Any plans for new classes?


General Discussion

51 to 100 of 138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Commodore_RB wrote:
Starfinder needs more classes.

Highly debatable. What would new classes bring to the table that new archetypes and expanded class options (such as operative exploits or soldier styles) wouldn't?

Those seven classes are extremely modular and easy to work with, so much so, that I think the designers planned ahead a bit better this time around.

Every new class added to the game would require continuing support. This would only spread our available options too thinly--especially if your GM doesn't allow certain new classes.

On the other hand, if the designers focused on expanding the archetypes and class options of existing classes (which I suspect they intended all along as you could cover all of the same themes and ideas the new base classes would have covered anyways), then there will never be a complaint of a given class not getting enough support (as there is in Pathfinder and every edition before it that fell into that trap).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Commodore_RB wrote:

I'm boggling at the attempts to shut down requests for new classes here. The existing seven are all fairly flexible, yes, but let's not pretend you can make anything like a kineticist yet. There are just seven classes now. Even Baby's First D&D, 5th Edition, has twelve classes. Starfinder needs more classes.

I would love to port in a void kineticist, very space.

I agree, I feel that any suggestion adding or modifying rules seem to be met with unending oppisition. While I have not yet played a magic user in a game yet, I have seen them used in a game I am in. With seeing them in use and researching the book i can say the existing classes do not emulate a wizard of the past IMHO. I understand that sacrifices would have to be made to bring a full mage into the Starfinder universe.

Undoubtedly we will see more classes than what has been presented in the core book if pathfinder is any indication, the pack worlds book itself already expanded the archtypes we could use by at least twice if not more.


I'm not sure that "emulate a wizard of the past" is a thing high on the developers' priority list. Of all the potential legacy traps that Starfinder avoided, the "full caster" is maybe the most significant.

The sacrifice that would have to be made to bring a "full mage" into the Starfinder universe is that it would have to be so significantly different from a legacy wizard as to be unrecognizable, or else risk the entire balance of the game.


Something akin to the warlock is certainly doable, though. And no, the casty-blaster is not archetypable. Look, you can lobby for less content all you want, but this thread is for "I want to pay dollars for this kind of content", namely, more classes.


I'm not opposed to more classes, if they're well thought-out. Casty-blaster is actually a good idea. Ranged Solarian, basically. That's a tasty niche.

It's just that "full caster" is the most requested new class, and it's an idea fraught with potential catastrophe.


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I would be interested in something that let me put on a suit of armor, to fight. I think it should also allow for different ways of doing that armor. I'm thinking of something like;

  • Power Rangers for magic (Mighty Morphing)
  • Guyver for a bio version (its an old anime/manga)
  • Iron Man for the technology version(ah snap y'all know who this is right?)
  • Tekkaman for a magic/tech (another old anime)
  • Sailor Moon for more mystical magic(an old/new anime)

Oh, you get the new part to add to your armor as upgrades! [so the kiddies have to buy the new toy, those shows were exploitatively looking back]

I am getting more excited about this class as I am writing. I really hope this can be a thing in the future. OH, you can have a party of 5 with different color armor. AND a mysterious helper can swoop in the help them and disappears!! He could have a top hat and green/white/black and gold armor!!!

...I am having way too much fun with this!


C_Trigger wrote:
I would be interested in something that let me put on a suit of armor, to fight. I think it should also allow for different ways of doing that armor. I'm thinking of something like;
  • Power Rangers for magic (Mighty Morphing)
  • Guyver for a bio version (its an old anime/manga)
  • Iron Man for the technology version(ah snap y'all know who this is right?)
  • Tekkaman for a magic/tech (another old anime)
  • Sailor Moon for more mystical magic(an old/new anime)

So you want to see iron man docking with his teammates in a miniskirt doing tentacle porn? Is that what I’m reading?

That’s a train wreck I don’t think I could look away from....or ever unsee even with therapy


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From "The Expanse" (S2/3), you can definitely get a feel for a "Scientist" class/archetype in Praxideke Meng (Botanist).

He has deep Life/Physical Science knowledges and effective Engineering skills (he installs an efficient plant-based atmospheric filter system to extend the lifespan of the ship's overtaxed filters). That said, a Soldier/Operative character takes care in training Prax in weapons, for a rescue attempt.

I think it's a worthy class or architype. I'd pair it with Technomancer, but it would be interesting to see Operatives, Mystics (Druid Scientists?), or even Envoys in this role.

Mechanic? Definitely...a hard scientist/engineer.

Level 2: Rational Mental Viewpoint, some form of minor magic resistance. +2 to Will, something else?

Worth pursuing?


Some sort of bio-engineer/doctor class. They could mutate themselves, heal, chuck grenades that unleash oozes, create sleeping gas bombs capable of taking out gangs of gunsligers, gain new bio-engineered abilities as they advance in level, etc..

A space barbarian class.

A hybrid envoy/operative/technomancer like class that is basically a space bard, but that would be named something cooler, like 'cosmic loremaster' or 'cosmic vagabond'. The would be jacks of all trades with a disparate assortment of abilities and a smattering of spells that were mostly divinations and illusions.

A hybrid soldier/mystic class that is a psychic warrior.

A chaotician class that has abilities that allow them to understand and manipulate chance and entropy.

The xenomorph-- a class like the wilder, but that gains abilities from various alien species.

A witch class with 6 caster levels, and more closely associated with hags, fey, and/or other worldly entities. Each subclass should have a different type of patron-- hags, fey, daemons, asathoth, etc..

Also note that many pathfinder classes work just as well post gap. In particular I think the classes kineticist, mesmerist, vampire hunter, vigilante, spiritualist, pyschic, ranger all make great science fantasy classes.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

While I've already voiced my opinion that I think there is room for more classes, many of those can already be done, or would be better done through archetypes and themes. Not all -- if, say, updated versions of the Alchemist or Kineticist were made for Starfinder, they're definitely unique enough to need to be their own classes. I'm not sure on some of the others, since I'm not familiar with all of those classes.

Space Barbarian - Berserker Soldier Fighting Style, rather than a class of its own.

Psychic warrior sounds more like a soldier with the phrenic adept archetype; psychic in general is phrenic adept, probably mystic if you wanted to go a highly focused psychic. I do think there's more room to expand on psychic abilities, though.

Ranger can be either a ranged soldier with the Wild Guardian theme, or a Mystic Xenodruid who's more combat oriented if you wanted more of a caster ranger.

Vampire Hunter and Vigilante both sound like they'd be good ones to convert to themes, rather than keeping as classes -- I could see any class potentially becoming one.

Witch, given the service to patrons, might actually be handled better as a mystic with a unique connection(s), rather than its own class.

Hmm...now I'm wondering if a companion could be handled via archetype as well, that way you could do a XenoDruid or Wild Guardian Soldier (Ranger) with an animal companion as readily as a technomancer with a robotic familiar or a necromancer with a permanent raised undead minion. I may need to play with that a bit and see what I can come up with! :-)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The companion creature for a XenoDruid or Wild Guardian Soldier (Ranger) would need to look less like an animal companion and more like a summoner's eidolon, mechanically speaking. Having a customizable build system in place is the only way you could possibly emulate all of the countless alien fauna in the universe.

Perhaps something similar to Starfinders summon mechanics from Alien Archive, only a little bit more robust? Or the mechanic's drone?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

no new classes. more archetypes.

you want an eidolon? fine. EVERYONE CAN HAVE IT: soldier, solarion, technomancer, everyone. just gotta swipe some stuff out.

want alchemist stuff? fine. EVERYONE CAN HAVE IT.

it's best to do it that way. maximum flexibility. maximum customizability without breaking the game, or having complexity where it's not needed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Yakman wrote:
no new classes. more archetypes.

I'm more in agreement with this. More archtypes like Pact Worlds, maybe more backgrounds.

However I'd like to see more class options. More Envoy Improvisations and Talents, more Technomancer Magic Hacks etc. Of course there's the danger of adjusting the power curve by making options that are too good to the point they become mandatory or no brainer choices.


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Robert Gooding wrote:
C_Trigger wrote:
I would be interested in something that let me put on a suit of armor, to fight. I think it should also allow for different ways of doing that armor. I'm thinking of something like;
  • Power Rangers for magic (Mighty Morphing)
  • Guyver for a bio version (its an old anime/manga)
  • Iron Man for the technology version(ah snap y'all know who this is right?)
  • Tekkaman for a magic/tech (another old anime)
  • Sailor Moon for more mystical magic(an old/new anime)

So you want to see iron man docking with his teammates in a miniskirt doing tentacle porn? Is that what I’m reading?

That’s a train wreck I don’t think I could look away from....or ever unsee even with therapy

Sarcasm?


Isaac Zephyr wrote:
Yakman wrote:
no new classes. more archetypes.

I'm more in agreement with this. More archtypes like Pact Worlds, maybe more backgrounds.

However I'd like to see more class options. More Envoy Improvisations and Talents, more Technomancer Magic Hacks etc. Of course there's the danger of adjusting the power curve by making options that are too good to the point they become mandatory or no brainer choices.

Personally, I'm the opposite. I like archetypes that are tailored to a class, for example there are 35 archetypes for the Investigator alone in Pathfinder. I do not like the one size fits all approach in Starfinder as the utility for each archetype varies widely by class. I would rather see focused archetypes for classes rather than a generic that may be too good in some situations and really poor in others.

As for themes, they are too static and ignore character growth (we can go into a new class but we can't change our background even if we are no longer behaving in that direction. Once an outlaw, always an outlaw, apparently.) They are not a replacement for more classes.

More class options are great. More possible class abilities are great as well.

If we can have 41 classes in Pathfinder (not counting Unchained variants)with each having a significant number of customized archetypes, it is certainly possible to have more than 7 for Starfinder.


I think there is room for a few more classes. A kineticist type class would be welcome, with some scifi adjustments of course. I'd like to see a monk-like class, and I know we have the solarian, and it could be done as an archetype, but I'd like to see it be its own thing. And finally, I'd like to see a charisma caster. Perhaps something akin to a biotech mechanic sorcerer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Silas Stadatilas wrote:
Isaac Zephyr wrote:
Yakman wrote:
no new classes. more archetypes.

I'm more in agreement with this. More archtypes like Pact Worlds, maybe more backgrounds.

However I'd like to see more class options. More Envoy Improvisations and Talents, more Technomancer Magic Hacks etc. Of course there's the danger of adjusting the power curve by making options that are too good to the point they become mandatory or no brainer choices.

Personally, I'm the opposite. I like archetypes that are tailored to a class, for example there are 35 archetypes for the Investigator alone in Pathfinder. I do not like the one size fits all approach in Starfinder as the utility for each archetype varies widely by class. I would rather see focused archetypes for classes rather than a generic that may be too good in some situations and really poor in others.

As for themes, they are too static and ignore character growth (we can go into a new class but we can't change our background even if we are no longer behaving in that direction. Once an outlaw, always an outlaw, apparently.) They are not a replacement for more classes.

More class options are great. More possible class abilities are great as well.

If we can have 41 classes in Pathfinder (not counting Unchained variants)with each having a significant number of customized archetypes, it is certainly possible to have more than 7 for Starfinder.

nah.

In starfinder we already have like 50 playable races. We have these flexible classes from the get go. We have themes. We have archetypes. There's plenty of skill points to go around.

You got customization up the wazoo.


I can see room for more "niche" classes such as the Solarian, based on the Starfinder setting... a ysoki junkyard artificer, a shirren quitinous-armored gladiator and such. But I believe it will be quite sometime before we see the 8th class.

They expanded a lot on themes and archetypes on Pact Worlds, and Armory seems to be the first dabble into more class options:

"A wide range of new equipment-themed player options, including class features for every class!

I bet the Starship book will also go towards this route, with class options to better connect with starship roles.

I'm a class hoarder, with dozens of 3rd party classes collected in Pathfinder 1.0, but I'm quite satisfied with the direction Starfinder is taking.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Agreed it’s nice to have classes where there is no right way to build so instead of having 50 classes that almost have to be built a certain way we have 7 that can do 100 different builds effectively


For me the sweet spot of classes is higher than 7. I can concede that Pathfinder had too many but I think you can have well more than seven without the classes being constrained in how you build them.

In regards to the notion of an updated alchemist/scientist class type, I'd argue that the issue with the existing classes that focus on science & technology is they're all physical/hard sciences. Computers, tech, that kind of thing. There isn't really an option for a bio-engineer life scientist or even really a chemist. The only thing that really deals with organics/nature is the xenodruid.

And personally I'd rather see a class dedicated to that kinda stuff - that can still be built a hundred different ways - than to have an archetype that has to be slapped onto existing chassis.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
FormerFiend wrote:

For me the sweet spot of classes is higher than 7. I can concede that Pathfinder had too many but I think you can have well more than seven without the classes being constrained in how you build them.

In regards to the notion of an updated alchemist/scientist class type, I'd argue that the issue with the existing classes that focus on science & technology is they're all physical/hard sciences. Computers, tech, that kind of thing. There isn't really an option for a bio-engineer life scientist or even really a chemist. The only thing that really deals with organics/nature is the xenodruid.

And personally I'd rather see a class dedicated to that kinda stuff - that can still be built a hundred different ways - than to have an archetype that has to be slapped onto existing chassis.

ummm... just do an exocortex mechanic with a focus on that stuff. boom. you are the best life science / medicine dude in the world.

again, i think the answer is more archetypes. not more classes.


FormerFiend wrote:
There isn't really an option for a bio-engineer life scientist or even really a chemist. The only thing that really deals with organics/nature is the xenodruid.

Well, themes do that to some extent. Biotechnician is about bio sciences, and the Warden is more of a ranger-type.

Granted, those aren't heavy in class mechanics.

I think that a mad scientist might be interesting; another pet class that uses a "seed" to constitute a biological organism similar to the mechanic's drone. The action economy would have to be looked at, because having a living creature rely on the drone actions would be a little weird. Maybe make the creatures weaker than drones, but psychically connected to the scientist and able to use a full set of actions.


Dracomicron wrote:
I think that a mad scientist might be interesting; another pet class that uses a "seed" to constitute a biological organism similar to the mechanic's drone.

Summon Creature from Alien Archive 1 kinda got that covered.


The Ragi wrote:
Dracomicron wrote:
I think that a mad scientist might be interesting; another pet class that uses a "seed" to constitute a biological organism similar to the mechanic's drone.
Summon Creature from Alien Archive 1 kinda got that covered.

Those things are actually pretty worthless, though. The tiny ones you get early take an almost-assuredly deadly AoO just to get into melee attack range.

Unless I'm misremembering and the level 1 summons are Small.


Dracomicron wrote:

Those things are actually pretty worthless, though. The tiny ones you get early take an almost-assuredly deadly AoO just to get into melee attack range.

Unless I'm misremembering and the level 1 summons are Small.

I have a summoner technomancer player, and it usually is quite useful:

If you downgrade the spell and get 3 creatures, in melee they can be used to flank, or soak one successful attack each, and in range some of them actually have decent bonuses to hit, and not terrible damage. You can avoid AoOs by summoning straight on top of the target – although soaking an enemy’s AoO also has it uses.

And the creatures from the highest level available are quite decent when you first choose the spell.

The weak point of SC is the duration, only one round per caster level. At early levels, the spell is kinda pointless.


The system of classes in Starfinder seems reminiscent of the system used in d20 Modern of a single class built around each of the six ability scores and customized from there based on talent trees and advanced classes (pieces of both resemble archetypes) and modified from the outset by starting occupations (i.e., themes). Of the seven classes created for Starfinder, we are only missing a class with a key ability score for constitution (i.e. the tough hero).

At times I did feel like d20 Modern's presentation of its basic classes was too generic, that the classes lacked a sense of identity and flavor from the start. But as I got to know the system, I came to appreciate the flexibility inherent in the character creation and advancement rules. Despite my appreciation, I also still enjoyed the way that D&D 3.x and Pathfinder classes presented themselves as flavorful icons and tropes straight from the package. I got to search for hours through various supplements for just the right flavor of character class, letting my imagination roam with each one I read. This, in itself, felt fun and satisfying -- for a while.

Then came the craving again for more variety and customization. And Pathfinder gave us archetypes—lots of them. These predetermined sets of replacement abilities worked much like talent trees and portions of the advanced classes system in d20 Modern, but still lacked the level of customization allowed by the latter.

Later we got more classes that, more or less, re-skinned familiar numbers and mechanics with subtle variations on equally familiar themes. They entertained and added novelty, but, as others here have pointed out, at the cost of system bloat and lack of sustainability of support.

I think everyone who's weighed in here for more classes or more archetypes or something else entirely all have valid points. I have played and enjoyed aspects of the game experience from each perspective. I'm hopeful that the game moves forward, continuing to entertain and open doors of enjoyment for me and future generations of gamers, like my youngest daughter, who, at 10, is finding her role as the lashunta technomancer captain of a spaceship a highly satisfying experience with a galaxy of options to explore.

Acquisitives

If I was going to advocate for the Scientist that everyone brings up.. i would go for a poisoner type. Someone who brews up their own poisons and toxins, and can make use of that red-headed step-child known as the Needler Pistol. As you progress through levels, the various variables on poisons can become customized.

With how much more effective poisons are in Starfinder, I argue this could lead to having a lot of flexibility in toxin options, fill a unique utility, be effective, and still be balanced.

Also keeps the thematic of someone in science, playing in a lab. Then using that science to adventure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
"Handsome" Twik wrote:

If I was going to advocate for the Scientist that everyone brings up.. i would go for a poisoner type. Someone who brews up their own poisons and toxins, and can make use of that red-headed step-child known as the Needler Pistol. As you progress through levels, the various variables on poisons can become customized.

With how much more effective poisons are in Starfinder, I argue this could lead to having a lot of flexibility in toxin options, fill a unique utility, be effective, and still be balanced.

Also keeps the thematic of someone in science, playing in a lab. Then using that science to adventure.

The problem becomes "But my scientist PC concept has nothing to do with chemistry or biology. Why would I be an expert in poison, I'm an archeologist!" Any new class really needs to be broad in its scope.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Was going to say, that scientist concept would work better as an archtype, letting you pepper in a poison concept on a class. Soldier Scientist? Use the injection longarms in Pact Worlds, or a fusion. Operative? Sniper build with Trick Attack to flat foot them. More possibilities than having a base class, while still keeping the concept interesting.


New classes would be nice, but I'd prefer to see them expand more on the current classes.


I wouldn't be against a couple of new classes. The ranged solarian idea that's been tossed around would be really could, and I think that there might be a mechanical niche for a character class that's all about self-augmentation - perhaps choosing between a cybernetics or bio-enhancements build path at 1st level. What I'd be wary of is the kind of glut and eventual redundancy and obsolescence we eventually saw in Pathfinder, which ended up with over 30 classes. I'd hope to avoid a big book that includes six or even four new classes. I'd rather see something like one, maybe two new classes per year in supplements that are also focused on a certain concept, along with relevant options for existing classes as well. If there was a big enhancements book that was just a huge list of gear, I'd be kind of "meh." If it featured a new class, a few archtypes and themes, and a closer look at the technology and culture of augmentations of each of the pact worlds, I'd snap it up in a heartbeat.

Another way to go about whether or not and how to add new classes might be to think about where players are lacking options. A third full BAB class (maybe one that's all about defense with some crowd control?) and a third caster class (Currently no cha based caster, and there could be a fun niche way to make a pure blaster-caster).


Well if you read the weakened section of the charisma poison track, they’re clearly planning a spell casting class that uses charisma


Robert Gooding wrote:
Well if you read the weakened section of the charisma poison track, they’re clearly planning a spell casting class that uses charisma

Or it exists for Envoys, Solarians, and Pathfinder Legacy classes. If it wasn't there it would make Sorcerers a very nice choice due to a lack of targeted poison.


Here's an idea: The Sorcerer Architype.

Dark Archive

I would love a 3rd or 4th-level caster, some kind of melee/casting hybrid, occupying a design space between the Solarian and the Mystic. I'd also like a magic-using Soldier, which could also use 3rd or 4th-level spells.

A class I would highly enjoy would be a conversion of the Medium - i.e. a "5th-man" that can swap roles regularly for the party's needs, at the risk of falling under the GM's influence in some way.


"Handsome" Twik wrote:

If I was going to advocate for the Scientist that everyone brings up.. i would go for a poisoner type. Someone who brews up their own poisons and toxins, and can make use of that red-headed step-child known as the Needler Pistol. As you progress through levels, the various variables on poisons can become customized.

With how much more effective poisons are in Starfinder, I argue this could lead to having a lot of flexibility in toxin options, fill a unique utility, be effective, and still be balanced.

Also keeps the thematic of someone in science, playing in a lab. Then using that science to adventure.

I made one of those for my players in our Starcraft game. Creative commons covered, so have fun.

Generally, feels like warlock, scientist, and something occult are classes required.


I think that there isn't a huge amount of design space for new classes - the mystic covers all divine/primal/occult spellcasters by being a vague class that covers them all, and the rest of the classes do very well at covering the other themes.

The only things I can think of is maybe;

-some kind of shapeshifter (perhaps with its equivalent to fighting styles or connections or whatever being to choose what creature type it can shift into, so you can be an animal shifter like the Druid, or turn into robots or abberations for something a bit more sci-fi). Maybe also with the ability to adopt abilities/traits of those creatures when not fully shifted as it's option for when not shifted (maybe spends most of combat just being a human or whatever with a robots integrated weapons or an animals claws, then being that creature fully for a few rounds like a barbarians rage).

-A true magic/combat hybrid (like the arcane assailant soldier but actually has spells)

-A ranger type class with good skills in survival, piloting, and favoured enemy/hunters Mark type abilities (but probably no animal companion)

-Space barbarian?

-A full psionic caster?

However, most of those themes are achievable to some degree with backgrounds, archetypes and feats. You can pick up limited spellcasting from feats and archetypes, polymorph magic is being added in bestiary 2, some lesser shapeshifting and body modding weirdness already exists from some race choices and one of the pact worlds backgrounds (and from biotech implants, and the symbiotes in the alien archive), and a no-pet ranger is fairly close to what an operative or soldier with the survivalist background is. (Operative with the alien archive ability and survivalist is very rangery), and two of the mystic connections portray a psionic pretty strongly)


More types of spellcasters is always useful, even with the explicit styles of magic removed. For example, my main Divine caster is built as a technomancer because I couldn't see triune giving their priests a way to summon first world creatures and not robots, and the idea of getting power but still needing your own technological abilities to use it seems very fitting with how Triune's biggest gift to the universe was handled. So I would disagree on the Mystic covering all types.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:
More types of spellcasters is always useful, even with the explicit styles of magic removed. For example, my main Divine caster is built as a technomancer because I couldn't see triune giving their priests a way to summon first world creatures and not robots, and the idea of getting power but still needing your own technological abilities to use it seems very fitting with how Triune's biggest gift to the universe was handled. So I would disagree on the Mystic covering all types.

Right, but you made a character not covered by the mystic class using an existing class, in the technomancer. So the original point being all spellcasters are covered may not have been confirmed but it certainly wasn't refuted.

-Beta


First off all, you're all kidding yourselves if you think there won't be more classes coming. Seriously, it's a D20 system based on 3.5. More classes are all but assured.

But, I do have to say, I disagree pretty strongly about the 'archetypes solves this!' thing. No, the archetype system is pretty bad. there are a scant few decent archetypes in Pact Worlds, but the archetype system as a whole is flawed. Most classes lose out on too many important things.

Envoy basically loses the main meat of their class, Operatives and Mechanics lose important pieces. There is no customization here, no variation. You lose good bits to get meh bits. They should have, and should still, go back to the way pathfinder did it with archetypes being tailored around specific classes to vary up how they feel.

The thing about one size fits all is that it ends up just not fitting anyone well.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
pandapeep wrote:

...the archetype system is pretty bad. ... Most classes lose out on too many important things.

You lose good bits to get meh bits.

...

The thing about one size fits all is that it ends up just not fitting anyone well.

I dunno about that. You're right that the Core Rulebook archetypes are terrible, but some of the newer archetypes are pretty good.


Some will work better with specific classes; it's just a matter of finding out which is which.

And starfinder archetypes are more like pathfinder prestige classes. You better build your character towards the archetype, instead of looking for something that modifies or improves your class.


I made a class that focuses on shapeshifting technology. Nothing in the existing stuff comes anywhere near it. If that's possible, then there is certainly room for classes that function sufficiently differently.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I gave it a bit of thought last night. I still prefer the idea of more archtypes or themes as they are more accessible and interchangeable giving players more options and agency.

However, some of the ideas I think would actually fall better under class options, not new classes. There's a lot of growing room for things like new Envoy Improvisations and Technomancer Magic Hacks. Some of the ideas presented above sound like they could work as essentially patches to the existing classes, and in doing so allow for those new ideas to be tweak and expanded with the base class that fits their framework.

Example, the "Medic" framework is alrwady there in the Envoy. Giving some Medicine-focused improvs that heal I think would do more than making a whole extra class. Or the just above shapeshifting, it could be bioware based, an archtype that can be tagged into any class, or possibly even a Mystic connection.


A ranger/explorer of some kind would be nice. A true spell caster too (the tecnhomancer is more of a ranged magus, and relies on weapons, hacks for weapons, and shooting spells from the weapon). A scientist can work too. A psionic class based on telekinesis. An investigator/detective. A savage fighter.


A few thoughts I had, they seem more like archetypes than classes though.

Robot Pet Class: Either enhancing a mechanics drone or giving a technomancer a permanent junk bot.

Melee Operative: Either a martial artist or a close range weapon user who uses dex for melee attacks.

Primitive Warrior: A soldier varient for low tech worlders


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
A ranger/explorer of some kind would be nice. A true spell caster too (the tecnhomancer is more of a ranged magus, and relies on weapons, hacks for weapons, and shooting spells from the weapon). A scientist can work too. A psionic class based on telekinesis. An investigator/detective. A savage fighter.

There is literally an explorer specialization for the operative.

I suppose no one will convince the unconvinced about fullcasters but they basically already said, No, it was an intended part of the design to leave them out.

I don't know what you mean by scientist but a lot of classes could have people be scientists.

There is already psionic Archtype (phrenic Adept) and the mystic class is basically able to be flavored as mental powers especially with mystic paths like overlord and mindbreaker.

And again there is LITERALLY a operative specialization called DETECTIVE.

As Far as a savage fighter I assume you mean something like a barbarian, but that would honestly be more like an archetype or in my opinion an even better soldier Fighting style. That being said the Mystic Devastator Path actually makes for a pretty savage character, even including it's own Rage like ability.

-Beta


Greydoch wrote:


There is literally an explorer specialization for the operative.

I suppose no one will convince the unconvinced about fullcasters but they basically already said, No, it was an intended part of the design to leave them out.

I don't know what you mean by scientist but a lot of classes could have people be scientists.

There is already psionic Archtype (phrenic Adept) and the mystic class is basically able to be flavored as mental powers especially with mystic paths like overlord and mindbreaker.

And again there is LITERALLY a operative specialization called DETECTIVE.

As Far as a savage fighter I assume you mean something like a barbarian, but that would honestly be more like an archetype or in my opinion an even better soldier Fighting style. That being said the Mystic Devastator Path actually makes for a pretty savage character, even including it's own Rage like ability.

-Beta

In PF 1, a rogue can be a detective, but that did not stop Paizo to give us the investigator class. You could make a hunter with your ranger, but that did not stop Paizo to build the Hunter. You could make an unarmed fighter, yet we got the Brawler. A wizard can be flavored to be a hedge wizard wise woman, but we still can play a witch.

"X class can be a Y" and "here is Y, with custom mechanics built for them" are two different things.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

And that's exactly the approach they're trying to move AWAY from in Starfinder -- even as someone who does think there's more room for classes than the core that we have now, I very much _don't_ want to see the same kind of class bloat that Pathfinder suffers from.


Tyrnis wrote:
And that's exactly the approach they're trying to move AWAY from in Starfinder -- even as someone who does think there's more room for classes than the core that we have now, I very much _don't_ want to see the same kind of class bloat that Pathfinder suffers from.

Do you have any proof of this, besides "we have 7 classes in the CRB, because we litterally could not cram a single extra word on it with so much we had to cover"?

A lot of people was happy in PF1 with having fighter-wizard multiclass options or the Eldridtch Knight prestige class. But when the magus came, it was instantly a fan favorite. So I'm not sure what you want about the "class bloat" is an opinion widely spread within the community.

51 to 100 of 138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Starfinder General Discussion / Any plans for new classes? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.