| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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 boat" is an opinion widely spread within the community.
It can be seen in the design philosophies. Comparing PF1 to SF, in the beginning of PF1 the base classes were built around the concepts of D&D 3.5e. As it evolved, classes near it's end were moving more and more towards classes that used baked in variety of options rather than relying on Archtypes to add diversity. A good example of this is the Vigilante, where rather than static at level X get Y almost every level was a choice of class options.
Move to Starfinder, and most of the classes are built around this choice diversity. Envoys level up chart is one of the easiest to see it on, but all of the classes (except possibly Mystic as it locks your connection choice) have a vague framework that lets them build into a variety of roles. Archtypes in this one are used as a further mode of diversity, applicable to all classes in exchange for those choices. From the Pathfinder Playtest blogs you can see this pro-choice diversity seems to be the idea moving forward as well for PF.
Additionally in Starfinder, much more power is placed into feats. To pull up your Brawler example, yes you could make an Unarmed Fighter in PF1, however a non-upgradeable 1d3 weapon wasn't viable. The Monk let that weapon scale, which meant if you wanted to fight with fists, you needed the Monk ability. The closest I was able to create was a Vigilante, taking advantage of damage bonuses from the Vigilante Talents. In Starfinder, that scaling Unarmed Strike is baked directly into the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.
For the Magus example, it added something new in Spell Points, a full new addition to the game at the time. It was more than a Fighter or a Wizard, or even an Eldritch Knight were. However for Starfinder such a thing could be added in an Archtype to apply to Technomancer or Mystic equally, and even have additional options for non-casters. Or a feat giving the Spell Point mechanic, which could again benefit anyone including those who simply take the Minor Psychic Power feat, or have spells from their racial choices.
So a new class in Starfinder needs to have something that couldn't be built from the existing framework (example I made the Medic Envoy was just confirmed in Armory the other day) and not simply a remake of a PF1 class as there are conversion rules already. I would like to see more universal PF1 conversion as it's a little play by ear, but most new class ideas I think will come in a more universalist sense since that seems to be Paizo's focus right now.
Didn't anyone ask the Paizo people at Paizocon about plans for new classes?
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.
I don't know of any explicit declarations by any developers. Although given how little is actually fixed and not replaceable in those 7 classes, it certainly look like they intended these classes to cover a lot of ground.
Take the Soldier for instance. The only features which is not an option is Soldier's Onslaught and Kill shot. Feats, Gear boosts, and fighting styles can all have new options added in books. And Feats become archetype fodder.
That base chassis can literally be anything that has full BAB and Fort/Will saves. Given the existence of class options adding class skills like the Mystic Star Shaman connection or Solarian's Skill Adept, I could imaging fighting styles adding on skills (like Bluff for a Feint based fighting style) and thus expanding on the skill side of things.
I'd be curious what kind of full BAB class you can't build off of it between new class options like gear boosts and fighting styles, and adding new archetypes like Phrenic or Divine Champion, which can add spell-like flavor to it for example.
Didn't anyone ask the Paizo people at Paizocon about plans for new classes?
I wasn't at PaizoCon, so I couldn't say.
I agree that base classes design is much more robust in SF than in PF, giving them more versatility and covering more ground.
However, the thing that sepparate classes in PF is the mechanics. I could create a sleuth detective based on Sherlock Holmes using a rogue in PF. I could also use a Investigator. Both will work, thematically, and both will scratch my need to play Sherlock Holmes. But the mechanics are different, and thus the feeling when you play a Rogue detective, with sneak attack and uncanny dodge, is different than when you play an empiricist Investigator, with Ceasless Observation and Unfailling Logic in addition to Inspiration and Studied Target. Just like you can make a multiclass fighter wizard, but the feel you get from a magus, with spellcombat, spell strike and arcana is different.
I think it's just a matter of time that the team behind SF will develop new mechanics, and with those mechanics, new classes will be born. Archetypes and feats are good to add flavor, but in some cases, different mechanics would need a complete overhaul of the class, which I'm not so confident it can be done within the boundaries of actual classes, using just feats and archetypes. You could do an unarmed fighter soldier. Or even a savage, rage-fueled unarmed fighter soldier, even if such class would probably need to change a lot of what the soldier chassis gives you. A shapshifting soldier, that transform into beasts to fight, for example, don't think it's viable within the limits of the soldier class.
The one class I think they could've done better on is the mystic. It covers so much ground compared to other classes. Druid, cleric, psionic, wizard, sorcerer, and a dash of new concepts like space. I feel like each of these could merit a class of their own.
Personally I like that there is a tech class and a magic tech class, but I would love a life science mirror to that. Say a shapeshifter and a biotechnician or something, there's plenty to work with there.
(ahem) pushes up glasses- "Baby's first D&D" only had three classes: Fighting Man, Cleric and Wizard. Gygax then added the Thief, shortly thereafter for a grand total of four. With AD&D the classes expanded dramatically.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.
AD&D, or 5e also didn't have the option of legacy classes. If you really want to, you can play a Kineticist.
This is another issue with adding classes. Not only are you competing for a place to fit in amongst the seven core classes, but you also can't really just make a class already covered by the Pathfinder Legacy. If they made a Kineticist, but it was better to simply convert the existing one, then that's a problem. This would make the answer unified conversions for the PF1 classes, in order to work with everything else in the game, but that isn't new classes. Just more universally agreed on standards for existing rules.
Same, I understand the resistance to porting 9th level casters as the setting and system is built around a reduced level of magic but as a sci-fi writer myself... yeah the notion that there is no more room is folly. There is room, not a lot, but there is. And besides,
There is also a difference between a class fully based on spells, and a 9 lvl caster.
You could make a spellcaster that had less reliance on weapons than Technomancer, who has spell hacks to add spells to grenades, to add spells to a shot, to enhance his weapon with spells, and so on. Simply a class without those features, but a few more spells per level, for example, could work as a caster class that mostly defend himself with spells, without needing to add Horrid Wilting, Maze and Prismatic Sphere.
|
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.
pretty much.
there's class specializations for the mechanic, operative, soldier, and mystic. those are the old-PF style "archetypes"
then there's the starfinder "archetypes" which function as prestige classes, but can work across all 7 classes.
on top of that, there's themes. and dozens and dozens of races.
what some people are asking for is broken, OP stuff. and that's not cool.
|
|
Same, I understand the resistance to porting 9th level casters as the setting and system is built around a reduced level of magic but as a sci-fi writer myself... yeah the notion that there is no more room is folly. There is room, not a lot, but there is. And besides,There is also a difference between a class fully based on spells, and a 9 lvl caster.
You could make a spellcaster that had less reliance on weapons than Technomancer, who has spell hacks to add spells to grenades, to add spells to a shot, to enhance his weapon with spells, and so on. Simply a class without those features, but a few more spells per level, for example, could work as a caster class that mostly defend himself with spells, without needing to add Horrid Wilting, Maze and Prismatic Sphere.
that's what magic hacks are for. ;-)
that's what magic hacks are for. ;-)
Same, I understand the resistance to porting 9th level casters as the setting and system is built around a reduced level of magic but as a sci-fi writer myself... yeah the notion that there is no more room is folly. There is room, not a lot, but there is. And besides,There is also a difference between a class fully based on spells, and a 9 lvl caster.
You could make a spellcaster that had less reliance on weapons than Technomancer, who has spell hacks to add spells to grenades, to add spells to a shot, to enhance his weapon with spells, and so on. Simply a class without those features, but a few more spells per level, for example, could work as a caster class that mostly defend himself with spells, without needing to add Horrid Wilting, Maze and Prismatic Sphere.
Re-reading my post, it seems it wasn't clear enough.
Yes, Magic Hacks that empower your weapon. No, there are not magic hacks that increase the number of spells you have access too, so the class itself is not a pure spellcaster, like a wizard, who is expected to solve combat with spells. It's a half-caster, like a magus, which is expected to mix weaponry and spells (there's a reason why the most popular feats are Longarm and versatile specialization).
I think there's room for a class that mostly defends himself with spells. Maybe borrowing Pathfinder 2 idea of cantrips, or whatever. But there's designing room for a class that do not need to use a plasma rifle, even if spells beyond 6 are banned
Yes, Magic Hacks that empower your weapon. No, there are not magic hacks that increase the number of spells you have access too, so the class itself is not a pure spellcaster, like a wizard, who is expected to solve combat with spells. It's a half-caster, like a magus, which is expected to mix weaponry and spells (there's a reason why the most popular feats are Longarm and versatile specialization).
Energize Spell Magic Hack... 20 charges/level (120 max) to cast a spell without losing a slot.
Harmful Spells and Countertech are also spells-specific, not weapon-based.
Going into higher levels there are more options, including old PF1 metamagics. The Technomancer can be built as a full caster. It is not expected to go half and half, that is an assumption you have jumped to.
What is popular does not equate to what is true.
And unfortunately, I hate to say it of the "full caster", but Starfinder isn't really a world that supports them. There are already issues that Mystics lack universal skills to help them in Starship combat. In a world fully immersed in technology you need to have tech savvy. Even a converted Wizard from PF1 is given Basic Melee, Small Arms and Specialization for both at level 3 to give them the tools they need to exist in SFs world.
Going into higher levels there are more options, including old PF1 metamagics. The Technomancer can be built as a full caster. It is not expected to go half and half, that is an assumption you have jumped to.
It can be built. It's just not good at it, because has way too few spells.
EDIT: Same way you can build a gish in PF1 using core book. Just need to multiclass fighter and wizard. However, "being able to build" it, and actually being cool, are two different things. Hence, the Magus.
|
|
Going into higher levels there are more options, including old PF1 metamagics. The Technomancer can be built as a full caster. It is not expected to go half and half, that is an assumption you have jumped to.
this.
seriously, why do people do this?
your level 1 wizard has a crossbow. and he's using it.
your level 1 technomancer has a gun. and he's using it.
what's the difference?
high level wizards have tons of spells - so do high level technomancers. they don't have as many, but it's still a lot.
when i was playing my technomancer i did three things - shoot my gun (badly) (i didn't go in on damage-causing spells), do lots of knowledge-style skill checks, and cast spells.
what do wizards do?
use missile weapons (badly) (if they don't have damage causing spells), do lots of knowledge-style skill checks, and cast spells.
it's pretty much the same thing.
Neither the Solarian (ranged or not) nor the Mindbreaker Mystic is in the same ballpark of a kineticist in terms of flavor. The "telekinetic guy"/ elementalist blaster is a different niche (which is why we have kineticists in PF, to begin with, instead of picking a flavor of sorceror and be done with it).
|
|
just keep on spamming that mind thrust.All I want is an updated kineticist.it's called a mindbreaker mystic.I think an kineticist for Starfinder would be more like a ranged Solarian.
Mindbreaker is much closer to a Mesmerist than a Kineticist.
A kineticists channel elemental matter or energy. Spamming mind thrust does not approximate what they do with their blasts.
A Keneticist conversion would be interesting as, depending on the element chosen, would alter if they are targeting EAC or KAC with their blast. Right now, nothing in Starfinder would approximate them, but there should be.
While I don't mind somewhat expansive classes, there are areas where the one class fits all approach just does not work well. This is not saved by themes or archtypes which have their own problems.
For example, in my opinion, the Mindbreaker Mystic has a design flaw. When dealing with mindless creatures, undead, constructs, or others immune to mind affecting abilities, Mindbreaker finds every single one of their connection powers are useless.
With the 1e Mesmerist, the designers gave ways to mitigate some of those problems, sure, you were still less effective, but you were no longer losing access to a large amount of your class abilities.
If your going to play a Mystic with the Mindbreaker connection, you better hope robots/constructs and undead aren't a large part of the game your in. Don't go to Eox.
I have a great time in 1e playing a mesmerist. I know that I would likely not get anywhere near the same enjoyment playing a Mystic with the Mindbreaker connection in Starfinder.
simply because you'd need your friends to deal with the oozes and the zombies?
and you still have all your fun spells.
sorry if i'm not seeing it.
Whomever is attending Gencon, make sure to ask about new classes in one of the SF panels. I doubt they'll take questions from twitch this time either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A mystic mind breaker does not work as a kineticist or telekinetic psionic, and neither does a Ranged Solarian. Because it is a different niche.
I am pretty sure that the people here that claim you can use a mystic to scratch the itch for the kineticist/telekinetic psionic/whatever, or an operative for a space ranger, etc, because they think it is the same niche, are the kind of people who thought, in PF CRB, that Eldritch Knight was enough to represent all kind of gish characters. Yet we got not only the magus, but also the bloodrager. Now we have 3 kinds of arcane/martial gishes, with different mechanics oriented to different flavors that fill different niches.
This is just a matter of tastes. I am willing to pay to get a book with new classes, and I suppose those who don't want new classes are willing to not pay to get non-books, with non-classes. And Paizo will have to pick a side.
This is just a matter of tastes. I am willing to pay to get a book with new classes, and I suppose those who don't want new classes are willing to not pay to get non-books, with non-classes. And Paizo will have to pick a side.
This is always my favorite arguement. Made kinda dumber by the statement non-books, like somehow if the future books lack classes they stop being books. Calm down and put the defensive away.
Yes, those class examples are different niches, they do different things. Again though, as I've mentioned a few times, Pathfinder Legacy is a thing... They've straight up given a chapter saying "you wanna play a PF class? Here you go, here's the tools" so if you really think a SF class doesn't fill the niche of the PF class you liked then play the PF class! Complaining the 7 very diversely buildable options can't be the exact 30+ old options, when you can still pick any of those 30+ options with a little work is a really stupid arguement. It's like "Barbarians aren't Rogues" well then, play a Rogue.
I would like to see a book devoted to giving a standardized conversion for the old classes though. 3rd parties are already jumping on it, but I'd like to see an official "Lost Golarian" book or something that brings the old classes into SF properly. And yeah, unpopular opinion, some might make better SF Archtypes than classes on their own. PF2 is already trying this idea with new Multiclassing rules, turning Multiclassing into a PF2 Archtype framework. Stuff like the Vigilante, which was either a Rogue or a Fighter with cool social stuff would make a really good Archtype to apply to any class. I'm sure there would be other examples that diverted from their inspiration classes so minutely they'd be better accessible as a patch to any class.
To the other half of this though, why make a whole new class, when the framework for Starfinder's seven are built off of choices? Rather than make a medic class, Armory added a bunch of Envoy stuff to make them buildable as medics, or you can pepper some of that medic stuff in another Envoy build. Expanding the existing classes with more choices makes much more diverse characters out of them than adding a new class would. If there is a functional something that couldn't be done by adding a small thing to one of the seven classes, make a new one. If the missing niche would be better filled expanding an existing class, do that! Because it gives more long term choices than a new class.
TLDR; No reason to remake the old when you can still use it, and more tricks for a rogue are better than a new rogue-like class.
Yes, those class examples are different niches, they do different things. Again though, as I've mentioned a few times, Pathfinder Legacy is a thing... They've straight up given a chapter saying "you wanna play a PF class?
Yeah. But what if the answer to "wanna play a PF class?" is "No"?
Because I don't want to play a legacy converted PF class, for the same reasons I don't want to play legacy converted 3.5 classes in PF. I don't want to play an Hexblade in Pathfinder, I preffer to play a Magus. I don't want to play a Warlock, but I find cool to have a Witch. I'm not interested in converting Eberron's Artificer, but I like to have an Alchemist. I don't want to port Incarnum, but Psychics, Occultists and Mesmerists were cool. I don't mind if The Book of Nine Sword classes dissapear from the time-space continuum because I don't use them, but I think Bloodragers are a good addition to Pathfinder.In short, I'm not interested in porting "Legacy" stuff that was designed for a different ruleset, when I can have better, more interesting options, developed for the system I'm going to play.
So I'm not interested in playing, say, an alchemist. But a bio-scientist, with stuff he can use to self-buff, made with mechanics and flavor thought with SF in mind, would fill an interesting niche.
I would like to see a book devoted to giving a standardized conversion for the old classes though.
Cool! I hope we both get what we want. I won't buy that book, but I hope you can do it if you want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Starfinder Q&A session at Gencon.
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/292209916
They start talking about new classes at about 2:20:00.
Starfinder Design Lead
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting, they don't really say if they're working on anything but they also don't say definitively that they're not working on anything. I suppose that's fair.
Yeah, talking about ANYTHING we haven't announced yet is fraught with pitfalls.
If we ARE working on something, one reason we haven't announced it yet is because in early stages, it's very fluid in form. Even if we think we know the product's name, siuze, and content, those details can change right up to the moment of an announcement. And that happens occasionally. If we say we're going to do "The Big Book of Pie-Throwing," and that book becomes "Ultimate Desserts," we create confusion with one small segment, we frustrate another all-pie all-the-time group who feel like we took away their pie-focused product, and we irritate another small group that feels we just tacked on a few cakes and cookies to the pie product rather than give them their own 300-page books.
If we AREN'T working on something, or we have it planned but not to get started for 3-6 months, some people want to know why we aren't doing it next, or are unhappy we prioritized something else first, or think we are saying we'll *never* do such a book.
All that is separate from things like wanting to get the PR benefits of big announcements and not wanting to give away business plans too far in advance, and dozens of other considerations.
Things can change *fast* when a book is in early stages.
And, we try to pay attention to what people want, and figure out if we can deliver those things. So we also don't want to lock ourselves into promising something any earlier than we have to, so we can adapt to the game environment and customer interests.
Which means we often want to say yes, that sounds like a good idea for a book and we are interested in the concept, without talking about whether or not we already have plans in motion or what state those plans are in.
Especially since those conversations are one way we get feedback on what people are interested in.
Thank you, Mr. Stephens. The hard work of you and your team has brought my friends, my family, and myself great joy. We love Starfinder and anxiously anticipate future products. My table is all for more classes.
Wait, we're getting an Ultimate Desserts book?!?!
No he clearly said it's Ultimate Pie.
(/ sarcasm )