The link above is a google doc outlining the drifter. It's a work in progress.
The Drifter would be Starfinder's version of a Ranger, with some elements from Gunslinger. Inspiration for this class comes from the Predator series, the Dune series, and others. They have two main distinguishing features: Drifter's Turf and Gambits.
A Drifter's Turf is kind of like a favored terrain, but it influences a lot more. Turfs grant constant bonuses instead of bonuses dependent on being within your favored terrain. For example, if your Turf is "Dunes" you gain fire resistance. Using the Survival Guide feature, they can impart some of these bonuses.
Gambits are the a-la-carte features a Drifter gains on even levels. They have two aspects: a passive bonus and an active bonus, called a gamble. When the drifter makes a certain type of roll, they can "gamble" on that roll for added effect, but if they fail the associated check, they "Bust", or lose the passive benefit of their gambit. Gambits are refreshed when a 10-minute rest is taken to restore stamina.
Please leave any notes or ideas you have in the annotations, they would be much appreciated. You can also leave any questions, ideas, or notes you have in this thread. In particular, I'm looking for Gambit and Turf Mastery ideas.
The names of these classes don't fit aesthetically with any of the core classes. No core class name is a compound-word. Vanguard is one single word, but it doesn't do a good enough job describing what the class is. Vanguards are essentially a different flavor of Solarians. Look at how Mysticism is a class skill for them. Look at how their class features use words like "embodiment" and "insight". And they should have a similarly made-up name to describe them.
Biohacker : Xeneticist
Vanguard : Atomite
Witchwarper : Esper
The purpose of this thread is to point out perceived editing errors and mistakes in the Classes section of the Playtest rulebook that do not warrant an entire thread about them. Please reference class and the the page number and along with your submission, and describe why you believe it to be an error.
The bold text does nothing. According to the Retributive Strike rules on pg. 106, the Trigger requires that the target be an "ally or friendly creature", and the text does not reference a Critical Hit at all. Since a Steed Righteous Ally counts as an animal companion, it already counts as a friendly creature. Bearing these facts in mind, the bold text does nothing.
Occult doesn't make sense to me for the Bard, especially as the only Occult caster in the core rules, Sorcerer notwithstanding.
What is the reasoning behind this? I'm sure they're are many reasons, but I'm trying to wrap my head around the decision.
The word "Occult" has a sinister connotation. It evokes images of ouija boards, summoning circles, sacrificial daggers, old relics, rituals, tombs, etc. Many of the Occult classes in 1e exemplified these themes well. Bards being Occult casters? It seems shoehorned in.
Bards have always struck me as the "whimsical" class. Am I alone in this?
What makes attacks and skills so different is that you have a greater degree of control over what skills you invest in. I think it's fair to say that players, if given a choice between taking a combat option and talking a non-combat option, they will take the combat option (generally speaking).
This is why things like weapon and spell proficiency are based on class. They are "freebies" because if players were given the choice, they would max out these proficiencies anyway.
Spell proficiency is based on class. Weapon proficiency is based on class. If you make maneuvers based on skills rather than class, you artificially increase the opportunity cost of non-combat skills and skill feats. You will see less build variety because players will feel obligated to take the combat option over the non-combat option.
Think of it this way. Weapon proficiency is based on class, and not skill investment. Is the weapon proficiency system too "complicated"?
I think Maneuvers should be a separate proficiency from Athletics because Maneuvers are attacks, and attacks operate differently from skill checks--So when you make an attack roll that is also a skill check, that raises some questions:
How does an Athletics check to Disarm interact with Flanking? What if you have a morale bonus to Athletics and a morale bonus to attack rolls? Does proficiency bonus in your weapon also factor into your Disarm attempt? Do you add both? Do you get to add your weapon's potency rune bonus to the attempt?
A separate cut-and-dry proficiency in Maneuvers would answer many of these questions.
If we're allowed to get subjective for a moment, using Athletics for a trip or a bull rush just doesn't feel right. The ability to push people around, trip them up, and wrench something from their hands requires a very different skill set from scaling a rock wall or performing a long jump. It's the control over yourself/control over others divide which I think warrants a separate proficiency.
I'm a fan of the idea. I'll toss up some alternative names.
I'm also a fan of separating Athletics from Combat Maneuvers into a non-skill proficiency. Sort of like Perception. Its progression would be based on class, rather than skill point investment. Call it "Maneuver" and call it a day.
Martially inclined 4-level (or whatever the Paladin and Ranger get now) Int based spontaneous arcane caster. Forget the Child of Acavna and Amaznen existed and do this right.
Call it a Myrmidon.
The word Myrmidon has two definitions:
In Pathfinder, a Myrmidon would be a knight and adherent appointed by an outsider, dragon, fey, undead, or other higher being. Fits the archetype of King Arthur and his relationship to the Lady of the Lake, or Darth Vader and his relationship with the Emperor.
Would fill the huge gap between Paladin and Anti-Paladin for a heavily-armored semi-caster.
In the Know Direction Podcast we learned that archetypes can be as "broad" or as "narrow" as needed, depending on the "prerequisites" for the archetype. So it sounds like archetypes are not locked into specific classes, but depending on the prerequisites, certain ones could be.
It sounds like archetypes will function like prestige classes, but rather than being a separate class to sink levels into, they will replace class features or give access to archetype-specific options in place of "class feats".
For a "broad" example, taking the archetype "Duelist" requires you to be at least "Expert" in both Martial Weapon Proficiency and Acrobatics proficiency. If you pick this archetype, then you gain access to "Opportune Parry and Riposte" in place of a "Class Feat". Easily achievable by many classes.
For a "narrow" example, taking the archetype "Antipaladin" requires you to have the Lay on Hands class feature as a prerequisite, and replaces that feature with Touch of Corruption, along with some other features to complete the transformation. Only achievable by having levels in Paladin.
Know Direction's Podcast.