| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. I don’t think any dev has said yes or no in regards to the Vanguard in 2e.
2. You can look at the Technomancer and Mechanic playtest stuff at starfinderplaytest.com and there’s errata on the FAQ and I think on some of the blogs somewhere?
I have no comment on witchwarper or insight on it being core ^^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there no plans to have the Vanguard in 2e?
What about the Mechanic? No technomancer? How did the Witchwarper even sneak into the core?
Mechanic and Technomancer were not included in the first book because they both rely especially heavily on technology, and the team felt they would turn out better if developed after some of the initial items and baselines were established.
Vanguard may show up at some point.
As for how the well-liked concept of Witchwarper ended up in the core rulebook with a less spell-slot-hungry implementation, it's a combination of Witchwarper and Precog. They wanted to make sure that they covered the occult and arcane spell lists, and also had a class that could cover intelligence so that every attribute would have a class on launch.
For people who mainly enjoyed Vanguard's "unkillable brute" constitution-based gameplay, Soldier is now Con-based and has an internal healing feat. For people who enjoyed the entropic theming of Vanguard, there's a gravity-focused Solarian.
I really think Starfinder needsa a 12 hit point per level class...Vanguard should have been included.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really think Starfinder needsa a 12 hit point per level class...Vanguard should have been included.
If player core included all the classes, tech, and rules everybody asked for, the physical printing would require a forklift to move it around. Give some time for supplements to be announced and printed.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And lastly, Vanguard is probably not gonna be a Vanguard perse. Frankly, it's name is misleading, and will become especially misleading when Pathfinder classes join the mix, as vanguard does little to invoke its actual abilities. So it would likely be due for a name change. I vote Entropath.
To be truthful, this is part of the reason why Vanguard never "clicked" with me in 1e. It felt like the entropy-related aspects were just kind of "there" in the class without clear guidance on their place within the setting apart from the villain-coded Ataxxea. Were you supposed to be spiritual as a Vanguard? No clue, the class text didn't really offer an opinion the way it did for Solarians. It felt redundant with Solarians narratively and felt like it was more interested in its mechanical role of "tank class" than it was in its narrative role of "empowered by entropy."
Obviously this is more a failure of imagination on my part, because the class seemed to be very popular from my admittedly limited experience, but I just could never really come up with character concepts whose narratives would be best served by being a vanguard...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And lastly, Vanguard is probably not gonna be a Vanguard perse. Frankly, it's name is misleading, and will become especially misleading when Pathfinder classes join the mix, as vanguard does little to invoke its actual abilities. So it would likely be due for a name change. I vote Entropath.To be truthful, this is part of the reason why Vanguard never "clicked" with me in 1e. It felt like the entropy-related aspects were just kind of "there" in the class without clear guidance on their place within the setting apart from the villain-coded Ataxxea. Were you supposed to be spiritual as a Vanguard? No clue, the class text didn't really offer an opinion the way it did for Solarians. It felt redundant with Solarians narratively and felt like it was more interested in its mechanical role of "tank class" than it was in its narrative role of "empowered by entropy."
Obviously this is more a failure of imagination on my part, because the class seemed to be very popular from my admittedly limited experience, but I just could never really come up with character concepts whose narratives would be best served by being a vanguard...
Same. Vanguard was a giant set of off-putting mistakes to me.
I could easily see something similar mechanically and flavor-wise show up as a Solarian class archetype. Hopefully the name can be reclaimed by a more fitting class fantasy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For comparison, Pathfinder2e didn't get Magus until Secrets of Magic was released ... just over 2 years after the game launched. And Kineticist wasn't available until about a year and a half ago.
Yes. Getting all of your previously available characters with their proper class may take some time.
|
I always struggled with the narrative-mechanical disconnect in the 1e vanguard, but 2e could be a great opportunity to reimagine it to better deliver on it.
Lean into the entropy stuff, and bring out the scattered lore bits from 1e (the draeliks, Attaxea, etc.) more to the front. The tanky Con-based warrior vibe might go away a bit to make that happen, but I bet there are ways to reconcile it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Vanguard wasn't core in 1e, so I'm not sure why it not being core in 2e would make you assume it's gone for good.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And lastly, Vanguard is probably not gonna be a Vanguard perse. Frankly, it's name is misleading, and will become especially misleading when Pathfinder classes join the mix, as vanguard does little to invoke its actual abilities. So it would likely be due for a name change. I vote Entropath.To be truthful, this is part of the reason why Vanguard never "clicked" with me in 1e. It felt like the entropy-related aspects were just kind of "there" in the class without clear guidance on their place within the setting apart from the villain-coded Ataxxea. Were you supposed to be spiritual as a Vanguard? No clue, the class text didn't really offer an opinion the way it did for Solarians. It felt redundant with Solarians narratively and felt like it was more interested in its mechanical role of "tank class" than it was in its narrative role of "empowered by entropy."
Obviously this is more a failure of imagination on my part, because the class seemed to be very popular from my admittedly limited experience, but I just could never really come up with character concepts whose narratives would be best served by being a vanguard...
Same. Vanguard was a giant set of off-putting mistakes to me.
I could easily see something similar mechanically and flavor-wise show up as a Solarian class archetype. Hopefully the name can be reclaimed by a more fitting class fantasy.
And it didn't help that we got to see actual variants of the Solarian in the form of things like the "electromagnus" solarians from Tech Revolution (which I imagine will return in the future, likely as a class archetype).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who hasn’t played much Starfinder, the Vanguard looks like a fun class. “Entropy” seems simple enough as a power source, and I wouldn’t see any need for narrative questions around spirituality or lack thereof. Understand tho’ that I don’t tend to give gods much credence either in fantasy or IRL, so making non-spiritual narratives comes rather easily. I can see that if in a Pact Worlds campaign, that aspect might be handy to have some guidance on.
Mechanically I like where the powers start, and they look like they could really be fleshed out, perhaps by 3PP. Mayhap such powers might work inside the Solarian chassis.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As much as I'd like to see all the old classes make it to SF2e in some form or another eventually. I think after the mechanical and technomancer, it would be nice to see something new, the same goes for ancestries, although it sounds like the first new ancestry is in Murder in Metal City.
Yep, I did forget to add that I don’t really see anything that ties the name “Vanguard” to the concepts in the class in any meaningful way whatsoever... Mostly it to me looked like a “space monk” with the Entropic Strike…but that does seem to be the Solarian. I like Entropath, but mostly because it is evocative of the Warhammer 40k Astropath.
|
|
As much as I'd like to see all the old classes make it to SF2e in some form or another eventually. I think after the mechanical and technomancer, it would be nice to see something new, the same goes for ancestries, although it sounds like the first new ancestry is in Murder in Metal City.
Yep, khizars!
I like Entropath, but mostly because it is evocative of the Warhammer 40k Astropath.
Astropaths are one of my favorite aspects of the 40k universe, and I've wanted to play a "battle astropath" in a game like Rogue Trader or Dark Heresy for a while.
|
|
As much as I'd like to see all the old classes make it to SF2e in some form or another eventually. I think after the mechanical and technomancer, it would be nice to see something new, the same goes for ancestries, although it sounds like the first new ancestry is in Murder in Metal City.Yep, khizars!
Right after I posted this last night, I saw the announcement for the Starfinder Galactic Ancestries book. Sounds like it's a mix of SF1e, PF2e, and new SF2e ancestries for SF2e. No idea when it comes out, but they already have cover art for it.
I have had a look at the Khizars. I preordered Murder in Metal City from a local game store, but it hasn't come in yet, and it's not on AON yet.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another vote of approval for renaming them "Entropaths". Nicely sci-fi sounding without being TOO specific, so the designers have room to play with the concept.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
To properly embody entropy, everyone must use a random password generator to create the name of the class as it exists for their character.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To properly embody entropy, everyone must use a random password generator to create the name of the class as it exists for their character.
I got 'ylfgfkawx'. Sweet.
Is there no plans to have the Vanguard in 2e?
What about the Mechanic? No technomancer? How did the Witchwarper even sneak into the core?
I am pretty sure they were working on witchwarper and technomancer at about the same time given when the playtest for technomancer and mechanic happened. They are clearly working on a tech oriented starfinder book for 2026 so it makes sense for the two most tech classes to wind up in there together more than the mechanic and the witchwarper.
I think they were working on witchwarper so soon in development is it really is a pretty iconic starfinder class from SF1 and unique enough to stand on its own compared to PF2e casters.
Of the SF1 classes I would like to see come back I really want the biohacker and then you would probably look for the nanite/vanguard/evolutionist but not sure how many of those will get made for SF2.
I would kinda agree with the people talking about the name vanguard does not do a great job describing what that class does. I really did like the vanguard though as it seemed like the flip side of the solarians coin.
I really think Starfinder needsa a 12 hit point per level class...Vanguard should have been included.If player core included all the classes, tech, and rules everybody asked for, the physical printing would require a forklift to move it around. Give some time for supplements to be announced and printed.
PF2 Player Core isn't even a year old and managed to include more classes. The PF2 CRB had twice as many. Both of them are cheaper than SF Player Core.
The book is mostly fine, but it's not really some wild outlandish idea that it could have had a bit more content. Six classes for their big new title is a little anemic.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yeah, CRB had more in it, and was cheaper... and people hated the lay out, lamented they couldn't find anything. and prices have changed, inflation has run rampant since CRB. I want more as well, I wanted Mechanic in the SF2e PC, but it's coming, eventually more will be added.
Vanguard legit seems to me like they wanted to add Mass Effect class of the same name into Starfinder (and who could blame them? it’s one of the coolest sci-fi rpg classes ever) but didn’t have a solid theming for it.
Even more ironic but the SF2 solarian is very easy to theme as a mass effect vanguard. The powers look different but the in game effect winds up being pretty darn similar.
The SF1 vanguard honestly was a bit more like the mass effect sentinel as the super tanky class that uses dark energy to protect themselves and wreck their opponents.
It would have been nice if mechanic or technomancer made it into the SF2 core as I was a mechanic main in sf1 but the SF2 core is already pretty big. The addition of basically all of the equipment/loot/augmentations/mods took up a big chunk of space but also makes it a lot easier to fully flesh out a character right now without having to wait for the GM core or some future gear book.
|
|
It would have been nice if mechanic or technomancer made it into the SF2 core as I was a mechanic main in sf1 but the SF2 core is already pretty big. The addition of basically all of the equipment/loot/augmentations/mods took up a big chunk of space but also makes it a lot easier to fully flesh out a character right now without having to wait for the GM core or some future gear book.
I agree. Some people are complaining that Starship Combat and mechs are not in the Player Core either, add mechanic or technomancer, and that's one book. I'm happy to have things spaced out, so is my back. I think that would also make the Player Core expensive enough to scare off new players, if they are not already intimidated by the size of the book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was surprised that SF2E Player Core was only 6 classes. At first
After all, PF2E Core Rulebook was 12, and PF2E Player Core was 8.But now that I can compare the books properly, the books are about the same size, and PF2E Player Core has 8 Ancestries, as opposed to SF2E's 10. Plus with Magic items, augmentations, and equipment upgrades being included, as well as the Computers and Piloting checks being added.
I'd guess to have a full 8-class roster, it'd probably require sacrificing at least two ancestries and potentially a good handful of magic items, augmentations, and equipment upgrades.
The argument's been made that the Mechanic and Technomancer relied on tech-related mechanics that weren't finalized for core, but I'm not entirely convinced of that from what we saw in the playtest.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Mechanic and Technomancer as is would not need that much extra tech to function. Everything in the Player Core would have been sufficient if the page space allowed for the just the two classes.
Leaving out some equipment to add the Mechanic and Technomancer would have left all classes with less equipment. We kind of got an extra class since Precog was rolled into Witchwarper. But comparing % of classes, SF2e Player Core got a higher % of SF1e classes than PF2e Player Core got of PF1e classes.
I also think returning the Cantina feeling was more important in SF2e.
If the book The Mechanic and Technomancer is really called the Tech Core, I can't imagine there not being more equipment. The playtest was really focused on classes, not equipment as much. I think some of the Technomancer abilities, like overclocking, could be really interesting if we had tech equipment that has specific effects when overclocked.
I thought Tech Core would have been next after the Alien Core, but with the announcement of the Galaxy Ancestry Guide, I wonder if the Tech Core is also the book with Starships in it, and might be after the Galaxy Ancestry Guide. Sounds like we will get more announcements later this month, so hard to tell.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just think it's a little silly to try to measure the books in terms of raw percentage of class per page count or whatever. Starfinder 2e is kind of my dream book in that it feels like Paizo intentionally emphasizing quality over quantity.
No amount of quibbles PF2E having more classes or needing to instantly have every SF1E class will change that I think there's just better stuff in this book that I enjoy more! I think Starfinder 2e is just a better product than what Paizo has been selling until now.
I don't want them to just rush to churn out more content faster. I don't want them to cut more good content from the book just to slavishly recreate whatever class idea SF1E had. (There ALREADY is a considerable amount of cuts from the Playtest Core to Player Core!). I just want them to take their time, playtest and develop meaningful content, and keep writing with a lot of distinct personality.
Some people (not necessarily the person I was replying to) are complaining that The PF2 CRB had twice as many classes as the SF2e Player Core. My point is that Pathfinder is a class-heavy game, whereas Starfinder is an ancestry-heavy game. I think it's silly to expect SF2e to start with as many classes as PF2e it's apples and oranges that grow in the same orchard but still taste different. Looking at the % just shows how different the 2 settings are when it comes to the number of classes.
I'm happy with the way the Player Core turned out, and the pace of the SF2e rollout. On my budget, I wouldn't even mind if they slow down the rollout. The rollout of SF2e is like the remaster of PF2e, not like either original CRBs. I'm happy with the books being split up between Player and GM Cores. I'm still laying SF1e and also playing SF2e so I'm no rush. I can still play the missing clases in SF1e.
Yeah, Mechanic and Technomancer as is would not need that much extra tech to function. Everything in the Player Core would have been sufficient if the page space allowed for the just the two classes.
I missed the boat on the playtest for thees two classes, but wasn't one of the complaints that insufficient items existed for some of their subclasses to function properly, let alone well?
I think the bones were all there by the time they got around to writing these two, but possibly not when the first 6 were being drafted.
I think there's something of a chicken or the egg dilemma there. People complained that the tech playtest doesn't interact with technology much, but the playtest and initial release are light on technology to interact with so we couldn't test that stuff anyway. And because people are expected to be able to use the tech playtest stuff in organized play and then rebuild later, the dev team was probably hesitant to add ~20 pages of tech items and spells for us to use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought Tech Core would have been next after the Alien Core, but with the announcement of the Galaxy Ancestry Guide, I wonder if the Tech Core is also the book with Starships in it, and might be after the Galaxy Ancestry Guide. Sounds like we will get more announcements later this month, so hard to tell.Think of Galaxy Ancestry as a Lost Omens book and Tech Core as a core rulebook. There will likely be at least two books per year for Starfinder, as there is an array of core books and lost omens books for Pathfinder. Just a matter of learning which Starfinder books are core and which are "Space Lost Omens" as it does not look like Paizo plans to place a marketing distinction
But yes, ultimately I'm content with the approach. It's a fair approach.
I'd argue that Galactic Ancestries is NOT a Lost Omens equivalent. Maybe Galaxy Guide from earlier this year, as that was a majority of setting dressing and lore, VS the player content in it (6 ancestries and 6 archetypes).
Galactic Ancestries seems to be absolutely packed with new options, even more so than the more heavily player-options-focused Lost Omens book, "Lost Omens: Ancestry Guide". Options for new ancestries, 1E-returning ancestries, new options for Player Core ancestries, and Starfinder-specific options and advice for porting over Pathfinder 2E core ancestries sounds a lot more content-forward than any Lost Omens equivalent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a galactic ancestries is much more of a main line book than a lost omens type book. Weird playable alien ancestries are as important to the setting as the alien core bestiary. In SF1 the alien archive books wound up doing double duty of bestiaries but also adding new playable alien options. I can see splitting them into different books but both are pretty integral to the starfinder. Having lots of crazy species is important in pathfinder 2e but I would argue it is much more so in starfinder and a lot easier to justify the craziest alien options in a group than it is in pathfinder where people playing konrasu were hard to picture in a normal adventuring party. In starfinder they are hardly more alien than bantrid or barathu or whatever other crazy stuff is out there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As much as I'd like to see all the old classes make it to SF2e in some form or another eventually. I think after the mechanical and technomancer, it would be nice to see something new, the same goes for ancestries, although it sounds like the first new ancestry is in Murder in Metal City.
Well, "new" in their 2e iteration. Khizars existed in SF1 and were technically playable, but their blindness wasn't handwaved in the rules the way it is now in 2e, so they were punishingly hard to play and couldn't use ranged weapons except within 30' of themselves because that's how far they were able to sense life or vibration.
This is a good example of why Starfinder doesn't need to invent completely new ancestries, imo. They had so many in 1e that were so obscure that they're still new to a lot of people.