Emberlin's page

I could maybe see some tags like elemental that could interact with what spells classes get, or alter their spells based on archetypes. It just doesn't feel to me like SF2 has enough caster classes, or likely will EVER have enough caster classes, to need the type of spell iists that pf2 has.

Maybe something like Technology for spells that directly interact with technological devices, temporal for spells that bend time like some of the stuff precogs get, environment for spells that affect the terrain. But then I wonder if they go too far with that if it'll just get MORE confusing than class specific lists would be.

I'm really curious to see if they touch on spell lists when we eventually see a field test for mystics, assuming they end up doing one of these field tests for all six of the classes.

While it's fun to think what spell lists a SF2 caster may draw from if they were applied, I really hope they stick to SF exclusive spells for the new classes. To help keep the sci fi flavor of these classes, and keep them more distinct from the PF 2 classes, which is a goal they have in mind.

PF2 launched with five casters if I'm not mistaken. Wizard, bard, cleric, druid and sorcerer. And has added a good deal more like witch. For that system, it makes sense to me to have these lists of spells, and then assign one to a new caster class being added, or let them pick one like sorcerer and witch can.

But I'm not sure if that will be as useful or necessary in SF2. It's launching with six classes. One is confirmed to be a caster, and I feel like it's safe to assume one of the other two is probably technomancer or something similar. I doubt there will be three casters at launch. SF1 launched with two casters and ended with four. Only adding two more in the entire life of the edition.

I'm hoping that with the cross compatibility, they'll let people bring their wizards, bards, clerics etc from PF2 into SF2 easily, but have all new spells for the SF casters to distinguish them, and keep that sci fi flavor in their spells. Unless SF 2 ends up adding a lot more casters than SF1 did, I don't feel like they need create spell lists in the same way, and could just give the few SF casters their own spell lists again. Or use more loose category tags.

Or if they do want to have lists or tags for spells, make new ones for SF. Like Tech for spells that interact directly with technological devices, temporal for spells that manipulate time, etc.

We may get some insight into their current plans when we see info on the Mystic. But I'm really hoping their approach isn't to say, just give Mystic the Divine spell list and Technomancer the arcane spell list, sprinkle in a handful of new spells, and then call it a day.

I really hope they have a great story to back this up. It feels like a bit of a waste to get rid of a whole planet and I hope they really have a strong creative direction to take this in out the gate and it's not just a matter of 'we need a shocking story development for the new edition.'

When we actually learn more details hopefully my worries will be assuaged here, but on the surface nuking one of the fleshed out pact worlds and swapping in some new planet doesn't sound very appealing in terms of setting building to me. It doesn't leave me waiting with baited breath to see what happens so much as crossing my fingers that it's one of the planets I find relatively less interesting to me personally.

One thing I think would be cool with SF2 would be to make some of the alternate rules for PF2e (such as stamina and resolve points) as the default for SF2. That way it still has a separate feel while still being compatible.

I'm all for this. Make stamina the default with an optional rule for how it works in PF2. Letting SF keep that mechanic and built from the ground up with it in mind. Sadly I feel like they won't want to do this for something as fundamental as HP balance for keeping the systems compatible but I really like stamina points as a system in SF and it'd be a shame to see it lost and just in as an optional rule the game isn't balanced around by default.

Personally, I don't really see the issue with Soldier being kind of like fighter. I feel like the difference in setting, and all that entails like the increased focused on ranged weapons and technology in general, you could still have a more versatile soldier and have it feel different from fighter. I get that you don't want all the SF classes to feel derivative. You don't want Mystic to feel identical to cleric etc. But I think the setting difference is enough to make soldier different from fighter despite both being flexible martial classes without having to overly fixate on one subgroup of weapons.

Ultimately the SF2 core rulebook classes have to stand on their own, so you won't be able to 100% remove overlap with PF classes without making SF feel like a sci fi supplement instead of its own game. So there is a balance to strike here, I just feel like the area weapon focus may be just a bit too far in one direction.

My knee jerk reaction is that the new soldier is too focused on area weapons by default as a core class feature, and that should be relegated to a subclass/fighting style option. I don't think there's any harm in SF having it's own 'fighter' type class that is a versatile martial class, especially with the unique flavor and abilities you can bake into subclass/fighting style options. And I feel like this area weapon focus for core class features is kind of pigeonholing an entire class into one sub group of weapons.

But I also don't have the full context. Once we have say, one of these five level previews of all the SF2 core classes, it will be easier to get a grasp of the new class dynamics in full context.

Malzra wrote:

I haven't played PF 2E, are class feats in that system similar to things like mechanic tricks, solarian stellar revelations etc? Class specific abilities that you pick up every couple levels? Or are they different from that? I hope that things like revelations/tricks remain in SF2E and if that's basically what class feats are with a unified name that will be a relief for me.

Yep, class tricks with unified name.

Glad to hear it. I'll kind of miss the flavor of the class specific names but it makes sense to just call them class feats to get the point across.

I haven't played PF 2E, are class feats in that system similar to things like mechanic tricks, solarian stellar revelations etc? Class specific abilities that you pick up every couple levels? Or are they different from that? I hope that things like revelations/tricks remain in SF2E and if that's basically what class feats are with a unified name that will be a relief for me.

If I were to assign the four spell lists from PF2E to the four casters in SF one to one I think I would do something like:

Arcane: Technomancer. The most studious/researchy of the casters.
Divine: Mystic. Makes sense.
Occult: Precog. Occult kind of fits in with the psychic time stuff.
Primal: Witchwarper. Mostly because this is the last pair to match up, but to be fair witchwarper does have infinite worlds where you can manifest hazards from other worlds, so it's a bit of a stretch but there you go.

Though if I wasns't trying to force a 1 to 1 match here, I'd probably give Witchwarper occult.

Though unless Starfinder 2E ends up having a lot more caster classes than 1E, which started with two and has only worked its way up to 4, I feel like they could easily just stick to each caster having its own spell list again.

I'm a bit torn. One the one hand, compatibility with PF 2E and having rules similar to it will hopefully help to draw more people into Starfinder. On the other hand, I'm a bit sad to potentially lose some of the interesting things about it. I like the stamina/hp system for example and would be sad to see it back to just HP. I liked the flexibility of skill ranks.

On the other hand, I can see that changes need to be made to draw more people into the game, and there are some aspects that would be a lot more difficult to keep track of if I played Starfinder in person and not on a VTT. So I get it. I'm good adopting some things like the ancestry system, starting asis tied to a combo of ancestry/background/class, moving to the three actions per turn action economy of PF 2e etc. I just hope SF 2e retains some of the mechanical uniqueness of SF, but we'll see. Maybe I'm worried over nothing.

For things that I would like to see, I'm a bit sad to see Soldier just has CON for key stat now, as I'd have liked to see more options not less on that front. I kind of like the flexibility of 1E soldier and hope that they dont' end up too pigeon holed with this area weapon focus they're pushing.

I hope that things like Stellar Revelations and Mechanic Tricks stay to some extent.

Personally I'm sad to see that stamina points are gone, or at least don't seem to be mentioned in the pdf that I can see. I really like the stamina/hit point system and it's something that helps Starfinder to stand out.

I kind of WANT Starfinder to have key differences from PF, I don't want SF2E to just be taking PF2E's mechanics and integrating them into SF. I want to see more of an evolution of Starfinder itself.

I can also understand wanting to give Soldier more of an identity to not just be 'fighter, but in space' but I'm not sure this focus on area weapons is the way to do it. It feels like ranged is now the 'default' for Soldier and if you want to go melee you need to spec into it with a specific fighting style, instead of it being a class that can specialize in either, the way SF 1E soldier can pick strength or dex accordingly.

The phrasing of ability scores makes it sound like maybe they're ditching the old ability score system and just having the modifier? I'm mostly fine with that, as it wasn't often than having an odd ability score really benefitted you compared to being one lower in that score, outside of ability damage/drain etc potentially or a couple fringe cases. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding this and the classic ability score/modifier format isn't going anywhere.