| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been thinking about this today and I'm ultimately unsure how I feel about it. I see the value, it decouples the big heavy weapons from dex! You want to be a strong, tanky Soldier you can have that strength option for your doshko and still bring a big gun to bear with automatic fire or explosions. We also see this sort of design in Pathfinder 2e often, where a class that doesn't have their 'attack' attribute as their key attribute often have ways to make up the difference that they lose in accuracy.
That said, while I think it's very cool to give soldiers a way to effectively scale up these weapons while focusing on their key attribute, I'm not sure the class DC fits for it. For one, the progression ends up entirely separated from the weapon, something you can see in the field test. At level 5, a soldier gets to be a better shot with their gun as their proficiency improves to expert. However, this accuracy boost ends up having no effect on their core focus of automatic fire and AoE effects, as their class dc then lags behind at trained.
Obviously, we don't know where the class DC bump comes in, but if we look across the various Pathfinder 2e martials we find that it's usually around level 9. That's four levels between you getting better at your gun, and then getting better at what you want to do with your gun. There's also weird knock-on effects, such as how spellcasters often have spell attack and spell dc, but no class DC and thus can't interact with these functions. Or how down the line you may end up with something like the Pathfinder 2e kineticist who doesn't have proficiency in the weapon, but has high scaling class DC and thus is very good at the alternate fires of these guns they don't know how to use.
I feel like the cleanest solution is to decouple these effects from Class DC in general, and maybe make them interact with weapon proficiency more directly. An attack roll against the Reflex DC of creatures in the area for example, and then give the Soldier a class feature to more directly use their constitution to boost these effects and push this as their niche.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Great minds! I'm of the exact same opinion: I can understand why they did it this way, but the implementation so far in my opinion is just clunky and unintuitive. I definitely agree that these AoE weapons should use weapon proficiency, with the caveat that 1) these weapons should not be good even on a Fighter or Gunslinger, let alone your average Pathfinder martial, so that they don't get to opt into good at-will AoE, and 2) the Soldier remains the best class for using AoE weapons. If these weapons are being tuned around the Soldier, I'd rather give the Soldier more features and feats to squeeze more use out of AoE weapons than design their AoE attacks specifically around the Soldier.
Great minds! I'm of the exact same opinion: I can understand why they did it this way, but the implementation so far in my opinion is just clunky and unintuitive. I definitely agree that these AoE weapons should use weapon proficiency, with the caveat that 1) these weapons should not be good even on a Fighter or Gunslinger, let alone your average Pathfinder martial, so that they don't get to opt into good at-will AoE, and 2) the Soldier remains the best class for using AoE weapons. If these weapons are being tuned around the Soldier, I'd rather give the Soldier more features and feats to squeeze more use out of AoE weapons than design their AoE attacks specifically around the Soldier.
1) I think these weapons should work just fine with Fighters or Gunslingers, the only difference should be your feats to squeeze the most out of the weapon. Let's say, fighters have a Power atk, that lets you increase your damage, but other classes don't. As a Soldier, you could have similar feats for Area weapons while the fighter should not.
2) For the soldier, The Weapon DC scaling should work exactly or similarly to Wizzard Spellcasting DC. To keep math purposes at bay. The fighter could have the same DC, the difference would be in the feats as mentioned in 1.
I've been thinking about this today and I'm ultimately unsure how I feel about it. I see the value, it decouples the big heavy weapons from dex! You want to be a strong, tanky Soldier you can have that strength option for your doshko and still bring a big gun to bear with automatic fire or explosions. We also see this sort of design in Pathfinder 2e often, where a class that doesn't have their 'attack' attribute as their key attribute often have ways to make up the difference that they lose in accuracy.
That said, while I think it's very cool to give soldiers a way to effectively scale up these weapons while focusing on their key attribute, I'm not sure the class DC fits for it. For one, the progression ends up entirely separated from the weapon, something you can see in the field test. At level 5, a soldier gets to be a better shot with their gun as their proficiency improves to expert. However, this accuracy boost ends up having no effect on their core focus of automatic fire and AoE effects, as their class dc then lags behind at trained.
Obviously, we don't know where the class DC bump comes in, but if we look across the various Pathfinder 2e martials we find that it's usually around level 9. That's four levels between you getting better at your gun, and then getting better at what you want to do with your gun. There's also weird knock-on effects, such as how spellcasters often have spell attack and spell dc, but no class DC and thus can't interact with these functions. Or how down the line you may end up with something like the Pathfinder 2e kineticist who doesn't have proficiency in the weapon, but has high scaling class DC and thus is very good at the alternate fires of these guns they don't know how to use.
I feel like the cleanest solution is to decouple these effects from Class DC in general, and maybe make them interact with weapon proficiency more directly. An attack roll against the Reflex DC of creatures in the area for example, and then give the Soldier a class feature to more directly...
I agree, it does not feel right to me because I was imagining a Wizzard using a cannon with high effectiveness, but that's really not the case cause Wiz don't get class DC.
But still, I find it strange that other Martials use the Area weapons using their Attributes instead of the Constitution (The reason why Soldier is Constitution).
1) I think these weapons should work just fine with Fighters or Gunslingers, the only difference should be your feats to squeeze the most out of the weapon. Let's say, fighters have a Power atk, that lets you increase your damage, but other classes don't. As a Soldier, you could have similar feats for Area weapons while the fighter should not.
I personally see no real problem here. If you are mixing PF2e and SF2e (which should not be the default assumption during design imo), then fighters and gunslingers would be the type to be able to pick up and learn these AOE weapons. And, if these weapons are available, you are in a setting where this kind of thing is more balanced around.
When I first pointed this out on the Pathfinder subreddit, I initially had the same opinion, but after a heated exchange with Michael Sayre, he made it clear that the implementation was specifically to avoid interacting with the Fighter and Gunslinger's legendary weapon proficiency. His reasoning, which I agree with, is that these classes are single-target damage specialists, and that being able to make great use of at-will AoE damage would cause them to breach niche protection and disrupt balance. I therefore do believe that whichever implementation is final should result in Fighters and Gunslingers not making the greatest use of AoE weapons. Personally, though, I feel the answer should be to nerf these AoE weapons as a baseline, so that they're weaker to the average class than a single-target weapon even with legendary proficiency, but then give the Soldier features and feats that guarantee the best use of those weapons as you mention, IvoMG. Already, this is somewhat the case, given how the Soldier gets to apply suppression with those weapons and gets dedicated feats, so I think that could be developed upon further (for example, with expert-to-legendary proficiency specifically for those weapons).
I definitely agree we shouldn't be using the mixing of PF2e and SF2e for default design assumptions! It's why I mostly tried to frame around PF2e as examples for how things could develop in SF2e. Unfortunately we only have this single snapshot of SF2e right now so I will be pulling my references from the larger pool that uses the chassis for the time being.
That said, I also agree with both Ivo and Skabb that a theoretical fighter or gunslinger in 2e should be able to use these weapons with the same skill as their usual choices. A fighter hits good with a weapon group they specialize in and there seems to be design intent for that to remain their space for use even in SF2e. That means that the soldier's specialization isn't the rotolaser or guns themselves, but the AoE alt fire options. So yeah, a way to push that ahead for them and anchor it as their niche feels better. A specific class feature vs the universal lever of class DC.
An addendum: based on this comment by Michael Sayre, the math has to use class DC instead of attack proficiency because monster saves scale at a different rate than their AC... which begs the question of why we even need to use Reflex saves at all for what is ultimately a weapon attack. The tunnel vision is real.
At this point, it just feels like having those AoE attacks make regular Strikes would solve a lot of problems. The Strike could either use a different attack roll for each target without increasing MAP, or apply the same roll to every target's AC, but in either case it would allow the weapon attack to match up to a defense that's balanced against weapon proficiency. So long as those weapons are balanced to be sub-par on classes that aren't the Soldier, there'd be no issue with legendary weapon proficiency on other classes either.
Already, this is somewhat the case, given how the Soldier gets to apply suppression with those weapons and gets dedicated feats, so I think that could be developed upon further (for example, with expert-to-legendary proficiency specifically for those weapons).This is where I'm at. What I hope the soldier develops into is a class that specializes in a type of weapon trait (not just area weapons), kinda like how fighter specializes in a type of weapon, but instead of specializing by having the best chance to hit, they specialize by getting specific action/feats that interact with weapon traits in unique, more efficient ways.
I haven't though of that, it's kind of cool
A Specialist in certain Traits...Wish I could see some Unwieldy love here
This reasoning feels weird, since by keying off of Class DC, casters and the Kineticist become really strong with these weapons.
I completely agree with this. I even posted a topic on the Pathfinder subreddit about how the Kineticist had better accuracy with area weapons than any other class, irrespective of weapon proficiency. Thankfully, the Kineticist's ability to make use of an AoE weapon is mitigated by their lack of weapon support and their need for free hands to use their impulses and blasts, but it does still showcase the weirdness of using class DC instead of weapon proficiency for weapon attacks.
IMO is better to do the good old roll an attack and compare to everyone in the area AC with some kind of AoE splash damage.
The current soldier is basically a kineticist that uses a canon instead of impulses. It's fun but at same time doesn't make sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One weird effect is that it makes armor useless against autofire. Unless it has some effect like PF2 full plate's Bastion.
Agreed, it just adds to the jank -- shooting someone with the same weapon somehow ignores their armor if you do it really fast. There's always been some overlap between Reflex saves and AC, but having a weapon impose Reflex saves instead of targeting AC, let alone targeting both Ref and AC, just makes things more confusing and creates some weird decisions (e.g. "Do I auto-fire just to bypass a monster's high AC and target their low Ref save?").
IMO is better to do the good old roll an attack and compare to everyone in the area AC with some kind of AoE splash damage.
I feel a similar way -- I did suggest the idea of using just one attack roll against mass AC to Sayre, but he said it would be too swingy for one crit or one miss to affect a whole crowd of creatures at once. However, there are feats in Pathfinder that fulfil a similar function to these AoE attacks and use Strikes: Whirlwind Strike, for instance, is a perfect analogue to these AoE attacks, as it is an AoE attack itself. It has you Strike each enemy within reach individually, and that I think sets enough precedent for such an implementation to work for AoE weapon attacks as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really see the problem of making one attack roll against each potential target. Some might say that that's a lot of rolling, but it's still the same number of d20s being rolled – they're just all being rolled by the attacker rather than by the defenders.
I don't see a problem using SF1e Automatic rules, considering that you will be using the 2 actions...
"In addition to making ranged attacks normally, a weapon with this special property can fire in fully automatic Mode. No action is required to toggle a weapon between making normal ranged attacks and using automatic Mode.
When you make a full attack with a weapon in automatic Mode, you can attack in a cone with a range of half the weapon’s range increment. This uses all the weapon’s remaining ammunition. Roll one attack against each target in the cone, starting with those closest to you. Attacks made with a weapon in automatic Mode can’t score critical hits. Roll damage only once, and apply it to all targets struck. Each attack against an individual creature in the cone uses up the same amount of ammunition or charges as taking two shots, and once you no longer have enough ammunition to attack another target, you stop making attacks."
A soldier could have feats to reduce the ammunition cost, Add critical, Autofire and reload with the same actions and etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
by keying off of Class DC, casters and the Kineticist become really strong with these weapons.
Kineticist, yes. Casters, no. Spellcasting classes don't get any proficiency in Class DC.
Probably the best fix that I can think of for this is to do away with the Spell DC concept entirely. Have spellcasters use Class DC for the spells of their tradition and give them proper proficiency in Class DC. Then have being at least trained in the weapon be a requirement for using Class DC for its area attacks.
But even that is a bit strange because then we could have things like Mystic using Wisdom as the ability used in accuracy of hitting with a scattergun.
Well, that is the best fix I can think of if we are sticking with using Class DC for AoE weapons.
I think a better fix would be to have AoE weapons have their own proficiency category just like PF2 Bombs do.
Bombs are martial weapons though.Well, that is the best fix I can think of if we are sticking with using Class DC for AoE weapons.
I think a better fix would be to have AoE weapons have their own proficiency category just like PF2 Bombs do.
That's the point. So... similar to how Alchemist gets proficiency specifically in Alchemical Bombs (but no other martial weapons), the Soldier could get proficiency in AoE Firearms. Then it wouldn't have any strange interactions with Class DC or the lack thereof - such as Wizard getting up to Legendary in Spell Attack and Spell DC (so using Spell DC for classes that have that instead would be a problem), but is completely untrained in Class DC (so couldn't use AoE Firearms well no matter what weapon proficiency they pick up).
I thought the issue was that they didn't want AOE attacks to use weapon proficiency because that would make Fighters better than Soldiers at doing them. Bombs in theory have a similar issue, which is resolved by giving bomber alchemists a number of special abilities that improve their bombs so even if fighters would me more accurate, bomber alchemists make bombs more useful.That's the point. So... similar to how Alchemist gets proficiency specifically in Alchemical Bombs (but no other martial weapons), the Soldier could get proficiency in AoE Firearms. Then it wouldn't have any strange interactions with Class DC or the lack thereof - such as Wizard getting up to Legendary in Spell Attack and Spell DC (so using Spell DC for classes that have that instead would be a problem), but is completely untrained in Class DC (so couldn't use AoE Firearms well no matter what weapon proficiency they pick up).Bombs are martial weapons though.Well, that is the best fix I can think of if we are sticking with using Class DC for AoE weapons.
I think a better fix would be to have AoE weapons have their own proficiency category just like PF2 Bombs do.
And I quote a Sci-Fi bounty hunter... "This is the way."
I'd say the best comparison to weapons and a class in Pathfinder would probably actually be firearms and the Gunslinger: you'd think bringing a gun to a swordfight would solve every problem, but as it turns out, firearms kinda suck on their own. Even the Fighter, with their legendary weapon proficiency, is not really going to go for a firearm over some other ranged weapon, like a bow. The Gunslinger is good with firearms not because firearms are inherently strong, but because they take a deliberately weak range of weapons and massively juice them up with statistical and action economy benefits. Each way's Slinger's Reload and deeds basically let the Gunslinger do many more things at once with a firearm (or crossbow) than anyone else can, and it's this benefit in action economy that makes firearms shine. Even then, the class isn't a damage-dealing beast like the Fighter, and is instead more supportive.
With this in mind, I think what would help the Soldier would be to not only have expert starting proficiency in AoE weapons, but also to have special actions that specifically add better action economy to their two-action attacks via extra riders. The Soldier's options right now I think are a bit crowded out because every AoE attack they do applies the suppressed condition -- past that, you're just piling more power onto the same thing, and that's not really how Pathfinder 2e operates. If instead they had one firing mode for suppression, and other firing modes based on build choice for mobility, some other kind of support, and so on, the Soldier's role as an AoE weapons expert would be cemented through both action economy and varied options, in addition to the best possible proficiency. I've written a brew that attempts this, and might post it in a separate thread.
I thought the issue was that they didn't want AOE attacks to use weapon proficiency because that would make Fighters better than Soldiers at doing them. Bombs in theory have a similar issue, which is resolved by giving bomber alchemists a number of special abilities that improve their bombs so even if fighters would me more accurate, bomber alchemists make bombs more useful.That's the point. So... similar to how Alchemist gets proficiency specifically in Alchemical Bombs (but no other martial weapons), the Soldier could get proficiency in AoE Firearms. Then it wouldn't have any strange interactions with Class DC or the lack thereof - such as Wizard getting up to Legendary in Spell Attack and Spell DC (so using Spell DC for classes that have that instead would be a problem), but is completely untrained in Class DC (so couldn't use AoE Firearms well no matter what weapon proficiency they pick up).Bombs are martial weapons though.Well, that is the best fix I can think of if we are sticking with using Class DC for AoE weapons.
I think a better fix would be to have AoE weapons have their own proficiency category just like PF2 Bombs do.
OK but we have the same problem of weapons to use Class DC. For example imagine that Paizo make or allow Kineticists in SF2 (something very plausible once the class theme is very agnostic to both fantasy scenarios). Kineticists goes up to legendary DC, so Kineticists will be so good as a Soldier with AoE guns and I think this isn't intended.
But someone can say "so just adjust the rule to be exclusive to Soldier Class DC" but this creates another problem, now these weapons only works with Soldiers what's also I think isn't intended.
Also we have other problem. Most armors doesn't affect reflexes so this armors will be way more effective vs heavy armored (with exception of bulwark) than vs light and even unarmored.
This leaves the class with 2 possible solutions:
1. Use the weapon proficiency as DC. It's simple, put +10 into you weapon bonus and use it as a DC and then make the target into AoE to roll their AC -10. It's unortodox but solves the armor problem and make the weapon proficiency independent from class DC shenanigans.
2. Make them to work as AoE attacks like Impossible Volley. This is a pretty orthodox and well tested solution but don't get a half-damage effect but get the item bonuses.
2.1 Instead of no damage give some failure damage like Certain Strike and Brutal Finish or to value the Soldier a bit more this can be made putting variant of these feats instead of a traits but for the big guns instead of melee weapons.
3. Make them to work like bombs giving them a primary target and a splash damage. This solution is faster because roll just 1 attack but its AoE, unless the splash is bigger than 1 per dice, is a joke that usually only works to activate weakness.
3.1 Just like alchemist the Soldier can get Expanded Splash and Mega Bomb but using it's Con instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if "use your class DC for area weapons" shouldn't instead be "soemthing that the soldier class gets" and have them work differently for the people who aren't supposed to be the best at heavy weapons.
An issue that has come up with every single PF2 class whose KAS was not "what you roll to attack with" or "what your spellcasting modifier is" was "What do you actually get out of boosting your KAS." As it stands you can use con for wearing armor and for intimidation, but it would be nice to be able to use it for "the thing you're going to be doing a lot in combat."
I'd say the best comparison to weapons and a class in Pathfinder would probably actually be firearms and the Gunslinger: you'd think bringing a gun to a swordfight would solve every problem, but as it turns out, firearms kinda suck on their own. Even the Fighter, with their legendary weapon proficiency, is not really going to go for a firearm over some other ranged weapon, like a bow. The Gunslinger is good with firearms not because firearms are inherently strong, but because they take a deliberately weak range of weapons and massively juice them up with statistical and action economy benefits. Each way's Slinger's Reload and deeds basically let the Gunslinger do many more things at once with a firearm (or crossbow) than anyone else can, and it's this benefit in action economy that makes firearms shine. Even then, the class isn't a damage-dealing beast like the Fighter, and is instead more supportive.
With this in mind, I think what would help the Soldier would be to not only have expert starting proficiency in AoE weapons, but also to have special actions that specifically add better action economy to their two-action attacks via extra riders. The Soldier's options right now I think are a bit crowded out because every AoE attack they do applies the suppressed condition -- past that, you're just piling more power onto the same thing, and that's not really how Pathfinder 2e operates. If instead they had one firing mode for suppression, and other firing modes based on build choice for mobility, some other kind of support, and so on, the Soldier's role as an AoE weapons expert would be cemented through both action economy and varied options, in addition to the best possible proficiency. I've written a brew that attempts this, and might post it in a separate thread.
Hahaha This would be fun. When wield heavy weapons the soldier uses the recoil to repostion in the battlefield when firing lol the first thing that came to my mind was a small Ysoki wielding a Heavy cannon being tossed back after firing... this could be fun.
What topic do you intend to create? Soldier suggestions?
I thought the issue was that they didn't want AOE attacks to use weapon proficiency because that would make Fighters better than Soldiers at doing them. Bombs in theory have a similar issue, which is resolved by giving bomber alchemists a number of special abilities that improve their bombs so even if fighters would me more accurate, bomber alchemists make bombs more useful.That's the point. So... similar to how Alchemist gets proficiency specifically in Alchemical Bombs (but no other martial weapons), the Soldier could get proficiency in AoE Firearms. Then it wouldn't have any strange interactions with Class DC or the lack thereof - such as Wizard getting up to Legendary in Spell Attack and Spell DC (so using Spell DC for classes that have that instead would be a problem), but is completely untrained in Class DC (so couldn't use AoE Firearms well no matter what weapon proficiency they pick up).Bombs are martial weapons though.Well, that is the best fix I can think of if we are sticking with using Class DC for AoE weapons.
I think a better fix would be to have AoE weapons have their own proficiency category just like PF2 Bombs do.
OK but we have the same problem of weapons to use Class DC. For example imagine that Paizo make or allow Kineticists in SF2 (something very plausible once the class theme is very agnostic to both fantasy scenarios). Kineticists goes up to legendary DC, so Kineticists will be so good as a Soldier with AoE guns and I think this isn't intended.
But someone can say "so just adjust the rule to be exclusive to Soldier Class DC" but this creates another problem, now these weapons only work with Soldiers what's also what I think isn't intended.
Also, we have other problems. Most armor doesn't affect reflexes so this armor will be way more effective than heavy armored (with...
Using the class DC feels wrong because it's a weapon and class DC is always based on class core attribute. The thing about class DC is that caster classes also can't use these weapons because they don't have class DC, even though they are proficient with the weapon.
Armors don't increase reflex, true and false. Most armors don't, but reflex is not increased by armors instead it's increased by magic items +1, +2, +3. Also considering that Class DC is not affected by weapon targeting or Runes (in the case of PF2e), therefore it would be really easy to hit players but, most of the time players are fighting NPCs that use a completely different rule.You don't need to worry about "A fighter can use this weapon really well and will have many AOE options". Even though this statement is true, it's not about using the weapon but what they can do with it, from my understanding they will only be able to fire them, while a soldier can draw much more power from them from feats and class features.
Also, these weapons are really heavy meaning that a Fighter wielding them won't be able to carry too many gears.
Something I realize that has been tangentially referenced, but not directly pointed out...
There is no effective difference between simple area weapons and martial area weapons. There is no reason to pick scatter gun over stellar cannon even as a simple weapon class.
Even if you want the ability to be a reflex save and not use an attack roll, weapon proficiency should matter.
Exactly, and this is one of my biggest issues with the current implementation. Ignoring weapon proficiency doesn't just lead to classes like the Kineticist firing these weapons at max accuracy despite making no use of weapons, it also breaks the balance between simple and martial weapons: simple weapons are balanced to be weaker than martial weapons, because martial weapons are for the most part only available to martial classes. In an environment where weapons like the scattergun are still balanced to be weaker than the rotolaser or stellar cannon, yet where weapon proficiency doesn't matter at all, there is practically no reason for any character, even one untrained in martial weapons, to pick a scattergun over a martial area weapon.
I wonder if "use your class DC for area weapons" shouldn't instead be "soemthing that the soldier class gets" and have them work differently for the people who aren't supposed to be the best at heavy weapons.
Yeah. I like that.
It would allow an imported Fighter in space to pick AoE Heavy Weapons as their Weapon Mastery group. Which would be like if they pick Firearms or Unarmed attacks currently in PF2 - which makes them 'better' than Gunslinger or Monk in that they have as good or better accuracy. Even though they don't have any of the other benefits of those classes that are what make those classes shine.
I find the procificiency concerns bizarre. There's zero change the weapon rules aren't going to apply the same penalty to attack and save rolls with a weapon for not having proficiency, just as SF1 does for both nonproficiency and range increment penalties.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find the procificiency concerns bizarre. There's zero change the weapon rules aren't going to apply the same penalty to attack and save rolls with a weapon for not having proficiency, just as SF1 does for both nonproficiency and range increment penalties.
Well, I would hope so in the later versions of the rules.
But as currently written in the field test #1 document, Area Fire doesn't reference weapon proficiency at all. It uses only Class DC.
Bringing that up and discussing the resulting problems that it causes doesn't seem bizarre at all.
I find the procificiency concerns bizarre. There's zero change the weapon rules aren't going to apply the same penalty to attack and save rolls with a weapon for not having proficiency, just as SF1 does for both nonproficiency and range increment penalties.
As currently implemented in the field test, wielding an area weapon you're untrained with has absolutely zero impact on your accuracy with it. Zero. No penalty to attacks, no penalty to saves, nothing. At worst, Striking with an automatic weapon won't work well, but the Area Fire and Automatic Fire actions scale purely with class DC, and nothing else. This needs to be brought up, even if Paizo's designers are aware of the issue (assuming they think it's an issue at all).
It's a field test summary of how they're playing a class that has proficiency in all weapons and is nothing more than an early PR exercise. They're only explaining things necessary to understand how this class works that are new to Starfinder and Pathfinder 2 (e.g., they didn't bother explaining what a basic save is) and relevant to the Soldier. Proficiency isn't relevant to anything going on with the soldier, and lack of proficiency hurting attack DCs wiht a weapon isn't new to Starfinder.
It's shocking that any of you need this explained to you.
You seem to just fundamentally not understand what is going on here and playing yourselves for no reason. Go take a break until the playtest comes out, or at least until the next field test is here for a new round of reading with no understanding of the concept of context and the inherent limitations of the form.
I mean, the Soldier specifically is going to have a higher number for hitting people with area weapons when they use their class DC (which is Con-based) than their weapon proficiency (which is Dex-based) assuming the proficiency advances at the same rate.
This, I think, is the point of rolling out this rule with this class. You can have a Soldier with a high Con and Str and minimum Dex and still be good at suppressing fire.
It's a field test summary of how they're playing a class that has proficiency in all weapons and is nothing more than an early PR exercise. They're only explaining things necessary to understand how this class works that are new to Starfinder and Pathfinder 2 (e.g., they didn't bother explaining what a basic save is) and relevant to the Soldier. Proficiency isn't relevant to anything going on with the soldier, and lack of proficiency hurting attack DCs wiht a weapon isn't new to Starfinder.
It's shocking that any of you need this explained to you.
You seem to just fundamentally not understand what is going on here and playing yourselves for no reason. Go take a break until the playtest comes out, or at least until the next field test is here for a new round of reading with no understanding of the concept of context and the inherent limitations of the form.
I get that it's not great for the ego to arrive late to the party and be the last one to notice a basic issue most people noticed pretty much overnight, but I don't think that has to be made into anyone else's problem.
As it so happens, this playtest packet is being released in the context of a system that already has a lot of content, including plenty more classes entirely capable of wielding these weapons (you will in fact likely have at least one of these classes around if you want to give the Soldier a try in your sessions). Given the lack of explanation of the system, the first people to grasp this content have been Pathfinder players, who are keenly aware of how said system works. It would therefore not be in the interest of PR to deliberately release flawed content, and visibly not enough of us have been huffing enough copium to partake in the shared fantasy that this is all part of some game of 4-dimensional chess.
This is indeed preliminary material, and it will almost certainly change in due time, though given how player feedback is explicitly stated by Paizo themselves to be key to their development process, it is in everyone's interest to point these flaws out as soon as possible, even if they're already been solved internally. Nothing here needs to be explained to anyone, except perhaps for the basic premise that weapons probably ought to relate to proficiency in said weapons in 2e by default.
I like that the soldier can be con/dex or con/str, but I would address the issue by making area weapons use weapon proficiency but key off of Con or Str instead of dex.I mean, the Soldier specifically is going to have a higher number for hitting people with area weapons when they use their class DC (which is Con-based) than their weapon proficiency (which is Dex-based) assuming the proficiency advances at the same rate.
This, I think, is the point of rolling out this rule with this class. You can have a Soldier with a high Con and Str and minimum Dex and still be good at suppressing fire.
How to do this might be tricky. Since PF2 is loath to do straight up stat substitions. Like the Kineticist attacks with Con, but that's because it uses its Class DC for attack rolls.
You could do "use your Class DC or your Attack DC, whichever is greater" though.
Finesse is a trait that has you substitute dex for strength, just use that wording but remove "can" and the target ability mods.I like that the soldier can be con/dex or con/str, but I would address the issue by making area weapons use weapon proficiency but key off of Con or Str instead of dex.I mean, the Soldier specifically is going to have a higher number for hitting people with area weapons when they use their class DC (which is Con-based) than their weapon proficiency (which is Dex-based) assuming the proficiency advances at the same rate.
This, I think, is the point of rolling out this rule with this class. You can have a Soldier with a high Con and Str and minimum Dex and still be good at suppressing fire.
How to do this might be tricky. Since PF2 is loath to do straight up stat substitions. Like the Kineticist attacks with Con, but that's because it uses its Class DC for attack rolls.
You could do "use your Class DC or your Attack DC, whichever is greater" though.
Yeah forcing players to use CON modifier instead of Dex for using certain weapons would indeed solve the problem, and everyone could use the weapon with weapon training.
I honestly feel like using Con as the Soldier's KAS is more trouble than it's worth: at the end of the day, Con feeds into HP and Fort saves, nothing more. A Soldier with Strength or Dex as their KAS could be given 12 HP/level and legendary Fort saves and still be one of the toughest classes around, particularly given their heavy armor proficiency on top. Dex as a KAS in particular would avoid class DC and ranged Strikes having wildly different modifiers and accuracy levels, and at the end of the day it should be up to the Soldier to decide whether to opt into Strength for heavy armor, or Charisma for good Intimidation checks. We don't need feature bloat just to have Con cannibalize the function of other attributes, and I can only think of one other instance of attribute modifier replacement in 2e (Esoteric Lore using Charisma rather than Int), so classes can have diverse options without needing to make one attribute work like the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly feel like using Con as the Soldier's KAS is more trouble than it's worth: at the end of the day, Con feeds into HP and Fort saves, nothing more. A Soldier with Strength or Dex as their KAS could be given 12 HP/level and legendary Fort saves and still be one of the toughest classes around, particularly given their heavy armor proficiency on top. Dex as a KAS in particular would avoid class DC and ranged Strikes having wildly different modifiers and accuracy levels, and at the end of the day it should be up to the Soldier to decide whether to opt into Strength for heavy armor, or Charisma for good Intimidation checks. We don't need feature bloat just to have Con cannibalize the function of other attributes, and I can only think of one other instance of attribute modifier replacement in 2e (Esoteric Lore using Charisma rather than Int), so classes can have diverse options without needing to make one attribute work like the other.
I think that all physical stats are useful to a Soldier.
STR, increase the weight he is supposed to carry, that big gun weighs a ton. Also important for soldiers that wish to go in Melee, for atk and damage.DEX, is very important for soldiers that wish to use Automatic guns, and for reflex, if they have more DEX they will probably wield lighter armor because they would get the rest of AC from DEX.
CON, the same points that you mentioned.
Balancing this out would be hard. Like in Starfinder, heavy guns can have a strength requirement, forcing players to use a secondary stat.
I would probably save CON as key score for Vanguard and leave the soldier as DEX/STR. Increasing the HP per level to make it more durable also looks like a nice idea.
Having Feats that rely on CON Modifier would also be a great optional way of suggesting to players that they should increase Constitution.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But using the class DC for area weapons/full auto means that the Soldier (with their high con) is better at that sort of thing than they are at like "high precision single shot weapons". Which is kind of what you want, isn't it?
I can only think of one other instance of attribute modifier replacement in 2e (Esoteric Lore using Charisma rather than Int), so classes can have diverse options without needing to make one attribute work like the other.
Investigator can substitute their Intelligence on their attack rolls. Under certain circumstances.
And the combat abilities of Investigator are not considered to be very good. So I am not sure how much you actually want me to bring that up as an example. But I don't think the problems with Investigator and combat have to do with the INT substitution.
I will admit that Con as a main stat still feels weird on as martially martial as a soldier is supposed to be. I get where the fantasy comes from, but it does still leave them lagging behind other martial classes when actually shooting things, which just feels off to me. True, it's only a +1 difference most of the time, but it still sticks out.
I tend to imagine martials' designs as "I am this good at attacking, and also..." Like the barbarian is that good at attacking, and also does heaps of extra damage with rage. The rogue is that good at attacking, and also has skills and enough extra damage to make up for using generally smaller weaponry. The ranger is that good at attacking, and especially good at attacking that one guy in particular. I'm down for soldiers to be that good at attacking, and splashing out their damage to everyone around who they hit, but them not being as good as the other martials at doing the martial thing still feels very strange.
I think the soldier is not going in the damage orientation side of martial. From my understanding so far they want to make him into a tank/support role.
I'm not against this thing but I also like to have options, Giving him damage/Tank/Support feat and features should be the way to go. People can mix and match for a Damage Dealer, Support, or Tank focus or go into a Hybrid character.
Not every group is the same and having some classes that can dip into other roles might be useful for these groups where they lack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This works particularly well if weapons' DCs are set by their level, which I expect will end up being the case.
Do you mean that you expect weapons like this to have static DCs? That seems incredibly unlikely to me. This aspect is one of the most heavily criticized in PF2 already and that is when the DC isn't even for something you'll use all the time. I'm imagining the outrage when the DC constrains your entire combat effectiveness... yeah, no way.
