Justnobodyfqwl's page

I think the simple answer is "a different team made a different game with 5 years of experience with the system and its balance".

Starfinder 2e is pretty consistent in its own power level and expectations of gameplay. A meta where everyone is expected to have ranged options means that casters can contribute to combat easier and safer, but have a harder time staying out of it. Therefore, they have better armor and health, and even minor simple weapon pistols can help out in a fight. The playtest lays this out pretty explicitly.

However, another thing that probably played a factor is the past five years of feedback about spellcasters. They're a hot button topic in PF2e! Some are happy with them, some aren't, but a sentiment I see a lot is that you can tell all of their power budget is in spellcasting. It doesn't really surprise me if someone at Paizo said "Accurate or not, people tend to think casters are weak in this edition. Let's make them feel fun and strong with a blank slate."

To be honest, it's way more important to me that "The 2e games use the same mechanics so that you don't have to learn a new game" than it is "The 2e games use the same mechanics, and Starfinder 2e is balanced around what 2019 Paizo did with PF2e"

I think this is a solid assessment. I do think the design and balance of both classes are an improvement over the initial six, as they fit 2e's framework a lot better, but there are a few issues with the two tech classes that need sorting out.

That's so funny to me, because I kinda feel like the fact that they feel more like PF2e classes is what's stopping them from being as good as they could be.

On a first read, I really liked these two classes. They offered fun things to do, fun customization, and a lot of flavorful vocabulary.

But the more I read them, the more they remind me of things I don't enjoy about PF2e classes. The mechanic promises a cool class fantasy, but they both mostly use the flavor of creation to be a class that hits things good. The technomancer promises a cool gameplay loop, but it requires turns that are either rigid or "best case scenario" just to reliably do what your class promises you.

They don't have the cool abilities that interact with tech, like Androids and Prismeni do. They don't have reliable at-will abilities that help out your team, like Envoys and Mystics do. They don't have cleverly flavored out-of-combat utility, like a Mystic's "Cloud Storage" or an Operative's "Barricade" feats.

All of the best stuff in SF2e pushes you towards tactical teamwork gameplay, offers you something to care about besides combat, and most of all? Just WORKS.

(But the funny part is, with all of this said? These are still more functional and ready-to-print classes than like, every PF2e playtest.)

That sounds about like what I expected. Full turn of buff spell + overcharge, then spell + strike.

I agree that no amount of overcharge buff seems to make your strikes GOOD, they just make them less bad. Again, I wouldn't mind this if it felt like you could consistently get one shot in. Even a Mystic firing a dinky pistol at no MAP felt like it contributed something. But it's not enough to hang your hat on as a subclass.

I think there's a few different ways to change this:

•Do what the Operative does: offer action compression whenever you do your class's thing through feats. A Technomancer could make incidental pot shots through a 1-action feat/ability that says 'overcharge + strike' or 'strike, then spellshape '.

•Alternatively, they could roll in Overcharge or Spellshape into other actions. A DPS technomancer could use Overcharge for free every time it strikes, the same way Viper could do it for free every time they cast a spell from an item or ServoShell could do it every time they command a minion.

•Or, you make spellshapes into strideshapes and strikeshapes. Have each spellshape have an ability that shapes spells, and then an ability that shapes a non-spell action. That way, you're still using spellshapes every turn like your class fantasy wants, but it encourages more choices

•And if none of THOSE work, just make spellshapes free. Just make it a core class ability that you always have a passive spellshape up, and it takes an action to either overclock or change which spellshape you're using. This is a bit more radical in a 2e system, but this is a way to allow for a lot more freedom of choice in how your average turn goes.

I'm really confused what the average combat for a DPS Technomancer is supposed to look like.

I loved playtesting a mystic, because it felt like I existed beyond spellcasting. I'd patch-heal and then duck behind cover, or I'd fire shots at a water fountain to break it and then electric arc the water.

Using guns allows me to fire off a quick shot and help end combat sooner- without the full commitment of having to get into melee range and strike.

But with a DPS technomancer, all of your overclock abilities depend on a 3 action turn of spellcasting + activation.

Cashing in your overclock saves you some actions later with a big powerful improved spellshape.. Which you probably have to use with a 2 action spell. And if you want to hold onto it, get the benefits to striking, and shoot + spell in the same turn...well, you're a class literally entirely about spellshapes. That's probably going to be your third action.

It doesn't just feel like "the DPS subclass doesn't have the action economy to actually attack", it kind of feels like "the entire way that the Technomancer is designed is antithetical to what made Cast Gun fun for other casters".

I think the idea of a broken threshold on a subclass feature feels very silly and fiddly. I agree that it feels way more intuitive to just half its health so it blows up and you can easily pop out a new one.

I think I pretty much agree with most of the points here. I'm curious to playtest them and see if it changes my opinion

One thing I've been asking myself is what it would look like if the class had a more generically useful one action ability. I think that's a big part of what makes other sf2e classes avoid this problem

I like the way that the Mechanic has a generic "mod" action, and you keep adding onto what "mod" can do. Maybe the technomancer wants to consolidate its overclock actions and spellshape actions into one action?

This could also be a way for the class to interact more with tech or non-casting actions. A special property of a technomancer's "hack" spellshape would be being able to "spellshape" certain other actions. "This spellshape increases the range of your spells, but also your leaps". "This spellshape lets you cast spells using a piece of technology 30 feet away as the origin, and a bonus to hacking checks against that device". Etc

I still believe there's a very real chance that all of the spellcasters will make it to print with their playtest spell slots and proficiencies

We have very little "printed" Starfinder 2e material at this point besides the space pirate archetype. Our one example seems to double down on the same philosophies of strong, self contained character options that define the playtest

I also think there's a few reasons that the Technomancer is just generally built very different from the other spellcasters. A heavier reliance on spellcasting, instead of a generically useful third action. A class chassis that needs you to be casting spells and using actions that modify spells. Having higher overall complexity, and not being in the core rulebook.

It breaks a lot of the mold of the playtest classes, and it could very well be an outlier

(Plus, I think spellcasters with weapons and armor are kind of non-negotiable with a ranged meta. You can't hide out from combat in the backlines, you're going to be under fire no matter what!)

Thank you for clarifying, Maya!

I'm still pretty new to the Paizo forums, but I have lurked before. I felt as if I used to see a lot more ambient posts from other developers and Paizo employees- offering clarification, sharing behind the scenes stories, etc.

However, if making posts on the Paizo forums is now mostly for interacting with the community and not good for getting feedback or input with developers, then that's good to know.

Zoken44 wrote:

So the basic class feature they have that does magic to technology that they carry around doesn't count because... because.

Real quick wanted to respond to this snarky comment:

"Yeah I'm kind of a tech enthusiast. But only really in one field. Well, one product category. Well... toasters. I am a tech enthusiast for toasters. The kitchen appliance."

When you think about it, pretty much any Turret or Mine Mechanic might be throwing a heavily modified Cinder Dragon 9000 Industrial Kitchen Toaster onto the battlefield.

Make a reflex save against 12d8 of buttery damage, evenly toasted to perfection!

I think it's also interesting to me that he Technomancer lacks a core, reliable, consistent, one-action ability the same way that all 7 other SF2E classes have.

The intent is pretty clear- the role of "third action from your class" is occupied by either your spellshape, or by overclocking your item. The developers seem to imagine "spellshape + two action spell" is going to be your average turn just like "mystic transfer vitality + two action spell" is for a Mystic

However, the thing that makes Transfer Vitality fun is that you can do it WITHOUT having to cast a spell. The flexibility of being able to do 3/4th of "Stride, Strike, Take Cover, Transfer Vitality" in an average turn made playing a mystic feel fun and like you were making interesting choices every turn

Technomancer has more of a PF2E style design. It's both a "set a routine" class where you need to do a Big 3 Action Turn that requires some setup (ala Magus), and also a "catch and release" class where you flow between a passive benefit and cashing it in for a bigger resource (ala runesmith, exemplar, kineticist)

This isn't necessarily bad! I'm sure a lot of PF2E players might enjoy the Technomancer for that reason. However, it def makes the class feel clunky to read, and even clunkier to imagine playing, compared to everything else from SF2E. I feel like I start to have to imagine "best case scenarios" in order to just Do My Class's Thing.

A pretty simple one- the Mod ability says "Interact to draw, retrieve, or swap an item, then add one of the mods listed below to the item."

RAW, you can't just mod something that's already in your hands. The intent being "you may" or "up to one" feels pretty clear.

I think it's less that "the mechanic shouldn't have the body mods because the evolutionist might happen", and more "this version of the mechanic seems very intentionally focused on Placing Crap On The Battlefield™".

I've seen people ask why they have mines specifically, instead of just explosives or grenades. I think it's the same reason - this is clearly meant to be a class in the same vein as the Summoner or Necromancer, where battlefield control is a core mechanical niche.

I think a Mechanic that trades Putting Crap On The Battlefield for better strikes would be as if there was a Soldier subclass that traded any AoEs for just better strikes. (Action Hero doesn't count!) It would be really weird and ill-fitting to have a subclass that just trades in their core mechanic and purpose in a team for Being Better At Shooting ™.

I found myself having the same discussion- I absolutely love the infiltrator chassis, but it feels like it takes a lot of feats to maintain.

I thought the Infiltrator chassis would be fun for my desire to build a Mechanic that doesn't focus on its subclass as heavily, and instead is more of a "skill monkey" mechanic focused on utility options.*

For instance, I was excited by the idea of taking the level 1 feats that either gave me more skills, or let me use healing items better. It seemed fun to combine this with an infiltrator drone, since they could attempt charisma checks to give more utility.

However, I quickly noticed how customization-hungry that was. One to for the artificial personality and attempting charisma checks, but also one to have hands at all. Then one customization for each skill you want it to be able to do besides Deception.

And the difficult part is, I can't even say that this is a bad thing. It's good to have to invest in your drone, and your drone USUALLY should not be able to make charisma checks for you and pretend to be a person. If you really invest your class resources into doing this cool but niche thing, that's fun design. You shouldn't get all of this for free, even if I asked pretty please and batted my eyelashes.

I think it's one of the drone chasis that kind of suggests "do stuff with this besides put a lot of combat feats into it", but you quickly realize the reality is it also needs you to put a lot of feats into it.

*(When trying to build mechanics, I noticed the feats all seem pretty siloed. They did a good job making feats that work for 2 but not 3 of the subclasses, but for the most part you're picking one subclass and then picking nearly exclusively feats for that subclass that upgrade that subclass. This is why I love the level 2 "remote access" feat- it's so unique!)

Regardless of where they are, were, are going or might be….I’m still waiting to find out if they can be targeted and destroyed….

This feels a lot like the Necromancer/Runesmith playtest with zero dev input to fairly basic questions across both classes…

The first paragraph describing mines mentions "Your mines are shielded and can’t detonate from taking damage."

It's been only a day, I don't expect any developer input yet.

I think taking the stance of "prove to me it's NOT true" is not helpful.

This is a game made by people from earth, a planet where mines are very famous for being placed onto the ground and laying still until triggered.

That is the assumption the average person has, and frankly it would be comically bad writing to say "mines can float in midair, and we expected people to intuit that". It would take one sentence to clarify "mines can float in midair". It's a perfectly reasonable thing to include. Not to intuit.

Viper is so focused on being "the spellgem subclass" that I wanna say something that might be controversial: they should just use their spell DC on the gem grenade every time.

It's not their MAIN ability, and ideally you're using the Viper abilities that let you hold onto spellgems. If you entire subclass is about an expensive consumable, and then you get a one-off ability to trade them in for damage, I think it's fine if the DC doesn't suck.

The ability to put any AoE spell into a grenade and toss it with your DC? Now that should be a level 8 feat. But your spellgem should just be convenient to chuck (grenades are NOT scary, powerful items in this system)

I'm not sure if I'm missing something but it seems that the 'Ammo Infector Virus' second level feat requires the 'Combat Hack' skill feat, and the 'Combat Hack' skill feat requires you to be an expert in computers which you can't be until the 3rd level skill increase.

Am I missing something? Not being able to take a level 2 feat until level 3 seems like a mistake.

I notice SF2E even has quite a few skill feats that are level 2, but require expertise. Maybe it's because they're more generous these days with archetype feats that grant you expertise?

Either way, Ammo Infector Virus is one of the most fun feats technomancer has, and it's a shame not to be able to pick it at level 2

I feel like everyone is starting to miss the point Milo is making

The Technomancer needs abilities that are like "you gain enhanced shortwave", and a later feat that says "you can give a computer consciousness to ask it where the evil hacker went". The ability to snap your fingers and turn a computer on or off from 60 feet away. Creating virtual holograms and whatnot

The actual answer is "they tend to just only test the combat stuff in a playtest like this", but both of the classes definitely feel really lacking in actual useful utility and exploration actions that involve tech.

I know it'd be way down the road if it happens at all, but maybe they're saving the self-enhancement stuff for the evolutionist?

I was also thinking that. I think "enhance your body through artificial augmentation" is very ripe design space, both flavorfully and mechanically.

I think it would make a lot of sense for some characters who were SF1E Mechanics to be SF2E Evolutionists-Shifters-Whatevers.

I think the simplest answer is just that it's an entirely different class in an entirely different system.

SF2E and PF2E by extension try a lot harder to justify a unique mechanical niche for each class than any 1e game did. The soldier is not "fighter in space" anymore, with a million options to play with any kind of weapon. The soldier is an AoE Debuffer Martial. It likes two handed weapons and tough armor.

And I love that! The class is trying to do something specific, and that makes it very clear why it's fun to play this class while allowing the class to be built around encouraging that.

While I pretty much agree about the mines, the overall point stands that the Mechanic is a Battlefield Positioning Support Martial. It's a deployables class, like the Necromancer or Summoner. The class is very clear about what it is, and why its doing it.

You're a mechanic. Your focus is on the stuff you build and physically interact with. The technomancer deals with intangible code and spells. But you have A Thing that you have to maintain and operate, physically. It feels like a very distinct fantasy from someone who uses technology to personally enhance their own living body and fight better.

Justnobodyfqwl wrote:

I don't think "guy who throws land mines" is as interesting or as meaningful as a core class identity as "I can bang a toolbox with a wrench and then all of a sudden I have whatever I need".

Not even general demolition/explosives/grenades. SPECIFICALLY landmines. Which a lot of the time are gonna be thrown and detonated immediately anyway. Such a bizarre decision.

I gotta be real, when I read the class's teaser, I thought "cool! it has abilities like Mines, Turrets, and Drones!"

I didn't....I didn't really think those would be ALL of its class abilities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do find myself wanting more out of combat. The class gets three things:

I don't know what else exactly there should be, but... I could definitely use another thing, or making the custom rig feature actually matter. Maybe make it hands-free?

I think about something WatersLethe said on the speculation thread-

A mechanic should be able to solve narrative problems that technology should be able to solve, without the party having to plan ahead or rely on begging NPCs for help. They should be able to quickly and easily convert UPBs into useful tools, and perhaps get some UPBs for free every day, so that they can always have an answer to the party not having the right tool for the job. From making an air conditioned shelter, to putting up a zipline, to building a permanent water harvesting system for a community, a mechanic should represent the kinds of power you'd normally get from utility spells in Pathfinder.

I think the class just really is not nearly as interesting without options like this. The MAIN thing mod should be able to do is turn a handful of UPBs into everyday adventuring items, like how Metal Kineticists can make rudimentary items.

I don't think "guy who throws land mines" is as interesting or as meaningful as a core class identity as "I can bang a toolbox with a wrench and then all of a sudden I have whatever I need".

I'm also really loving Modify. I like how modifications are temporary, and focus on constant tinkering and adjusting. It really makes the feature feel different from the inventor's innovation, which grants a permanent extra benefit.

Also, can you mod your friends' gear? I'd be real surprised if you couldn't, but on my admittedly quick breeze through I couldn't find a thing that lets you augment gear that isn't your own.

The Mod action states "the effect ends early..if the item.. leaves your possession.".

So I can tell that the intent is "it only works for a turn, and don't try to get cheeky with giving it to someone else".

But Adaptive Camouflage says "Using auto-populating holograms, you veil the target. The creature wearing the modded armor does not need cover or concealment to Hide
or Sneak".

And the language there is VERY clear that it's intended to be used on people just besides yourself.

I feel like the RAI is that the only work on yourself and your gear. However, I think it's SIGNIFICANTLY more fitting to the 2e design philosophy and gameplay style to be able to modify my teammates guns and equipment.

I think it's more of a complexity issue than a power issue, perhaps. I think technomancer is just a more complex spellcaster that's not gonna be in the core rulebook, so they made it a bit less baseline reliable than the core rulebook casters.

The Technomancer has a whole gameplay loop of overclocking items, using spellshapes, using your overclocked items to combine jailbreak effects on your spellshapes, etc. The Spell Cache ability is practically snuck in when you least expect it. They lack a reliable guaranteed third action, the way that Mystics have their healing bond ans Witcharpers allegedly have Quantum Fields. And then on top of that, they focus on more complex caster mechanics such as Spellshapes and Counterspells.

I can completely believe a world where they just looked at all three casters and decided that the Technomancer is the outlier.

I do think you make a salient point- it's interesting that the Technomancer is even more spell reliant than the other casters in this game, but has fewer spell slots. It also has a more explicit "gish" focused subclass than the Mystic or Witchwarper, yet has worse armor proficiencies.

Yeah, I think the lack of ability to deal with flying enemies with mines jumped out to me immediately as well. Neither class integrates verticality or flight into their abilities very much!

I think modify is absolutely killer. It's very good at being a core, clearly communicated class feature action like the core playtest classes have. (Your Get 'Em, Aim, etc). I love the way that its versatile, can apply to a lot of different item types, and leaves itself open to a lot of new mods in future books

I think my only complaint right now is that it seems too combat focused! I know, I know, EVERY Paizo playtest focuses on combat, and that's because combat math is much more fiddly and an unknown factor compared to utility options.

However, I really do think that half the fun of being a Mechanic should be "I take out my giant wrench and mod my teammates gear to solve this problem ". The Mods for turning boots into hoverboots, or putting cloaking devices on armor? I think the class should double down HARD on abilities like that.

I want mods that temporarily power items without batteries. Mods that allow me to talk with machines and ask them secrets. Entirely stuff like that.

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

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

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

While the class is too new for me to have a lot of thoughts about its mechanics, I can say the first thing that immediately jumps out about the Technomancer is how amazing the flavor is.

Even more so than the Mechanic, the Technomancer class is OOZING with flavor. The programming jokes. The new lore for the different programming language subclasses. Hyperlinks that teleport you, and Speedrun noclipping as an endgame feat.

It's absolutely wonderful, and it's not just ornamental. The technomancer is probably the most complex class in the SF2E playtest right now, but reading it goes down smooth and easy because of how fun and evocative it is. The ability to shorthand concepts using programming terms helps legibility a LOT.

I may not immediately understand the intent behind "store a spell on your armor that goes off when you get hit", but the moment you call it "pop-up firewall"? It's easy to understand "oh ok, I program a defensive spell or an AoE to ward people away". Same with "white-hat hacking" communicating the idea of "hacking as a protective defense".

White Hats Off to you, Paizo! I'm excited to jam with the console cowboys in cyberspace.

My Wishlist:

Although unlikely considering the timing of playtests, I hope the mechanic interacts heavily with starship system

Either class could have a way to turn giving an item of yours glitching as a cost or downside of a potent ability

A feat where you can turn glitching items into handheld explosives as an action, or you take 10 to overclock any tech item-> into feat where you can start to do that on any light bulk tech as an action

Either class has daily amount of tech items they can make on the fly or craft

Technomancer has a vidgamer subclass for weapon proficiencies. Maybe subclasses are “favorite tech”- vidgame cartridge (weapons) vs data pad (computers) vs storage device (recall knowledge) vs spell chip (spellcasting improvements)

The mechanic has an ability where they can spontaneously create or summon vehicles. If not to RIDE, but to drop on enemies from the sky.

I really enjoy the idea of the Mechanic interacting with terrain and hazards through their turrets and mines. I want to flush enemies out of cover with time release grenades!

I also hope they interact with the system's verticality. A mechanic being able to make floating platforms, jump pads, or temporary jetpacks would be very fun

I'm really hoping that both classes keep up SF2E's fun and novel ways of interacting with tech.

One of my favorite ancestry feats in the game is the Prismeni feat that turns Electric Arc into a UTILITY cantrip. With clear rules but very little jargon, it explains how you can do cool non-combat stuff with machines- recharge weapons, drain batteries, or jury-rigging power sources for the laptop your party stole off the evil hacker.

That's exactly the kind of stuff I want. Reliable, at-will abilities that change how I interact with the world and let me come up with clever solutions for challenges

I could also see a world where a shifter/evolutionist style shapeshifting martial class has a cyborg/nanobots subclass option.

The 10-foot reach attack may be combat tentacles to the eldritch subclass, but they're extending robot fists for you. Your teammate might turn their hand into tiger claws, but you have blades that swing out of your fingers like switchblades.

And I bet you could have plenty of unique feats, too. Your hand can pop off and act as the crawling claw familiar. Your head can fly off and act as a scouting drone. You can remotely attempt hacking checks with a computer in your brain, and your cyborg body gives special reactions when taking vitality or electric damage.

Wow, that Justnobodyfqwl person sounds so mysterious, dashing, and beautiful! :p

I'm very glad you agree- not just about the balance, but about the fact that it's such fun and evocative design they're clearly doing something right.

I also showed one of my players who IMMEDIATELY started yes,and-ing the concept of "ghost pirates". They couldn't stop saying "ghost pirates". In the span of minutes, they went from "wow that's a cool idea" to "here's my pirate fleet, the Femme Phantoms, who show you the ghost of your former allies in bright pink makeup ready to slay".

This is all what makes me so excited about SF2E. Other Paizo games don't do this to people! It makes my friends who don't even LIKE games like this excited. It gives them cool ideas, ideal fantasies, and quick pitches on "why do you want to pick this option".

They don't need a lot of system mastery to quickly read a dedication feat and go "wow, I get to use a bunch of fun pirate weapons, and I get to be good at piloting pirate ships." And then, the BIG hook is the ability to say "Wow, it's a cool and fun mental image to imagine a giant holographic pirate flag scaring off my enemies. I wonder what my flag would look like? I should design that!"

I genuinely think that inspiring this level of excitement in players is healthier for the game than maintaining the power level set by most Pathfinder 2e archetypes.

Monday... the Playtest lands Monday!

given previous comments, I'm hoping for some tech ancestries in addition to the tech classes, but also some new tech items, and maybe rules for hacking and such!

My gut theory is that these classes specifically had to have a separate playtest because they needed to develop "tech items" as a core mechanic that the classes interact with. The emphasis on the book being "Tech Core" seems to fit with that.

I imagine the actual hacking rules won't be playtested, however- they don't tend to playtest big core rule systems like that, right? I think if they didn't playtest Mythic rules, the only core mechanics we'd see playtested are the crunchy, tactical starship combat rules.

I'm very glad they didn't just file the serial numbers off of the old dragon system. Pathfinder 2e just continuously gets better when the creators make new, fun stuff that tries to make a compelling argument for it's own existence.

I never had any real emotional attachment to the old system. I've been way more excited by all these new dragons that are built around The Things That Are Fun About Dragons.

This one is a scheming intellectual, this one is wise and prophetic. This one is a big scary animal, this one burninates the countryside. It's fun, distinct, and intuitive.

I think the idea of a teleportation focused character is very interesting. Mobility, especially vertically mobility, is a lot easier in SF2E than PF2E. With flying speeds available at level 1, it's a lot easier to pitch a character who can teleport up their speed somewhere. Your DM is already building encounters knowing that anyone can buy a jetpack.

While I love Nightcrawler style personal teleportation, it might be more starfinder-y to make the class about opening wormholes or magic portals. Instead of a singular quantum field like a Witchwarper, you might place two ends of a portal in different spots- and they can redirect shots or transport allies. (The Solarian has a higher level feat that does this. It honestly seems to fun, I wouldn't mind stealing it outright- and finding more limited ways to do it at low levels).

As fun as it sounds mechanically, I'm not really sure if there's enough design space for a whole class. But I'm also not sure how much you could trim for the power budget of an archetype, either. (2nd level archetype feat- teleport up to half your speed. 4th level feat- teleport up to your speed. 6th level feat- Make portals around the battlefield. For fun feats- use teleporting to juggle items in hand, hide items in interdimensional pockets, or have a reaction against attacks)

Also I think your analysis of the Solarian class in specific is missing crucial context. They are a pretty direct stand-in for a rather specific pop culture thing. They're Jedi knights! Not one-to-one, but think about it. Drawing power from a philosophy of cosmic one-ness (The Cycle), they summon personal energy weapons, and their totality includes agents of literal light and dark, with them ultimately striving to keep the cosmic balance. They're also given the cool solar gimmick because stars and black holes are, indeed, awesome. And lumping Technomancer and Mechanic in this pile I fully don't get, to me they seem as standard sci-fi/space fantasy ideas as Operative, Soldier, or Envoy.

WOW that's an obvious one, how'd I forget that? I've only played 2e, so maybe they just feel a bit more original now... But yeah, in 1e they were straight up charisma based paladin-jedi, right?

Yeah ok that's an easy solution for classes: just straight up identify the singular most iconic Science Fantasy Cool Power/Weapon and then just extrapolate from there

I think it's hard to think up new Starfinder classes because I can't really say I'd ever come up with the ones that they already made.

It feels intuitive enough to have "badass John Wick guns and kung fu guy" or "big scary soldier who supports with suppressing fire". It's even reasonable to say "vague mystical cleric-druid" or "caster who opens pockets of weird in the universe".

But I don't know if I'd come up with "melee fighter stance dancer who alternates between forces of the sun while making plasma blades", or "brawling entropy warrior who invokes the natural decay of the universe to break your stuff".

I guess there's different ways to pitch classes.

One way is the "invoke a pop culture fantasy I want to play". I'd love a shapeshifting focused class, one that can alter its body on the fly and take absurd forms in order to overcome challenges. Metamorpho comics, John Carpenter's The Thing, or the old Animorphs novels are big inspirations.

Another way is the "identifying a mechanical niche". I love the way that SF2E emphasizes taking cover, and having verticality in fights and problems. I would maybe love a class that leans into the two by making some kind of floating platform- you could place them around the battlefield to act as cover, give allies more range, etc. (I wouldn't be shocked if a Mechanic or a Retooled Witchwarper looked more like this)

The final way is just "try to come up with an exciting pitch for Cool Science Fantasy Powers With A Theme". Technomancer and Mechanic are about how cool machines and tech are. Solarians are how cool Stars and gravity are. Vanguards are about cosmic entropy. What else could we do? How about Meteors and Satellites, where you have a finate amount of orbiting objects you can place around the battlefield?

These are just my basic pitches. I can't imagine the Advanced Players Guide is going to have The EvolutionShifter, The Wallmaster, and The Meteor Belter.... But if it does, we know how they did it ;p

My first playtest Solarian was a Starlit Sentinel! They were a combined Barathu- one who specialized in studying photon, and one who specialized in studying graviton. They combine their knowledge as a Solarian, and gene-edit themselves into a Magical Girl Humanoid Form on the fly because they bonded over a mutual love for magical girl shows.

I've thought a lot about leaning into the transforming hero aesthetic for Solarians. Starlit Sentinel screams "magical girl", but the insectoid Shirren make me think of the grasshopper-themed Kamen Rider franchise. Kamen Rider also leans into the idea of "alternate forms" or power-ups that you combine in some way, which feels very fun and fitting with the way that Solarian as a class plays.

I have a few scraps of ideas, too. I'm curious to make a Vlaka Solarian with the new lore about their sun having a massive rebirth. I'd also be interested in playing a Solarian Pahtra, who uses a solar weapon because of the magnet-storms on Pulonis making tech unreliable. (The jokes about a cat sunbathing to recharge her powers are also very fun).

I've also toyed around with a few different solar weapon designs. A reach weapon that looks like a yo-yo, with a sun on one side and a black hole on another. A pair of boxing gloves, that either shine with sunlight or absorb the light around them like a black hole.

I'm looking forward to getting even more versatile heritages. While it'll take quite a while to catch up with SF1's playable species, things like being able to properly play a reanimated version of any ancestry is one of the areas SF2 can surpass it. I'm hoping to see that extended to things like xenometric androids, and other, more novel things like a symbiote versatile heritage.

Seconding the desire for a symbiote versatile heritage, it seems like such a fun idea. I'm throwing my hat in the ring for the Entu Colony. In Starfinder 1e, they would either be a shambling colony, or be permanently symbiosis'd with a species of local bat-like animals, called a Nelentu.

So basically....they were symbiotes who didn't have any way to actually feel like symbiotes. I think the idea of a symbiote Entu versatile heritage is is really fun and evocative! A Nelentu could just be an Awakened Animal + Entu heritage.

(Speaking of which: Starfinder-only Awakened Animal heritage with a fly speed at level 1? Pretty please?)

Possibly controversial take, so take it with a grain of salt: I think we might actually be more likely to see a new class before we see a Biohacker or Vanguard.

PF2E expressed its own desire to move towards new class concepts, rather than keep translating pf1e ideas over for increasingly diminishing returns.

I think it's been for the best! It feels like the creators have gotten more confident in how they design class mechanics. We've seen a lot of new, flavorful, and fun design space.

And now with SF2E, we see that they're even MORE confident in how they design in the 2e system. They're also willing to completely redesign the role of a class and it's core mechanics, ala Soldier and Operative

With all this in mind, this upcoming playtest represents all the core SF1E classes. We might see something totally different sooner than we expect!

I imagine the biohacker having a class feature that functions a bit like the lozenge trait, something which grants someone a minor benefit, but they can metabolize the effect for a singular burst of some greater, short-lived effect. Likewise weaker effects that can be placed on enemies, but that can then be triggered for more potent debuffs.

Yeah, that kind of "passive that you cash in for a burst of power" design is something Paizo likes a lot. Exemplars, Kineticists, Runesmiths, etc.

Similarly, I could see that structure for a shifter/evolutionist type class. Mutations would have both passive benefits (such as a new unarmed strike, flight speed, senses, etc) and a big cash-in option (a full shapeshifted form? or maybe a single big ability, but you lose the ability to shift into that form instead)

Its the travel.

In D&D you have weeks by horseback. What can an hour or two matter?

In starfinder you're dropping in by ship. You better be able to go save the space prince before that pizza his kidnapers order gets there.

I think this is the real crux of it, far more than any particular game mechanics.

More technology just implies more access to transportation and communication - more readily accessible, less expensive, and more everpresent in everyday life.

As a big Barathu fan I completely disagree that they need increased land speed; With Merfolk there's precedent for 5 foot land speed ancestries with worse primary movement speed types than flight, with the introduction of the Traversal trait as detailed in the wrap-up blog post relying on exclusively flight will be more viable, and in general I would argue having to deal with the weaknesses of flight (no step, action tax when hovering, etc.) is a fair tradeoff for its strengths (and can be circumvented with Adaptable Limbs anyways). I don't want the strength of Barathu's flight to be diluted by making their ground speed stronger.

I feel the same way about quite a few pieces of feedback here- "you've correctly identified a problem, but I either don't understand your proposed solution or think it doesn't address the bigger issue".

I really would like some new stuff- for instance, id absolutely love to see the Veskarium get fleshed out and emphasized a lot more. The core rulebook has created a really fascinating trifecta of having Pahtra, Vesk, AND Skittermanders be core.

Id really like to see new stuff about the dynamic between these three species. I wanna hear more about how Pahtra music affects pop culture, or find out about entirely new cities on Pulonis we've never been to.

I think we can make a million flavorful or logistical reasons why you might have a primal technomancer, but I feel like the most important factor is player expectation and class fantasy. And I feel like I can guess with nearly 100% percent accuracy that the player expectations and class fantasy for a class called "technomancer" do not include primal spells.

The playtest ancestries were some of the most fun in the 2E engine so far. Barathu in particular put a big, dumb grin on my face

I feel like the ancestry feats are a lot better in SF2E. I always like to say that "Hyperactive, Hug Master, and Fixation" being Skittermander feats tells you EVERYTHING you need to know about them. But Barathu being able to gene edit themselves, Androids having internal compartments and shortwave, and Vesk having "blood sense"- the highs of the ancestry feats are really high. It kind of fixes every complaint I had about the PF2E ancestry feats at launch.

I really hope that trying to make ancestries in nearly every product doesn't impact that! It would be a shame if they didn't have the same fun hooks.

"Vlakas who witnessed the rebirth of their dying sun, Sota, are marked with starburst patterns that match their natural blessing to kindle light."

That's right everyone.... LASER WOLVES 2.0

I guess I was just assuming that the mystical tramp stamp's meaning wasn't obvious but admittedly I'm not as knowledgeable as to what's accepted in PF.

I love the pitch of making it HAVE to be a tramp stamp. It can be cool and stylish if you're identical twin elves or something, but the alternatives are funnier. A phantasmal dragon with a tribal tattoo. An armor-plated angelic warrior that has a ring of flowers and mid-2000's denim pants. A giant tree plant eidolon that puts the stick in stick'n'poke.

Justnobodyfqwl wrote:

After dedicating a session to them, I actually really am excited about the potential of the Entu. I actually think it would be amazing to have the Entu colony inside someone's mind be a universal heritage! This could allow you to capture the Nelentu with Awakened Animal + Entu, or allow you to play a symbiosis between, say, Human and Entu!

Finally, a chance to live out all of my childhood Animorphs dreams

First thought I had on reading this was, "wait, they want a versatile heritage where they've got a yerk?" But honestly that could be fun. The symbients from SF1E were cool, and having a beneficial yerk or Tril-like symbiote as a heritage would be fun.

Ahaha yes, I actually had a really enjoyable session built around the pitch of "well, what does it look like to have Yeerks try CONSENSUAL symbiosis?"

I wanted to explore 4 kinds of Entu relationships, all aboard a Xenowarden research ship. An entu colony that refuses symbiosis and prefers to live on its own, an entu that jumps around from body to body to understand the animal kingdom better, a Nelentu that has a permanent symbiosis, and the rare & controversial dynamic of an entu and a young barathu trying to enter symbiosis together.

Animorphs was a great point of reference, because it really dives into the reasons why a species that's a sentient (spore colony/slug) would be driven to symbiosis- I whole-heartedly stole the idea that an Entu outside a host is nearly blind & deaf, and they required very specific xenowarden accommodations to just interact with the player. Obviously you don't want that when Entu colonies are playable on their own, but I honestly think it's a lot more interesting when they're a Versatile Heritage.