Why Technomancer is locked to only Arcane!?

[ElementalofCuteness]

Both Mystic and Witchwarper classes has the better chassis you can argue with. They both had light armor, both can choose from between 3 (I believe) Traditions, had 4/Rank of Magic slots and the worst of all 8/Hit Points per level. Why then is the Technomancer reduced to 6 hit points, no armor, only 3/rank per spell slots and only locked to the Arcane list and not the Occult as well for some crazy support?

[WWHsmackdown]

Arcane, building a language of understanding for magic, seems like the natural place for the magical programming class. There could be flavor arguments for a techno that stumbles upon the eldritch programming language of fundamental madness or some such but I think the occult niche for techno is a bit smaller than the arcane.

[WatersLethe]

For me, a class needs a STRONG justification for why it *could* allow pick-a-list spellcasting. Mystic gains power from a deep connection to otherworldly forces that have varied capabilities, so it gets a pass. Witchwarper has a really broad narrative basis, with timetravel shenanigans to falling between the cracks of realities... it also gets a pass. The spell lists are a huge factor in how a class feels to play, and just letting every class go with whatever dramatically waters down the impact spellcasting can have on class fantasy.

Technomancer combines a scholarly understanding of technology with a scholarly understanding of magic. I don't think the other lists fit at all with that.

Now, their chassis is looking quite anemic compared to the others, that I can agree with. They need more something!

[Zoken44]

So I think lacking the armor proficiency and the lower HP makes sense for a purely scholarly class like WatersLethe was just saying. I don't know why the spell slots per rank were reduced. It could just be them trying something different either with the initial playtest or the new one. I agree that there is no reason for it to have fewer slots/rank than WW or Mystic.

I've stated elsewhere that my theory on why their chassis is light on abilities to interact with a tech environment is for two reason: most of the tech interactions will be covered in spells, which the arcane spell list is likely to have the most tech interaction abilities of any, and avoiding having class features that can just be shut off by going to the wrong environment, which was the main weakness of the original 5e ranger.

But that's just a theory. I'm not a game dev so maybe there is some room to add abilities that could help enhance the technomancer flavor.

[Teridax]

I might write a thread about this, but I think it's fine for the Technomancer to have worse stats than the playtest Mystic and Witchwarper, and I think that reflects an evolution in Starfinder's balance where the Starfriends took critical player feedback on board. My suspicion is that the Mystic and Witchwarper will find themselves with lower stats than what we've seen in the playtest, because both classes were seriously overstatted (nearly every SF2e class was) and many players made note of that.

As for why the Technomancer is locked to Arcane, my guess is that Arcane is by far the best fit for a class that uses tech to hack into magic. Arcane is the magic of structure that gives you the cheat codes to the Universe, so it'd make sense for that to the Technomancer to embody that with their magical programming languages. Occult magic by contrast relies a lot on vibes, which I think makes it a less good fit. I agree with WatersLethe that a class needs good justification to be able to choose between traditions, and while I do think there's room for that in 2e (I do think Pathfinder's Psychic could choose between arcane and occult spellcasting), I don't think the thematic justification is strong enough on the Technomancer unless we go with a "ghost in the machine" angle that currently isn't really implemented in the playtest class.

[QuidEst]

Technomancer is almost as "arcane only" of a flavor as Wizard. It's very mind-material in flavor, and even if you want to bring in computer spirits, those are definitely a mind-aspect parallel to nature spirits being life-aspect.

I'm definitely on board with four slots, though. They seem like they could use it.

[Zoken44]

I'm okay with the difference in HP and armor, after all clerics and Druids have more HP and armor than wizards, despite being full casters.

I hope they are just experimenting here with 3/rank, I like the idea that as magic has evolved, more casters just have 4/rank. LIke they said, the meta is different. It's expected for most martials to have ranged weapons, and combat to be ranged, thus maybe the more slots is the magic equivilant to this?

[Xenocrat]

I agree with Teridax that the Technomancer doesn't have a noteably worse chassis than what we should expect the final Mystic and Witchwarper to have in the final product. Everyone thought the chassis were bonkers strong when the playtest dropped, and the Mystic even had a good class feature that was universally respected. We know from the end of playtest notes that the witchwarper's weak class features got a boost, so probably the slots and/or HP came down.

[Zoken44]

Would you be willing to help me understand why the two chassis were too strong, even with the new meta. I am asking with the understanding that you're right, and I don't understand, not trying to argue with you.

[Justnobodyfqwl]

I still believe there's a very real chance that all of the spellcasters will make it to print with their playtest spell slots and proficiencies

We have very little "printed" Starfinder 2e material at this point besides the space pirate archetype. Our one example seems to double down on the same philosophies of strong, self contained character options that define the playtest

I also think there's a few reasons that the Technomancer is just generally built very different from the other spellcasters. A heavier reliance on spellcasting, instead of a generically useful third action. A class chassis that needs you to be casting spells and using actions that modify spells. Having higher overall complexity, and not being in the core rulebook.

It breaks a lot of the mold of the playtest classes, and it could very well be an outlier

(Plus, I think spellcasters with weapons and armor are kind of non-negotiable with a ranged meta. You can't hide out from combat in the backlines, you're going to be under fire no matter what!)

[Xenocrat]

Zoken44 wrote:

Would you be willing to help me understand why the two chassis were too strong, even with the new meta. I am asking with the understanding that you're right, and I don't understand, not trying to argue with you.

Because it's supposed to be compatible with PF2, and with the recent (very hated by many) exception of the remastered Oracle all 4 slot (and some 3 and 2 slot) casters in PF2 have 6 HP, no armor. It will be most compatible if it requires few balancing changes, including in class chassis assumptions.

The reason given for 8 HP and light armor was to see if was necessary to survive in the "ranged meta" of Starfinder where you might get focus fired by multiple enemies more frequently than in PF2. I doubt the data showed that or playtesters as a whole demanded it. More early AC from armor is helpful because you're going to get targeted at all one on one more often, but probably GMs didn't focus casters down to the point they needed extra HP.

Making SF2 spellcaster chassis in line with PF2 makes compatability guidance easier and balancing against the same monsters/encounters per day easier. Instead of having to include a recommended HP adjustment, which feels gross, to casters going one way or the other between systems, they can just say "add/remove armor."

[Zoken44]

But they've said that while the rules would be compatible, the meta of the games would be very different. Hence easier access to flying has been a huge example they give for SF2e's meta difference. Couldn't this sort of thing fall into that meta difference?

[Xenocrat]

It could. They might just cut the spells to 3 slots since the dialed the supporting class feature in to be strong enough to not need that many slots if you're endlessly spamming heals and debuff zones between cantrips and strikes and various manuevers/defensive actions.

If the mystic and WW retain 8hp and 4 slots at launch along with their reported tweaks to their class features I'd feel pretty bad playing a playtest Techno alongside them. It makes more sense if the Techno chassis in closer to their final version.

[QuidEst]

Obviously, "everyone" is an exaggeration- plenty of folks were quite happy to have casters getting more slots by default, myself included. We're getting a bit of conversion guide, so little things like a slot difference for casters would be easily addressed.

[Zoken44]

yeah, I do agree with their extra features they don't really need the 4th slot per rank. I think the Technomancer could probably use it though.

[Xenocrat]

Zoken44 wrote:

yeah, I do agree with their extra features they don't really need the 4th slot per rank. I think the Technomancer could probably use it though.

Yes, Techno really needs 4 slots under the current spellshape focused paradigm.

[WWHsmackdown]

I'm fine with the playtest armor. I just want hp to reflect the slots. 6hp should mean 4 slots or strong repeatable fallbacks for non spell slot turns. The player core is long off to the printers or en route from shipping so we'll see how it shakes out come august

[DMurnett]

Zoken44 wrote:

But they've said that while the rules would be compatible, the meta of the games would be very different. Hence easier access to flying has been a huge example they give for SF2e's meta difference. Couldn't this sort of thing fall into that meta difference?

A different meta does not necessarily mean a different expected power level. Just, that power is allocated differently. Depending on how hard they want to go for the compatibility angle, the Starfriends need to keep class chassis considerations on par with each other and making up for the differences in more malleable areas like item strength instead, which they basically seem to have. That is, minus the overtuning of basically every class. Guns being effectively by default repeating is a very notable one, and all gear having an extra upgrade slot compared to rune progression is another. This would mean that a Wizard won't fall behind in SF since they get access to the same tools as everyone else, and a Mystic wouldn't pull ahead in PF because they're restricted to the same tools as everyone else. Ancestries, archetypes, feats, and especially items are a different can of worms though and would likely be much harder to truly balance, but classes realistically can just be balanced to be on par with Pathfinders's and still work in the new meta.

[Zoken44]

I just really want to play. My D&D group is taking... convincing. I've even offered to DM, since I'm more familiar with the system. we'll see if they take the bate. Currently running Strahd.

[25speedforseaweedleshy]

if flexible 3 slot become one of default option it would be far stronger than prepare 4 slot

but that is another discussion

viper can access spell of all tradition

not like technomancer have any other subclass option

[Xenocrat]

Jokes on me, they’ll be 10 HP and medium armor.

[moosher12]

QuidEst wrote:

Obviously, "everyone" is an exaggeration- plenty of folks were quite happy to have casters getting more slots by default, myself included. We're getting a bit of conversion guide, so little things like a slot difference for casters would be easily addressed.

The only concern I have is Paizo conversion guides are pretty fast and loose. I've read enough Paizo guides to know that only general strategies are said, not specifics, So you'll see some players complaining that "My GM nerfed my Mystic to 3 spells per level, while this other GM let me have 4." As an example, I'd probably nerf the mystic to 3 spells per level in a Pathfinder game, and I doubt I'm the only one. There will be variance on how GM's allow this, which means there will not be much standards that players can count on, unless these conversion guides are very specific.