|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't got a chance to play, but after a thorough readthrough, I have some thoughts.
Mechanic:
**The good: I like the clear class deliniation, and I like that people have tried to differentiate it from the Inventor. I also like the free skill upgrades; sorely needed in the PF2/SF2 system, even more so in starfinder 2e where you have more skills.
**Concerns:
1) Weak Chassis. Only becomes Legendary in Perception, and then only at level 17. That means that at PL 16, when you can expect to start finding level 19 hazards, they CANNOT detect legendary traps to disarm them, even if they are actively looking. I'd throw in a legendary save (fort?) and/or legendary in class DCs (given how much they need class DCs for things like exploding mines/area fire.)
2)I'm not 100% on the math of companions, but does it work out? Genuinely asking how the math of a drone will compare to, like, the shooting of a soldier or whatever.
**I'd like to see: An exocortex without a companion, that just is like a targeting computer like SF1. Also a vehicle Drone would be cool.
Technomancer:
**The good: I've never been so into spellshapes. I like the Spellshape/Jailbreak combo you've laid out. Also, got a kick out of the terrible programming language puns.
**Concerns: A whole list of them:
1) As others have pointed out, ServoShell doesn't really work with Starfinder action economy.
2) DPS++ Wants you to be shooting a gun, which you in general won't be good at as a full on spellcaster.
3) Viper REALLY needs an overhaul. I love the concept of getting more than one use out of a spellgem, but it's very problematic.
--a) Can't use it out of the gate. An initial Level 1 Starfinder won't have spellgems, turning off a good chunk of their class.
--b) Requires the GM to hand out spellgems for your basic class to work. If you are playing a prewritten scenario without a lot of spellgems, your subclass doesn't work.
--c) Even if you buy a bunch of spellgems to get it to work, that's a big chunk of your WBL that you should be spending on weapons and armor, that you just spend to get your class to have basic functionality.
--d) You never get above trained in class DCs, so your 'turn spellgem into grenade' becomes all but useless at higher levels as all enemies will just crit save against the grenade.
4) Action starved. Because Overclocking takes an action, and spellcasting takes two (usually) that's an entire turn. Leaving you no time to duck for cover or move into range or whatever.
**I'd like to see: Maybe a few more programming languages. Maybe a datapad or Comm Unit based one, or a melee weapon based one? I have an idea for some more terrible puns.
Nikl (COBAL), SIMPLE (BASIC), Itch(Scratch), Construction (Assembly). DPS blunt (C#, maybe make this one the AoE damage one.)
I think this is a solid assessment. I do think the design and balance of both classes are an improvement over the initial six, as they fit 2e's framework a lot better, but there are a few issues with the two tech classes that need sorting out.
I'll likely do a full write-up of each class, but in my opinion there are a few commonalities: both classes in the playtest are hyper-focused on a specific thing (deployable-based area control for the Mechanic, spellshapes for the Technomancer), and that hyperfocus in my opinion has come at a large cost to their other mechanics, including a severe lack of basic functionality in some respects. The Mechanic's drone progression is completely messed up, but also the class is only loosely-tied to their key attribute, to a degree where it's quite easy to ignore it entirely on one, if not two subclasses. The Technomancer is made extremely dependent on spell slots due to their focus spell being a spellshape, and that dependence is increased even further by Overclock Gear also being dependent on casting a non-cantrip spell, all while subclasses like ServoShell and Viper have features that are outright unusable out of the box.
One of the bigger problems I'll note is that despite these two classes being part of a tech rulebook, neither seem to interact very well with tech. The Mechanic doesn't have all that much tech interaction, and their mine exocortex I think could have been a sterling opportunity to instead have a rig that lets you make grenades on the fly, with mods that could let you turn them into mines and other fun kinds of explosives. The Technomancer, meanwhile, lacks the class DC scaling to do well with grenades at all at later levels, which does not bode well for their grenade-based features and feats, and their overclocking is so action- and resource-restricted, while also being consumed by Jailbreak Spell, that it feels almost like a means to an end rather than a proper feature in its own right.
With this, my feedback would be for the developers to pull back somewhat and consider other aspects of the classes they're dealing with: it's great for the Mechanic to be able to control minions and areas, but it'd be nice for them to do more actual mechanic stuff and play a bit more with items. It's great for the Technomancer to use tech to hack into magic, but it'd also be good for the class to have more room to use magic to play with tech in new ways. Neither class needs to put all their eggs in one basket to shine at what the developers are aiming for, and in the Technomancer's case in particular I think the class needs to be good at things other than spellshaping at early levels if they want that aspect of them to work.
Other then modify, I don't really see how they could interact with tech more without stealing from skill feats. Getting some low level repair or hacking enhancers could help the same way inventor gets repair feats and gadgets.
A few 10 minute style exploration mods could fill that avenue perfectly.
Hopefully robots take into account how base PF2 animal companions are busted when it comes to specializations. Adding a single point to one stat critically puts off their math, leaving those with low starting dex or who don't have a finesse attack lagging behind after level 14.
Making robots all have the same stats and progression would fix the math, then just give them unique abilities and optional upgrade functions.
I still haven't really noticed anything that works to incorporate cover into actual game play. Gunslinger has an option to reload and hide/take cover for example. If most characters third action is going to be take cover, or be stuck in cover where you don't have LOS to shoot (like at the edge of a corner), then I'm not sure how enjoyable a lot of combat will be. Even the turret blocks your own shots if your using it for cover.
Really like the ideas, just a bit iffy on implementation and intended functionality.
|
|
Other then modify, I don't really see how they could interact with tech more without stealing from skill feats. Getting some low level repair or hacking enhancers could help the same way inventor gets repair feats and gadgets.
A few 10 minute style exploration mods could fill that avenue perfectly.
.
They could get the ability to make temporary tech items through a feat, kind of like Talisman dabbler or the inventor’s ability to make temporary gadgets.
Indeed, I don't think that would make them feel more tech based though. Modify is a much more interesting design space then just money saving abilities. IMO the class/archetype/feats that just produce things you could buy aren't very interesting, most of those types of effects are very low powered. Having played two characters to 20 and more then a half dozen to various low levels I have never found a talisman that was worth the time to use. Those type of abilities are fine as tertiary abilities because they can be fun, but I don't think it really enriches the core of the class. Opening modify to have mods that last up to 10 minutes and running more then one as you level would be much more interesting to me. Something similar in scope to summoners evolution surge where it gives you options for helpful temporary abilities.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the more I read them, the more they remind me of things I don't enjoy about PF2e classes. The mechanic promises a cool class fantasy, but they both mostly use the flavor of creation to be a class that hits things good. The technomancer promises a cool gameplay loop, but it requires turns that are either rigid or "best case scenario" just to reliably do what your class promises you.
I'd argue this is a problem much more specific to the SF2e playtest than PF2e. Pathfinder classes tend to have a variety of things to do, and while some do have more math-y benefits, the majority have mechanics that are quite flavorful, open-ended, and conducive to cooperative play. The Starfinder playtest classes, by contrast, were chock-full of numbers boosters, and several bent over backwards to justify their key attribute, the Soldier in particular. Every SF2e class in the original playtest has a fixed rotation, which PF2e classes avoid in their design, and that in my experience made several of them quite rigid to play in practice. That this problem persists on the Technomancer especially I think is more a continuation of past errors than an emergent issue.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
2) DPS++ Wants you to be shooting a gun, which you in general won't be good at as a full on spellcaster.
Just want to point out that in the PF2 engine, a ranged weapon strike on a damage caster is actually very good. With minimal investment your strikes can be on par with second attacks from most martials, so combining a spell and a shot is surprisingly valuable. This is generally not seen *as much* in PF2 because of the few good handy ranged weapons available, which guns fix.
The reason Technomancer is failing at using guns is their action economy is pretty borked with their focus on spell shapes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the more I read them, the more they remind me of things I don't enjoy about PF2e classes. The mechanic promises a cool class fantasy, but they both mostly use the flavor of creation to be a class that hits things good. The technomancer promises a cool gameplay loop, but it requires turns that are either rigid or "best case scenario" just to reliably do what your class promises you.
They don't have the cool abilities that interact with tech, like Androids and Prismeni do. They don't have reliable at-will abilities that help out your team, like Envoys and Mystics do. They don't have cleverly flavored out-of-combat utility, like a Mystic's "Cloud Storage" or an Operative's "Barricade" feats.
Kind of funny that you say this is PF2 problem when Druid exists as an extremely flavorful, versatile, powerful spellcaster class that, if Technomancer had copied the homework of except crossed out nature for tech, would have knocked it out of the park from a flavor standpoint.
If anything, the problem is that the SF2 team is getting a bit lost in the weeds trying to be different from PF2, while not adequately embracing the non-combat technology that exists in the setting.
I'd say even the in-combat tech elements are missing from these classes. I can understand not giving out every feat that's set to be in the final product, but given that this is meant to be part of the tech playtest, I'm surprised to not see a lot more interaction with tech. Given that the Technomancer in particular is stuck at a trained class DC, they can't interact very well with common tech items like grenades. This is in spite of several features and feats on the class pushing them to use grenades, and in spite of the Witchwarper receiving an up-to-master class DC specifically to make use of explosives, which is why I'm all the more confused as to how that got missed on what is meant to be the tech caster.
|
In the Starfinder setting, unless you are in the middle of nowhere, almost everything around you is a potential electrical/mechanical hazard.
Since some hazards can be dealt with by using both skill checks and attacks, tech and or computer-flavored hazards and complex hazards are a great way for mechanics and technomancers to interact with tech in or out of combat.
A Cosmic Birthday has around 20 hazards in it, so I think the SF2 team is aware of how to add tech encounters to the game. Now the question is, how good are the mechanic and technomancer at dealing with hazards?
The problem is that classes focus mostly on combat, and dealing with tech is mostly skill checks. Other than being good at a tech skill and getting better at that skill, what makes dealing with tech interesting is the tech itself.
One reason I thought why the mechanic and technomancer were held back until the Tech Core book was that for the classes to feel right, there needed to be more tech items for them to use or interact with, but it's likely better to playtest a class with out lots of other verables like new equipment.
One thing I'd love to see with the use of overclocking tech is to have some tech items that define their own effect when overclocked. This could be special equipment or an upgrade.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A curious detail I've noticed is that Overclock Gear doesn't exclusively work on tech items: if you wanted, you could overclock an analog weapon or armor, which in this case I think might actually be detrimental to the Techomancer's theme (and, conversely, making overclocking exclusive to tech gear could allow it to be made stronger). There's also a bunch of tech that could be overclocked but isn't touched upon at all, including grenades, missiles, upgrades, medpatches, adventuring gear, and a whole bunch of magic items, to say nothing of tech hazards and non-minion creatures. That looks like a lot of room for more interaction with tech to me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with not overclocking non-tech items. The thing about defining what overclocking does to different types of tech items in the class is that there isn't enough room to do so, or if you try you are limited to a large general effect on a group of similar items.
For items, having upgrades that allow them to be overclocked, makes it so that you don't have to define it in either the class or the item, the original item.
For creatures, maybe there could be an overclocked condition that boosts it somehow, or a weakness to being overclocked that stresses it out, causing it to glitch.
For hazards, it's easy to define what overclocking would do to it in the hazard stat block.
I'm also hoping that hazards are used in starship combat, which would make for some really interesting damage for the crew to deal with.
For technomancers, a lot of the way they interact with tech could come from spells we have not seen yet. I'm not sure if we have seen any spells yet that were made with overlock in mind.
I don't have time now to look, but wondering if any technomancer feats with jailbreak would work with the DESTRUCTION PROTOCOL spell from the SF2e playtest book, or other spells that deal with tech. Finding those types of combinations is where I think the technomancer will get a lot of class flavor and effect.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
it's great for the Mechanic to be able to control minions and areas, but it'd be nice for them to do more actual mechanic stuff and play a bit more with items
I think I may like the class as written a little better than you, but I agree with this. The Mod ability gives me some of what I was hoping to see, but its not drawing in me as much as I expected.