| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Neither the TM nor Mechanic were “better at tech” in any meaningful way in the SF1 CRB (hi, Operative) so no change.
|
I’d love a lore line, even if it were soft covers like the old PF1 line. Would be cool to have a flow of ideas.
Pretty straight forwards... what books do you want to see after Starfinder 2e launches? Both as an interesting thing to talk about and in hopes that the 2e team sees your list and thinks its a good idea.
1) Planar book. I've heard this one was planned for 1e before the OGL/ORC debacle pushed it in favour of 2e. Starfinder is a very planar-heavy setting including FTL that takes you through planes other than the Drift, so it really feels like we need this one.
2) Pact World Species. Oppertunity to get plenty of new species into the game, as well as flesh out the core species that never got the spotlight in 1e.
3) Pact World Gods. Galatic Magic is a thing, but I would really love to have a deeper dive on the gods and faiths of Startfinder. Ideally something like Inner Sea Gods rather than LO Gods & Magic (which is great, but I love those in depth summaries)
4) Some sort of lore line analagous to the Lost Omens line for Pathfinder. We do have the Pact World and Near Space books, but it feels like there is a lot more to explore on every planet. Plus, it would give use an oppertunity to go deep on other planets and systems outside the big two.
5) Azlanti Star Empire. Think this one is pretty obvious. They are big recurring villans and we've seen some glimpses inside the Empire, but I'd love to see more.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, which is a major design flaw for 2e. Its like making a D&D edition where "Fighter" does not exist in the core rules. "Character who is good with tech" is as core a part of the science fiction premise as "Character who is good with swords" is for a fantasy premise. Leaving it out as if its something unimportant is. . . not promising.People keep mentioning technomancer and mechanic, but those both need to be in the 1st book released.As far as we are aware, those two classes aren't core for 2e.
I can get where this is coming from, but wow do I disagree. "Character who is good with tech" needs tech first.
I want a Technomancer that feels like a Technomancer. They put the class in the first book for SF1, and it was a bit bland as a result, with very limited ability to actually interact with tech until later books. The spell list picked up a lot of the slack there, of course, and we got more options later. Now that casters don't have custom spell lists to lean on, the class really needs some time to cook, because almost all of its technomancy flavor needs to come from class features and feats. Technomancer needed an enhanced version, and Alchemist needed a remaster- I think that putting the gear-interaction class in core has a poor track record for a reason.
Mechanic has some of the same thing going on. You could put something like the Inventor together now, sure. But if weapon balance changes, then weapon Mechanic will be getting released without the proper playtesting, which usually means skewing weak out of caution. Plus, a big chunk of sci-fi Mechanics, and some of the most famous, are the ones who keep starships running. Having vehicles and ships in place, orat least developed alongside, will avoid those options needing to be tacked on.
In short, until we actually get more tech ironed out, the best you can reliably have is classes with skill bonuses and tricks. That's more Envoy and Operative specialization territory. I'd rather have SF2 take longer and do better than SF1, than have it put out quick tech classes that get overshadowed.
|
So this might seem like a hairsplitting question but... do we know they won't be core?
I mean we know they won't be in the play test material, but all of that is PLAYTEST. It's all subject to change after the playtest runs it's course. Like, I don't know about anyone else, but I don't expect the 6 classes they're play testing to keep their Key ability scores as all six different attribute modifiers after play test. I wasn't around for the PF2e playtest, but did they release all the available options in there?
We don't know, but it would be very odd to playtest the tech as used by other classes but not actually tech-interacting class features for Techno and Mechanic.
They seem to want to have hybrid books of lore, mechanics, and with every book having some new ancestries, so I'd expect the first unique release (not an Alien Archive) after the CRB drops to be some combination of Tech Revolution/Armory/and Guns and Gears: Techno/Mechanic classes and archetypes, tech lore, new gear, and some robotic/tech related ancestries.
So this might seem like a hairsplitting question but... do we know they won't be core?
I mean we know they won't be in the play test material, but all of that is PLAYTEST. It's all subject to change after the playtest runs it's course. Like, I don't know about anyone else, but I don't expect the 6 classes they're play testing to keep their Key ability scores as all six different attribute modifiers after play test. I wasn't around for the PF2e playtest, but did they release all the available options in there?
They're not going to add a class without playtesting it. They've learned that lesson.
As such, including a class in core without including that same class in playtest would mean pausing the release of Core while they ran another playtest just for that class. That would be really very expensive in a number of meaningful ways - not just raw money.
Essentially, it would be a significant mistake on their part, one way or the other, and Paizo has learned how to not make mistakes like that.
So this might seem like a hairsplitting question but... do we know they won't be core?
I mean we know they won't be in the play test material, but all of that is PLAYTEST. It's all subject to change after the playtest runs it's course. Like, I don't know about anyone else, but I don't expect the 6 classes they're play testing to keep their Key ability scores as all six different attribute modifiers after play test. I wasn't around for the PF2e playtest, but did they release all the available options in there?
The classes being tested are the core rulebook classes. There might be more core classes later, like PC2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So this might seem like a hairsplitting question but... do we know they won't be core?
I mean we know they won't be in the play test material, but all of that is PLAYTEST. It's all subject to change after the playtest runs it's course. Like, I don't know about anyone else, but I don't expect the 6 classes they're play testing to keep their Key ability scores as all six different attribute modifiers after play test. I wasn't around for the PF2e playtest, but did they release all the available options in there?
They're not going to add a class without playtesting it. They've learned that lesson.
As such, including a class in core without including that same class in playtest would mean pausing the release of Core while they ran another playtest just for that class. That would be really very expensive in a number of meaningful ways - not just raw money.
Essentially, it would be a significant mistake on their part, one way or the other, and Paizo has learned how to not make mistakes like that.
Not having those classes in the initial book would also be a huge mistake.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not having those classes in the initial book would also be a huge mistake.
You are incorrect.
The core book has enough classes to build a solid adventuring party. You've got a class for tanks, a class for ranged DPR, a class for nonmagical support, a class for melee DPR, a heal/buff caster class and a "mess with the enemy" caster class. That's enough to set up and run a game. The game at that point is viable.
Rushing the Mechanic and Technomancer before they're ready would damage those two classes. It would make them worse overall, and the damage that it would do is not the kind that's easy to fix with errata. Letting them wait has a lot of benefits. It means that they can get a bit more focus, it means that there's more feedback about how SF2 plays, it means that they get their own playtest period to work with, and it means that there will be time for the designers to set more bricks in place to support them properly. Letting them show up a year or so later than the rest will mean that we have a better Technomancer and a better Mechanic for the entire rest of SF2's lifespan. That has value.
Now, you crave these classes? Okay. Sure. Fine. You won't play the game without them? Also fine. SF1 is still there, and it has gobs of stuff written for it. It's entirely reasonable to say "I'm not going to make the switch until they bring back my favorite class. There's nothing wrong with that.
...and when they do bring them back, the fact that that extra time was taken is going to mean that those classes will be more satisfying to play.
|
|
Given the similarities to the other classes, i can see why they might want to focus down on these two. Need to make sure the Mechanic doesn't play like the inventor. Need to make sure the Technomancer doesn't play like the wizard (as it was kind of designed to in sf1e) make sure it lives up to his own lore mechanically.
But, there are 6 classes that look like a lot of fun. I can't WAIT to see the playtest.