|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've just come off GMing a whole bunch of Starfinder at a local con and have come to realize that Starfinder combat feels quite different than Pathfinder in some notable respects.
I know. Duh. But I was reading the reviews of Fugitive on the Red Planet and I think several of the reviews were written by people who didn't really realize this (it took me several sessions before the lesson sunk in). So I thought I'd start this thread :-).
In Starfinder, it is currently next to impossible to get your AC high enough so that enemies miss a lot. Enemies do NOT go down quickly.
In anything approximating a balanced fight you WILL get hit. A lot. Characters WILL go down in the fight.
I'm a softy as a GM and I was cringing when I put a character into "Well, you're now dying" state.
BUT.
The characters won their fights. Fairly easily. Including in Fugitive on the Red Planet which is currently getting bad reviews. And nobody came even close to actually dying.
Going down basically just means "Well, you've lost a resolve and are out of the fight unless there is a healer". There is LESS risk of dying than in Pathfinder, but far far more chance that your character goes down.
The other changes I've noticed are
1) The environment plays a much larger role. Characters actively look for cover. They seek opportunities to go prone. All a good thing in a world of gun battles
2) Its hard to get people to melee. Its just dangerous. The melee'ers do more dangerous and so they become primary targets and focus fire takes them down.
3) The changes to the action economy (swift to drop, no 5 ft step) takes some getting used to. Characters are less mobile.
4) Operatives rock :-). But man, the lack of a 5ft step hurts :-)
5) Mystics rock too. In combat healing is powerful and useful in this game.
I wanna see how covering and harrying fire will play out. Are they decent enough to help get a melee’er in melee? Especially if they have the step up. Then step in and strike. Getting this off could be just enough to help drop the baddies. I mean getting the melee’er up there than covering him and help with the cover penalties the range characters take.
I don’t know haven’t got to play yet will in a weeks time for Society.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My players love melee it is very strong. And there is a five step. It's called guarded step it's the same thing with a different name.
Guarded step
You can carefully step 5 feet as a move action. This movement
doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity (see page 248), even if
you're in a threateneds quare( seep age2 55).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My players love melee it is very strong. And there is a five step. It's called guarded step it's the same thing with a different name.
Guarded step
You can carefully step 5 feet as a move action. This movement
doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity (see page 248), even if
you're in a threateneds quare( seep age2 55).
Except because it's a move-action, it loses a large part of 5 ft. step's function where you could use the step to safely move then full-attack.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was unclear in my original podt.
It is easy to get into melee. It is just DANGEROUS. What I saw happening is that almost everybody would hang back and pew pew. The bad guys had little reason to enter melee so also hung back. The lack of penalty for shooting into melee changes things a LOT.
If somebody did get into melee they were doing a lot more damage and so got focussed fired on. Or flanked if the bad guys could also melee.
I don't think that is mean of me. The bad guys are trying to win, focus firing on the most dangerous opponent is pretty basic.
Of course, this was all with 1st level characters and with players too inexperienced to use some of the tactics described above.
Except because it's a move-action, it loses a large part of 5 ft. step's function where you could use the step to safely move then full-attack.My players love melee it is very strong. And there is a five step. It's called guarded step it's the same thing with a different name.
Guarded step
You can carefully step 5 feet as a move action. This movement
doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity (see page 248), even if
you're in a threateneds quare( seep age2 55).
Except you can do it (to get out of the threatened area) and then do another move action to put some space between you and the opponent. Or two guarded steps to get closer.
There only being a single AoO makes a huge difference as well. You get someone who can take the damage trigger it, and the rest can move in.
There only being a single AoO makes a huge difference as well. You get someone who can take the damage trigger it, and the rest can move in.
I hadn't thought of that. The inability to make more than one attack of opportunity in Starfinder definitely makes it harder to harry a group of gunmen in any significant degree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except you can do it (to get out of the threatened area) and then do another move action to put some space between you and the opponent. Or two guarded steps to get closer.
I didn't say it had all it's use taken away, I'm just saying a big part of it was removed so there is a difference between Guarded Step and 5 ft. Step.
Yeah, tactics that worked in Pathfinder will not work in Starfinder that's for sure.
For a melee character, charging into a group of ranged attackers will be very dangerous. Intelligent enemies will target melee characters and try to bring them down as quickly as possible, hopefully from cover. And if they stay grouped together, melee will only get a single AoO against them meaning that the majority of the enemy group can attack them with relative impunity.
It's going to be a different dynamic, and we just have to feel it out for a while first.
If the shooters are busy attacking the guy trying to chop their faces off, doesn't that mean that the other party members can move up, or otherwise get into more advantageous positions?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only time people get focus fired is if:1) The GM wants to stop melee.
2) The players are all playing ranged classes.
It's actually quite sensible.
Ronald Reagan has a stack of three-by-five cards in his lap. He skids up a new one: “What advice do you, as the youngest American fighting man ever to win both the Navy Cross and the Silver Star, have for any young Marines on their way to Guadalcanal?”
Shaftoe doesn’t have to think very long. The memories are still as fresh as last night’s eleventh nightmare: ten plucky Nips in Suicide Charge!
“Just kill the one with the sword first.”
“Ah,” Reagan says, raising his waxed and penciled eyebrows, and cocking his pompadour in Shaftoe’s direction. “Smarrrt—you target them because they’re the officers, right?”
“No, f&!&head!” Shaftoe yells. “You kill ’em because they’ve got f@*+ing swords! You ever had anyone running at you waving a f#@%ing sword?”
If the shooters are busy attacking the guy trying to chop their faces off, doesn't that mean that the other party members can move up, or otherwise get into more advantageous positions?
Yes, Leeroy Jenkins can sacrifice his life to allow the party to get closer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Focus fire is always the smart ranged combat tactic if individuals cannot be reliably disabled with one shot, and target prioritization is the smart way to apply focus fire. A dude doing extra damage through melee, standing out of cover, within 1-2 range increments, and getting attacks of opportunity against one of your buddies suddenly climbs the target prioritization list.
|
Focus fire is always the smart ranged combat tactic if individuals cannot be reliably disabled with one shot, and target prioritization is the smart way to apply focus fire. A dude doing extra damage through melee, standing out of cover, within 1-2 range increments, and getting attacks of opportunity against one of your buddies suddenly climbs the target prioritization list.
This is very true.
This is also why I worry that the removal of ranged ATK penalties VS opponents engaged in melee may have tipped the balance of combat just a bit. Melee is now significantly more dangerous and significantly less appealing than ranged combat.
I know that laser pistols are a staple of Space Fantasy, but it seems odd that these new rules, when combined with sensible tactics, place melee combatants at such a serious disadvantage. A high tech gun shouldn't eliminate the risk of shooting your ally (expressed here as an ATK penalty) when he's up close and personal with the enemy you're targeting!
I may be missing something obvious - if so, please tell me! - but it seems like ranged combat and ranged weapons are a far better investment of character resources and feats in Starfinder than they were in Pathfinder. Perhaps disproportionally so?
This type of combat also puts a greater premium on Dexterity, unlike Pathfinder where Strength was king.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We never cared for strength.
The heaviest armor anyone ever wore was a chain shirt.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they all focus fire the melee, then our own party would pick the one I struck and focus fired him. Sure, my 11 HP and 7 SP would get whittled away theoretically they could all full attack (one of them would die trying that, the one I hit) and I would realistically take if they all focus fired 2-3 per shot from the Mercs and 3-4 from the boss.
Your party is incompetent if they are not focus firing the most vulnerable or dangerous targets every single round, rather than waiting to do it in some sort of fit of pique because the GM used optimal tactics. A quickly dead enemy helps shift the battle, equally hurting everyone on the other side doesn't.
The enemy should prefer to kill one of you and die rather than injure several of you and die. Happily, trying to kill one of you as fast as possible also increases their chances that they will not actually die.
(The French and Germans exchange fire between the trenches, rarely getting a hit. Suddenly, part of the German line leaps up from their trenches and charges forward, while the others continue shooting from cover.)
HWalsh: Keep shooting at your individual targets! Ignore the charge!
Everyone else: Uh, I really think we should shoot the guys standing out in the open who are about to be in our trench and bayonet us and shoot us as we lose our own cover.
HWaslh: No, no, keep shooting at the guys who are hard to hit and pose the least threat! Why does no one see the brilliance of my plan!
Everyone else: Uh, ok, we'll try it you way.
(Some of the advancing Germans are shot by the handful of French who had been shooting at them prior to their charge. Most reach the trenches and begin slaughtering the French. HWalsh dies last, furiously shooting at a tiny target 350' away while the cold steel of a bayonet enters his ribcage.)
German with bayonet: I'm glad their GM didn't cheat so I could have fun.
(FIN.)
There are, of course, monsters and other enemies who will be melee only and let you use your preferred tactics with impunity. Or terrain that shields you from some ranged attackers who would otherwise be smart to focus fire you. And there are feats that lets you use your sword to deflect/reflect same damage type shots back at people. But drawing a melee weapon doesn't have to make everyone stupid.
They have +6 melee, 1d4+6, and +0 Ranged (I assume that is a typo, as it should be +2) for 1d4 f.
It's probably not a typo. Do not assume that you can calculate NPCs' or monsters' attack bonuses from things like BAB or ability bonuses. It doesn't work like that in Starfinder.
Well since you use your strength modifier for throwing grenades, smoke and flash grenades will be melee based characters favorite tool for disabling ranged characters. Problem with the flash grenades is the save is reflex so most ranged characters are going to succeed on the save. Then there's cybernetics at level 5, ocular implants, that allow you to see infrared and ultraviolet light. I would assume that allows you to see through smoke.
Though at that point you might wanna just use the battle harness powered armor for the extra ac, which also becomes available at level 5. Even though it has a default strength score of 18, if you allocate more ability points to your constitution it might be more promising, for a pretty survivable melee build.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I may be missing something obvious - if so, please tell me! - but it seems like ranged combat and ranged weapons are a far better investment of character resources and feats in Starfinder than they were in Pathfinder. Perhaps disproportionally so?
Dedicated archers are pretty effective in Pathfinder too.
|
|
I may be missing something obvious - if so, please tell me! - but it seems like ranged combat and ranged weapons are a far better investment of character resources and feats in Starfinder than they were in Pathfinder. Perhaps disproportionally so?Dedicated archers are pretty effective in Pathfinder too.
Of course! Not trying to imply otherwise.
The difference (problem?) as I see it, is this:
In Pathfinder, melee and ranged combatants can BOTH be highly effective in combat, occupying different niches VS different enemies. Dedicated archers are great, and so are dedicated swordsmen.
Whereas in Starfinder, ONLY ranged combatants seem to be effective. It seems to me that the prevalence of enemy ranged weapons, and lack of penalty for ranged-into-melee targeting, places melee oriented combatants at a disadvantage.
I'm certain that I've misunderstood something, but it seems that investing character resources in melee is now significantly less valuable? It feels like the options are "ranged" or "pincushion".
Melee has a clear advantage in a one on one if you can close. More damage, an extra attack for AoO, also Cleave opportunities.
I may be missing something obvious - if so, please tell me! - but it seems like ranged combat and ranged weapons are a far better investment of character resources and feats in Starfinder than they were in Pathfinder. Perhaps disproportionally so?Dedicated archers are pretty effective in Pathfinder too.
Of course! Not trying to imply otherwise.
The difference (problem?) as I see it, is this:
In Pathfinder, melee and ranged combatants can BOTH be highly effective in combat, occupying different niches VS different enemies. Dedicated archers are great, and so are dedicated swordsmen.
Whereas in Starfinder, ONLY ranged combatants seem to be effective. It seems to me that the prevalence of enemy ranged weapons, and lack of penalty for ranged-into-melee targeting, places melee oriented combatants at a disadvantage.
I'm certain that I've misunderstood something, but it seems that investing character resources in melee is now significantly less valuable? It feels like the options are "ranged" or "pincushion".
Melee Combatants are certainly very effective, they tend to have a higher damage output than ranged characters, it just depends on the situation. In a wide open area it's obviously going to be more effective to find some form of cover or just hit the deck and take potshots at the enemy forces, trying to get into melee range is just asking to be riddled with bullets. However in cramped and cluttered environments melee combatants can be absolutely devastating, if you're in a warehouse and you close in on the pile of boxes and enemy is hiding behind you can tear the enemy apart and then take cover behind the same boxes. It's also worth bearing in mind that other creatures provide cover so if you're in a tight corridor you can pretty safely close the gap between you and the guy at the front. I'd say melee combat is certainly less prevalent in Starfinder but it's still a strong option that just requires a bit more tactical thinking and situational awareness.
Unless I've missed something, although there isn't an additional penalty for firing or shooting into melee as with Pathfinder, your target (or you if you're the one being shot at) is still likely to gain a +4 AC bonus due to soft cover. (Soft Cover pg 254)
Ok, it's half the bonus/penalty from Pathfinder but often the archer in Pathfinder would have Precise shot and improved precise shot negating that. I don't think that feat exists in Starfinder so after a point, it's may well be harder for a dedicated archer to hit a character in melee in Starfinder than Pathfinder.
Focus fire is always the smart ranged combat tactic if individuals cannot be reliably disabled with one shot, and target prioritization is the smart way to apply focus fire. A dude doing extra damage through melee, standing out of cover, within 1-2 range increments, and getting attacks of opportunity against one of your buddies suddenly climbs the target prioritization list.This is very true.
This is also why I worry that the removal of ranged ATK penalties VS opponents engaged in melee may have tipped the balance of combat just a bit. Melee is now significantly more dangerous and significantly less appealing than ranged combat.
I know that laser pistols are a staple of Space Fantasy, but it seems odd that these new rules, when combined with sensible tactics, place melee combatants at such a serious disadvantage. A high tech gun shouldn't eliminate the risk of shooting your ally (expressed here as an ATK penalty) when he's up close and personal with the enemy you're targeting!
I may be missing something obvious - if so, please tell me! - but it seems like ranged combat and ranged weapons are a far better investment of character resources and feats in Starfinder than they were in Pathfinder. Perhaps disproportionally so?
It was removed, along with the feat that removed the penalty because in Sci-Fi one would expect combat to primarily be ranged. Since it's primarily expected to be ranged, rather than having what amounts to a feat tax for most characters they simply removed the feat and penalty.
Honestly, it was never a relevant penalty in Pathfinder since anyone who was going to primarily be a ranged character took the feat since it had only PBS as a requirement.
Really, the removal of improved precise shot which negated the penalties from cover will be far more significant to Starfinder Combat.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here let's jump this to a realistic encounter.
I presume that you've run or played that encounter several times in order to determine expected results?
Because I've run and/or played this 4 times at this point. In at least 3 of the times (can't remember the 4th) the character who entered melee went down because they got focus fired on.
Not fatally, mind. As I pointed out in my original post, one radical adjustment many people have to make to their thinking is that in Starfinder going unconscious is going to happen a lot. Especially if you draw fire.
Again, I'd call a serious d-bag move on any GM that had every enemy focus fire 4 on 1 on any level 1 PC but that is just me. Just because that is likely to drop any level 1 PC and is fairly unrealistic of a response.
Well, then I'm a douche bag and proud of it. And I consider myself a softy as a GM (I think most of my players would agree with that).
Good GMs absolutely WILL focus fire if the NPCs would. The NPCs WILL try to win.
Hitting the person when they're down IS a douche move IMO. But putting the PC down most certainly is NOT
|
|
I'm certain that I've misunderstood something, but it seems that investing character resources in melee is now significantly less valuable? It feels like the options are "ranged" or "pincushion".
My experience is limited to level 1 characters at this point but I don't think its that bad. Melee characters are still very effective, they do more damage than ranged characters and they affect the battlefield in more ways than ranged characters generally do. And they do it for free (those ammunition costs start to add up :-().
But the tradeoff is that they'll often be knocked unconscious in the process. NOT killed, just unconscious.
In Pathfinder, the melee guy mostly took the baddy down QUICKLY (Barbarians, etc) OR had a ridiculous AC and so was hard to hit. Neither of these work anywhere near as well in Starfinder.
Here let's jump this to a realistic encounter.
I presume that you've run or played that encounter several times in order to determine expected results?
Because I've run and/or played this 4 times at this point. In at least 3 of the times (can't remember the 4th) the character who entered melee went down because they got focus fired on.
Not fatally, mind. As I pointed out in my original post, one radical adjustment many people have to make to their thinking is that in Starfinder going unconscious is going to happen a lot. Especially if you draw fire.
Again, I'd call a serious d-bag move on any GM that had every enemy focus fire 4 on 1 on any level 1 PC but that is just me. Just because that is likely to drop any level 1 PC and is fairly unrealistic of a response.
Well, then I'm a douche bag and proud of it. And I consider myself a softy as a GM (I think most of my players would agree with that).
Good GMs absolutely WILL focus fire if the NPCs would. The NPCs WILL try to win.
Hitting the person when they're down IS a douche move IMO. But putting the PC down most certainly is NOT
So what were the rest of the group doing than? Also why not use cover fire and harrying fire to aid the melee'er. Why now have the melee'er attempt to disarm? trip? I haven't played yet but these seem like they could be beneficial.
I don't see that at all as a douche bag move. I agree. Everyone wants to win. In a fight most people will do what they need to win. If an opponent comes out into the open and is a perfect target for 4 people, than he is fair game. Now hitting the person when they are down depends on the circumstance. If you did something completely stupid than I say your character deserves to die. Starfinder seems to be very ranged based. Now if the baddies are pure evil and thats what they do than no not a douche bag move. Thats how life works. When you adventure like this your character isn't invincible and is subject to die like everyone else. Just because you are a PC doesn't mean that is an excuse not to die.
Most of the time baddies would kidnap you and ransom you, after some good ol fashion torture. Again its all situational.
Here let's jump this to a realistic encounter.
I presume that you've run or played that encounter several times in order to determine expected results?
Because I've run and/or played this 4 times at this point. In at least 3 of the times (can't remember the 4th) the character who entered melee went down because they got focus fired on.
Not fatally, mind. As I pointed out in my original post, one radical adjustment many people have to make to their thinking is that in Starfinder going unconscious is going to happen a lot. Especially if you draw fire.
Again, I'd call a serious d-bag move on any GM that had every enemy focus fire 4 on 1 on any level 1 PC but that is just me. Just because that is likely to drop any level 1 PC and is fairly unrealistic of a response.
Well, then I'm a douche bag and proud of it. And I consider myself a softy as a GM (I think most of my players would agree with that).
Good GMs absolutely WILL focus fire if the NPCs would. The NPCs WILL try to win.
Hitting the person when they're down IS a douche move IMO. But putting the PC down most certainly is NOT
So what were the rest of the group doing than? Also why not use cover fire and harrying fire to aid the melee'er. Why now have the melee'er attempt to disarm? trip? I haven't played yet but these seem like they could be beneficial.
I don't see that at all as a douche bag move. I agree. Everyone wants to win. In a fight most people will do what they need to win. If an opponent comes out into the open and is a perfect target for 4 people, than he is fair game. Now hitting the person when they are down depends on the circumstance. If you did something completely stupid than I say your character deserves to die. Starfinder seems to be very ranged based. Now if the baddies are pure evil and thats what they do than no not a douche bag move. Thats how life works. When you adventure like this your character isn't invincible and is subject to die like everyone else. Just because you are a PC doesn't mean that is an excuse not to die.
Most of the time baddies would kidnap you and ransom you, after some good ol fashion torture. Again its all situational.
|
|
Thank you all for explaining the situation more clearly! I think I'm starting to understand.
It seems there are still quite a few benefits to melee combat - seems I was overlooking cover penalties and such, and embarrassingly hadn't thought about the discrepancies in damage numbers.
I went over the rules for unconsciousness and death a few more times. I feel that @pauljathome has a good point - one that I may not have taken to heart from the OP.
Death works very differently in Starfinder, and being knocked out isn't nearly as hazardous. I guess that melee combat will just require a bit of a mindset change on my part - and my frontline fighters being KO-ed semi-regularly. From what I'm reading, the trade off is more than worth it!
A new system needs a different approach - after all, that's the point of the thread. I guess I hadn't considered exactly HOW different. Also, it seems I should probably hold off on theorycrafting until I've completely internalized the rules!
Sorry about all that.
Again, I appreciate the explanations!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, melee in Starfinder should be a "finishing tactic," rather than a primary attack mode. The melee monster should be moving from cover to cover, working their way closer and whittling down the enemies' hp with ranged fire, until they are in a good position (and the enemies are weakened enough) to rush in and decisively end the combat in a round or two.
The "charge straight at the enemy at the start of combat" doesn't seem to work very well when just about everyone is an "archer" in Pathfinder, either. It's just not as common in a fantasy game.
IMO, melee in Starfinder should be a "finishing tactic," rather than a primary attack mode. The melee monster should be moving from cover to cover, working their way closer and whittling down the enemies' hp with ranged fire, until they are in a good position (and the enemies are weakened enough) to rush in and decisively end the combat in a round or two.
The "charge straight at the enemy at the start of combat" doesn't seem to work very well when just about everyone is an "archer" in Pathfinder, either. It's just not as common in a fantasy game.
I agree to a degree. Now if you are in tight quarters and you can prevent the ranged characters from completely benefiting from ranged combat then by all means go to town with melee.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I've found actually happens with the new ranged/melee dynamic is that it's actually made the Tank role more viable. In PF, focusing on being a high AC high HP wall of flesh and metal at the expense of damage was a terrible idea, but because so much damage in Starfinder is passively gained through Strength, Specialization and weapon upgrades as opposed to feat/enhancement focus, you can easily suit up in heavy or power armor as a melee, load up on things like Force Fields and Titan shield, take feats to boost AC, and just be that giant monster distraction in the middle of the field doing enough damage to be a credible threat and draw fire away from your ADC and mid ranged and magic allies.
He might have been playing the pregen Solarion character, who only starts with 12 Charisma.
Which... isn't great for a Solarion, in my opinion.
|
|
What I've found actually happens with the new ranged/melee dynamic is that it's actually made the Tank role more viable.
I haven't looked carefully at the higher level options but, at low levels, getting your AC to the point where the bad guy has to roll a 17+ or so to hit you seems impossible. The NPCs have significantly higher to hit rolls than PCs.
|
He might have been playing the pregen Solarion character, who only starts with 12 Charisma.
Which... isn't great for a Solarion, in my opinion.
The pregen Iconic Solarian is objectively mechanically terrible. He's trying to melee with an AC of 12/13 and only 2 Resolve. Seriously.
Using him as a barometer for anything is a bad idea.
|
|
5) Mystics rock too. In combat healing is powerful and useful in this game.To date this has not been my experience, although that experience is limited to three PFS sessions at level 1.
Mystic healing only recovering HP and not Stamina has made it extremely difficult to time when that healing is really necessary, especially when information about what state people are in is not necessarily open (often the case in online play). I can only see this becoming more difficult at higher levels as Stamina pools increase.
The first game we had not realized that Heal spells only recovered Hit Points and not Stamina :-). One of the downsides with playing a game this big so soon after it comes out :-(
But even when I realized that it was still useful, at least at 1st level. In one combat a character went unconscious and the Mystic got him back on his feet.
In another combat, I was managing to hurt just about everybody and the healing got everybody back some. In one respect it was hideously ineffective (2d8 when the most wounded was down something like 5 HP) but in another respect it was still something like 20 total hit points healed across the party.
But I agree that the base healing Mystics get from their daily ability and having the cure spell be one of their known spells is likely sufficient. The Haling Connection is NOT the One True Connection (which is a GOOD thing)
Heavy armor is still useful as it allows you to play a viable character with lower dex and hence higher Wisdom/Intelligence/Charisma/Whatever. Its also good for an AC focused Soldier. But if you're playing a Pilot Mystic and so have high dex it is going to give you much less benefit
|
|
Also in the above scenario hitting an EAC of 13 by the mercenaries requires a 13 or higher
I just realized one reason why our experiences were so completely different.
The stats for the mercenaries says
Ranged azimuth laser pistol (1d4 F; critical burn 1d4)
You interpreted that as a +0 on ranged attacks.
I interpreted that as a typical Paizo misprint and just assumed that their ranged attack was one lower than their melee attack.
If you assumed a +0 that makes a significant difference :-)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both the Solarian and the soldier I've created for level one are designed for close in combat. The soldier almost exclusively so
Solarian has AC values of 15/16 (went armour option)
Soldier has AC values of 16/17 (blitz soldier in heavy armour).
The plan is use smoke grenades to close off fire lanes when I'm attacking.
Also, put myself in a spot where the guy I'm fighting provides cover against getting shot at.
That puts my AC into 17 or 18 range, which means most of the combatants I've seen so far are not hitting as reliably as you guys are making out.
Hitting the enemy seems to be pretty easy so far. Their ACs are much lower than what I'm creating for my characters. I'm assuming cover will be in play though, so they'll get a bonus from that unless I can get around it when I attack. But then that works in my favour too, since I will also be getting cover from it.
My Solarion is using a longsword for average of 6 damage on a hit. I took improved Feint and pushed my bluff to 8 so he will be screwing with dudes he fights nicely.
My soldier went Doshka for pure damage potential. He's pumping out 10 damage on average per hit. That's gong to upset whatever is standing in front of him. He also moves at 35 feet per round in hismheavy armour.
I don't see melee being disadvantaged in this system at all. I see tactics needing to change though.
Also in the above scenario hitting an EAC of 13 by the mercenaries requires a 13 or higher
I just realized one reason why our experiences were so completely different.
The stats for the mercenaries says
Ranged azimuth laser pistol (1d4 F; critical burn 1d4)
You interpreted that as a +0 on ranged attacks.
I interpreted that as a typical Paizo misprint and just assumed that their ranged attack was one lower than their melee attack.
If you assumed a +0 that makes a significant difference :-)
Remember that NPCs do not follow PC stats. The thugs in that encounter are melee-focused enemies rated at 1/3 CR. Having +0 to hit with their secondary attack seems correct.