| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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[...]
Thinking further about that, isn't it sort of the opposite of good scaling for all classes and isn't the control aspect problematic as well?
For the scaling, even with the remaster, existing casters never go beyond trained in their class DC. Tracking mitigates this compared to what it is like in PF2 for everyone, but monster scaling still makes it pretty terrible. To avoid that, casters would need a separate class DC scaling, which means lost page space and bothering new players. The rest of the classes, who usually go up at 9 or 11, will sometimes have to bother with weird "-1 compared to the expected DC", which is always annoying. In return, the casters will ask why their DC is suddenly no longer the best at other levels (e.g. class DC with area weapons will be 1 or 2 above the expected caster spell DC for many martials at level 10-14). After all, casters don't get to have better attack rolls than the martials, but turnabout is suddenly fair play? In any case, the differences between class DC and spell DC will be a mess.
Attack DC and spell DC are at least more different conceptually, Attack DC would be seen as an extension of the better attack modifier that martials enjoy. I'm sure the caster crowd would feel significantly less bothered due to the different "feel" and the fact that Attack DC doesn't also play into other stuff a class can do.
As for the control aspect, you are switching from two levers to one. Attack DC would check for both degree of proficiency (trained, expert...etc.) and type of proficiency (simple, marital, advanced, specific weapon category). Class DC literally only checks for degree of proficiency and has potentially nothing to do with area weapons. So as of right now, a caster could pick up an advanced area weapon and be good with it, while an Operative presumably can't pick up an advanced rifle without missing way too often. I don't think that is going to be a very popular decision. To prevent this you would have to put the proficiency type check back in, at which point why bother with the extra complexity?
So... Attack DC is just the better, simpler choice.
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).As an immediate consequence, though, it changes the scaling, as weapon proficiency goes up earlier than class DC.
Ah. Right because saving throws get boosted in proficiency at different rates.
That might be where the Armor Bonus comes in. Make Heavy Weapon AoE effects use Attack DC vs Basic Armor Save.
The Soldier not having Dex as key ability means that their accuracy is going to be a bit behind - unless the class also gets a replacement for Attack bonus ability modifier like Investigator does. But they are also doing damage on a miss - and often to more than one enemy.
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).As an immediate consequence, though, it changes the scaling, as weapon proficiency goes up earlier than class DC.Ah. Right because saving throws get boosted in proficiency at different rates.
That might be where the Armor Bonus comes in. Make Heavy Weapon AoE effects use Attack DC vs Basic Armor Save.
Wait, I think you mean a basic save using your armor bonus vs Attack DC? Because attack DC vs basic Armor Save is two DCs and nobody is rolling ^^. Anyway, at that point I think things are getting a bit too off-script. Rolling both with and against something you never use otherwise is not the best idea. Even Attack DC is a bit odd in that regard.
-
We could also just make it way easier and take the logical next step of the 4 degrees of success - introducing basic attack rolls. Instead of the enemy rolling against your DC, you designate an area and roll a single attack roll that you then apply to all targets in the area. If you would miss, you deal half damage, hit for full damage and so on.
This is not only much quicker as only one roll happens instead of several, it also statistically slightly favors the player (I think?) and even more importantly, the player feels more like they are actively doing something. And they have the feeling they are responsible for the outcome, as they are rolling, in contrast to the enemies being responsible because they were rolling. Which makes no sense as that is not how chance works (unless your dice are loaded), but I could swear that is still how many people feel. As another side benefit is that you get rid of the "only targets Reflex" problem, which is currently a real problem.
I could swear I've heard the idea here before, I just can't find it...
The Soldier not having Dex as key ability means that their accuracy is going to be a bit behind - unless the class also gets a replacement for Attack bonus ability modifier like Investigator does. But they are also doing damage on a miss - and often to more than one enemy.
Yeah, I don't see a CON attack bonus replacement happening and wouldn't advocate for it either.
As a counter argument to the last part, though, look at how Alchemists and blaster casters feel about "you are still doing damage on a miss" ^^. And even just targeting more than one enemy is far from certain.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... the reason I suggested that "use your Class DC for area-effect" should be a soldier thing is trying to weave a path through conflicting demands. Let's look at the current system.
Good thing: Soldier gets to have higher proficiency in Heavy Weapons than they do in things like pistols and sniper rifles. This encourages them to stay in their lane to a degree, and it feels satisfying.
Good thing: Soldier gets to use Con as their attack stat for heavy weapons. This has a number of effects. First of all, again, it's satisfying. It feels good when your primary stat is meaningful. Second, it helps ensure that Soldiers in general are big beefy bags of HP, while also allowing them statline flexibility elsewhere. The 18 obviously goes into con, but you could reasonably put your 16 into strength (if you want to be able to switch into melee), dex (if you want to follow down the primary target route), charisma (if you want to play party face to a degree and/or play around with intimidate games) and so forth. If Class DC is *not* their primary attack stat, then you get one of three unfortunate possibilities. They could find themselves in a situation where con is low-value enough that their primary stat bump feels wasted, they could find that they're basically locked in on both of their high stats, or you just abandon the idea of them being CON-based at all, and lose some of that flavor.
(Further on the above: if you want melee soldiers to be a thing, and we do, then forcing their primary ranged attack to be dex-based does real damage to their ability to switch back and forth unless you want them using finesse weapons. I really don't want us to be in a place where we're encouraging the Soldier to use finesse weapons. That's just the wrong feel entirely.)
So, basically, I look at this, and I really like the idea that the Soldier should be able to use heavy weapons with their class DC. Extending it out, though... starts to have implications.
Weird thing: there's no proficiency difference between simple heavy weapons, martial heavy weapons, and advanced heavy weapons. Those distinctions are suddenly no longer meaningful from a proficiency standpoint. If it's area effect, then it doesn't matter how advanced it is. You've got the same skill regardless.
Weird thing: Classes base their Class DC off of a lot of things. Having the Solder be better able to support and buttress and control the thing because they're all beefy? That makes some sense. For someone with a Class DC based on Charisma, Intelligence, or Wisdom? I'm not saying that you can't torture logic hard enough to get it to cough up a rationalization for you, but it *does* start getting a bit weird.
Weird thing: it makes the "what does my Class DC mean?" question give back legit strange answers. Like, it's alchemy or it's snares or it's channeling the elements or it's punching someone just right so that they're kind of stunned once you're done... and now it's also using rocket launchers. The fact that being good at the one makes you good at the other... or that being bad at the one makes you bad at the other... that's kind of weird.
So that's why I ended up with the idea that the Solder should be able to use Class DC on heavy weapons... but maybe that's not true for everyone?
Wait, I think you mean a basic save using your armor bonus vs Attack DC?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).As an immediate consequence, though, it changes the scaling, as weapon proficiency goes up earlier than class DC.Ah. Right because saving throws get boosted in proficiency at different rates.
That might be where the Armor Bonus comes in. Make Heavy Weapon AoE effects use Attack DC vs Basic Armor Save.
Isn't that what I said?
A Reflex Save uses your Reflex bonus and you roll it.
An Armor Save would use your Armor bonus and you would also roll that.
Wait, I think you mean a basic save using your armor bonus vs Attack DC?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).As an immediate consequence, though, it changes the scaling, as weapon proficiency goes up earlier than class DC.Ah. Right because saving throws get boosted in proficiency at different rates.
That might be where the Armor Bonus comes in. Make Heavy Weapon AoE effects use Attack DC vs Basic Armor Save.
Isn't that what I said?
A Reflex Save uses your Reflex bonus and you roll it.
An Armor Save would use your Armor bonus and you would also roll that.
Yeah, you are absolutely right. Must've been thinking myself in knots XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the strongest argument for class DC really comes down to the Soldier being able to use CON as their key stat. It is without a doubt not the strongest argument for the overall discussion about area weapons, but for the Soldier specifically, it is really, really important. If the Soldier can't keep CON as their main stat, then it gets complicated, as Sanityfaerie has already explained above.
-
Keeping that in mind, I'm going to throw out a weird idea for your consideration.
Having DEX as an option for their key just doesn't feel right for this absolute unit of a class. I think you can also agree that mental stats aren't a good fit either. So for a hypothetical alternate key stat, that would leave only STR. Still thematic for heavy armor and "bracing for recoil", so far so good. Let's say we go with STR.
The pure resiliency can be mostly emulated via heavy armor, 12 HP/level and legendary Fort save progression. That plus suppression will still leave this class very tanky.
Now, attacks will be a problem. Primary Target is still DEX-based, as is any regular ranged attack. But as we no longer need Walking Armory in this scenario, we could replace that with something. Say, "Heavy Weapons Specialty"... which simply treats all area weapons as having the "brutal" trait (i.e. replace DEX with STR for ranged attack rolls). These things aren't exactly about precise aiming after all, instead holding them steady and not getting blown away by the massive recoil is thematically very appropriate. I know I said I wouldn't support a stat replacement here, but I've changed my mind ^^.
That would be controversial, but with this we could do a lot of things, including moving away from class DC (or not). One of the things it does is making melee actually a viable option, which it currently absolutely doesn't seem like. If area melee weapons are also introduced, which I very much hope for, then things gets real interesting.
Yes, it makes the class very SAD, even more so than it already is. This isn't exactly ideal. However, DEX remains valuable for Reflex saves which are a major weakness of the class (bulwark doesn't help against getting Tripped), skills and possibly AC. You are also still the frontline, so CON is a thing you want very much. How balanced this is would heavily depend on how the other SF2 classes look.
Being strong at both melee and ranged combat on the other hand isn't actually a problem imo. You will be using two-handed weapons exclusively, so you won't be using both at the exact same time. And by having a good melee option as a primarily ranged character, you only gain a very small advantage (unlike the other way around). Especially in SF2, where AoOs shouldn't be much of a problem and guns are king.
How would you feel about this?
-
TL;DR of the idea:
- STR as key stat
- 12 HP/level + legendary in fort saves (+ still heavy armor, so you are still very tanky)
- Class feature that makes all are weapons brutal (i.e. use STR instead of DEX for ranged attacks)
- introduce area melee weapons
How would you feel about this?
-
TL;DR of the idea:
- STR as key stat
- 12 HP/level + legendary in fort saves (+ still heavy armor, so you are still very tanky)
- Class feature that makes all are weapons brutal (i.e. use STR instead of DEX for ranged attacks)
- introduce area melee weapons
I don't have a good explanation for why, but str-based Soldier just doesn't feel as satisfying as con-based soldier somehow.
I'll admit that Str is the second-best, though, even under that poorly described assessment.
Though... splitting the difference a bit? We say that Soldier can take all area attacks as (con-based) Class DC, and then offer at least a few melee-weapon area attacks? I don't know how you'd balance those, exactly, but I'm sure it could be done.
I admit that the image of a soldier with some great monstrosity of a melee weapon sweeping through two or three adjacent enemies at a time is pretty cool.
I don't have a good explanation for why, but str-based Soldier just doesn't feel as satisfying as con-based soldier somehow.
The Soldier does two things - "big gun" and "can take lots of hits". STR emphasizes the former a bit more, CON the latter. Depending on what part you feel is more important thematically will determine what feels best for the key stat. That'd be my explanation. Does it fit for you?
-
Class feature that makes all are weapons brutal -> should be "area weapons" ofc...
And ofc I only notice the typo now :P
I'll just mention that Fighter gets to choose Strength or Dexterity as their key ability, no matter what else they choose. And Rogue gets to choose between Dexterity, Strength, Intelligence, and Charisma depending on subclass choice.
The Soldier does two things - "big gun" and "can take lots of hits". STR emphasizes the former a bit more, CON the latter. Depending on what part you feel is more important thematically will determine what feels best for the key stat. That'd be my explanation. Does it fit for you?
Hm.
Well... if they aren't going to make area-effect melee weapons thenone way to do it would be to ave the primary stat and class DC be con-based... except for the melee hybrid class path, who'd be allowed to make theirs str instead.
It's not the only thing driving this feeling, but making all soldiers automatically be good at melee weapons feels... off. I like that that's a class path.
I guess the other part of it is that having Con be the primary stat really underlines the "Look, I am the tank, okay?" feel.
I'll just mention that Fighter gets to choose Strength or Dexterity as their key ability, no matter what else they choose. And Rogue gets to choose between Dexterity, Strength, Intelligence, and Charisma depending on subclass choice.
That's because both of those classes represent a much more diverse set of character "archetypes". The Fighter could be both a bulky frontline warrior in heavy armor and a more swashbucklery duelist in light armor. The Soldier is rather monolithic at the moment, not that that's a bad thing.
It's not the only thing driving this feeling, but making all soldiers automatically be good at melee weapons feels... off. I like that that's a class path.
I'd prefer that as well, but on the other hand a class path would really have to do way too much heavy lifting as far as I can tell. I'd have to solve the STR/DEX split dilemma and make melee weapons actually something you want to play over your other options. Otherwise it'd have to go melee-only, which I think is a bad idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In any case, I think the persuasive reason against any type of "the enemy rolls a save vs your DC" is not on the player's end, but the enemies'. The only reason why this kind of playstyle even remotely works is because characters that do this can target multiple saves. If you don't target an enemies' weak save, you are left with a bad success chance and that chance is hard to impact, as conditions that lower saves are uncommon and harder to apply. This is the blaster caster controversy from PF2 in a different coat. I really don't want to bother with that here as well.
Currently, the Soldier's main source of everything is targeting exclusively Reflex. Primary Target does not significantly impact that. That means that any kind of enemy that has a decent Reflex save effectively makes the Soldier feel useless, with very little the Soldier can do about it. Given how ubiquitous enemy types with decent Reflex or above are, that is very problematic.
So to even make this DC thing viable, it would be essential to let you target at least Fortitude as well. It's a bit strange, but hey. Or even better, the "new" Armor save as breithauptclan suggested.
But regardless of the specifics, I'd rather just avoid the problem entirely by having the player roll against the enemies' AC instead. Much simpler, much more fun for the player. It's also a crying shame that basic attack rolls aren't a thing yet ^^
It's not the only thing driving this feeling, but making all soldiers automatically be good at melee weapons feels... off. I like that that's a class path.I'd prefer that as well, but on the other hand a class path would really have to do way too much heavy lifting as far as I can tell. I'd have to solve the STR/DEX split dilemma and make melee weapons actually something you want to play over your other options. Otherwise it'd have to go melee-only, which I think is a bad idea.
There's two easy ways to have the classpath solve the STR/DEX split.
- Have melee area weapons be a thing. The melee path gets to use Class DC (still CON) on melee area weapons.- Continue to have Con-based Class DC and class DC applied to ranged area effect weapons. The class path swaps your primary stat and class DC to use str.
The second of those two is even pretty close to free as far as power budget is concerned. Of the two... I'd probably go with the latter, actually, as it enables Athletics-based maneuvers (assuming those are a thing in SF2).
Oh, huh... and if they *are* a thing, there should totally be some sort of oversized mechanical fist weapon that you can use for athletics maneuvers and also hit people really hard with, because that is definitely a soldier image.
It's not the only thing driving this feeling, but making all soldiers automatically be good at melee weapons feels... off. I like that that's a class path.I'd prefer that as well, but on the other hand a class path would really have to do way too much heavy lifting as far as I can tell. I'd have to solve the STR/DEX split dilemma and make melee weapons actually something you want to play over your other options. Otherwise it'd have to go melee-only, which I think is a bad idea.There's two easy ways to have the classpath solve the STR/DEX split.
- Have melee area weapons be a thing. The melee path gets to use Class DC (still CON) on melee area weapons.
- Continue to have Con-based Class DC and class DC applied to ranged area effect weapons. The class path swaps your primary stat and class DC to use str.The second of those two is even pretty close to free as far as power budget is concerned. Of the two... I'd probably go with the latter, actually, as it enables Athletics-based maneuvers (assuming those are a thing in SF2).
Keep in mind that Primary Target is still a major thing that a lot of your feats (and probably features) depend on. And that still runs on DEX for ranged weapons in both of your solutions. I don't think this solves the problem, it just exchanges "melee is bad" with "ranged is bad" instead. Hence my "melee only" comment.
Oh, huh... and if they *are* a thing, there should totally be some sort of oversized mechanical fist weapon that you can use for athletics maneuvers and also hit people really hard with, because that is definitely a soldier image.
100%. Power fist is mandatory to have ^^
Keep in mind that Primary Target is still a major thing that a lot of your feats (and probably features) depend on. And that still runs on DEX for ranged weapons in both of your solutions. It doesn't solve the problem, it just exchanges "melee is bad" with "ranged is bad" instead. Hence my "melee only" comment.
So... I don't think you're ever going to get "ranged is bad" as long as you have some way to produce a decent proficiency on your ranged area attacks. Even a melee-biased version of the hybrid soldier is goign to wind up wanting battle to go somethign like this:
- Stand and blast, hitting multiple enemies with your area effect Big Gun as they get closer to you and/or scatter.
- Switch to melee once they close in and/or move out of fireball formation and/or you run out of ammo in this magazine and don't want to spend the actions to load in another
- If for some reason melee is non-viable (flying enemies) then jsut stick with the big guns.
That... actually looks pretty solid to me.
Keep in mind that Primary Target is still a major thing that a lot of your feats (and probably features) depend on. And that still runs on DEX for ranged weapons in both of your solutions. It doesn't solve the problem, it just exchanges "melee is bad" with "ranged is bad" instead. Hence my "melee only" comment.So... I don't think you're ever going to get "ranged is bad" as long as you have some way to produce a decent proficiency on your ranged area attacks. Even a melee-biased version of the hybrid soldier is goign to wind up wanting battle to go somethign like this:
- Stand and blast, hitting multiple enemies with your area effect Big Gun as they get closer to you and/or scatter.
- Switch to melee once they close in and/or move out of fireball formation and/or you run out of ammo in this magazine and don't want to spend the actions to load in another
- If for some reason melee is non-viable (flying enemies) then jsut stick with the big guns.That... actually looks pretty solid to me.
Fair enough it's not always the worst, but that doesn't mean it isn't what I would consider "bad". Beyond the very opening of a longer-ranged fights and fighting enemies you can't reach, you really have no reason to ever use a gun. All it really takes is for the fight to start in or get to about Stride range to no longer make your gun a good option. And that is going to be almost certainly very, very common. Every city, building, starship, cave, densely grown vegetation or the like will ensure that. Your gun will be moderately better version of the ranged weapon a Fighter is carrying "just in case".
Because what are you giving up? A free, extra attack (Primary Target) and everything that tags onto it. Either that or a major part of your survivability because you have to put your 16 into DEX instead of your CON. Not a good decision to have to make when you plan to be in melee a lot. In any case, CHA will probably have to take a backseat, which isn't strictly part of the discussion, but still.
This might just be my take on what classifies as "bad", but I can't agree that that is solid enough.
-
Edit: Actually, this depends a lot on how the "new" Primary Target works exactly. Could we please get some details on that? Because if it is a full attack without ammo consumption that doesn't apply the MAP of Area Attack? Then I absolutely stand by my assessment. If there are some caveats on that, especially in the MAP department, then that likely changes things.
It's not the only thing driving this feeling, but making all soldiers automatically be good at melee weapons feels... off. I like that that's a class path.I'd prefer that as well, but on the other hand a class path would really have to do way too much heavy lifting as far as I can tell. I'd have to solve the STR/DEX split dilemma and make melee weapons actually something you want to play over your other options. Otherwise it'd have to go melee-only, which I think is a bad idea.There's two easy ways to have the classpath solve the STR/DEX split.
- Have melee area weapons be a thing. The melee path gets to use Class DC (still CON) on melee area weapons.
- Continue to have Con-based Class DC and class DC applied to ranged area effect weapons. The class path swaps your primary stat and class DC to use str.The second of those two is even pretty close to free as far as power budget is concerned. Of the two... I'd probably go with the latter, actually, as it enables Athletics-based maneuvers (assuming those are a thing in SF2).
Oh, huh... and if they *are* a thing, there should totally be some sort of oversized mechanical fist weapon that you can use for athletics maneuvers and also hit people really hard with, because that is definitely a soldier image.
I like the Con DC Save area thing for the big guns, with the Soldier being the best at it. But I will admit I do really like the idea of of area Melee weapons as well, and especially Power Fists.
|
as for the resistence to Archaic weapon damage, I would imagine that should come as a part of certain new armor types. Like the old "Leather" and "Plate" are going to be armor types going forward normally.
I would imagine things like
"Reinforced" armor being an armor type that is cheaper provides better AC for it's cost, but provides no resistence to archaic weaponry.
"Polymer" would be where you find second-skin, and it would provide some resistence to archaic weapons based on different add-ons.
"Energized" would be the first one to give you AC boosts against specific types of damage, and of course the resistance
and then "Powered"
-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.
Would the bonus attack on your Primary Target have a multiple attack penalty?
-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.Would the bonus attack on your Primary Target have a multiple attack penalty?
The AOE effect is based on Class DC, and is a save-vs, so doesn't contribute to MAP.
I'd guess, though, that Primary Target would contribute to MAP. Give them a reason to do something with their third action other than just take another shot.
-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.Would the bonus attack on your Primary Target have a multiple attack penalty?The AOE effect is based on Class DC, and is a save-vs, so doesn't contribute to MAP.
I'd guess, though, that Primary Target would contribute to MAP. Give them a reason to do something with their third action other than just take another shot.
Both area fire and automatic fire have the attack trait, so they contribute to MAP. We don't know for sure if that already affects the PT roll, but from the liveplays it certainly doesn't sound like it.
It did not seem like the intent to me either. Soldier is already going to have less than maxed ranged attacks and the ability felt similar to something like Double Slice.
Anyway, that's going to make the player I sprung the chance to try out Soldier on very happy.
Both area fire and automatic fire have the attack trait, so they contribute to MAP. We don't know for sure if that already affects the PT roll, but from the liveplays it certainly doesn't sound like it.
Huh. I guess they're going to be adjusting what the attack train means, then. Having "shoot first, then area fire" be significantly more effective than the other way around doesn't seem like the intended outcome.