| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A significant part of the feedback basically boils down to "this isn't anything like the 1e Soldier" or "I thought this was the SF2 Fighter, so why doesn't it do the thing" and I doubt that will stop. And that is absolutely correct, the SF2 Soldier has essentially nothing to do with the 1e version or any type of Fighter-esque combat generalist. It doesn't even have the same role. That clash will lead to a lot of unnecessary headache. So even if only to manage expectations, I think not naming the class "Soldier" would go a long way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a direct conceptual line from SF1e soldier to the current iteration. 1e soldier was often the go to choice for anyone wanting to use heavy weapons as one of the few classes that got proficiency with them from the jump and now 2e soldier is further specialized in their conceptual descendants.
Besides, what would be the replacement name?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously they’d be a Manifester.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a direct conceptual line from SF1e soldier to the current iteration. 1e soldier was often the go to choice for anyone wanting to use heavy weapons as one of the few classes that got proficiency with them from the jump and now 2e soldier is further specialized in their conceptual descendants.
From what I've got so far that is only one aspect, though, right? There is a lot more to the class than just that single build path? At least so far, I've been getting the impression that it is SF's version of the "generic weapon guy" aka the Fighter in concept. And the SF2 Soldier is very much not that.
Is that impression not accurate? Because if not, then this thread is kinda pointless.
Besides, what would be the replacement name?
Just going with "Heavy" would be a very accurate name. But that word is a little too common in relation to equipment, so maybe "Gunner"? If bulwark wasn't already a trait, that'd be a good option too.
I'm sure the team can come up with something good, I don't think they need us for that ^^
|
Seconded. Since the class's new focus is on big guns and taking hits, how's about (in addition to above Gunner and Heavy):
- Cannoneer
- Artillerist
- Marksman
- Rampart
- Bastion
- Gunhaver
- Bombardier
- Barrager (technically not a word, but, obviously enough, "one who takes, and dishes out, barrages"?)
- Gunfighter would be funny, as in, literally "a Fighter (with Guns)" but steps a bit too much on Gunslingers' toes
There's a direct conceptual line from SF1e soldier to the current iteration. 1e soldier was often the go to choice for anyone wanting to use heavy weapons as one of the few classes that got proficiency with them from the jump and now 2e soldier is further specialized in their conceptual descendants.From what I've got so far that is only one aspect, though, right? There is a lot more to the class than just that single build path? At least so far, I've been getting the impression that it is SF's version of the "generic weapon guy" aka the Fighter in concept. And the SF2 Soldier is very much not that.
Is that impression not accurate? Because if not, then this thread is kinda pointless.
Besides, what would be the replacement name?Just going with "Heavy" would be a very accurate name. But that word is a little too common in relation to equipment, so maybe "Gunner"? If bulwark wasn't already a trait, that'd be a good option too.
I'm sure the team can come up with something good, I don't think they need us for that ^^
You're not wrong about the soldier initially being 'fighter in space' but it has already been explicitly stated that they are trying to move the class to a more away from just being that. Heavy weapons without needing to jump through some hoops was pretty much the one thing soldier had in 1e that was strictly unique. The choice here was to specialize in what made soldier unique in order to give it its own identity... and also give us some very cool interactions with area weapons.
"Compensator"... for no particular reason ^^
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're not wrong about the soldier initially being 'fighter in space' but it has already been explicitly stated that they are trying to move the class to a more away from just being that. Heavy weapons without needing to jump through some hoops was pretty much the one thing soldier had in 1e that was strictly unique. The choice here was to specialize in what made soldier unique in order to give it its own identity... and also give us some very cool interactions with area weapons.
...and he's not arguing with any of that?
I think the argument that's being made is pretty simple. It's like this.
- The current Soldier is cool, and we like it.
- However, it's a pretty big departure from the old Soldier.
- Because the practical differences are so large while the names are the same, people are going to compare them and get unhappy that they're not the same. People are already doing this.
- The obvious solution is to use a different name.
That seems... reasonable to me? I mean, what's gained by having them share a name? As far as I can see the only gain is in making it really obvious that they won't be printing any other version of Soldier. Like... that's it. That doesn't seem like a huge benefit. If you can reduce the overall level of feelsbad just by slapping a different label on the class, why wouldn't you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, if you're mad about the SF2 Soldier not being mechanically or functionally similar to the SF1 Soldier, I can't wait to see how people react to the Operative (it's not a skill monkey anymore!), Solarian, and all the spellcasters.
Man, if you're mad about the SF2 Soldier not being mechanically or functionally similar to the SF1 Soldier, I can't wait to see how people react to the Operative (it's not a skill monkey anymore!), Solarian, and all the spellcasters.
The Operative isn't a skill monkey anymore? Are you sure?
I mean, it's not a tiny god of skills anymore, but I had been under the impression that it still had a larger skills budget than the other classes.
Keep 'Soldier' but force them to be in an army, at least.
But I'd prefer the switch to Gunner - who knows if the Gunner role in starship combat will still be a thing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, if you're mad about the SF2 Soldier not being mechanically or functionally similar to the SF1 Soldier, I can't wait to see how people react to the Operative (it's not a skill monkey anymore!), Solarian, and all the spellcasters.The Operative isn't a skill monkey anymore? Are you sure?
I mean, it's not a tiny god of skills anymore, but I had been under the impression that it still had a larger skills budget than the other classes.
Thurston Hillman stated as much on Know Direction Beyond recently.
Thurston Hillman stated as much on Know Direction Beyond recently.
But...that's their whole thematic thing. Like, when you start looking for examples of The Operative in the lore from which this is all derived, it's all about them being super-skilled at things. If they don't have that, then what even is their identity?
I mean, I get that the SF1 version was excessive... but if you're not leaving them any skillmonkey at all, then I feel like, yeah, the Operative needs a rename too.
Thurston Hillman stated as much on Know Direction Beyond recently.But...that's their whole thematic thing. Like, when you start looking for examples of The Operative in the lore from which this is all derived, it's all about them being super-skilled at things. If they don't have that, then what even is their identity?
I mean, I get that the SF1 version was excessive... but if you're not leaving them any skillmonkey at all, then I feel like, yeah, the Operative needs a rename too.
Maybe it depends on your definition of skillmonkey? The way I usually see the term used is to describe someone who is good at a lot of skills. There is a strong focus on quantity.
So maybe this time around the focus is on quality? Instead of being a 20 skill increase class like the Rogue, it is a normal 10 boost class. And to keep the "highly skilled" aspect, they are a lot better at one or two skills instead?
Even a PF2e rogue/investigator is less skill dominant than a SF1 operative.
Pretty sure Thurston said the Envoy was the skill class in the CRB, presumably that means they get rogue/investigator skill advancement.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We know precious little about the 2e operative. In the Know Direction Beyond interview, no one said anything about the Operative being, or not being, a skillmonkey. There was discussion about there being a sniper build for the Operative, persuant to the sniper operative spoken about in the first Reports from the Field Blog. And, at the 46 min mark, they talked a bit about class design, in that they don't want a class, like Operative, that can be good at everything, but that was in reference to everything everything, not just "skills" everything. I.E. The Operative won't be the best at melee and the best at ranged and the best at non-Cha Skills and the best at Party Face Skills. But I don't think we're to take that to mean "lol Operatives aren't skillsy anymore."
Ditto re: envoy. They said envoy's different, but still satisfies that quick quip throwing party leader vibe. Nothing was said about skillsmonkiness (or lack thereof.)
In short: it's a bit early to talk about any class being, or not being, "the skills one" (or if there will only be "one.")
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We know precious little about the 2e operative. In the Know Direction Beyond interview, no one said anything about the Operative being, or not being, a skillmonkey. There was discussion about there being a sniper build for the Operative, persuant to the sniper operative spoken about in the first Reports from the Field Blog. And, at the 46 min mark, they talked a bit about class design, in that they don't want a class, like Operative, that can be good at everything, but that was in reference to everything everything, not just "skills" everything. I.E. The Operative won't be the best at melee and the best at ranged and the best at non-Cha Skills and the best at Party Face Skills. But I don't think we're to take that to mean "lol Operatives aren't skillsy anymore."
Ditto re: envoy. They said envoy's different, but still satisfies that quick quip throwing party leader vibe. Nothing was said about skillsmonkiness (or lack thereof.)
In short: it's a bit early to talk about any class being, or not being, "the skills one" (or if there will only be "one.")
at about 58 minutes they very explicitly say that the operative is not a skill monkey, the envoy is. even using the word skill monkey specifically. they also said the operatives skills are 'to kill you'. this doesn't mean operative will have the lowest number of skills in the game, in fact they might end up in a area like swashbuckler who get extra skill feats and the like without going full rogue with the double amount of skill increases(in fact, envoy might not even get that much).
So the Operative is dialing back in on the "assassin" side of their heritage, then?
Hm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be fine with Soldier getting a new name mostly because there's no vibes to it. Though, the most famous capital-S Soldier, our beloved Mr. Jane Doe from Team Fortress 2, does have a rocket launcher.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be on board with a Gunner rename, which while technically close to the PF2 Gunslinger, does have a very distinct vibe that better conveys the new "big gun" focus.
It doesn't account for the 2h melee playstyle admittedly, and "melee Gunner build" feels a bit like an oxymoron relative to "melee Soldier build", but who knows.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the Operative is dialing back in on the "assassin" side of their heritage, then?
Hm.
*Assassinorum operative training intensives* if we get a shape changing ancestry I'm going full Callidus
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Assassinorum operative training intensives* if we get a shape changing ancestry I'm going full CallidusSo the Operative is dialing back in on the "assassin" side of their heritage, then?
Hm.
I'm personally always more of a "nobody will notice if there's no one to notice" kind of guy myself, so it's (less insane) Eversor for me :3
If they basically lean more into the hitman/fixer/infiltrator deal, then I'm 100% on board with that ^^
I'm going to second "gunner."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do we want to be explaining that a Gunslinger and a Gunner are different classes on the same engine?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think "Heavy' is fine here. If you're in a violence-prone sci-fi universe, and someone's describing your new teammates to you, and says that Sascha over there is the team's Heavy, you know what that means... and if she happens to put away the sun gun in the middle of the fight and pull out a doshko, you're not going to feel like that person told you lies
A significant part of the feedback basically boils down to "this isn't anything like the 1e Soldier" or "I thought this was the SF2 Fighter, so why doesn't it do the thing" and I doubt that will stop. And that is absolutely correct, the SF2 Soldier has essentially nothing to do with the 1e version or any type of Fighter-esque combat generalist. It doesn't even have the same role. That clash will lead to a lot of unnecessary headache. So even if only to manage expectations, I think not naming the class "Soldier" would go a long way.I couldn't disagree with this more. Soldier is the right name for the class that's trained in weapons, armor, and fighting techniques appropriate to military situations. Various builds of Soldier are possible, with advantages for close combat, sniping, or heavy weapons.
Other classes good at these things are largely unnecessary.
... what are you talking about? The new Soldier focuses exclusively on heavy weapons (currently only ranged, but possibly melee in the future) and heavy armor, nothing else.
Where are you taking the bits about fighting techniques and sniping from? It sure isn't from the SF2 material.
I'm fine with Heavy. In fact, I like it quite a bit! It would handily solve a bunch of issues where certain players get turned off by the associations with the word Soldier.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about we rename all the classes. Envoy can become Grifter, Technomancer can become Mastermind, Operative can become Thief, Mechanic can become Hacker and Soldier can become Hitter. Then it can be Space Leverage
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fine with Heavy. In fact, I like it quite a bit! It would handily solve a bunch of issues where certain players get turned off by the associations with the word Soldier.It seems kind of absurd to me to object to calling somebody specialized in using the kind of weapons and tactics that soldiers use a soldier.
When new players are flipping through the classes looking for something that interests them, they see Soldier and think army, military, boot-camp, chain of command, etc and skip over it without giving it much more thought. I've had to tell people specifically that their concept fits the soldier class, and that it's not the "camo and crew-cut" class they first thought it was.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I think of the Soldier, I picture Vasquez from Aliens, any Titan in Destiny, or the beefy-as-all-hell Troopers from The Old Republic. What is everyone else reaching for that they’re mistaking it for?
... what are you talking about? The new Soldier focuses exclusively on heavy weapons (currently only ranged, but possibly melee in the future) and heavy armor, nothing else.Where are you taking the bits about fighting techniques and sniping from? It sure isn't from the SF2 material.
Mostly that I can't imagine building a soldier class (for release, not playtest) that isn't good with sniper weapons. The rules already say they're good at close combat, and have some rules for it.
This is a Paizo product we're talking about, after all. Can you picture them making classes without lots of build options? I can't.
They have said they're going to make PF2 classes workable in SF2. Probably the expert in close combat is a Fighter.
I can imagine that very much, the sniper role will without a doubt be taken by the Operative. We have already seen the subclass for it, in fact. They could fit anti-material rifles into the Soldier, but that isn't really a sniper. I also doubt that it will be a priority, as the Soldiers job is very much frontline support. So even if it exist, it probably won't have a dedicated subclass in Core.
As for the "not a lot of build options" claim, have you seen the Champion? Because the Soldier is basically the Champion's role, but with active mitigation instead of reactive and a focus on two-handed weapons instead of sword and board. If anything, the Soldier will likely have more build options when it comes to your actual weapon choice, as unlike the Champion it actually supports more than two playstyles. Then there is the Monk, the Barbarian, the Swashbuckler and probably a few other classes that aren't really more varied than the Soldier either.
And for the PF2 compatibility, all they said was that PF2 characters will technically work and that they don't want to just make "class x in space", i.e. won't copy class mechanics. PF2's internal class balance and role distribution are almost completely irrelevant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I think of the Soldier, I picture Vasquez from Aliens, any Titan in Destiny, or the beefy-as-all-hell Troopers from The Old Republic. What is everyone else reaching for that they’re mistaking it for?
Probably the definition of the word Soldier which is "person who serves in an army". Remove the Army part and Soldier isn't really evoking much.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the beefy-as-all-hell Troopers from The Old Republic
Honestly, this is what's resonating the most with me, for SF2's 'soldiers.' Heavily armed person who sees their era's Darth Vader on the battlefield, fires off a couple rocket-propelled grenades, and then thinks "Oooooh I'mma hip-check the f@$* out of that sith" XD
(Dang, The Old Republic had the best cinematics.)
When I think of the Soldier, I picture Vasquez from Aliens, any Titan in Destiny, or the beefy-as-all-hell Troopers from The Old Republic. What is everyone else reaching for that they’re mistaking it for?Probably the definition of the word Soldier which is "person who serves in an army". Remove the Army part and Soldier isn't really evoking much.
You can include Soldiers archetype to mercenary groups too.
The main concept for a Soldier PC is usually an ex-soldier/mercenary that exited from a trained army and now is adventuring along the universe by itself.
Inside this context the archetype of a Soldier could vary immensely from a great brute with a heavy gun that focused in use of heavy weapons to a martial operative! Conceptually this archetype is more closer to a fighter than any other specialized archetype once that soldiers usually get a myriad of different martial training but usually choose to specialize in just one.
Current soldier class only focus in the heavy weapons training of this concept maybe instead of have named as Soldier the best name for it could be Artillerist.
Maybe I not expressed me well because english isn't my native language but when I mentioned Artillery I was think more about a mortarman but the high-tech sci-fi the mortar are now the big AoE guns that the most fieldtest Soldiers use.
But you get an interesting point. Would be cool if Soldier also was able to deal with artillery weapons too. Mortars, mounted machine guns, howitzer and maybe piloting heavy weapon vehicles too.
"Merc" works for me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Merc" works for me.
"Merc" to me speaks of assault rifles, daggers, grenades and maybe pistols. Doesn't really have the right feel.
I suppose you could just call them "Tank". I mean, on the one side, that's clearly their role. On the other side, they're walking around in very heavy armor with a big gun. They kind of *are* anthropomorpized tanks.
Ehhh... I still like "Heavy".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't care about the hang ups people have of changing the class focus and such, but if you do want to change then soldier is a back ground, not a class. A field operative is a soldier, a sniper is a soldier, a tank crew are all soldiers, a spell caster who's enrolled in the military also fits.
If we are going to have every class have more of a theme and not have a generalist combat class then I hope the classes we do get can cover a WIDE variety of concepts because otherwise there's going to feel like a big hole. It might get filled eventually by being able to have more interesting themes, but it does seem like a weapon generalist fits a lot of peoples idea for just want to be good with gear theme.
I'm all for themed classes, so long as they are varied and aren't mechanically inflexible. It will hurt the short term but I think would allow more classes in the long run.
As for a new name, maybe point man, SAPper (Squad Assault Person), Demolisher or Brute.
"Merc" works for me.Not for me. That implies a condition of employment, not a skillset.
edit: Soldier kinda does too, but it's broader than Mercenary.
I mean, soldier specifically implies you work for a government. Your average IRL soldier doesn't do much more than eat bad food and have intra-barracks sex anyway.
I mean, soldier specifically implies you work for a government. Your average IRL soldier doesn't do much more than eat bad food and have intra-barracks sex anyway."Merc" works for me.Not for me. That implies a condition of employment, not a skillset.
edit: Soldier kinda does too, but it's broader than Mercenary.
Doesn't the existence of soldiers-of-fortune poke a hole in that?
Doesn't the existence of soldiers-of-fortune poke a hole in that?I mean, soldier specifically implies you work for a government. Your average IRL soldier doesn't do much more than eat bad food and have intra-barracks sex anyway."Merc" works for me.Not for me. That implies a condition of employment, not a skillset.
edit: Soldier kinda does too, but it's broader than Mercenary.
Not really? That's just a euphemism, it doesn't change the common negative association of "just fights for money" that mercenaries have.