Managing Creative Director (Starfinder)
|
| 29 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just wanted to post a few changes that we're gonna test internally as a result of feedback we're seeing from the first Field Test.
General Changes
-Changed Capacity to Magazine. Updated text so that it reference magazines now. Removed ambiguity about reloading (you don't reload per shot in SF2, you just reload the magazine).
-Removed Resistance from Archaic equipment. Will re-add as optional Gamemastery Rule. This was something we saw a lot of internal division on, and threw out to see how folks would react. Seeing reactions, we're edging more towards making this an optional rule, which is how we'll treat it for now. There's still potential we bring this back but add a "non-magical archaic" so that a runed-up weapon doesn't take this penalty.
-Confirmed Area Fire consumes the same amount of ammo as a ranged Strike with the weapon would. Just a wording tweak we needed to add anyways.
Soldier
-Now just an Expert in Will instead of the weird one Expert in saves, dropped Bravado as a class ability.
-Increased Suppressed condition speed penalty to -10 feet.
-Suppressing Fire specifies it only suppresses enemies.
-Primary Target is now a shot IN ADDITION when making an AoE attack. This honestly just feels like it resolves some of our "Single target DPS" issues with the class that we noticed, and makes the ability way more usable. It also really makes Soldiers the class that benefit most from AoE weapons.
-Punishing Salvo is now just a ranged Strike that follows up an Area Fire for 1 action, not using Area Fire rules.
-Quick-Swap now specifies "enemy" in the trigger.
Thank you for the update! For clarification, is Bravado the Fearsome Bulwark feature listed in the PDF?
Seems like a lot of pretty solid changes! I particularly like the potential move to at least non-magic archaic. The current method seems like a lot of work to throw out if you just have to go back and reinvent weapons for all the same niches. I think futuristic tech could be better differentiated with traits, critical specs, and special abilities.
|
Managing Creative Director (Starfinder)
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
That helps! Any plan for reconciling field test "usage" with pathfinder "usage"?
That is one we're still discussing! A few options present themselves... we'll be investigating it. The biggest thing here is coming up with a term that people will immediately grok and get "Oh this is what expends ammo" and also is table-friendly. (Magazine is cool because we can abbreviate it to Mag for tables).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Loving the changes so far, Thurston!
Thank you for the update! For clarification, is Bravado the Fearsome Bulwark feature listed in the PDF?
I'd also like to see a clarification on this if we could, please!
|
Managing Creative Director (Starfinder)
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really glad to see changes being implemented this early on the process! Makes me all the more excited for the future of Starfinder! By chance though, are there any plans on making the item system more closely match that of PF2e? I know it’s a popular sentiment in Starfinder to keep the weapon you started with and upgrade it over time, but in the Field Test it seems like you might not be able to do that with every weapon.
We kind of address it in the text of the Field Test, but there will be options for people to upgrade "Granny's pistol" throughout the whole of a campaign. That's super important to us. If anything, the scaling system we have (and the fact that we use a standardized naming convention for that scaling) makes it way easier for us to accomplish that!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Loving the changes so far, Thurston!
Thank you for the update! For clarification, is Bravado the Fearsome Bulwark feature listed in the PDF?I'd also like to see a clarification on this if we could, please!
Yeah, i would also like some clarification. I don’t believe there’s an ability named “Bravado” in Field Test 1
|
Soldier
-Now just an Expert in Will instead of the weird one Expert in saves, dropped Bravado as a class ability.
Oh hm, I'm confused by the word "just" in that sentence. Since the Field Test #1 solider draft was only expert in a single save (Fort), I take it that the change is to make soldier now start expert in two saves (Fort and Will)?
Bravado sounds like probably a class feature around 7th level or so that increased Will proficiency from trained to expert, I assume.
Great to see some Pre test pre changes and how its changing in developement on the Soldier.
Will the Field test be updated by chance?
Thanks
Tom
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-Removed Resistance from Archaic equipment. Will re-add as optional Gamemastery Rule. This was something we saw a lot of internal division on, and threw out to see how folks would react. Seeing reactions, we're edging more towards making this an optional rule, which is how we'll treat it for now. There's still potential we bring this back but add a "non-magical archaic" so that a runed-up weapon doesn't take this penalty.
This could possibly still allow for some armor to have resistance against Archaic or non-magical archaic equipment. also, the level of magic could factor into the resistance too, such as resistance to magical archaic 1
|
Managing Creative Director (Starfinder)
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for the update! For clarification, is Bravado the Fearsome Bulwark feature listed in the PDF?
OOPS! Silliness of referencing some of our internal documents (which apparently are even more up to date than the playtest documents)
Bravado was an ability we had for improving the Will save to Expert.
Also, for those asking, we'll NOT be updating the Field Tests. The time it takes to make these is already a diversion from getting the product done, upkeeping them isn't really in the cards as we aren't even at the official playtest stage yet! :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The weird bit for me on the "archaic weapons" rules is... what about natural weapons? Like, I'm figuring that you're going to want to have at least a few Starfinder ancestries (and possibly even classes) that get claw/bite/etc. Giving those a massive debuff feels punitive. On the flip side, making them more effective than a traditionally forged sword or whatever feels... weird. Not sure what to do about it, but I feel like it's a potentially useful place to try to pry open the "how do I treat archaics" question.
How long does it take to reload an empty magazine?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could see it becoming, instead of flat resistance value, making it become 2 + 1/2 the level of the armor item, or level of the beast if natural armor. Makes it relevant, but not giant impact at lower levels. I think the comment/concern about natural weapons is very relevant and should be considered carefully.
While making runes bypass it simplifies thing significantly, it also makes it lose some flavor though as well, which shouldn’t be ignored. Have to measure how much you lose vs how much it complicates things.
If we do have runes bypass the resistance do they bypass all and what runes do it. Does it have to be striking, or are potency runes enough. Does higher level armor require stronger runes to bypass archaic resistance if they reinstate it.
How long does it take to reload an empty magazine?
The reload number of actions.
How long does it take to reload an empty magazine?The reload number of actions.
For PF2 Repeating weapons it would take 3 actions to load a new magazine. For example, the Repeating Crossbow or Air Repeater. And nowhere does it say how long it takes to refill the magazine itself.
For SF2 with the majority of ranged weapons having magazines instead of being loaded with individual rounds, I would expect that the weapon itself would list how many actions it takes to load a magazine.
And maybe it will list how much time it takes to refill a magazine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IME it takes a lot longer to put ten or twenty rounds into a magazine than it takes to remove the empty magazine from the gun, pull a new magazine out of the pouch and put it in the gun. Long enough, in fact, that I would not expect it to be something that can be done in three actions.
I think "putting rounds into the magazine" is something you're only going to be able to do outside of combat, if at all (like some of these "magazines" are going to be batteries).
But the way it works in PF2 is that you need 3 interact actions to change a magazine: one to remove it, one to pull the new magazine from wherever it is, one to load it. I wonder if that's going to change what with "guns are the assumption."
I don't see why it would.
I could see giving a one-action discount for ejecting the magazine since "dropping a weapon" is free and you could design the tech guns to eject when you press a button.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All of the weapons in the Field Test have Reload 1. So they take 1 action to reload.
The Soldier also has a feat for one action for two Reloads as long as you've fired a Reload 2 weapon just before.
I think this will need to be clarified for the actual playtest, since there is a weapon in PF2 that fires from a magazine *and* you have to reload per shot: The Repeating Heavy Crossbow.
I'm not sure it makes sense to have different weapons have different reload numbers when all you're doing is swapping out the magazine so that entire column is superfluous.
If the intention is "the next shot is automatically chambered, you just reload the magazine" the analogy would be the PF2 Air Repeater which is a reload 0 weapon, it just takes 3 actions to change the magazine. Though the "3 actions to change the mag" is enforced by the Repeating trait, so probably "it takes a number of actions equal to the reload value of the weapon to change the magazine" could just be encoded in a different trait? Still, there's a weird asymmetry here as the reload value means different things in different games.
Like it's clear how this is supposed to work, but the rules language needs tightening up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-Changed Capacity to Magazine. Updated text so that it reference magazines now. Removed ambiguity about reloading (you don't reload per shot in SF2, you just reload the magazine).
Yup, Thurston already said so in this very thread! XD
But Reload 2 is at least confirmed to have mechanics working for it. I imagine that would be for big heavy weapons with a more complicated reloading process.
Given that triple ripple rockets is one of the reasons they don't want no action cost for Skittermanders using all six arms freely, I'd bet rocket/missile weapons will have reload 2.
Maybe, though I bet Rocket Launchers have Area Blast 2 action activity to fire like the Stellar Cannon, so who knows what the design space is gonna be like.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something I noticed is that Area weapons (or Automatic weapons using Automatic Fire) base their accuracy off of class DC, rather than proficiency with the weapon itself. This seems unintuitive, in the sense that a class that's good at using weapons but doesn't have an outstanding class DC is weirdly mediocre at using shotguns and the like compared to single-target weapons. This mainly sticks out to me in the context of classes like Fighter and Gunslinger that get better-than-normal weapon proficiencies but fairly standard class DC. (I'm aware those are Pathfinder classes, but the fact that Soldier is explicitly designed to not encroach on Fighter's design space suggests to me that the basic game mechanics are still designed around the existence of these classes to some extent.)
A potential solution (aside from adjusting class DC scaling itself) could be to either have these weapons work like the Blast property works in PF1e (where the attacker makes an attack roll against each target in the area, rather than each target making a saving throw), or else have the saving throw be against a DC equal to the target's attack bonus + 10 (similar to how skill/save-based DCs work). Though that's just my immediate thoughts, so I'm unsure if that could cause other problems somehow.
Definitely something to keep an eye on at higher levels, you’re right. Perhaps soldiers should get a second track just for area weapon DCs (like fighters/gunslingers get with their favored weapons), or pulled off the martial chassis altogether.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
...or take it the other way and codify what "Class DC" really means in a way that makes it all make sense.
Like, to me... Class DC is all about being good at the random stuff that your class is good at. So maybe Soldiers get to use their Class DC for heavy weapons, as a class feature, and there might be archetypes that would open up "and you can use class DC for this" on various things.
Basically, I can see some of the arguments you're putting out here, but on the other hand, I think it's important that soldiers be able to run heavy guns off of their Constitution and on the gripping hand, it doesn't make a lot of sense that someone would be able to fire heavy guns with their Wisdom or Charisma just because that happens to be the thing their Class DC is based on.
...or take it the other way and codify what "Class DC" really means in a way that makes it all make sense.
Like, to me... Class DC is all about being good at the random stuff that your class is good at. So maybe Soldiers get to use their Class DC for heavy weapons, as a class feature, and there might be archetypes that would open up "and you can use class DC for this" on various things.
Basically, I can see some of the arguments you're putting out here, but on the other hand, I think it's important that soldiers be able to run heavy guns off of their Constitution and on the gripping hand, it doesn't make a lot of sense that someone would be able to fire heavy guns with their Wisdom or Charisma just because that happens to be the thing their Class DC is based on.
Honestly, I don't think Soldiers having their weapon attacks scale on CON is especially crucial.
As things are currently, a Soldier can ignore STR and DEX entirely. They use CON for their weapon attacks, and they also use CON to qualify for armor proficiency and add it to their Bulk limit. The prospect of the "optimal" soldier build being a beefy brick wall who can't throw a good punch and trips over their feet if they don't keep a close eye on them is, to be frank, a bit goofy. I like having a martial that can key CON, but I don't like the prospect of them *just* needing CON and nothing else.
What I think I'd like to see is the idea that, while a DEX-based martial would have a higher DC with Area ranged weapons, a Soldier gets the benefits of being able to Suppress targets that fail their saves (and all their other class features and feats related to Area weapons, of course). It's like how Thaumaturge only starts at 16 STR/DEX, but is still an extremely effective martial just because of the tools they have to make their attacks more effective. (Though with more of a focus on support and AoE in Soldier's case, rather than raw damage output.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, I can see some of the arguments you're putting out here, but on the other hand, I think it's important that soldiers be able to run heavy guns off of their Constitution and on the gripping hand, it doesn't make a lot of sense that someone would be able to fire heavy guns with their Wisdom or Charisma just because that happens to be the thing their Class DC is based on.
I'll be honest, you seem to simply not like that weapons use class DCs in any context, beyond something like "soldiers get to use class DC for area weapon attacks". And I'm not pushing back on that, I feel certain you're not alone if that is truly what is going on. But I would suggest that you do consider if that is the case, so that you can give more specific feedback once that time comes.
It wouldn't even be totally out of the blue. There's items in PF2 that have a set DC for their effects, that some characters are able to replace with their own class DC if higher. Might that be more satisfying for you? Allows a character like, say, a mystic to still get some utility out of these weapon types, but reserving the best, most powerful attacks with them for the soldier. I don't think they should make that change, as the generally increased use of weapons makes generally using class dc for weapons feel correct to me, but I can see your point about wisdom/charisma adding to a weapon's strike feeling weird even as I disagree with it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be honest, you seem to simply not like that weapons use class DCs in any context, beyond something like "soldiers get to use class DC for area weapon attacks". And I'm not pushing back on that, I feel certain you're not alone if that is truly what is going on.
For myself, I am not opposed to the idea in concept. I just think it needs work.
* Not all (pre-Remaster) classes even get any proficiency in Class DC. Do they just not get to use these weapons?
* Many Archetypes that give Class DC (Ranger Archetype for example) have no way of increasing it. Others do - and often at seemingly arbitrary levels (such as Inventor at level 4, and Kineticist at level 12).
* There is currently an open question on if a feat or ability that comes from a class references "Class DC" is it meaning the highest Class DC that you have, or the Class DC for the class that the ability comes from. Again, hopefully the Remaster will clarify that a bit.
The Inventor Dedication increases Class DC to Expert at level 15, not level 4.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if we put aside Pathfinder classes and go tabula rasa on this bit of Starfinder, using class DC for area attacks I feel is going to heavily limit what having a strong DC can mean: any kind of specialized single-target debuffer would be off the table, for instance, because applying conditions is going to require some kind of DC, and you wouldn't be able to have a high class DC without also being great at AoE. If we're going to go with design choices that won't be compatible with Pathfinder's balance already, like flying ancestries at level 1, there's even less reason to design AoE weapons in Starfinder this way just to avoid accuracy issues with the Fighter or Gunslinger.
Even if we put aside Pathfinder classes and go tabula rasa on this bit of Starfinder, using class DC for area attacks I feel is going to heavily limit what having a strong DC can mean: any kind of specialized single-target debuffer would be off the table, for instance, because applying conditions is going to require some kind of DC, and you wouldn't be able to have a high class DC without also being great at AoE. If we're going to go with design choices that won't be compatible with Pathfinder's balance already, like flying ancestries at level 1, there's even less reason to design AoE weapons in Starfinder this way just to avoid accuracy issues with the Fighter or Gunslinger.
Yes that is a concern. But we need to look at how much of one it is, really. Because I'd say it is fairly minor.
One, level. Legendary class DC is purely level 19 and 20. So it comes incredibly late and most people will already have long since have established their playstyle.
Two, proficiency isn't even remotely everything that goes into the balance consideration. A great example is looking at the two classes you brought up - the Fighter and the Gunslinger.
The former is more or less the pinnacle of what proficiency can do for you. But not because he has just the proficiency. The Fighter has tons of tools that really leverage that proficiency. The ability to attack twice per turn with little problem and have a decent chance of hitting twice. Plus, your second Strike will almost certainly involve a Press feat, which are usually very powerful for their level (and in general).
In comparison, the Gunslinger doesn't have that. Pretty much at all. Yes, you have a decent crit chance, but your individual attacks are simply not strong enough to compete when the others hit their stride. And you are really only getting 1 good one per turn.
That's why, despite his increased proficiency, the Gunslinger is one of the weakest dedicated ranged weapon users. It easily gets beaten by classes that only follow the normal martial progression.
The same thing will be the case here. Just because a class will have legendary class DC doesn't mean that it can leverage that for more than a bit of additional expected damage like the Soldier can. Area weapons only get one try per turn, so that damage had better be amazing. And let's be real here, 4d10+8 (avg. 30) damage on like two targets at best - presuming weapon spec even applies - isn't exactly exceeding any expectations at level 19. Just as a comparison, a "normal" Eldritch Archer Fighter at that level will deal 4d6+10+20d6 (avg. 94). A regular archer Fighter will statistically be in the 60s as well. The Rangers hit about 50 (all without damage property runes). Granted, the Fighter takes 3 actions instead of 2 and the other guy will have more chances to deal at least some damage, but I think you can see what I mean.
So overall, I don't think this is a serious problem.
Addition to the previous comment (narrowly missed the edit window, sry ^^):
The last thing we have to consider is class-internal balance. Because if that bit of damage is enough for you to regularly spend 2/3 of your turn on it, then whatever your class offers needs a second look. Because it definitely isn't enough.
The Inventor Dedication increases Class DC to Expert at level 15, not level 4.
Inventor Dedication doesn't ever increase your Inventor Class DC.
The level 4 feat Brilliant Crafter does.
Edit: Ah, though Brilliant Crafter does do so at level 15. Though it only costs you a level 4 feat for it. Kineticist can get the class DC boost earlier - at level 12 - but it costs a level 12 feat to do it.
The point is that it is very class and archetype specific on when Class DC gets given or increased. Why are we tying equipment to something that is so wildly variable and unpredictable between characters?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
* Not all (pre-Remaster) classes even get any proficiency in Class DC. Do they just not get to use these weapons?
* Many Archetypes that give Class DC (Ranger Archetype for example) have no way of increasing it. Others do - and often at seemingly arbitrary levels (such as Inventor at level 4, and Kineticist at level 12).
* There is currently an open question on if a feat or ability that comes from a class references "Class DC" is it meaning the highest Class DC that you have, or the Class DC for the class that the ability comes from. Again, hopefully the Remaster will clarify that a bit.
Michael Sayre has clarified that spellcasters in the Remaster books will at least be trained in their Class DC, so there won't be any dead interactions with stuff like critical specialization effects. And it's also been said that any classes that aren't being Remastered or made with the Remaster rules (ala Kineticist and the new playtest classes) will be errata'd to be in line with the Remaster.
So, for the classes who most need a Class DC (Magus, Summoner, and Psychic), I can imagine they'll be adjusted accordingly. And, hopefully, the other concerns about Class DC in relation to Archetypes and scaling will also be looked at.
IMO the only main problem about the Class DC check using Area/Automatic weapons is that they are agnostic to what class is your class DC basically allowing classes unrelated to weapons like Kineticist to be exceptionally good with such weapons while the most martial classes are more limited to do the same thing.
But I was thinking about it and there's a simple solution to this that could solve this question. That's just move the ability to use Class DC to be a class feature like happens with alchemists' Powerful Alchemy.
In this case the lvl 0 Area/Automatic weapons would have DC 17 to use its special Fire Actions, lvl 2 weapons have DC 19 and level 4 weapons DC 21 (similar to poisons DC of poisons of these levels). But the Soldiers would have the ability to use their Soldier Class DC if it's greater.
Personally I usually don't like fixed DC solutions but in this case this could be an interesting option that explains that stronger weapons having better effectiveness to everyone using them based in its on design and construction while Soldiers due their better training/experience with such weapons will use them better than those who don't have them.
It's a simple and effective solution to keep the weapon effective to be used by all classes while keep the Soldier (or any other class that get these class feature) to be the one that have the training and experience to use any of these weapons more effective.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I was thinking about it and there's a simple solution to this that could solve this question. That's just move the ability to use Class DC to be a class feature like happens with alchemists' Powerful Alchemy.
I like that idea too. It nicely solves most of the problems.
Personally I usually don't like fixed DC solutions
I don't like that idea either.
I think it would be better for the weapons to continue to use the character's weapon proficiency with the weapon. People already don't like having magic items with a fixed DC that causes the item to need to be replaced or discarded after a couple of levels (for example the Chime of Opening). I don't want weapons to be in that position either.
It will make AoE heavy weapon attacks the first thing that uses Attack DC (10 + attack bonus), but that value does technically already exist. As does Armor bonus (Armor DC = AC; Armor bonus would be AC - 10).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also to note: Having heavy weapon's AoE attacks use Attack DC for non-Soldier characters means that Fighter could use their Fighter Weapon Proficiency to get their legendary weapon progression perk on Heavy Weapons - but only if they choose that to be their Weapon Group for that class feature. They have to opt-in to that, and it costs them opportunity cost to not get that bonus for other weapons instead. And they still wouldn't get the other benefits that Soldier gets when using Heavy Weapons.
So it would be similar to how a Fighter who takes Firearms as their Weapon Group has the same proficiency as a Gunslinger, but no action economy reload actions. Or a Fighter that takes Unarmed Attacks as their Weapon Group has better accuracy with unarmed attacks than a Monk does - but doesn't get things like Stunning Fist or Flurry of Blows.
It will make AoE heavy weapon attacks the first thing that uses Attack DC (10 + attack bonus), but that value does technically already exist. As does Armor bonus (Armor DC = AC; Armor bonus would be AC - 10).
I'd like that, as that doesn't divorce weapon proficiency from your actual proficiency with a weapon as class DC does. As an immediate consequence, though, it changes the scaling, as weapon proficiency goes up earlier than class DC. In some cases dramatically so, e.g. 1 vs 11 for the Fighter or 5 vs 9 on the Ranger. This part might actually be a balance problem, as traditionally AOE stuff scaling is a bit behind before the late game, but I don't think I'd be too bad. Ultimately, I think it is more important to make your actual weapon proficiencies matter. Both to eliminate the weird gaps the traditional approach creates and because it just feels better; right, even.
A side effect is that the Soldier pretty much has to have DEX as their key attribute in this case. Having your key stat not be your attack stat historically has worked out very poorly for anyone but the Thaumaturge. The Soldier can't really emulate that though, as it much more focused than the Thaum and doesn't have the option of going one-handed. It's all about the big you and your big gun.
But I was thinking about it and there's a simple solution to this that could solve this question. That's just move the ability to use Class DC to be a class feature like happens with alchemists' Powerful Alchemy.I like that idea too. It nicely solves most of the problems.
Personally I usually don't like fixed DC solutionsI don't like that idea either.
I think it would be better for the weapons to continue to use the character's weapon proficiency with the weapon. People already don't like having magic items with a fixed DC that causes the item to need to be replaced or discarded after a couple of levels (for example the Chime of Opening). I don't want weapons to be in that position either.
It will make AoE heavy weapon attacks the first thing that uses Attack DC (10 + attack bonus), but that value does technically already exist. As does Armor bonus (Armor DC = AC; Armor bonus would be AC - 10).
I also prefer to use Weapon Proficiency as DC too because makes more sense to me than a general class DC (or even a specific class DC). But, unless I'm misinterpreting the Thurston Hillman the designers decision to use class DC was because "Class DC was a space that allowed us to have good scaling for all classes and have control over who could be good with area weapons" what makes sense when we put spellcasters in the equation (because they don't get a good class DC, while martials gets) but this still affects strangely the unconventional classes like alchemists and kineticists (and probably others non-caster nor martial focused that probably will come later in SF2) and I strongly disagree with the designers concept of "having kineticists being skilled with Area Weapons actually makes a lot of sense because they're all about control" because even I agree that is about control this control is class specific, make sense kineticist or an alchemist being good controlling/empowering their own creations but not to use this to control a random AoE weapon yet I understand that's is easier to use and existent DC than to create a new DC using your weapon proficiency as basis.
That's why I made this midground proposal with the intention of at last limit what classes DCs with get this extra control instead of this being generalist to all classes and opening space to strange interactions with non-weapon focused classes.
Yet again I agree. I still prefer to turn the attack bonus into a DC than use class DC.
A side effect is that the Soldier pretty much has to have DEX as their key attribute in this case. Having your key stat not be your attack stat historically has worked out very poorly for anyone but the Thaumaturge. The Soldier can't really emulate that though, as it much more focused than the Thaum and doesn't have the option of going one-handed. It's all about the big you and your big gun.
Yes we get that problem too. But I think thats could be compensated with legendary proficiency progression. Once that Dex isn't the soldier key attribute getting fighter/gunslinger legendary weapon proficiency will put it in a middle ground between default martials and legendary martials.
For other side this will add MADness to the soldiers what's a thing that the designers is currently are running away from. This helps to understand why the class DC was a better option to them.