| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This weekend I finally get time to playtest the new classes. This playtest was made with 2 players. Me controlling the PC and a friend GMing.
It was a speedrun playtest of Fall of Plaguestone because we already have all the things done and I want to test the Soldier too and because the soldier's playtest only goes up to level 5, we chose to play a low-level adventure.
I won't describe the full adventures here because its too much to be written and instead I will go directly to my impressions and observations.
This playtest will focus into exemplar only. For other classes I will post my impressions in their respective forums.
Party composition
Build
Due the adventure happens in old Golarion I made this soldier as a Time Traveler. In order to it work completely in Golarion I talked with my GM to allow it to get access to the fieldtest weapons as formulas to allow it to craft its own weapons.
The char is a Dex based orc bombard soldier with a Rotolaser to allows it to use its Automatic Fire action to suppress enemies and uses a medium armor (but the plan is to get a heavy armor in lvl 2).
I also using the "Field Test #1 Follow-Up Changes" to get a more updated experience.
Impression
The first cool thing that I noticed in the class is how it deals with ammo. Usually in PF2 ammo is just an annoying micro-transaction they are cheap enough to a hundred of them at cost of 1 GP also this same 1 hundred has the same bulk of an one-handed sword. This basically makes then control of ammunition a one more useless thing to have to remember to keep just to remember to keep because in higher levels they are so cheap and when you are using Bag of Holding its bulk is so irrelevant that its just there to get you when you forget to buy some more ammo and is unable to attack anymore. They are so cheap and light that in some tables the GM even doesn't count it to use in bows and crossbows.
But the batteries are different. They costs more, improves over levels and Automatic Fire uses the half the magazine capacity what makes the ammo control something useful not just a forgettable mechanic the you have to keep. Auto fire requires you to consider how often you will reload limiting your action economy to how frequently you will use your weapon special action (like auto fire) and making you to use ammo as a cost to your weapons abilities. This makes all the ammo management something important and not some forgettable mechanic like arrows that its the to make the bow a bit more verisimilitude but are mechanically a dead weight.
That said about ammo consumption I have a mixed felling about the soldiers AoE attacks with auto weapons. While they are very cool when used vs a group of enemies for other side use auto-fire vs a single target looks like a waste of ammo but if you want to suppress you need to use it even being a waste. That said in order to save ammo when facing a single target I avoid to use the auto-fire even loosing the Suppression and Primary Target benefits because being forced to reload after 2 shots its not cool. So I miss some single target to use when you choose to not do an AoE with your weapon it would be cool with we get one.
Another cool thing that I miss in the soldier build is support for secondary weapons. It's a common thematic in many modern and sci-fi games to have a pistol as secondary weapon and being well trained using it once that fight close-quarters with a big gun is difficult. So would be nice if Soldiers get an option to use pistols in melee range without trigger reactions like reactive strikes (AoO) and if Quick-Swap also works with them not just with two-handed weapons.
My general impression of the class is pretty good when it is facing a large number of enemies and beings to use AoE to hit and suppress but at same time its a bit limited if you want to not use an AoE and choose to fire from a more far distance or to change to a pistol to same some ammo of your main weapon and get a more cool close range fights.
The focus on 'only good with AoE' concerns me to the point I almost feel like Soldiers should be get more out of the weapon they are holding rather than being forced into a weapon type for class abilities.
I would rather suppression be something soldiers get when using an AoE weapon but then get access to a different ability if using a different weapon type. This could easily become the 'Fighting styles' that soldier had in SF1 updated for SF2. Forcing all soldiers into AoE playstyle doesn't feel good. One of the strengths of the soldier in SF1 was that it supported multiple cool playstyles and soldier concepts. I really hope SF2 makes the base class chassis something that can support multiple playstyles and concepts rather than latching concept and playstyle directly on to class. Having lots of niche classes to support singular concepts leads to class bloat and confusion. Much better to have good class chassis that supports choices to meet lots of concepts. I would rather deeper classes with more options to support different play styles than lots of shallow 1 concept convoluted classes that get limited support.
I think that is where PF2e sometimes struggles which is why some classes fall behind (swashbuckler, investigator etc) which could have just been better thought out archetypes that could bolt onto a different class chassis. A character is already limited in number of class feats and actions per turn so risk is low.
Thanks for the writeup ^^
Yeah, automatic fire ammo consumption really is something that should get another look at. It feels really overkill and makes them kind of a downgrade to area fire weapons. You should have a lot more discretion when using them.
The focus on 'only good with AoE' concerns me to the point I almost feel like Soldiers should be get more out of the weapon they are holding rather than being forced into a weapon type for class abilities.
I would rather suppression be something soldiers get when using an AoE weapon but then get access to a different ability if using a different weapon type. This could easily become the 'Fighting styles' that soldier had in SF1 updated for SF2. Forcing all soldiers into AoE playstyle doesn't feel good. One of the strengths of the soldier in SF1 was that it supported multiple cool playstyles and soldier concepts. I really hope SF2 makes the base class chassis something that can support multiple playstyles and concepts rather than latching concept and playstyle directly on to class. Having lots of niche classes to support singular concepts leads to class bloat and confusion. Much better to have good class chassis that supports choices to meet lots of concepts. I would rather deeper classes with more options to support different play styles than lots of shallow 1 concept convoluted classes that get limited support.
Just for the Soldier on its own, that seems more like a general perception issue than a gameplay concern to me. The name "Soldier" implies a kind class that the current version isn't. They basically have nothing in common as far as I can tell, so changing the name is probably a good idea no matter what. If only to manage expectations.
The actual underlying issue here is that there is a Soldier-shaped hole in the lineup, so everyone tries to make the Soldier fit into it somehow. But that isn't the "fault" of this class. Because on its own, I think the concept works very well. Walking fortress with AoE and crowd control is a solid niche that should attract quite a few people. This kind of thing needs a lot of support to make good in this system and a Fighter-type generalist class simply can't do that. So you realistically can't go that route. That's how you end up with a class that doesn't nothing right.
I think that is where PF2e sometimes struggles which is why some classes fall behind (swashbuckler, investigator etc) which could have just been better thought out archetypes that could bolt onto a different class chassis. A character is already limited in number of class feats and actions per turn so risk is low.
Yet, the reason such classes fail isn't because their theme, mechanics niches or weapon selection are too narrow. If anything, precisely that narrow flavor attracts a lot of people. I don't think I've ever seen a Swashbuckler, Investigator or Gunslinger player be disappointed because of the narrow weapon selection or limited theme. The real problem is that these classes don't follow through on what they promise due to clunky mechanics and lack of effectiveness. I am certain if those issues were fixed and everything else wasn't even touched, then the opinions would still shift really fast.
At the end of the day, if they like the theme and the mechanics are good, then people will play it gladly.