Pathfinder 1E Technologist (alternate wizard using Santiago rules)

[gamerprinter]

I've been playing with ideas for use in a Pathfinder Sci-Fi game using the Santiago Players Guide concepts. Keeping in mind that spells are technical procedures and not magic, though the resulting effect is the same. Despite liking the ideas behind the existing alternate spellcaster classes like the Engineer, I think its viable to build something closer to the wizard I want to call the Technologist. I haven't worked out all the bugs, nor all the class feature replacements, but here's my start.

Technologist

Bonus Language: Technical Procedural Language (software coding language)

Robotic Familiar: essentially a tiny or small UAV with AI and manipulator hands that has all the normal properties of a typical wizard's familiar serving the same purpose. (replaces Arcane Bond)

Technical Procedures/Procedural Processing Units (spells/spellbooks): Procedural Processing Units serves as the "spellbook" of a technologist, that stores software programs encoded by the technologist using a tablet or holographic touchscreen and voice to text conversion - emulating both somatic and verbal components (waving your hands in the air and uttering some words, as in casting a spell). A technologist is a software engineer. Like the Santiago class Engineer, a need for something like widgets that serve as hardware devices to boost, test or otherwise tweak the Procedural Processing Units and serve as material components to alter the capability of the equipment that enables the technical procedure "effects". Technical Procedure effects either emanate from the PPU or Wireless communication with "electronic systems" in structures, vehicles, man-made locations that discharge effects enabled by technical procedure encoded by the technologist.

Something that replaces Scribe Scroll: transfering programs encoded by a technologist to memory storage units (like jump drives) or uploaded to the Galactic Cloud Server for galactic internet that can be retrieved to your PPU and enabled.

Spell List: haven't decided on which "spellcaster spell list" to choose, or just do a direct conversion of the existing sorcerer/wizard spell list to technical procedural versions with the same effects.

As an aside, I'm also thinking of creating either an Engineer Archetype called Pilot that replaces the options from the Mechanic archetype, with options for piloting starships - or developing a prestige class that allows any qualifying class to become a starship pilot. Which way should I try to build a starship pilot as an archetype or a prestige class?

I also want to develop 3D movement rules for starships for ship to ship combat scenarios, as well as adapting existing sailing ship combat rules for space combat with slugthrowers and laser/energy cannons - since the Santiago setting rules is missing this aspect of Sci-Fi gaming.

Any thoughts on these ideas?

 

[BigVanVader]

Instead of a spellbook, he could have like a smartphone or something. Or a laptop.

 

[gamerprinter]

Instead of a spellbook, he could have like a smartphone or something. Or a laptop.

Yes, this is what a PPU (Procedural Processing Unit) is - a laptop, tablet, smartphone, or device that creates a holographic touchscreen serving the exact same purpose - to encode "spells" that is then activated for their effects.

 

[Morrus]

I did consider adapting our Admiral o' the High Seas rules to SANTIAGO, but there was no real need for it for the AP.

We basically reskinned the spellcasters and called magic technology. I think it worked, though it needs a bit of a buy-on from the players in terms of the language they use.

 

[gamerprinter]

I did consider adapting our Admiral o' the High Seas rules to SANTIAGO, but there was no real need for it for the AP.

We basically reskinned the spellcasters and called magic technology. I think it worked, though it needs a bit of a buy-on from the players in terms of the language they use.

While I certainly own all the modules for the Santiago AP, as well as the setting guide and players guide, however, as with any D&D/PF game, I generally run homebrews and I plan on doing so running a short AP in some galactic setting that I'll create for my table - I like some of the ideas of Santiago, but not necessarily interested in an "Old West in Space" flavor that seems projected from Santiago, thus why I'll probably make more direct conversions of existing classes rather than the completely new alternates provided in the players guide - my AP has different needs. I like the idea of a wizard being some kind of computer programmer, while an engineer deals with gadgets and systems, wizards deal in software and code.

 

[Morrus]

While I certainly own all the modules for the Santiago AP, as well as the setting guide and players guide, however, as with any D&D/PF game, I generally run homebrews and I plan on doing so running a short AP in some galactic setting that I'll create for my table - I like some of the ideas of Santiago, but not necessarily interested in an "Old West in Space" flavor that seems projected from Santiago, thus why I'll probably make more direct conversions of existing classes rather than the completely new alternates provided in the players guide - my AP has different needs. I like the idea of a wizard being some kind of computer programmer, while an engineer deals with gadgets and systems, wizards deal in software.

I was just explaining why we didn't do space combat rules. You can do whatever you want with it!

 

[gamerprinter]

I'm thinking of looking at Cerulean Seas and see how that setting handles 3D combat underwater and adapting that to space combat. I'll then probably use the Razor Coast supplement Fire as She Bears for ship configuration and ship to ship combat and mix the two concepts together. I don't have Admiral o' the High Seas, so I don't know how you configured ship fighting rules. Really, the Santiago players guide and setting guide handles most possibilities for a sci-fi game, however, I want space combat to be a part of play, so I have to figure some way of incorporating such rules fluidly onto my table. I've got several resources for sailing ship combat, but nothing for the kind of 3D combat required moving around the vacuum of space - except Cerulean Seas.

Also looking at the PF Hybrid classes for inclusion in such a setting/game. Mentioned in the Santiago players guide are berserker barbarians that fit the niche of sci-fi super soldiers which I really like as an idea, but now feel that Bloodrager (untouchable rage archetype) does this even better. Such that these super soldiers defy technology defenses and fortifications (since they bypass magic).

 

[Morrus]

I've got several resources for sailing ship combat, but nothing for the kind of 3D combat required moving around the vacuum of space - except Cerulean Seas.

There have been hundreds of attempts to design 3D starship combat rules. I'd say that 99% of them failed; it's hard to do and keep the game fast and fun. Most starship combat games simply accept that they have to stay 2D. If you do come up with something, be sure to share it!

 

[gamerprinter]

Looking at the flying rules in Geek Industrial Complex Companions of the Firmament where several options are offered for 3D combat.

The most complex one uses 2 grids, a horizontal one and a verticle one with the horizontal grid as an actual physical map grid for the tabletop or using a white board. The verticle grid, like many other attempted 3D combat systems relies on markers or poker chips placed under the miniatures to denote differences in height. While this method offers the most accurate depiction especially regarding movement spaces (squares or cubes), range and distance, fitting most closely to combat RAW, if there are more than 2 flying combatants this method can get very tedious, complex and time consuming - and not very condusive to fast and easy play.

A second described method for 3D combat is Abstract Aerial Combat which indeed is fast, easy with no needs of an actual grid (and am seriously considering using for just this reason.) Merge the Fly skill with Initiative into one roll. Apply all necessary bonuses to DEX, initiative, maneuverability class, and a +1 for each 10' of movement. All flying combatants roll this for a Flying Initiative score that is rolled at the beginning of each round (with no memory of what took place in the previous round.) The result is an Aerial Advantage for that round. Spending Aerial Advantage for specific bonuses during that round can achieve:

1. Bonus damage for a single attack equal to the difference in Initiative between the combatant and the target.
2. Bonus to AC (Dex based) plus CMD to the difference between half the Flying Initiative score.
3. Trigger the use of an ability such as a feat, spell, class ability or other effect that normally requires a specific position on a battle grid, such as gaining position to perform a Sneak Attack.
4. Move 2 flying range increments to run away if your Flying Initiative score exceeds everyone else.
5. A stunt or narrative tactic agreed upon by both GM and player dependant on the difference between Flying Initiative scores.

This also includes an Abstract Range table differing between melee/short range attacks, personal and touch attacks (spell or physical), long range for projectile, seige and distance spell attacks, distant and extreme ranges as well. Each get a Ranged Attack Bonus and a Perception Bonus, and appoximate distances.

There are several more options included an Abstract grid for more complex flying options. However, I like the first 2, using the first method only for exact detail combat between 3 or less combatants. Anything more complex in number of flyers, I'd use the Abstract Aerial Combat rules.

Of course these flying rules involve gravity and falling, which would be eschewed since 3D combat in space is absent of gravity (for the most part) so falling is not a consideration.

 

[Morrus]

One approach I have seen with 3D combat is to vastly simplify the vertical axis. Keep horizontal as normal, and divide vertical into three zones - above, below, and level. It's not very simulationist, but it works, and it's fast, and at least lets you feel you're in 3D even if you're not really.