| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Starfinder side of things has never done much for me, but the Field Test's compatibility has gotten me to peek over the line... and I really like what I see! The Soldier feels like what I'd wanted the Gunslinger to be, while having an identity distinct from both that and the Fighter that I really enjoy. Folks often underestimate the challenge of making a mechanically-straightforward martial interesting, but I think they've done exactly that!
I loved how it mechanically remembers a Sci-fi Space Marine instead of just a random generic fighter.
|
I'm literally in the middle of combat with 4 zombies and their boss. I could use some Suppressing Fire right now!
Overall, I think the class looks great still diving into it. Suppressing Fire looks good too, but I kind of wish it had some ability in it that stacked even if it's just the -5 to movement. In the current combat, I'm in it's still the first round and the baddies have not moved yet. Even if all five were given the suppressed condition the -5 to move only prevents one of them from closing to melee range on their turn.
So if Starfinder 2e is going to have degrees of success like PF2e does perhaps Suppressing Fire on a critical failure could be a bit stronger?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Starfinder side of things has never done much for me, but the Field Test's compatibility has gotten me to peek over the line... and I really like what I see! The Soldier feels like what I'd wanted the Gunslinger to be, while having an identity distinct from both that and the Fighter that I really enjoy. Folks often underestimate the challenge of making a mechanically-straightforward martial interesting, but I think they've done exactly that!
Alkenstar and Numeria are calling to you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Starfinder side of things has never done much for me, but the Field Test's compatibility has gotten me to peek over the line... and I really like what I see! The Soldier feels like what I'd wanted the Gunslinger to be, while having an identity distinct from both that and the Fighter that I really enjoy. Folks often underestimate the challenge of making a mechanically-straightforward martial interesting, but I think they've done exactly that!Alkenstar and Numeria are calling to you.
Numeria is always calling to me!
The Starfinder side of things has never done much for me, but the Field Test's compatibility has gotten me to peek over the line... and I really like what I see! The Soldier feels like what I'd wanted the Gunslinger to be, while having an identity distinct from both that and the Fighter that I really enjoy. Folks often underestimate the challenge of making a mechanically-straightforward martial interesting, but I think they've done exactly that!
This is me exactly. Once I read Suppressing Fire, and understood just how many mechanics are associated with the suppressed condition my PF brain (either edition) was inspired. It reminds me of a 3pp class called the Fallen from Kyoudai Games PF1 compatible Thunderscape Campaign Setting a Fallen can bestow the tormented condition onto an enemy/ies and then with other abilities can apply riders to those that are tormented.
So while I understand some SF folks are having a hard time adjusting, for PF people like me are gaining some really great stuff and seeing some analogies with prior works. I really like this Soldier.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Soldier from the playtest works well as like "the heavy" from XCOM. The abilities for like "blowing up cover" and "cracking open tanks etc." are just higher level feats.
I think that's a valid role for a core class. Though you would prefer that the "run and gun" stuff and the "long range fire support" stuff doesn't both go to the Operative.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Soldier is neat as a class for PF2e, but it's really narrow as one of 6 starting classes for a new game.That's pretty much my take on it as well. Admittedly, we're only feeling a small part of the elephant right now, but "burly dude/dudette with big gun" seems more like a subclass than a full class to me. If you have a full class about that sort of thing, I wonder where folks like Ka D'Argo, Drax the Destroyer, Finn, Ronon Dex, Amos Burton, or Jayne Cobb will be. I mean, they can't all be Operatives.
I mean....Fighter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ideally both classes can do elements of both. Just like how Barbarian, Fighter, Champion, and even Ranger support 2H melee combat, any sort of weapon fantasy should probably have 2-3 classes that comfortably support it for a healthy amount of varied playstyles.
Fully agreed. I can't stand overconstrained class design. I'm pretty sure we're going to see a whole lot more open up for Soldier if only because I intend to be a PITA about it if it doesn't. A class should never be about one weapon type, that's an archetype.
Ideally both classes can do elements of both. Just like how Barbarian, Fighter, Champion, and even Ranger support 2H melee combat, any sort of weapon fantasy should probably have 2-3 classes that comfortably support it for a healthy amount of varied playstyles.Fully agreed. I can't stand overconstrained class design. I'm pretty sure we're going to see a whole lot more open up for Soldier if only because I intend to be a PITA about it if it doesn't. A class should never be about one weapon type, that's an archetype.
It kinda depends on how varied those weapon types are. If there is sufficient variety within that space to support a decent number of playstyles, I think that's ok.
From what we can tell, Soldier will eventually be able to choose between machine guns, laser gatling guns, flamethrowers, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, cannons, plasma throwers, Noisemarine boomboxes, lightning projectors and probably a few others. I'd like to see that extend to melee AOE weapons, but still. If those don't all play the exact same, then I think this could work out well. At first glance that doesn't look much different from a rogue with finesse weapons for example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are all soldiers proficient in intimidate, for example?
That’s why you’ll never be a sergeant in the infantry, Private Perpedog! Do you want a transfer to logistics or God help me the signal corps?!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I don't really see the issue with Soldier being kind of like fighter. I feel like the difference in setting, and all that entails like the increased focused on ranged weapons and technology in general, you could still have a more versatile soldier and have it feel different from fighter. I get that you don't want all the SF classes to feel derivative. You don't want Mystic to feel identical to cleric etc. But I think the setting difference is enough to make soldier different from fighter despite both being flexible martial classes without having to overly fixate on one subgroup of weapons.
Ultimately the SF2 core rulebook classes have to stand on their own, so you won't be able to 100% remove overlap with PF classes without making SF feel like a sci fi supplement instead of its own game. So there is a balance to strike here, I just feel like the area weapon focus may be just a bit too far in one direction.
My knee jerk reaction is that the new soldier is too focused on area weapons by default as a core class feature, and that should be relegated to a subclass/fighting style option. I don't think there's any harm in SF having it's own 'fighter' type class that is a versatile martial class, especially with the unique flavor and abilities you can bake into subclass/fighting style options. And I feel like this area weapon focus for core class features is kind of pigeonholing an entire class into one sub group of weapons.
But I also don't have the full context. Once we have say, one of these five level previews of all the SF2 core classes, it will be easier to get a grasp of the new class dynamics in full context.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My guess is the soldier field test is just one example of what a Soldier can do and focused on testing new ideas for the class. The field test document refers to itself as a snippet of the soldier.
That is literally what it is, yes ^^. Though probably less "new" stuff (everything is new after all) and more the basic feel of the class.
I think people are heavily overestimating how far along SF2 is in development. Essentially anything that isn't the basic PF2 math and system is most likely subject to change.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it feels niche as hell; wouldnt play one unless I was the "5th" player and all the basic roles are covered already.
Looks sorta fun as like a high-staying power non magical debuffer.
I just have my doubts that itll carry its weight as a partys main damage
Honestly, it looks like a Main Tank/Defender equivalent to me. It can take a lot of punishment, and it throws around a lot of debuffs. Give them a reaction that lets them attack suppressed enemies who do things that they ought not do, and it fits that role to a T. Every time I read "suppressed", that part of me that will always love 4e tries to sub in "marked" instead.
Now you're correct that it probably won't carry its weight as the party's main damage, but that's because that's not what its role is. This one is going to be all about forcing the enemy to focus on them, and then being able to survive the heat that that generates.
I mean, if this isn't what "Party Tank for a game that's mostly about ranged combat" looks like, then what is?
|
Honestly, it looks like a Main Tank/Defender equivalent to me. It can take a lot of punishment, and it throws around a lot of debuffs. Give them a reaction that lets them attack suppressed enemies who do things that they ought not do, and it fits that role to a T. Every time I read "suppressed", that part of me that will always love 4e tries to sub in "marked" instead.
Now you're correct that it probably won't carry its weight as the party's main damage, but that's because that's not what its role is. This one is going to be all about forcing the enemy to focus on them, and then being able to survive the heat that that generates.
I mean, if this isn't what "Party Tank for a game that's mostly about ranged combat" looks like, then what is?
A vanguard, or a champion. Something that has the best AC in the game, and ways to mitigate damage beyond that. Something that has ways to punish targets for attacking anyone else. Something that is enough of a threat on the field to draw agro. All this has is a high con and (maybe) one heal per hour.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of all soldiers being proficient in intimidating, why not proficient in jewelry? One of Ukraine's top snipers owned a jewelry store before the war.
Stories like that are how I like to build characters, by having some interest/motivation that is completely unrelated to their class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if this isn't what "Party Tank for a game that's mostly about ranged combat" looks like, then what is?A vanguard, or a champion. Something that has the best AC in the game, and ways to mitigate damage beyond that. Something that has ways to punish targets for attacking anyone else. Something that is enough of a threat on the field to draw agro. All this has is a high con and (maybe) one heal per hour.
- In PF2, "ways to punish targets for attacking anyone else" seem to mostly show up as class feats, generally about level 6. My guess would be that they'd show up that way here, too.
- "Best AC in the game" could still very easily be on the table. They have proficiency in all armors, and class abilities that are designed to make handling heavy armors more manageable. They've got a class path that's even more about armor. The Champion over on PF2 side doesn't get Armor Expertise until level 7.
- "ways to mitigate damage beyond that" - well, Suppressed makes the enemy worse at both attacking and getting close to you. Armor Storm fighting style gives you resistance to damage from suppressed targets. There is the optional one heal per hour you mentioned. Con as high stat plus base 10 HP is... better than anyone in PF2 gets other than the barbarian, and the barbarian hoses down their own AC with Rage. That's just what we're seeing so far.
- "enough of a threat on the field to draw aggro" - the fact that they're liberally hosing down the enemy with heavy weapons fire doesn't qualify? I mean, you're not going to have your main tank also be the biggest damage dealer because balance doesn't work like that, but it's not like they got nothing.
The design that we've seen thus far clearly intends to make "the soldier is hard to kill" a meaningful part of their schtick. We can expect to see further support show up later in the form of additional feats, f nothing else. I admit that they don't currently have a lot for aggro control, but I expect that that will change.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m a little surprised that people seem to think “the heavy” is an overly-narrow character fantasy. Most sci-fi ensemble casts have a big guy on the team, with either a big gun or a big melee weapon to match, and I think this SF2 Soldier does that pretty well so far; it’s certainly fitting as a core class in my head.
Give the final version more support for melee (and swapping between the two), and I’ll have no complaints. That feels plenty distinct from a Fighter!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Soldier class is supposed to let you be Vasquez. The people who want to be Ripley will probably need a different class.
I think the Soldier class is supposed to let you be Vasquez. The people who want to be Ripley will probably need a different class.
There's a reason Mothership has "Teamster" as one of their core classes!
|
|
- In PF2, "ways to punish targets for attacking anyone else" seem to mostly show up as class feats, generally about level 6. My guess would be that they'd show up that way here, too.
- "Best AC in the game" could still very easily be on the table. They have proficiency in all armors, and class abilities that are designed to make handling heavy armors more manageable. They've got a class path that's even more about armor. The Champion over on PF2 side doesn't get Armor Expertise until level 7.
- "ways to mitigate damage beyond that" - well, Suppressed makes the enemy worse at both attacking and getting close to you. Armor Storm fighting style gives you resistance to damage from suppressed targets. There is the optional one heal per hour you mentioned. Con as high stat plus base 10 HP is... better than anyone in PF2 gets other than the barbarian, and the barbarian hoses down their own AC with Rage. That's just what we're seeing so far.
- "enough of a threat on the field to draw aggro" - the fact that they're liberally hosing down the enemy with heavy weapons fire doesn't qualify? I mean, you're not going to have your main tank also be the biggest damage dealer because balance doesn't work like that, but it's not like they got nothing.
The design that we've seen thus far clearly intends to make "the soldier is hard to kill" a meaningful part of their schtick. We can expect to see further support show up later in the form of additional feats, f nothing else. I admit that they don't currently...
Many classes can use heavy armor and there are many ways to manage their penalties. So nothing special there.
Let's look at vanguard, which this is actually more similar to than the SF1 soldier. Con-based class, heavy armor, gets +1 to it at the start of their first turn as you build up entropy points. Starting at level 2 you can spend a point to reduce the damage you take by your level. Or let the damage through to build up more entropy. A lot of their class feats are for reducing the damage of attacks or drawing agro.
And no; a 15' cone ISN'T going to draw agro. I'll stay 30' away and shoot someone who's easier to hit and actually a threat. I HAVE a blast-weapon specialist soldier in SFS, I remember what it was like when his cone was that short.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My guess is the soldier field test is just one example of what a Soldier can do and focused on testing new ideas for the class. The field test document refers to itself as a snippet of the soldier.That is literally what it is, yes ^^. Though probably less "new" stuff (everything is new after all) and more the basic feel of the class.
I think people are heavily overestimating how far along SF2 is in development. Essentially anything that isn't the basic PF2 math and system is most likely subject to change.
Dustin said "a year" roughly on the keynote stream.
Between Primary Target being possibly in addition to the save from your aoe weapon and some additions like better melee weapon support I think this idea is great. I certainly don't think it's too narrow. Probably add some more area denial options on top to sell the idea even better and we are golden.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I’d like it if SF2 diverged from PF2 in some core rules, and the soldier was basically a fighter but based on the new paradigms.
For example, if Stamina is core, the Soldier getting some abilities pertaining to that. Plus a higher emphasis on ranged and new weapon types, things filtered through that lens, but is still very recognizable as “fighter.” Maybe give them bombs, jet pack-based movement, but also things that a fighter could 100% have without being out of place.
Compatibility is great and all, but forcing SF to have essentially no overlap with PF is only to the detriment of both games. After all, if a class appearing in PF is enough to prevent that same role from being in SF, the reverse is also likely to be true. And given plenty of people won’t want to mix SF and PF to a high degree, that means you end up with two half-games instead two full games.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of all soldiers being proficient in intimidating, why not proficient in jewelry? One of Ukraine's top snipers owned a jewelry store before the war.
Stories like that are how I like to build characters, by having some interest/motivation that is completely unrelated to their class.
I'm not against the soldier being all soldier-like in the class. But I like to have room to play with a character to give them some personality and motive outside of just their class. Most people have some interest or hobby outside of their day job. Peter Quill would be the same without a cassette tape, and Sabine Wren wouldn't be the same without painting skills to repaint tie fighters. I like this extra layer to my characters, not just for flavor. I love to try to find uses in combat or social encounters for the character's side interest.
In my current adventure, while the rest of the party was planning how to infiltrate a building, I went shopping for local music and a band t-shirt. Once in the building, my knowledge of local music and playing the music on my com unit helped convince an employee to help us. Because I knew the name and location of a local music store, we were able to use that as the meet-up location for us to later help the employee escape.
I guess I'm less into heroic combat and more into heroic hobby side quests. Somehow the risk seems to be the same...
See, I would think Peter Quill would be an Envoy not a soldier. Drax is the soldier in that particular set of sci-fi people.
See, I would think Peter Quill would be an Envoy not a soldier. Drax is the soldier in that particular set of sci-fi people.
Operative. He's literally a thief from his first scene onward. :)
Groot is a Phytokineticist to some extent. Whether that's the main class or an archetype is debatable, but it's in the mix.
On one level, yes. But Operative is not the same as Thief. Quill, to me, seems significantly more of a social character than someone who outmaneuvers his opponents. I mean, his Cool Thing back in Guardians 1 was using dance moves to distract Ronan so someone else could kick his butt.See, I would think Peter Quill would be an Envoy not a soldier. Drax is the soldier in that particular set of sci-fi people.Operative. He's literally a thief from his first scene onward. :)
I have a dwarven thief who's also a face.
It's not difficult.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My guess is at least 47 cups of coffee so far.
I think people are heavily overestimating how far along SF2 is in development.
I can confirm at least 240 cups of coffee. There's some wiggle room there with some other work, but that's balanced out by how many hours I spend on the weekend randomly thinking about space.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can confirm at least 240 cups of coffee. There's some wiggle room there with some other work, but that's balanced out by how many hours I spend on the weekend randomly thinking about space.My guess is at least 47 cups of coffee so far.
I think people are heavily overestimating how far along SF2 is in development.
Sounds like this has been brewing for a while. Ah, hard to see, dark coffee is...
I'll be curious what the cup count is at the end. Maybe I should buy stock in coffee...
I think a fast-paced shotgun/shove focused "breakthrough" fighting style would be an amazing subclass, just to mix things up. Basically knock people back with massive blasts from your shotgun and move into the enemy formation with the free movement that gives you [for the SF crowd: in Pf2 the shoving/knocking an enemy back allows you to move after them for the same distance].
I may or may not be slightly addicted after seeing this.
The problem is that it kinda crowds the Vanguard Gunslingers space, but that subclass simply doesn't support this playstyle. It's instead far more defensive close-in support, so I guess it would be fine?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, what sticks out is that the soldier relies on its class dc for most of its attacks, not just its additional tricks. If the stars align, you could play an entire combat and never roll an attack roll at all. That's fascinating to me, from a design perspective, as they didn't even go there with the alchemist (and perhaps they should have).
I really, truly, am in love with the area trait and hope that gets backported into PF2, and also applied to grenades. Because imagining a character that tosses grenades out like candy and getting all the benefits that soldiers get with area weapons fills me with glee.
Edit: Hmm, rereading the sidebars on the field test, and I think my enthusiasm may well guarantee that grenades don't get the area trait. Particularly, they'll want to ensure soldiers need to use both hands to maximize the use of their abilities, and grenades might get around that and allow someone to use a shield. Though grenades being consumables with a heavy action tax might be enough of a balance, so who knows.
Either way, I know what my first homebrew project will be if grenadier soldiers aren't a thing.
That reminds me, I really ought to take another pass at my Gunsmith research field. I keep hoping new releases will make it superfluous, but I guess I'll need to be the change I want to see in Golarian.
For me, what sticks out is that the soldier relies on its class dc for most of its attacks, not just its additional tricks. If the stars align, you could play an entire combat and never roll an attack roll at all. That's fascinating to me, from a design perspective, as they didn't even go there with the alchemist (and perhaps they should have).
I really, truly, am in love with the area trait and hope that gets backported into PF2, and also applied to grenades. Because imagining a character that tosses grenades out like candy and getting all the benefits that soldiers get with area weapons fills me with glee.
I agree that the bomber Alchemist might well have been a better build overall if alchemical grenades had been class DC... but at this point I really don't see it getting backported. First, it would be a major shift in Alchemist balance. I don't see it happening in time for the remaster, which means that you'd have both attack-and-splash grenades *and* class-DC grenades. It would be a major buff to the alchemist, and you could argue that they need that, but ti would be a major buff to the arguably most powerful subclass of the alchemist, in a way that didn't actually connect to their existing feats. It would also mean that the kineticist would suddenly be the most effective grenade-thrower among all of the classes, and they'd do it with their constitution, and that would be honestly pretty weird and, I think, not at all intended.
I agree that the bomber Alchemist might well have been a better build overall if alchemical grenades had been class DC... but at this point I really don't see it getting backported. First, it would be a major shift in Alchemist balance. I don't see it happening in time for the remaster, which means that you'd have both attack-and-splash grenades *and* class-DC grenades. It would be a major buff to the alchemist, and you could argue that they need that, but ti would be a major buff to the arguably most powerful subclass of the alchemist, in a way that didn't actually connect to their existing feats. It would also mean that the kineticist would suddenly be the most effective grenade-thrower among all of the classes, and they'd do it with their constitution, and that would be honestly pretty weird and, I think, not at all intended.For me, what sticks out is that the soldier relies on its class dc for most of its attacks, not just its additional tricks. If the stars align, you could play an entire combat and never roll an attack roll at all. That's fascinating to me, from a design perspective, as they didn't even go there with the alchemist (and perhaps they should have).
I really, truly, am in love with the area trait and hope that gets backported into PF2, and also applied to grenades. Because imagining a character that tosses grenades out like candy and getting all the benefits that soldiers get with area weapons fills me with glee.
Oh, I was unclear. Bombs certainly are going to stay like they are, but I hope the area trait is introduced into Pathfinder and used on new items where it makes sense.
Notably, the soldier's "Primary Target" ability combined with the area trait is probably how scatter guns were intended to work in the first place. If that is the case, then I hope scatter is revised, because the language used in the area trait is, I feel, much cleaner.
Also, grenades are based on class dc in the playtest encounter they wrote about a couple days ago. So with or without the area trait, that sounds like they'll be a thing.
Edit: Hmm, rereading the sidebars on the field test, and I think my enthusiasm may well guarantee that grenades don't get the area trait. Particularly, they'll want to ensure soldiers need to use both hands to maximize the use of their abilities, and grenades might get around that and allow someone to use a shield. Though grenades being consumables with a heavy action tax might be enough of a balance, so who knows.
Either way, I know what my first homebrew project will be if grenadier soldiers aren't a thing.
I feel like soldiers as grenadiers *should* be a thing... sort of. Like, I feel like Soldiers should have reasons to use grenades as secondary weapons, but maybe not as primary weapons. I'd love to see a soldier feat that would let you turn the "take one hand from weapon, grab grenade, throw grenade, put hand back on weapon" cycle into something with a reasonable action cost. Maybe single action plus flourish or something? I don't really see "soldier" as the place you get dedicated bomb-throwing maniacs, though. If the soldier is using grenades as The Thing They Do rather than as a supplemental, they should be using a grenade launcher.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me, what sticks out is that the soldier relies on its class dc for most of its attacks, not just its additional tricks. If the stars align, you could play an entire combat and never roll an attack roll at all. That's fascinating to me, from a design perspective, as they didn't even go there with the alchemist (and perhaps they should have).
I really, truly, am in love with the area trait and hope that gets backported into PF2, and also applied to grenades. Because imagining a character that tosses grenades out like candy and getting all the benefits that soldiers get with area weapons fills me with glee.
Edit: Hmm, rereading the sidebars on the field test, and I think my enthusiasm may well guarantee that grenades don't get the area trait. Particularly, they'll want to ensure soldiers need to use both hands to maximize the use of their abilities, and grenades might get around that and allow someone to use a shield. Though grenades being consumables with a heavy action tax might be enough of a balance, so who knows.
Either way, I know what my first homebrew project will be if grenadier soldiers aren't a thing.
That reminds me, I really ought to take another pass at my Gunsmith research field. I keep hoping new releases will make it superfluous, but I guess I'll need to be the change I want to see in Golarian.
Good points. I like the dc focus for a class that wants to run n gun and generally make a scene. Hopefully the remastered alchemist leans on class dc