turrets) a reactive shot, which is cool, though it presumably uses your reaction and not the companion's (which doesn't have one).

A lot to love in the tech class playtest at first glance. I'm glad to see more ways to deal with overcoming hardness, the programming languages are a great idea, and super flavorful. I'm excited about the little sidebar about hover, this could have an important impact on things outside of the scope tech playtest.

When will the foundry vtt play-test module be updated with the new classes?

Ectar wrote:

Justnobodyfqwl wrote:

Wise_fuer wrote:

Wasn't this playtest going to have the testing rules for spaceships? Will we have another playtest until the official version or will we only see it in Player Core?

I don't think any Paizo announcement said that the spaceship playtests would be included.

More bad news: spaceship rules aren't even going to be in player core. Basic rules will be coming in the GM Core, and the tactical rules are TBA. I'm not even sure they've confirmed a spaceship playtest at all.

That's equal parts irksome and concerning.

Ship combat is such a huge part of the draw for me, and a mainstay of the genre.

The Free RPG day adventure that comes out June 21st, before the SF2e Player Core is even out. Sounds like it takes place entirely on a starship, with combat in the ship, but also having to deal with an enemy ship nearby, maybe a chase. This might be a preview of the starship encounter rules from the MG core, but not sure. Either way, it shows starships are still part of the game even if full rules are out. Also, the RPG day adventure features the new SF2e iconic ship.

One of the reasons given for the entire year-long Drift Crisis event was to justify changes to the Drift to allow piracy to function better, so I'd expect more shipboarding-type combats in SF2e, which is something else that can be done without full starship rules.

That's not exactly a defense that inspires confidence.

@umopapisdnupsidedown

I like SF1 starship combat. After the numbers rework, at least.
I agree with the sentiment. I want the system to be good and functional and robust.
I just also think not having it finished for the player core is a bad sign. Just like how I felt cutting down the number of classes in the player core was a bad sign.
It might release in September and be wonderful and all of my nay-saying will have been for naught. Truly, I hope that's the case. 3 months isn't so long to wait.
But still, I worry.

I really like both of these classes from an initial read, I have some concerns about the early game of the Technomancer however and its power level, it seems to be a bit weaker than Mystic and Witchwarper. I think later on it starts to come together more as you obtain jailbreak spell and more feats like the ones that let you stack multiple spellshape effects but before then it feels like its a lot more limited imo from my initial read. Less skill profs, hp, slots and about the same number of features as a witchwarper early on. I wonder if baking Jailbroken spell in at level 1 might alleviate some of those early game concerns? From my initial read it def seems like the 3 slot chassis makes sense for the late game but not for the early game due to how its abilities work and when I built some technomancers at level 1 it felt like huge parts of my kit were crucially missing and I didnt have the same kind of power as I might on the other two SF casters but this is all just an early impression, my thoughts may grow and change as I sit on this information

(that being said, on a conceptual and vibes level, these two classes are on point, I really feel like they nail the concept of feeling "techy" with being able to modify or overclock tech items and such and theres a lot of cool ideas!!)

Oh man, hat's off to whoever came up with the Technomancer programming langauges' names & write-ups :D

...that said, I really hope the final version explicitly allows people to re-flavour those names (but keep the same mechanics, of course) just for funsies. "Choose a programming language from the options" implies you must use the names are presented, but c'mon, we all know the children yearn for the mines dumb puns and arch japes of made-up sci-fant progamming langauges.
inb4 COBOLd

Captain, I desire the scifi language of garage door opener violence ray and enemies with the Plunger of EX and Singular Electric Hand Mixer Beater of TERMINATE XD

These are really cool, especially the technomancer! Although something that's bugging me is the level 18 technomancer feat, Sudo Spell.

Sudo is short for "substitute user do"; it's a command you use to run other commands at a different privilege level (typically root). It has nothing to do with precision or duplication.

It kinda reminds me of those crime dramas with the terrible/hilarious hacking scenes, but it's also pretty confusing when there are existing class features and feats that have to do with root access. I spent more time than I'd like to admit trying to figure out the relation between this feat and 10th level spells :P

That's not exactly a defense that inspires confidence.
Having ships be relegated to exploration mode transportation and the background trappings for traditional encounters is precisely what I'm concerned about.
It's the kind of thing that tips me from "I can't wait to order this book!" to "Maybe I'll wait a few months to see what the community feedback is first."

Before you doompost, it's probably worth mentioning that I left out the part where the devs directly confirmed a full on, tactical starship combat rules system. It'll be after the more skill challenge style narrative rules of the GM Core, but they directly compared it to the SF1E rules.

I think it's awesome and important that they're playtesting the spaceship rules extra hard. I've never even PLAYED SF1E, and even I have heard of how much people just deeply did not like them. I have a friend who has really liked what she's seen from SF2E, but when I brought up the system the FIRST thing she said was how miserable SF1E and it's ship rules were.

I really do think it's important and good that they're letting these rules cook as long and as hard as possible, because they NEED to be good.

......however......

I do think that every single review of Starfinder2e is going to talk about this. I think no amount of good intentions will stop people from saying "lol, Pathfinder in space doesn't have space?". I think that a lot of people will write the game off entirely in the 3 month period between Introducing Them To Starfinder and Letting Them Do Spaceship Stuff.

As others have pointed out in the Playtest forums, there are some errors in this that make portions of this Playtest unusable. Would really appreciate some developer feedback!

Wondering if these are going to be in the core book or in an upcoming tech book.

Wondering if these are going to be in the core book or in an upcoming tech book.

Second line of the post: "These two new classes will be released in a future technology-themed book"[...]

DJEternalDarkness wrote:

Wondering if these are going to be in the core book or in an upcoming tech book.

Second line of the post: "These two new classes will be released in a future technology-themed book"[...]

I appreciate you pointing that out as I missed that in my exhuberance in skimming the blog post. :( I'm really surprised that at least the mechanic didn't make the core book.

I think there might be an error in the Mechanic feats Gravitic Mines (4th) and Terraforming Mines (16th). The 'Big Bang' effect on both is identical, only the version at 16th is missing the "this is forced movement" rider paragraph. Surely it's still considered forced movement?

I don't think it suddenly not being forced movement is the intent; I'm inclined to think one of those was meant to be something entirely different, probably the later one. I'd also expect they meant to add Gravity Field and whatever was meant to be there to the list, rather than picking two effects, but I'm less certain of that assumption.

keftiu wrote:

DJEternalDarkness wrote:

Wondering if these are going to be in the core book or in an upcoming tech book.

Second line of the post: "These two new classes will be released in a future technology-themed book"[...]

I appreciate you pointing that out as I missed that in my exhuberance in skimming the blog post. :( I'm really surprised that at least the mechanic didn't make the core book.

The theory I like most for why mechanic and technomancer aren't in the core book is that, as very tech-centric classes, them being in a tech-centric book means they enter the game with a larger amount of gizmos for them to use. I forget who originally proposed that idea, but it's always made sense to me.

my guess is that its also a matter of timing, the OGL debacle forced the SF crew to get cracking on SF2e and trying to fit everything in one book would have probably taken a lot more time so splitting it up a little and dedicating a book to tech stuff and 2 tech themed classes was probably the best method to keep on schedule and keep the quality high

How do I find the old playtest tracking sheet now? D:

my guess is that its also a matter of timing, the OGL debacle forced the SF crew to get cracking on SF2e and trying to fit everything in one book would have probably taken a lot more time so splitting it up a little and dedicating a book to tech stuff and 2 tech themed classes was probably the best method to keep on schedule and keep the quality high

My guess is that it has more to do with SF2e using the same layout design of the PF2e remaster, splitting up the core rule books into Player and GM core, and that the Tech Core will be SF2e's Player Core 2.

How do I find the old playtest tracking sheet now? D:

It's still around!

When will the foundry vtt play-test module be updated with the new classes?

Unsure, but we'll update you!!

Also, to everyone leaving notes here about errors you've found and things you like as well as dislike, first of all, thank you for telling us at all because they're things we need to know! Secondly, please remember this is what the surveys are for! The comment section here is actually not the best way to get that info to the dev team. Since playtests have so much interaction with the community and will of course garner lots of feedback (which we want), we try to make sure that feedback goes to a central place so the devs can get it all, and that place is the playtest survey! Please put the errors you find there rather than here! Thank you!

Will there be an errata on the Playtest? There are some things that need clarification, to make sure we are using them correctly in playtest.