In PF2 the Sorcerer, Witch, and Summoner are classes that can do any one of the four traditions depending on their subclass choice.
There have been many people who say that those classes are spread a bit too thin because of the option for any tradition. For Sorcerer I would agree with that. There are a lot of Sorcerer feats that require a particular tradition, so no matter what Bloodline you choose, there is a good percentage of class feats that any particular Sorcerer character has to simply ignore the existence of.
But having Mystic be a 'pick one of these two' tradition caster could be interesting.
I agree that SF1 mystic has always been more of a PF1 psychic than cleric or druid. Certainly this was the case with the spell list.
But a bunch of players were unable to undertand that and it seems like the SF2 mystic is going to go for the misapprehension or desires of these people.
I will say that the SF1 mystic's intinctive connection via wisdom does fit better with the primal and divine traditions in PF2. It will just mean a big change in the spell list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question of "which tradition(s) should the Mystic have access to" is something that could be resolved with the playtest. After all, in the Witch playtest an ongoing question was "Occult only or All-traditions."
|
For my mystic character, I like the sound of Mystic Tradition rather then having it be divine. My character doesn't really connect with any deities. Primal fit's a bit more. But here really more into the mystery of the universe kind of spiritism.
Regardless of what they name the traditions or not, I think is less important than what's on the list. But I don't think that, let's say the divine tradition has to have the same list in both games. I don't think Paizo would have both games copy all of each other spells. A few might be if they fit the feel of the game and fill a need that's missing in the other game.
Managing Creative Director (Starfinder)
|
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
This, to me, seems like the designers have completely misunderstood the mystic, or want to make it something different.
I _really_ want to nip comments like this in the bud when they appear.
PLEASE do not attribute things to the designers based on speculation. Comments like this don't do anything to improve things, and only try to create an "us Vs. them" attitude that I don't want anywhere near our awesome community. It's A-OK to disagree with a direction we're taking. However, making hyperbolic commentary about us not understanding something we were part of originally creating isn't cool.
To address this concern, I will say the designers are very aware of what the mystic is about (heck, Keskodai has been my forum avatar for awhile now). In fact, some of us were there when it was first created and what the intention for the class was, and how we now think it should be in a new edition. We'll have more to say about this once we get to releasing the mystic info into the wild.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The iconic Mystic did worship a deity, the class came with suggestions for what deities fit every connection, it had a daily pool of healing, and it got Miracle. I definitely get not caring for the divine side of things, but I don't really feel like it was much more psychic than cleric. (Personally, I'd be happy to have the psychic vibe for the class stick around in whatever form that takes.)
That said, we do have confirmation that none of the SF classes are using deity domains, and anyone interested in that should bring Cleric over. So regardless of what lists the class uses, I think you can be confident that the class isn't likely to depend on having a deity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think most likely that what mystic is going to end up caring about primarily is the *vital essence* portion of divine/primal.
|
|
Even if having a deity became a requirement of a mystic (not saying it's going to be or not), you could still RP your mystic, believing that the representation of their deity is just a metaphor for the powers of the universe that are too vast for mortal beings to conceive in their entirety. It's how some real religions/supernatural systems are able to have one deity and many deities at the same time and can accept the existence of other religions' deities.
In PF2, Atheism is a deity.
I'm not entirely sure how atheists on this forum may feel about that, but hopefully with the acknowledgement that it is a crude broad-strokes categorization, it at least isn't too offensive.
It does at least let you play a PF2 Cleric that doesn't worship an actual deity.
Edit: There is also the Laws of Mortality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In PF2, Atheism is a deity.
I'm not entirely sure how atheists on this forum may feel about that, but hopefully with the acknowledgement that it is a crude broad-strokes categorization, it at least isn't too offensive.
It does at least let you play a PF2 Cleric that doesn't worship an actual deity.
Edit: There is also the Laws of Mortality.
It's not a deity; that's just how Archives of Nethys has it organized on the website. It's a philosophy. But no, clerics can't be divinely empowered by the act of not worshipping a god.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer to have as little messing around with gods as possible. Both in my fantasy and particularly in my science fiction. Religion is one thing, that's a very human business, but I do not want gods meddling in my worlds. One of my main beefs with classic D&D/Pathfinder is how they make clerics important because they are by far the best source of healing (PF2 reduces this somewhat via Treat Wounds and spreading some of the healing love around, but clerics still get a whole bunch of extra Heal spells just because "they're the healer").
Two issues with your assumptions/premises:
1) Starfinder is literally a science-fantasy game, not science-fiction. This was a decision made so that the rules could be used with a wide variety of scenarios and (adapted, homebrew, etc.) settings. As explained in more detail with the Galaxy Exploration Manual in the Subgenres section.
2) Even in 3.x D&D/PF1, having a "dedicated healer" was considered by many an inefficient use of actions most of the time; or a crutch to cover for poor tactics/teamwork or unbalanced "builds" (focusing so heavily on offense that their defenses lagged behind the enemies' expected attacks/etc. based on CR) by a group. That you believe the cleric is pigeon-holed as a "healer" says more about your attitudes and play experiences than any supposed limitation with the class. Besides, in PF1 the best healer wasn't a cleric but a spirit guide oracle (taking the Life mystery and selecting a Life spirit with the Bonded Spirit archetype ability).
The Magic Traditions are a mechanic, not an aesthetic.
The knowledges and proficiency have nothing to do with it.
They’re the spell lists.
You’re not getting class specific spell lists.
I don't think there would be a problem with having one skill cover like the "learn a spell/identify magic/decipher writing/tap ley line/recall knowledge" stuff every magic tradition. Since SF is less about magic than PF is, a pure "Arcana" skill is less useful and this creates room for something like a "Computers" skill.
But the spell lists are going to be separate. To the extent that you want to keep Pathfinder spells out of your Starfinder games, you should use the rarity system. Most likely nobody in space knows how to cast Dinosaur Fort, since that's a joke about a typo from a dev during the PF2 playtest (and thus a rare spell.) The default assumption for "spells from a book for a different game" should not be "common" after all.
|
|
How does Starfinder handle creature identification again? If that could be handled in a similar way then making Mysticism its own skill would be a pretty slick way of getting to introduce some of the techier skills without having to bloat the list, well that and remove Perform.
The life sciences skill for most creatures. Other skills might apply if they're not living, natural, or organic.
I loved mystic when I played SF. I also hope it retains some of those psychic themed spells. Alternatively, I hope the class gets sorcerer-esque mystery (bloodline) spells so the more overtly psychic themed mystic subclasses can still have those staples.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I loved mystic when I played SF. I also hope it retains some of those psychic themed spells. Alternatively, I hope the class gets sorcerer-esque mystery (bloodline) spells so the more overtly psychic themed mystic subclasses can still have those staples.
Yeah I can see that fitting for the Mystic, despite my loathing for pick-a-list having it be decided by their Connection would be apt, since they’re rather varied and different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it's science fantasy, but it definitely leans more toward the (soft) science side. Starfinder without magic would be a duller sci-fi game. Starfinder without tech would be pointless.Two issues with your assumptions/premises:
1) Starfinder is literally a science-fantasy game, not science-fiction.
<Shrug>
That is your preference. You can definitely run a SF1 game with some magic, but without any spellcasting classes (possibly allowing the phrenic adept archetype for some "psychic" powers available to any remaining class*), even if you don't go for "pure" cyberpunk (although a cyberpunk/fantasy crossover campaign could draw interest, like Shadowrun did) or hard science fiction. De-emphasizing tech, even without completely removing it, could be a central theme for high science fantasy, parallel worlds (although this one can swing the magic and tech levels with each "jump"), planetary survival, or postapocalyptic campaigns.
*- for example, a soldier with the arcane assailant fighting style and the phrenic adept archetype is even closer to the concept of a Jedi knight than a solarian
2) Even in 3.x D&D/PF1, having a "dedicated healer" was considered by many an inefficient use of actions most of the time; or a crutch to cover for poor tactics/teamwork or unbalanced "builds" (focusing so heavily on offense that their defenses lagged behind the enemies' expected attacks/etc. based on CR) by a group. That you believe the cleric is pigeon-holed as a "healer" says more about your attitudes and play experiences than any supposed limitation with the class. Besides, in PF1 the best healer wasn't a cleric but a spirit guide oracle (taking the Life mystery and selecting a Life spirit with the Bonded Spirit archetype ability).The 3e cleric was definitely intended to be a healer. Through emergent gameplay, that didn't necessarily turn out to be the case, but that was the intent. That's why some of their spells are very strong and why they get to turn prepared spells into cures – the expectation was that most would be spent on cures, so you might as well make the ones that aren't worth it.
Then players came around and said "Yeah, but what if we use our spell slots to actually cast these powerful spells, and use wands for healing?"
Yes, the 3.x cleric was intended to be a healer. However, it was never 1) the only healer (bard, druid, paladin right in the PHB) or 2) limited only to healing. That you and/or the people you gamed with looked at the cleric as the party medic and didn't explore the other functions of the class (or other classes that could heal) doesn't invalidate the fact that healing in 3.x/PF1 was not the cleric's only (or necessarily primary) function.
It's not a deity; that's just how Archives of Nethys has it organized on the website. It's a philosophy. But no, clerics can't be divinely empowered by the act of not worshipping a god.
I'm sure there are gods of trickery out there that think its hilarious to give them an anti magic field...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if the four traditions have to go into Starfinder 2 because they're needed for Pathfinder compatibility
I don't think starfinder/pathfinder is getting compatible without at least an index card of compatibility sidebar. There's room there for something like "Universal magic. At some point during the Gap, magical experiments uncovered the underlying truths behind the different magic traditions. Starfinder characters can roll mysticism in place of Arcane Primal Occult or Divine."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That you believe the cleric is pigeon-holed as a "healer" says more about your attitudes and play experiences than any supposed limitation with the class. Besides, in PF1 the best healer wasn't a cleric but a spirit guide oracle (taking the Life mystery and selecting a Life spirit with the Bonded Spirit archetype ability).
They're not saying that they pidgeonhole the cleric there.
What they're saying is that the designers set up the game with the idea that the cleric would be healing.
What players did was to create an un intended meta where people would spend money on wands of cure light wounds and only heal up in between encounters, freeing the cleric to either play another class or to turn into CODzillia , destroy things faster and need less healing from pro active wound management.
But if the four traditions have to go into Starfinder 2 because they're needed for Pathfinder compatibilityI don't think starfinder/pathfinder is getting compatible without at least an index card of compatibility sidebar. There's room there for something like "Universal magic. At some point during the Gap, magical experiments uncovered the underlying truths behind the different magic traditions. Starfinder characters can roll mysticism in place of Arcane Primal Occult or Divine."
Even if SF2 casters can cast spells from multiple traditions, it's still easy to indicate "which traditions this spell belongs to" in case any rules want to attach to that.
Rage of Elements has a line under the traits that says, for example "Traditions: arcane, divine, primal". You could alternatively put a trait for a tradition in the tags under the name of the spell, since you're already going to have tags like "[Manipulate][Concentrate][Fire]". Some of these traits are already passive in that they are places for other rules to attach to (e.g. an ability that makes you do more damage with fire spells.)
You could alternatively put a trait for a tradition in the tags under the name of the spell, since you're already going to have tags like "[Manipulate][Concentrate][Fire]". Some of these traits are already passive in that they are places for other rules to attach to (e.g. an ability that makes you do more damage with fire spells.)
I wouldn’t expect that, but it’s possible. Some feats work like that, but I’m not sure what that would add to the game that simply using the “Magical” trait, which automatically converts to whatever tradition you’re using, doesn’t already accomplish.
I guess I can see some potential rule interactions (and thus room for a class ability or feat to okay with) by a spell innately carrying, say, the occult trait even if you’re using the primal tradition (or no tradition at all) to cast it. So maybe it’s more possible than I first thought.
Making the games "100% compatible" means that you should want to do little things like "consider how this spell would work in Pathfinder, like what class can cast it." Doing this in a way that doesn't consume any additional column inches is ideal.
Tags are already in a place where some of them are meaningful (e.g. "Manipulate") and some of them you can gloss over unless you're looking specifically for a trait (e.g. "Dwarf"), so I think this is the right place to say whether a spell is Occult or not if you want to arrange things differently.
Yes, I’m thinking about the pathfinder interaction. In PF2, those tags are, invisibly, already there on all spells. Every spell and magical ability has a tradition attached, even if it’s not explicitly written into the tags we see. So if they do as you suggest and make the implicit explicit, they have to decide how that’s going to work in Pathfinder, specifically in any instance where you cast against the default tradition, or really when you cast against any of the tags (in the case of spells with multiple tags).
There’s two options: 1) casting a spell as, say, divine, overwrites any existing “tag”. That’s effectively how it works now, and unless I’m misremembering there’s also examples of the exact thing happening with feats that have multiple class tags. So I assume that’s how it go, but that brings me back to my question of “what does this add?”. It’s there’s no functional change, why bother?
Option 2 is more interesting to me, from a design perspective, which is to let the tags carry over whatever tradition you actually use, which would allow for spell casts that are *simultaneously* of multiple traditions. Not just the spells themselves (which is of course already there), but also the actual act of casting that spell. That could be potentially interesting, especially if a class in either system explicitly works with or against blended spellcasting (sorcerers maybe?). Opens up another narrative for how magic works but doesn’t add a lot of interactions to existing mechanics, since the current design does its level best to make casting mostly agnostic.
Edit: on further reflection, option 3: Magical tag. Most spells have one or more traditions, sone simply have “magical”. While in PF2 magical automatically conveys to the tradition you use, that wouldn’t necessarily have to be true for SF2. This would let you split the difference between the other two options, letting PF2 stay as it is now while opening up SF2 to the blended tradition interactions I mention. Given the unified spellcasting of SF, that might work pretty well to let mechanics carry the game’s narrative.
Mystics are space clerics isn't too far off in the mechanical sense. If you add the asterix that one can draw power from nearly anything including a deity, a concept, a natural foce, a supernatural force, belief in their own sheer awesome, or watch spacetube zen meditation videos and learn to cast mystic cure the same way you can learn basketweaving or woodworking. They also have a fair bit more offensive magic than you'd expect from the group healer (as long as it has a brain..before it was mind thrusted anyway)
Actually... in base 3.x and base pathfinder that's also true. Clerics needing deities is a campaign rule in many 3.x settings and in the base pathfinder setting. So it's an expectation that comes from that, not the rules.
Mystics are space clerics isn't too far off in the mechanical sense.Only if you equate healer with cleric. Most of the spell lists are different (at least comparing core to core).
The comparison works if you have none of the preconceptions about either class. Or the same preconceptions about both classes.
I've had more than one mystic at an SFS table say "i'm not that kind of mystic" the same as a lot of pfs clerics say "I'm not that kind of cleric". Still, both tended to have a little healing on hand even if it wasn't their main thing.
I mean. You have to equate cleric with healer and then healer with mystic. The thing is it's about as true for both. Pathfinder characters can heal up with a wand toking session. Starfinder is even broader, everyone can heal up with a 10 minute coffee break. And a six pack of calden cayden healing serums* if its really bad. Both have damaging spells to do instead of healing, and can be pretty badass when beating on things.
The mystic is a cleric slash utility wizard might be a little closer.
The technomancer is the BOOM wizard.
*drink till you feel better. One way or another!
Making the games "100% compatible" means that you should want to do little things like "consider how this spell would work in Pathfinder, like what class can cast it." Doing this in a way that doesn't consume any additional column inches is ideal.In my opinion, "100% compatibility" is a fool's errand. That's making Starfinder into a Pathfinder supplement.
I'm fine with the two games using the same engine: proficiencies, levels, saves, conditions, and so on. That way, you can fairly easily transfer things like creatures over from one game to the other. But if the designers ever face the choice "We can do X which would make for a better standalone Starfinder game, or Y which would make it more Pathfinder compatible", I hope they'll choose X every time. Given what they've already written about them not wanting the soldier to step on the fighter's toes, I don't have a whole lot of confidence that that's what they'll do, but I have hope.
A huge portion of the text in any game like this has no mechanical significance, but is there for flavor (which is important.) So unambiguously labeling spells in Starfinder as to whether they are Arcane, Occult, Divine, or Primal even if the game doesn't use those tags for much is a slam dunk from where I sit simply because "it might change how you narrate the spell's effects." That it impacts how those spells would work in a different but related game is just free.
I think more concerning than "what traditions each SF casting class gets" is "how is their spellcasting going to be structured." Since PF1 had a bunch of 6-level casting classes, which the Starfinder classes are based on, but PF2 has nothing of the sort- any class that gets spells natively gets 9th tier spells. Our only existing models for how this is budgeted are the wavecasters, and the full casters getting between 2 and 4 spells of every tier depending on the rest of their chassis.
A mystic that is either a wavecaster or a mystic that gets 2-4 spells of every tier is going to be pretty different from the Starfinder Mystic just in terms of "how they use their resources."
To me, it's like saying "Dogs have sharp teeth. Cats also have sharp teeth. Therefore, cats are like dogs." I mean, both can bite you, but that's about where the similarities stop.
So for the base set, they are the class with The best healing, the second best damaging spells, the second best utility spells, a suit of unique powers connected to their particular theme that helps them personalize. Connetions in starfinder are basically the same as domains in pathfinder linking abilities and spells (some of which aren't usually available to the mystic/cleric)
They're also expected to supplement their spells with regular combat somehow, but thats everyone in starfinder. On the one hand its not a defining thing on the other hand if you're used to a cleric whacking things on occasion you'll be right at home.
Making a cleric or mystic and selecting which kind of domain/connection I want and defining the cleric from there feels very simlar when making them.
"Space cleric" isn't exactly right but its not wrong either. And about as good as you're going to do in two words.
Where I see that the cleric and mystic differ it's usually something in the system rather than in the class design itself.
Starfinder 2e could have it's own four lists that fit the theme for mechanical reasons but have the traditions tagged on for compatibility. Maybe a technological tradition, a mystic tradition, a psychic tradition or whatever. Then put arcane, primal, occult and divine on individual spells if need be
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I support the four traditions continued use in Starfinder.
And I like the idea of the Mystic being a pick-a-tradition class as it fits with their flavor. They have forged a connection to this magic. Even if it's divine magic, it doesn't need to be through worship.
One thing I would like to see is some Arcane healing. Why is it the only tradition without actual healing. Primal and Divine both have Heal, Occult has soothe. It doesn't make sense to me that the tradition that is about manipulating the fundamentals of the universe, and usually synonymous with study and intelligence, never came up with ways to heal.
despite my loathing for pick-a-list
I'm curious why picking a tradition is so disliked.
Sorcerer has the problem that whichever tradition you pick will lock you out of a good chunk of the class feats. But Champion does the same thing with their tenet- and cause-locked class feats.
Witch often gets pick-a-list blamed for why the class is so weak, but I think that is an incorrect laying of blame. Witch does pick-a-list pretty well.
And I haven't ever heard of anyone complaining about tradition choice for Summoner. Doesn't mean that there is no one who does - I just haven't heard from them or know why they don't like it.
So I don't understand why it is specifically the choosing of tradition that people don't like for these classes.
Arcane healing. Why is it the only tradition without actual healing.
To force tradeoffs.
If one of the traditions was good at everything, it would be the must-pick tradition.
Arcane isn't good at healing.
Primal isn't good at mental effects.
Divine isn't good at elemental damage.
Occult isn't good at conjuring or transmuting.
Things like that.
And yes, those tradition limits are generalizations. There are spells for each tradition that bend those limits a bit. Including Arcane giving temp HP with spells like False Life.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
despite my loathing for pick-a-listI'm curious why picking a tradition is so disliked.
Because it eats up a lot of word count that could have been spent on other stuff accommodating all the Traditions and waters down the flavor, in my opinion.
Ultimately this is a difference in opinion, so don't take this as me trying to prove wrong.
it eats up a lot of word count that could have been spent on other stuff accommodating all the Traditions
For Sorcerer, I would absolutely agree. But how much word count is Witch or Summoner spending on one particular tradition?
And how about compared to how much word count Kineticist is spending on each of the various elements separately?
and waters down the flavor,
Some would and some wouldn't. It depends on if the class is defined by its type of spells.
Druid - absolutely should be Primal tradition only.
Oracle - not sure why we don't have Oracles with different traditions. Ancestors Oracle screams Occult. Flames and Tempest could be Primal.
I feel like some level of "choose a list" is going to happen since you probably don't want to have a huge number of different spellcasting classes in Starfinder.
A way that this could be is if a Technomancer could choose between Arcane and Primal (the two that share a material essence) and the Mystic could choose between Divine and Occult (The two that share a spiritual essence.) You could being the Witchwarper in as Arcane or Occult (the two that share a mental essence) and you'd want another one for the vital essence crossover, I guess.
Basically your theme could be "The Magaambya were onto something when they tried combining Arcane and Primal magic, but there's 3 other ways to do that which work equally well."