ZuthaTheEvolutionist's page

And then you're stuck feeling like some kind of curmudgeonly old grognard while everybody else sings the praises of the new system and reminisces on how awful those outdated mechanics were. Doubly so in this case, where Starfinder--the last bastion of the 3e era--is explicitly being remade in the image of its more popular and explicitly new-school sibling. It's gotta feel like one of those horrible makeover scenes in a romcom, where a character who had a unique and endearing style is done up to look more like everyone else's idea of pretty, and you get pulled out of the movie because it's trying to insist that this glow-up is something you should want.

Thank you so much for saying this.

I've been feeling terrible about being in any organized Paizo community recently just because I feel like folks are telling me to "get on with the times" when I tell them that the product I love and want to support is not getting more support. I'm glad someone can put what I feel to words better than I can.

Controversial opinion, but the Evolutionist should come in sooner rather than later. Being the last class in SF1e meant it got way less support than the other classes, and their fnatasy of "adapting to the battlefield and the situation" is such a cool concept that I wish got explored more.

... Huh? What do you mean my name? What do you mean I'm biased? XD

I would like to preface this bit of feedback with am important caveat: I am mostly negative on SF2e as a concept. That might (and probably will) color my view of the Field Test going forward. That said, I did playtest this with a few friends at a private table. These are the things I felt during playtesting and reading through the alloted material.

The TL;DR is that a lot of the soldier seems confused: it's a specialist that uses things that, in general, don't require much specialization to be good. The feats and subclasses are either math fixers (not very exciting) or just clash against the class' vibe. Unfortunately, it's previous niche (weapon attacker) is already taken by the Fighter.

1)Primary Target, as written, doesn’t fit the whole schtick of the class: if the point of the soldier is to use their big Class DC instead of their attack role, why have a feature that explicitly uses their attack roll and make it easier to miss? If I hit with the attack roll, do they still need to make their save vs the damage? If so, do they take damage twice?

2)Bombard's feature should be a part of the class without being a subclass, at maybe a higher level. Suppressing targets seems to be the core of the Soldier’s playstyle, and making a feature that pushes them to be the best at it above all others optional seems counterintuitive. We’ll have to see more of the class’s features before this can be solidified, however.

3)Close Quarters feels fundamentally out of place. You're giving up the main idea of the class (big area weapons) in favour of being a Champion with less support for Champion-like abilities. Feels like an identity crisis of wanting to keep the old close quarters fighting styles.

4)Fearsome Bulwark is a great feature. Helps make the soldier less dead-weight out of combat by giving Con a skill utility.

5) Feats require more playtesting, but Steady Up doesnothing except make you harder to move, since an area attack is 2 actions and this is 1 action to make only your next attack 1 action, so it’s still a net 2 actions. Maybe make *all* your Area Attacks 1 action until the start of the next turn, to really sell that “Living Turret” fantasy? At the same time, most Automatic weapons are Unwieldy, so even that wouldn't fit

6)Reloading and Capacity need to be cleared up a little bit: after looking more into it, it’s clear how it’s supposed to work, but it’s confusing to have weapons be “Repeating without being Repeating” and having “Capacity that isn’t Capacity”. Might be a detriment for the system in general, and I think this is the flimsiest piece of feedback I have

7)Bringing Unwieldy to 2e opens up an interesting design space in PF2e, where from experience big single attacks are discouraged by the math. Making Unwieldy weapons have advantages over normal big weapons (like Greatswords and Greataxes, for example) can push people to use stuff like Power Attack more, which I’m all for. Still, it needs support, but I’m excited to see what happens with this trait.

I am not a Gm, so I can't comment much on the Monster side of things, but nothing jumped at me that seemed wonky.

With the release of the playtest, I became very, very worried about the PF2e compatibility being made a priority for the new edition. While there are problems with Starfinder that ought to be addressed, I don't feel that jumping ship to the 3 Action System and absorbing all of those flaws instead of ironing out the old flaws is a good move.

That said, I wish to be proven wrong. However, the Soldier makes me feel very anxious in that regard, at least from what we've seen: putting Constitution as their main stat makes it very wonky to build a Soldier and have them be comparable to a Fighter, or even a Champion. It feels like a weird middleman that deals in very discreet buffs to a weapon class that we don't know enough about but seem very restrictive. As has been pointed out in a group I frequent, if progression stays the same as is, a Wizard would be just as good as doing the Soldier's job as the Soldier itself. Put the Rottary Laser in the hands of a Fighter, and the Soldier can't even compete.

I don't know, I don't feel very good about this one, lads/ladettes/everyone. If you can assuage my doubts, I'd be very very thankful. Otherwise, seems like someone's gonna have to pick up the slack and develop SF1e content on their own, because "You shouldn't change editions" doesn't seem like valid/acceptable feedback.

PS: I'm aware of the upcoming PF2e remaster, and how that might change the numbers of stuff like Class DCs, but from what I've seen/heard, that's not gonna be too much interference with the points made about soldier up there. Also, while I don't personally think it's a good idea, I am happy to see that people seem engaged and are happy with the edition change. Trust me, I want to be just as happy as you guys are.

PPS: Sorry, I keep adding stuff. I have a fear that other Starfinder classes are just gonna be made to be "Pathfinder2e class, but with a twist and weaker because of it", and I hope hope hope that won't be the case, but the playtest is making me very skeptical.

I took a stab at this a little bit after the playtest came out. Don't claim it's perfect, but maybe it'll help.

I honestly like this a lot more than the "slowly accumulate MP over time" like we have right now. Makes you more adaptable.

The numbers do seem a little off-whack though xD Do you mind if I copy this and use it as a base for some homebrewing myself?

Sepulchral has a similar profile. Instinct is fine for some extra damage, adaptation gives you some emergency healing when you're knocked into HP, augmentation flexibility is the best, but the drawback is pretty much a 50% or greater chance to lose a move action whenever you kill someone, which sucks. Maybe forgo the extra damage and spend down all your MP every round. The 10th level 1/day power is nice.

Do you think all the bonuses to single hits mean it is viable to make an Evolutionist that never uses their full attacks and just goes for single hits? I was shocked with how many damage boosters only work "once per turn", instead of being on a full attack.

Personally, I think I love the flavour of the Evolutionist more than most other classes currently in the game.

However, reading through the class, I don't think they are, overall, very good? Their purpose seems to be all about being adaptable while still being a damage dealer... but they overall just feel like a bad Vanguard in my opinion.

I'm looking for ways to improve the class, for homebrews. How would *you* change the Evolutionist? Or do you think they are fine as is? If so, do help me see them the way you do. I really want to love this class, and I do, but I'd like to also be able to love playing as one...

Hi! I'm currently playing a Magus as my character in an Age of Ashes campaign. We're in Book 1, Hellknight Hill, and I have a friend who is also playing as a Summoner, but this is specifically about my impressions with the class so far.

I'm currently playing as a Half-Elf Slidecaster Magus, using mostly cantrips and the occasional big damage spell. Our party consists of one Crossbow Ranger, one Giant Instinct Barbarian, one Draconic Summoner, one Life Oracle and me.

So far, nothing beats the feeling of nailing someone with both my sword and spell attacks on the same turn. But I feel like the Magus needs to split their focus between Int and Str/Dex so much that I fear it will get hard to keep up that type of assault consistently at higher levels. Accuracy is a big problem: if you want both of the spells and physical attacks to be balanced, you need to split your stats and lower your accuracy. Maybe something where, when you cast a spell with Combat Casting, you get a bonus to your To Hit roll equal to half the level of the spell stored in your weapon, rounded down, just for the weapon attack?

I've been enjoying the Magus very much, I just think it needs a couple tweaks to be effective as well as fun!

*Goes to the Starfinder Blog*
*Sees new Iconic*
*reads about new Iconic*
*Pharamsa, being a Good Dad, medic, and a happy death god cultist*

SOLD.

SOLD SOLD SOLD SOLD SOLD.