| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So far, there has been some concern about cross-compatibility between the Operative and older martial classes.
While the Operative's balance in the Starfinder ranged meta doesn't seem to be a problem, the team has stated that being able to bring Pathfinder classes forward and send Starfinder classes back is a goal of the two systems, and the Operative as a fusion of Fighter accuracy, Rogue precision, and Gunslinger action compression means it renders those classes somewhat redundant.
R0sshk on reddit has proposed an answer, and I think it serves well.
Aim becomes a standard action available to anyone using a non-AOE tech weapon, which provides extra damage scaling based upon the level of the weapon. A related option is to make Aim a trait that weapons can get that enables the use of the action.
Starfinder classes can then get abilities that can interact with Aim, including action compression, die size increases, etc, with the Operative getting the bulk of the benefits.
This means that all ranged characters in Starfinder can be in a comparable spot for targeted ranged damage. Envoys and Soldiers can benefit from the action, as can Fighters, Gunslingers, and Rangers who are being played forward.
Likewise, an Operative sent back into Pathfinder functions mostly like a smoother gunslinger - using easy reload efficiency and Fighter accuracy - without the absurd damage potential they bring to the table.
I'd make it so that an Operative can apply the Aim action to *any* ranged weapon, but they only gain +1 precision damage per weapon die instead of +1d4. This means that they still get to use their primary class feature with old weapons, just to a degree that is balanced with Pathfinder.
Thoughts?
....NO?, i mean most of the gun have moderate dice damage, you essencially have the the rogue damage. if you give....
Yeah.... but is this a level up for all the classes?
but a boost effect related to the weapon?... hum. it could be fun as an action.
This is the reason Guns & Gears is getting a remastered. They knew Gunslinger needed work and released it then years later made Starfinder 2E and a better Gunslinger, aka Operative and so they need to go fix it because Operative fixes what i think the Gunslinger fantasy is.
To clarify, this would technically be a boost for all the other classes, but not necessarily an unbalancing one.
Pathfinder is a melee meta, while Starfinder is a ranged meta. As such, ranged damage is fairly mediocre in Pathfinder compared to melee damage (only catching up if you consider needing multiple actions to close distance), while in Starfinder ranged damage should be closer to melee damage in output (with a greater emphasis on cover and avoiding getting shot).
The issue is that Pathfinder ranged classes are built for much lower DPR than the Operative is, due to the assumptions of the system. That wouldn't be a problem, except that the classes are meant to be playable in either system.
This means you need a) a way to increase damage output for Pathfinder classes in Starfinder and b) a way to turn off some of the Operative's damage when it goes back in time.
The solution is to make Aim a generically available action for tech guns - this means that all characters in Starfinder are able to put out good ranged damage, while the same characters using archaic weapons in Pathfinder are putting out an appropriate amount of damage for that meta.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I seen R0sshk's opinions on the subreddit, and honestly, I think he doesn't understand what "ranged meta" means or even basic game design. "Ranged meta" doesn't mean Paizo wants to make ranged combat be numerically better and deal more damage than melee, but rather than the assumption is going to be that people are going to be at range rather than in melee like in PF2e. That plus the new guns not require as much reloading every turn makes it that, when compared to PF2e rangeds, SF2e ranged characters won't need to spend as much actions reloading or positioning themselves besides to take cover, which stuff the new skill feat like Dive for Cover prove is that cover is going to be easier to get too. I could probably see Aim as an action to reduce the bonuses from cover, but as an action that does that plus a sneak attack-like bonus to damage? Nah, that's not going to happen lol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the reason Guns & Gears is getting a remastered. They knew Gunslinger needed work and released it then years later made Starfinder 2E and a better Gunslinger, aka Operative and so they need to go fix it because Operative fixes what i think the Gunslinger fantasy is.
Yeah, pretty sure G&G is getting remastered first so they have a chance to change gunslinger and inventor to not overlap as much with operative and mechanic.
Right now, pre-playing it, I think Operative is too much, and that Aim should fall off after the first successful hit of the turn-- that's the smallest nerf I'd make, and I'd probably take away options for 'free' aim, as well. I badly want to make sure my players don't feel punished for playing Pathfinder classes in Starfinder.
One route I'd consider is giving it two fall off conditions:
1. First Success or Crit Success on an attack.
2. Start of Operative's Next Turn.
That gives it some novel play in terms of being able to get it on a reaction attack, if you didn't manage to get a hit in, and possibly even lets you manipulate action economy to put it up again if you hit fast, but I think you need to always, or almost always be paying an action for each time the d4s/d6s occur... unless the operative gets it's attack prof bumped down.
If it has to stay as gameable as it is now, it would need to become something like "Precision Damage Equal to the Number of Weapon Damage Dice" to balance it.
|
Right now, pre-playing it, I think Operative is too much, and that Aim should fall off after the first successful hit of the turn-- that's the smallest nerf I'd make, and I'd probably take away options for 'free' aim, as well. I badly want to make sure my players don't feel punished for playing Pathfinder classes in Starfinder.
One route I'd consider is giving it two fall off conditions:
1. First Success or Crit Success on an attack.
2. Start of Operative's Next Turn.That gives it some novel play in terms of being able to get it on a reaction attack, if you didn't manage to get a hit in, and possibly even lets you manipulate action economy to put it up again if you hit fast, but I think you need to always, or almost always be paying an action for each time the d4s/d6s occur... unless the operative gets it's attack prof bumped down.
If it has to stay as gameable as it is now, it would need to become something like "Precision Damage Equal to the Number of Weapon Damage Dice" to balance it.
I don’t think you should take away the option for “free” Aim. I don’t want this class becoming Aim, Strike, Strike every turn. The action compression lets it do other things.
I think if you just change Aim damage to +dex damage, it fixes Operative’s otherwise awful damage at level 1-3, while not scaling to be a full blown sneak attack on d10 ranged weapons.
The thing is, if its really easy to proc aim while you are doing something else, then why it is an action and not something you do for free to begin with? Some could say the same thing about the swashbuckler and generate panache for example, but the thing is that the things you do to generate panache are things that probably you wouldn't have done otherwise and that have effects on their own. Things like Double Tap are effects that give you aim for something you were already going to do anyways, so what's the downside here? Aim's damage is also similarly balanced around the assumption that its like sneak attack but with d4s instead, though as soon as you are 4th level you can take Devasting Strike and have a much easier to proc sneak attack that also reduces the bonus to AC from cover. I really hope this kind of options are either removed or somehow baked into the class.
Aim ether stays as 1 action rolled into everything or it becomes a free effect like Sneak Attack on the Operative, either way it should stay because without it they feel just like the Gunslinger, high acc, low damage unless they critting which if you don't critting which is even harder because you aren't flanking like the Fighter generally.
What is an Operative but a 8 hit point Fighter, a Gunslinger, what is a Gunslinger with extra damage? Either a Ranger, Investigator or an Operative? I need to see more testing past level 1 but so far the Soldier seems to be much, much more scary at their double shot with no downside other then 2 actions with Primary Target.
I do think Aim has to stay but not in its current form. Aim's damage is just insane for a class that already has the best accuracy in the system. This is not a matter of "Aim compensates not adding a modifier to damage" because a fighter, the strongest martial in terms of DPS in PF2e, doesn't have a single damage steroid and, at best, adds a +7 to their damage ignoring weapon specialization. An operative, however, by 9th level would be dealing an extra 7.5 points of damage in average or 7 at 5th level if you take Devastating Aim. Not to mention Aim also ignores cover, thus you'll be even more accurate than a fighter or gunslinger in the same situation.
I think it would be okay if the operative added their Dex modifier to their damage with guns as its own feature separate from Aim. Guns are seemingly weaker in SF2e and I think its clear the gunslinger is going to have its role redefined in the remastered G&G, but an operative with the current aim just overshadows every other martial and would make not playing one a serious mistake if you want to be a martial.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aim becomes a standard action available to anyone using a non-AOE tech weapon, which provides extra damage scaling based upon the level of the weapon. A related option is to make Aim a trait that weapons can get that enables the use of the action.
This is exactly the wrong thing to do, IMO. We don't need an action tax that inflates everyone's damage when AC and HP values are also inflated as is. If we deflated everyone's durability, such as by bringing the Mystic and Witchwarper on par with Pathfinder's cloth casters, then we could have a ranged meta where the lower damage of guns would match the lower AC and HP of ranged creatures, without creating a balance, compatibility, and design nightmare in the process.
What 2e does desperately need, however, is mechanical changes and additions that would make ranged-centric combat actually interesting, because right now I don't think it's terribly fit for purpose. Nobody moves, because there's generally no reason to, and instead everyone entrenches themselves behind cover and takes potshots until one side keels over, which contributes to damage feeling too low. This makes for combat encounters that, from my experience so far, have been fairly static, repetitive, and shallow, with the added malus of the Soldier often getting straight-up ignored due to their AoE rarely affecting more than one person and attackers being able to more easily try to take down squishier party members, even behind cover.
I wrote a Reddit thread on this as well, but to summarize, my suggestions (and those of other commenters on there) would be the following:
Other commenters on the thread have also suggested ways of destroying cover, which I'd support, and the general idea ought to be that there should be plenty of reasons for ranged combatants to move around, clump together (so the Soldier can actually make good use of their AoE), and exploit each other's positioning. If this leads to an increase in damage due to targets entrenching themselves in cover less and getting caught off-guard more often, all the better, and all the less reason for the Operative to need a damage steroid.
I do think Aim has to stay but not in its current form. Aim's damage is just insane for a class that already has the best accuracy in the system. This is not a matter of "Aim compensates not adding a modifier to damage" because a fighter, the strongest martial in terms of DPS in PF2e, doesn't have a single damage steroid and, at best, adds a +7 to their damage ignoring weapon specialization. An operative, however, by 9th level would be dealing an extra 7.5 points of damage in average or 7 at 5th level if you take Devastating Aim. Not to mention Aim also ignores cover, thus you'll be even more accurate than a fighter or gunslinger in the same situation.Aim would be fine if they had normal martial progression.
Let's say Paizo made an errata pass on PC1 and they changed rogues so rather than having to flank which requires positioning a rogue could instead use an action to add their sneak attack damage die to their damage for all the attacks (regardless of it they are melee or ranged) they made until the end of their turn. Oh, and attacks that benefit from this also ignore the circumstance bonus from shields. Oh, and a ton of feats were added to turn this action tax into something you do for free.
This is literally how the operative's aim works.
A rogue to do half of what aim does requires to jump to multiple hoops and they can't even guarantee they will be capable of benefiting from it every turn. The operative doesnt have to do anything to receive the same benefits, so no, even if the operative had a normal martial progression it would still be overpowered.
Right now, pre-playing it, I think Operative is too much, and that Aim should fall off after the first successful hit of the turn-- that's the smallest nerf I'd make, and I'd probably take away options for 'free' aim, as well. I badly want to make sure my players don't feel punished for playing Pathfinder classes in Starfinder.
One route I'd consider is giving it two fall off conditions:
1. First Success or Crit Success on an attack.
2. Start of Operative's Next Turn.That gives it some novel play in terms of being able to get it on a reaction attack, if you didn't manage to get a hit in, and possibly even lets you manipulate action economy to put it up again if you hit fast, but I think you need to always, or almost always be paying an action for each time the d4s/d6s occur... unless the operative gets it's attack prof bumped down.
If it has to stay as gameable as it is now, it would need to become something like "Precision Damage Equal to the Number of Weapon Damage Dice" to balance it.
I don’t think you should take away the option for “free” Aim. I don’t want this class becoming Aim, Strike, Strike every turn. The action compression lets it do other things.
I think if you just change Aim damage to +dex damage, it fixes Operative’s otherwise awful damage at level 1-3, while not scaling to be a full blown sneak attack on d10 ranged weapons.
To me, it brings to mind a question:
Is Aim Patching some kind of perceived problem, or is Aim meant to define the operative's game play?
My sense is that they want you to aim and strike as often as possible as the feel of playing the class, with some other options for situational turns, in the same way that Spellstrike's rigid action economy makes it feel different to play than the fighter. I think you can end up with bland from having too much flexibility on too many classes.
I do think Aim has to stay but not in its current form. Aim's damage is just insane for a class that already has the best accuracy in the system. This is not a matter of "Aim compensates not adding a modifier to damage" because a fighter, the strongest martial in terms of DPS in PF2e, doesn't have a single damage steroid and, at best, adds a +7 to their damage ignoring weapon specialization. An operative, however, by 9th level would be dealing an extra 7.5 points of damage in average or 7 at 5th level if you take Devastating Aim. Not to mention Aim also ignores cover, thus you'll be even more accurate than a fighter or gunslinger in the same situation.Aim would be fine if they had normal martial progression.Let's say Paizo made an errata pass on PC1 and they changed rogues so rather than having to flank which requires positioning a rogue could instead use an action to add their sneak attack damage die to their damage for all the attacks (regardless of it they are melee or ranged) they made until the end of their turn. Oh, and attacks that benefit from this also ignore the circumstance bonus from shields. Oh, and a ton of feats were added to turn this action tax into something you do for free.
This is literally how the operative's aim works.
A rogue to do half of what aim does requires to jump to multiple hoops and they can't even guarantee they will be capable of benefiting from it every turn. The operative doesnt have to do anything to receive the same benefits, so no, even if the operative had a normal martial progression it would still be overpowered.
I feel like it's really easy for Rogue's to get Sneak Attack super often for virtually no action cost, even disregarding this feat. a lot of enemies will happily stay in flank to keep attacking or using their action hungry abilities, or to avoid AOE, so you'd spend one action to move into position and then sit there all day every day.
I think I probably wasn't a clear with my statement; It's not that is hard for rogues to have their targets flat-footed, but even the bare minimum of having to move to be in melee and flank with a buddy is an action. The operative can have both Mobile Aim and Double Tap by 2nd level which means Aim doesn't even require an action to set up. That's the thing, aim is just a direct upgrade from sneak attack in almost every way, but even if aim didn't have those action compression feats, the fact that a rogue still needs to take an archetype to have targets off-guard at range (and only with firearms) is also that means aim should be nerfed in some way. Oh, and the whole ignore cover thing too.
Also, something I didn't thought until just a minute ago, but aim requires "You’re wielding a ranged weapon that doesn’t have the area trait" which means an operative could be throwing a rock with returning at their foes and be really deadly lol.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cover is directional. Not sure about Creative Cover and Barricade, but those should probably have you pick a side of your token to put the cover on.
The suggestion being made would not make sense if cover were not directional already. The point being made, and the issue I take with Aim, is that Aim is a very 1e-style ability, in that it's a very self-focused buff that you can use on-demand, and that you will be using pretty much anytime you can. Because of this, it's not very interactive, and it just makes turns in combat more repetitive. By contrast, if the Operative were more about using their mobility to catch enemies where they're exposed, i.e. by firing from angles where enemies taking cover would be off-guard as the proposal highlights, they probably wouldn't need this kind of steroid to deal good damage. Nobody would, and instead of spending all of their actions Aiming then Striking from behind static cover, as the OP's suggestion entails, people would instead have plenty more reasons to move around and try to catch enemies off-guard.
Hmm but are sure it needs to be balanced ? IS is that bad ? The systems are vastly different in terms of what they can acheive and at what lvl.
That the class is better than gunslinger with guns is no doubt imo (due to aim damage bonus and some better feat compression). Its role is damage dealing and few classes have such clear purposes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's the thing, aim is just a direct upgrade from sneak attack in almost every way
Other than being less damage and having action requirements, which are weirdly significant things to dismiss as irrelevant.
Plus it's on a class that doesn't get rogue skills, so being better than the rogue at fighting wouldn't even be a bug.
But also a thief rogue with a rapier is doing like 50% or more damage per hit at level 1 compared to any operative (except maybe a 16 strength striker but then you've ruined some other part of your build), and can often enable sneak attack casually without additional action investment.
I had the same gut reaction as you to their class features, but seeing one in play they're just... kind of whatever. Aim didn't even feel like a good use of actions frequently.
Better than a gunslinger, but gunslingers are a notoriously undertuned class to begin with... so like, a good thing.
The actual busted thing here is hair trigger. AoO with a threat range of the whole battlefield is a problem, even with the potentially low base damage. Complain about that.
The Operative is intended to fill the same shoes in SF2 as damage-focused melee martials do in PF2.
Just in a meta that negates several advantages that PF2 ranged martials have, most importantly relative safety and the ability to just stand there and shoot for your entire turn. Essentially what makes most PF2 ranged martials work at all. But it retains all the disadvantages, such as that their damage is basically just dice and that those die sizes are also low.
At the end of the day, monsters still need to die and they have the same HP and even better AC than in PF2, as well as the ability shoot back!
So yes, classes like the Operative need to be cracked by PF2 meta standards. Because they need to work in a different meta! Otherwise, you will never have a meta that actually focuses on ranged combat and does it well. You'll either have the return of the melee meta with a slight twist or a slogfest that drags on for ages.
Yes, there are a few feats that have questionable balance, but the chassis looks really solid. And when you actually play it in SF2, then it really doesn't look or feel particularly insane anymore.
And it seems to me like the entire discussion just ignores that...
At the end of the day, monsters still need to die and they have the same HP and even better AC than in PF2, as well as the ability shoot back!
[...]
And it seems to me like the entire discussion just ignores that...
I wouldn't be so sure, and I think the actual problem at hand that most comments are missing, yours included, is that of these inflated stats on enemies as well as player characters. I question why we need this arms race of more durability on enemies that also have ranged attacks, given that this not only harms compatibility relative to PF enemies but also forces SF2e classes to have cracked stats of their own in order to make time-to-kill with guns the same as with melee weapons in Pathfinder. Really, SF enemies should be less durable than their Pathfinder counterparts on average in exchange for their ability to fight from range, and the same should apply to SF classes in exchange for their own improved ranged capabilities. Not only would this improve compatibility with Pathfinder by not power-creeping everything in one game relative to the other, it would make for better parity within SF encounters as well, as the lower damage of guns would be counterbalanced by the lower effective HP of all parties involved. At that point, the Operative wouldn't need to have ridiculous damage steroids and broken feats to kill enemies in SF as quickly as a Fighter does in PF, because their respective damage would be balanced against their opponents' respective HP values.
No, I've very much thought about that and discarded it, because it doesn't work.
If you balance SF2 characters against less durable monsters, then you don't increase compatibility, you lose it completely. You couldn't use PF2 monsters or even SF2 melee monsters, because they would be too durable for the PCs to fight effectively. And when using SF2 monsters in PF2, they couldn't take a hit. Spell damage would be out of alignment as well, breaking another thing.
That is exactly why the monsters we have gotten so far are very much not doing that.
You can do small changes like monsters on average having slightly lower HP and such. But we know anything big like you are suggesting is simply not an option.
Aim doesn't do less damage and doesn't have action requirements because the whole class and its feats are made to compress actions like aim into others, and then Devastating Aim which is mostly an auto-pick gives you literal sneak attack damage. An operative can strike three times each round and because Double Tap exist they would be benifiting from aim as soon as 2nd level. Later on with tactical barrage those attacks not only become more accurate but very likely to hit, which means 17th level operatives can reliably deal 9dX (replace X based on weapon) + 12d6, which ignores cover, with both fighter and ranger accuracy btw. Oh, and this can be even higher with damage property runes, which you can have 4 in SF2e. I don't see how this isn't insane.
No, I've very much thought about that and discarded it, because it doesn't work.
If you balance SF2 characters against less durable monsters, then you don't increase compatibility, you lose it completely. You couldn't use PF2 monsters or even SF2 melee monsters, because they would be too durable for the PCs to fight effectively. And when using SF2 monsters in PF2, they couldn't take a hit. Spell damage would be out of alignment as well, breaking another thing.
That is exactly why the monsters we have gotten so far are very much not doing that.
You can do small changes like monsters on average having slightly lower HP and such. But we know anything big like you are suggesting is simply not an option.
I would encourage you to actually give this a try and see how it works out, because I think you may have missed a few crucial details. Specifically, melee monsters have to actually get into melee range, so they are liable to lose more HP than ranged characters purely by dint of having to expose themselves and travel all the way to their combat range (this is incidentally why melee classes have more HP and AC to begin with). This is by the way referring to melee monsters in Pathfinder and Starfinder, just like how range-focused enemies in Pathfinder already tend to have lower HP and Fort saves than their melee counterparts. Again, this is about parity, so I don't think it makes very much sense to claim that making ranged-centric enemies in SF2e as squishy as the few ranged-centric enemies in PF2e would spell the end of all compatibility.
So Fighters using d12+4 (Strength) Greatsword like weapons in melee is 100$ A-okay but Operative using d8+1d4 Laser rifle is not? There is a reason why Fighters and Barbarians get sudden charge. Besides it is MUCH harder to get Off-guard on ranged so as much as you guys might see Aim as a bad feature you got to balance it for compatibility. What good is the Operative Expert 1d8+1d4 Aimed Laser Rifle is you happen to get 2 Fighters flanking in melee with a Great-sword dealing 1d12+4 with Off-Guard meaning instead of +9 to hit like the Operative) they both have a +11 now to hit. If you don't look at it like this and remove Aim you simply get a Gunslinger (The Pathfinder class) that might work in Starfinder 2E. Since they can get a gun which allows them to fire multiple times without reloading unless you take a sniper.
So we're back at square 1 that Operative is better Gunslinger with Aim Class Feature, without it it is just Gunslinger with extra movement. Not to mention that Fighters can also use Guns because of how they function, giving them a +4 Dex, 10 hit point class vs +4 Dex 8 hit point Operative.
As Squiggit put it, Gunslinger is known for being massively Undertuned. Paizo is gonna fix this so you need to look at Operative as if Gunslinger got a Remastered before we see Gunslinger actually get Remastered and you need to compare it to Fighter, Ranger & Investigator. Who can all use guns pretty well. You need to ask, what is the point of Operative vs these classes?
So Fighters using d12+4 (Strength) Greatsword like weapons in melee is 100$ A-okay but Operative using d8+1d4 Laser rifle is not?
Correct, because the Fighter is not going to be swinging their greatsword from a range of 100 feet. A Fighter trying to cross over to a laser rifle-wielding enemy attacking from that distance is going to have to spend several turns doing so, during which they can readily get attacked, all while not being able to land attacks at all. It is also disingenuous of you to select a simple ranged weapon for this comparison when a more apt gun would be the assassin rifle, a d10 weapon with the backstabber and fatal d12 traits. Really, we should not be comparing the ranged damage output of one class with the melee damage output of another, and I don't see why we're entertaining this kind of silly comparison when people get rightly called out on it for doing so on the Pathfinder forums.
As Squiggit put it, Gunslinger is known for being massively Undertuned. Paizo is gonna fix this so you need to look at Operative as if Gunslinger got a Remastered before we see Gunslinger actually get Remastered and you need to compare it to Fighter, Ranger & Investigator. Who can all use guns pretty well. You need to ask, what is the point of Operative vs these classes?
Well, as written, the Operative has Fighter-level proficiency, bonus damage that exceeds that of the Investigator, Flurry Ranger-level MAP reduction, and Monk-level mobility on top. The better question to ask is: what is the point of any of these classes in a game where the Operative exists?
Aim doesn't do less damage and doesn't have action requirements because the whole class and its feats are made to compress actions like aim into others, and then Devastating Aim which is mostly an auto-pick gives you literal sneak attack damage. An operative can strike three times each round and because Double Tap exist they would be benifiting from aim as soon as 2nd level. Later on with tactical barrage those attacks not only become more accurate but very likely to hit, which means 17th level operatives can reliably deal 9dX (replace X based on weapon) + 12d6, which ignores cover, with both fighter and ranger accuracy btw. Oh, and this can be even higher with damage property runes, which you can have 4 in SF2e. I don't see how this isn't insane.
My bad, I didn't mention this it in this thread: I'm 99% sure that Tactical Barrage is pure playtest shenanigans, just like the current version of Hair Trigger. I fully expect the former to be fully removed, which is basically what my survey says.
The latter will probably return as Disrupt Prey in disguise (level 4, Aim works until the start of your next turn, Hair Trigger only works on your mark).
But the fighter is actually putting themselves at risk by going into melee, specially if we are speaking about a SF2e campaign in which everyone is assuming ranged is the default and thus flanking isn't going to be as common. Not to mention aim alone outdamages a fighter really quickly.
A 12th level fighter with a greatsword deals...
* 3d12 (greater striking) + 5 (strength modifier) + 3 (weapon specialization) = 27,5 damage per strike on average.
A 12th level operative with a laser rifle deals...
* 3d8 (elite) + 3d6 (devastating aim) + 3 (weapon specialization) = 27,5 damage per strike on average.
The damage is exactly the same, but the operative doesn't have to move or position themselves, can stay safe at range or even behind cover (Peek), and ignores the bonuses from cover their targets get. Oh, and they don't even have to expend an action on aim because Double Tap exists, so both classes can make as many attacks each round as the other. Ranged in PF2e is balanced to be weaker than melee because its safer, and that isn't going to change because of SF2e's ranged meta, in fact, the fact that ranged is the default now makes the fighter look worse because if the fighter has to rush to melee to do damage its means it immediately becomes the focus of all enemies which likely will result in it becoming swiss cheese next turn. Even if we take away Devasting Aim and all the action compression feats that operatives have, the fact that an operative has to aim would still be equivalent to the fighter having to move. However, the fighter's damage would be 3 points higher in this scenario, but without ignoring cover, which likely means the operative will still be dealing more damage because of that.
I'm also well aware we don't know what they are going to do with the gunslinger (I even said so myself earlier), which I don't think its undertuned necesarily but rather that firearms (like everything that isn't a bow) are undertuned, but I can't make predictions on what they could or couldn't do with the gunslinger in the remaster so I can only compare operative to what I have. If they wanted us to compare the operative to the remastered gunslinger they would have released the playtest later, but it just so happens they didn't. And in any case, if the new swashbuckler is proof of anything is that Paizo isn't a fan of buffing the damage of a class directly, so whatever they end up doing with the gunslinger is likely not going to be equal to having sneak attack + reload action compression + high mobility.
Aim doesn't do less damage and doesn't have action requirements because the whole class and its feats are made to compress actions like aim into others, and then Devastating Aim which is mostly an auto-pick gives you literal sneak attack damage. An operative can strike three times each round and because Double Tap exist they would be benifiting from aim as soon as 2nd level. Later on with tactical barrage those attacks not only become more accurate but very likely to hit, which means 17th level operatives can reliably deal 9dX (replace X based on weapon) + 12d6, which ignores cover, with both fighter and ranger accuracy btw. Oh, and this can be even higher with damage property runes, which you can have 4 in SF2e. I don't see how this isn't insane.My bad, I didn't mention this it in this thread: I'm 99% sure that Tactical Barrage is pure playtest shenanigans, just like the current version of Hair Trigger. I fully expect the former to be fully removed, which is basically what my survey says.
The latter will probably return as Disrupt Prey in disguise (level 4, Aim works until the start of your next turn, Hair Trigger only works on your mark).
It's very likely, though as I said in the previous comment, I can't give feedback on the assumptions of stuff I don't know will happen. The team that does SF2e isn't the same team that does PF2e, and if we remember the APG we know even the PF2e team wasn't as keen on the system as they currently are and released 4 classes that in some shape or form received sizeable buffs to their kit recently. I wouldn't take stuff for granted just because the PF2e branch does it now, because its not the same team.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely agree with the OP's initial observation: the Operative appears to combine Fighter's stellar accuracy, Rogue's precision damage and Gunslinger's move/shoot/reload action compression, and ends up better than all 3 as a result.
I disagree with the suggestion that making a weaker version of Aim available to everyone as a basic action type, would fix this problem. An untrained / core-rule Aim would create a situation where the only "correct" way to do precise ranged weapon use is to Aim, and whether they're good at it will come down to how closely their other class features can emulate the Operative or otherwise synergise with Aiming. It becomes just an awkward "pretend to be an Operative" action.
I love the Operative in concept and I look forward to seeing how the team adjust it for the final release. My only advisory would be, if it is currently too strong, then the class itself is what needs correcting. A change to the core rules as a compensatory measure to reign in a single class will only cause more problems than it solves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, putting aside how Starfinder does explicitly aim to make it fairly straightforward to take one character from one game to the other, the problem with the whole "compatible doesn't mean balanced" argument is that the Operative isn't even balanced compared to classes in Starfinder, let alone Pathfinder. With the exception of the Mystic, another immensely powerful class, the Operative blows every other class out of the water, to the point where they can even beat classes like the Solarian at their own game. For the sake of Starfinder's balance, let alone compatibility, the Operative ought to be pared down significantly.
I mean, a Mystic with the Primal spell list can take battle form spells, the spell lists are the same, with just new additions from SF2E. In fact, Xenodruid Bond explicitly gives you the form spells in 3/4 options.
I mean, a Mystic with the Primal spell list can take battle form spells, the spell lists are the same, with just new additions from SF2E.Currently only Spells from Player Core 1 are allowed for the playtest.
Quote (https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6vlnl?Starfinder-Playtesting-Over view):
"Spells should be selected from the Playtest Rulebook and Pathfinder Player Core. While these options are available, we encourage players to try the new feats and spells from the Starfinder Playtest Core Rulebook to provide us with new data."I think the final product will have a curated selection of reprints but i doubt they will grant access to all PF2e Spells for regular play.
Yes? That's what I'm saying, the spell lists are the same as PC1? And the form spells are still there? And you get them from Xenodruid Bond?
Not sure exactly what your point is.
Anyway, yeah, the Operative could probably use some tuning for both SF2E internal reasons and compatibility reasons with PF2E.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
All the people bring that "in X interview X dev said SF2e is a different game!" ignore the fact that in the PDF itself (and likely those interviews too because its not even the first time this is mentioned) that the idea is to use PF2e content in SF2e. The operative isn't the SF2e fighter, the operative is the operative. If you want to play a fighter in space, play a fighter. If you liked the old operative that was more like a rogue in space, then play a rogue. This is obviously made because its a selling point for people that play either system. You play PF2e? Then SF2e will be like a setting expansion book for you. You play SF2e? Then you have all this content that kinda works like official 3pp for you. This means that, as a company, you can have people buying everything for both systems which means more gains for you. But besides obvious corporative shenanigans, having PF2e as your "big brother" also means the SF2e team will be able to avoid the mishaps made by the PF team in the early PF2e cycle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I'm not an insider at Paizo so what I'm about to say could be total bulls#1t, but I wouldn't be surprised if Starfinder 1e wasn't really that profitable for the company and was more like a passion project for those involved. It could also be that they intended SF1e as a long-term investment that (I think) never really clicked, though I wouldn't blame Paizo on that but rather more on the genre since sci-fi isn't really as popular in TTRPGs.
I don't know a single popular non-Star Wars TTRPG.
So remove Aim from Operative, what is Operative verses Pathfinder classes without Aim? A Gunslinger that has nothing different then extra movement and a couple feats I guess. Once you remove Aim what is Operative in the end, let us discuss this perhaps. At the highest of levels (level 17) they gain Ranger's flurry Edge benefit which finally gives them something more then Gunslinger but in SPAAAACCCCEEE.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, isn't that literally the core of every complaint about the operative? That its a class that lacks identity because all its features are taken from other class but cranked up to eleven? Aim is like sneak atack but ranged and ignores cover, Hair Trigger is like RA but ranged, Mobile Reload is like a gunslinger's reload + Running Reload but better because it stacks with those, on the move / tactical advance is the monk's incredible movement feature + the rogue's Mobility feat, specialized skill set is the swashbuckler's stylish trick, urban operator is an urban version of the ranger's trackless journey, operative's edge is the fighter's battlefield surveyor but that it (kinda) stacks with Incredible Initiative, and tactical barrage is the same as a flurry ranger, and I'm not mentioning the initial expert proficiencies because those aren't fighter exclusive. These are complaints people have about the operative since day 1.
The whole point of a playtest is to provide feedback for the developers to they can tweak the class appropiately, both balance-wise and to create a class that people would want to play. The current operative is a chimera, and I wouldn't be surprised it was made like that on purpose so Paizo could see what part of this chimera is the one that people actually like and focus on that aspect to make the final release.
Okay so if it is a Chimeras though how do you give it identity? It is suppose to be a Fighter with a Gun we already have a class like that in Gunslinger. I am not sure how to give it identity since Guns and Gears is getting a future Remastered meaning Gunslinger & Inventor will be Remastered so how do you make it unique. It trades 10 hit points for 8 hit points and only expert in Reflex saves for mobility and damage boosts.
Points
- Single Target Expert? We got Ranger for that.
- Expert in guns? We got Fighter & Gunslinger for that.
- Movement bonuses? We got Monk, Swashbuckler, Barbarian and a feat for Gunslinger.
- Ranged Damage Increase? We got the Starlit Span Magus for that Niche.
I can't really think of a mechanic that hasn't been used before for a Martial. You could turn them into a single target debuffer and let them apply different status to enemies at range, that'd be unique. As long as it doesn't conflict with GetEm! Envoy Feature.
Aim being 1 Action is the same as a Rogue using 2 actions for Parting Shot which gives the enemy Off-guard status to the attack letting you trigger Sneak attack. However Aim Lasts till the start of your next turn meaning that it does trigger on Kill Steal & Hair Trigger...
So what does the Operative do which is unique to it's self which had identity?
You give it identity by not making it a chimera. The gunslinger despite being an almost firearm-focused fighter doesn't feel like a class that directly steals from the fighter (it has other problems, but being a fighter parasyte isn't one of those). The new SF2e envoy is a little too similar to the investigator to my tastes, but otherwise feels like a martial bard in a way that doesn't feel exactly like a bard. The operative should be like that too.
Hair Trigger in its current iteration is highly disruptive but I feel that if properly balanced the class could easily revolve around being a ranged opportunist, which isn't a thing that neither fighter or gunslinger do. The SF1e operative was quite literally rogue in space, so what if Hair Trigger became a baseline feature but rather than being ranged RA it instead was something closer to ranged Opportune Backstab? The class doesn't really need an sneak attack-like damage steroid because having fighter accuracy is already more than enough, rather, I'd say the ones that need to be improved are the weapons themselves which I think are really bad overall. If anything, the only damage boost I would give to operatives would be for them to add their Dex mod to damage, but passively and without needing to aim. It would be better than what gunslingers have? Sure, but if you ask me for whatever reason medieval firearms are seemingly stronger than future sci-fi weapons and its not like the operative would be able to benefit from that bonus using those weapons instead.