Lost classes

[AlanDG2]

I picked up the Starfinder 2e main book and noticed it no longer has the Mechanic or Technomancer as base classes. This bothers me. The Mechanic, at least, would seem to be vital for a futuristic campaign. Are there plans to reintroduce these classes?

[Driftbourne]

We don't have an ETA yet, but the 2 classes should be in a book called Tech Core. Even in organized play, you can still use the playtest version until the full versions are out.

Download ink is near the bottom of this blog post Starfinder Tech Class Playtest.

[moosher12]

Paizo is usually consistent about getting certain book-types out at certain times. Tech Core would be a core class book, which typically comes out on an August (or the last few days of July), coinciding with Gen Con.

So more than likely the ETA would be July 30, 2026, and if a Pathfinder book got such a priority over Tech Core (such as the Impossible book) instead of a dual-release, the book would come out by no latter than November is my estimate based on Paizo's release history.

[AlanDG2]

Driftbourne wrote:

We don't have an ETA yet, but the 2 classes should be in a book called Tech Core. Even in organized play, you can still use the playtest version until the full versions are out.

Download ink is near the bottom of this blog post Starfinder Tech Class Playtest.

Thank you, that will do until the final version comes out.

[Squark]

We've since learned that the GenCon release will be Starfinder: Absalom Station, but I've heard that some of the Devs have said that Tech Core is expected to be a 2026 release, so an October-December release seems like the most likely.

[kaid]

I suspect the impossible magic book having 2 new classes + 2 remastered classes was just a bit too much on the plate to also launch tech core at the same time. I hope it is a winter 2026 release still though and it doesn't fall over into 2027.

[Zoken44]

So there are still four other missing classes, technically.

Vanguard: the armored and unarmed warrior utilizing entropy itself

Bio-Hacker: inject your enemies, inject your friends, do it all at drugs are cool!

Nanocyte: we are legion... we are the swarm... we are... working out where our cloud is

Evolutionist: a class all about grafting, and transcending what you were born as.

precog was rolled into the witchwarper in this edition.

[kaid]

Zoken44 wrote:

So there are still four other missing classes, technically.

Vanguard: the armored and unarmed warrior utilizing entropy itself

Bio-Hacker: inject your enemies, inject your friends, do it all at drugs are cool!

Nanocyte: we are legion... we are the swarm... we are... working out where our cloud is

Evolutionist: a class all about grafting, and transcending what you were born as.

precog was rolled into the witchwarper in this edition.

I really want bio hackers again I loved that class but it almost could be a class archetype of alchemist. It may be a case where the implementation would just be too similar. Then again they did mechanic and it has a lot of similarity to inventors.

[Zoken44]

That was my thought too Kaid, in regard to both classes. So ultimately, what is the class fantasy (lore and/or mechanical) of the Bio Hacker? maybe we can imagine some ways it could be brought in?

[Rotfell]

kaid wrote:

I really want bio hackers again I loved that class but it almost could be a class archetype of alchemist. It may be a case where the implementation would just be too similar. Then again they did mechanic and it has a lot of similarity to inventors.

At the moment, I'd use alchemist as a base and replace bomb proficiency with "inject-weapons", especially with the needler pistol in a monster stat. (would also add better action economy with injection weapons as a base feature)

Made a thread some time ago with this idea.

I think a SF2 Biohacker will probably diverge from it, especially since the alchemist without bombs is basically using the SF1 idea of inhabitors (poisons) and boosters (elixirs) already.
I wouldn't be suprised, if the booster/inhabitors are chosen as a base class, get some additional effect via class feats in addition to better action economy and making attacks and skill actions better.

[moosher12]

Zoken44 wrote:

That was my thought too Kaid, in regard to both classes. So ultimately, what is the class fantasy (lore and/or mechanical) of the Bio Hacker? maybe we can imagine some ways it could be brought in?

Think of Hojo from Final Fantasy 7. You gave your allies buffs, and your enemies debuffs with a jab. They are basically a Pathfinder alchemist, but you're replacing bombs with a syringe gun.

Though on the note, they are essentially a mix between a chirurgeon and toxicologist alchemist with a splash of mutagenist. Problematically, you can already insert an alchemist in Starfinder and rename it to chemist pretty easily in SF2E and most of its elixirs basically function as Serums and can just be rebranded as a Serum expansion list. That will already fulfill a lot of the biohacker fantasy from SF1E, including the jabs as all you need is to give an (al)chemist a dart gun to give its elixir-serums and poisons that flavor if you include Fighter Dedication

So the hard part is the Mechanic/Inventor problem (where the Inventor was designed after the Mechanic, and the Inventor's core class features were actually Mechanic alternate class rules. And now that we have the mechanic as a playtest class, the original was essentially just an Inventor, so the new Mechanic had to be written to fill a seperate niche.) So we have the same repeat here where the 2e alchemist can already do a lot of what biohacker wants to do, so Paizo will likely try to make the biohacker fill a slightly different role than alchemist. I'd personally hope for something along the lines of a continued mix of serum and poison creation, but swapping bomb-crafting for dedicated Medicine enhancements, essentially letting them have an equivalent of the Medic archetype built in that lets them both pass out medicine, and be a really good non-magical surgeon.

[Zoken44]

So... I knew what a 1e Bio-hacker was, and I was aware of the issue with the 1e Mechanic to Inventor.

I'm trying to drill into what a bio-hacker could look like IF they got that 2e mechanic treatment. What's why I'm asking about the core fantasy.

So maybe something like they have a unique MediChem kit, that serves as healer's tools, but also comes with a built in Needlegun. By default you can produce ammo for the Needle Gun in two varieties: Stim Shots, and Tranq Darts.

Stim Shots deal no damage to allies and give them a status bonus to all actions that have the attack trait
Tranq Darts can chose to forgo damage to (without save) impose a status penalty to attack actions and movement speed.

There would be other unique Stims and Tranqs you can create

Subclasses would be based on source of the stim/tranq and automatically give you an option.

Something like a "Pharmacist" would get a stim that can actually allow a reroll of saving throws on persistant conditions and/or bonus to future saves, while their tranq imposes clumsy OR Enfeebled

an Herbalist would get a stim to immediately counter persistant damage, and a Tranq to apply persistant damage

a Geneticist could give a Stim that provides temporary resistance to a damage type, and a Tranq that imposes a weakness or supresses a resistence.

Cyberneticist can get a Stim that gives a boost to saving throws, while a Tranq that can impose glitching even in non-construct/technological creatures.

[moosher12]

On the note of tranq darts, I like the idea of a biohacker being able to switch their darts to nonlethal without penalty, like how a monk can choose lethal or nonlethal unarmed strikes.

Would reward choosing a biohacker for games where you like to capture enemies alive, rather than kill.

[Milo v3]

Perhaps a 2e biohacker could increase its focus on biohacking rather than pharmaceuticals

[Zoken44]

what do you think biohacking is Milo?

[Milo v3]

Zoken44 wrote:

what do you think biohacking is Milo?

In the case of fantastical sci-fi of Starfinder, I see it as more "this chemical can give you claws" type stuff rather than 1es more internal style.

[Zoken44]

Okay, and that's what I was thinking for the Geneticist Subclass.

[moosher12]

The problem is that "This chemical gives you claws." is already the sort of thing filled in by Mutagenist (Al)Chemist.

[Driftbourne]

But Biohackers do it in a much more sci-fi way compared to the alchemist doing either mix drink or mix throw.

We lost a lot of the science part of science fantasy feel in SF2e when we lost the Life and Physical skills and turned into Lores. The Biohackers' fields of study bring back some science feel to the game. fields of study

SF2e already has a lot of options for area effects; anyone can use grenades, which can make everyone feel like an alchemist throwing bombs. The Biohacker works much more precisely with injection weapons.

I think a space gobin alchemist fits into SF2e just fine.

Sf2e limited the amount of augmentation you can have at one time. I was thinking that maybe some classes could have more augmentation slots, which would fit well if the biohacker had more biotech augmentation slots.

___

For some PF2e classes, I wonder if it would be better to have them only playable in SF2e with new subclasses that are flavored for Starfinder. The same could be true for SF2e classes used in PF2e. Even if not restricted, having new subclasses to fit the setting could be a good thing.

[Zoken44]

the genetic alteration and augmenting is more pigeon holed to the Evolutionist than the Bio-Hacker. It may happen where Evolutionist survives, and bio-hacker's niche becomes an Alchemist subclass, or class-archetype.

[kaid]

I think biohackers could be differentiated enough but they would probably have to be more focused than the SF1 version.

Master of injection weapons and able to use them with good action economy. Use that to apply buffs/debuffs/healing. Kinda like mechanic mod ability but for people/critters instead of equipment.

Biohacks for more long lasting buffs should probably be less potent than a mutagen but without the drawbacks. So just pure long lasting alterations to let your party adapt to various alien worlds.

High medicine capabilty getting most use out of higher tech medical kits/equipment to be a very strong combat medic.

The biggest difference between an evolutionist and a bio hacker is bio hackers give their stuff out to help their team adapt where the evolutionist is purely self driven evolution so they themselves can be the best they can be.

[Driftbourne]

Zoken44 wrote:

the genetic alteration and augmenting is more pigeon holed to the Evolutionist than the Bio-Hacker. It may happen where Evolutionist survives, and bio-hacker's niche becomes an Alchemist subclass, or class-archetype.

Extar Augmentations make sense for some Evolutionists' Niches as well, maybe even being the focus of that niche, but the process of making an Evolutionist using bio-tech Augmentations is a great example of Biohacking. A Biohacker subclass that lets you have extra bio-tech Augmentations is basically a Int baised Evolutionist. The difference is that the Evolutionist class features a focus on physical adaptation, and an augmented Biohacker would focus on mental adaptation while still being a support class using core Biohacker abilities.

I think Technomancer is another class that should have some way to access additional augmentations, either through a subclass or class feats.

Optionally, just having a general feat that allowed an extra augmentation would be good, or maybe even an archetype.

[moosher12]

As Kaid said, I think a good pivot for the biohacker is to make them an effective paramedic.

Essentially, giving them baked in abilities along the tune of the Lepistadt Surgeon and Medic archetypes, where they are just better at doing Medicine checks than the average class.

An (Al)Chemist, while they can be a doctor, is more of a pharmacist than a doctor. They make the medicine, but their THING is more about handing out the medicine rather than practicing emergency care.

In the name of seperating them from the alchemist, I'd probably suggest making them more martially inclined than an alchemist. Martial weapon proficiency as a default, able to get in the middle of the fight to attend to wounded people, while an alchemist would prefer to stay backline.

We can shift the scope away from bombs. Biohacker will certainly know some advanced chemical proceedures, so to feed into the concept, I'd suggest giving them the Alchemist's Alchemy class feature, and rename it to Chemistry. Let them focus on Medicinal items, but particularly, it might be worth bringing back Alchemical Crafting but as Chemical Crafting instead of serum crafting. Here's the problem. Serums are essentially Elixirs; both are non-magical drinkable consumables that produce similar brands of effects. A Med Patch has the exact same stats as an Elixir of Life, the only difference is it does not need to be drunk, and a hypopen is essentially an injectible elixir. The problem with Serum Crafting is Serum Crafting cannot make poisons, but can just make a smaller list of what are functionally elixirs. So in Starfinder, there is little incentive to get Serum Crafting over Alchemical Crafting because Alchemical Crafting will come with vastly more items to work with, not just within the scope of elixirs, but also adding the ability to craft bombs and poisons.

And to that end, I think adding a note that elixirs exist in Starfinder as serums, and to just swap the trait name, is worth exploring. Additionally, giving Serum Crafting the ability to craft poisons would be worth exploring, too. Since what is medicine but poison in the wrong dosage? (Though, you still run into the situation where Serum Crafting just gives two of what Alchemical Crafting gives, instead of one). That's a conundrum, I considered swapping bombs for creating potions and oils as serums too, but not sure if magic Crafting would be an apt thing to add. That's certainly a dev decision to factor. And while I personally feel any medic worth their salt would not ignore more arcane fields akin to Dr. Hojo, I can see why some would avoid it.

Lastly, if Biohacker has the Chemistry class feature, and a a result gets Vertsatile Vials, I'd reason its versatile vial can have a default function as either a poison or a buffing item with a minor difference in catalysts. Letting them provide a small boost when injecting into a friend, or a debuff and potential damage when injecting into an enemy.

TLDR: I think Biohacker should be shifted toward being a more martial Wis-based alchemist that emphasizes being a surgeon on the field alongside some free Elixir (which includes mutagens), Poison, and potentially Potion crafting, and having a special versatile vial that's tune to the themes of the old biohacker of issuing buffs and debuffs. I think they should get expansions to Treat Wounds/Disease/Poison that make them better than normal at those skills. And I think Elixirs should be redefined as serums, and that Serum Crafting should be buffed to compete with Alchemical Crafting by including medical items, serums (including former elixirs), poisons, and potentially potions (bare in mind the 2e definition of potion does not include Spell Amps, where Spell Amps work like PF1E potions, I mean like, PF2E potions).

[Dragonchess Player]

Personally, I wonder if the biohacker will end up as an archetype or possibly combined with another class (like the precog getting rolled into the witchwarper).

From a thematic standpoint, you could make a case for either. It might make sense to add the biohacker as a "sub-class" of the mechanic after the tech book is released; it could also make sense to merge the SF1e biohacker, evolutionist, and nanocyte classes into a single SF2e class.

[Driftbourne]

What are some good examples of Biohackers in books or movies? and real life.

Netflix Biohacks comes to mind. The show deals with med students, but that's not what's going on. They are cently smart, but you could question the wisdom of what they are doing.

Biohacks trailer

Farscape S1 E9: DNA Mad Scientist is a good example of a Biohacker/Evolutionist.

DNA Mad Scientist

Spider from Johnny Mnemonic is a good example of a Dr/biohacker that also deals with augmentations.

Here are some modren real worlds examples. There's someone who sells kits for home genetic engineering to modify organisms for 30$
Meet the biohacker using CRISPR to teach everyone gene editing

Another video on the same guy
DIY Biohacking: Do(n’t) Try This at Home

Real-life biohackers and augmentations

Biohacker Michael Laufer recently had a 512GB drive implanted in his leg, which can store data, stream music or movies, and power a hot spot and mesh network. It's called the PegLeg, Biohacker Explains Why He Turned His Leg Into a Hotspot .

In this video, there is a real person with 33 implants, that's just a few more than the 4 we get in SF2e.
I Got a Chip Implanted in a Biohacking Garage

So hoping the SF2e biohacker is at least as strange as current real biohackers.

[Driftbourne]

Dragonchess Player wrote:

it could also make sense to merge the SF1e biohacker, evolutionist, and nanocyte classes into a single SF2e class.

I'm not against that if each subclass can have a different key attribute.

The evolutionist and nanocyte, at least, both use physical attributes, and I think would be easiest to merge into one class. Both deal with the effects of different ways of evolving. Whereas the Biohacker is the cause of the change as well. If the three were merged into one class, it would need to be a big class page-wise to make each sub-class feel right.

If Biohacker is its own class, it's sub classes cold be the types of mad science.

[griefninja]

To me, it's fine if the bio-hacker and alchemist overlap a little mechanically. They have similar motifs of mixing your own concoctions after all. The trappings of a fantasy apothecary making a healing potion and a sci-fi doctor making a super flu shot are different flavors of "magicless healer." Reflavoring mechanics might seem wasteful to a pathfinder player who wants new things, but I'm not interested in PF at all, only Starfinder.

[griefninja]

Since everyone can be a cyborg, I feel like Evolutionist's cyborg option is a little underwhelming, narratively speaking. Replacing that with the Nanocyte's nanobot swarm feels like a good way of making it a unique step above normal cybernetics.

[Driftbourne]

griefninja wrote:

Since everyone can be a cyborg, I feel like Evolutionist's cyborg option is a little underwhelming, narratively speaking. Replacing that with the Nanocyte's nanobot swarm feels like a good way of making it a unique step above normal cybernetics.

Characters in SF2e are now limited to 4 augmentations (with some exceptions for some types of basic augmentations), so my suggestion is to allow some classes like the Evolutionist to have more augmentation slots, so the full cyborg Evolutionist option is possible.

[moosher12]

griefninja wrote:

To me, it's fine if the bio-hacker and alchemist overlap a little mechanically. They have similar motifs of mixing your own concoctions after all. The trappings of a fantasy apothecary making a healing potion and a sci-fi doctor making a super flu shot are different flavors of "magicless healer." Reflavoring mechanics might seem wasteful to a pathfinder player who wants new things, but I'm not interested in PF at all, only Starfinder.

You're right that there can be overlap, why I encouraged overlap, but assuming an Alchemist can only be a fantasy apothecary I feel is a bit of a discredit to the universality of the design. People are attaching to the specific names of items and the way the iconics are drawn. But if you take the raw mechanics, and put an iconic with a modern lab coat, someone reading the mechanics by itself probably would not notice the difference.

If a completely modern pharmacist can have the stats of an alchemist and function within the world.

I have a lot of D&D 5E friends. And they all tell me the same thing when I talk about concepts of scifi in D&D. I was of the opinion that D&D classes were poorly suited for scifi. I still partially think that, because they lack the skill compatibility and the training compatibilities. They always tell me the same thing, that it works when you reflavor it. One of the things I've learned GMing PF2E, and writing a compatibility guide for PF2E and SF2E as I am alike prepping to run a Starfinder game, though, is that PF2E classes have jumped over all of those shortfallings that I complained about with D&D. They have access to all the relevant futuristic skills, they have access to all the relevant futuristic guns and equipment. The D&D people are out there reflavoring their stuff and being happy. We Pathfinder/Starfinder people have access to classes that are even more compatible to scifi innately than D&D could ever dream of, and we're complaining about the fact the iconic is wearing knights armor and carrying a sword and shield, when he could just as easily wear aegis series armor and sport a rotolaser without a single home rule.

[griefninja]

moosher12 wrote:

griefninja wrote:

To me, it's fine if the bio-hacker and alchemist overlap a little mechanically. They have similar motifs of mixing your own concoctions after all. The trappings of a fantasy apothecary making a healing potion and a sci-fi doctor making a super flu shot are different flavors of "magicless healer." Reflavoring mechanics might seem wasteful to a pathfinder player who wants new things, but I'm not interested in PF at all, only Starfinder.

You're right that there can be overlap, why I encouraged overlap, but assuming an Alchemist can only be a fantasy apothecary I feel is a bit of a discredit to the universality of the design. People are attaching to the specific names of items and the way the iconics are drawn. But if you take the raw mechanics, and put an iconic with a modern lab coat, someone reading the mechanics by itself probably would not notice the difference.

If a completely modern pharmacist can have the stats of an alchemist and function within the world.

I have a lot of D&D 5E friends. And they all tell me the same thing when I talk about concepts of scifi in D&D. I was of the opinion that D&D classes were poorly suited for scifi. I still partially think that, because they lack the skill compatibility and the training compatibilities. They always tell me the same thing, that it works when you reflavor it. One of the things I've learned GMing PF2E, and writing a compatibility guide for PF2E and SF2E as I am alike prepping to run a Starfinder game, though, is that PF2E classes have jumped over all of those shortfallings that I complained about with D&D. They have access to all the relevant futuristic skills, they have access to all the relevant futuristic guns and equipment. The D&D people are out there reflavoring their stuff and being happy. We Pathfinder/Starfinder people have access to classes that are even more compatible to scifi innately than D&D could ever dream of, and we're complaining about the fact the iconic is wearing knights armor and carrying a sword...

I totally get where you're coming from. It's great that the two games are cross compatible and people can mix whatever they want. That's not really what I'm talking about. I must not have phrased it well. Let me try again!

I am a very picky brat of a child who never, ever, ever wants their carrots to touch their mash potatoes on the plate. I, personally, am so burnt out on traditional fantasy I don't want to interact with Pathfinder in anyway. I know I'm in the minority on that. I am interested in Starfinder 2E because I was told it is it's own game, that just uses the same engine because it's a great one. So, when the bio-hacker discussion becomes "well, just use the alchemist from PF" I kinda have to tune out because I just don't want to see PF classes in SF. I'm sure it all checks out mechanically and narratively just fine.

I would genuinely dislike it if the Go-To Advice for "how should I do [whatever] in Starfinder," was simply "check out this cool pathfinder book over here!" I have read some of the Pathfinder stuff and it does look cool and well made! I just don't want to see a drop of it here. You have to assume there are at least a few Starfinder fans who aren't Pathfinder fans, and finding the right ratio is just plain hard. Paizo kinda already made that call with the legacy fantasy races, elves, orcs, and such. I've been told they'll get a sci-fi make over later, and for now you just gotta get into Pathfinder's rules for them. You can see how that's a turn off for people who's first Paizo experience is Starfinder.

[Driftbourne]

griefninja wrote:

Since everyone can be a cyborg, I feel like Evolutionist's cyborg option is a little underwhelming, narratively speaking. Replacing that with the Nanocyte's nanobot swarm feels like a good way of making it a unique step above normal cybernetics.

I saw some of your other posts and realised how new to Starfinder you might be. I'm guessing you have not played SF1e? I'll try to add more context to my last reply.

In Sf1e, you could have 1 augmentation in each body system (Eyes, hands, brain, etc.) There were some ways to have 2 in some body systems. So in SF1e, you could have 12 or more augmentations. In Sf2e, the limit is only 4, although now you can have more than one in the same body system. So I'm hoping that classes like the Biohacker and Evolutionist could get more augmentations slots to get back where SF1e was, and because they fit the themes of the classes.

Nanocyte was its own class in SF1e. It feels very different from someone with a lot of body part cybernetics. After the Precog was merged into the Witchworper in SF2e, people started suggesting that the Nanocyte could merge into the Evolutionist. If that did happen, I don't think that a Nanocyte niche would replace the Mechanized niche. Although I can see how the Nanocyte could fit in the Evolutionist as a niche, my main concern is whether a sub-class has enough page space to do the Nanocyte justice.

Mechanized Evolutionists aren't trying to be a cyborg; being a cyborg is just a side effect of replacing body parts over time with augmentations until they become 100% machine. Being limited to only 4 augmentations doesn't get you there. Although the Evolutionists class uses augmentations, it's more of a side benifit then a main feature of the class. So if the Evolutionists were just about augmentations, it indeed would be underwhelming

A Nanocyte Evolutionist would eventually be nothing but Nanocytes, which could be cool.

[Zoken44]

I still want the Nanocyte as it's own class as it had so much going on and actually lead to a lot of different character builds.

such as Green Lantern or Venom.

[griefninja]

Driftbourne wrote:

griefninja wrote:

Since everyone can be a cyborg, I feel like Evolutionist's cyborg option is a little underwhelming, narratively speaking. Replacing that with the Nanocyte's nanobot swarm feels like a good way of making it a unique step above normal cybernetics.

I saw some of your other posts and realised how new to Starfinder you might be. I'm guessing you have not played SF1e? I'll try to add more context to my last reply.

In Sf1e, you could have 1 augmentation in each body system (Eyes, hands, brain, etc.) There were some ways to have 2 in some body systems. So in SF1e, you could have 12 or more augmentations. In Sf2e, the limit is only 4, although now you can have more than one in the same body system. So I'm hoping that classes like the Biohacker and Evolutionist could get more augmentations slots to get back where SF1e was, and because they fit the themes of the classes.

Nanocyte was its own class in SF1e. It feels very different from someone with a lot of body part cybernetics. After the Precog was merged into the Witchworper in SF2e, people started suggesting that the Nanocyte could merge into the Evolutionist. If that did happen, I don't think that a Nanocyte niche would replace the Mechanized niche. Although I can see how the Nanocyte could fit in the Evolutionist as a niche, my main concern is whether a sub-class has enough page space to do the Nanocyte justice.

Mechanized Evolutionists aren't trying to be a cyborg; being a cyborg is just a side effect of replacing body parts over time with augmentations until they become 100% machine. Being limited to only 4 augmentations doesn't get you there. Although the Evolutionists class uses augmentations, it's more of a side benifit then a main feature of the class. So if the Evolutionists were just about augmentations, it indeed would be underwhelming

A Nanocyte Evolutionist would eventually be nothing but Nanocytes, which could be cool.

I do like the story of replacing your flesh piece by piece with tech, but when you can play an Android or eventually something like an SRO then adding implants doesn't seem like much of an evolution above your base, more of a horizontal move. I feel like organics and inorganics can get that same sense of "rising above your base body" with liquid metal nanobots you can't just find already out there. I agree it makes sense for these classes to have more implant slots, but I don't think that alone can be enough.

[Justnobodyfqwl]

Frankly, I just think that the Starfinder 2e devs might want to do new stuff that isn't just recreating 1e classes. PF2E felt the need to adapt a lot of PF1E classes at first, but now they make their own new classes built around the 2e system.

Then when you look at SF2E, literally half of the classes are rethought entirely from their 1e versions. Operatives are no longer space rogues, Soldiers are no longer space fighters, and the Witchwarper is a Precog hybrid.

I think the easiest solution to the extreme conceptual and mechanical overlaps of ""biohacker"" and ""evolutionist "" is going to be doing something entirely new. Maybe they might start with a common scifi character fantasy, and work backwards from there.

[griefninja]

Justnobodyfqwl wrote:

Frankly, I just think that the Starfinder 2e devs might want to do new stuff that isn't just recreating 1e classes. PF2E felt the need to adapt a lot of PF1E classes at first, but now they make their own new classes built around the 2e system.

Then when you look at SF2E, literally half of the classes are rethought entirely from their 1e versions. Operatives are no longer space rogues, Soldiers are no longer space fighters, and the Witchwarper is a Precog hybrid.

I think the easiest solution to the extreme conceptual and mechanical overlaps of ""biohacker"" and ""evolutionist "" is going to be doing something entirely new. Maybe they might start with a common scifi character fantasy, and work backwards from there.

That's also a very good point!

[Driftbourne]

griefninja wrote:

I am a very picky brat of a child who never, ever, ever wants their carrots to touch their mash potatoes on the plate. I, personally, am so burnt out on traditional fantasy I don't want to interact with Pathfinder in anyway. I know I'm in the minority on that.

Yes, Starfinder 2e can absolutely be played as its own game, only using Starfinder books. The big question here is, are you playing in a home game or in organized play?

When talking about mixing the 2 games, the "official" terms the developers tend to use are "chocolate in your peanutbutter." Personally, I'd like to keep mashed potatoes out of my chocolate, but I may consider chocolate covered carrots.

griefninja wrote:

Paizo kinda already made that call with the legacy fantasy races, elves, orcs, and such. I've been told they'll get a sci-fi make over later, and for now you just gotta get into Pathfinder's rules for them. You can see how that's a turn off for people who's first Paizo experience is Starfinder.

For the record, I'm very much a Starfinder First player and GM. I do play a little PF2e just because it helped make moving from SF1e to SF2e easier.

Starfinder has always been science fantasy. Most of the core legacy Pathfinder species were in the SF1e Core Rulebook, all of which got a makeover in SF1e. The decision to just use the Pathfinder versions of legacy species until they appear in a later SF2e book was to save space in the Starfinder Player Core and to make room for more SF1e species. Both the PF2e stats and the SF1e lore for the legacy species are online for free for people who can't wait for the Starfinder Galactic Ancestries book to come out.

Strafinder 2e is a new eddtion there's not a lot out for it yet, compared to SF1e or PF2e, so the advice people can give is either use PF2e content, which you can get for free, or wait. People are more likely to tell you about PF2e options because it's more intresting then just saying wait.

[Zoken44]

So I think the fantasy of the Evolutionist, when talking cybernetics is more than "becoming a robot/android". This could be something that even the androids and SRO's indulge in as it is jailbreaking yourself. becoming open source able to customize your own body, and as an adventurer, to build yourself into a weapon or bulwark. You go from being a gaming console, to a Linux gaming computer.

[kaid]

Driftbourne wrote:

griefninja wrote:

Since everyone can be a cyborg, I feel like Evolutionist's cyborg option is a little underwhelming, narratively speaking. Replacing that with the Nanocyte's nanobot swarm feels like a good way of making it a unique step above normal cybernetics.

I saw some of your other posts and realised how new to Starfinder you might be. I'm guessing you have not played SF1e? I'll try to add more context to my last reply.

In Sf1e, you could have 1 augmentation in each body system (Eyes, hands, brain, etc.) There were some ways to have 2 in some body systems. So in SF1e, you could have 12 or more augmentations. In Sf2e, the limit is only 4, although now you can have more than one in the same body system. So I'm hoping that classes like the Biohacker and Evolutionist could get more augmentations slots to get back where SF1e was, and because they fit the themes of the classes.

Nanocyte was its own class in SF1e. It feels very different from someone with a lot of body part cybernetics. After the Precog was merged into the Witchworper in SF2e, people started suggesting that the Nanocyte could merge into the Evolutionist. If that did happen, I don't think that a Nanocyte niche would replace the Mechanized niche. Although I can see how the Nanocyte could fit in the Evolutionist as a niche, my main concern is whether a sub-class has enough page space to do the Nanocyte justice.

Mechanized Evolutionists aren't trying to be a cyborg; being a cyborg is just a side effect of replacing body parts over time with augmentations until they become 100% machine. Being limited to only 4 augmentations doesn't get you there. Although the Evolutionists class uses augmentations, it's more of a side benifit then a main feature of the class. So if the Evolutionists were just about augmentations, it indeed would be underwhelming

A Nanocyte Evolutionist would eventually be nothing but Nanocytes, which could be cool.

If they make evolutionist again in 2e I would nearly guarantee they can go beyond the 4 augment limit. I suspect every few levels they could get another slot in addition to their other abilities. So a normal person could have some cyborg options but an evolutionist going cybernetic is going to be like a full conversion borg.

[moosher12]

griefninja wrote:

I am a very picky brat of a child who never, ever, ever wants their carrots to touch their mash potatoes on the plate. I, personally, am so burnt out on traditional fantasy I don't want to interact with Pathfinder in anyway. I know I'm in the minority on that. I am interested in Starfinder 2E because I was told it is it's own game, that just uses the same engine because it's a great one. So, when the bio-hacker discussion becomes "well, just use the alchemist from PF" I kinda have to tune out because I just don't want to see PF classes in SF. I'm sure it all checks out mechanically and narratively just fine.

As someone with their own food quirks, that's a way I can understand. Best I can say is, from what I'm seeing in Mechanic Mystic, I'd expect Biohacker to have overlap, but personally I hope Biohacker's pivot is toward being a medic. Their buffs and nerfs would be well suited. An emergency surgeon with a touch of mad science versus a Pharmacist with a touch of mad science.

As for tuning out PF content, it's certainly something you can do. But I've been reading SF1E books since the playtest announcement in release order. I'm currently up to Starship Operations Manual. I can give this warning. As Driftbourne said, Starfinder is science fantasy, not science fiction. The Core Rulebook contained the classic fantasy races in addition to the new science fantasy races. It had Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Half-Elves (now Aiuvarin), Half-Orcs (now Dromaar), and Halflings. The Character Operations Manual, which was essentially SF1E's equivalent to the Advanced Player's Guide or Player Core 2, and also the book that contained the Biohacker, contained the Esoteracist archetype, which made it canon that practitioners of old magic still were very much running around.

PF2E stuff may not be mainline in Starfinder, but it sort of still exists as a HEMA thing. Granted, if you're a GM, you yourself can ban PF content if you're the GM, but even if you're doing a pure Starfinder game, especially with players of PF1E, they might suffer without the inclusion of PF content. For example, there are a host of SF1E characters that can only be emulated by playing PF classes now. Archer and Blitz Soldier can only be represented by a Fighter, Wrathful Warrior Soldier can only be represented by a Barbarian, Magical Expertise Envoys can only be represented by a Bard, Ascetic Warrior and Qi Adept Soldiers can only be represented by a Monk, Hunter Soldiers could only be represented by a Ranger, Crusador Connection Mystics can only be represented by a Champion, Experimental Armor and Weapon Prototype Mechanics can only be represented by an Inventor (Though in this last one the Inventor was modeled after the Mechanic), and a host of other things.

Paizo clearly wanted to add the flavor of PF classes to SF, so they turned them into subclasses within SF classes. They were able to do this because there was no compatibility. But now that the systems are shared, any characters made that way will only be able to be represented via PF classes. Once one becomes Intermediate with SF1E, they start to see that a bunch of Pathfinder classes are alive and well in Starfinder. But it's not something you get to notice until you start looking at subclasses and archetypes. Their exclusion is not due to a lore choice, their exclusion is due to pagination limitations, because it was easier to add their most important stats to the most fitting Starfinder 1E class than to make them their own class (Fun fact, max spell level 6 was not due to decreased magic. It was actually because there was not enough room in the Core Rulebook for 9th-level spellcasting, that's why SF2E went back to full spell level). But now that compatibility is available and class scopes have been narrowed, those classes can branch off to be the full class.

Granted, if your introduction to Starfinder is Starfinder 2E, this of course would not be something you'd run into, but SF1E players will start to notice the limitations of staying only within Starfinder books.

[Ascalaphus]

I think the new alchemist mechanics have a lot going for them in a sci-fi setting. That doesn't mean that we must port over the class directly. And there are some rough spots on the alchemist that could be fixed if we built a new SF2 class that just took the good stuff.

Features that I think are worth taking:

* Formulas. Finding an uncommon/rare recipe, or actually going on a mission to steal a recipe from an R&D facility seems like it fits sci-fi really well. Also, the remaster take on formulas where you don't have to keep re-buying them at higher levels is a nice improvement.

* Daily items as well as items that you replenish between encounters. This gives the (alchemist) nice flexibility in producing the right thing for the situation, as well as a bit of daily customization without getting too far bogged down into choice paralysis.

* Ad-hoc throwables with extra options based on your research field.

* A fair amount of thought put into "but what if the enemy is immune to poison/my favorite energy type".

Things that we should take the opportunity to revisit:

* Make sure all the other fields feel like they got just as much love as the bomber field.
* The (space chemist) not getting stymied by SF2 having more long-distance fights. Maybe just have action-efficient guns for shooting chemicals at range.
* Setting the healing output to not look ridiculously feeble next to a mystic.
* Thinking about construct creatures (creatures that don't swallow, and don't care about poison) being far more common both as players and NPCs. Maybe think more in terms of oils and acids than potions and poisons.

[Squiggit]

Reading this thread at all the class ideas, and given the new reality of tech core and their new year+ playtest cycle, it's a little wild to think that no matter what they pick to do next we might not see it until deep into 2027... maybe even 2028.

[Driftbourne]

Squiggit wrote:

Reading this thread at all the class ideas, and given the new reality of tech core and their new year+ playtest cycle, it's a little wild to think that no matter what they pick to do next we might not see it until deep into 2027... maybe even 2028.

I know the main playtest for SF2e was year-long. I'm not aware that it has become the standard for all playtests. The public playtest for the tech classes was only a month long. I thought Tech Core might have been delayed for the Starship playtest, but apparently, it was posted on Discord that there would be no public Starship playtest, although I'd assume there is playtesting for it at Paizo.

We were not expecting the Absalom Station book, so Paizo may have other surprises as well. I suspect that the Absalom Station book might have been a project started in SF1e that never got finished due to the OGL mess. There might be other projects like that as well.

[Zoken44]

I think the confusion earlier in the discussion regarding "Bio-Hacker" vs. "Evolutionist" is that the term Bio-Hacker has actually come to have a real world definition, when it didn't when the class was originally released. So maybe a name change for what the Bio-Hacker class originally was, Pharmacist, etc, or rolling it into a class archetype for the alchemist and leaving it there.

as for the real world bio-hacker, I can see it being a subclass of the evolutionist, but not the whole of it since that also included cybernetics, necrografts, and even Arcane implants.

Nanocyte is such a specific form of cyberneticism, I think it would remain separate from the evolutionist, unless that make the Evolutionist really granular, like the Kineticist.

[Teridax]

Zoken44 wrote:

So maybe a name change for what the Bio-Hacker class originally was, Pharmacist, etc, or rolling it into a class archetype for the alchemist and leaving it there.

When the Pharmacist injects you with the inhibitor that turns your bones to jelly, the "P" becomes silent.

[Zoken44]

well... I'm sad, but optimistic. At a Dev Panel recently it was confirmed that the Nanocyte would be brought into SF2e as an Archetype instead of a full class. I had hoped for a full class, but we'll see what the Dev's built of it. It's coming in Tech Core.

[kaid]

Zoken44 wrote:

well... I'm sad, but optimistic. At a Dev Panel recently it was confirmed that the Nanocyte would be brought into SF2e as an Archetype instead of a full class. I had hoped for a full class, but we'll see what the Dev's built of it. It's coming in Tech Core.

A bit sad it won't be a full class but could be a neat archetype to add flavor to a class. A mechanic with a nanocyte archetype could be a pretty fun thing to work with. I assume there will be feats to create nanite armor or weapon and maybe to deploy the nanite swarm cloud.

[Squiggit]

I think there's a decent chance it's a cool archetype, but at the same time "bringing it back as an archetype/subclass" is still kind of a death sentence to fans of the original. Archetypes just don't have enough power budget for that.

[kaid]

Yeah although I sort of get it. Now that it is fully PF2 compatible doing some class archetypes may make a lot of sense like I can easily see biohacker becoming an alchemist class archetype.

[moosher12]

Long as it's good. Like the Vigilante, Nanocyte does sound like the sort of theme that can meld well into any other main class.

If it gets a proper two-page spread, I think there's hope. It's cooked if it only gets one page though.