| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, technically they're on par but I don't buy that. Wizard is trained in their tradition skill (Arcana) and 2+int free skills. Techno gets their tradition skill (Arcana), Computers, and 1+int free skills. That's guaranteed 3 for both of them, and yes, realistically a good amount more since they're int classes, but like... Why does Technomancer have a marginally worse version of Wizard's most notable weakness? I legitimately cannot think of another class, PF2 or SF2, that has 1+int free skills. So yeah, I think Technomancer should get a small bump up to 2+int free skills, as a treat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On one hand, I applaud the Starfriends for taking on board feedback from the initial phase of the playtest and tuning their balancing to match that of PF2e more closely. With perhaps one or two exceptions, I think the new playtest doc really shows that the devs aren't just using the top end of numbers each time now, and I'd feel much more comfortable having these new classes play alongside PF2e classes, despite how these two feel almost like direct upgrades to the Inventor and Wizard.
On the other hand, I also think prepared Intelligence arcane casters having less than the normal minimum of base skills in 2e is a silly convention that doesn't need to be carried over to the Technomancer. Yes, you get more trained skills from Intelligence, and the class is really flexible already by virtue of being prepared and arcane, but prepared arcane spellcasting I think is already balanced via a spellbook mechanic (or in the Technomancer's case, a spell cache), and other Intelligence classes don't get saddled with this same limitation. Giving the now-three prepared arcane casters in 2e an extra trained skill at 1st level I think is unlikely to overpower them, and would eliminate a long-standing annoyance players have had with this specific subset of classes.
On one hand, I applaud the Starfriends for taking on board feedback from the initial phase of the playtest and tuning their balancing to match that of PF2e more closely. With perhaps one or two exceptions, I think the new playtest doc really shows that the devs aren't just using the top end of numbers each time now, and I'd feel much more comfortable having these new classes play alongside PF2e classes, despite how these two feel almost like direct upgrades to the Inventor and Wizard.
On the other hand, I also think prepared Intelligence arcane casters having less than the normal minimum of base skills in 2e is a silly convention that doesn't need to be carried over to the Technomancer. Yes, you get more trained skills from Intelligence, and the class is really flexible already by virtue of being prepared and arcane, but prepared arcane spellcasting I think is already balanced via a spellbook mechanic (or in the Technomancer's case, a spell cache), and other Intelligence classes don't get saddled with this same limitation. Giving the now-three prepared arcane casters in 2e an extra trained skill at 1st level I think is unlikely to overpower them, and would eliminate a long-standing annoyance players have had with this specific subset of classes.
I personally only think they should have Arcana, Computers and 2+Int because Starfinder has two extra skills, computers being one, and that transferring the class to Pathfinder is Arcana 2+Int this way, instead of Arcana 1+Int. I can image a lot of players wanting to play this but calling it a wizard
I personally only think they should have Arcana, Computers and 2+Int because Starfinder has two extra skills, computers being one, and that transferring the class to Pathfinder is Arcana 2+Int this way, instead of Arcana 1+Int. I can image a lot of players wanting to play this but calling it a wizard
This is also true, you could easily port the class over to Pathfinder by replacing the Computers proficiency with another trained skill. I guess part of this is also me wanting the Wizard and Magus to have one extra trained skill, as I do think 4 trained skills in total ought to be the bare minimum before factoring in Int, but if we're going to stick purely to the Technomancer, the argument applies to them as well.
I personally only think they should have Arcana, Computers and 2+Int because Starfinder has two extra skills, computers being one, and that transferring the class to Pathfinder is Arcana 2+Int this way, instead of Arcana 1+Int. I can image a lot of players wanting to play this but calling it a wizardThis is also true, you could easily port the class over to Pathfinder by replacing the Computers proficiency with another trained skill. I guess part of this is also me wanting the Wizard and Magus to have one extra trained skill, as I do think 4 trained skills in total ought to be the bare minimum before factoring in Int, but if we're going to stick purely to the Technomancer, the argument applies to them as well.
I don't care enough to say it shouldn't happen, but I don't know why anyone cares this much. I certainly think skills and spells compete for your attention, and that there is something lost when too many skills get filled in. Wizards start with 7 trained skills. After we run down the list of all the int skills, Arcana, Society, Occult, Crafting, we maybe grab something generally useful like acrobatics, and then maybe two flavor skills, we hit 7, what are we grabbing with 8 that is so important? I'm not a mind reader but it feels more like an obsession with mathematical symmetry than with play design. 7 skills is already a lot and typically only 3 will be legendary. This also devalues the untrained improvisation style feats, and as you level you'll already get 2 more trained skills. I'm always just picking "idk, something ig" when picking those, so I don't know what people want that one extra skill for. I think this argument is maybe stronger for the magus who often has +2 int instead of +4, but for a wizard, idk. We aren't even talking about skills given by backgrounds either
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, you say this, but the Mechanic from the same playtest gets 8 starting trained skills, as do the Alchemist, the Commander, the Inventor, the Psychic with an Int subconscious mind, and the Witch (not counting the Investigator, who gets 10 but is meant to be a skill monkey). Because two of these classes are spellcasters, including even one that can be a prepared arcane spellcaster, casting spells clearly does not force you to have fewer trained skills. Similarly, having more trained skills via Int is not used as an excuse for these classes to have fewer trained skills, so you could very well pick some more useful skills like Medicine or Athletics, neither of which need to be boosted via skill increases to have some worthwhile uses, on top of useful knowledge skills like Nature and Religion (again, which don't need to be boosted to be useful in many circumstances).
With this in mind, it's not so much an obsession with symmetry, as it is a rejection of this underlying convention where dedicated prepared arcane casters, who also happen to be Int-based (though many Magi won't boost their Int by much), have less than the otherwise minimal number of starting trained skills. This convention does not need to exist, is the point, and the fact that it is maintained I think just makes the balancing around these classes feel pettier than intended. Certainly not a hill to die on, it's just a minor annoyance that need not exist, particular as all the arguments about how this would devalue certain feats or whatever are nonsense given all the other class who do just fine with that amount of trained skills.
I mean, you say this, but the Mechanic from the same playtest gets 8 starting trained skills, as do the Alchemist, the Commander, the Inventor, the Psychic with an Int subconscious mind, and the Witch (not counting the Investigator, who gets 10 but is meant to be a skill monkey). Because two of these classes are spellcasters, including even one that can be a prepared arcane spellcaster, casting spells clearly does not force you to have fewer trained skills. Similarly, having more trained skills via Int is not used as an excuse for these classes to have fewer trained skills, so you could very well pick some more useful skills like Medicine or Athletics, neither of which need to be boosted via skill increases to have some worthwhile uses, on top of useful knowledge skills like Nature and Religion (again, which don't need to be boosted to be useful in many circumstances).
With this in mind, it's not so much an obsession with symmetry, as it is a rejection of this underlying convention where dedicated prepared arcane casters, who also happen to be Int-based (though many Magi won't boost their Int by much), have less than the otherwise minimal number of starting trained skills. This convention does not need to exist, is the point, and the fact that it is maintained I think just makes the balancing around these classes feel pettier than intended. Certainly not a hill to die on, it's just a minor annoyance that need not exist, particular as all the arguments about how this would devalue certain feats or whatever are nonsense given all the other class who do just fine with that amount of trained skills.
Truthfully I'm not a fan of the amount of skills any of those classes get either. It's for me more than it feels soup-y, but I also don't like the concept of "skill monkey" classes. To me it seems to incentivize being too much of a generalist in a team game where we all pick our lane to cover weaknesses. But it is neither here nor there, I'm just not sure what we are picking for that 8th skill
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i do also kinda wish they got more skills. Witchwarper from the playtest is also INT and gets like 2 more skills than the Technomancer does while also having more hp and slots so it feels a bit odd (unless they change that in the final version)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do think there's value in versatility; if we were all specialists we wouldn't have the arcane list to begin with, and Pathfinder Society play I think would be a lot less stable given how you don't know who you're going to land with.
To give an example of a skill setup: in addition to Arcana and Computers, your Technomancer could also pick Nature, Occultism, and Religion to cover their creature RK bases, then choose from a combination of Acrobatics, Athletics, Medicine, Piloting, and Thievery to make sure you can handle a variety of basic rolls competently. You won't really need Untrained Improvisation, but that's only because the feat covers the key benefit of Intelligence as an attribute, not the other way round.
I do think there's value in versatility; if we were all specialists we wouldn't have the arcane list to begin with, and Pathfinder Society play I think would be a lot less stable given how you don't know who you're going to land with.
To give an example of a skill setup: in addition to Arcana and Computers, your Technomancer could also pick Nature, Occultism, and Religion to cover their creature RK bases, then choose from a combination of Acrobatics, Athletics, Medicine, Piloting, and Thievery to make sure you can handle a variety of basic rolls competently. You won't really need Untrained Improvisation, but that's only because the feat covers the key benefit of Intelligence as an attribute, not the other way round.
Well, the versatility of spells is often considered poor game design, but I'm not going to get into the weeds of that because it's obviously nuanced, and complicated. Regardless I think there is a difference between versatility and being a generalist. Rogues end up as generalists in skills even though they really could just be taking the dex skills plus a couple skills important for the character concept, and likewise I don't think we *need* medicine and thievery on most or all technomancer, nor religion and nature. I do understand your point about wanting to be able to fill gaps in PFS specifically, but I don't know if that is solvable without giving everyone their level to all skill checks. I do wanna clarify, I meant 8th skills for a wizard not a techno. I agree more that techno should get 2+int or 3+int because of the additional two skills. Piloting feels mandatory for every character to have and I almost wish it was treated like perception
I do think a Wizard could find other skills in the place of Computers, such as Crafting or Stealth, but I also see where you're coming from. FWIW, I also dislike how Intelligence pushes you to be a generalist when it could instead let you commit more towards the skills you want to be good at, and even wrote wrote a bit of homebrew to let Int-based characters pick more 1st-level skill feats instead of getting the usual combo of trained skills and languages. Similarly, I dislike how spellcasting tends to push you heavily towards being a generalist no matter what, and similarly wrote a homebrew class to enable ultra-specialized caster builds. I do still think there's value in having someone who's decent at a lot of different things on the team, as that helps avoid catastrophic failure when your team really needs a particular skill or effect and everyone's hard-specialized into something else, but it'd be even better for that to be optional on a character rather than their only available path.
Even with the above, though, I'd still prefer it for those classes to have the basic 4 trained skills to choose from. I'd rather not the Wizard pick Skill Training with one of their Int boosts just to be on par with everyone else's baseline, and I'd especially not want the Magus to commit a proportionately far larger portion of their own Int benefits for the same. The benefits of Intelligence ought to be an actual benefit on top of a healthy baseline, not something that's deducted from your class's baseline on the assumption that you'll make up for it in some form, particularly as the attribute is frequently neglected in favor of other scores. It's less likely to be the case in Starfinder, as Computers looks to be a pretty important skill while Strength looks almost entirely irrelevant, but even so, I do think there's room for that one extra trained skill on the Technomancer regardless of which model's being followed.