AestheticDialectic's page

I'm a power gamer that plays with mostly power gamers. I'm telling you from that perspective that it doesn't look very broken to me except Apparition Quickening which you still have to plan for. That is the one feat that is a bit broken as Quickening multiple times per day is pretty strong.

I mostly just want to clarify that I think it is the best class in the game, not that it is broken, or overpowered as one might think of it. I think it is problematic design, but it won't necessarily ruin people's games if you have a socially conscious player at the helm. I think the resentment witch for example is both the best debuffer and the best occult caster in the game atm, and I while don't think an animist is *quite on that level* I do think it makes a convincing doppelganger but is simultaneously able to pivot out of that easily and do someone else's schtick to similar degree of competency.

You talk about how some of the heights of power come from picking things like elf step, but this is the kind of thing that really makes this bothersome. Regardless of whether people purposefully play suboptimally or not, that potential exists

Edit for some clarity and spelling errors

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

I think the fundamental tension in this whole discussion rests on two things:

1) The Animist is one of the most powerful casters in the game.
2) The Animist is one of the most complex classes in the game.

With the valdity of point 1 being contingent on your capacity to handle point 2.

The way I think of it is like Magus. You have Starspan Magus with Psychic dedication, using IW starting at L6. This is a very specific build. it is a very offensively powerful build. If someone were to argue that this build does more damage than Paizo wanted the power curve to do, I think that argument holds some water. OTOH if someone were to say that Magus is hands-down the best martial at all things martialing because this build exists, I think I'd have to disagree on that. Teridax has found a animist build that does good damage without slot resources, but it requires a specific ancestry selection, then a specific animist practice selection, at least two specific feat selections, and then a specific daily prep routine. And like starspan+IW it doesn't come online at all until mid level play (3 levels after starspan does). So if someone wants to argue that Paizo didn't anticipate the elf step etc. animist combo pumping out as much non-slot damage as it does, then like the Starspan, I'd say that argument holds water. But if someone were to argue that this combo means the animist class is the best caster at things casty...well, like a claim that this combo makes the magus the best martial at martialy, that seems a lot less credible to me.

The difference is that the Magus here is a one trick pony. The animist gets to do all the lateral thinking swiss army knife stuff that the wizard is known for and what gave the wizard the limiters it has. It gets to do this sort of pivot into anything without 6 HP, no armor, and so on, and do it with the baseline divine list no-less which to my evaluation is the best list in the game, far and away above arcane. Not to say arcane is bad, or that the wizard can't be good, but that the animist can switch shit up as it feels while having decent feats, a good chassis, access to all four traditions, good focus spells, ways to emulate aspects of non-caster classes and so on. "Old man robot" demonstrates this well in how they talked about their play experience with the class. I am not as interested in the specifics here so much as the general shape of the thing. This class is an amorphous blob that fits into any crack and crevice, and is able to do so with a high degree of competence and that already is an issue

Edit for additional clarity: I don't think the class trivializes the game, just that it is when ranking all classes top to bottom, at the top. The strongest and most flexible class, and the flexibility is one aspect of the strength

I love that the number of spell slots only matters for Deriven to attempt prove this class isn't cracked, but also doesn't make wizards any better. Like c'mon. Which is it? Ignoring the fact they're just simply wrong about number of slots where the animist clearly is 3/rank at top rank and 4/rank for the rest. Why is the wizard having 5-6 top rank slots not a benefit, but the animist having 3, like most classes, such a penalty?

Also, y'all need to chill on the imperial sorcer. It's decent, but it has one trick. I would put sorcerers in the middle of the pack of classes and call it a day

Teridax wrote:

… Deriven, you clearly still haven’t played the class. In the three hours since you said you would, all you’ve done is just rattle off feats independently of each other and given surface-level assessments of how they seem to you on paper, with no supporting experience. This is, as I recall, not the first time you’ve tried to fake credentials in this way, and in fact not even the first time you’ve done so for the Animist. All of this effort spent arguing could have been spent actually trying out an Animist in an adventure.

Just reading through and I feel that it hasn't really been mentioned that it is not necessary for the Animist to be equal or better than another class at certain niche's it just needs to be comparable or close. The Animist can be good at almost any niche with basically zero real investment.

Since this thread was made in August it has become evident that the animist is the undisputed best caster in the entire game, and arguably the best and strongest class overall. So it's interesting to see that be debated at all. It's definitely cracked even without considering how it can step on toes

AestheticDialectic wrote:

I personally don't like the idea of 1hp enemies. It can feel pretty deflating when you realize anything could have killed them.

Good news: PF2 subverts this on the Necromancer with 1HP allies instead. ;)

Made me chuckle. Wait for the class has been long and arduous though ToT

Frankly, it's taken very little from 4e, which is a shame. The incredibly, enormously varied playstyle between each class (the whole "every class is identical!" meme is so objectively untrue that repeating it makes those who do so sound like they've been trapped in a crystal for 15 years), the valuable and varied monster roles, "minion" rules, making different ability score values actually matter (my kingdom for choosing between what adds to defenses!), static defenses in general (I never want to roll a damn save again)... bring some of these to the theoretical 3e, please god.

I personally don't like the idea of 1hp enemies. It can feel pretty deflating when you realize anything could have killed them. I also think the problem people had was that all classes were structured around at-will, encounter and daily powers, and each felt simply "like spells" or not super differentiated between magic and mundane as well as abstracting away any mechanical reflection of the lore behind how spellcasting works. Ofc classes had different abilities and different expected roles. Wizards were explicitly "controllers" while the warlock was a "striker". This is quite boring though and shows too much of the scaffolding of the system. It felt barren at the time and today

ScooterScoots wrote:

R.E. IW, some damage calcs

Assume a 19-20th level magus hitting a spellstrike:

10th rank amped IW: 90 average damage

9th polar ray: 54 average damage + 40 (drained 2 on level 20 enemy) = 94 damage

9th rank blood feast: 94.5 average damage, get half that in temphp

8th rank polar ray: 45 damage + 40 drained = 85 damage

8th rank blood feast: 87.5

Ah yes, the stunningly game breaking power of doing exactly what magus can already do, just a bit more often and without the good rider effects. Truly this shatters the game's balance over it's knee, the most powerful combo in the game.

And just like that you've wasted perfectly good 8th and 9th rank slots on something your focus points could be doing. You're also committing yourself to being useful 4 times per day instead of 3 times per refocus. You're also foregoing actually useful arcane spells to do...4-5 damage over your focus points with 9s and less damage period with the rank 8s.

You know what's better than any of those spells? Maze/quandry. True target. Disappearance. A dozen other spells I can't be bothered to list. If you have 1 real fight a day, sure. Come back and tell me how this strategy works out for you when you need to do 4-6.

The point is that it isn't a huge power outlier with the capacities of the class. Casting those other spells is often taking off a turn of damage and doing the Magus thing in favor of pretending to be a dedicated spellcaster and still completes for actions with IW. Any place you want to use quandary is the same place you would be very happy to use your slots for great feast

But I do think that the Magus shouldn't be designed in such a way it has access to a spell like quandary and I really wish it had divine font for damage spells and only went up to like rank 5-6 for regular slots

I believe some of the lead developers(designers?) of PF2E quite literally worked on 4e. That's why we got the commander and the guardian. Which are 4e classes with new names

AestheticDialectic wrote:

Madhippy3 wrote:

I disagree. This is a long thread and it isn't filled with wizard defenders. Everyone has one reason or another to explain why the wizard is only playable compared to where other classes are excelling.

Yeah because these arguments have been going on for years now and most people are exhausted. You're late to the party

That doesn't rebuttal what I said in the slightest...

In fact this thread is from August of this year...
I am not jumping in a necroing an old thread. This is a modern problem. the discussion isn't tired, its 399 posts.

I didn't say or imply you necro'd anything whatsoever. I said that you are talking as if it's only criticism of the wizard that exists and nothing else. That it is unanimous, or near unanimous that people think the wizard is in a bad spot. If you had been here, as in on the forums not this specific thread, paying attention for the past few years you would know that this topic has been pretty divisive with people on all sides of the issue. Many people strong defenders of the current design as it exists, and even the post-remaster version. There is no shortage of individuals who like the wizard as it is and find it powerful. Talking about it as obviously very bad and that everyone agrees it is bad is unobservant and myopic. I would like changes to the class, but I think it's still around A tier overall. It's a solid chassis, it would be nice if it was S tier, but I don't ever want to argue about the wizard ever again. Everything that could be said has been said. Let's move the hell on

I disagree. This is a long thread and it isn't filled with wizard defenders. Everyone has one reason or another to explain why the wizard is only playable compared to where other classes are excelling.

Yeah because these arguments have been going on for years now and most people are exhausted. You're late to the party

While I respect that there is a lot of fun theory crafting happening, a few of these ideas we would be lucky to get in a 3e as it is to major a change. I am not convinced that making the Wizard more potent is bad merely because it doesn't fit the idea of the versatile wizard, which we acknowledge wasn't everyone's idea of a wizard anyways.

It doesn't really matter about making it wrong as long as we don't make it worse, because the current wizard is the worse it has ever been. It is so bad it created a misconception about the Arcane list that started this thread. This is all a hope dream, but if there is ever going to be a Reremaster of the Wizard that we will see and be able to enjoy in this edition we should theory craft towards simpler changes to the class. So far we have a lot of that.

Unless it would absolutely break the game I am not convinced that letting flexibility be from a huge spell list, swappable spellshapes and spells between combat, and emphasis of spell power through earlier Expert, Master, and Legendary is something to simply dismiss because its not perfect for everyone. It is practical on a printing level and thats what might, with luck, get Paizo to change. Things that already have page space get moved from the feat and thesis side to the class chassis side, and you change Trained to Expert, Expert to Master, Master to Legendary, and delete the redundant Legendary, where you find them related to Spell Modifier. Secondarily Paizo can emphasize more exclusively Arcane spells with new book releases.

While there might be more fixes to add, this is simple and practical. It doesn't matter if it isn't the wizard everyone wants because the wizard we have is the wizard no one wants. We need a buff for the wizard practical enough that someone is going to want to play it and Paizo is willing to print it. Hell my suggestion is so simple it could be done in an errata.

You're overstating it quite a bit here. The wizard like all casters in this game has a solid baseline and is perfectly acceptable from a balance perspective. It has powerful feats and features, and can sneak in power through a deceptive ability to inflate the amount of slotted spells it has well above what other casters can do. The problem with the class is that the skill floor is too high, and the skill ceiling feels too low given the high skill floor. The "juice isn't worth the squeeze". The class as is doesn't actually need a whole hell of a lot as evidenced by the fact people really only want more feats and for spell substitution to become a baseline class feature

In fact, if we were to put Vancian casting aside for a moment: suppose that if in this hypothetical framework, casters get magic from feats in the same way that martials get their own abilities, that would open up a huge amount of space for each of those casters to get much wilder class features. If Kineticists can get master armor proficiency, legendary Fort saves, effectively 10 HP per level, a bunch of other goodies, and still get six bonus impulse feats that they can progressively swap out, imagine what you could give to a Sorcerer or a Wizard: with a 6 HP/level cloth caster chassis, I'd say it would be extremely easy to justify a Wizard having twice as many feats as other classes, or being able to retrain their spell feats on a daily basis or even faster alongside other arcane-themed benefits. Casters tend to struggle with having fun feats because most of their power and complexity is focused on their spells already, but if their feats are their spells, it would be easy to give the Wizard heaps of spell feats that could each feel genuinely really strong.

I am quite attached to a 3.5e homebrew that amounts to a spell point systems in reverse mainly because of thematics. They use the terminology "spellpoint" and "mana" but what I like is that casting spells is additive rather than typical mana systems in video games which are subtractive. While the execution needs work, the flavor of casting spells building up stress in your mind and body tickles something in my brain. What I would like is that all spells become at-will and use a modified version of this system where it's 10 minutes rests like focus spells to clear your accumulated strain from exerting yourself, it is designed to such that you are expected to maybe cast 1-3 of your most powerful spells in an encounter. Lower rank spells contribute less strain and eventually none. Like focus points I would prefer the pool be done with small numbers if possible rather than what they have. I think this could be combined with spells as feats too. Spells could have five, or maybe 4(?) tiers associated with proficiency Novice, Trained, Expert, Master, Legendary, or alternatively Trained, Expert, Master, Legendary, Mythic. We can tag spells into traditions, classes have a traditionbthey give access to. Each class can fit under a super class and this is handle through tags like you're saying and this sorts them into different broad categories of how their magic works. The wizard group not getting spells through feats, or exclusively feats. Wizards pick from the same spell list of the tradition the class gives you, but they prepare a set amount in each proficiency tier, and while prepared they use the same strain system. How much they can swap them, and how many prepared "slots" they get can be determined by the class itself. Maybe necro gets less flexibility because they have bespoke spells like the playtest necro. What I cannot innate magic, and granted magic, can function the same but granted magic could have fewer spells given by feats and more bespoke abilities? Trying to figure out what makes these two better than the wizard classes I conjured up. I definitely want to move past one-and-done vancian magic, and I think most people do too. Feels like variant rule territory

I feel this is a request more specific to the Wizard than anything else. If even the Sorcerer could wield magic in the form of at-will feats and still feel like a spellcaster next to magical martials, the problem isn't that spellcasters need spells as their own separate thing, spell slots, and Vancian spell preparation to be seen as such, but that the Wizard in particular is exceptionally well-suited to being the archetypal Vancian spellcaster with a big bag of tricks, and it would feel weird if strictly no character class offered that mode of play. I think it is entirely possible to have a Vancian caster in a world where spellcasters don't normally use spell slots, and if the Wizard were the only class to use this system, I think they'd have a much better chance of standing out for their versatility. Otherwise, though, I do think complexity should be opt-in, and don't think spellcasters as a group of classes need to be defined by having dozens of limited-use powers.

As for Bards, Clerics, Druids, and other caster classes, I think perceptions of those have already shifted past spell slots anyway: a lot of people expect Druids to be strong shapeshifters, for instance, and that's not something you can get in large amounts while also having dozens more spells you could cast at maximum potency. Bards I think have always toed the line between magic-user and skilled performer, and I think it would be okay if the line between performance and magic were blurred for them. Clerics, meanwhile, I think could benefit significantly from a categorization system like the one you mention, if this categorization meant each deity provided access to a whole range of spells based on their domains, rather than three specific slot spells and a few focus spells. I'd go as far as to say that Vancian spell preparation doesn't even necessarily make the most sense for either Wisdom class, so it'd be worth seeing how either would feel without it.

It could be the case in our hypothetical system we are half dreaming up here that we have our four traditions, and for magic that is innate(sorcerer, kineticist) or magic given through patronage(cleric, oracle) that class feats give you the spells, but if you're under the wizard super class you get something more like our current system. I am also kind of feeling that it would be cool to have each use a different stat. I really feel that instead of charisma innate magic should be a new stat called volition or willpower, or constitution like it is for the current kineticist. Likewise I think it is logical that divine/granted magic be keyed off charisma as you are invoking, beseeching, what gives you the power to perform the magic. Then our studied magic, our wizard super class, is all intelligence. Wisdom gets rolled into intelligence, and I really truly feel wisdom only felt appropriate for the druid, and I suppose now the animist, but I really did not feel fit the cleric. Especially because charisma in the etymological origin is a divine gift. I very much agree that classes that aren't literally the wizard or spellcasters that are essentially wizards with stronger themes, a kineticist system works perfectly fine and it's really dudes that are performing the magic themselves as spells as something learned and created, that they are the only ones I really want operating closer to how it is now, but with tweaks that move us out of spells being a daily resource perhaps. I also feel that the two aforementioned groups of innate and granted magic would be characters that more naturally incorporate non-spell abilities and skills into their kit, where our wizard-like characters are purely about spells. Druids shapeshifting and having animal companions, Clerics wearing armor and recreationally swinging a weapon etc

AestheticDialectic wrote:

What I don't want to see with a spells as feats idea is a recreation of 4e. Spells didn't feel like spells in that game, and ironically martial abilities felt like spells. There was a lot that didn't feel distinct. It works better for kineticist, but if spells are tied to feats in some way it needs to function in a way that makes it stand apart and feel different from playing a non-magical character

I agree with your entire list, particularly grouping certain feats under certain categories so that it's easy to distribute them across classes without having to special-case them every time, but I especially want to touch upon the above because I think this would be especially relevant in the context of arcane magic. I would personally want spells to be made into feats, and I do think a lot D&D 4e's design has ended up proving quite successful when implemented elsewhere, but I also agree with you that its big mistake was in abstracting too far: because it took a gameplay-first approach rather than a flavor-first approach and tried generalizing classes to broad functional roles across martial-caster boundaries, the feeling of distinction between spells and martial abilities was lost. That, along with the balancing of spells compared to 3.5e, was in my opinion a major reason why so many players hated caster classes in that edition.

I don't think the problem is intractable, though, and in my opinion the best way to drive a distinction between the magical and the mundane is to identify what separates the two: for healing, for instance, a skilled medic might be able to work miracles, but would likely need to be close to their patient so that they can use the right tools on them. If they're crafty, they might perhaps have healing potions they can lob, but that still requires producing an item and throwing it. A Cleric, by contrast, can simply chant a prayer and close an ally's wounds from a distance, because their healing is not a product of their own physical capabilities so...

Sure the effects are an important part but I also think the mechanics of using magic being distinct helps much more in creating the divide. Particularly when we have magical martials such as champions, monks and the thaumaturge. A big thing for me especially is how many abilities, kinds of effects, do we get to select for a spellcaster at a time? Is it a separate feat track like impulses? Kineticist for example do far fewer things than our current casters. It works well for them, and may work well for a sorcerer, but it wouldn't feel right for a wizard. Innate magic and spellcasting could function differently and sorcerers can be the poster child for this innate magic system, and kineticist later being another inmate magic class if they bring them back again. Sorcerer and kineticist want a streamlined system of fewer effects to choose from and few abilities they have access to at a given time. For better and worse I do think even as people disagree about the wizard in our d20 fantasy people are going to want more breadth than this system might offer. I do want to move past vancian magic, but I also think that I would want the wizard in specific to still be able to fill up their book with as many spells as possible. I do also think druids and clerics shouldn't be given their whole list and it should be limited by choice of subclass/deity. I also think that we could argue Bard should be moved under the hypothetical wizard super class as they're studious in the lore

I think fighter progression for a wizard's spell attacks and DCs would be a bit too much. However, I'm of the opinion that most of the arcane thesis should have been made into baseline features of the wizard, turned into regular feats, or directly removed. Experimental Spellshaping feels like the perfect analogue to the fighter's Combat Flexibility, Improved Familiar Attunement doesn't make much sense in the wizard now that the witch exists, and I could easily see Spell Blending Staff Nexus becoming feats. Spell Substitution just feels right as a baseline wizard feature, more so in PF2e where the wizard doesn't really have much in regards to features.

For 2e I want an unchained wizards that resembles what the playtest Technomancer in SF2E looks like. Their emphasis on spellshaping is pretty much exactly what the wizard needs to feel like a wizard, and they should just be switched to 4 slots and call it a day

4 slots, the Technomancer jailbreak class feature, being able to free action swap prepared spells with school spells, totally redesigned from the ground up schools. Thesis should all be feats or removed, I agree

I would personally like the default scaling for casters to be like martials in capping at master but the "my whole thing is casting" classes like Wizard and probably sorcerer, to cap at legendary instead. This requires a different formula for saves and spells than 2e has... the things I want are kind of long and numerous

1. Super Class as feat packages. "Wizard" is no longer a class but a super class. Classes such as necromancer, magus, and possibly even witch might fit under the wizard super class and as such have a shared pool of feats that offer baseline features that related casting classes should get. Wizard super class might have more feats that manipulate spell slots, make scrolls, wands an/or staves, have more spellshape feats etc. Then the book space for class feats does not have to include effortless concentration for every caster and similar such feats. Likewise for martials you might have Warrior/Fighter as a super class, and some thematic word for the hit and run/more dexterous martials like rogues and rangers. The Magus for example might get to count as a wizard and a warrior. We can do hybrids

2. Casters should be like martials have scaling that is designed to cap at master and having legendary be something special for casters who are singularly focused on casting very powerful spells

3. Spell ranks condensed down to fewer than 10. 5 is the number I like, but it can be 7 or 4 etc

4. Sorcerers and other spellcasters who do innate magic get moved to a kineticist like system for spells and casting spells for these characters builds up strain that alleviates after smalls rests after combat. Hitting your threshold causing you to hurt yourself, accidentally knock yourself unconscious etc. Rather than be a pool of points it's a limit and you build up. Lower rank spells eventually become worth zero strain becoming more like cantrips. This system can be universalized to all casters too but previously vancian casters don't pick from feats, but instead slot spells each day that they can cast effectively at will until they hit their cap and have to take a break

5. Spell lists get massively trimmed down to skeletons that support a framework of a kind of play style and thematics. Specific in and out of combat roles, but then simultaneously subclasses give additional spells that round out a given character. Necromancer might be occult or arcane but get a massive list of thematic divine spells. Or it might just be a divine list caster but get some spells from occult or arcane to round it out

5.5 Force spells become unique to arcane. Spirit takes up the role of force for divine and occult casters. Primal gets neither and other similar tweaks to sharpen identities

What I don't want to see with a spells as feats idea is a recreation of 4e. Spells didn't feel like spells in that game, and ironically martial abilities felt like spells. There was a lot that didn't feel distinct. It works better for kineticist, but if spells are tied to feats in some way it needs to function in a way that makes it stand apart and feel different from playing a non-magical character

This is probably worth an entire separate discussion by itself, but shortening spell lists down to sharper identities I think ought to make it worth questioning the extremes of high saves and immunities that we see now: although the idea of a fire elemental being immune to fire makes thematic sense, it also shuts down the very notion of a pyromancer character, for example, who either ends up incapable of doing anything or needing to use a mechanic like the Kineticist's Extract Element, which doesn't work against every enemy and makes fire Kins very sad against devils. The fact that so many enemies are straight-up immune to mental effects makes it similarly difficult to play mentalists -- which is troublesome, because mentalism is a very big part of the occult tradition in particular.

While targeting two saves is generally to be expected for primal and occult casters in particular, and there are alternatives when both saves are high, the alternatives are generally to revert to pure support by handing out buffs or heals, which is not what every caster player wants to do. By contrast, martial classes can generally expect to deal some measure of Strike damage, because attack modifiers can be much more easily raised to overcome even extreme AC, and it's extremely rare for monsters to be immune to BPS damage (though sadly not precision damage). A designer a while ago mentioned that this system of harder counters existed to pressure casters to leverage the versatility of their spells to the fullest, but I think enough time has passed to show that a lot of players don't really care all that much about more versatility past a certain point, so much as a minimum degree of reliability.

This is likely to be stuff we're unlikely to see until 3e, but I'd quite like counters in general to be softer: it's fine for enemies to resist certain effects better than others, but immunity is something that should only be used if there's a guarantee it won't shut down someone's character, if it should be used at all. It's great...

And I am certainly someone who was in the camp of preferring the verisimilitude of the quasi realism that a lot of these things bring such as fire immunity on fire elementals, but like how undead ancestries and archetypes don't give you undead immunities for balance I also think that we are already in the real of combat as sport (as opposed to war) and should at least consider applying the philosophy further. I am even on record saying that I think "pyromancer" is a shallow character theme and concept. I still think so, but players should be allowed to make these kinds of characters regardless of my own personal taste and the game shouldn't shut them down

I also think slimmer spell lists let classes get more, and more interesting, class feats and features that interact with spell casting to really help differentiate casters and give them stronger identities

I would even say that I would prefer that we go from 10 ranks of spells to something like 5 but have it be more in line with 10 slots per rank or something instead. The number of ranks really feels like bloat and many ranks really blend into each other. I'm not sure we need ten whole degrees of spell power levels. To my mind ranks 1 and 2 don't really feel super distinct as much as they feel distinct from rank 3, and 3 isn't crazy different from 4 and perhaps 5 as well. Without looking at the lists it's hard to say which ranks really feel like a real distinct jump but it definitely feels to me that some of these ranks really blend together

Independently of the Wizard, I'm personally quite interested in the question of what the arcane list should look like, ideally: right now, it does most things besides vitality stuff, and while that does mean it does a lot of stuff, I think it's also been to the detriment of the tradition's identity as well as its appreciation over time. It's probably going to sound weird to talk about taking things away, but I do think that cutting off swathes of spells attached to the arcane list would make room for a sharper identity along with other, more tangible benefits.

For example: the arcane list is meant to be the junction of material and mental essence, so it stands to reason that the arcane list ought to access every mental spell out there... except it doesn't, and for good reason, because if every arcane caster could access heroism and synesthesia on top of their current spells, there'd be few reasons to pick casters of any other tradition unless it was for heal. Despite the fact that both spells could theoretically fit the arcane list, synesthesia in particular, neither can be allowed on a tradition that already has a lot of spells attached to it, even if not all of those spells are equally valuable.

With this in mind, I do think that it would help to not only give the arcane list some more spells, including spells unique to the tradition, but also prune spells that aren't necessarily the strongest thematic fit. Just as examples:

* Void spells are about manipulating life energy, and so should probably go out of the list despite having sat with Wizards across various editions.

* For some reason, the arcane list does have a couple of vitality spells that should probably no longer be there. Lifewood cage is an awkward one, though, because it's a remaster of force cage whose presence makes sense for historical reasons, but not for thematic ones, and the incongruity comes specifically from a mechanical side...

You and I have talked about it extensively, and were pretty much the only two participants on your thread on the topic, but I always want to bang this drum when it comes up. WE NEED TO MASSIVELY RESTRICT THE SPELL LISTS! STOP GIVING EVERYONE EVERYTHING PAIZO! I seriously wish we could have a version of 2e where every spell list was cut massively down to a few core roles it plays based on the thematics of the essences, occult is buffs, debuffs and battlefield control, arcane is battlefield control, utility and blasts, primal is healing, blasts and summoning, divine is healing, buffs and summoning. Something like this. Then subclasses of a class can add additional spells for theme/flavor, or an expanded role in and out of combat, change the spell list for the class if it makes sense (but for the love of God FEWER pick a lists!), or what have you. The lists are bloated with too many different things they can do and do not provide meaningful restrictions and this is most apparent with the divine list

Stop asking questions:)

I should clarify because my wording was confusing on reread. The only argument against me saying necro should get heal I am amenable to is that I wouldn't want my party forcing me to put heal in my top slots. That sucks. It's very minor though. Scrolls are a good option though, I agree

My take during the playtest was and still is that necromancer's should get a class ability that gives them access to all non-sanctified spells with the void, vital and/or spirit traits. This does include heal, but the only reason I don't think necro should get heal is because I don't want the party to expect me to waste my two top slots with heal. That's pretty much it though. Heal and similar spells can be very thematic for a fair number of kinds of necromancer

I don't think a level 8 slot on Stunned 1 even for one action something I'd use a level 8 slot for. Same as dazzled for a minute for Power Word Blind. The 50 points for power word kill is all I use.

Not sure why a primal caster has problems. They have chain lightning and fireball and blazing ray and phantom orchestra and sudden bolt and slow. On top of generally good focus spells like Tempest Surge and Elemental Toss.

Occult has force barrage, synesthesia, heroism, wall of force, and other staples I use often on top of generally good class features attached to their classes. An occult caster is a better control/buff/debuff caster is where they stand out. They have the top tier spells for that type of play. I generally focus my slots on that when playing occult over blasting.

Primal and Arcane are the blast lists. Divine is pretty blasty now too. Divine has the best summons, heals, and some good blasting now.

Divine is the best list right now. I do however want to say that arcane has the strength of letting you be a primal caster and an occult caster simultaneously just without this or that exclusive spell. Most of the occult spells you listed I can grab on arcane, and those I can't, well I can grab these other blasting spells from primal, essentially. There is definitely something to this

Okay, simple test of your guidelines: the party is deep in a forest, far away from civilization. They’ve been traveling through this forest for days to reach a long-sealed crypt thought lost to time. How do you convey to the party at that moment that deep in this crypt, the lower floors are full of clay effigies?

Good thought experiment. I think there are a few ways. First and easiest is a relevant knowledge check and with a regular success I would be willing to give a list of possible kinds of things that could be in the dungeon. Likewise, you can have art such as carvings that give an indication or clue as to what is inside. This culture is known for making constructs such as these. The outside of the tomb could have statues that look like clay effigies

I don't think you can tell them directly the lower floors specifically have them, but you can give heavy handed hints that something like this ought to be within the dungeon somewhere and they can prepare accordingly if they pick up on the hints

The worst way I can think of if having some dead previous adventurer's stuff somewhere in there and it have detailed notes and the like which might have a map or whatever

With the concern about the adventuring day, I think it is reasonable one might rest, or wait to prepare spells specifically for the dungeon. I am assuming this is like a day or two out anyways so it's reasonable they would camp outside, rest and then enter in the morning. If it is within a day, I think you try to have everything available for them to prepare(knowledgeable NPCs, library, whatever) before they depart and if they don't seek this info out, oh well

Paizo forums try not to make every thread about the wizard challenge... Lol

What's next a capitalist class? It's time to abolish class...

By that line of thought you might need to have strength and constitution to really use heavy armor and shields. Shields are exhausting to use as they are meant to be used and would require cardio and strength.

and bows of any significant poundage to actually deal damage, particularly to armored targets, would requires a whole hell of a lot of strength... Lol

Riddlyn wrote:

NorrKnekten wrote:

I believe paizo did state that they had plans for Secrets of Magic and Dark Archive remasters. Similar to how Guns and Gears were remastered.

Dark Archives might be able to get a G&G style remaster, I think that'd be a very tough job for Secrets of Magic. Way to much has changed in the remaster getting away from the OGL.

It's also notable that we've seen stuff taken from SoM and put into other remaster books. Elementalist showed up in Rage of Elements. Runelord in Rival Academies.

Hard to imagine they're planning to reprint the book normally after stripping away some of its features.

I could see Magus and Summoner reprinted in the book the Rune Smith and Necromancer are in, but I don't remember why I thought this originally

I just straight up don't like jailbreaking spells being relegated to a level 4 feat. I do think it should be in the chassis and upgrade-able with feats. I'm on board with it just applying two spellshapes, but it competing with other level 4 feats, and not being a guarantee when it was the whole reason the class was cool just seems to miss the mark imo. I don't think it's particularly interesting to take a class with a unique feature that was core to it, in order to make it into a class that buffs items and gets to swap spells which is just unfortunately really boring when it's actually laid out like this

Yeah, I personally think jailbreak spell is the coolest thing the class does, but I also agree that jailbreaks should maybe just be spellshapes and the feature allow you to mix and match two spellshapes

Idk about letting class DC scale to legendary, maybe master is fine enough, but I would say this also means DPS++ will still struggle to do anything with it's gun benefit later on and I don't think we can justify buffing their ability to hit with guns much at all

I also remember talking with you and talking about overclock becoming a focus spell, and probably same with download cache. The class starting with 2(or 3?) focus points. Jailbreak then still costs 1 extra action and a focus point to set up in order to apply to spellshapes to one spell, and does come at the cost of download cache and their subclass focus spell, whatever it ends up being. Not sure if it should remain a spellshape or become a tech focused spell

In some ways I think we should have two spells per rank of cache spells, but it's not a huge deal I don't think

The main thing though I think would help is still that I think they should get class specific feats for the computers skill to enhance their ability to interface with tech while not fighting for space with the other really cool class feats

It's funny that we have two dinosaur avatars discussing evolution, and hairless ones splitting hairs.

I do plan to go back to school for either paleontology, evolutionary biology or simply to do paleoart, but suffice to say, I love animals alive and dead, and most especially dinosaurs(birds included) :)

But I like your additions which help bring clarity to what I wanted to communicate

Golarion clearly seems to have actual evolution at play, and magic just complicates the narrative but things clearly have all the mechanisms necessary, genes, genetic mutation, and environmental pressures

I don't know how the people in charge of lore wanna square the circle but I have always been a proponent of making humanoid fantasy races all human in the phylogenetic sense and this sharing a common ancestor. Orcs, Dwarves, Halfings, Gnomes, Elves, and probably even Goblins, are all clearly kinds of human. They're more like us than we are like chimps/bonobos. There can be wrinkles, gnomes are influenced by the first world, maybe a god liked humans so much they made their own kind, whatever, but to my mind, they're all taxonomically/phylogenetically human

I also just don't think our modern minds can conceive of animals existing without the process of evolution when we try and think about it hard enough. So it is bound to show up in fantasy these days

Gonna split hairs here, I apologize...

Intelligent Design is an alternative explanation to the Evolution of Species via Natural Selection, and Evolution(which is what I'll shorten this to) is not dependent on abiogenesis(life emerging entirely from natural processes with no supernatural influence)

So, basically gods, or God, can create the universe, and even go as far as planting the first seeds of life, and Evolution is not impacted by this. Intelligent Design specifically would be stating that each species is create from whole cloth as it is now and there is no process of mutation, genetic drift, environmental pressures causing drastic enough changes for species to change. Hence the terminology "created kinds" within creationism and intelligent design

I'll be clear, proponents of Intelligent Design for the most part seemingly do not know that Evolution is not predictated on abiogenesis and so their argumentation against Evolution lumps these in together

I'd personally lean in favor of giving the Technomancer a full deck of magic hacks, i.e. focus spells, at level 1: Download Spell? Make that a single-action focus spell instead of a free action every 10 minutes. Overclock Gear? Make that another single-action focus spell that you can activate on its own, instead of this thing tied to casting a slot spell. And with that, you'd get to give the Technomancer much more to do without dipping into their spell slots, and so without affecting their existing mechanics by all that much. The added benefit is that it would also let you choose how much of each aspect you want to lean into: want to just overclock? You can do that. Want to fully lean into the spellshape? You can do that. Want to just switch to your cached spells? Can do. Want to do one of each every encounter? That's something you can do too!

If overclock becomes a focus spell, I think it should be able to affect more than one thing and not just on your person. I also think it and overclocking after casting a slotted spell should exist simultaneously because I do think you shouldn't be stuck only able to do one jailbreak per focus point. Unless that gets overhauled.

I could see a technomancer at level one with 3 focus spells for download cache, overclock and jailbreak, you getting to choose between the three abilities each combat. This technomancer would not have other kinds of focus spells and that would be replaced by feats that enhance these focus spells, and finally like I mentioned before, technomancer specific skill feats for the computers skill in order to do stuff like combat hack at range etc

It's pretty obvious that the Spell Cache/Download Spell options are inspired by or codeveloped with the recently released new version Runelord archetype for PF2.

But the Runelord has a universal list of spells that all Runelords can swap to replace a prepared spell plus a rune specific list. It might be a good idea to give all Technomancers a shared list of utility/generic tech spells (e.g. delete and discharge) as part of their Spell Cache and then add on programming language specific stuff. That would allow them to be better than other arcane casters at flexibly overcoming tech problems with spells.

I'm alright with this. Frankly I wish they had four different traditions in Starfinder that matched the setting, and then had a conversion guide which said "if playing this class in Pathfinder replace the tech magic tradition with the arcane" or whatever, but we're well beyond that point

Being able to use Computers actions from a distance, and potentially also on multiple devices at once, sounds like a no-brainer feat or series of feats on this class.

I was thinking about this sorta thing specifically at work today. I don't know if there is any precedent outside of archetypes, but what if technomancer got technomancer specific skill feats for this? One of my issues is that a lot of feats on the class look really good already and choosing some glorified skill actions for flavor at the expense of some of the cool feats the class already has is quite difficult, but maybe if they take up a skill feat then we might be cooking

I do think that the technomancer is treating magic like technology more than treating technology like magic. Which I prefer, but I also, idk. You can do a lot of what is being asked for with already existing spells and with skills. Frankly with how the class should/would play as written, it seems clear to me overclocking is a ribbon feature that is the action tax to do your class ability of hacking spells. I see the flavor as the spells being programs themselves and you're hacking spell programs. No divide between magic and tech exists here imo

This is why I asked op what they wanted in specific. I'd like to know what we are replacing to do what and what the benefit is. Already I think it is clear that the class is going to have minimal hardware focused tech abilities because of the mechanic. So this is my assumption. I also find it interesting people are pointing to the original class which has the same criticism of "being a wizard in space" with little tech actually involved

If I designed the class we'd have focus spells that summoned turrets and guns, robots etc. but admittedly that's what the mechanic does

AestheticDialectic wrote:

I like that this class is a techno wizard and not a techno druid/animist. I like it being an intelligence caster who is exploiting the barriers and synergies between magic and technology, and who is "hacking reality".

I'm really struggling to hear how this isn't just the Witchwarper.

The witch warper explicitly deals in different dimensions and timelines, and the technomancer doesn't. Seems pretty different to me

This is true, though making it a focus spell also means it cuts down on the number of frequency-gated stuff you get, as right now it's essentially a pseudo-focus spell you'll be able to use alongside everything else you'd get, including at 3 FP. Giving it an action cost as a tradeoff to put it on par with others means you could theoretically get the option to switch to 3 cached spells in an encounter (effectively all of your spells at level 2), but at the cost of overclocking or spellshaping, so it'd be like a deck of limited hacks per encounter to layer on top of your spells and gear.

Yeah, and this is what I meant by opportunity cost. Right now it is a free action, but as an action focus spell you may well be right and I think this is a worthwhile idea for paizo to play test and stress test because it seems really cool

I've just read over it quickly so far, and my opinion may shift, but I'm in full agreement with the OP as it stands.

Technomancer right now looks like a Spellhacker, and very much NOT the "druid/animist of technology" that I would like to see. Everything is hyper focused on modifying spells, which is only a portion of the fantasy of a Technomancer.

There should be things like Voice of Nature (Animal Empathy but for computers/AI/programs/robots/drones) and Wildsong (Secret machine language known only by technomancers and some tech entities), or things in that vein.

Focus spells being only for modifying actual spells is also a missed opportunity. Focus spells were added to the game specifically to let players engage in a specific class fantasy more frequently and reliably. Using them for metamagic is one flavor (though that fantasy would 1000% be shared by something like an Arcanist from 1e or an Experimental Spellshaping Wizard, there's a lot of toe stepping going on if we're all-in on metamagic as Technomancers' *thing*), but the other flavor is "doing things with tech objects and programs in-world in a way that other characters can't".

Imagine a focus spell that let you augment all AI processes in the vicinity, or one that lets you physically enter a computer/tablet/comm unit, or one that lets you be treated as a Construct, or create semi-real objects from a video game, or or or

There should also be more feats for utility and interacting with the world outside of spells.

I'll say that I don't like the idea of the technomancer being about communing with technology and computers, the idea of machine spirits, or anything druid-y. I like that this class is a techno wizard and not a techno druid/animist. I like it being an intelligence caster who is exploiting the barriers and synergies between magic and technology, and who is "hacking reality". I think there is a place in the game for this tech priest/techno-animist in the game, but I don't think it is the technomancer. I also think the mechanic getting a class archetype like spellshot but with technomancer dedication instead of wizard to bridge that gap would be cool

On paper I like the direction of this class very much, as I liked necromancer. I frankly just want the kinks ironed out. So I am very into this class as presented with only concerns for levels 1-4 in a game play experience sense, and not a thematic one. Which I think this class is extremely on point with, personally

AestheticDialectic wrote:

Doesn't overclock have the same issue as spellshapes?

Not if they increase the amount of times your character is engaging with pieces of technology.

Something that alters technology, is innately more technological then "I extend the range of my spell".

Quote:

same with ammo infector and root virus.

Those two aability does the type of stuff I want because it has you actually hack technology. Not just flavour, it does the thing in a way that alters how the gameplay. If someone reflavoured it to be plant based for some reason, that wouldn't change that it is directly engaging with technological things. They'd still be hacking robots mid-fight and taking them over, which is technological stuff.

Quote:

]Is it just that the spellshapes don't explicitly reference technology?

I want mechanically represented stuff. There is nothing that makes "My spells range longer" feel technological to me. While something that causes enemy armour to explode or for you to be able to commune with an enemies weapon to try and get them to leap out of their hands to disarm them or something, that'd be something you can point at and see directly that it is doing something technological in the world.

You said yourself that overclocking could just be enchanting, and I am saying you could just have a plant that sends out electrical spores that does the effects as Root Virus. To some extent I think you just want the mechanic to be called a technomancer. The mechanic is really really cool, and does a lot of what you're asking for. To some extent we can call them a "technology kineticist"

Again, modifying spells is not tech-y to me anymore then it'd be gardening-y to me if they decided to flavour the class around plant-named things if it was a PF class and called Botanomancer.

As for specific examples for things that can enrich the fantasy, provide more options for overclocking style stuff than just the one you get from your subclass, have many more feats that tie into technology such as Ammo Infector and Root Virus rather than them being rare. Have spellshapes that leverage and engage with technology better then "I can spend an action to make an area spells use the worse radius of a grenade".

Especially at level 1 & 2 it'd be good to have some, as earliest you can get a tech tied feat is 4th level from what I can see, and that's a good amount of sessions not getting to actually fulfil the fantasy advertised anymore then playing a wizard/sorcerer/witchwarper/etc would.

Doesn't overclock have the same issue as spellshapes? I could flavor it as a plant thing too, same with ammo infector and root virus. Root is even in the name. Is it just that the spellshapes don't explicitly reference technology?

AestheticDialectic wrote:

What if the technomancer has their spellshape focus spell from their subclass and a focus spell that simply overclocks something that is just given as a baseline part of the chassis (2 focus point to start). And nothing else is changed, no loss in power or abilities. Does this solve the issue?

Further clarification you can overclock normally with a slotted spell, or by using said focus spell. Both work

I support this as well. 2 Focus Points at level 1 is relatively strong, but I do think there's room for it on the Technomancer's chassis, and it would preserve both the spell-hacking component and enhance the tech overclocking aspect. If you wanted to push it, I'd even support dropping the class to cloth caster proficiency to make Download Spell a focus spell too with an action cost, so the class would have the unique feature of starting with 3 Focus Points (which tbf the Psychic could benefit from too with their much stronger amps).

The idea of starting with 3 is interesting, but somehow feels like we are pushing our luck lol. But I do think download spell could be slightly improved by either making the feat that lets you add to the cache lower or giving each subclass two spells per rank. It's especially easy to argue for this if the feature costs a focus point. Though the unintented side effect is you can hypothetically change 3 spells every combat. It does have an opportunity cost, but paizo could also just put a phrase like "use this only once per ten minutes" or something similar if the opportunity cost isn't high enough

Have stuff relating to technology. Actual technology.

What I'm trying to get at is what you want here. What tech things do you want them to do in specific. Stuff not already covered by computers and crafting skills.

You said spellshapes don't feel like hacking because other classes can do it, and wizards get the thesis, but crucially the thesis doesn't have anything like jailbreaks which enhance and expand spellshapes. Frankly the thesis barely does anything. I'm not sure what we expect a fullcaster who is technology themed to do besides cast technologically themed spells and modify them like code. This is why I am asking specifically what you want in concrete terms. I don't want to misinterpret what your desires actually are. I am getting the sense that retheming the mechanic to be using magic with their tech is more what you want, but I am not certain and that's why I am asking

Also... I know the blurb off-handedly mentions "machine spirits" but that feels occult and not technomancer-y to me at all, frankly. Too 40k coded for my tastes. But that is neither here nor there.

I do think the issue isn't so much that the Technomancer is a 3-slot caster, but more that the Mystic and Witchwarper were 4-slot casters with a meaty base chassis on top. That was a majorly complained-about element of the playtest, and it looks to me like the Starfriends have tuned down the balancing to match Pathfinder's more closely, with the Technomancer being one of the results.

What I will say, however, is that being a 3-slot caster might be a problem still for the Technomancer, not so much because the class is weak (some of their mechanics look super-strong, especially Download Spell), but because their rank 1 and 3 focus spells are all spellshapes, meaning that once they run out of spell slots, their only fallback options will be cantrips, which at levels 3-4 especially would be quite a sharp drop. As much as I like the fantasy of hacking into magic and want that preserved, I do think this ought to be the opportunity to move the gear overclocking to focus spells, rather than a class feature that requires you to spend a spell slot first, so that you can then get a free-action spellshape in the fight (which, again, piles on a resource cost). Not only would this make the class less resource-hungry, it'd also put their techno aspect more to the forefront, as that's been one of the more immediate criticisms of the class right now.

What if the technomancer has their spellshape focus spell from their subclass and a focus spell that simply overclocks something that is just given as a baseline part of the chassis (2 focus point to start). And nothing else is changed, no loss in power or abilities. Does this solve the issue?

Further clarification you can overclock normally with a slotted spell, or by using said focus spell. Both work

I suppose all I can say is that if my player wanted to play a technomancer and came to me for direction, I probably wouldn't specifically direct them to the technomancer because it's not any better at providing that flavour then any other casting class in PF2e/SF2e.

To me, having metamagic != feeling techy. So I would like to see more support for playing a techno-mancer. Maybe take inspiration from the introduction section of the class and let them talk with computer spirits and stuff.

Isn't talking with computer spirits more, idk psychic/medium, occult feeling thematically? What exactly do you want the class to do? Why do you feel like changing the parameters and effects of spells isn't like hacking?

I do think there's value in versatility; if we were all specialists we wouldn't have the arcane list to begin with, and Pathfinder Society play I think would be a lot less stable given how you don't know who you're going to land with.

To give an example of a skill setup: in addition to Arcana and Computers, your Technomancer could also pick Nature, Occultism, and Religion to cover their creature RK bases, then choose from a combination of Acrobatics, Athletics, Medicine, Piloting, and Thievery to make sure you can handle a variety of basic rolls competently. You won't really need Untrained Improvisation, but that's only because the feat covers the key benefit of Intelligence as an attribute, not the other way round.

Well, the versatility of spells is often considered poor game design, but I'm not going to get into the weeds of that because it's obviously nuanced, and complicated. Regardless I think there is a difference between versatility and being a generalist. Rogues end up as generalists in skills even though they really could just be taking the dex skills plus a couple skills important for the character concept, and likewise I don't think we *need* medicine and thievery on most or all technomancer, nor religion and nature. I do understand your point about wanting to be able to fill gaps in PFS specifically, but I don't know if that is solvable without giving everyone their level to all skill checks. I do wanna clarify, I meant 8th skills for a wizard not a techno. I agree more that techno should get 2+int or 3+int because of the additional two skills. Piloting feels mandatory for every character to have and I almost wish it was treated like perception

AestheticDialectic wrote:

The metamagic is the tech. You're treating spells like software, like a program. The overclock thing is kind of tertiary imo. I think it just exists to jailbreak, but the fact the class has such a modular design to the gameplay is very tech-y. I know you and others said it's "just flavor" but so is enchanting robes as you mentioned. If I had to make a stab here it's that you, like myself, wanted more hardware focused stuff

So if the class was exactly the same, but used gardening words as the names for the metamagic then it'd fulfil the fantasy of being a botany-mancer fine despite having no real connection to botany or plants? At this point, mystical witchwarper would be an equally valid technomancer if you just said "oh they do their magic by hacking their magic".

Mystics have mechanics that represent them being connected to things beyond just how they flavour their casting. Witchwarpers are able to warp reality beyond just how they flavour their casting. Why can't technomancers have something to do with tech aside with their actual class features.

Xenocrat wrote:

Don Draper yelling "That's what the money is for!" voice: That's what the prepared arcane spells are for!

So witches & wizards fit the bill just as much and would be valid technomancers for you without modification?

If witchwarper was prepared, would it be a technomancer?

Well, only if we try to make spellshapes and jailbreaks into some grafting metaphor could we maybe get there, but you're saying something true of game design on the whole for these things. You can hypothetically reflavor anything as damn near anything. Spellshapes and jailbreaks specifically feel tech-y and like hacking because you're changing the function of spells on the fly and making them more modular. Which is a better mechanic to flavor as tech-y than the Witchwatper's or Mystic's, but I do think you could brute force those two into having technomancer flavor as you could with nearly anything, but it wouldn't feel as tech-y as what the technomancer has now

Starfinder classes certainly felt to me as being wildly overtuned...

I mean, you say this, but the Mechanic from the same playtest gets 8 starting trained skills, as do the Alchemist, the Commander, the Inventor, the Psychic with an Int subconscious mind, and the Witch (not counting the Investigator, who gets 10 but is meant to be a skill monkey). Because two of these classes are spellcasters, including even one that can be a prepared arcane spellcaster, casting spells clearly does not force you to have fewer trained skills. Similarly, having more trained skills via Int is not used as an excuse for these classes to have fewer trained skills, so you could very well pick some more useful skills like Medicine or Athletics, neither of which need to be boosted via skill increases to have some worthwhile uses, on top of useful knowledge skills like Nature and Religion (again, which don't need to be boosted to be useful in many circumstances).

With this in mind, it's not so much an obsession with symmetry, as it is a rejection of this underlying convention where dedicated prepared arcane casters, who also happen to be Int-based (though many Magi won't boost their Int by much), have less than the otherwise minimal number of starting trained skills. This convention does not need to exist, is the point, and the fact that it is maintained I think just makes the balancing around these classes feel pettier than intended. Certainly not a hill to die on, it's just a minor annoyance that need not exist, particular as all the arguments about how this would devalue certain feats or whatever are nonsense given all the other class who do just fine with that amount of trained skills.

Truthfully I'm not a fan of the amount of skills any of those classes get either. It's for me more than it feels soup-y, but I also don't like the concept of "skill monkey" classes. To me it seems to incentivize being too much of a generalist in a team game where we all pick our lane to cover weaknesses. But it is neither here nor there, I'm just not sure what we are picking for that 8th skill

I think the magic hacks are a problem in the way they deny the technomancer the primary benefit of what focus spells are are supposed to be: a replenishable source of combat ammunition that is stronger than a cantrip but weaker than a slot and doesn't require spending a slot. Almost all of them (weakly) enhance a slotted spell or provide a utility benefit, which you may not have (at 3 slots/level) or want to spend.

Admittedly 1 action to teleport or an energy shield are good focus spells comparable to options that psychics and other casters have had before. But they didn't make you cast a slotted spell first, and there's zero offensive options. (The "change energy type" one doesn't really count.)

The first Viper one is kind of sneaky good as a way to double the use of spell gems via replenishable focus spells, letting you "buy" extra slotted spells at half price, but it's still not sustainable.

If you could apply some of them, or some of the benefits to cantrips, that might solve the issue. Right now the limiter is the overclock which requires a slotted spell, but jailbreaks themselves and the spellshapes can be applied to cantrips. At levels 1 and 2 it's simply an unreasonable ask that the technomancer cast a slotted spell every combat, at levels 3 and 4 it is a big ask but doable, and finally at 5 we can start to cast at least one spell a combat in a given day, and as you go up you'll eventually just be able to chain them as you want. Hypothetically. So whatever solution is necessary needs to be for levels 1 and 2 imo, and that can just be allowing you to overclock with cantrips, but maybe have a bonus if the spell is slotted

I don't want to much homogeneity where every caster has focus spells that do what you said as you said and I appreciate that these are more like what the psychic does with amps, but more versatile

3 slots AND 6hp is pretty brutal. As far as I'm concerned a class should follow the wizard/sorc paradigm or "the rest" paradigm for caster proficiencies in regards to their number of slots (witch and physic being outliers). If mystic and ww lose a slot, then they should keep the 8hp and armor. Otherwise they can keep the 4 slots and lose health/armor

I think their class abilities and feats would get stronger and more impactful for the trade off and 6hp makes compatibility with pathfinder better. I suggested that the meta be accounted for by equipment and not class chassis, and I'm hoping they did this and so 6hp will be mitigated this way, but wishful thinking until we see the core book. I think they will all retain light armor though