| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
God I'm gonna get lynched for this... I truly do apologize but the contrarian on my shoulder won't let me not share this take. Remember when they said in the field test that they planned to not give Mystic any occult subclasses? And then I assume everyone said "well why not? Give it one" because Akashic is here and it's a mess. Its feat support is abysmal and it feels much more underwhelming than the other connections. I know that this can be fixed just by, you know, giving it better support, but there's other issues.
Thanks to it existing, half of the other subclasses are also a mess just by proxy. Both shadows and music have consistently been associated with the occult arts in Pathfinder, but Shadow and Rhythm are divine and primal respectively. If there wasn't occult support for this class I'd agree that those are the most reasonable substitutions, but that's not the class we have now. They end up feeling really out of place with the current Mystic. Changing both (or even just one of them) to occult would mean that it's comparatively way overrepresented, especially when compared to whichever poor tradition is only getting one fifth of one half of the casters in the game.
Not to mention the loss of beautiful symmetry, oh my poor heart can't take it! This is by far my least... Good argument but it's still a real complaint I have so here goes. Having two caster classes, with two traditions each, and with two subclasses per tradition is really intuitive and just has a very nice flow about it. Akashic tramples all over it. Looking at it from a new player perspective especially, it's not nearly as neat as Pathfinder's caster selection. There in both the old and new core book there's one caster for each tradition and one that can choose via subclass. With the smaller core class selection of Starfinder that's not really viable, so having two casters with variable traditions grouped by which two are the most alike is an elegant compromise, and should have been kept that way.
The most common and best counterargument I'm anticipating is that Mystic feels like a class that should be able to do occultism. I actually agree with this, I think it would have been great if the Starfinder team found better ways of allocating the traditions between classes! But this is what they went with. I know the playtest is grounds for some pretty big shakeups (I'm advocating for some if you couldn't tell), but the class lineup changing is not one I'm anticipating. And with the current lineup, splitting the spell lists between a divine/primal Mystic and arcane/occult Witchwarper is simply the cleanest solution. They made their bed. It's time to lie in it and get rid of occult on Mystic.
Ripping out an entire category of character because the specific benefits of one of the connections are kind of bad feels like a... really extreme reaction. The curtains are ugly so burn the house down.
As you said, simply making Akashic feel better solves the primary issue here without telling anyone they aren't allowed to participate anymore.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that occult should go. I was a strong proponent of the opposite when the mystic field test dropped for historical reasons (I think the SF1 connections were overwhelmingly more occult than divine and certainly primal), but I’ve accepted the substantial redesigns of many of the other classes and think Mystic makes more sense as primal/divine only.
The new spells, where old Mystic standbys are only on the primal and divine lists, solidified this for me. Why have a fake occult Mystic who can’t take the right spells? In the spell system primal and divine are the use of instinct to control physical or spiritual phenomena, respectively, and connections are instinctive. Leave logic and study to occult and arcane in the witchwarper.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ripping out an entire category of character because the specific benefits of one of the connections are kind of bad feels like a... really extreme reaction. The curtains are ugly so burn the house down.
As you said, simply making Akashic feel better solves the primary issue here without telling anyone they aren't allowed to participate anymore.
That's an oversimplification of my argument. I personally don't believe that Akashic being undersupported is the primary issue here at all (though again, it is the easiest to fix), it's simply an issue. One of a whole web of issues that stems from Mystic being designed, from the ground up, as divine/primal with occult being hastily slapped on it. The undersupporting is just a symptom of that more fundamental problem. That's my view of it at least.
wouldn't it make more sense for mythic to be occult or divine caster
Why yes it would! It would have been great if those were the limitations placed on Mystic from the start! Now tell me what alternate universe you come from where a Witchwarper makes sense as a primal caster. Or otherwise point me to a Starfinder class that's simple enough to be a core class and makes sense for both arcane and primal. Not that that's viable anymore since, again, even with this being a playtest the Starfinder team isn't going to quickly design an entire class from the ground up to address this issue. And this system shipping with absolutely no Primal casters is not an acceptable state for the game to be in at launch, nor would it be if literally half of the spellcasting options were occult. This is a delicate balancing act, and Mystic was Xenodruid in 1e (still is but I'll complain about that feat tomorrow) so there is actually precedent for primal Mystic. It's imperfect but necessary.
Well, your expected disagreement is here... Mystic is just way too thematically appropriate to the Occult list. If I'm planning on using the occult list, I really want to have "class that forms a bond with their allies, communicates telepathically, and draws on that bond to fuel all of their abilities" to be one of the options. I'm fine with some of the connections mixing the themes of two types of magic.
If there's an issue with the options, it's better to address that even if it's more work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just want the mystic to keep occult for if and when the psychic themed subclasses return. I always viewed the mystic as the caster half of the martial/caster Jedi coin in first edition (solarian being the martial bit). I'm not personally getting that flavor from witchwarper, so I'd prefer mystic to keep access to occult. I could solve the problem by just bringing in psychic to SF2e, but I reaaaaaaaaaaallly don't think 6hp cloth casters have any right existing in a ranged meta.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could solve the problem by just bringing in psychic to SF2e, but I reaaaaaaaaaaallly don't think 6hp cloth casters have any right existing in a ranged meta.
Not 100% on-topic, but if this is the case, then this is a pretty damning indictment against SF2e's aspirations of compatibility with Pathfinder, given that this would exclude at least four of the game's classes. It's also for this reason that I think the Mystic, if not also the Witchwarper, ought to be made into a 6 HP/level cloth caster: if they don't function in this ranged meta, then ranged combat needs to change until they do. A good place to start would be making tanks like the Soldier actually worth targeting.
On-topic: I remember the Starfriends discussing their reluctance to include the occult tradition on the Mystic, mainly because occult magic's general vibe of "anything a little bit weird" is so easily applicable to any caster in Starfinder that it could easily take over as the most common tradition by far. Because of this, I agree with the OP that I'd be very careful with slapping occult onto a caster just because it sounds like it could fit thematically. The Mystic could perhaps be a full choose-your-own-tradition caster with access to arcane subclasses as well, but if that's going to happen we'd likely need another class to properly cover divine and primal magic (who?), and those subclasses would need much better support than Akashic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could solve the problem by just bringing in psychic to SF2e, but I reaaaaaaaaaaallly don't think 6hp cloth casters have any right existing in a ranged meta.Not 100% on-topic, but if this is the case, then this is a pretty damning indictment against SF2e's aspirations of compatibility with Pathfinder, given that this would exclude at least four of the game's classes. It's also for this reason that I think the Mystic, if not also the Witchwarper, ought to be made into a 6 HP/level cloth caster: if they don't function in this ranged meta, then ranged combat needs to change until they do. A good place to start would be making tanks like the Soldier actually worth targeting.
Definitely not a damning indictment- more of a small speed bump. They've said more than once, "Compatible, not necessarily balanced". There will be a document of advice for mixing the two systems, and one of the things it will almost certainly include is advice on the cloth casters' low HP and lack of armor. Better to make adjustments at the smaller number of tables with crossover than force all of Starfinder to accommodate four classes from another system unchanged.
On-topic: I remember the Starfriends discussing their reluctance to include the occult tradition on the Mystic, mainly because occult magic's general vibe of "anything a little bit weird" is so easily applicable to any caster in Starfinder that it could easily take over as the most common tradition by far. Because of this, I agree with the OP that I'd be very careful with slapping occult onto a caster just because it sounds like it could fit thematically. The Mystic could perhaps be a full choose-your-own-tradition caster with access to arcane subclasses as well, but if that's going to happen we'd likely need another class to properly cover divine and primal magic (who?), and those subclasses would need much better support than Akashic.
SF1 only had four casters, and the combination of Witchwarper and Precog brings that to three. For the existing classes, occult isn't going to be getting more than arcane has, since Technomancer is even more "arcane-only" in theme than Wizard. Everything after that is able to build its themes from the ground-up. It doesn't really seem like a reason to avoid Mystic having a pretty thematic choice, or supporting some of its popular subclasses from SF1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Definitely not a damning indictment- more of a small speed bump. They've said more than once, "Compatible, not necessarily balanced". There will be a document of advice for mixing the two systems, and one of the things it will almost certainly include is advice on the cloth casters' low HP and lack of armor. Better to make adjustments at the smaller number of tables with crossover than force all of Starfinder to accommodate four classes from another system unchanged.
"Your class will be near-guaranteed to die if you take them to this game" is more than just a speed bump IMO, and I think there's something severely wrong with the game beyond just Pathfinder compatibility if 6 HP/level cloth casters can't exist there, especially while players are simultaneously complaining that fights are an overdrawn slog due to being based around lower ranged damage. I would much rather have a game where everyone's a fair bit squishier, including the casters, and where the casters can afford to be squishy without getting focus-fired every encounter, a problem that itself suggests the tanks are incapable of doing their job properly at the moment.
SF1 only had four casters, and the combination of Witchwarper and Precog brings that to three. For the existing classes, occult isn't going to be getting more than arcane has, since Technomancer is even more "arcane-only" in theme than Wizard. Everything after that is able to build its themes from the ground-up. It doesn't really seem like a reason to avoid Mystic having a pretty thematic choice, or supporting some of its popular subclasses from SF1.
In other words, occult is on 100% of SF2e's current casters, and is liable to drop to two-thirds of the game's casters at worst, with any prospective future Starfinder caster being liable to have occult as at least one of their traditions. That to me suggests occult is already being overrepresented, and is at risk of overshadowing the other traditions, particularly as the occult spell list itself includes a bit of everything. I would be fine with having more occult representation in Starfinder, including on the Mystic, if it meant also working to include other traditions more too, and what worries me right now is that the arguments used to defend occult on the Mystic highlight just how trivially easy it is to justify including occult on every Starfinder caster (for instance, a Thaumaturge-like occult Technomancer who uses their tech as mystical implements). By contrast, the same effort is not being put into including other traditions, particularly divine and primal.
For the record, I do think it'd be good to have more subclasses on the Mystic in the future, including occult and even arcane subclasses, just as it'd be interesting to see divine and primal subclasses on the Witchwarper (perhaps you could channel portals to other places in the Inner or Outer Spheres, for instance). That to me, however, registers more as "nice stuff to have for a later expansion" rather than "core of a class's identity on first release", and I'd rather keep the neat symmetry of one divine/primal caster and one arcane/occult caster rather than tack on lots of half-baked subclasses that would be better off getting fleshed out in their own time.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Your class will be near-guaranteed to die if you take them to this game" is more than just a speed bump IMO
To me, the statement would be, "Your class will be near-guaranteed to die if you take them to this game without following the conversion advice." That seems pretty reasonable to me.
and I think there's something severely wrong with the game beyond just Pathfinder compatibility if 6 HP/level cloth casters can't exist there, especially while players are simultaneously complaining that fights are an overdrawn slog due to being based around lower ranged damage. I would much rather have a game where everyone's a fair bit squishier, including the casters, and where the casters can afford to be squishy without getting focus-fired every encounter, a problem that itself suggests the tanks are incapable of doing their job properly at the moment.
Ah, that'd be our point of disagreement then. I would have a problem with the game if you could show up with a 6 hp/level cloth caster, and I don't think Soldier should be somehow obligated to stop party members from taking hits.
In other words, occult is on 100% of SF2e's current casters, and is liable to drop to two-thirds of the game's casters at worst, with any prospective future Starfinder caster being liable to have occult as at least one of their traditions. That to me suggests occult is already being overrepresented, and is at risk of overshadowing the other traditions, particularly as the occult spell list itself includes a bit of everything. I would be fine with having more occult representation in Starfinder, including on the Mystic, if it meant also working to include other traditions more too, and what worries me right now is that the arguments used to defend occult on the Mystic highlight just how trivially easy it is to justify including occult on every Starfinder caster (for instance, a Thaumaturge-like occult Technomancer who uses their tech as mystical implements). By contrast, the same effort is not being put into including other traditions, particularly divine and primal.
For the record, I do think it'd be good to have more subclasses on the Mystic in the future, including occult and even arcane subclasses, just as it'd be interesting to see divine and primal subclasses on the Witchwarper (perhaps you could channel portals to other places in the Inner or Outer Spheres, for instance). That to me, however, registers more as "nice stuff to have for a later expansion" rather than "core of a class's identity on first release", and I'd rather keep the neat symmetry of one divine/primal caster and one arcane/occult caster rather than tack on lots of half-baked subclasses that would be better off getting fleshed out in their own time.
Arcane is half of the game's casters, and is going to jump to two-thirds. It's just a matter of order. I mean, sure, you could try to argue for an occult Technomancer, but there's no reason to- Technomancer didn't have mind-control subclasses and built-in telepathy. I think most people who want occult Mystics don't want the occult flavor already very heavily present to be stripped away. The same effort isn't being put into arguing for more divine and primal stuff because, well, it wasn't very present in SF1.
At least to me, occult is a core part of Mystic's identity. Of the SF1 core subclasses, one would be divine (although all listed associated deities), two would be primal, and four would be occult. The game obviously needs to launch with primal and divine casters, and Mystic is great for that, but abandoning what the class's main theme was would be rough. "Less symmetrical" just... isn't a big deal to me? Have one or two occult subclasses to show it's a part of the class, and fix up the issues with them in playtest if they're somehow half-baked.
Buuut, I'm starting to sound a bit repetitive, so I'll go ahead and give it a rest. It's perfectly reasonable to want a more focused Mystic; it's just not what I want, and I've said why.
"Your class will be near-guaranteed to die if you take them to this game"
”Your class from a different system and setting might have issues” would be more accurate.
President
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've removed a post for baiting/personal attack as well as a few follow-up posts that responded to it. Please avoid making personal attacks when making your point and follow the Community Guidelines.
Remember: Be awesome to one another.
-Jim
The central issue is that right now there is no conversion advice; that much is just pure conjecture. What is fact, however, is that the developers want us to take classes from Pathfinder into Starfinder with minimal disruption (after the playtest), and so admitting to the unviability of cloth casters in Starfinder goes against that. I don’t think it’s unrelated that tanks aren’t tanking right now, because the ability for enemies to focus-fire the squishies right now with impunity is a factor directly related to the vulnerability of squishies. Rather than inflate everyone’s HP in a game balanced around the lower damage of guns, then request buffs to guns, then engender a never-ending arms race that will do nothing but harm balance and compatibility overall, the saner solution in my opinion would be to just let squishy classes be actually squishy and still viable.
With regards to the Mystic, the fact that the Akashic subclass was added only as an afterthought to me suggests that occult isn’t a big part of their identity, at least not relative to divine and primal. It’d certainly be nice to have occult subclasses, but I’d rather get the other traditions right first.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The central issue is that right now there is no conversion advice; that much is just pure conjecture. What is fact, however, is that the developers want us to take classes from Pathfinder into Starfinder with minimal disruption (after the playtest), and so admitting to the unviability of cloth casters in Starfinder goes against that. I don’t think it’s unrelated that tanks aren’t tanking right now, because the ability for enemies to focus-fire the squishies right now with impunity is a factor directly related to the vulnerability of squishies. Rather than inflate everyone’s HP in a game balanced around the lower damage of guns, then request buffs to guns, then engender a never-ending arms race that will do nothing but harm balance and compatibility overall, the saner solution in my opinion would be to just let squishy classes be actually squishy and still viable.
With regards to the Mystic, the fact that the Akashic subclass was added only as an afterthought to me suggests that occult isn’t a big part of their identity, at least not relative to divine and primal. It’d certainly be nice to have occult subclasses, but I’d rather get the other traditions right first.
Well, yeah, there's no official conversion advice yet in the same way there are no multiclass archetypes; it's a playtest and that would throw stuff off. They've said they'll have something, though. Saying that ranged combat needs to be balanced so that characters can go in missing ~25% health and 2 AC doesn't seem like the result would be better. "You have access to tons of existing classes" is a side benefit of compatibility; the main one is "people don't need to learn a new system". If mixing systems means Wizard gets 8 HP and some body armor under their robes, that means SF2 doesn't have to contort itself around maintaining a "back line" that can't be reached.
Folks asking for occult Mystic is what makes me think it is an important part (along with my obvious personal bias, which I won't deny), so I'm happy for the chance to have it playtested. If they do remove it for the final version, I hope the playtest will help, but I'd prefer to have it stick around from the start and let all three be fleshed out as time goes on.
Well, yeah, there's no official conversion advice yet in the same way there are no multiclass archetypes; it's a playtest and that would throw stuff off. They've said they'll have something, though. Saying that ranged combat needs to be balanced so that characters can go in missing ~25% health and 2 AC doesn't seem like the result would be better. "You have access to tons of existing classes" is a side benefit of compatibility; the main one is "people don't need to learn a new system". If mixing systems means Wizard gets 8 HP and some body armor under their robes, that means SF2 doesn't have to contort itself around maintaining a "back line" that can't be reached.
Folks asking for occult Mystic is what makes me think it is an important part (along with my obvious personal bias, which I won't deny), so...
Archetypes are a guarantee in the future. These hypothetical compatibility notes for cloth casters, which no Paizo dev has even suggested despite ample opportunity, are not; they are pure conjecture. This playtest, by contrast, is explicitly marked as material that is guaranteed to change significantly over time, up to and including the balance and design of each and every one of its classes. The claim that there is a problem with a game “contorting itself around maintaining a back line” is not only self-evidently ridiculous, given the tremendous success of Pathfinder, the opposite is true: if there is no reason to focus anyone in particular and everyone is equally exposed, there ceases to be any reason for anyone to have more Hit Points or AC than anyone else. The moment you do, you paint a target on the back of your squishier party members, who will get picked off first by any remotely intelligent enemy. We can see this even now, because right now the Solarian and Soldier, the game’s tank classes, are barely functional at all. You can inflate the HP and AC of your casters all you want, the problem will still remain, and all the while combat becomes even more of a slog as too little damage relative to HP gets dealt for combat to advance at a reasonable pace. I personally would rather not combat took six rounds by default just because I felt this was my one chance to have a 1e-style caster.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Changing both (or even just one of them) to occult would mean that it's comparatively way overrepresented, especially when compared to whichever poor tradition is only getting one fifth of one half of the casters in the game.
I am uncertain why this is a concern. Witch has 13 Patron themes. Of those, 1 is Arcane tradition and 1 is Divine tradition.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
wouldn't it make more sense for mythic to be occult or divine casterWhy yes it would! It would have been great if those were the limitations placed on Mystic from the start! Now tell me what alternate universe you come from where a Witchwarper makes sense as a primal caster.
Honestly, and I don't mean this in a confrontational manner, primal makes perfect sense to me. I'd go as far as to say it fits better than occult, which is not a conclusion I came to lightly. The SF1 Witchwarpers spell list was instants, elemental damage, some healing, and area effects. These are all things the primal list is good at, as most of these became tied to the Material essence. In SF2, the Witchwarper's base abilities are still tied to affecting the area around them, including using terrain effects.
Some of the precog anchors that didn't make the jump, namely Drift Crisis (this one is a stretch I admit), Doomed Future, and Unmaking could very well be primal themed. Further, Time magic is specifically not tied to any particular tradition, so the heavy time themed anchors could conceivably also belong to any tradition. Might as well be primal (which like arcane and occult has both Haste and Slow on it).
Finally, the primal tradition is also the one of the 4 that is specifically tied to an alternate reality, the First World. All of the others draw on other planes of course too, but the first world is explicitly a rough draft/alternate version of our own world.
So, yeah, I don't think Primal is much of a stretch at all for witchwarpers. It requires us to see the primal tradition as more than "Druid and Druid Bros" but I see that as a plus, really.
Of course, I can very easily see how others might disagree, so I don't insist on my interpretation. In fact, the previous time I offered it someone accused me of hating the Witchwarper class. But no, this is just my own perspective.
Edit: Actually, I'm looking at the Xenodruid connection from SF1, and almost all of those connection abilities can be done with the playtest Witchwarper. Some require reflavoring of ablities, like Plant Transport and Complete Transposition, but more of the basics are there than I'd assumed. Meanwhile, the mystic is a lot further from what the Xenodruid offered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do think there are worlds in which divine and primal Witchwarpers make sense -- as AnimatedPaper mentions, the First World works well as an alternate reality, and there's an even larger number of Outer Sphere and transitive planes a divine Witchwarper could draw from. Both the Mystic and the Witchwarper could easily become choose-your-own-tradition casters with all four seeing representation... but do they need to be, at least right now? Page space is not a trivial concern for this kind of rulebook, so what would make the greatest impact: an extra occult subclass for the Mystic and the bare minimum of feats needed to support it, or extra support for the already well-established divine and primal subclasses?
I do think there are worlds in which divine and primal Witchwarpers make sense -- as AnimatedPaper mentions, the First World works well as an alternate reality, and there's an even larger number of Outer Sphere and transitive planes a divine Witchwarper could draw from. Both the Mystic and the Witchwarper could easily become choose-your-own-tradition casters with all four seeing representation... but do they need to be, at least right now? Page space is not a trivial concern for this kind of rulebook, so what would make the greatest impact: an extra occult subclass for the Mystic and the bare minimum of feats needed to support it, or extra support for the already well-established divine and primal subclasses?
Is primal well supported though? There's 1 subclass, and honestly elemental is kind of a clunker as far as the class's theme. I can think of 3 or 4 other connections that would have fit the class's themes better and been primal, such as Animal, Plants, or Light, and healing could have worked too, but they aren't here.
I'll concede your point about the current crop of class feats, but of them, only 1 I'd have trouble just sliding over to Witchwarper (Lifebond) with little rework. Given the overlap in mystic class themes and the themes of the occult tradition, I think new occult feats would be easier to come up with than primal ones. Additionally, all 4 primal themed mystic spells could easily have been written for the Witchwarper; for instance Wild Bond could have been "alternate universe version with this movement speed/physical ability".
(edited for clarity)
Finally, the primal tradition is also the one of the 4 that is specifically tied to an alternate reality, the First World. All of the others draw on other planes of course too, but the first world is explicitly a rough draft/alternate version of our own world.
I forgot about the Shadow/Umbral plane, which I'd also count as an alternate reality. Though I never fully agreed that primal shouldn't get access to it in addition to the First World, but regardless of that it makes me see occult in a little better light on the Witchwarper.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that too is valid, I agree a Witchwarper could have fun with those feats as well. I think the important bit is that we get each tradition represented at least once, but not overrepresented in the first book, so if the Witchwarper ends up being arcane/primal and the Mystic divine/occult I'd be very happy too. I just don't want occult taking up page space on every caster from day 1 just because there's always a convincing argument for why occult makes sense on space mage X.
Changing both (or even just one of them) to occult would mean that it's comparatively way overrepresented, especially when compared to whichever poor tradition is only getting one fifth of one half of the casters in the game.I am uncertain why this is a concern. Witch has 13 Patron themes. Of those, 1 is Arcane tradition and 1 is Divine tradition.
Apples to oranges. In PC1, Witch only has seven subclasses. I admit a majority of those are still occult, and I also concede that arcane and divine are both overall underrepresented on the Witch even counting supplements, but that's why the book has four more spellcasting classes that each have a unique single tradition. The same was true with the CRB and Sorcerer; It historically has a noticeable divine bias and its occult coverage is firmly in the dust, but that's why we have the entire Bard class.
As of the playtest, here in SF2, the seven patrons Witch has is the exact same amount as we have subclasses between every one of the casters total. If Mystic doubles down on the occult route and converts, say, Shadow into an occult connection, we don't have a dedicated space cleric to pick up the slack with divine. We might one day, but until such a supplement mannifests (certainly a long time past launch), we'd have one seventh of the entire game's casting dedicated to divine and one half to occult.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still do not understand the insistence on parity of tradition.
It is not a concern that Witch has very few Divine or Arcane tradition Patrons. Or that Sorcerer has very few Occult Bloodlines. It is also not a concern that Druid has no Divine, Arcane, or Occult options, or that Psychic has no Divine, Arcane, or Primal tradition choices.
What problem does it cause if a particular tradition has fewer class choices overall?
For an extreme example, if Pathfinder had only the Cleric available for Divine tradition. Oracle ceases to exist, and Witch, Sorcerer, and Summoner no longer have Divine as a tradition choice. What problem does this cause?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still do not understand the insistence on parity of tradition.
It is not a concern that Witch has very few Divine or Arcane tradition Patrons. Or that Sorcerer has very few Occult Bloodlines. It is also not a concern that Druid has no Divine, Arcane, or Occult options, or that Psychic has no Divine, Arcane, or Primal tradition choices.
What problem does it cause if a particular tradition has fewer class choices overall?
For an extreme example, if Pathfinder had only the Cleric available for Divine tradition. Oracle ceases to exist, and Witch, Sorcerer, and Summoner no longer have Divine as a tradition choice. What problem does this cause?
Apples to oranges again!
First off, I want to get one thing straight. For this particular discussion, bringing up content from non-core supplements is an unfair comparison. Starfinder will eventually get those but what I'm concerned about is how the game launches. It will take at minimum half a year, potentially more, for anything resembling a rules supplement that bolsters the player options of SF2, and I want to make sure the game is nice and balanced even before that has time to manifest. So for this I'm comparing the class selection primarily to PC1 with its 8 classes, instead of the CRB which has double the playtest's classes and PC1+2 which has nearly triple the amount, because that's a more fair and apt comparison.
It is not a concern that omni-tradition classes have biases because there's mono-tradition classes to represent those traditions. And it's doubly not a problem that mono-tradition classes don't have better tradition coverage because there's omni- and other mono-tradition classes to represent those options. Despite being one of the less represented traditions, you still have a wide selection of options for playing a primal caster, even if with certain classes the choice is narrower. The reason it's fine that Druid can't do occult is because Bard can and will, and so can Witch.
On the flipside, Cleric is a full class dedicated to divine spellcasting and exclusively divine spellccasting. Every feat and feature it has, all of its flavor, its "subclasses," all of Cleric revolves around divinity. If we lose every other divine caster overnight it would be a bummer and I do think it would be a problem if every other tradition didn't go through a similar culling, but at the very least we would still have one entire class who is divine inside and out.
Starfinder in its current state has neither of these assurances. There's no mono-tradition nor omni-tradition classes, only multi-tradition classes with specific and arbitrary coverage, and precious few of them at that. These classes also have very few options overall, I repeat that this entire system currently has a comparable amount of spellcasting subclasses total as one of the classes from PC1. Mystic cannot be compared to classes like Cleric or Witch because those classes are part of an entire separate web of rules option coverage that has a very different base.
Taken on its own merits instead, and seeing how it slots into this system, what Mystic needs is focus, not versatility. If Mystic loses divine options, there is no backup, Mystic is the divine caster. It also has to double as the primal caster by necessity, and the same applies there. Its flavor and feat coverage is already stretched thin between these two, because it's not meant to be like Sorcerer who is generic enough to do anything, it's a class that's meant to be representative of the specific things it can do. Adding occult makes the class feel confused more than anything. Mystic losing occult doesn't have the same problems, because it's not the one class that has to carry the weight of the world there, Witchwarper covers occult for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To support DMurnett's point, let's go with a more extreme example: suppose that in Starfinder Player Core, the Witchwarper gets arcane/occult subclasses as listed, but the Mystic gets nothing but occult subclasses too, and divine/primal subclasses only start appearing in some later supplement. Even though we'd eventually get to talk about how all traditions are supported in Starfinder, that initial state would be awful for divine and primal casting, which would have no support at all. Even afterwards, players picking up Player Core 1 would have no options for primal and divine characters, and so many options for occult characters that occult casters are likely to dominate most tables.
And on a much less extreme level, that's one of the risks with giving too much space to occult right now at the expense of other traditions, especially divine and primal. If a table starts a game of Starfinder 2e and cracks out just Player Core 1, there's going to be a lot of representation for occult, and comparatively much less for other traditions. Of all the rulebooks, Player Core 1 is the book that will see the most use and have the most visibility by far. It's not the book for "nice to have" things that can be easily added with later expansions, it's the book of all the essentials that form the foundation of player character options in the game. Starfinder is a game that has four magical traditions, and it would be good for those traditions to all see more or less equal representation and support, so that players can pick the most fundamental book in the game and have robust options for their caster no matter which tradition they go for. That's why parity matters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Taken on its own merits instead, and seeing how it slots into this system, what Mystic needs is focus, not versatility. If Mystic loses divine options, there is no backup, Mystic is the divine caster. It also has to double as the primal caster by necessity, and the same applies there. Its flavor and feat coverage is already stretched thin between these two, because it's not meant to be like Sorcerer who is generic enough to do anything, it's a class that's meant to be representative of the specific things it can do. Adding occult makes the class feel confused more than anything. Mystic losing occult doesn't have the same problems, because it's not the one class that has to carry the weight of the world there, Witchwarper covers occult for it.
Okay, then they should make Witchwarper arcane and primal while letting mystics be occult and divine, which is a much closer thematic overlap between classes and traditions. Much easier to do that focusing when there’s not clashing narratives to overcome.
More seriously, the designers are pretty competent. I don’t think any particular tradition is going to get shafted next July. Still provide the feedback the thread started with of course; I certainly plan to point out how primal has only 1 of the current 9 subclasses available, and it’s not even that good of a fit for the class its on. The release version will more than likely have closer to 12 to 15 subclasses between the two classes, so I’m not TOO worried, but best to point it out regardless.
I certainly plan to point out how primal has only 1 of the current 9 subclasses available, and it’s not even that good of a fit for the class its on.
Correcting myself here, since Rhythm is primal. For some reason I’d remembered it as divine, but objection slightly withdrawn. I still find elemental to be clunky on the mystic, but rhythm is much better.
Okay, then they should make Witchwarper arcane and primal while letting mystics be occult and divine, which is a much closer thematic overlap between classes and traditions. Much easier to do that focusing when there’s not clashing narratives to overcome.
Maybe this is what's left of my D&D brain talking, but I personally find the distinction of arcane/occult and divine/primal a lot more intuitive than arcane/primal and divine/occult. I know Halcyon Spellcasting and the Monk class firmly disagree with me here, which I recognize and understand, but I still stand by the fact that I would find it strange and unintuitive as the core paradigm. And while it's very rare that I advocate tradition for tradition's sake, I will point out that the Mystic had a Xenodruid subclass in 1e. Mystic has a history with being (what we would now call) Primal, while Witchwarper doesn't. If one class has to take primal and ditch occult (which I personally argue is the case) then Mystic is a better candidate than Witchwarper. At the risk of undermining this point, I think the changes to the Mystic help sell the vision of a divine/primal class. At least I think so, I'm not a 1e player so I don't know how much of it is new and how much of it is just The Mystic Class. The thing I know for sure is that when I first read the field test I did see why it might be seen as an occult class, but I didn't especially question why it was the way it was. It being a (partial) occultist now annoys and confuses me more than it helps the class come together. Again this is opinion but subjectivity is also an important thing to offer during a playtest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only issue I have with witchwarpers being arcane/primal is a difficulty in imagining which of their current paradoxes would fit the primal option. Perhaps Anomaly, dragging your material reality into the reality you are in now, but that's the only one that really fits. Granted, that's not a massive barrier, but it is still a barrier.
I still think it may be a better solution to give the witchwarper an option/a few options from a third tradition. Mystic and witchwarper still have their respective wheelhouses if mystic is primarily divine/primal and witchwarper is arcane/occult, but a third tradition pick shows that these two classes are less beholden to traditions than those from Pathfinder's time, which does go back to the previous edition.
It might even shake out that the tradition and your connection or paradox are totally divorced, but I suspect that way powergaming may lie, matching the most ideal abilities with the most popular tradition. Admittedly, people still debate about which tradition is the best, so maybe it wouldn't be that bad.
I actually don't hate this angle (though divorcing tradition from subclass is a step too far in my opinion), but if they do decide to go for it I think making them both "triplet" tradition casters is too timid. If we're saying traditions are fake and b!+%***~, make them real honest to god Sorcerer style omni-casters. Give Mystic an arcane connection. Do it. The problem there is that a super healer arcane class might be a bit... Much. What the hell do I know about anything though
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And while it's very rare that I advocate tradition for tradition's sake, I will point out that the Mystic had a Xenodruid subclass in 1e. Mystic has a history with being (what we would now call) Primal, while Witchwarper doesn't. If one class has to take primal and ditch occult (which I personally argue is the case) then Mystic is a better candidate than Witchwarper.
I already posted a lot on this point, so I don't want to belabor it , but basically I disagree strongly with you on these points, save that yes Xenodruids were mystics in SF1.
Though what I will repeat is that when I went flipping through the playtest for abilities that match the SF1 Xenodruid connection, just as many were on the WW as the Mystic, so I could see either pulling it off. Once I have all the math added correctly, I plan to post the build I came up with using Anomaly. Edit: Starting the build off by giving him a "Touch Grass" ability amused me greatly.
Again this is opinion but subjectivity is also an important thing to offer during a playtest.
No arguments with you on this point.
Honestly, if I was going to drop one of the traditions, I would drop divine since Pathfinder already has SO MANY divine casters (we're getting our sixth class that can cast divine spells in the next release.)
Like I get that the SF1 Mystic kind of had that "cleric in space" vibe, but divine seems like the least important tradition to give even more class support to.
but if they do decide to go for it I think making them both "triplet" tradition casters is too timid.
I don't understand the emotional injection here. There's nothing fearful or cowardly about giving a class 3 traditions instead of 2 or 4. Like the distinction you're drawing here is incredibly arbitrary.
I'm not saying it would necessarily be bad to have some hypothetical arcane mystic, but adding it just for the sake of some concept of parity makes as little sense as removing occult for the sake of symmetry. Neither are useful standards on their own.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, if I was going to drop one of the traditions, I would drop divine since Pathfinder already has SO MANY divine casters (we're getting our sixth class that can cast divine spells in the next release.)
Like I get that the SF1 Mystic kind of had that "cleric in space" vibe, but divine seems like the least important tradition to give even more class support to.
Alright, then which class do you suppose should take up the mantle? Because I don't know if it's escaped your notice but this isn't a Pathfinder supplement, it's a brand new system. If Mystic doesn't get to be "cleric in space," there will be literally zero classes that are. Cleric won't be there. Neither will Champion, or Sorcerer, or Oracle, or Summoner, or Animist, or anything else. Some class needs to be divine, or else this system fails at one of its core pillars: The ability to stand on its own two feet instead of relying on Pathfinder to fill in its gaps. In any other context I would agree with you, Divine is massively overrepresented among classes, especially when compared to Primal and Arcane, but that's a Pathfinder problem, not a Starfinder problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
After sitting on the idea for a while I'd like to amend and clarify my stance on Mystic's traditions. This class shouldn't release with the Akashic connection. I maintain that it's much better for newer players if there's a clear distinction between which caster does what, and the life-giving Mystic as divine/primal and reality-bending Witchwarper as arcane/occult make the most sense to me. However, I wouldn't be opposed to Mystic eventually getting arcane/occult connections in a future book (as long as Witchwarper isn't left out of the party either), but that should happen when the rest of the system is more set-in-stone, and more attention can be placed on making them work well in a future playtest or whatnot. My reasons for why I think Akashic specifically should be the one on the waiting list are unchanged. In the game's current state, it's the most realistic and least nonsensical change to make.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll say, I'd quite look forward to an expansion that showcased the "other side" of Starfinder's casters, giving us divine and primal Witchwarper subclasses along with arcane and occult Mystics. While there doesn't strictly need to be parity between those classes's traditions, there also isn't a strict need for occult to be on multiple classes from the jump, particularly if it competes for page space with other subclasses, feats, and the like that'd flesh out the rest much better. Starfinder 2e is set to give us plenty of amazing content for years to come, so we don't need everything all at once in Player Core 1, so much as a robust set of essentials.
Because I don't know if it's escaped your notice but this isn't a Pathfinder supplement, it's a brand new system.
It's not, but it's fully compatible with Pathfinder 2e and the spellcaster classes are the absolutely most trivial ones to import from Pathfinder to Starfinder since most of your class budget is not related to equipment, but magic. It's more accurate to say that Pathfinder is a supplement for Starfinder, since basically everything there is going to work here (but not the other way around.)
So people who want to play a cleric in space can just play a cleric. This is basically the same thing as "The Operative isn't the gunslinger or the rogue, since those classes are available."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because I don't know if it's escaped your notice but this isn't a Pathfinder supplement, it's a brand new system.It's not, but it's fully compatible with Pathfinder 2e and the spellcaster classes are the absolutely most trivial ones to import from Pathfinder to Starfinder since most of your class budget is not related to equipment, but magic. It's more accurate to say that Pathfinder is a supplement for Starfinder, since basically everything there is going to work here (but not the other way around.)
So people who want to play a cleric in space can just play a cleric. This is basically the same thing as "The Operative isn't the gunslinger or the rogue, since those classes are available."
Compatibility isn't the main issue here. Still, it's a lot more tenuous than you make it out to be. A lot of classes will need a lot of additional investment to function in the game's ranged meta; A Barbarian without innate flight is straight cooked (buff Solarian). Casters are ironically one of the worse examples you could give for a few minor but important reasons.
One: Unarmored is no longer a viable method of existing. Explorer's clothing is not only Archaic (which may or may not have detrimental mechanical effects eventually), but more importantly Exposed, which may not be relevant often, but when it is it's literally life-or-death. Flight suits exist, but those cannot be etched with runes and has no upgrade slots. Any cloth caster (including a Cloistered Cleric) needs to choose between basic armor progression and Not Instantaneously Dying In The Cold Radioactive Vacuum Of Space. Expecting every caster to pack a use of Mystic Armor is not game design, which is why both SF2 casters so far have light armor proficiency as a given, but that's not something that can be (easily) given to anything that uses unarmored. Two: Caster power budget is very closely tied to a specific caste of items. That's spellcasting items. Scrolls and wands are accounted for via spell gems and spell chips, but staves (or an equivalent) are currently missing from SF2. I assume it's why Paizo made both Mystic and WW four-slot casters. A three-slot caster (such as CLeric) is going to suffer, quite badly, unless this discrepency gets sorted out.
You also ignore something even more basic: table variance and organized play. Unless the rules explicitly state that anything that's in Pathfinder is allowed by default in Starfinder (which they shouldn't for many reasons), some if not most GMs will just put a blanket ban on anything not explicitly reprinted for SF2. I would at the very least consider it Uncommon or Rare at my table because I don't feel like dealing with the headache of making sure there's no potential friction between the systems. And I highly suspect Paizo will do something similar for Starfinder Society (2e), where certain curated choices are available through boons (or whatever they're called) but otherwise there's absolutely zero crossover. There's already very few assumptions you can make about what's allowed at any a given table, who knows if the group will run Free Archetype or allow any Uncommon options. Whether or not religious spellcasting is available shouldn't be a thing you have to worry about.
So I repeat. I agree that Pathfinder is oversaturated with divinity, but taking that out on Starfinder is really really bad for Starfinder. Just accept it and keep going.
I'm just saying that "everything but arcane" is a lot more palatable than "divine &".
If the occult options are bad, we should improve them. "Mystic" sounds like something that should be occult.