Golurkcanfly's page

I'm not sure why the focus is on Thaumaturge damage rather than how the Thaumaturge can be good-to-great at nearly everything without much additional investment. That's the uniquely strong part of the Thaumaturge, as most other classes that "can do anything" have to pick and choose what to be good at a little bit more.

It's the best at Recall Knowledge with a single feat, hits incredibly hard, can be a utility caster with the scroll feats, is naturally great in social situations thanks to high CHA, etc.

It's only particularly unique weakness is being on the squishy end for martials, being both MAD and 8 base HP.

Comparing it to the Kineticist, Thaumaturge is definitely more concerning. Kineticist has a handful of really powerful utility/support options (Four Winds), but it has more peaks and valleys to it all and doesn't outshine a lot of preexisting options in their niches.

Finally, comparing it to the new playtest classes, Animist seems really strong, but mainly due to a few feats and having 4 slots per rank. Meanwhile, Exemplar is difficult to gauge but seems a tad on the weaker end due to having few "always on" options and some potential math issues.

While the Exemplar's Ikons have many flavorful abilities, quite a few are redundant with existing feats already available to the Exemplar, either by temporarily granting the feat or by granting a similar benefit to an existing feat. While class features/feats that grant other feats are nothing new, the fact that these other feats are granted temporarily changes things. Temporary feats don't count for prerequisites and taking the feats permanently results in "wasted" abilities, which never feel good.

Some of these effects, like the Gaze Sharp as Steel's Transcend ability (which grants AoO/Reactive Strike) are powerful, but the Exemplar already has native access, so if you take the Reactive Strike feat (which is pretty much a must-have for melee martials), it feels underwhelming to have one of the main benefits of your Ikon be completely pointless. Instead, these Ikons should either grant more unique effects or improve the effects of the feat if the Exemplar already has them.

An example where this could be applied would be Skybearer's Belt, which grants an effect similar to the Titan Wrestler feat. Unfortunately, any character already interested in using Athletics maneuvers is likely going to take the feat anyways, and the feat actually ends up better once you hit Legendary in Athletics. Rather than granting a redundant effect, the Ikon could grant the feat or give a +X to those Athletics maneuvers if the Exemplar already has the feat.

The ability not only seems incredibly powerful (re-save w/ +2 for all nearby allies for a single action), but allowing it to work against any condition/negative effect also has both powerful and uncertain implications.

Does re-saving against a spell like Synesthesia reset the duration? Is it the same saving throw with the same outcomes as the spell, or is it just pass/fail to end the effect?

In addition, the transcendence ability being infinitely repeatable just means that long-lasting conditions and negative effects just stop existing.

Finally, the narrative power it gives characters is kind of nuts, giving the Exemplar the ability to solve so many otherwise unsolvable or level-gated issues. Curing diseases, lifting curses, removing lasting injury, etc. While a GM can fiat that away or just give negative effects arbitrarily high DCs, doing that feels like a betrayal of the ability's premise and is dissatisfying because of it. As such, the premise itself should probably be altered instead of making promises that the system and GM cannot reasonably keep.

With the nature of the Exemplar as "magic martial" that's not really a gish and really emphasizes raw physicality, I think it would be a neat opportunity to introduce the ability to cast spells with STR or DEX. This would be flavored much like Strike Rivers, Sieze Winds feat, representing the ability to perform the supernatural by wrestling it into submission.

I like Eikon as well since it just looks cooler and feels less like a misspelling of Icon.

Invictus Fatum wrote:

So, an ikon that gives the equivalent of medium armor that follows your light armor proficiency is my thought. More than just a feat and that is chosen in place of another ikon, so you have to really think about it.

The problem is that the ikons don't do anything if you haven't put your divine spark in them to get the immanence effect. So an ikon that gives medium armor would be one where you'd want to make sure you always have it active off turn. Which basically means you're ignoring one of your 3 ikons since you're going to want to have your weapon up when you're attacking then turn on your defense.

I wonder if Ikons shouldn't have some sort of passive effect that functions even when your divine spark is elsewhere, just because of lingering divine energy or something. That would let a worn or body icon give you medium armor.

I think something that would help this would be for Ikons to have a passive, non-Immanence effect as well that's just always on. So, an Ikon that emulates Medium Armor would grant typical medium armor AC as a passive without Immanence, and then it would add fast healing (or some other bonus) on top with Immanence.

It definitely looks the most finished and well-put-together playtest class that's been put out for PF2e. I think a lot of the concerns are just in the balance department, especially balancing Sage vs Channeler and any feats that are too good not to take.

Sage's big payoff seems to be the Soul Synchronization Feat at 8th level. I couldn't see a Sage character that doesn't take that feat, so it seems like it should just be baked into the subclass.

Since the spirits cover a range of Primal themes, making the core chassis Divine allows it to have a good spread of options.

Plus, it's a way to represent non-theistic faiths as equally divine as theistic ones rather than being "othered" by giving them a non-divine list.

I wouldn't want to mess with the cycle element to this, or get rid of all items. The class makes plenty of sense for most human legends, but it really does feel like a gnoll legend should be able to have legendary teeth.

It's also weird when many of the mythical inspirations for this class often fight unarmored or unarmed like Herakles strangling the Nemean Lion or Gilgamesh wrestling with Enkidu.

Given how the Exemplar can switch from item to item with a bit of downtime, I don't see a reason for not being able to have item-less Exemplars provided the Ikons chosen meet the prerequisites. There could even be dedicated Ikons for item-less Exemplars, like an armorless-only Ikon.

One of the more emphasized aspects of Starfinder is how much of a character's abilities come from gear and how those pieces of gear interact with the rest of the system. A lot of these different aspects can be pretty janky or unintuitive at times, but choosing gear generally has some interesting decisions even at the earliest levels.

In contrast, one of the weaker aspects of the Pathfinder Second Edition system is that low-level gearing, especially armor, isn't that interesting. Plenty of weapon traits feel inconsequential and mundane armor is largely an obvious decision determined by your other stats. While Armor Specialization does help differentiate armor within the same category, it's somewhat forgettable, low-impact, and doesn't come online until 7th level.

To help make low-level gearing more interesting in Starfinder Second Edition, I would be interested in more weapons and armor coming with traits that grant activities. For example, the Overcharge trait could grant a two-action activity that fires a single, enhanced shot like the Inventor's Megaton Strike. Another example would be a Lasso trait that grants an activity to yank a distant foe toward the wielder. The more weapons that have traits like these, the better.

Automatic/Area weapons already do a fantastic job of introducing similarly high-impact activities, and I would love to see these types of ideas applied to more weapons and armor in the future.

I don't think any of the casters in SF2e core should be wave casters.

Instead, make them 2 slot casters like the Psychic and give them strong class features/feats. You could easily have Technomancer eat some parts of Mechanic with those restrictions, and Operative could get some of the other elements.

Of course, I'd rather have all 7 instead, but Mechanic has always stood out to me as being a little redundant at times. Its constituent parts would make for great archetypes though.

I think the Soldier from the playtest works well as like "the heavy" from XCOM. The abilities for like "blowing up cover" and "cracking open tanks etc." are just higher level feats.

I think that's a valid role for a core class. Though you would prefer that the "run and gun" stuff and the "long range fire support" stuff doesn't both go to the Operative.

Ideally both classes can do elements of both. Just like how Barbarian, Fighter, Champion, and even Ranger support 2H melee combat, any sort of weapon fantasy should probably have 2-3 classes that comfortably support it for a healthy amount of varied playstyles.

I think the Soldier is neat as a class for PF2e, but it's really narrow as one of 6 starting classes for a new game.

That and even with the narrow niche, the core mechanic isn't super interesting since it doesn't necessarily change how you use the new AoE Weapons. It's not really a payoff for a setup (the same way Sneak Attack is the payoff for setting up Off-Guard/Flat-footed), and it doesn't set up other things in turn without feat investment/specific subclasses.

YuriP wrote:

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

However, I still think people are reasonably annoyed by what has turned out to be SF1's relatively short lifespan. 3.0 and its successors represented a unique situation where what was basically a single system was playable and actively worked on by either WotC or Paizo for more than twenty years. A lot of us who came into the hobby during that period aren't used to edition changes being an inescapable reality.

I agree but you know this was an exception and that normally a TTRPG system doesn't survive for so long time without a new edition.

Right, but the reason this situation is so uncommon is corporate sleaze. All your TTRPG books become outdated after five years for the same reason your phone is deliberately designed to break after two years. No product can ever be allowed to endure in its usefulness because that would eliminate the need to buy another one.

Your analysis of Paizo's motives later in your comment gives them a lot of benefit of the doubt. It's entirely possible they've simply realized that the edition treadmill is a way to maximize profits at the expense of the consumer, and have decided they'll switch to it now because it will make them more money. That's why everyone else does it. How likely is it, really, that Paizo is a special exception?

Edition changes come with unacceptable financial risk due to higher investment costs if the goal is just to ensure people repurchase books. Especially when players can still play with old books and the material is freely available online.

The financial incentive is instead to gather a new audience. The PF2e playerbase is massive relative to the SF playerbase and thus can provide an influx of new players.

New Equipment and Creatures
Overview
The new equipment seems interesting and fun outside of two particular issues: Capacity's name and Area Fire's limitations.

Capacity and Usage
If there’s anything to take away from this document it is that TRAITS WITH THE SAME NAME BUT DIFFERENT EFFECTS SHOULD NOT EXIST. Furthermore, Capacity and Usage being two separate statistics instead of a single value for total shots per reload is a little awkward.

By far the most important change is to rename Capacity to something like Magazine to avoid overlap with the PF2e trait of the same name. In addition, if there are no effects that alter the Capacity and Usage stats independently from one another, they should be combined into a singular statistic.

Area Weapons
While they appear to function well balance-wise, the current implementation of Area Weapons does not seem terribly fun or interesting due to the action cost to switch between weapons. A weapon only being able to use a single, two-action activity to fire evokes the same pain points as spellcasters primarily using two-action spells, but without any of the flexibility of spellcasting.

For comparison, imagine if a Wizard cast Fireball for two actions, then had to spend a third action to unequip Fireball, then a fourth action to equip Fear, and then spend a fifth and sixth action to cast Fear.

Beyond the action economy, Area Weapons keying off of Class DCs means that they are actively better in the hands of classes like the Kineticist or spellcasters compared to martials. This feels pretty dissonant with the fiction of the game.

To help with the action economy, I would like to see Area Weapons have some form of modality, where the user can choose one of multiple different effects/blast shapes as they fire the weapon.

As for the issue with DCs, I would like to see Area/Automatic Fire could have their own scaling Item DC so that class features are the determining factor for effectiveness. This way, the Soldier would be the best Area Weapon user through action economy and bonus effects rather than raw numbers and neither the Fighter nor casters would have better to-hit with them.

Ammo and Batteries
For as long as I have played post-2000 d20 TTRPGs, I have rarely, if ever, seen groups bother to track mundane supplies such as rations, arrows, and torches. As such, it has always struck me as weird when games continue to have these represented via distinct items rather than further abstracted.

This is on the weirder side, but I would like for mundane ammo and batteries to be abstracted into pools of points. Rather than having distinct ammo cartridges and different types of batteries, a pool such as "Supply Points" or "Battery Charges" that are just spent to reload/recharge would be preferable to reduce bookkeeping and encourage groups to actually engage in these elements

Creatures
The two previewed creatures are both interesting and fun, though there will of course be a little bit of awkwardness when utilizing technologically-focused creatures in PF2e.

If some creatures called back to the KAC/EAC mechanics, I would be delighted. Allowing martials to engage in the same weakness-evaluation elements that casters can do would be fun, and it better sells the fantasy of ballistic vs energy weaponry.

Soldier Class Feats
I think the Soldier has a good spread of class feats for what the class's current focus is, but the specifics of individual feats leave much to be desired. In addition, the general trend of spending even more actions in conjunction with the two-action Area Fire activity is fairly concerning. The action cost of switching weapons is pretty high, and these three-action "routines" may encourage repetitive gameplay too much.

Generally speaking, I like that the feats focus on supporting new ideas rather than aping Fighter and Gunslinger feats, but a few feats here and there to support other combat styles would be appreciated.

Pin Down
The first of many feats that spends a third action to enhance an Area Weapon activity, Pin Down seems a little underwhelming.

I would like to see this either replaced by a tweaked Punishing Salvo or given an additional effect, like allowing the Soldier to Stride or Step.

Quick Swap
This feat seems like a must-have for Close Quarters Soldiers, though as a reaction it competes with it's AoO-like ability.

Something like this should be a class feature for the Soldier to make it easier to use a variety of different weapons for different situations. Even weapons of the same category need to be swapped out on occasion if they deal different damage types or have different secondary effects.

Ready Reload
As there are no weapons in the Field Test that have Reload 2, it is difficult to evaluate this feat.

The requirement for this feat might be too strict given the already rigid action economy that Area Weapons demand.

Warning Shot
An excellent feat overall, but a little awkward for melee-focused Close Quarters Soldiers.

If grenades don't use the Area Fire activity, letting this feat support grenades as well would be nice.

Menacing Laughter
My personal favorite feat. It's fantastic, but it further highlights the Zen Archer Syndrome caused by Fearsome Bulwark being a 3rd-level feature since this feat is available at 2nd-level.

This feat is quite fun, but an Intimidation-focused subclass would also be an interesting alternative

Relentless Endurance
Useful, but quite bland. The most tanking-oriented feat for the class.

This could reasonably be a class feature, and then feats could upgrade it to be able to remove certain conditions.

Steady Up
The purpose of this feat is largely unclear. Theoretically, it could be used to enable Area Fire/Automatic Fire via the Ready activity, but all of the weapons with the Area Fire activity have the Unwieldy trait. This is probably also to be used with weapons with forced movement recoil.

If this did enable Readied Area Fire, this would be an amazing feat. If that does end up being the case, adjust the language to make this a clear possibility.

Overwhelming Assault
This feat seems to be providing additional melee support, weapon attachment support, and Automatic Fire > Ranged Strike support. Unfortunately, there are no weapon attachments in the Field Test and the only Automatic weapon has the Unwieldy trait, so this just appears to be for melee weapons at the moment. In addition, there appears to be an error regarding how the feat (and the agile trait) works with third and subsequent strikes. Overall, however, it's on the boring side.

I am unsure what I'd like to see changed about this feat beyond fixing the apparent error.

Punishing Salvo
This feat largely appears to be a better version of Pin Down, but with an ammo cost. It does help ease some of the issues with Area Weapons not having a single-action use case, but it does not play nicely against single creatures that the Soldier may struggle to hit due to below-average accuracy.

I would like this to replace Pin Down, though if Area Weapons can get an attachment that mimics having a sidearm, this might not be necessary.

Widen Area
A fun feat for making your explosions even bigger. However, it's yet another feat that turns Area Fire into a possibly repetitive 3-action activity.

Rather than spending more actions to widen the area of effect, I'd like to see it spend more ammo. This would delay the action cost of the feat in exchange for smoother play, much like how the Magus gets to split its Spellstrike into a 2 action activity and 1 action recharge.

Soldier Fighting Styles
Overview
The Soldier’s subclasses are more similar to the early subclass designs of PF2e where the subclasses provide significantly different effects and don’t inherently change how the core class feature (Suppressing Fire) is used. They remind me of the Rogue subclasses, where they might provide additional benefits to using the core feature, might make it easier to use the core feature, or just directly improve the core feature.

If Suppressing Fire is opened up to work with all weapons by default, I would like to see each subclass provide additional effects to the Suppressed condition that synergize with different tactical styles. For example, the Close Quarters Fighting Style would improve Athletics maneuvers used against Suppressed targets. This way, Suppressing targets always opens up better opportunities for the Soldier, further encouraging proactive play.

Armor Storm
The tankiest of the Soldier subclasses, Armor Storm allows a Soldier to absorb significantly more punishment. However, being able to take extra damage does not necessarily help the Soldier be a better team player. In fact, being tankier encourages enemies to attack the Soldier's allies instead, denying them the satisfaction of being able to just shrug off attacks.

Rather than just increasing the Soldier's damage resistance, Armor Storm could also impose a greater accuracy penalty for enemies attacking the Soldier's allies. That way, more enemies actually attack the Soldier, giving the Soldier the satisfaction of having those attacks harmlessly plink off. Alternatively, Armor Storm could allow the Soldier to directly intercept enemy fire from Suppressed enemies.

Bombard
With the current direction of the class as an Area weapons specialist, Bombard feels like the “default subclass” that the majority of Soldiers will want to take. Its unique ability directly improves upon the core concept of the class. Its simplicity is its strength, but it also encourages focusing on doing the same thing every round. In addition, it has some nasty anti-synergy with Primary Target. Overall, it reminds me of the Thief Rogue, where it may be overcentralizing.

What I'd like to see changed for this subclass heavily depends on whether Suppressing Fire is changed. If Suppressing Fire is opened up for all weapon attacks, then Bombardier could instead be the source of Primary Target. Overall, though, I do not like this subclass since it just seems to be Soldier+, rather than opening up new ideas.

Close Quarters
This subclass is, to me, a patch that allows the class to be more than just an Area weapon specialist. While I appreciate it broadening the option spread available to the class, it hammers home that the core of the class is too narrowly focused. This subclass is probably intended to work with bayonetted firearms, but there are none in the rest of the Field Test to confirm that. Finally, the flavor text references utilizing melee weapons as a backup, but the mechanics don't make switching to the melee weapon any easier (that is instead relegated to a separate feat).

If Suppressing Fire is not changed, this subclass should probably grant Quick-Swap and turn Punitive Strike into a subclass-exclusive feat. If Suppressing Fire is opened up to work with any weapon, then instead give the subclass improved Athletics maneuvers vs Suppressed targets.

Concluding Thoughts
Overall, it seems that the subclasses are meant to test the waters of what Soldier subclasses people like and why they like them before settling on a design direction for the subclasses as a whole.

Personally, I prefer the direction of Armor Storm, as it turns Suppressing Fire into a stepping stone for future benefits rather than being the end goal.

While we have seen little of the new edition, I would like to provide as much feedback as I can early into the design process so that Starfinder 2e can be the best it can possibly be. As such, I've prepared a thorough analysis of the entire Field Test. Sections in italics are subjective changes that I would like to see.

Preface
This analysis is to break down the designs shown in Field Test 1 under the following assumptions:

• Full Compatibility means that creatures, classes, and gear from PF2e and SF2e work in the other system, but are not wholly balanced and may need small adjustments (such as adding/removing the Computers skill).
  
• SF2e is "feature complete" and covers a wide array of possible fantasies without the addition of PF2e content
  
• The expectation is that most SF2e groups will only use SF2e content.
  
• SF2e may have system changes to better sell the space fantasy genre, and those changes do not break PF2e if backported or can easily be removed

Soldier Class Features
Overview
The Soldier is a class designed around two main ideas: tanking hits via HP and laying down covering fire with heavy weapons to reduce enemy accuracy. Most of the class features and feats accentuate these ideas rather well.

Importantly, the Soldier is deliberately designed to be significantly different than a PF2e Fighter. While this makes sense for players who wish to use either class in either system, the deliberate avoidance of overlap results in the Soldier being fairly narrow.

I would like to see the Soldier opened up to a more weapons-agnostic class. While the area weapon support is appreciated, supporting a wider array of playstyles is generally preferable. This could be done by tweaking its existing mechanics, or by overhauling them entirely. One suggestion I have seen that I would enjoy would be to shift Solider to being a Ready Action specialist, with different subclasses being able to Ready different, more complex activities.

Base Statistics
Constitution as the Soldier’s Key Ability Score accentuates the class’s nature as a defender, though it does result in some weirdness with weapon accuracy, which can betray the class fantasy. In addition, the saving throws do not suggest a defense-oriented class, which is somewhat concerning. Finally, the small snippet of the class we received doesn’t show how the Soldier’s class DC scales with level, so it’s impossible to know how well the class scales with Area weapons (more on those later).

I would like to see the Soldier be more reliable with a wider array of weapons, either by moving away from Constitution or by improving its weapon proficiency. The latter solution would also make the Soldier rather unique as a Legendary martial with a non-accuracy KAS.

Suppressing Fire
Suppressing Fire is the core, defining mechanic of the Soldier class that cements it as the Area weapons specialist. As-is, it does not change how Area weapons are used, but instead adds a rider effect via the Suppressed Condition (more on that later). This is somewhat bland as it does not necessarily change the player's decision-making other than what weapons the class wants to use.

In order to support a wider variety of playstyles, I would like to see Suppressing Fire work with any weapon. Meanwhile, the subclasses would bolster specific fighting styles by providing additional effects against suppressed targets, much like the current version of Armor Storm

Suppressed Condition
Suppressed is an interesting new condition that hinders both accuracy and movement. Few conditions have two distinct, unrelated effects outside of nested conditions. Interestingly, the accuracy penalty is circumstance while the movement penalty is status. With all of these different elements, it's somewhat on the clunky side.

Rather than Suppressed being a single condition, it is instead split into a separate accuracy penalty and movement penalty. This makes it a little less kludgy and more in line with the majority of conditions.

Primary Target
This feature allows the Soldier to use a weapon attack roll instead of forcing a saving throw against a single enemy when attacking with Area weapons. Unfortunately, with how saving throw effects are generally more reliable than attack rolls and how the Soldier has a higher class DC than they do weapon accuracy at various levels, the feature brings some nasty anti-synergy. This is particularly noticeable with the Bombard subclass. As it stands, this only seems to be useful for triggering on-crit effects and the Punishing Salvo feat.

How this ability would be changed heavily depends on how Area Weapons and the Soldier work in general. If both were changed to emphasize weapon accuracy, then this could be the default for Area Weapons, but it's overall a weird feature that I expect will get ironed out.

Walking Armory
This feature is fantastic for reducing potential "STR Tax" for Soldiers uninterested in melee combat.

Using STR+CON for carrying capacity might feel better for hybrid melee/ranged Soldiers who need to carry additional weapons.

Fearsome Bulwark
While CON instead of CHA to Intimidate is useful, the specific flavor of this feature makes it feel more like a class feat. In addition, ability bonus replacer features, especially for secondary/tertiary class features, seem like a 1e-ism. Finally it being a 3rd-level feature causes what I like to call “Zen Archer Syndrome,” where the value of a stat (CHA, in this case) drops dramatically after a few levels thanks to a new feature.

Since the class already has another ability bonus replacement feature in Walking Armory, I don't think this feature is necessary. Soldiers who wish to specialize in Intimidate should have room to invest in CHA, especially with how an Area Weapon-only Soldier needs neither STR nor DEX.

Concluding Thoughts
Overall, I think the class features are both a bit too narrow when it comes to weapon choice and playstyle while also being a bit kludgy. They also do not address what appears to be the biggest issue with Area Weapons: a rigid action economy.

In addition to seeing the weapon choices opened up, I would like to see the Soldier receive a class feature to make switching weapons less costly. This should make the class both more versatile and ease some of the pain points of relying on Area Weapons.

Come to think of it, the vibe I'm getting from the SF2 soldier reminds me a little of D&D 4e. Not in the specifics, but the vibe.

Back in 3e, the Fighter was a generalist whose main class abilities were (a) generally good fighting numbers and (b) a whole lot of bonus feats you could use to specialize in various directions. You could use the Fighter class to make an archer, a sword & board defender, a greatweapon wielder focusing on hitting hard, a dual-wielder, a fencer doing various weapon tricks, and so on. This tradition was more or less carried through to the SF1 Soldier, where it was also channeled through Fighting Styles making you better at fighting in a particular manner.

But in D&D 4e, the Fighter got pigeon-holed into the Defender role. Their abilities would tend to revolve around defending their allies (primarily through punisher-style abilities where they get to hit you if you attack their buddies), enduring damage, and controlling the flow of battle. You still had a variety of weapon styles you could choose, but you would never be particularly good at ranged combat and other more subtle things. The response to "How do I convert my archer fighter from 3e to 4e?" was "Make them a ranger."

That's the vibe I'm getting from the SF2 Soldier. It only represents a subset of possible SF1 Soldiers. Since we're only getting a snapshot of a small part of the system, it's possible that other Soldier types get absorbed into other classes (e.g. Operative snipers), but it's still setting off warning bells.

I don't think the issue is that it's being pigeon-holed into a Defender role, but that it's specifically a Defender with Area Weapons. A more generalist ranged Defender (say, Suppressing Fire works with any weapon attack or it gets an entirely different class feature) would still be able to fulfill a wide array of fantasies, but just sticking with Area Weapons seems pretty rough. It's doubly weird when two of the subclasses focus on weapon types, with one being even more Area focused and another being melee focused.

Flavor-wise, the melee one is supposed to be a switch-hitter, but mechanically, it seems to mainly be just normal melee shenanigans that lets you ignore Area Weapons outright.

As the title says, there are some Starfinder-exclusive mechanics that aren't in the preview for 2e that we've seen. What elements would you like to return?

Personally, I would like KAC and EAC to return to really emphasize the fantasy of ballistic vs energy weapons. For compatibility purposes, you'd average the two for calculating "regular AC," and they'd never be more than +/-2 apart. The distinction is too important for the flavor of Starfinder to exclude, even if it means a smidge of extra work when converting from PF to SF.

In addition, I would like class-exclusive ways to spend Hero Points to replace some of the Resolve spenders.

Finally, I'd love the looser "hand economy" of Starfinder to return to better encourage using multiple weapons.

I also think that the Soldier is a bit too wonky and narrowly focused at the moment as a result of trying too hard to not be "Fighter in Space."

A more generalist defender approach would be nice. The last thing I want is for SF to feel incomplete without the PF classes added.

Right now, I think the Soldier's focus on area weapons is a bit too narrow, especially with how poorly they interact with the hands economy. While it shouldn't just be Fighter In Space, it should definitely be broader than that.

Some other core, defense-oriented mechanic, like an Overwatch ability or improved Readied Actions would be a cool alternative.

In addition, CON to Intimidate feels more like a class feat rather than a feature.

Squiggit wrote:

I do wonder how much they're going to use compatibility to 'solve' gaps in both systems. People have been asking for a while for a defensive character that tangled up in divine baggage in PF2 ... I wonder how much Paizo considers the tankier Soldier to be a potential solution to that.

Hard to see how the soldier's extreme offensive focus on AOE tech weapons can really be an answer to what PF2 players want.

I second this. It feels like it's trying too hard to distinguish itself from Fighter, but in so doing it's making it *less* compatible with PF2e while also being more narrow in SF2e.

I'd rather SF2e not feel like it needs PF2e classes to be complete.

I'm kinda disappointed that the goal seems to be aiming for compatibility rather than SF2e being more divergent.

There's a good chunk of SF1e only mechanics that really hammer home the scifi aspects of the game while making it more interesting, like KAC vs EAC or Resolve.

In addition, there are some weak areas in PF2e that could have used some changes that are beyond the scope of Remaster/PF2e compatible stuff, such as changing the math to reduce the tankiness of APL-X enemies at higher levels and overhauling the proficiency system.

Finally, SF2e feels like it should be able to stand better as a separate product, and 6 classes doesn't seem like it can hit all of the core narrative archetypes of space fantasy opera.

The obsession with Legendary proficiency on martials in this forum is bizarre, NGL.

A simpler way to accomplish a similar goal would be to give every Monk a bonus stance feat, make Monastic Weaponry a class feature (and make the weapon stances 1st level), and then offer Master of Many Styles/Stance Savant earlier.

Scarablob wrote:

Speaking of druids, I'd like some feat that allow you to make better use of the "terrain spells", that create some persistent zone of effect that doesn't necessarily cause damage, like entangle, shifting sands and the like. Or just, more of these spells in general. To me, they're the quintessential druid spells along with the polymorph effects, but while they're here, you can't really "specialize" in them in any measure.

Being able to specialize in certain kinds of magic, in general, is something that the game really needs right now. Every caster being a variation of uber-generalist gets stale fast, and in my experience doesn't even align with how most people actually want to play them.

This is honestly a result of Vancian casting w/ class lists making generalists have no opportunity cost, and specialization that results in a loss of versatility is always going to feel pretty rough.

Maybe in a 3rd Edition if they switched to "mix and match" traditions like Fantasy AGE, SotDL, etc where you have to choose from various themed "sublists" for your spell list.

This could actually play pretty well with Cleric domains, Witch patrons, Sorc bloodlines, etc, which would give access to specific sublists on top of a basic "choose X amount"

I'd like Weapon Groups to just be a type of trait. It's weird that they're not.

It seems like a nice 2.5e.

I wouldn't call it a full edition change until there's major math changes, the death of Vancian casting, no "Big 6" ability scores, etc.

I am concerned that the changes won't be ironed out to full elegance due to time constraints, and that there might be some weird rules artifacts that crop up.

One thing I hope the change keeps is the feeling that Wizards still care more about how magic functions compared to other casters. The current spell school version, while a little scatterbrained, does help sell the feeling of Wizards being total nerds about how magic works rather than just being thematically focused casters like everyone else.

Having cultural baggage of anathema/edicts tied to ancestry is definitely a little weird and feels rather essentialist.

Now, if it listed specific in-setting cultures and common edicts/anathema in those cultures, that'd make a little bit more sense.

Bard doesn't have the proficiencies to warrant it being a bounded caster.

In addition, it doesn't have enough interesting actions to make up for the lack of spells.

Finally, "half casters" don't exist in 2e and aren't worth bringing back.

Quick Draw does synergize with the class abilities of the classes it's on, since they apply to basic Strikes.

Quick Draw is fine as is. Just give Iaijutsu specialists additional feats for drawing/sheathing techniques that have different use cases.

Instincts are more like the Totem rage power chains in 1e than Bloodlines. They change quite a bit, but they aren't majorly different unless you invest more into them.

I don't think Battle Forms proper are a good way to do Shifter either.

Battle Forms are just a simple and easy to package way for casters to shapeshift, but a class can be more complex.

Plus Battle Forms are pretty rote.

There probably should be base polymorph forms to bolt morphs onto for ease of use/readability. Plus, it allows for various different "polymorph chassis" with mutually exclusive, powerful effects. These could also serve as the subclass options, with each subclass giving the Shifter a specific base form(s) that they can modify with the different morphs and whatnot.

So, there could be an Animal subclass, Dragon subclass, Construct subclass, etc., just like how the Summoner works.

If you're going to change the name for Ranger, then whatever you change it to needs to acknowledge what Ranger *is*.

It's "Aragorn: the Class". It has been from the very beginning. Aragorn was first introduces as "Strider, Ranger of the North" and thus the class was named. It's why it's such a grab-bag... because Aragorn took a lot of archetypes, and they all got crammed in there.

Does Favored Enemy come from his most famous power: racism?

Yeah, Man-at-Arms is a really cool name, but I feel like it would lead to endless "my character's, um, a Person-at-Arms? A Woman-at-Arms?" introductions. It's also just a bit of a mouthful.

"Berserker" is lovely, and I like "warrior" for the Fighter. I think "soldier" might be interesting, too--just to emphasize that this is the warrior who really trained for it, y'know?--but could be flavorfully limiting. Oh, I know, let's name the Fighter "martial artist".

I honestly feel like Inventor might benefit from a name change. I get really confused by the name, and to this day, never having played one but having had it explained to me multiple times, I still feel a little lost. I guess Inventor is meant to be, like, some sort of martial artificer? Iron Man? I can't place her. I just get her confused with Alchemist.

That's why I went with the more neutral "Master-of-Arms"

Plus it better emphasizes the class's weapon proficiencies instead of just being a soldier/warrior.

A Dervish implies a greater leaning into the religiosity of the class than Monk, even, and is kind of just trading out the exoticism of East Asia for the exoticism of North Africa. It's a shame, because I did adore the Dervish class in Guild Wars: Nightfall, but it's a term still in use by a living religion today - probably best to avoid.

'Ascetic' feels like it draws on both the "going without arms and armor" aspect of the class and the religious traditions that inspire it, while also broadening the identity up a fair bit.

Ascetic would be good, but it feels like it leans further into the mysticism aspect that I'd want for a proper caster, like a WIS Psychic.

Some of the Polymorph and Armor Potency weirdness could be addressed in Remastered, so it might not even be an issue.

Things I want, in no particular order:

Monks to get a bo staff/polearm stance. Just copying and pasting Whirlwind Stance from the Staff Acrobat archetype would be fine. It's wild that the class has sword and bow stances but not a stance for one of the iconic martial arts weapons.

Swashbucklers to get auto-scaling proficiency in Acrobatics and/or their Style skill. If the core functionality of a class depends on passing skill checks then it should always get auto-scaling proficiency in the relevant skills, in the same way that Inventors get auto-scaling Crafting and Thaums get auto-scaling Esoteric Lore.

Monks and Champions to get their bump from Expert to Master (un)armor(ed) proficiency at level 11, when fighters, rangers, and maguses get their bump to Expert, rather than 13 so you don't have a weird two-level interlude where half of the offense-focused martial classes are just as good at defending themselves as the two martials that are hyperspecialized in defense.

Champions to get access to Paragon's Guard stance. I really don't like the fact that the iconic sword and board class doesn't get to eliminate the action tax of raising a shield until level 20 when Fighters and Swashbucklers can do it by level 12.

Panache to be something that persists for a fixed duration once acquired rather than earned and then spent on a Finisher immediately afterwards. If getting panache meant retaining it until the end of your next turn and it was not consumed by doing a Finisher, it'd be a lot more attractive for non-Gymnasts to take advantage of their panache bonuses and Derring Do, and a lot easier to keep panache up, especially against bosses. I think that'd address a lot of the Swash's current pain points.

This actually brings up another change I want for Monk:

Make Monastic Weaponry's benefits just a core part of the Monk trait on weapons. It's weird that it costs a feat for weapons that largely underperform vs unarmed stance attacks when the unarmed stances also have other powerful benefits. Plus it feels like a weird feat tax for Shooting Stars and Peafowl Stances, which could also be 1st level feats.

If a shifter has focus spells it should not be the core hinge of the class. Focus spells always add some sort of utility but they are never the main thing for martials. Like the closest to that I can think of are like conflux spells and there are still alternatives to using them. So the core shifting mechanic should not use focus points. This is important because martials genuinely are built around being able to do their main thing whenever they need it.

Here's an idea:

Different polymorph and morph effects don't use focus points, but you instead use focus points to activate various specific abilities of given polymorphs/morphs, like Dragon Breath for a dragon form.

There's a design space for more martials that toy with resources a bit more. Martials aren't inherently resource-less and sticking to an always-on design philosophy is rather limiting and excludes a wide variety of potential concepts.

Okay fair enough. I admit the only shifter thing I really liked enough to research was adaptive shifter, so I'm not very well versed on the class. It *seemed* like it was a little one dimensional, but I'm sure there's aspects I missed out on.

You're not wrong. 1e Shifter is really one-dimensional without the archetypes. People like the class concept but hated the execution.

First and foremost, the Shifter should allow for all sorts of different shapeshifting fantasies, not strictly animal forms. It should have all sorts of different monsters as possible forms such as dragons, golems, oozes, etc. These could be conceptualized as drawing on different magical traditions or even Alchemy (Body Horror Alch from 1e).

Second, Shifters should have multiple possible forms from the outset. Perhaps there could be a class archetype for a "dedicated form" Shifter, but the class proper should aim rather broadly.

Third, it doesn't need to be a caster of any kind, but Focus Spells would be an elegant way to handle it's shapeshifting.

Fourth, it needs to emphasize shapeshifting abilities that the existing options cannot replicate. Shifting on reaction, mixing and matching Morph effects with Polymorph effects to create custom creatures (Sharktopi, Dragolems, Manticornugons, etc.), and battle forms that are in line with other martials.

To go with it's mix-and-match nature, it would probably be a very flexible martial like the Thaumaturge, but I'd hope it's more straightforward and less kludgy.

With how strong Athletics and Heavy Armor are, I wouldn't be surprised if Dex to Damage for finesse weapons became more available in Remastered. STR still has the better damage dice and trait access on top of Athletics usage.

Golurkcanfly wrote:

If we're getting them, I'd hope that Shifter is explicitly not just Primal. Different subclasses based on the different traditions would be nice.

If we're getting them, I hope that Shifter doesn't have any actual spells at all... or in any other way run off of primarily daily resources. Apart from that? I'm prepared to be happy with whatever comes.

Seriously, I'll probably be happy regardless. I got Kineticist coming. Like, having even more classes who can do nifty magic stuff without icky spell slots would certainly be nice, but really? I'm good.

I don't care for it having spell slots either, but it's mainly about the themes and different transformations the class can have. PF1e's Shifter is decidedly animal-based without archetypes and leans too hard into "Druid without spells." Having a broader set of options from the get-go to support ideas such as transforming into aberrations, monstrosities, dragons, constructs, etc. would be nice, and tradition-based subclasses would be a good way to communicate this. Then, class archetypes could introduce more specific or divergent ideas, such as a class archetype that restricts the Shifter to a single form or a class archetype that's strictly alchemical in nature.

I'm also in the camp of "Will different elements have access to different elemental damage types?"

It was really disappointing to not have options like Cold for Water and Electricity for Air.

My other question is if Elemental Blasts now work more like cantrips, will Kineticists get item bonuses to attack with them, or will the Blasts get miss damage?

This all kinda stems from the issue of not letting martial and spell attacks use the same progression track in favor of spells being proportionally stronger, so a "caster that works more like a martial" is in an awkward spot.

Just a heads-up, we have zero indication about what the versatile heritage is, other than "it's not an existing one". Not an unreasonable guess, but no reason to start worrying about details of something not even confirmed.

That said, doubly don't worry about this. What would Paizo even put in a draconic versatile heritage if they completely stripped out feats for physical features? Furthermore, it's a versatile heritage. Suppose it happens and it's missing something you want, like a bite attack- you could take it on Lizardfolk/Iruxi, who have feats for claws, bite, and tail attacks.

I think the speculation regarding it being a draconic heritage is somewhat warranted with how the new dragons are being marketed + Core 2 having the classes with draconic class options.