Reports from the Field: Starfinder Second Edition Playtests

I really like the idea of "1 square = 30 feet" but could you make that "1 hex = 30 feet" instead.

For me, hexes lend themselves to better represent elevation changes. Something that the BattleTech maps tend to do well. I would love to see this element introduced in longer ranged Starfinder battles.

Ah, fatal damage dice. I was worried when I didn't see this appear in the Field Test. I believe it's a great mechanic in that it only raises the average damage by a little while making guns feel deadly. I wouldn't mind it being increase a bit more for modern weapons... maybe 2d12 instead of 1d12?

Love the blog, keep it up please!

This system-meshing might finally pull me into Starfinder...

Also glad that Grenades are just based on Class DC for now! Are you thinking of them as being significantly different from Alchemical Bombs in PF2, or do they have a similar design idea at the moment?

Mostly speculation, but I'd guess that they are a mix of spell scrolls and bombs. Alchemical bombs are balanced with the Alchemist in mind, who can have a great number of them for free, which grenades don't have to bother with. On the other hand, I doubt grenades will be gated behind a specific activity or tradition-like system with all that entails, so they will have to be slightly weaker than scrolls.

So grenades will probably be about as expensive as bombs, but the effects should be between bombs and spell scrolls in terms of power. So focus spell level I guess? Mechanically, "placed area effects with a limited range and [using] Class DC" sounds more like a spell. Probably "range x" (without range increments, as those don't do anything for DCs) and then determine the effects from that point.

Scaling? I'd say literally copy the focus spell format (minus the spell-only parts) to save space, but readability probably dictates a variant system like bombs have.

Overall, if this is roughly true, it sounds like a great "scrolls for martials" system. Not that casters couldn't use them as well ^^. It could be something to set SF2 apart. Before PF2 "steals" it, because it sounds cool.

keftiu wrote:

Nevaritius wrote:

Sounds like a fun playtest.

It seems that the Operative and Soldier share very similar roles. Unsure as to why Technomancer and Mechanic weren't tried out, as they have some of the best Starfnder flavour there is.

Moving to a 2e like system gives the chance to really run rampant with subclasses due to the flexibility of build paths.

Wonder if it would be better to absorb Operative into Soldier, having it as a soldier subclass via feats, and bringing Mechanic in as a class with Technomancer as a subclass option for that.

As it stands reading through the post it felt like you have 2 people playing different Soldier builds, 1 mystic, and a witchwarper.

Operative as it is thematically is just like Soldier, but sneakier. You could achieve that by having subclass feat options in the Soldier class itself under the 2e system rather than have Operative as a class all on its own. Would give you breathing space design wise.

By this logic, a Rogue is just a Fighter but sneakier.

The SF2 niche for the Soldier is clear: a heavy, someone who wields the biggest weapons in the game for devastating effect and can take a beating like nobody else in the new corebook. Compared to that, an accuracy-driven Operative with more focus on stealth, skills, and/or movement feels plenty distinct from that.

More importantly, anything trying to do both is going to feel pretty shapeless.

I disagree. A heavy that focuses on big weapons, and an accuracy driven stealth operative differ only in the style of fighting. They're thematically the same thing, with different areas of focus. An operative is a stealthy Soldier who likes to use skills to overcome situations. Alternatively, a soldier is an operative who likes to use big guns to force his way through something.

They're the same thing, and pretending like they're so vastly different as to be completely separate classes doesn't make sense to me when as seen in the play test above, they've given some of the Precog's abilities to the Witchwarper.

I would argue that the witchwarper/precog situation has a similar relationship as the operative/soldier. They have a similar play style that differs only in how they approach a situation.

Keeping classes separate that could otherwise be combined will inhibit build creativity and party inclusiveness, I think.

When Keftiu says your suggestion would feel shapelesss, she means that implementing it would probably require removing all the current base chassis abilities in order to offer choices at each of those points instead. Much like the SF1 soldier in fact, which is exactly that shapeless, as everything is determined by your fighting style. They are going a different direction with the soldier at the moment.

Honestly, I think that's the right call. We can see in PF1 what happens, such as on the alchemist and the ranger, when your class covers too many archetypes; feats feel really spread out with only 1 option for your subclass or style per level, and sometimes none at all. I think the decision to have soldiers focus on Area weapons, including finding ways to make area weapons work in situations that they are not necessarily designed to shine in (such as with single target fighting) is a good design direction. That will let soldiers mechanically interact with combat in a unique way that other SF classes wouldn't offer, leaving room for those classes to approach combat in mechanically distinct fashions. That area weapons use your class DC and sniper style shooting the operative seems to favor requires attack rolls will also help them feel different, and also will need very different feats and class abilities to support.

Grankless wrote:

Nevaritius wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Nevaritius wrote:

Sounds like a fun playtest.

It seems that the Operative and Soldier share very similar roles. Unsure as to why Technomancer and Mechanic weren't tried out, as they have some of the best Starfnder flavour there is.

Moving to a 2e like system gives the chance to really run rampant with subclasses due to the flexibility of build paths.

Wonder if it would be better to absorb Operative into Soldier, having it as a soldier subclass via feats, and bringing Mechanic in as a class with Technomancer as a subclass option for that.

As it stands reading through the post it felt like you have 2 people playing different Soldier builds, 1 mystic, and a witchwarper.

Operative as it is thematically is just like Soldier, but sneakier. You could achieve that by having subclass feat options in the Soldier class itself under the 2e system rather than have Operative as a class all on its own. Would give you breathing space design wise.

By this logic, a Rogue is just a Fighter but sneakier.

The SF2 niche for the Soldier is clear: a heavy, someone who wields the biggest weapons in the game for devastating effect and can take a beating like nobody else in the new corebook. Compared to that, an accuracy-driven Operative with more focus on stealth, skills, and/or movement feels plenty distinct from that.

More importantly, anything trying to do both is going to feel pretty shapeless.

I disagree. A heavy that focuses on big weapons, and an accuracy driven stealth operative differ only in the style of fighting. They're thematically the same thing, with different areas of focus. An operative is a stealthy Soldier who likes to use skills to overcome situations. Alternatively, a soldier is an operative who likes to use big guns to force his way through something.

They're the same thing, and pretending like they're so vastly different as to be completely separate classes doesn't make sense to me

...

It's actually a lot more relevant than you think considering the "meet the heavy" trailer was cited as one of the inspiration to the vibe they wanted with the new solider to take.

So grenades will probably be about as expensive as bombs, but the effects should be between bombs and spell scrolls in terms of power. So focus spell level I guess? Mechanically, "placed area effects with a limited range and [using] Class DC" sounds more like a spell. Probably "range x" (without range increments, as those don't do anything for DCs) and then determine the effects from that point.

Shouldn't using class DC already inherently limit their effectiveness? I think that limiter would allow grenades to have a bit more baseline power. The rest of your post I agree with though.

I think it's pretty interesting that grenades would be based entirely on class DC (and if I'm guessing right would use the Area tag) instead of attack roll plus splash, but that soldiers would have the option of using their attack roll with them via the primary target ability. I'm curious how that will shake out, and if soldiers will get a grenade specific fighting style.

As far as combining the Witchwarper and Precog, I'm semi conflicted but not entirely surprised. Thematically, and when you get down to their "class feat", both cover similar ground and offer similar enough options that with work you could rewrite either class's options so that they'd feel like they were intended for the other.

I have more to say, but work calls and I need to think about it. Suffice to say this has me even MORE interested in the upcoming rewrite of the witchwarper. I've said before it's my second favorite SF class, and what I feel is the design intent of its mechanics is a big draw for me. However, the precog currently has some elements that I feel are missing on the witchwarper, subclass options and a daily resource pool (besides resolve). Neither are needed of course, I honestly love the class's mechanical expression just as it is (while acknowleging that the balance feels off), but I'm curious if the rewrite will add those features, and if so how it will be implemented. If they do get added, then I can begin to see how the two classes would play close enough both mechanically and thematically to be combined into a single class.

Edit: sorry for all the posts btw, this has me excited again.

So it seems clear to me now with this that the thing they really don't want to do is to have their classes be boiled down to "Pathfinder class in space" where in Starfinder 1e, that's a lot of what they were. Envoy was bard in space, Operative was rogue in space, Solider was fighter in space, Mystic was cleric in space, etc etc.

I think when viewed in that light, it's interesting to see that the developers are trying to tighten the reigns and carve out more of an identity for these classes to occupy. It reminds me of Mark Seifter speaking about the wizard and the problem with wizard and the schools of magic. The basic gist is having schools of magic, and then making a class whose gimmick is "I know every school of magic" created a "green eyed monster" of design space that wanted to gobble up every other spellcasters gimmicks. And that you couldn't have a necromancer when necromancy was a school of magic, because then you run into the problem oif why the wizards not got all the spells the necromancer has.

The point of that being, I think the developers want to avoid classes that can do too much at once. They want classes to have a more defined role than what currently exists, where a class can select an option and just fundamentally change the entire way it plays. That may suck to hear, but it does also allow more design spaces to open up. Like instead of having an operative that's good at exploration and stealth and martial arts and assassination and persuasive arguments and medical treatment, you can narrow the scope of operative, and then make a class that's good at, say, Exploration and Medical treatment, and another for Martials Arts, and let operative be good at Stealth and Assassination.

That's just my view on it based on what seems to be the current trend. Less in the short term but more in the long term is how I see it.

I'm definitely looking forward to this, I played PF1 and SF1 for many years, eventually switching over to PF2. I really enjoyed Starfinder but I can see how it would really benefit from many of the design changes in PF2. Tracking KAC, EAC, HP, SP, RP, and often an additional type of point such as evolution points and possibly spell slots on top of all of that got really tiresome after a while. I would welcome the change to just AC, HP, and focus points. Hopefully that's the direction they are going!

So it seems clear to me now with this that the thing they really don't want to do is to have their classes be boiled down to "Pathfinder class in space"

You could do this when the systems were different. The operative works on different rules than the rogue. But once you combine the systems a space rogue really is just a rogue.

I'm glad y'all seem to enjoy the blogs and Field Tests! :D

I'll paraphrase something I shared on discord for folx here:
Our team's intention is to build up and remaster SF1's existing content plus add new goodies, so bundling a class with another is a decision we don't make without what we feel is good reason. The person who wrote the precog class, Thursty, is the one who had the idea to bundle it into the witchwarper class, as he felt the concepts meshed really well and would be stronger together.

On an unrelated note, there are some rules we want to take our time with and make sure we get right. Alas, some things won't fit into the core book(s), like, just to pick a totally random example out of a hat, MECHS!, but are going to show up down the line because they're important to the game and we know people like playing with them.

I can't confirm or deny anything in this specific discussion, but please don't worry! We aren't taking away your toys, but we may need more time in the bay to tune them up so they're performing at optimal levels before we get them back to you, if that makes sense! ^_^

[...]

I can't confirm or deny anything in this specific discussion, but please don't worry! We aren't taking away your toys, but we may need more time in the bay to tune them up so they're performing at optimal levels before we get them back to you, if that makes sense! ^_^

That makes perfect sense, thank you ^^

I always prefer developers taking more time, but delivering a solid product at the end. Especially when the usual alternative is including stuff "because it has to be there" and it not working out very well. After the initial judgment, fixing anything major is a monumental task. Though maybe that's just my experience with video games in the last 15-ish years talking.

Eh, while the SF1e classes definitely had some elements of PF classes in them, be they thematic (like the Operative) or mechanical (like the Mystic), I wouldn't call most of the classes just "X in space."

While the Operative certainly resembles "Space Rogue," Trick Attack and Sneak Attack are wildly different mechanics despite having similar fiction. Trick Attack doesn't need any setup and doesn't feel any different from most other attacks, while Sneak Attack actively rewards specific tactics like flanking and combines more organically with combat maneuvers.

That makes perfect sense, thank you ^^

I always prefer developers taking more time, but delivering a solid product at the end. Especially when the usual alternative is including stuff "because it has to be there" and it not working out very well. After the initial judgment, fixing anything major is a monumental task. Though maybe that's just my experience with video games in the last 15-ish years talking.

Absolutely! We also know that the final product will likely never be perfect in spite of our best efforts, but we are striving to make sure the foundation is solid, the new game mechanics are fun to play and support the game's narrative, and that we address as many big community concerns and fix as many bugs as possible before we send finished content out into the universe. Wish us godspeed 'cuz we have a lot of work to do. o7

Grankless wrote:

Nevaritius wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Nevaritius wrote:

Sounds like a fun playtest.

It seems that the Operative and Soldier share very similar roles. Unsure as to why Technomancer and Mechanic weren't tried out, as they have some of the best Starfnder flavour there is.

Moving to a 2e like system gives the chance to really run rampant with subclasses due to the flexibility of build paths.

Wonder if it would be better to absorb Operative into Soldier, having it as a soldier subclass via feats, and bringing Mechanic in as a class with Technomancer as a subclass option for that.

As it stands reading through the post it felt like you have 2 people playing different Soldier builds, 1 mystic, and a witchwarper.

Operative as it is thematically is just like Soldier, but sneakier. You could achieve that by having subclass feat options in the Soldier class itself under the 2e system rather than have Operative as a class all on its own. Would give you breathing space design wise.

By this logic, a Rogue is just a Fighter but sneakier.

The SF2 niche for the Soldier is clear: a heavy, someone who wields the biggest weapons in the game for devastating effect and can take a beating like nobody else in the new corebook. Compared to that, an accuracy-driven Operative with more focus on stealth, skills, and/or movement feels plenty distinct from that.

More importantly, anything trying to do both is going to feel pretty shapeless.

I disagree. A heavy that focuses on big weapons, and an accuracy driven stealth operative differ only in the style of fighting. They're thematically the same thing, with different areas of focus. An operative is a stealthy Soldier who likes to use skills to overcome situations. Alternatively, a soldier is an operative who likes to use big guns to force his way through something.

They're the same thing, and pretending like they're so vastly different as to be completely separate classes doesn't make sense to me

...

If you commenting on forums consistently derails the conversation, have you considered that the other people may not be the problem? No offense intended, of course.