Having just hit lvl 13 and picking up the Heavy Fire style from Bombard I need a little help with clarifying some examples.
If I understand this trait, it basically adds your Str modifier to ranged attacks when you spend a full action to do so. You can use it with the automatic, explode, or unwieldy.
My concern is that it says you can make a single ranged attack against all targets. Does this mean that if I have 10 enemies, and enough ammunition in my weapon, I can make a single ranged attack against each of them?
How would this work with automatic? with Explode? with Unwieldy (see page 182)?
Does it work with Sniper weapons? Pistols? Cluster Launchers (the grenades themselves have the explode property)?
Could folks provide examples with the following criteria: I am in a hanger bay and there are 10 enemies arrayed in a semicircle in front of me at approximately 40 feet away. Could I use this ability to fire a shot at each one of those enemies provided I have ammunition enough to make each shot?
It's a little bit weird the way it's worded, but it seems fairly simple how it should go to me.
If you use an automatic weapon with at least 10 shots, as a full action you fire the automatic weapon per the automatic weapon property, applying bonus damage to each struck target.
If you use an explode weapon, each target in the radius takes the standard weapon damage plus bonus damage, reflex half.
If you fire a normal weapon (also applied to an unwieldy weapon), that weapon can only target a single target with a single attack. It deals damage to 'all targets' but 'all targets' for a non-automatic, non-explode weapon is a single target.
You target a single target (which for your weapon is 'all targets') and apply bonus damage if you hit.
The only issue I could see RAW, is that automatic weapons make multiple attack rolls as a full action. That is not 'make a single attack as a full action' as heavy fire describes.
In summary:
RAW, I'm not sure you get to make an automatic attack with heavy fire, RAI most likely you do.
Explode weapons apply bonus damage to all targets in their radius, all other weapons can only target a single target, the additional damage is applied to 'all targets'. 'All targets' = that single target.
I was actually reading this the other night and the part of me that wants to break rules noticed it says you can use automatic, explode, or unwieldly special properties. It doesn't say you can ONLY use it with those, though I am 90% that's the intent.
But seriously if trying to read this RAW, then I think you could use a weapon with the automatic property, but you would have to make single attacks with it, not with the autofire option... Seems odd, but seems to read that way.
If I were GMing however I would let you add your Str to ranged damage on all shots on autofire.
Hmmm.. So let me see if I understand what you are both saying.
If I had a ranged weapon without any of those properties, I could use a full action to make a single attack against a single target that would add my Str modifier to the damage roll?
This seems incorrect to me. Why would I use a full action for a single attack just to add +7 to the damage when I could use a full action to make up to 3 attacks with the same weapon, potentially doing far more damage. Especially with weapon specialization?
Let's say my vesk has Laser Accuracy gear boost and a Null-grip gunner harness on an Artillary Laser, perihelion. If I understand you correctly, I could make a single attack adding my str modifier or 3 attacks with a full action. I feel like there is no point in time where making a single attack which adds your str bonus will ever be better than making 3 attacks, despite having a -4 (effectively -3) penalty.
Am I understanding what is being said correctly? If I am, I feel like this entire ability is a waste of text as it's never better, mathematically, to roll once as opposed to 3 times (even with slight penalties).
Because you might be using an unwieldy weapon.
But mostly, this is to buff the AoE options a bit. Wording may not be that clear, but you're to get the bonus on automatic, which is a full action anyway, and explode, which are very often unwieldy. Or are your free grenade.
If you get a way to use either several times a round, you're right : it is not great.
And even then, for unwieldy, sometimes the move action is too precious to sacrifice.
For a weapon that is neither of those three things, there's little reason to do it. Unless you're only going to attack once anyway, you shouldn't use Heavy Fire.
Then again, this the "Bombard" style. AoE is what it is built for.
And bonus damage is bonus damage.
Yeah, welcome to todays episode of 'we forgot to playtest this'.
Does at least benefit unwieldly weapons still I guess?
I think they should have named this anything other than "Heavy Fire'. Maybe.. they meant it as sarcasm alluding to the fact only "heavy" weapons would gain much, if any, benefit from this. If you could fire more than once then it would merit the name.. but otherwise.. ridiculous concept. Glad I went with Blitz as my primary. Far more useful Soldier line.
I do wish Paizo, now that the material has been out 2 years, would revisit and clarify, or even modify, some of this original material to make it worth using.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generally against a single target, you are in fact better off doing a full attack rather than Heavy fire. It does have some niche application to any weapon in the case of really high enemy AC as well as punching through DR or Hardness (line weapons come to mind). So boss fights.
To see how DR and AC affects this, consider at 13th level, assuming your choice between 4d12+13 (39 expected) damage three times at -6 to hit against DR 5 target, or 4d12+19 (45 expected) damage at -0 to hit single shot.
Assuming 50/50 odds to hit, -6 drops it to 20/80. So (39-5) * 0.2 * 3 =20.4 expected damage for the full attack.
Heavy fire at 50/50 odds is (45-5) * 0.5 = 20.
Pretty comparable for 1/3 the ammo usage. If the DR is even a little higher (like 10 at 13th level), or the AC is a little bit better, heavy fire comes out ahead. So against really high AC bosses, heavy fire isn't a bad choice. Statistically speaking.
On the other hand, it is also one of the strongest buffs to AoE damage I know of (the other being Mechanic overcharge on Explode weapons).
At the level you get Heavy Fire, if bombard is your primary, and assuming a 16/16 initial stat split between strength and dexterity, that might be a +5 damage bonus on basically any AoE attack (assuming 20 Str/18 Dex at 5th). As noted earlier, that includes the free grenade you get every 10 minute rest for example.
That bumps the level 4 grenade damage from say 2d6 (2 minimum, 7 avg) to 2d6+5 (7 minimum, 12 avg). Thats a 70% expected damage buff around that level. Even at level 12 (say 23 Str/21 Dex), its still 4d10 (22 avg) vs 4d10+6 (28 avg), roughly a 25% damage buff on that grenade AoE attack.
Bombard overall I consider one of the better soldier specializations. The Bombard can always drop the heavy weapon and pull out a melee weapon and do as much damage as the Blitz if the enemy closes on them (at least before 17th level). Switch hitting bombards in power armor are really good as well (heavy weapon mounted, melee weapon in hand plus reach on some models, and the power armor strength boosts their ranged damage).
While your numbers in theory look convincing, in practice it's a much different story. At lvl 13, I have a +21 chance to hit. A CR13 enemy will have a 27-30 AC. With the null harness grip, I can drop the penalty to -4, and if I am using a laser weapon, I can add an additional +1 to hit which effectively gives me a -3 to hit. All I need to do for average odds is roll a 10 or higher. If you roll 3 dice, the probability of getting a 10 or higher on one of them is roughly 7/8. That's an 87.5% chance of a hit. For 2 dice it's 75% chance that one of them will be a hit. If you are looking for 2 hits, it's a 50% chance with 3 dice and a 25% chance with 2 dice. Even odds for 2 hits IMO is much better than adding less than a d6 to a single attack although that attack has a 15-20% greater chance to hit.
As far as DR goes, any soldier worth his salt has, at this point, a way to reduce the DR of enemies. I have both Unstoppable strike and Penetrating attack. While it may be decent at low levels, by this stage, I don't see much use for it. If it actually did what it's namesake implied (firing a single ranged attack at all targets), this would be a worthwhile ability although it would deplete your ammo quite quickly.
I'd point out that this is a 5th level ability. If it was actually an attack against every target, with bonus damage in an amount that is still significant (if not overwhelming) at that level, with an ability to make multiple attacks with an unwieldy weapon included, it would not just be a worthwhile ability but a shockingly overpowered one.
While your numbers in theory look convincing, in practice it's a much different story. At lvl 13, I have a +21 chance to hit. A CR13 enemy will have a 27-30 AC. With the null harness grip, I can drop the penalty to -4, and if I am using a laser weapon, I can add an additional +1 to hit which effectively gives me a -3 to hit. All I need to do for average odds is roll a 10 or higher. If you roll 3 dice, the probability of getting a 10 or higher on one of them is roughly 7/8. That's an 87.5% chance of a hit. For 2 dice it's 75% chance that one of them will be a hit. If you are looking for 2 hits, it's a 50% chance with 3 dice and a 25% chance with 2 dice. Even odds for 2 hits IMO is much better than adding less than a d6 to a single attack although that attack has a 15-20% greater chance to hit.
As far as DR goes, any soldier worth his salt has, at this point, a way to reduce the DR of enemies. I have both Unstoppable strike and Penetrating attack. While it may be decent at low levels, by this stage, I don't see much use for it. If it actually did what it's namesake implied (firing a single ranged attack at all targets), this would be a worthwhile ability although it would deplete your ammo quite quickly.
I had been considering boss like enemies at level 13, so CR 15 or 16 enemy, and potentially in cover to get the 50/50 to hit odds. But you are quite correct, a null-space harness does change the math quite a bit, and makes full attack against a single target come out ahead in almost any reasonable comparison. I concede the point.
Personally, I consider the gunner harness and weapon stocks a bit too strong, considering they push ranged ahead of melee in terms of full attack damage, while melee didn't get anything like that out of the armory. I suppose they're intended to be balanced by the action economy to get them ready (move action for stocks, full round actions for harness).
I believe the AoE argument still stands though. Its one of the few ways to get a significant damage bonus to AoE weapons, that by itself is useful for a build focusing on AoE weapons which is what the bombard specialty does.
I'd like to take Hammerjack's approach, and note your suggestion strikes me as too strong, not only at 5th level, but especially at 13th.
A gunner harness plus your revised Heavy Fire would put ranged heavy weapon full attack damage significantly higher than melee.
Lets compare 2 soldiers at 13th. A sharpshooter primary/bombard secondary at 13th, and a melee Blitz primary at 13th.
Lets assume laser accuracy for the ranged attacker, and melee striker for the Blitz. And lets throw all that gear optimization on. Your strength modifier is +6? Dex +7 combined with weapon focus to get +21 to hit on ranged weapons? We'll assume +7 strength for the blitz melee though.
Inferno Flame Doshko (5d8) vs Perihelion Artillery laser (4d8) against a single target
+21-6=+15 to hit, 5d8+13+7+3=45.5 for the melee striker Blitz soldier
+21+1-3=+19 to hit, 4d8+13+6+2d6=44 for the laser accurate Sharpshooter/Bombard
Lets say 27 EAC for your target since you've proposed a CR 13 enemy.
3*0.45*45.5=61.425 for the melee build
3*0.65*44=85.8 for the ranged build
That is almost 40% more damage for the ranged attacker. The sharpshooter/bombard build could also potentially take melee striker and only be be down +1 to hit and +1 damage compared to the melee build once an enemy engages them in melee.
Now lets consider 3 multiple targets.
The sharpshooter drops to:
+21-3=+18 to hit, 4d8+13+6=37
3*0.6*37=66.6
The soldier stays at 61.425 (assuming 3 targets are in melee range).
That is still 8% higher using a normal heavy weapon.
Using an actual AoE weapon hitting multiple targets would just push the sharpshooter/bombard further ahead.
So in all situations, the sharshooter/bombard would do more damage than a melee soldier when making a ranged full attack. Significantly so against a single target.
Your suggested 5th level bombard ability strikes me as too broad. In all situations, it becomes better to full attack ranged than full attack melee, plus leads to unintended stacking, completely overtaking any melee damage advantage. The sharpshooter at least is specialized in single target range. The bombard as designed is specialized to boost AoE and unwieldy attacks, not be generically better at 5th level and above.
Agreed Hiruma, I am glad you did all this math. One of the things that really irks me about the game is that it's so heavily focused on ranged combat that almost all published material consistently awards range attacks at the expense of melee.
* Melee classes have problems with using cover, thus a lower potential AC.
* They get fewer gear choices which increase their chances to hit or removes hit penalties. (hitting an enemy is ALWAYS more important than maximizing damage. A miss = no damage at all.)
* Attacks of Opportunity are a joke. They can't interrupt spells being cast, there's no concentration in the game to end an ongoing effects, and you get at most, one per round.
It's quite clear that the publishers of the game designed it primarily for ranged combat and continue to fuel that goal. TBH, I am kinda glad we are wrapping up our campaign. I have a feeling that I will be moving on from Starfinder to other rule sets (glad I didn't sink too much money into the books). I've given the rules a fair shake (14 months of game play), and found them to be confining and inconsistent. You pick one path, you go down it, and the developers have confined your options very narrowly within that path. Maximizing (meta gaming) your character is a must for higher tier play or the curve quickly leaves you behind. After spending some time recently with 5e, the contrast in the rule sets and balance is glaring. I hope they do better with Pathfinder 2.0.
* Melee classes have problems with using cover, thus a lower potential AC.
* They get fewer gear choices which increase their chances to hit or removes hit penalties. (hitting an enemy is ALWAYS more important than maximizing damage. A miss = no damage at all.)
* Attacks of Opportunity are a joke. They can't interrupt spells being cast, there's no concentration in the game to end an ongoing effects, and you get at most, one per round.
I'm a little confused here.
1)melee classes do tend to take the most damage. They also typically dish out the most damage. That's the trade off they appear to be shooting for.
2) The armory accuracy boosters are a little wonky, I'll give you that, but I prefer to hit being prioritized vs stuff like power attack in PF1.
3)AoO do interrupt spells, I'm not sure where you're getting this from? The lack of combat reflexes is a good thing, makes the choice between taking your AoO and not an actual choice.
Ranged combat is supreme, and that's fine, but a blitz soldier or a solarian are still perfectly fine teamates, because they can dish out the damage at the expense of more healing.
|
Agreed Hiruma, I am glad you did all this math. One of the things that really irks me about the game is that it's so heavily focused on ranged combat that almost all published material consistently awards range attacks at the expense of melee.
* Melee classes have problems with using cover, thus a lower potential AC.
* They get fewer gear choices which increase their chances to hit or removes hit penalties. (hitting an enemy is ALWAYS more important than maximizing damage. A miss = no damage at all.)
* Attacks of Opportunity are a joke. They can't interrupt spells being cast, there's no concentration in the game to end an ongoing effects, and you get at most, one per round.
1) Yeah you get hit a lot as melee. But on the plus side, almost all damage is of one predictable type (kinetic), so you can take measures against that (Enhanced Resistance) which comprehensively reduce it. I'm not having too much trouble surviving melee with my soldiers.
2) Enemies also have a harder time getting cover against melee attacks. Armory introduced so many melee energy weapons that you should always be attacking against EAC. A full-BAB melee character has a to-hit that goes up maybe just a bit faster than enemy AC so can afford to full-attack most of the time.
3) AoOs can interrupt spells, but ready actions can't. It's worded rather confusingly and there is some dev commentary trying to paper it over. But Step Up is a really good feat ("you're not escaping my full attack next round") and Step Up And Strike is a great thing for keeping pressure on casters. However, touch range spells pretty much all don't provoke AoOs. Seems intentional, as a whole the game doesn't want battlefield control to be as brutal as in Pathfinder.
In my experience until about level 7 melee easily outdamages ranged attacks, after that operative trick attack becomes really reliable.
But I think the biggest argument in favor of melee builds is that a party without a qualified melee character is constantly being chased around by melee enemies that close in. Having one guy in front who's blocking the path gives the other ranged PCs much more time to work with than if they constantly need to pull out of threatened areas.