When is Paizo going to pull their finger out for the Tech Core

[Mikey13]

I like starfinder and I played the first editon.

Second edition has let me and, I expect, many other players by being a 60% game with only 6 classes.

The playtest featured all 11 but what happened..?

So, over a year past the release and we're still waiting for the Tech Core to restore some of the missing classes, like the Technomancer, which I can't play cos it doesn't exist at present in second edition.

I'd like Paizo to answer this.

[Xenocrat]

Mikey13 wrote:

The playtest featured all 11 but what happened..?

The SF2 playtest only featured the six classes that were published in SF2 Player Core.

Tech Core isn't annonced, but since it's not the GenCon release and Erik Mona said "it won't be 2027" when someone joked about that on a Discord or subreddit (I saw the screenshot on a Discord, but not the original post), it's probably going to be the holiday/winter 2026 release around the first week of November.

[Squark]

I am very confused. There's a lot of errors in your original post.

-Starfinder 1e had thirteen classes not eleven.
-The Initial Sf2e Playtest onlt featured 6 classes, although the Precog's flavor became a Witchwarper subclass
-The Tech Playtest, which released months later, had two classes (the ones that will be in tech core)

To provide some additional news beyond what Xenocrat mentioned
-We have no news on Vanguard, Evolutionist, or Biohacker apart from the Devs saying they'd like to explore new classes first after Tech Core
-Nanocyte will become an Archetype muchlike how Cavalier and Vigilante became archetypes in the transition from pathfinder 1e to 2e.

[Driftbourne]

SF1e only had 7 classes at release.

The tech playtest mechanic and technomancer are still playable even in organized play. With the precog now being a witchwarper subclass, that's 8.5 classes from SF1e covered at the release of SF2e.

The release of SF2e was on August 1st 2025, that's only 6 months ago, not a year.

Tech Class Playtest pdf

[Xenocrat]

Almost nothing of the SF1 flavor and especially mechanics behind the precog made it it to the WW subclass, I'd say we have 8.05 classes from SF1e covered (once Tech Core actually releases, given the woeful state of the playtest classes in some respects).

[Davor Firetusk]

I'll quibble and say Precog flavor is mostly in SFS 2, but the pre-roll mechanic which I just love isn't there which is unfortunate since I liked that a lot. I've had fun with the SFS2, but certainly the range of options available in SFS1 still makes it very attractive to play.

[moosher12]

Mikey13 wrote:

Second edition has let me and, I expect, many other players by being a 60% game with only 6 classes.

Starfinder 2E also has supplemental +27 classes via Pathfinder for 33 classes, plus 4 playtest classes. (see point 3). Many of these classes cover the multitude of subclasses and alternate class rules of 1E classes that existed to emulate Pathfinder classes, So those at least are covered.

Mikey13 wrote:

The playtest featured all 11 but what happened?

The playtest only featured 6 classes.

Mikey13 wrote:

So, over a year past the release and we're still waiting for the Tech Core to restore some of the missing classes, like the Technomancer, which I can't play cos it doesn't exist at present in second edition.

Enjoy

[TheTownsend]

Starfinder 1e was not built in a day either, in case you forgot. Checking just now, 1e's first batch of new classes came out over two years after the Core Rulebook, in Character Operations Manual. What could possibly make you think they'd churn out all 13 1e classes -- origianlly published over the course of five years -- at once?

2e is not "60% of a game" because Mechanic and Technomancer are "Missing", any more that 1e was *Incomplete* without the Biohacker, or Pathfinder 2e lesser for going almost three years without a Gunslinger. It's a complete system that happens to not have published support for your favorite thing yet.

[Driftbourne]

Davor Firetusk wrote:

I'll quibble and say Precog flavor is mostly in SFS 2, but the pre-roll mechanic which I just love isn't there which is unfortunate since I liked that a lot. I've had fun with the SFS2, but certainly the range of options available in SFS1 still makes it very attractive to play.

I wonder if the pre-roll mechanic was left out because it would be more powerful with crits being 10 over AC or DC.

Imagine a worlanisi precog with 3 pre-rolls and hero points. That's a lot of dice control. I'm courious to see if worlanisi luck remains first nat 1 of the days = becomes a nat 20

[Milo v3]

I do think it is fair to "feel" like starfinder isn't complete when there isn't any sci fi classes yet. If you want to play a techy character or a science character in flavour currently, you'll probably need to go to pathfinder classes like Alchemist and Inventor to try and get that vibe across at present.

It's definitely a reality that it takes time for stuff to be written, tested, edited, layouts, art, etc. that goes into making a book. But I know I won't be running a full campaign of Starfinder 2e any time soon when a lot of the basic sci fi pitches simply aren't supported currently.

I don't feel like they need to replicate the 1e classes though. Archetypes are higher priority than something like Vanguard or Precog.

[griefninja]

Based on what I read about 1e I'm fine with Technomancer and Mechanic being left out of the base book. If the choice is between waiting for them to feel fully fleshed out in an expansion or tack them, and all the tech items they need, onto the player guide then it's an easy choice. I do hope the extra time lets them really go the extra mile.

[Perpdepog]

Driftbourne wrote:

Davor Firetusk wrote:

I'll quibble and say Precog flavor is mostly in SFS 2, but the pre-roll mechanic which I just love isn't there which is unfortunate since I liked that a lot. I've had fun with the SFS2, but certainly the range of options available in SFS1 still makes it very attractive to play.

I wonder if the pre-roll mechanic was left out because it would be more powerful with crits being 10 over AC or DC.

Imagine a worlanisi precog with 3 pre-rolls and hero points. That's a lot of dice control. I'm courious to see if worlanisi luck remains first nat 1 of the days = becomes a nat 20

I think it may have been too good, given the new way crits work, but it's not like they haven't messed about with pre-roll mechanics before. Look at the investigator. That's Devise a Strategem's whole deal ... well, part of its deal.

[griefninja]

Perpdepog wrote:

Driftbourne wrote:

Davor Firetusk wrote:

I'll quibble and say Precog flavor is mostly in SFS 2, but the pre-roll mechanic which I just love isn't there which is unfortunate since I liked that a lot. I've had fun with the SFS2, but certainly the range of options available in SFS1 still makes it very attractive to play.

I wonder if the pre-roll mechanic was left out because it would be more powerful with crits being 10 over AC or DC.

Imagine a worlanisi precog with 3 pre-rolls and hero points. That's a lot of dice control. I'm courious to see if worlanisi luck remains first nat 1 of the days = becomes a nat 20

I think it may have been too good, given the new way crits work, but it's not like they haven't messed about with pre-roll mechanics before. Look at the investigator. That's Devise a Strategem's whole deal ... well, part of its deal.

Maybe they didn't want to step on it's toes by having a similar gimmick then. I, personally, wouldn't mind overlap between PF and SF stuff, but I know others would want all original mechanics.

[Xenocrat]

The Analyst WW is honestly the closest to how the old Precog played with its ability to reroll saves/attacks and enemy saves off of focus points as a form of fate manipulation. Both the precog and WW in SF1 had lots of spells on their lists that let them do similar reroll things, but precog's paradoxes as a class feature were an extension that didn't require expending slots.

[Justnobodyfqwl]

Well, as we all know, when Pathfinder 2e came out, it instantly launched with everyone's favorite classes from 1e. I don't know why they didn't do it for Starfinder 2e! My slayer/avenger character was adventuring day 1.

[Torradin341]

Justnobodyfqwl wrote:

Well, as we all know, when Pathfinder 2e came out, it instantly launched with everyone's favorite classes from 1e. I don't know why they didn't do it for Starfinder 2e! My slayer/avenger character was adventuring day 1.

Well, clearly not. But, as we all know, it did launch with twelve (12) character classes - alchemist, barbarian, bard, champion, cleric, druid, fighter, monk, ranger, rogue, sorcerer, and wizard. Which is one (1) more than the eleven (11) - barbarian, bard, champion, cleric, druid, fighter, monk, ranger, rogue, sorcerer, and wizard.

As you can see by comparing the two lists, PF2 launched with all of PF1's launch classes, plus one (1) more, and notably twice what SF2 launched with, which was one (1) less than SF1, and missing two (2) of SF1's launch classes.

[Mikey13]

Thank you all for your replies, especially Driftbourne for giving me a way to play my character in SF2.

I have read all of your posts and I'm really grateful for them. I know I got a few things wrong (I picked up my SF2 Playest book and saw that I was wrong.)

I hope to start playing SF Society again soon.

I'll still look forward to the Tech Core and other releases as they come.

Paizo, despite my grinchy post still provides so much support in material, keeping all off the streets having fun.

Again many thanks to you all.

[Driftbourne]

Also, Hephaistos 2e has the tech playtest classes in their character builder.

Hephaistos 2e

[griefninja]

Does anyone else wish SF2E added a fifth tradition called something like "digital" or "tech?" I want the magic holograms and comm unit spells to be saved for the Technomancer and Mechanic. When I play a Mystic, I want to contrast the tradition of magic against modern sci-fi technology. I wouldn't even mind a "tech Mystic" option existing either, just feels weird to be default. I guess it's so PF classes can steal spells easily without adding new PF rules for the new tradition. Still sucks though. Some of it is just flavor text that can be changed, so it's not a, like, super pressing issue or anything. It just feels like a weird choice.

[Driftbourne]

I used to want a 5th tradition for Starfinder just to have one that was Starfinder only, but now I think it comes down to having more tech-flavored spells than a new tradition. It doesn't get more "tech Mystic" than motivating ringtone.

A PF2e wizards writning down spells in a book isn't much different from writing a computer program for a spell chip. When triggered, both do a preprogrammed effect. In Starfinder, magic can often be seen as an alternative power source for tech items.

[moosher12]

I wouldn't mind a tech spell list on one condition: There needs to be multiple classes with the tech spell list, else it would sort of be a lot of space that only one class would benefit from. (Plus unless Paizo retrofits the whole list to the entirety of Pathfinder's spell list, that would become troublesome. As now players converting Pathfinder spells over will be unsure whether a new, applicable spell to the tech list applies. Because Pathfinder is unlikely to list whether it's spells would be in the tech tree, even if it's like, a perfect fit. Of course it's a no brainer for obvious spells, but it will put spells that are threading the borders of the list in a dubious "This GM allows it but this doesn't" scenario. Basically to me, it'd require a commitment on Paizo's part to address every spell on whether it is in the tech spell list, and then start adding whether it is on the tech spell list going forward in Pathfinder books, for it to be a smooth transition.

But ultimately it comes down to the question of. If a wizard in Starfinder is fully capable of casting the same spells as a technomancer, then the seperate spell list would not be needed, as it can just be arcane.

A wizard can walk out with a rifle and tactical gear, as if we were in a game of Tactical Breach Wizards, before casting fireball and lightning bolt, and hopefully doing some starfinder-isms like making a junk drone to help attack.

It's a weird call. The Technomancer was just a wizard in space with some more techy core abilities. It could do most anything a wizard could do spell-wise in 1E, least up to spell rank 6. But that leaves the question, with spell rank 10 unlocked in 2e, and the realization that the spell rank 6 was a page limit issue, and not actually a lore limitation, if both a wizard and a technomancer walk out of the arcanamirium as peers heading to lunch, of course the technomancer would know a spell like junk armor and junk grenade, but would the wizard also be capable of knowing the spell?

[QuidEst]

griefninja wrote:

Does anyone else wish SF2E added a fifth tradition called something like "digital" or "tech?" I want the magic holograms and comm unit spells to be saved for the Technomancer and Mechanic. When I play a Mystic, I want to contrast the tradition of magic against modern sci-fi technology. I wouldn't even mind a "tech Mystic" option existing either, just feels weird to be default. I guess it's so PF classes can steal spells easily without adding new PF rules for the new tradition. Still sucks though. Some of it is just flavor text that can be changed, so it's not a, like, super pressing issue or anything. It just feels like a weird choice.

This is pretty easy to achieve by going in the other direction - you just give Mystic the PF2 Player Core 1 & 2 spells instead of the SF2 spells.

[TheTownsend]

I could see a Tech Spell List working a bit like PF's Elementalist class archetype, a variation on maybe the combined Arcane and Occult lists available to anyone who could normally access either -- though that might in and of itself step on the Technomancer's toes.

[moosher12]

Though if a wizard could already cast everything a technomancer could cast, it's already stepping on Technomancer's toes before it's even released. So I suppose making it an option for a wizard, while the Technomancer automatically gets it, while more pure classical wizards can choose not to do it, would actually give the Technomancer its own niche that a wizard has to buy into to participate in, instead of automatically getting the full benefits of. For example, for a wizard this could be an arcane thesis or a class archetype.

[Rotfell]

griefninja wrote:

Does anyone else wish SF2E added a fifth tradition called something like "digital" or "tech?" I want the magic holograms and comm unit spells to be saved for the Technomancer and Mechanic. When I play a Mystic, I want to contrast the tradition of magic against modern sci-fi technology. I wouldn't even mind a "tech Mystic" option existing either, just feels weird to be default. I guess it's so PF classes can steal spells easily without adding new PF rules for the new tradition. Still sucks though. Some of it is just flavor text that can be changed, so it's not a, like, super pressing issue or anything. It just feels like a weird choice.

While I can entertain such thought, it makes little sense narratively. The four spell traditions are basically sources and understandings of magic, as well how they interact with spirits, life, and the like.

Otoh, it makes sense that magic will have evolved to include technology, as it probably always had (detect metal was probably developed as people started their respective Iron Ages, or Summon Instrument that also wills a crafted item into existence, or Summon Constructs as it needs to have constructs that had to be invented to work in the first place).

So I think Technomancer should rather have class mechanics that tries to make sense of a deeper connection between items and spells and create specific spells via the focus spell mechanic to add to that.

There are some promising things in the playtest for that, but let's see where it goes.

[Teridax]

I’m also of the opinion that tech-based magic feels more like a natural evolution of magic, especially arcane magic, than its own traditional. In an ideal world, it’d be nice for spells to be categorized into domains like tech, fire, curses, etc. to make thematic mixing and matching easier on casters, but arcane casters in Starfinder being able to summon robots by default, much like the constructs of old, makes sense to me.

What I’d be more interested in is the distinction between Technomancers and Wizards, and I agree with Rotfell that the difference should exist through class features and focus spells: if tech spells in the arcane list mean that Wizards become technomancers as good as the Technomancer class, then something went badly wrong in the latter class’s design in my opinion: although I do think the playtest class we got does make some use of tech, I feel they were still way too close to a spellshaping Wizard than a proper tech-wielder. It seems the Starfriends acknowledged that part of feedback, though, so I’m keen to see what the finished product will look like.