Wishes and concerns for Starfinder Second Edition


Playtest General Discussion

151 to 200 of 439 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
They’re not gonna launch with a 1,000 page book no

Given that they may use the same writing style as P2E, with shortening down descriptions and such, I do expect all 13 classes and 15 ancestries to be available from the start. Seriously, slashing 3/4 of the classes from P1E to P2E was brutal...

Maybe they could make weapons more modular with adding and trading traits and damage types instead of having 4 to 5 versions of the same weapon.

Wayfinders

JiCi wrote:

My major concern is that they'll wipe the slate clean and start over instead of converting everything for S2E...

We just got the Evolutionist as a new class, for instance, so I do hope that they don't remove it. There are only 13 classes in Starfinder, so no need to ditch some.

The Evolutionist could benefit from the PF2e ancestry feats, part of the evolution process for the class could be at some level switch which ancestry they get feats from, or use their ancestry feat slots for some other type of transformative feats.


JiCi wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
They’re not gonna launch with a 1,000 page book no

Given that they may use the same writing style as P2E, with shortening down descriptions and such, I do expect all 13 classes and 15 ancestries to be available from the start. Seriously, slashing 3/4 of the classes from P1E to P2E was brutal...

Maybe they could make weapons more modular with adding and trading traits and damage types instead of having 4 to 5 versions of the same weapon.

They said there’s only going to be 6/7 classes in the Playtest so that’s what you can expect in the Core book/Core 1.

Given the Cantina appeal of SF I can see more page count being devoted to getting more Species in than the classes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:

Seriously, slashing 3/4 of the classes from P1E to P2E was brutal...

Half of non-core classes were "This class exists because multiclassing the two parent classes sucks" and from the other half that had some design value, the best ones (Kineticist, Magus, Summoner) are already in. There's not much left to translate over, and the two new classes we're getting playtested in two weeks are going to be completely original.


Launching a 2nd edition with less classes at launch then even just the first edition of the Core Rulebook feels like a huge step down though. PF2 had every Core Class plus the Alchemist at launch. Losing any of the Core 7 classes from Starfinder feels like a huge trench of character types unfulfilled.


Driftbourne wrote:
JiCi wrote:

My major concern is that they'll wipe the slate clean and start over instead of converting everything for S2E...

We just got the Evolutionist as a new class, for instance, so I do hope that they don't remove it. There are only 13 classes in Starfinder, so no need to ditch some.

The Evolutionist could benefit from the PF2e ancestry feats, part of the evolution process for the class could be at some level switch which ancestry they get feats from, or use their ancestry feat slots for some other type of transformative feats.

Look, at this point...

- Make the Evolutionist a Biohacker's Field of Study
- Make the Witchwarper a specialization of the Technomancer
- Make the Precog a specialization of the Mystic
- Make the Nanocyte an archetype, because the nanomachines should be treated as gear, not a class.

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Seriously, slashing 3/4 of the classes from P1E to P2E was brutal...
Half of non-core classes were "This class exists because multiclassing the two parent classes sucks" and from the other half that had some design value, the best ones (Kineticist, Magus, Summoner) are already in. There's not much left to translate over, and the two new classes we're getting playtested in two weeks are going to be completely original.

Let's see...

- The Inquisitor still hasn't been converted... and this is one big request.
- The Arcanist, Bloodrager, Brawler, Medium, Mesmerist, Ninja, Samurai, Shifter, Skald, Slayer and Spiritualist still haven't been converted into class-specific archetypes or similar.

Unless we get a new class that combines the Medium, Mesmerist and Spiritualist and another new class that combines the Arcanist, Brawler, Ninja and Samurai, we're still short of what we had back in P1E.


JiCi wrote:
Driftbourne wrote:
JiCi wrote:

My major concern is that they'll wipe the slate clean and start over instead of converting everything for S2E...

We just got the Evolutionist as a new class, for instance, so I do hope that they don't remove it. There are only 13 classes in Starfinder, so no need to ditch some.

The Evolutionist could benefit from the PF2e ancestry feats, part of the evolution process for the class could be at some level switch which ancestry they get feats from, or use their ancestry feat slots for some other type of transformative feats.

Look, at this point...

- Make the Evolutionist a Biohacker's Field of Study
- Make the Witchwarper a specialization of the Technomancer
- Make the Precog a specialization of the Mystic
- Make the Nanocyte an archetype, because the nanomachines should be treated as gear, not a class.

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Seriously, slashing 3/4 of the classes from P1E to P2E was brutal...
Half of non-core classes were "This class exists because multiclassing the two parent classes sucks" and from the other half that had some design value, the best ones (Kineticist, Magus, Summoner) are already in. There's not much left to translate over, and the two new classes we're getting playtested in two weeks are going to be completely original.

Let's see...

- The Inquisitor still hasn't been converted... and this is one big request.
- The Arcanist, Bloodrager, Brawler, Medium, Mesmerist, Ninja, Samurai, Shifter, Skald, Slayer and Spiritualist still haven't been converted into class-specific archetypes or similar.

Unless we get a new class that combines the Medium, Mesmerist and Spiritualist and another new class that combines the Arcanist, Brawler, Ninja and Samurai, we're still short of what we had back in P1E.

The reason for some of those not being converted is the idea of the multiclass system allowing you to already create that character. Such as allowing a barbarian to take sorcerer or bard multiclass, or a fighter with a monk archetype. Others are fulfilled by other classes such as the anger and protection phantom summoner being the Spiritualist complete with spooky occult spellcasting, or slayer effectively being a default ranger who just doesn't invest in focus spells and takes a rogue archetype.

Others have an issue though that starfinder doesn't have, that being that their names or concepts just aren't a good vibe, ie Inquisitor or Mesmerist. Just figured I'd give some paizo insight into the matter to maybe explain how the classes might end up being tackled.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Elegos wrote:
Launching a 2nd edition with less classes at launch then even just the first edition of the Core Rulebook feels like a huge step down though. PF2 had every Core Class plus the Alchemist at launch. Losing any of the Core 7 classes from Starfinder feels like a huge trench of character types unfulfilled.

PF2.1 is launching with a different (and smaller) class mix than PF2.0 did, so I guess Paizo is just in general cutting on the number of classes, presumably to make the game easier to access for new players who might have a hard time figuring out just what exactly is the difference between Sorcerer and Wizard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
PF2.1 is launching with a different (and smaller) class mix than PF2.0 did, so I guess Paizo is just in general cutting on the number of classes, presumably to make the game easier to access for new players who might have a hard time figuring out just what exactly is the difference between Sorcerer and Wizard.

Huh??! What are you even talking about?

The Remastered Player Core and Player Core 2 books are going to have the exact same classes as the original Core Rulebook and Advanced Player's Guide - which are the books that they are replacing. They are just in a different order.

And the rest of the classes in the other PF2 books are still going to work for the most part. Minor errata is all that they will need.


JiCi wrote:

My major concern is that they'll wipe the slate clean and start over instead of converting everything for S2E...

We just got the Evolutionist as a new class, for instance, so I do hope that they don't remove it. There are only 13 classes in Starfinder, so no need to ditch some.

They're not going to convert everything all at once. You're going to get a starter set of classes, and there's probably going to be something like 8 of them.

Then they're going to add new stuff over time. The more interest they get in the system, the more people buy books, the faster you're likely to get new stuff out. It's going to be a mix of old and new classes. Over time you're likely to getthe significant majority of those 13 classes back, but you probably wont' get all fo them.

It's not about "removing" anything. It's a new edition. It starts with nothing. The question is what they do and do not create afresh into this new world.

JiCi wrote:

Look, at this point...

- Make the Evolutionist a Biohacker's Field of Study
- Make the Witchwarper a specialization of the Technomancer
- Make the Precog a specialization of the Mystic
- Make the Nanocyte an archetype, because the nanomachines should be treated as gear, not a class.

...but you only do that if you decide that it's really not worth creating them as full classes later on. Sure, archetype conversion is a possible thing, and converting to class path is similarly a possibility, but they might not want to do that because they might want to have Evolutionist or Witchwarper as a full class later, and once you've downgraded it, you can't bring it back.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
PF2.1 is launching with a different (and smaller) class mix than PF2.0 did, so I guess Paizo is just in general cutting on the number of classes, presumably to make the game easier to access for new players who might have a hard time figuring out just what exactly is the difference between Sorcerer and Wizard.

Huh??! What are you even talking about?

The Remastered Player Core and Player Core 2 books are going to have the exact same classes as the original Core Rulebook and Advanced Player's Guide - which are the books that they are replacing. They are just in a different order.

And the rest of the classes in the other PF2 books are still going to work for the most part. Minor errata is all that they will need.

Notice that I used the word "launching", PC2 comes out much later.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
Notice that I used the word "launching", PC2 comes out much later.

Misleading wording is misleading.

The facts of the matter doesn't support your claim that Paizo is 'in general cutting on the number of classes'.


breithauptclan wrote:
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
Notice that I used the word "launching", PC2 comes out much later.

Misleading wording is misleading.

The facts of the matter doesn't support your claim that Paizo is 'in general cutting on the number of classes'.

Exactly. All the classes are still in, the only reason for this "delay" is that they kind of had to do four additional books on top of everything else. This has nothing to do with what you are saying.


On the topic of log fight, SF2 has a great opportunity to finally introduce more solid rules around cover in firefights. PF2 only has this, which leads to way too much table variety.


I don't understand where this fear that Paizo is going to not include the core classes in their Starfinder 2e game. We already know we have Solider, Solarion, Envoy and Mystic. Operative was soft confirmed a bit ago. What is the logic that people are using to say that Mechanic and Technomancer are somehow going to be missing from the launch?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crouza wrote:
I don't understand where this fear that Paizo is going to not include the core classes in their Starfinder 2e game. We already know we have Solider, Solarion, Envoy and Mystic. Operative was soft confirmed a bit ago. What is the logic that people are using to say that Mechanic and Technomancer are somehow going to be missing from the launch?

I believe that they said there would be 7 classes as opposed to SFMK1's 8. So someone needs an axe or a merger.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I believe that they said there would be 7 classes as opposed to SFMK1's 8. So someone needs an axe or a merger.

...and it's possible that the seventh class won't be either of those.

That said, if it's not? It's because they concluded that it would make the game better if it were not. Paizo these days... they're legitimately trying to produce a well-done product that people will enjoy and be glad they bought. They're pretty good at making it happen, too. You can (and should) keep your eyes out for places where they might make mistakes along the way or miss things because handing out Aid Another checks is always helpful, but it's also okay to have a bit of faith that the results (when you get them) will be something worth having.

Liberty's Edge

I hope that players are easier to kill because geez, just use up some stamina and they are back in the fight!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Noven wrote:
I hope that players are easier to kill because geez, just use up some stamina and they are back in the fight!

Seriously?

Just go read the PF2 Advice forum and look for the many threads of GMs asking how to stop TPK'ing their players and do the opposite.

If you want to kill PCs, it isn't hard.

Though, I'm not sure why a gaming group would consider that to be fun...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber

I have RPG books that are fairly massive (lots of pages). I get that Paizo wants to keep the page size down including making it less intimidating for new players, easier to transport, etc.

PF2 is nicely divided between core books and lost omens books.
core books 80% mechanics and 20% lore
lost omens 20% mechanics and 80% lore

SF2 could offload some (or all) its lore into its own line of books


3 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
Noven wrote:
I hope that players are easier to kill because geez, just use up some stamina and they are back in the fight!

Seriously?

Just go read the PF2 Advice forum and look for the many threads of GMs asking how to stop TPK'ing their players and do the opposite.

If you want to kill PCs, it isn't hard.

Though, I'm not sure why a gaming group would consider that to be fun...

People find the threat of death to add stakes to their games, IE increased risk leads to a feeling of increased reward.

That said, people often take habits they had in other games or editions and apply them to PF 2e without reading the encounter building rules/taking them seriously. PF 2e balance is very tight and what used to be "rules of thumb" are now more like "rules of pinky" where its not perfect but is enough to gauge the difficulty most times.

So people will do things like "Zombies are easy so here are 4 plague zombies at level 1. That's about what it'd be in X system" and then they completely steamroll the party cause it's 4 on-level monsters and that's an extreme encounter.

I expect we'll get a lot of "My party was TPK'd by void zombies" stories come the new editions launch.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Here is some of the feedback from myself and my players:

We recently went from SF to PF2e and it feels like PF2e is much more streamlined. We like the game rules much more than SF2, the world and lore is as awesome.

The action economy system is a revolution for our group, we absolutely love it. Been playing TTRPG for 25 years.

What we would really like to see in SF2, is indeed a system closer to PF2 with its own twist.

1. Lore Books a la PF2
2. Get rid of Weapon levels, focus on improving weapons to increase their potential
3. A better more streamlined narrative startship combat system (The one from FFG Star Wars isn't bad)
4.3 Action economy (already confirmed)
5. Similar to PF2, Encounter, Downtime and Exploration game modes. Where a focus on exploration could be put for Space Exploration.

Just our take :)


Sanityfaerie wrote:
but it's also okay to have a bit of faith that the results (when you get them) will be something worth having.

**confused dog headtilt**

I was just relating that I'd heard there would be 7 and that by math being math, there couldn't be 8. I don't have an opinion on whether that's good or bad.

Mechanic seems to be a prime candidate for a merger. They sort of exist in between other classes and besides remote hack, don't really differentiate themselves from a techie operative.


From the view of someone who didn't play PF1 or SF1, but read some of the books.

Hopefully a good mix of one and two action abilities for all classes. Since the vast majority of things magic does in a fantasy setting can be done with tech and ranged combat being a more standard method of fighting, I hope casters can engage in the three action economy better, be more effective damage dealers and not pay so much of their design budget on having spell ranks.

Less focus on items for skill bonuses and more on doing cool things.
Slightly less rigid combat balance, let resource using options (spells, daily abilities, focus powers) be stronger then at will abilities.

More ways for classes to work together, either able to buff/debuff (also make sure every class can actually benefit from those effects) or by some class specific thing you can set up that others can capitalize on.
The best combo in PF2 is status buff to hit, frighten or sicken, knockdown and reactions for AoO and damage reduction.
Soldier seems a good start with aoe debuffs, hopefully each class can bring something for team tactics as well as just being good at combat in their own way, even if they aren't always on or require setup.

More reactions like champions and gunslingers(far more useful when not using single shot weapons). These generally just work and feel good, while things like +1ac against one attack (even with riders) has such a small chance to actually change a die roll that it doesn't feel meaningful.

Maybe make saves work like most everything else in the system, roll against the enemies DC instead of the old school way, might make players feel more invested in their abilities. Also could let hero points work on such things.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:

- The Arcanist, Bloodrager, Brawler, Medium, Mesmerist, Ninja, Samurai, Shifter, Skald, Slayer and Spiritualist still haven't been converted into class-specific archetypes or similar.

Unless we get a new class that combines the Medium, Mesmerist and Spiritualist and another new class that combines the Arcanist, Brawler, Ninja and Samurai, we're still short of what we had back in P1E.

Small correction: Arcanists and Spiritualists are in PF2E. Arcanists are Wizards with the Flexible Spellcasting archetype (it even says so in the lore text of the archetype), and it's been confirmed that the Anger Phantom and the Devotion Phantom Eidolons are the equivalent of the Spiritualist being folded into the Summoner.

Plus, Brawler's "martial flexibility" was folded into the PF2E Fighter class, so a Fighter with the Monk or Martial Artist archetype can basically achieve the Brawler. And Slayer's "Studied Target" is essentially PF2E Ranger's Hunt Prey, so getting a Ranger the Rogue archetype gets you, again, most of the way there.

Shifter should be their own class, as should a renamed Inquisitor. Skalds and Bloodragers should be more possible, if in Player Core 2 they would add a feat to Barbarians to upgrade Moment of Clarity to be a free action. Ninja and Samurai seem like they'd be better off as Tian Xia regional archetypes, or simply aesthetic choices for Rogues and Fighters, and Mesmerist/Medium would be interesting as class/archetype choices.

But this all disregards build possibilities between the two games. With the way archetypes and feats work in PF2E, there've been more possible builds in PF2E for a long time, versus the options to be found in PF1E with the 40 something classes and 117 something Prestige classes. Mostly the biggest part PF2E is lacking right now is an equivalent to Mythic Paths/Epic Levels.

Also, in case y'all didn't see the blog post today: The 6th class in the SF2E Playtest is gonna be Witchwarper! And apparently, Precog got folded into Witchwarper as a subclass option! So, we now know the first six classes that'll be in the Playtest in one year: Soldier, Envoy, Mystic, Solarion, Operative, and Witchwarper.

Field Test #1 says this: "This class is the first of six classes that we’re going to bereleasing in the Starfinder Playtest Rulebook, and it’s our definitive “tanking” class, meaning that the soldier is going to be taking a lot of damage."

So, I don't think there's a secret 7th class. We got our 6 revealed!


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I believe that they said there would be 7 classes as opposed to SFMK1's 8. So someone needs an axe or a merger.

Where was this stated, if I may ask?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Opsylum wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I believe that they said there would be 7 classes as opposed to SFMK1's 8. So someone needs an axe or a merger.
Where was this stated, if I may ask?

Might've been the case of hearing there's one less core class in SF2E VS 1E, but misremembering there being 8 core 1E classes and not 7.


We probably will get just 6 classes in SF2 Player's Core "1" in 2025 and probably some more classes starting from 2026 in a new book.

Overtime if we get the same number of new classes per rulebooks that we get in PF2 we probably will end with more classes than SF1 in the first 4-5 years.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Something I just realized. Assuming that the remaining SF1E classes stick around, the merging of witchwarper and precog into one class gives some very neat groupings for future releases post-core.

Mechanic/Nanocyte= Big Book of Space Tech.
Biohacker/Evolutionist= Big Book of Space Biology/Ancestry Stuff.
Technomancer/Vanguard= Big Book of Space Magic.

The thematic pairing for biohacker and evlutionist is a bit weak, I'll grant, and I could also see the techno winding up in a tech-focused book, but I think there is some thematic linkage between all those pairs that make them viable, and also means we have two playtests for each of those releases, which seems to be about the sweet spot for Paizo's playtesting.


Most likely the first SF2 book with a new class in it is going to have more classes than usual for that kind of book just to bring us up to the baseline for what they want from the game. We got 4 classes in the APG which was the 5th rulebook (after the core rules, 2 Bestiaries, and the GMG.)


Ezekieru wrote:

Might've been the case of hearing there's one less core class in SF2E VS 1E, but misremembering there being 8 core 1E classes and not 7.

Whoops! Look its HORSES that can do math.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


I believe that they said there would be 7 classes as opposed to SFMK1's 8. So someone needs an axe or a merger.

The fieldtest said there will be six.

Envoy, Operative, Mystic, Solarion, Soldier, and Witchwarpers are the only classes we are getting in the playtest.


I'm guessing the first book that's not the core rules, a GM guide, a setting book, or a bestiary is going to be a "tech book" that will bring in like the technomancer, the mechanic, and the nanocyte.


"I guess in magic space future we're not gonna need any maintenance on equipment, then? Not complaining, means I can go take a well-earned vacation. Away from the jock culture of the Veskarium and Starfinder Society."

Second Seekers (Luwazi Elsebo)

"Things are always going to need fixing now you can explore what else you can do too"


I think the most likely explanation here is that the announced classes are the ones that the team think they can meaningfully adapt at this time. So they want to focus their resources on getting those and the general system right. After that they can dedicate more resources into filling out the roster, though not necessarily with 1:1 translations. If that is the approach they are taking, I think it is correct. It is better to have a slightly smaller class pool that works really well than more classes with serious problems.

A more fringe explanation could be that the remaining classes simply don't need playtesting. Something whacky like a variant fighter chassis with a mix of old and new feats. But I know this would probably upset a lot of SF1 fans ("Why is the Fighter in and not the Mechanic?") and wouldn't be a great look to introduce an independent system, so that seems highly unlikely.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Karmagator wrote:
I think the most likely explanation here is that the announced classes are the ones that the team think they can meaningfully adapt at this time. So they want to focus their resources on getting those and the general system right. After that they can dedicate more resources into filling out the roster, though not necessarily with 1:1 translations. If that is the approach they are taking, I think it is correct. It is better to have a slightly smaller class pool that works really well than more classes with serious problems.

I think that's probably part of it, but it looks like they also want to have a reasonable distribution so that people can put together a reasonably well-balanced campaign with actual options just from what's in the core book. Among other things, that's important for getting these playtests off the ground in the first place.

So they have Soldier (Tank class and martial specialist), Operative (Skills class), Envoy (party buffer/support class), Mystic (caster class, probably also healer and buffs), witchwarper (caster class, probably more based on attack and/or weirdness), and Solarian (magic non-caster class, probably damage-focused)

At *very* rough estimation, this gives a bit of flexibility even in party roles. If you want to be Real Good at hurting people with weapons, then the Soldier, Operative, and Solarian are all options. if you want to be party face, you can do it as an envoy or an operative. If you want to be damage sponge, then you can be a soldier and there's probably a Solarian build for it to. If you want to be primarily a support character you can be an envoy or a mystic. If you want spell slots, you can be a mystic or a witchwarper. If you want to be a bit on the weird side, you can be a withwarper or a Solarian, and so forth. All of the really basic roles are covered, and can be covered in more than one way... which is really helpful to avoid "well someone needs to play the cleric" issues.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Make solarians a Wisdom-based class if they are keeping the monastic traditions. Or flavor them more like swashbucklers if they are staying with Charisma.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The new iconic definitely looks more Charisma-y with their jacket, sunglasses and finger-guns.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Let's not forget that they need a bunch of really compelling archetypes, given how important the archetype system has become for PF2's build diversity and overall character customization.

A beastmaster-like archetype that gets you a drone companion would pull *heavily* from the design space a Mechanic class could have. A shadowcaster/elemantalist/wellspring/cathartic archetype that puts a techy twist on your spellcasting could cover a lot of what a technomancer class could do.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:

Let's not forget that they need a bunch of really compelling archetypes, given how important the archetype system has become for PF2's build diversity and overall character customization.

A beastmaster-like archetype that gets you a drone companion would pull *heavily* from the design space a Mechanic class could have. A shadowcaster/elemantalist/wellspring/cathartic archetype that puts a techy twist on your spellcasting could cover a lot of what a technomancer class could do.

Beastmaster/Cavalry didn't kill the Ranger/Druid/Pladin, though.

I also think that's a somewhat skewed way to look at it. One of the things that's going to drive what does and does not become classes is whether or not players are going to want That Thing to be the Thing That They Do. Like, "has a Drone Companion" isn't going to be a class. I can pretty much guarantee that it *will* be an archetype, as I can imagine all sorts of classes walking around with a friendly drone companion being companionable. In particular, I have this image of a soldier in heavy armor with a heavy weapon and some sort of drone buddy floating a bit above and a bit behind their left shoulder, helping out in little ways. Regardless, that's not a class. It's an archetype. On the other hand, "I'm an engineer. I'm really good at tech. it's what I do." is absolutely a character concept that they're going to have to support somehow. The game isn't complete without it. I don't know how they're going to support it, but if the "drone companion" archetype guts whatever ideas they had, then they're going to have to come up with new ideas.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Jenny Jarbaski had an interesting comment on the discord yesterday:

Quote:
One of the first discussions our team had was what is the core of the game, what makes Starfinder different from other scifi or scifantasy games. We believe the soul of Starfinder is its setting and lore, not its mechanics. We also believe the rules we're working on will allow players to explore those unique elements in new, interesting ways.

I imagine we'll see this in how the mystic, solarion, and witchwarper are designed. The old mechanics can be thrown away and the new ones designed to fit the setting feel as it evolved towards the end of PF1s run, with half a dozen types of space anomalies, heavy alternate universe stuff coming in with the Kobolds and the second most recent AP, etc.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Drift Crisis and related cosmic disruptions given as a reason for witchwarping to have grown at the expense of technomancy ("If you can't trust the Drift, what tech can you trust? Meanwhile, my neighbor Sara's nephew was temporarily lost in a Drift glitch that gave him these new reality warping powers that work fine.") in recent years. The cause of the to be lost Pact World might also tie into this sort of thing and justify bumping the WW and delaying the TM, mechanic (and maybe early nanocyte) to a tech/equipment book that ushers in a post-Drift Crisis renaissaince.

Paizo Employee Managing Creative Director (Starfinder)

10 people marked this as a favorite.

The setting changes and their impact on mechanics are absolutely some of the most exciting elements of discussion for the team. :)


Karmagator wrote:
A more fringe explanation could be that the remaining classes simply don't need playtesting.

That's my thought on it too. People are getting up in arms about something that actually hasn't even been announced. We know how many classes are being playtested.

It is unlikely that the Inventor is going to be re-skinned and slotted in as the Mechanic class, but it is possible. It is also possible that a class is only going to be playtested internally rather than publicly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Sanityfaerie wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

Let's not forget that they need a bunch of really compelling archetypes, given how important the archetype system has become for PF2's build diversity and overall character customization.

A beastmaster-like archetype that gets you a drone companion would pull *heavily* from the design space a Mechanic class could have. A shadowcaster/elemantalist/wellspring/cathartic archetype that puts a techy twist on your spellcasting could cover a lot of what a technomancer class could do.

Beastmaster/Cavalry didn't kill the Ranger/Druid/Pladin, though.

I also think that's a somewhat skewed way to look at it. One of the things that's going to drive what does and does not become classes is whether or not players are going to want That Thing to be the Thing That They Do. Like, "has a Drone Companion" isn't going to be a class. I can pretty much guarantee that it *will* be an archetype, as I can imagine all sorts of classes walking around with a friendly drone companion being companionable. In particular, I have this image of a soldier in heavy armor with a heavy weapon and some sort of drone buddy floating a bit above and a bit behind their left shoulder, helping out in little ways. Regardless, that's not a class. It's an archetype. On the other hand, "I'm an engineer. I'm really good at tech. it's what I do." is absolutely a character concept that they're going to have to support somehow. The game isn't complete without it. I don't know how they're going to support it, but if the "drone companion" archetype guts whatever ideas they had, then they're going to have to come up with new ideas.

At the outset, those two classes didn't really have much of an identity outside of the mechanic being a class that has some toys and plays second fiddle to Operative in some skill challenges, and the technomancer being a kind of generic spellcaster with a handful of things linking them to technology.

So in a sense, archetypes and skill feats very much could swallow what SF1 Mechanic and Technomancer offered in SF1 core, putting SF2 core on an equal coverage of themes.

Then those classes could be reintroduced with a whole heck of a lot more going for them later on. I'd love to see both rebuilt conceptually with cool new features like how the Mystic got the shared HP pool.

That being said, I'd actually prefer if they expanded scope and got both Mechanic and Technomancer in to SF2 core with all the new bells and whistles they deserve. I'm just saying archetypes could pull heavy duty filling out character themes early on if they don't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:

That's my thought on it too. People are getting up in arms about something that actually hasn't even been announced. We know how many classes are being playtested.

It is unlikely that the Inventor is going to be re-skinned and slotted in as the Mechanic class, but it is possible. It is also possible that a class is only going to be playtested internally rather than publicly.

I hear you... but I think it's unlikely. Paizo gets real value out of sending these classes through playtest, and they've demonstrated that they're not afraid to take things a bit slow if it results in a better product.

Now, I'd expect the Mechanic to show up relatively soon after SF2 drops, but I don't think they're going to sneak it in without playtesting it at all.

Also, while they technically could make it a class that would be simple enough to not call for playtest, it would be a waste. Like, the "I'm all about doing tech really well" class really ought to be more interesting mechanically than that.

In my experience, Paizo has not been inclined to be wasteful in this way.

Second Seekers (Luwazi Elsebo)

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Thurston Hillman wrote:
The setting changes and their impact on mechanics are absolutely some of the most exciting elements of discussion for the team. :)

pokes the universe with a stick

"damned gap ripples...hold still! Someone tell the time travelers to stop messing with the butterflies."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In other news, I'm really excited to learn more about the Operative in the next field test. Mostly through my own PF2 biases, the current information paints a picture of "the road the Gunslinger didn't go down", but with many thematic differences. Which is likely the thing I'm most interested in. If the class also manages to make the "1 great shot per round" playstyle good, I'll be over the moon. In this cases I even don't care about stepping on the toes of existing classes at all, even if the devs probably do.

Just to collect some info to speculate on:

1) The "sniper rifle" looks to have an identical crit damage profile to the arquebus (fatal d12 and 1 extra damage from presumably a trait). I wouldn't be surprised if in this case it literally was the same weapon. Maybe with the unwieldy trait, they slapped a small-ish mag on there? Probably, since testing weapons was already mentioned as being important previously.

2) The Operative's "Aim" action almost certainly adds 2d6 damage at level 5. So without further info, it is basically Sneak Attack that provides no additional benefit (no off guard) beyond the damage but also doesn't require a roll. Which already sounds solid, but isn't the whole story. For example, I'd bet it normally only affects the first hit per turn.
What is possibly more interesting is that this almost certainly means the Operative won't have the legendary attack roll progression. Those don't get significant damage adds.

3) The Operative will support at least a pistol-based CQC playstyle and a long-range sniping playstyle. The "aim action" thing sounds like it is a feature of the sniper subclass.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:

Let's not forget that they need a bunch of really compelling archetypes, given how important the archetype system has become for PF2's build diversity and overall character customization.

A beastmaster-like archetype that gets you a drone companion would pull *heavily* from the design space a Mechanic class could have. A shadowcaster/elemantalist/wellspring/cathartic archetype that puts a techy twist on your spellcasting could cover a lot of what a technomancer class could do.

I honestly hadn't considered that. A PF2e style skill system with feats for hacking and a choice between an exocortex archetype and drone archetype WOULD do most of the mechanic's former schtick. Id be fine with that, especially considering that it would let me turn other classes into techy nerds


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some other archetypes to be aware of (most of which come from the PF2 book Guns & Gears, lol):

Trick Driver
Pistol Phenom
Sterling Dynamo
Scrounger
Overwatch
Demolitionist
Clockwork Reanimator
Artillerist
Vehicle Mechanic

Mostly I am listing these so that people can see what types of things can be done with archetypes in SF2. Even without directly importing those specific archetypes into the Starfinder setting.

151 to 200 of 439 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Second Edition Playtest / Playtest General Discussion / Wishes and concerns for Starfinder Second Edition All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.