Managing Creative Director (Starfinder)
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo can of course run their business any way they please, and I don't think they should be beholden to random a&$~!$* fans like me. (listening to my opinions sounds like a terrible way to run a business, honestly, since I'd argue for dropping PF2 adventure paths in favour of making content that I buy, like Starfinder Adventure paths, given the opportunity) but I do think they would have benefited from actual formal data collection, rather then listening to the squeaky wheels in the fandom.
I can assure you, if we'd been listening to squeaky wheels, our decisions would have been ENTIRELY different. Also, I would recommend not taking wild guesses on what our timetables are like. Enhanced is a product that's been in our back pocket for a pretty long while...
As far as data-driven, there's only so far that goes. Yes, we can poll crowds (and have done so), but doing it in a public way often only gets a specific type of person to respond. We make our choices off a wide variety of data available to us, beyond just polling community members, which has awkward returns at best.
In fact, the whole reason we're doing this "most open playtest ever" concept, is because that does give us the opportunity to get feedback from people. However, as with any business, there are some decisions we have to make on our own for the health of the brand.
|
Managing Creative Director (Starfinder)
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, on the actual topic of Mystic traditions... we're exploring different options at the moment. As some people have pointed out, the current slew of SF1 spellcasting classes universally would fall under the Occult banner, and that's not something we're too keen on maintaining in the new edition.
That being said, we'll have more to say on this in the future, I assure you! :)
I'm aware that Enhanced has been in your back pocket a long time. I stated as much in my post? If you're stating, directly and openly, that at the time of announcing Starfinder Enhanced in February, you had absolutely zero plans for SF2, I will retract my statements with apologies.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm aware that Enhanced has been in your back pocket a long time. I stated as much in my post? If you're stating, directly and openly, that at the time of announcing Starfinder Enhanced in February, you had absolutely zero plans for SF2, I will retract my statements with apologies.
I've been asking for SF2 since PF2 came out. I expect that Paizo had theoretical plans for building it since about that time. But nothing concrete or announceable.
Also, I second this:
Also also: S2 isn’t coming any time soon, it’s gonna be like 2 years, enhanced is out in a month or so right? So that’s 2 years you have that book before S2 comes out.
Maybe you should just ignore the SF2 playtest for now and have fun with SF1 for the next year or so and then check back in then. No sense stressing out over something that is so far in the future.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why does that matter? It's been announced already. Do you think Paizo shouldn't have worked on Enhanced to patch holes in 1e if they were making 2e?...
Also, this has nothing to do with the Mystic class in any way.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every edition has a lifespan. They were guaranteed to be *talking* about SF2 as soon as SF1 launched. Even if we limit it to whenever they decided internally that a SF2 was definitely going to happen, that could have been years ago. So they should have been saying for the last couple years with every release "Oh btw, SF2 is going to be a thing at some point"?
Then, given how early they are in the process of actual development, they might not have decided on a timetable for playtest and release at the announcement of Enhanced. And even if they had known, they could have announced SF2 at the launch of the playtest next year and kept in-line with prior transparency standards. Would that have been better?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I'm scratching my head at the idea that Technomancers were remotely occult.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not think Starfinder necessarily needs "generalist combat class". It needs the ability to make characters with a wide variety of combat styles without dipping into Pathfinder classes.
Where are people getting this idea that Starfinder2e is going to need the Pathfinder books in order to be playable?
Maybe the blog post announcing it wasn't clear enough. But everything that the developers are doing, as some very direct things that they have come onto these forums to say, has said very clearly that if all you want is Starfinder, getting just Starfinder2e books will result in a playable, fun, and complete-feeling game.
Probably because a constant reply to discussion has been "X starfinder class can't fill niche filled by Y pathfinder class, we already have Y pathfinder class for that"
Probably because a constant reply to discussion has been "X starfinder class can't fill niche filled by Y pathfinder class, we already have Y pathfinder class for that"
Which in turn has been a response to people flooding the forum with "I don't like Pathfinder2e. It is a terrible game system and doesn't let me do what I want to. I want to still be able to do X in Starfinder and Pathfinder2e core engine doesn't allow anything even remotely similar to that."
Just because I can show where those concepts do in fact exist in PF2 doesn't mean that SF2 is going to be identical to it or that PF2 is going to be necessary in order to play SF2.
Probably because a constant reply to discussion has been "X starfinder class can't fill niche filled by Y pathfinder class, we already have Y pathfinder class for that"
I believe that you are conflating two very different things.
- We don't want SF2 classes that are exactly the same as PF2 classes, or that are PF2 classes with minimal changes. That's boring and samey, and suggests laziness on the part of the devs. It's not a good look overall. Also, the Paizo devs have gotten a lot better at building classes for this system since most of the classes you might want to emulate were released. If they build their classes in a way that is deliberately not falling into old ruts, it is likely to result in straight-up better classes that will be more fun to play (as well as being more iconically Starfinder in theme)
- We do want Starfinder classes to be able to fill all of the niches that the Starfinder universe naturally would include. This necessarily means that there's going to be a lot of overlap in concept space between Starfinder and Pathfinder. For the most straightforward one, there are likely to be a lot of concepts that you could build equally well as either a rogue or an operative... and plenty of others that could easily be either an investigator or an operative.
I don't think that anyone has been advocating otherwise? Certainly not many people.
...then, too, it's likely going to be a bit before all of these niches get filled on the SF2 side. It's a trade-off between short-term coverage and logn-term quality. In the mean-time, if you can't wait, you could probably fill a decent number of those niches by poaching from PF2. The results if you do probably won't be as good as what you'll eventually get from the appropriate SF2 class, but it's available as a stopgap.
Probably because a constant reply to discussion has been "X starfinder class can't fill niche filled by Y pathfinder class, we already have Y pathfinder class for that"
Which in turn has been a response to people flooding the forum with "I don't like Pathfinder2e. It is a terrible game system and doesn't let me do what I want to. I want to still be able to do X in Starfinder and Pathfinder2e core engine doesn't allow anything even remotely similar to that."
Just because I can show where those concepts do in fact exist in PF2 doesn't mean that SF2 is going to be identical to it or that PF2 is going to be necessary in order to play SF2.
I think that's a pretty disingenuous strawman of peoples concerns. I have concerns like "I won't be able to make a mechanic or a technomancer because those classes aren't being included in the core book for some baffling reason" and when I've brought that up as a concern I've been told "Well inventor exists so you don't need a mechanic" or "Just play a wizard with engineering skill"
I think that's a pretty disingenuous strawman of peoples concerns. I have concerns like "I won't be able to make a mechanic or a technomancer because those classes aren't being included in the core book for some baffling reason" and when I've brought that up as a concern I've been told "Well inventor exists so you don't need a mechanic" or "Just play a wizard with engineering skill"Probably because a constant reply to discussion has been "X starfinder class can't fill niche filled by Y pathfinder class, we already have Y pathfinder class for that"
Which in turn has been a response to people flooding the forum with "I don't like Pathfinder2e. It is a terrible game system and doesn't let me do what I want to. I want to still be able to do X in Starfinder and Pathfinder2e core engine doesn't allow anything even remotely similar to that."
Just because I can show where those concepts do in fact exist in PF2 doesn't mean that SF2 is going to be identical to it or that PF2 is going to be necessary in order to play SF2.
I see where you have made that statement before. And I also see that every time you mention it, the nearly universal response is that it isn't going to happen like that. I actually think you are jumping at shadows here.
No one is taking away Mechanic as a concept from Starfinder solely because Inventor in Pathfinder already exists. There may possibly be other reasons that Mechanic as a class either doesn't exist (likely because it would be rolled into an archetype instead) or is delayed to a future book when the developers have time to do it the proper justice that it needs.
The choice to make Technomancer a reskinned Wizard just copied over from Pathfinder doesn't sit well with any of us.
The choice to remove Technomancer entirely and if you want the concept of Technomancer then you have to do the work of copying over Wizard from Pathfinder and reskinning it yourself - well, that's even worse.
So the only satisfying option is to make Technomancer its own class or at least an archetype that stands on its own and is at least somewhat mechanically distinct from Wizard.
You know this. I know this. Thursty knows this.
Or maybe I shouldn't make that assumption. Do you in fact know that those three options are the only options? Do you have some other 4th option that I haven't thought of. An option where the same class concept like Inventor and Mechanic can exist in both Pathfinder and Starfinder with basically identical game mechanics and not feel bad.
I think that's a pretty disingenuous strawman of peoples concerns. I have concerns like "I won't be able to make a mechanic or a technomancer because those classes aren't being included in the core book for some baffling reason" and when I've brought that up as a concern I've been told "Well inventor exists so you don't need a mechanic" or "Just play a wizard with engineering skill"
If those are responses you've actually gotten, those are bad responses to that concern, and you have my sympathy. Those aren't really the responses that I've seen. They're certainly not responses I'd give.
The actual correct response for those two in particular is almost certainly "Paizo doesn't think they can do the Mechanic and Technomancer justice as part of the initial set of classes. They're going to need some more time in the can than that. They'll likely be out within something close to a year after initial publication, probably as part of a general Technology-focused rulebook."
I think that when it's all said and done there are going to be some similarities and parallels between the Inventor and the Mechanic, but I think that trying to just port the Inventor over and pretend that that's doing the Mechanic thing is going to be a recipe for frustration and disappointment. If you have a good Mechanic, that means that your gear is less likely to overheat or explode.
Do you need further reassurances? What further reassurances could I offer you? I'd offer hugs, but the internet doesn't really support that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you have some other 4th option ... where the same class concept like Inventor and Mechanic can exist in both Pathfinder and Starfinder with basically identical game mechanics and not feel bad.
I think this is the point of contention. Because you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too: on the one hand, you're saying you don't need to play an Inventor in order to have a cool technically-inclined character, or a Wizard to play a cool space-spellslinger, or a Fighter to play an impactful melee combatant! You say "getting just Starfinder2e books will result in a playable, fun, and complete-feeling game." But then on the other hand, you're saying SF2e can't have a base class Mechanic because Inventor already exists, nor a base-class technomancer because Wizard. You're saying, clearly, the only option is just to just wait for them to put it out in some other book, which could be years away, or could just, not happen, for all we know.
You can't argue that SF2e will be its own fun, complete, self-contained game, while also arguing that SF2e shouldn't have a base class because of PF2e.
Those are specific responses I've had, both on this forum and in other places (discord and reddit) to my concerns, including literally calling me a grognard for wanting anything resembling a Technomancer when the Wizard exists in PF2. I'm choosing to assume that your offers of reassurances are made in good faith, and not, as it came across in first read, as horribly patronising.
I don't want Technomancer to be a copy of the Wizard. I certainly think that the Mechanic has plenty more room then just being a copy of the Inventor, and in fact would find that depiction of Mechanic incredibly lacklustre.
I do think that the Technomancer should exist as a technology and arcane magic focused caster. I don't see why that is such a hard concept to realise that Paizo can't fit it in the core rulebook, especially compared to something like the Witchwarper which is going to pretty much getting built from the ground up and absorbing the precog in the process (I'm also not happy about that, but I get it)
I do think that lacking the Technomancer and the Mechanic at launch will make the system feel woefully lacklustre, akin to PF2 launch with no Wizard, Ranger or Sorcerer. I don't expect every class at launch, and I understand some classes won't ever get ported. I know some people still dislike that Cavalier is probably never getting ported to PF2. But removing both Tech focused classes from the core rulebook severely limits what players are going to be able to do in the system from the get go. If I tell players we're playing a Science Fantasy game with spaceships and lasers as well as magic, I guarantee that at least 1 player is going to want to play an engineering forward class, with an emphasis on technology. That player will be disappointed at launch until a nebulous, unannounced technology splatbook comes out on Starfinders agonizingly slow release schedule.
Also, on the actual topic of Mystic traditions... we're exploring different options at the moment. As some people have pointed out, the current slew of SF1 spellcasting classes universally would fall under the Occult banner, and that's not something we're too keen on maintaining in the new edition.Well, the easiest fix is of course not having traditions and instead rely on bespoke spell lists. And the Technomancer seems pretty Arcane, even if they don't seem to be appearing in the core book.
That’s not going to happen, the Traditions aren’t flavor, they’re core mechanics.
With Technomancer I can honestly see it becoming a full Caster Archetypr like Elementalist in P2.
That’s not going to happen, the Traditions aren’t flavor, they’re core mechanics.Also, on the actual topic of Mystic traditions... we're exploring different options at the moment. As some people have pointed out, the current slew of SF1 spellcasting classes universally would fall under the Occult banner, and that's not something we're too keen on maintaining in the new edition.Well, the easiest fix is of course not having traditions and instead rely on bespoke spell lists. And the Technomancer seems pretty Arcane, even if they don't seem to be appearing in the core book.
I'll agree that Traditions as a concept aren't going anywhere, but I do think that Starfinder would benefit from its own set of traditions. The Pathfinder traditions are very fantasy driven (which they should be because it fits the flavour very well) but they don't capture the more cosmic feel that Starfinder evokes.
Do you have some other 4th option ... where the same class concept like Inventor and Mechanic can exist in both Pathfinder and Starfinder with basically identical game mechanics and not feel bad.I think this is the point of contention. Because you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too: on the one hand, you're saying you don't need to play an Inventor in order to have a cool technically-inclined character, or a Wizard to play a cool space-spellslinger, or a Fighter to play an impactful melee combatant! You say "getting just Starfinder2e books will result in a playable, fun, and complete-feeling game." But then on the other hand, you're saying SF2e can't have a base class Mechanic because Inventor already exists, nor a base-class technomancer because Wizard. You're saying, clearly, the only option is just to just wait for them to put it out in some other book, which could be years away, or could just, not happen, for all we know.
I'm generally a realist when facing problems. Not an optimist or a pessimist.
This is what I am seeing from my analysis of this particular problem.
Starfinder has classes in 1e.
Pathfinder has classes in 2e.
Some of those classes in Starfinder1e are similar in concept to classes in Pathfinder2e.
I only see two options for Starfinder2e in regards to these overlapping classes. Either the class exists in Starfinder2e or it does not. I don't see any other alternative.
I only see three options in total then.
1) Don't have the class exist in Starfinder2e.
2) Have the class exist in Starfinder2e as a Copy/Paste of the class from Pathfinder2e.
3) Have the class exist in Starfinder2e as a new and distinct class.
So again, I ask: do you actually have a 4th option? Or just complaints that you don't like the three options that we have?
Because while it is valid to not like any of the possible options, complaining about it isn't useful in a practical sense. It isn't constructive criticism. It doesn't move the design process forward.
I'll agree that Traditions as a concept aren't going anywhere, but I do think that Starfinder would benefit from its own set of traditions. The Pathfinder traditions are very fantasy driven (which they should be because it fits the flavour very well) but they don't capture the more cosmic feel that Starfinder evokes.That’s not going to happen, the Traditions aren’t flavor, they’re core mechanics.Also, on the actual topic of Mystic traditions... we're exploring different options at the moment. As some people have pointed out, the current slew of SF1 spellcasting classes universally would fall under the Occult banner, and that's not something we're too keen on maintaining in the new edition.Well, the easiest fix is of course not having traditions and instead rely on bespoke spell lists. And the Technomancer seems pretty Arcane, even if they don't seem to be appearing in the core book.
I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to new Traditions, if it could work. Cause again, mechanics, not flavor.
And we haven’t even see the new spells coming either.
4th option, Technomancer clearly treads similar ground to Wizard, and in some respects duplicates functionality while also having its own unique elements
Being able to describe the 1e Technomancer, Operative, Soldier and Mystic as "Space Wizard, space rogue, space fighter and space cleric" was a good thing actually because those are clear and important niches for a space fantasy game. If you can't fill the niches of Space Fighter, Space Rogue, Space Cleric and Space Wizard, your Space Fantasy game is missing a huge fundamental pillar that people expect.
But people don't just want a Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard. The Space part (which here more accurately means futuristic and technological, as well as space) is important as well. SF1e managed to do that well.
I do think that lacking the Technomancer and the Mechanic at launch will make the system feel woefully lacklustre, akin to PF2 launch with no Wizard, Ranger or Sorcerer. I don't expect every class at launch, and I understand some classes won't ever get ported. I know some people still dislike that Cavalier is probably never getting ported to PF2.
And I am worried that it is even worse than that. Yesterday and the day before there was quite a kerfluffle on the PF2 boards because there are people who are still unhappy that the Summoner class in PF2 isn't close enough to what the Summoner class was in PF1.
I can absolutely see the same thing happening here. Where people aren't happy with Starfinder2e Technomancer because it isn't enough like the Starfinder1e Technomancer.
Again, realist. I have no good solutions for that. The concept for Technomancer is in fact rather similar to 'Wizard in space'. Wizard's spellbook is remarkably similar to Technomancer's Spell Cache. Technomancer is not likely to have the Starfinder1e style of learning and casting spells - it will have either the spontaneous casting or (more likely) prepared casting style of PF2. Which will make it look even more like a 'Wizard in space'.
So if 'Wizard in space' is not satisfying for Technomancer, and 'something different than Starfinder1e Technomancer' is not satisfying for Technomancer in 2e... What does that leave as possibilities?
I don't have any answers for that. All I can do is brace for impact and try to combat the flood of negativity that is incoming.
A wizard-like caster with technology focused abilities is a Technomancer. That's what technomancers are. That's the concept of a Technomancer, long before starfinder got its hands on the term. Its someone who does tech and magic and tech magic.
I don't expect it to work like a 1e technomancer. It would be very weird trying to force that into the 2e base chassis. Probably very bad. I expect it to feel like a 2e caster that deals with tech and magic in a similar feel as a wizard, a class which in lore comes the closest to treating magic like a science as it is. A Technomancer should feel like an evolution of a wizard, applying those principles of learning and discovery and integrating them with the technology of the world.
4th option, Technomancer clearly treads similar ground to Wizard, and in some respects duplicates functionality while also having its own unique elements
Heh. Both option 2 and option 3 at the same time: exactly the same and totally different.
Wizard is one of the simplest classes in PF2. Which parts would you keep and what would be left to be different?
But people don't just want a Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard. The Space part (which here more accurately means futuristic and technological, as well as space) is important as well. SF1e managed to do that well.
A lot of that is done in Starfinder using equipment - comm units, vehicles, spell gems, augmentations, things like that. And the names and flavor of spells. And maybe the names of skills.
But none of that is actually part of the class.
So when envisioning 'Wizard in space' meaning the actual copy/pasted Wizard class in Starfinder2e - are you actually envisioning something that would be native to the Starfinder setting? Or are you instead envisioning an out-of-place time-traveller PF2 Wizard that somehow managed to stumble on-set?
Are you envisioning SF2-ported Wizard as a character that is wearing robes, carrying around a musty old tome, carrying a wooden staff with a bit of amber on it, and throwing sulfur and grave dust into the air as spellcasting components?
Or are you envisioning SF2-ported Wizard as a character that is wearing a space suit, carrying a mini computer that holds their spell knowledge, has a laser pistol, and has a hologram projector that links to their mini computer to create spell circles used in casting?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The middle point of exactly the same and totally different is commonly referred to as "similar"
Also you keep saying Wizard in Space.
I'm saying Space Wizard. There is a difference, which I've explained and you've ignored.
If you're genuinely looking at the class for Technomancer and seeing no difference between it and the PF1 Wizard conceptually outside of gear, I don't know how I can continue this discussion, because many of the SF1 wizards class features dealt with technology and scifi tropes. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous
Pardon me for trying to understand and help then. I'll just leave you alone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those are specific responses I've had, both on this forum and in other places (discord and reddit) to my concerns, including literally calling me a grognard for wanting anything resembling a Technomancer when the Wizard exists in PF2. I'm choosing to assume that your offers of reassurances are made in good faith, and not, as it came across in first read, as horribly patronising.
Ehhh... a little from column A, a little from column B. I am large. I contain multitudes.
On the one side, I do think that you have honest concerns that are making you feel unhappy, and for that you have my sympathy, and an attempt to offer some reassurance. I firmly and profoundly disagree with the arguments that you've apparently been subjected to, and the Paizo devs have made it pretty clear that they also disagree.
On the other side, I think that you're getting massively worked up and refusing to accept honest realistic reassurances when offered, instead fixating on "These people said these horrible things on the internet. Everything is ruined, and it's time to panic/rage forever, regardless of what other information may be available."
So... I think you'd be happier if you chill a bit. You're going to get a Mechanic. You're going to get a Technomancer. They're going to be kind of awesome, and very SF2. They're just going to be a bit delayed. I'd lay money on it... and with anything close to a 50/50 payoff, I'd lay a fairly significant amount of money on it. I'd like to help you chill a bit, if I can.
Also, dude, seriously. Chill.