So let me preface this by saying that I'm not a designer & in a lot of ways class design is very foreign to me. Math was one of my poorer subjects & I'm very much a layman in this arena.
And I've also got no real conclusion to make here or point, these are just thoughts that have been going through my head that I feel the need to put down somewhere. As a consequence this might be a little rambling in some places.
Alright, so, Pathfinder has 37 classes. Forty, if you count the alternate classes of Anti-Paladin, Ninja, and Samurai, and 41 if you count the Vampire Hunter class they did for that Vampire Hunter D book. And of course there are the "Unchained" versions of another four classes.
This is not to mention the dozens of prestige classes and dozens upon dozens of archetypes.
Starfinder, in contrast, as of this posting has seven classes and eight archeytpes, which in contrast to PF archetypes which are variations on specific classes, can be laid over any class.
Now I am aware that there are many on these forums who prefer fewer classes and dislike the "rules bloat" that comes with a large number of classes. And to be sure I can understand that point of view.
Personally I'm of two minds on it. On the one hand I can look back at 3.5 and a lot of it's classes and think they're badly designed(to me, the layman who doesn't know what he's talking about), needless, silly thing. On the other hand, I've never really had that feeling with pathfinder. I don't love all of it's classes, but I see why each of them exists. What niche, both in game play & in universe, they have to fill. Even with 4e, while I didn't love a lot of it's classes I also didn't start looking side ways at a few of them until very late in the edition's lifetime.
In general I'd say I have a chronic case of alt-itus, I like making a lot of different characters and I like to have several different classes with which to do so. So while I can definitely agree that there's a point of "too much", I think where that point is is subjective, and I definitely think it's well more than seven.
Having said all of that, what I see in Starfinder is a desire to condense. Paizo definitely seems conscious of this rules bloat and wants to err on the side of caution with this game, in my opinion. They've designed several of their classes to be, for lack of a better word, modular. Concepts that would have been entire classes unto themselves in Pathfinder would be better served worked into a piece of an existing class - be it a mystic connection, operative specialization, or soldier fighting style - in Starfinder, or failing that, an archetype.
Still I feel the desire to work out what niches still need filling, both from a mechanical and thematic view point, and would be best served as complete classes rather than pieces to be fit into existing ones.
To do that, let's start by eliminating the ones we don't need, period.
The two big ones that I don't think there will be any debate on are Fighter & Rogue. Soldier & Operative are Fighter & Rogue, updated for the setting, improved upon, and given name changes. Any elements, either in the core class or popular achetypes, that have not been translated are either those that don't fit with Starfinder's system or that can be worked into new combat styles/gear boosts or specializations/exploits.
Following that same logic I feel the following classes would be better served the same way as opposed to being updated or given an entire spiritual successor.
Cavalier/Samurai: The "order" element of these classes, I feel is already kind of covered in the Star Knight archetype. Things like challenges, banners, the specific combat elements would best be worked into a soldier fighting style. The mounted elements may be served likewise with a soldier fighting style that focuses on vehicle use, or it may work better as it's own separate archetype. That is a niche I think that needs filling, but it doesn't need it's own class to do it.
Slayer: I like Slayer, and not just the band. I think it's one of the better classes in Pathfinder and it filled a niche that needed it, being more combat oriented than the skill monkey rogue, more stealth focused than the fighter, and without the nature baggage of the ranger. That being said, in Starfinder I feel this would be better served with either a more combat oriented operative specialization or a more stealth oriented fighter combat style. It doesn't need to be it's own thing here.
Swashbuckler: See above.
Gunslinger: Well everyone's kind of a gunslinger, now. I have seen a 3rd party book that works them into an archetype that I skimmed and that seems to be the best way to do it if you're going to do it, because the Gunslinger class was about more than just being proficient with fire arms, but still I don't think it warrants a class unto it's self.
Vigilante was always a bit of a hard class because it doesn't travel well in a game set on one planet let alone one that could travel to several. Not to mention several elements of it can already be seeing in Envoy & Operative. There may be more to draw on here, especially from specific archetypes such as the Brute & Magical Child, but I don't see the class as a whole making the transition.
Okay those are the ones I feel pretty confidently that we don't need full classes for right off the bat. Running theme there is that they're all martial/non-magical and that isn't really a coincidence, because the question of "what we need" is a little trickier when it comes to casters.
There are a few things we're objectively lacking when it comes to spell casters in starfinder. Prepared casters, charisma based casters, and most notably, "full" casters, i.e., casters who's spell level goes up to 9th.
Now the sense I get on that latter one is that 9th level spells and full casting is a casualty of Paizo's condensing. The current spell lists have several spells that in pathfinder were level 7, 8, and 9, currently at level 5 or 6. So while there are those who may disagree with this assessment, for the purpose of this discussion I'm going to consider "full" casters not as a niche that needs filling but one that simply doesn't exist anymore.
Now as to whether or not prepared casters & charisma based casters(not counting Solarians for the purpose of this discussion) should exist, I'm not arguing they shouldn't but I also don't know what form they should take as that's a pretty bare-bones starting point.
Taking this back to things that we "don't need", and this might become a bit more controversial, but it strikes me that most of the divine casters are non-starters in Starfinder.
Going back to what I said earlier about condensing, the mystic is probably the biggest example of that. Mystic connections are analogous to and arguably encompass everything from a cleric's domains, an oracle's mystery, a shaman's spirit, and a psychic's discipline, along with the entire concept of the druid in the xenodruid.
Likewise, the divine champion & star knight archetypes along with feats such as connection inkling, divine blessing, and the psyhic power feats, read to me as the way pathfinder wants to go for creating characters that fill the niche for such classes as Paladin/Anti-Paladin, Warpriest, and more combat oriented Clerics. Maybe we'll see more, like a divine version of the Arcane Assailant soldier fighting style, but I don't see these classes getting updated versions on their own.
Some people may find that unsatisfying but that strikes me as the direction they're going.
Keeping us on casters but switching to arcane(and I understand that Starfinder doesn't have as hard of a line between the two as Pathfinder did);
Magus, I feel, isn't going to get it's own class. It's main mechanical gimmick doesn't really translate with SF getting rid of iterative attacks. Thematically I think this is the kind of thing covered by a soldier with arcane assailant & feats to give him spell casting, but maybe you can go full archetype with it.
Bard/Skald are especially two that I just feel are unnecessary. Mechanically they're covered by the Envoy and I think that thematically they are such creatures of high fantasy that, arguably more than any other PF classes, they'd be out of place in Starfinder's setting. Just my opinion.
Moving onto occult classes, most of them are out the window. Occultist & Medium, while fun classes, just don't seem to fit within Starfinder's design philosophy. Mesmerist is already covered between Envoy & the overlord mystic connection. Maybe there's an archetype to be gained from these three, but that would be about it in my estimation.
Meanwhile, Psychic is largely covered by mystic; maybe there are a few more mystic connections to be drawn from it, but again, that's it.
Okay so those are the hard 'no's' in terms of getting entire classes based on them in my estimation. So what's left.
Barbarian is one of the few martial classes that I think thematically could stand on it's own. Thundar the Barbarian is a cited source of inspiration, after all. Mechanically there might be an argument for wrapping it up in a soldier fighting style, but I think it could go either way. If it were it's own class, I'd package bloodrager in it.
Monk/Ninja?/Brawler: One of the more common things I see on here is the desire for a martial arts based build. I often see this in the form of asking for a martial artist operative specialization, and a soldier fighting style would be another way to go, but I think there might be enough meat here for an individual class. Thematically there's some overlap with solarian but a think a chi/ki/qi based martial artist class would compliment solarians rather than compete with them. Be the Chirrut to the solarian's Obi Wan.
Inquisitor is the one divine class from Pathfinder that I think can hold up on it's own in Starfinder. I feel it's unique enough both thematically & mechanically that you could work an entire class around it, compared to the more patchwork ways they seem to go about building clerics/paladins/warpriests via divine champion/star knight archetypes, the priest theme, & select feats. Deities may not have domains & sacred weapons anymore but judgments & banes are still something that could be put to good use.
Kineticist, the odd duck out among the PF occult classes, the one I feel can't be wrapped up into a mystic connection and that fills a niche Starfinder needs filling; a ranged counterpart to the solarian. Not much else to say here other than that I feel it does fit the setting and can't be slotted into the existing classes as an archetype easily.
Alchemist is arguably the best fit for a Starfinder class out of Pathfinder's line up, given that it's themes of mad science fit just as well here as they did in pathfinder, maybe better. The addition of genetic editing & bioengineering offer great ways to expand upon the class.
Getting into looser adaptation territory, there are three more concepts for classes I think need to exist.
Firstly is a caster that focuses entirely on arcane magic in contrast to the technomancer that blends magic and technology. I'm not entirely sure what form this should take as the best I can come up with is essentially an int-based mystic with sorcerer bloodlines & witch patrons filling in for mystic connections. Maybe this is where you add in prepped casting or split the difference with arcanist-style prep to make it mechanically distinct, but I just feel thematically this is a thing that needs to exist.
The next two are different takes on the same theme; pet classes. I like the mechanic but I feel thematically there needs to be a non-technological pet class to compliment it.
I'd start by more or less combining the summoner & spiritualist into one since they were more or less the same class to start with, just with the difference being one summoned an outsider & one summoned an undead. That could be an either/or decision, like drone vs exocortex for the mechanic, with this class.
Likewise I feel there does need to be a nature based class that covers the biological pet compared to the mechanic's drone & the summoner/spiritualist's super natural creature. I'm not sure exactly how you design this class without making the xenodruid connection obsolete, but I also feel that xenodruid alone doesn't do enough to cover the nature-hero niche. While I felt that Starfinder was too sci fi to include the bard/skald classes, I also feel it's too high fantasy not to include the ranger & it's derivatives.
Maybe you take off the spellcasting all together & have the base class include combined elements of rangers, hunters, shifters, & their archetypes into something that works in Starfinder's system, and rather than having a huge selection of animals to take as companions, the pet is based off a small selection of templates like the drone & eidolon that can be flavored however you want, with eidolon evolution style upgrades being themed as genetic modifications(Oras says it's okay!) to keep them competitive, which I think is actually exactly what the legacy conversion chapter in the CRB suggests, and maybe expand type to include magical beast & plants as well as animals.
Anyway I think that's about it, all I had to say on the subject. There is of course ample possibility for entirely new, entirely original classes down the line but speculating on those wasn't my purpose here so much as pontificating upon what classes & concepts from Pathfinder could reasonably stand on their own in Starfinder, which ones needed to be condensed, & which ones worked better through other means. I'm curious to see the thoughts of anyone who managed to read through all four pages in a word doc of my ramblings on the subject.
I'd approve of a cybermonk.
If they ever release new classes, I hope they keep it to one per year, like Pathfinder 1.0 as of late.
But focusing on new races is working pretty well for Starfinder, right now.
That is an intense wall of text. I read it and only responding to a few lines of text because it was a lot. This type of discussion should really be tackled around a table or over skype.
There are a few things we're objectively lacking when it comes to spell casters in starfinder. Prepared casters, charisma based casters, and most notably, "full" casters, i.e., casters who's spell level goes up to 9th.
Why do we need prepared classes? Seems like it is on par with holding on to your VHS player when Bluray is already out. I don’t want to ever have to prepare a spell again. If I know a spell I should be able to cast it. It’s one of the reason why they took spell components out. “Why do I need to carry around a frog leg, some rabbit fur, and a apari claw to cast this spell? Just let me cast it!”
On Charisma: On the threads Charisma is regarded pretty universally as the weakest attribute. Why build a class around an attribute that barely contributes to the game? Look at the Mystic Overlord. The is focused around controlling people but uses wisdom as the key ability. Want to be pretty? Just describe yourself as pretty. It’s all just flair really.
Barbarian
Easy soldier archetype. Archetype is built around the rage mechanic basically but functions similar to blitz.
Monk/Ninja?/Brawler
Soldier (cybernetic fighter) or Solarian(StarMonk). Most people ignored this when I posted it on like 3 other threads. Want explanations on builds let me know.
The next two are different takes on the same theme; pet classes. I like the mechanic but I feel thematically there needs to be a non-technological pet class to compliment it.
I could get behind this. THOUGH, if you wanted to make a Starfinder Ranger with a companion you could by using the mechanic class. Even going exocortex. Lvl 8 you can grab scout bots and just make a bunch of those while using a long arm or even sword should you choose. I made an NPC that functioned like Crow from Evolve.
Likewise I feel there does need to be a nature based class that covers the biological pet compared to the mechanic's drone & the summoner/spiritualist's super natural creature. I'm not sure exactly how you design this class without making the xenodruid connection obsolete, but I also feel that xenodruid alone doesn't do enough to cover the nature-hero niche. While I felt that Starfinder was too sci fi to include the bard/skald classes, I also feel it's too high fantasy not to include the ranger & it's derivatives.
I think you are looking at blending Pathfinder and Starfinder too much. You seem to have a grasp of the Sstarfinder but keep getting anchored down by pathfinder themes.
Think about it like this. Technology has kind of killed the typically wizard/sorcerer who spends years in magic school trying to learn that light spell. Soldier says, "That’s nice but here's a flashlight." Here is an example of jobs that no longer exist because of technology. I see the old Wizard as a lamp lighter essentially. Even looking at examples in today’s society. Economists are saying a certain percentage of jobs we have now are going to be obsolete in a 10-15 years.
Example: Cavalier/Samurai. I know you said they shouldn’t be classes, but looking at today alone. There aren’t really samurai walking around. It’s kind of the same thing with the majority of the other classes listed.
Paizo isn’t going back to the super powerful “full casters” that were in Pathfinder. Not saying you are asking for them. Just saying for anyone still hoping for them.
I have read through the books for months now and changed my position many times about different things. You shouldn’t think of there is only being 7 classes. Multiple classes have multiple different ways you can build them. I could build you 5 different operatives/soldiers/mystics characters. Throw in multiple envoys, solarians, mechanics. You might know this, but if you haven’t talked
Disclaimer: If my response is a little confusing it’s probably because the post was so long. A lot to think about.
Why do we need prepared classes?
I didn't say we need them, I said they aren't there. Though I do suppose the phrasing was a little loaded in that direction. Personally I prefer playing spontaneous casters because I'm lazy but then I prefer not playing casters at all, but I know some people like their prepared casting.
Think about it like this. Technology has kind of killed the typically wizard/sorcerer who spends years in magic school trying to learn that light spell. Soldier says, "That’s nice but here's a flashlight." Here is an example of jobs that no longer exist because of technology. I see the old Wizard as a lamp lighter essentially. Even looking at examples in today’s society. Economists are saying a certain percentage of jobs we have now are going to be obsolete in a 10-15 years.
I mean, that's looking at the western, industrialized world and ignoring(admittedly small and largely statistically irrelevant) groups like, say, the Amish. Which is all well & good for plotting out economic growth but when it comes to story telling, less so.
There are going to be people who ignore technology & focus entirely on magic and mysticism, just as there are people who ignore magic & focus entirely on technology. Technically they have that as mystics in the game and maybe I'm being a little pedantic in wanting a class that's flavor is 'got their power through study rather than divine will', but the mystic is still flavored more as a divine/spiritual/psychic class than an arcane one. If anything the mystic shows that magic can still keep up with technology to some extent; I'm not asking for an arcane caster that's head & shoulders above everyone else, just something that's competitive with the mystic & technomancer.
There are people who're going to come from more nature-centric worlds that focus more on organic technology; technically we have that, too, in Castrovel, but I don't feel that we have any classes to adequately represent a lot of what's going on there, magically speaking. Playing a khizar, for instance, as anything other than a xenodruid would feel a little off to me, personally, and there aren't really options for playing a lashunta who's bonded themselves to one of those alien dinosaurs which, if I'm not mistaken, they still do. What I'm saying here is that assessment assumes that one way of progression is the only way of doing it while another alien culture may progress in a way that's doesn't involve technology completely overtaking magic, and diversity of culture is one of the draws of space opera.
It also precludes scenarios such as the PC's crashing on a pre-spaceflight, preindustrial world(if we ever get direct ports of PF classes, we're getting them because Paizo runs an AP with that scenario). Ruined Cloud deals with primitives but it's primitives living in a confined space in the ruins of advanced technology.
A lot of the more fantasy slanted things in my initial post actually came to me when I was working up homebrew stats for races from various other properties I like; way I do that is I tend to make the races conform to the setting I'm homebrewing them into rather than make the rules conform to them, but I digress.
Point being that I was working on statting up races from Guild Wars 2 because I feel the asura & charr from that game are perfect fits for Starfinder, and the sylvari can work with a little tweaking, I was struggling with the norn. Partly because they're just 9-foot tall humans in appearance but also because culturally they are such creatures of nature. In game, because guild wars doesn't believe in class restrictions, you can play them as whatever, be it necromancer or steampunk, guntoating engineers, but lore wise and culture wise they're a race of barbarians, druids, rangers, that kind of thing.
And I thought to myself, there really need to be options to represent that kind of culture even in space.
Eh, I am rambling a bit at this point. Sleep deprived with my insomnia ramping up.
Point being that while I appreciate and really enjoy that Starfinder is Science Fantasy, and I think that thru-line needs to continue, I also think that if there are going to be more classes - which as I stated, I think there should be - then at least a handful of them should play more heavily to the Fantasy part than the Science part. Not all of them, not a majority of them, but a couple of them.
I'm also a huge Shadowrun fan(another cited influence on SF) and there's no shortage of pure wizards there.
|
There are going to be people who ignore technology & focus entirely on magic and mysticism, just as there are people who ignore magic & focus entirely on technology. Technically they have that as mystics in the game and maybe I'm being a little pedantic in wanting a class that's flavor is 'got their power through study rather than divine will', but the mystic is still flavored more as a divine/spiritual/psychic class than an arcane one. If anything the mystic shows that magic can still keep up with technology to some extent; I'm not asking for an arcane caster that's head & shoulders above everyone else, just something that's competitive with the mystic & technomancer.
I think what you are seeing is a shift in cultural approach to magic. Full casting may simply not be as advantageous as have a connection to sometime of universal theme or truth (or to having it be an inherent and integrated aspect of manipulating technology).
Even in Pathfinder, there were forms of magic long forgotten or barely retained and then only to a small isolated few from what the current understanding of magic was offering and had available. It is possible that those traditions of pure arcane might have been abandoned or forgotten over time just like things are abandoned or forgotten overtime in the real world.
There are people who're going to come from more nature-centric worlds that focus more on organic technology; technically we have that, too, in Castrovel, but I don't feel that we have any classes to adequately represent a lot of what's going on there, magically speaking. Playing a khizar, for instance, as anything other than a xenodruid would feel a little off to me, personally, and there aren't really options for playing a lashunta who's bonded themselves to one of those alien dinosaurs which, if I'm not mistaken, they still do. What I'm saying here is that assessment assumes that one way of progression is the only way of doing it while another alien culture may progress in a way that's doesn't involve technology completely overtaking magic, and diversity of culture is one of the draws of space opera.
Actually I think if you build a wild warden soldier with the phrenic adept archetype and connection inkling feat, you could pull off a half decent ranger impersonator. (of course without an animal companion). But I am sure we will eventually see some of that. They really just started developing Starfinder and they have a much slower production cycle on it then they did pathfinder.
Point being that while I appreciate and really enjoy that Starfinder is Science Fantasy, and I think that thru-line needs to continue, I also think that if there are going to be more classes - which as I stated, I think there should be - then at least a handful of them should play more heavily to the Fantasy part than the Science part. Not all of them, not a majority of them, but a couple of them.
I'm not opposed to some more fantasy aligned classes then what is already available although in truth I would like to see them present as either new and additional class options or new archetypes then straight up just new classes. However, with that said I'm gonna disagree that there isn't already plenty of fantasy influence and options in the game. Most people think of traditional "high fantasy" when they think of fantasy. I think that high fantasy starts to break down when several of its staples and constants are exported into other fiction approaches.
Myself, I'd like to see a Starfinder version of the Alchemist. I see it as the cousin of the Technomancer, transforming materials and living beings rather than manipulating energy and fields. I loved the bomb throwing and potions in Pathfinder but thought it needed demolitions. I envisage an artillery/healer/utility class.
And between The Alchemist and The Technomancer you will find me..
Lol
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of all the things present in PF and not in SF, what I think we need is a charisma-based spellcaster.
Taking queues from sorcer but updating it to SF's setting, the class could be more of a "magic mutant" that, like the sorcerer, casts spells by natural ability, but its framed as being the result of evolution
They could choose from "mutant origins" that grant unique abilities. Technomagical cybernetics? Genetic experimentation? Cursed by an alien god? There are quite a few avenues to explore.
...
Okay now I want to make this class myself.
I would like to see a Warlock-type. Let's call it a "Biolancer." A Cha- or Con-based ranged striker that uses innate abilities rather than spells to make psychic attacks.
I say this, and then it occurs to me that I'm basically talking about a ranged Solarian. And that would be okay.
Actually having the class role be determined by whether they choose Con or Cha as their primary would be really interesting. Con-based Biolancers could sacrifice their own Stamina and HP for physical damage boosts, while Cha-based Biolancers could inflict conditions by risking a lesser version of the same condition (like they save to inflict Fatigued on themselves for one round, but the target suffers it for two rounds, and at higher levels the Cha Biolancer applies Exhausted instead of Fatigued to the enemy, while still only suffering Fatigued).
Hmm.
I would like to see a Warlock-type. Let's call it a "Biolancer." A Cha- or Con-based ranged striker that uses innate abilities rather than spells to make psychic attacks.
I say this, and then it occurs to me that I'm basically talking about a ranged Solarian. And that would be okay.
Actually having the class role be determined by whether they choose Con or Cha as their primary would be really interesting. Con-based Biolancers could sacrifice their own Stamina and HP for physical damage boosts, while Cha-based Biolancers could inflict conditions by risking a lesser version of the same condition (like they save to inflict Fatigued on themselves for one round, but the target suffers it for two rounds, and at higher levels the Cha Biolancer applies Exhausted instead of Fatigued to the enemy, while still only suffering Fatigued).
Hmm.
That isn't far from what I was thinking with an updated kineticist.
So, how about a Paladin class, hybrid of the Soldier/Mystic or its own class, using mystic spells?
Soldier class, Priest theme, Divine Champion archetype is basically a Paladin. You could also throw in things like Connection Inkling, Divine Blessing, or even the psychic/stage magic feats if you wanted to be more of a caster. Probably want Arcane Assailant as primary fighting style, and then you'd have free pick of the secondary style. Star Knight also offers a good archetype choice if you prefer it to Divine Champion.
Yeah, you do have to jump through some hoops to get there, but that the right combination of theme, feats, and archetypes come together to cover the paladin, warpriest, and even cleric(I'm currently toying around with an android exocortex mechanic star knight paladin of Iomedae) to an extent really drove home to me that a class needs to be both thematically & mechanically distinct for it to warrant the creation of a new class in Paizo's eyes, if they feel that any class can function as a divine warrior if you layer the right parts on top of it.
Which, granted, wasn't entirely reflected in my choices. Sometimes I was looking at it from the angle of "what can hold up on it's own as a class" vs "what can't be easily condensed into something less than a full class".