What classes


Playtest General Discussion

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't know if this was brought up

But I'm curious about the amount of classes and what will be coming. The field test says 1 of 6 classes to be in the play test

Looking back at the presentation we have the Solider, Mystic, Envoy, and Solarian.

Alright that's 4 classes im sure that will be fully fleshed out for play testing.

But this is Starfinder the core had 7 classes
The above mentioned 4 plus Technomancer, Mechanic and Operative.

So if 6 are coming what's not?

My running theory As it seems from cover art on the Page portal and what we seen so far and some logic on my own part. PLEASE BE AWARE THERE IS ASSUMING HERE!

That the classes will be the 4 mentioned then Technomancer and Operative. leaving mechanic lovers as my self to the way side.

Any other input here?


I kind of agree. There's not a lot of design space Mechanic has that the PF2e inventor doesn't fill and it's clear they're keeping that in mind with their design approach.

I also don't see them launching our space fantasy adventure with only one spellcaster (mystic) so I do think we'll see a technomancer. Operative has also been mentioned in interviews, so the elimination process does seem to point to mechanic not making it to core. Maybe Inventor can fulfill the power armor/weapon/drone fantasy and the AI assist could slide into make the Operative more unique from Rogue?


I would be amazed if it lacked the Operative, given otherwise you would have no way to play non-aoe non-magical martials without bringing in Pathfinder classes, while Starfinder 2e is meant to be able to be run standalone.

Envoy's Alliance

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It would make more sense to me to make bring the Mechanic forward treating it as a Tech version of the Alchemist, than to bring the Operative forward.

I could be wrong however, what change do y'all think they'll make to the Operative?


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

There will ALWAYS be a need for trained technical support (Mechanic) in a tech setting.

My hope would be a consolidation of casters, with different techniques being archetypes.


The Pathfinder 2e core rules had one more class than the Pathfinder 1e rules, FWIW. So I think you'll get the basic Starfinder set, plus one more.


Zoken44 wrote:

It would make more sense to me to make bring the Mechanic forward treating it as a Tech version of the Alchemist, than to bring the Operative forward.

I could be wrong however, what change do y'all think they'll make to the Operative?

My personal guess is it will be like an inverted rogue. Rogues tend to grab large numbers of skills, while I could see an operative having fewer skills, but ways to apply their favorite skill in more situations than would be typical.

Another idea I heard that I quite like is the idea that an operative gains abilities based on who they are an operative for. Hacktivist groups get different benefits from secret agents, who get different benefits from corporate spies, who get different benefits from wilderness explorers and thrillseeking daredevils, and so on.

I'm personally leaning a bit to operative and technomancer, myself. That's partly wishful thinking, because if mystic is going to be using Divine and Primal powers, as Thirsty said in a stream, I am hoping technomancer has a combination of Arcane and Occult to round out all the traditions. I like the symmetry, though I know Paizo staffers don't really consider such things when designing.

I'm gonna be sad either way, though. Techno and mechanic are two of my fave classes in the game from a flavor standpoint, and always exemplified the science fantasy aesthetic to me, especially the techno.

If they stick with a similar book structure as 1E I could see the mechanic slotting in alongside a future playtest for the nanocyte in a tech-focused book, with mechanic being the nano's "big iron" foil to the nano's minitech.


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

If they stick with a similar book structure as 1E I could see the mechanic slotting in alongside a future playtest for the nanocyte in a tech-focused book, with mechanic being the nano's "big iron" foil to the nano's minitech.

THIS IS SO FAR AWAY THOU and would make me extra sad if true .......which lets be real probably is.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

What do you think about smashing together the Operative and the Mechanic? Both the mechanic and operative were hacking and opening doors and disabling traps all day long in SF1. In fiction, operatives often have all kinds of gadgets.

If it were straddling the line between Rogue and Inventor it would be a martially oriented, skillful, technologically capable class. Getting a robo-pet could be a feat, archetype, or class path, with the other class paths being more combat focused or more infiltration focused.

I don't know, just a thought.

Second Seekers (Jadnura)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Space-Hot Take, but: I'd love it if Nanocyte were promoted to a Core Rulebook class!

No hate to the mechanic or operative (quite the contrary) but those two have clear antecedents (inventor and rogue) in PF2 that could fill that gap in the short term, and nanocyte just oozes (in some cases, literally!) the crazy sci-fantasy flavour that makes Starfinder delicious.

Envoy's Alliance

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Ooh I like that. I love the nanocyte, and yeah, there is no analogue class for that.


WatersLethe wrote:

What do you think about smashing together the Operative and the Mechanic? Both the mechanic and operative were hacking and opening doors and disabling traps all day long in SF1. In fiction, operatives often have all kinds of gadgets.

If it were straddling the line between Rogue and Inventor it would be a martially oriented, skillful, technologically capable class. Getting a robo-pet could be a feat, archetype, or class path, with the other class paths being more combat focused or more infiltration focused.

I don't know, just a thought.

That feels weird to me. Yeah they have a fair amount of potential overlap, but at least part of that overlap is due to the habit of the operative to eat everyone's lunches skill-wise.

There are also a fair number of operatives that wouldn't feel as gadget-focused, at least to me. Wilderness explorers, daredevil pulp raygun types who are more shooty than talky like an envoy would be, and magic-themed assassins or members of space ninja-like orders all come to mind. Some may use gadgets, but not to the extent that a mechanic, who is all gadgets all the time.
I also don't like the idea of a mechanical pet being folded into the operative if they were squished together. With how broad a potential operative's design space is that would just stretch them thinner, and drones are the most iconic part of the mechanic, literally. The iconic mechanic has a drone.


I think what we're gonna see if the classes we get being more defined. If the soldier is going from your one-size-fits-all space fighter to a burly, crowd control space marine concept, then I think we'll see similar treatments for Mystic, Operative, and even Technomancer.

Mystic was made to fit a LOT of spellcasting themes that can be covered by the other game's classes. Given the emphasis on bespoke design for Starfinder, that means the Mystic is going to become more uniquely what the team (and community feedback I'm sure) feel a mystic IS. The same is probably going to happen to the Operative now that it doesn't have to be the one size fits all skill character.

It's no longer the rogue, the ranger, the gunslinger, the swashbuckler all rolled into one. Why make the operative cover all those areas when the Ranger is there for your wilderness explorer. I think they're gonna be their own unique space.

Wayfinders

I like the operator being a skill monkey. It lets my operator pretend to be something other than an operative. You can't walk up to the security guard at the door and say I'm an operator Let me in. You can walk up than wearing a hard hat safety vest and hold a data pad with a safety checklist and tell them you're a safety inspector. But even with a good deception skill, it helps to have the skills to back up your bluff. So even though I have skills that overlap in the party they play out completely differently. And even if there are skill overlaps that just means there's a chance for more teamwork. Instead of competing with our mechanic, I can assist them in a skill check instead.

I'm not too worried about class changes in Starfinder 2e what ever they come up with I'm likely to find some way to use them that's outside of the box. Skill monkeys do make it easier to build characters outside the box. But I can't picture Starfinder not having a dedicated mechanic class.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
KitKate wrote:
Why make the operative cover all those areas when the Ranger is there for your wilderness explorer.

Because even if Starfinder is supposed to be compatible with Pathfinder, that doesn't mean it should rely on it. Starfinder should be complete unto itself and be able to stand on its own arbitrary number of feet.

Every time someone refers to a Pathfinder class for how to play a sci-fi concept in Starfinder, a dessamar imago loses their wings.

Also, for this specific case, the ranger doesn't really have all that much to do with wilderness exploration mechanically. There's some stuff, like getting training in Nature and Survival, and things like Trackless step, but their primary mechanic is Hunt Prey and things that work from that. When it comes to actual wilderness stuff, a rogue or investigator would be better than a ranger because of their extra skills and skill feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zoken44 wrote:
It would make more sense to me to make bring the Mechanic forward treating it as a Tech version of the Alchemist, than to bring the Operative forward.

So... what if you want to play a highly skilled style character and your group is just playing starfinder?

Are you just out of luck if you wanted to play a martial who doesn't use AoE weapons?


Like it's clear how you make the Envoy different from the Bard- the Envoy is not a spellcaster.

It's less clear how you make the Operative different from the Rogue or Investigator, which I think is the challenge. One way to do it is to make the Operative more decidedly martial than either of the two Pathfinder "skills classes."


My guess is Envoy will be very leader-y and lean heavily into using cha skill actions in combat for debuffs and buffs, Mystic will be a standard caster where connection determines tradition and the options lean into the telepathic link angle between the party, Operative will be the Dex-Martial class with some skills, Solarian will be a focus based martial with supernatural flavour to their martial class feats, Soldier will be the Big Guns martial, while Technomancer will be a wave-caster that mixes arcane casting with some tech-y abilities.


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Here's my thought on operative what's a class that is not in pathfinder 2e right now but was in 1e

The ninja and the operative can fill that roll of being a sabator while having "ability's" that fit I mean look at what the operative can already do and it's not to far a reach to make it feel differnt enough from a rouge or ranger.

I feel that would be a safe move and give some closure to a 1e class not yet moved over. I don't even think 2e has anything close to it yet

I feel it be a good move


Milo v3 wrote:
My guess is Envoy will be very leader-y and lean heavily into using cha skill actions in combat for debuffs and buffs, Mystic will be a standard caster where connection determines tradition and the options lean into the telepathic link angle between the party, Operative will be the Dex-Martial class with some skills, Solarian will be a focus based martial with supernatural flavour to their martial class feats, Soldier will be the Big Guns martial, while Technomancer will be a wave-caster that mixes arcane casting with some tech-y abilities.

A wave-style caster could be cool. I could also see a psychic-style caster, with fewer spell slots but with hacks serving as the techno's version of amps, but that would apply to their spells as a whole rather than specific cantrips, perhaps.

Either way I don't think the technomancer will be a standard 3-4 slot caster per level class.


i think if they did make technomancer a wave caster, it would get rolled into mechanic as well. get yourself a drone that lives in the space between summoner and inventor companions or exocortex and become a magus that magically hacks people with their weapon... or something.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think any of the casters in SF2e core should be wave casters.

Instead, make them 2 slot casters like the Psychic and give them strong class features/feats. You could easily have Technomancer eat some parts of Mechanic with those restrictions, and Operative could get some of the other elements.

Of course, I'd rather have all 7 instead, but Mechanic has always stood out to me as being a little redundant at times. Its constituent parts would make for great archetypes though.

Wayfinders

If Starfinder 2e is structured book-wise like Pathfinder 2r, if there is a player core one and two, those two books could cover all the current Starfinder classes. At least class-wise, Starfindre 2e could be back to where Starfinder 1e is pretty quickly. Not sure if Paizo is planning on doing that or not. But if there is a player core two coming out shortly behind player core one, that could affect the number of and choice of classes some.

Wayfinders

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Like it's clear how you make the Envoy different from the Bard- the Envoy is not a spellcaster.

"

Another difference is the Bard is much more music or performance orientated. With Starfinder having several music or band-oriented adventures, I'm curious how Bards will play in Starfinder. Pahtra bard combo could be interesting. I'm curious to see how well a bard works as a band member in Starfinder vs. being a solo performer.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think missing 2 classes out of six are likely operative and mechanic since I think they have briefly mentioned thinking about how to change it for former and commenting on it being starfinder unique class for latter.

Technomancer I see possibly getting cut because technomancer could honestly be wizard archetype or just spell casting archetype in general, especially with how they are likely not doing class unique spell lists

(I'm kinda wondering though, if soldier is con, envoy is cha, operative is likely dex, mystic wisdom, mechanic would be int, would they make solarian strength or charisma again? Most of solarian weapon shenanigans really were more of strength thing tbh :'D)


Losing Operative, Mechanic or Technomancer would be absolute failure for me. If the goal is to make Starfinder an expansion for PF2 that absolutely relies on importing PF2 classes, that really weakens it in my opinion. If the goal is to have Starfinder be an actual game in it's own right, those are 3 huge character niches that cover vast swathes of scifi characters and absolutely need to be in the core.

Dark Archive

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

Do have to admit that its always bummer to have less core classes than previously, would be much nigher to always have same or more core classes in new editions.


Elegos wrote:

Losing Operative, Mechanic or Technomancer would be absolute failure for me. If the goal is to make Starfinder an expansion for PF2 that absolutely relies on importing PF2 classes, that really weakens it in my opinion. If the goal is to have Starfinder be an actual game in it's own right, those are 3 huge character niches that cover vast swathes of scifi characters and absolutely need to be in the core.

I agree.

Saying a Rogue is an Operative and Inventor/Alchemist are Mechanic is not making the game Stand-alone/compatible, it would make "here, buy PF2e to play these classes that you loved from Starfinder".

They should release the 7 original classes, and release the other classes on SF2e Playerbook 2.

Envoy's Alliance

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I can easily see the Envoy as it's own class since it lacks spells and treats it's charisma focus as more LEADERSHIP than the rakishness of the swashbuckler, or the performance of the bard.

I would say the Techomancer WOULD need a new spell list, a 5th casting tradition: Digital. Their whole thing is EMBRACING both tech and magic. While some of their spells might be available to the 4 other traditions, much like they share some spells among each other, This represents a whole new area of magic not yet seen on Golarion. And with special class features and class feats that let it manipulate how it interacts with technology (such as perhaps being able to put runes on tech weapons)

Operative is the one I understand the least so I like someone elses suggestion that it should be about sneaky area control, traps, and planning. some combination of investigator and snare crafter.

Mechanic holds a special place for me as it was the first class I played. I do want it to remain, but I could see it folded into Inventor as a Starfinder Exclusive innovation: the Exo-Cortex (they can already make companions)


I also would like to see Technomancer and Mystic get new spell traditions, even if they pull a bit from PF2e traditions. Being restricted to the PF2e spell traditions pushes a "Wizard in SPAAACE" vibe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Would Mechanic and Technomancer combining cause riots?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
Would Mechanic and Technomancer combining cause riots?

Honestly, I would prefer the Mechanic not being a spellcaster.


keftiu wrote:
Would Mechanic and Technomancer combining cause riots?

Kind of a Druid thing going on? My only Mechanic was in a dual-class game combined with a drone Technomancer, so I'd be okay myself, but it does seem like non-caster Mechanic is important to a lot of folks.

It's too early for me to even be convinced that we aren't getting seven classes in the final book, and I can think of a few reasons I'd be okay with. "We really think Mechanic needs to come out alongside mechs", "We felt 'drone specialist' or 'embedded AI' were too broadly important to not open up to all characters", and other things like that.

Regardless, I'd like them to be able to use flamethrowers natively, for Quig's sake.


So, it says 6 classes will be in the playtest. This leaves open the possibility that the core book has more than the playtest. I also listened to the interview on roll for combat about Starfinder 2 that it was mentioned they playtested a gunslinger with the operative. Who was using sniper rifles. Seems pretty likely operative is staying, and they made it clear it would be different from the rogue. My personal opinion is that a class that lends to being a sniper could easily be our legendary proficiency weapons core class

I personally would be fine with technomancer and mechanic being combined but some people like having no spells. It is what it is. I do think Starfinder will get its own spell lists and I assume arcane will be the most technological feeling by default solving part of the concerns with technomancer. Personally what I wanna see is using batteries to fuel spells, sustaining spells as a program on your computer, being able to make devices with magic or in order to use or deliver magic. Spells that create grenades instead of fireballs, make giant metal claps instead of black tentacles, or construct a missile turret instead of magic missiles


Techno and mechanic melding would feel a lot like the summoner to me. Not necessarily bad, summoner is one of my favorite classes, but it bears pointing out.

I suspect that, should mechanic show up, we're going to see them becoming much more drone-focused than before, possibly ditching the exocortex, at least initially.


Perpdepog wrote:

Techno and mechanic melding would feel a lot like the summoner to me. Not necessarily bad, summoner is one of my favorite classes, but it bears pointing out.

I suspect that, should mechanic show up, we're going to see them becoming much more drone-focused than before, possibly ditching the exocortex, at least initially.

Exocortex and some magic hacks have some crossover, and I imagine them being rolled together would actually be Exocortex being a core feature, not the drone. Drone would make more sense as a familiar than as something like the eidolon if the technomancer had it. This is probably why rolling them into one might be a bad idea. It wouldn't give people who love the mechanic the character they want


QuidEst wrote:

but it does seem like non-caster Mechanic is important to a lot of folks.

Honestly, and I know this hurts, and I'm sorry, but how would an Operative that had remote hack and the techie talents be functionally different from a mechanic?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
QuidEst wrote:

but it does seem like non-caster Mechanic is important to a lot of folks.

Honestly, and I know this hurts, and I'm sorry, but how would an Operative that had remote hack and the techie talents be functionally different from a mechanic?

I mean, these classes don't have to step on each others toes. The Operative is pretty entrenched in the covert agent/assassin/sniper/infiltration hacker space and there doesn't seem much point in changing that. The fantasy works.

So just make the mechanic not that. You don't have to copy SF1 1:1. Lean away from the strong hacking angle and more into actual engineering. After all, it's called "mechanic" not "hacker". Between combat engineer, brilliant AI/robot designer, drone operator, general tinkerer, mad scientist and more, it isn't like there aren't any popular archetypes to imitate. You could probably throw mech operator in there as well, if it is a really small mech, more like really fancy power armour.

I think the mechanic is likely the one that was dropped (for now), but that doesn't mean that will always be the case.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
QuidEst wrote:

but it does seem like non-caster Mechanic is important to a lot of folks.

Honestly, and I know this hurts, and I'm sorry, but how would an Operative that had remote hack and the techie talents be functionally different from a mechanic?

Nah, already considered the possibility. It'd be missing Mechanic's big-ticket tech thing, presumably having trick attack (with a tech-based subclass) and extra skills instead. If drone operator and advanced AI implant were to get spun off as archetypes, then Operative would definitely be the base I use.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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

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


ZuthaTheEvolutionist wrote:

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

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

The evolutionist is also a class niche that hasn't been explored in PF2E. While that shouldn't have much bearing on whether it gets made early or not, it would be a cool thing SF2E could show off that their sister system hasn't got, which is worth something IMO.

AestheticDialectic wrote:
Exocortex and some magic hacks have some crossover, and I imagine them being rolled together would actually be Exocortex being a core feature, not the drone. Drone would make more sense as a familiar than as something like the eidolon if the technomancer had it. This is probably why rolling them into one might be a bad idea. It wouldn't give people who love the mechanic the character they want

That's a big reason that I'd rather they not be melded together for sure. I've always been more interested in a drone-based mechanic than the exocortex-based one because drone always felt like the more uniquely mechanic-y option to me. I know the exocortex gives you different kinds of bonuses, but thematically it's augmenting yourself, which other classes could do with items, and the evolutionist can do through class feat paths.

Drones, meanwhile, were a thing you really had to be a mechanic to get any real use out of. They'd also eat up a fair chunk of your class budget in PF2E's paradigm, so why not lean into that and make mechanic the half-way pet class with more of a pet focus than the inventor, but less than a summoner might have? Or with summoner levels of customization, but on a martial chassis with tech-themed options to fight alongside your robotic buddy.


Perpdepog wrote:

That's a big reason that I'd rather they not be melded together for sure. I've always been more interested in a drone-based mechanic than the exocortex-based one because drone always felt like the more uniquely mechanic-y option to me. I know the exocortex gives you different kinds of bonuses, but thematically it's augmenting yourself, which other classes could do with items, and the evolutionist can do through class feat paths.

Drones, meanwhile, were a thing you really had to be a mechanic to get any real use out of. They'd also eat up a fair chunk of your class budget in PF2E's paradigm, so why not lean into that and make mechanic the half-way pet class with more of a pet focus than the inventor, but less than a summoner might have? Or with summoner levels of customization, but on a martial chassis with tech-themed options to fight alongside your robotic buddy.

I'm all for this, especially because it seems like both it's what people who love the mechanic want, and it leaves room for the technomancer, the class I love, to do its thing as well


Witchworker needs to be rethought. Infinite Worlds is really never as good as a spell of the same level. So why is it a class feature to trade out a spell for an effect that's not as useful?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

We’ll see what the new version has, but yes. If nothing else, that seems like something that might make more sense as a focus spell, or to be rebalanced so they’re closer in effect to at least same level spells

Envoy's Alliance

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So... Weird Idea. But for the Nanocyte, and maybe other classes. Doing something like the Kineticist's impulse system might be a good idea. Split the impulses among the three facilities (cloud, Sheath, gear) and maybe have a different mechanic than overflow


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's neat how the kineticist blew open this whole new way of looking at class design that we didn't see a lot of chatter about before. "Like the kineticist, but X" is something I'm hopeful we're going to see in future class design with the caveat that they will likely not get as much page space devoted to them as the kineticist did. That was a perfect storm of the kineticist being the only full class in its book, and being wildly popular from the previous edition, and I don't think we'll see quite that same thing again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Perpdepog wrote:
I think it's neat how the kineticist blew open this whole new way of looking at class design that we didn't see a lot of chatter about before. "Like the kineticist, but X" is something I'm hopeful we're going to see in future class design with the caveat that they will likely not get as much page space devoted to them as the kineticist did. That was a perfect storm of the kineticist being the only full class in its book, and being wildly popular from the previous edition, and I don't think we'll see quite that same thing again.

If we get a "like the Kineticist, but X" class, I think it will be the Solarian. There's some design similarities, but with enough differences to keep them distinct. Besides: there are only two* different options instead of six, and players are punished for not taking some of both. I don't see that changing, so that will cut down the page count.

My personal theory is that the spellcasting classes will be "like the Psychic, but X." That would make the Mystic and co more than just Space Clerics, Space Wizards etc, while making the Psychic better mesh with Starfinder. If there's any released Pathfinder class that could be ported as is and have it fit perfectly, that's the one.

*-- I remember the electricity variant, but that almost certainly won't show up in Player Core 1 (or whatever they call it).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is my personal bet right now as well. I'm envisioning a solarian as a kineticist, but leaning more to its martial side. I have no idea what that'd look like, though.

I think it's also fair to imagine the nanocyte fitting that mold well too. I think classes that have a couple different modes they want to be in, and switch between, will be served well by the design space the kineticist lives in.

Second Seekers (Jadnura)

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

The more I think about it, the more I think that Nanocyte and Mechanic could be merged into one single non-magical, "Good at Technology," class. The various flavours of mechanic (exocortex, drone, experimental weapon, experimental whatever, etc.) and the various flavours of nanite arrays (gear, cloud, sheathe, eldritch, etc) are all kinda-sorta close enough that I think you could find a way to make it work?

Like, your base package is "you're smart, high Int, you know how to make Tech do what you want, and you know how to build things, fix things, make things." You then bolt onto that base class how you express that technological fiddling. I don't know if "nanites" would be a singular expression of tech, and you could bop between the various arrays, or if you'd have to choose one array and stick with it, like you ahve to choose if your mechanic has exocortex, drone, or whatever else. Hrmm, maybe that wouldn't make sense, since if you chose a gear array, that's stepping on the toes of experimental weapon, armour, and what have you. Hmm. Maybe some more noodling is required.

And, granted, currently nanocytes can switch between their Tech Expression in a way Mechanics can't. Another also, although both classes get to add more than one at a time at higher levels, they're at different levels and rates. Still, I think that could be overcome? Anyways, it's an idea worth exploring! (And maybe a way to get nanocytes sooner rather than later in SF2!)


Mixing the Mechanic and the Nanocyte does sound fun, but I don't know about having a single "good at technology" class. In the same vein of having a single "good at magic" class, it something that can cause design space issues. It's a lot to pack into a single chassis.

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Second Edition Playtest / Playtest General Discussion / What classes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.