Continuation from the Mystic Blog thread to not clog that one up.
Tanks in Pathfinder work because they have lots of mechanics that either prevent enemies from getting in range of their allies, or punish enemies for focusing other creatures besides them; so far, the Soldier doesn't really do either because enemies can still shoot regardless, and won't un-suppress themselves in the immediate by focusing the tank.
Shooting the Soldier instead of the Mystic will not break suppression, and so the Soldier's toughness simply means there is less overall reason for an intelligent enemy to focus them over the Mystic or any squishier character, which to me is pretty much the opposite of what a tank would want. If the Soldier's suppression had a clause that exempted attacks against the Soldier from the debuff, then perhaps that could be an incentive, but we don't have that either.
[...] The underlying concern either way is that this approach feels like it can easily lead to a homogenization of HP due to what seems to be a lack of meaning to tanking in SF2e: either we still have tank classes who will draw incoming fire towards themselves, in which case we can still have 6 HP/level classes, or tanking in that respect is so ineffective that every class needs to be balanced on the assumption that they'll be taking fire at all times. I don't see the need to creep the minimum HP/level to 8 in a world where tanks would still be doing their job of soaking up damage just as well as in Pathfinder.
PF2 levels of tanking simply cannot work in SF2, at least not all the time. By far the biggest reason why it works in PF2 has very little to do with class abilities and pretty much everything with the system's and GM's assumptions. It's that you can keep your squishies safe by simply standing in the way of what would harm them, because most enemies don't have ranged attacks and maps tend to have limited space. It works because we allow it to, for the most part. I can make it not work in PF2 as well, simply by including significant numbers of ranged enemies and more open maps for example. Poof go the caster and the ranged attacker and the tank can do nothing about that. Ofc, I'm not gonna do that because that isn't fun.
But I think that illustrates the point that the PF2 idea of tanking isn't all that desirable/healthy either. It's pretty binary between "the squishies are essentially untouchable" (tank alive) and "the squishies are dead" (tank down).SF2 will have to find a balance point that is much more reasonable and honestly more exciting. I don't think this robs the idea of a frontliner of much meaning. All the HP/armor buff does is provide some margin of error for both sides, which I'm completely fine with. It's not like certain casters already have this in PF2 and it isn't a major concern over there either.
For example, all the Soldier has to do is stand in the open while the Mystic and the other squishies spend an action per turn to Take Cover (or already have standard cover). That doesn't make him a great target by any definition, but still better than the Mystic to a decent degree. And even if they do target the Mystic, they effectively do so at a -3 with the Soldier's suppressed condition and melee enemies will have a hard time with that -10 speed.. In either case, I think you have done your job as a frontliner.
And if more passive tanking isn't your thing, then flanking and scraping the enemy out of their hidey holes is a perfectly valid strategy as well.
The dev team at least seem to have had a good experience, so I'm pretty sure it will be fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is mostly true. I think that the Soldier would have worked better with some sort of punishment mechanic that somehow made it harder or more dangerous to try to focus on anything other than the big scary mountain of metal and muscle who was filling the air with lead. That might well be coming in later levels.
I also think that breaking LOS/LOE is going to be a thing. For the mystic in particular, a lot of their spells are going to be wanting to target allies rather than enemies, and they also have access to Network Spell. So you could definitely see a general strategy that starts with moving to whatever cover is generally available but mostly *not* taking cover every round, and then if you're taking too much heat and your HP is dropping too low, possibly pulling back to a place where you have LOS/LOE on your allies but not your enemies and continuing the fight from there. I get the feeling that cover is going to be a much bigger deal in SF2 than it was in PF2, and that feels right and proper.
So, basically, I think there's going to be a sliding scale of how much effort you put into keeping the enemies off of the squishies. Your tools aren't going to be as strong, but you'll still have some.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree significantly with the assessment of PF2e's tanking and its health: it is certainly true that the more melee-oriented combat underpins a lot of tanking in PF, as characters are tankier when they're expected to wade into melee range and take more damage for their team, and I would add that this also informs a lot of movement-based gameplay too: enemies might want to wade through the tanky front line to get to the squishy back line, which makes positioning important and gives squishy casters reason to move around if an enemy gets too close. However, what also supports this is how tanks incentivize focusing most (though not all) harm against themselves: barbarians lower their AC and disrupt enemies with Athletics checks to make enemies try to address them first, champions have a reaction that punishes enemies for attacking the champion's allies, fighters have Attack of Opportunity/Reactive Strike and a +2 to attacks for any enemy who tries to pass through them to the back line, and so on. Even organized, intelligent enemies who know the value of focusing down the squishy caster will find themselves hard-pressed to do so, because tanks have tools to hinder them all the same.
All of this brings us to the subject of the mystic, the soldier, and tanking in Starfinder: unlike combat in Pathfinder, combat in Starfinder 2e is set to be much more ranged-centric. Everyone is now in the firing line, which is why the mystic got extra HP per level, which raises the question... what are the tanks meant to be doing? As mentioned above, tanking works in Pathfinder in large part because it's possible for some characters to get themselves out of harm's way and still keep slinging arrows or spells, and because tanks excel at putting themselves in harm's way and preventing the danger zone from shifting onto the squishies. So far, I haven't seen this with the soldier, who doesn't really do anything that might make an enemy want to shoot them instead of the still-squishier mystic. If there's not meant to be such a thing as tanking in the traditional sense in Starfinder, that raises the further question: why have different HP values at all? Making a class tanky in a game where anyone can shoot anyone simply means intelligent enemies find themselves incentivized to shoot whoever will die quicker, effectively achieving the opposite of tanking.
And this I think is the problem Paizo is going to have to solve with Starfinder: much of 2e's action system and movement hinges on a game of melee and anti-melee positioning that will no longer be front and center in Starfinder, so this new edition is going to have to make sure that movement and actions in encounters stay varied and interesting. If we are to have tank classes still, then Paizo is going to have to find a way to make enemies want to shoot them rather than, say, the mystic, which I think takes us back to the dichotomy that led to this thread: in a game where tanks can continue to do their job of tanking and soaking up most damage, classes like the mystic should not need inflated HP just to survive. In a game where everyone is so constantly exposed that even classes like the mystic need extra HP to survive, then there is not much point to having tankier classes when tanking is effectively not a thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we are to have tank classes still, then Paizo is going to have to find a way to make enemies want to shoot them rather than, say, the mystic, which I think takes us back to the dichotomy that led to this thread: in a game where tanks can continue to do their job of tanking and soaking up most damage, classes like the mystic should not need inflated HP just to survive. In a game where everyone is so constantly exposed that even classes like the mystic need extra HP to survive, then there is not much point to having tankier classes when tanking is effectively not a thing.
You're making a heck of a false dichotomy here. "Either taking is just as effective in SF2 as it was in PF2, so there's no need for HP buffs to the squishies OR tanking is totally useless in SF2, and we might as well just make it so that everyone gets the same HP." No. There is space for in-between. There is space for tanks that are somewhat effective, but not the the "here's your safe space" level. There's space for "how much effort do you personally need to spend on hiding behind cover" and associated repositioning defenses. There's space for different kinds fo fights, some of which are more tank-friendly than others. (If you're dealing with a bunch of unintelligent pack critters all hopped up on violence, then they might just fixate on the Soldier first thing and not even think about targeting the squishies.)
/***************/
Side thought: Taking it into a swerve on roles... the fact that melee is going to be less of a thing opens up an interesting idea for a role that I think the Vanguard and/or Solarian might be well-suited for. Basically, it's a deep-striker that's designed to latch on to one or more of the enemy in melee and make them sad. It doesn't really have ways to prevent people from attacking the party squishies like a traditional tank, and it's probably not going to be top DPS, but it's got a fair amount of toughness, a fair bit of mobility, and the ability to shut down and/or punish ranged-primary characters that it happens to be in base-to-base contact with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who entered the hobby with 4e, I've profoundly felt the absence of the Defender's "mark" mechanic (a 'taunt' that opened up a bunch of punishment options if the marked target attacked anyone but the Defender) in every tactical combat game since. If PF2 can't have such a thing, then I'd adore if it somehow showed up here.
I'm also really hoping there's a lot of love for deployable cover.
As someone who entered the hobby with 4e, I've profoundly felt the absence of the Defender's "mark" mechanic (a 'taunt' that opened up a bunch of punishment options if the marked target attacked anyone but the Defender) in every tactical combat game since. If PF2 can't have such a thing, then I'd adore if it somehow showed up here.
I'm also really hoping there's a lot of love for deployable cover.
"Deployable cover" definitely feels like it's at least something that a Mechanic should be able to do, or perhaps some sort of tech widget in a "anyone can do this, but Mechanics have special feats that let them do it more/better" way.
Possibly... ways for PCs to get cover from each other and/or droid companions? Like, you wouldn't necessarily want to have that as a default mechanic, but the idea of a robot buddy who runs out in front so you can take cover behind them is pretty cool. Maybe an SRO feat?
Seems like a kind of cool idea for an SRO Soldier. Heavy Armor? Big Gun? Treads and a Boxy Construction? Check, check, check. "I am literally the party tank."
SF1 has plenty of deployable cover options. The Cover Seed magic item is probably the most common/cheapest, but there's Titan Shields, spells, class options, etc.
You're making a heck of a false dichotomy here. "Either taking is just as effective in SF2 as it was in PF2, so there's no need for HP buffs to the squishies OR tanking is totally useless in SF2, and we might as well just make it so that everyone gets the same HP." No.
The dichotomy is not false when the subject hinges upon a binary: either tanks have mechanics that enable some measure of tanking, or they don't. If they do, the mechanics can be modulated as much as needed so that squishier characters can exist, and so there is no need to for HP bloat. If they don't, then tanking effectively does not exist, and the additional durability of "tanks" ceases to be justified when it's only likely to get squishier characters focused first.
There is space for in-between There is space for tanks that are somewhat effective, but not the the "here's your safe space" level. There's space for "how much effort do you personally need to spend on hiding behind cover" and associated repositioning defenses.
Speaking of fallacious reasoning, the claim that tanking gives squishy casters a "safe space" in Pathfinder combat is hyperbole, one that should normally be fairly be easily dispelled by actually playing the system: just because tanks make it more difficult or less desirable to target the squishies does not mean they make it impossible to do so, and even 6 HP/level casters are expected to face up against enemies with ranged attacks, AoE, exceptional repositioning, and other methods of getting to them even with tanks around. The mere existence of tanking mechanics that at least partially mitigate that is enough for casters like the psychic, witch, or wizard to stay squishy and still survive, and it's those mechanics that are currently missing entirely from Starfinder 2e so far.
There's space for different kinds fo fights, some of which are more tank-friendly than others. (If you're dealing with a bunch of unintelligent pack critters all hopped up on violence, then they might just fixate on the Soldier first thing and not even think about targeting the squishies.)
Why though? This is special pleading: given equal opportunity, even an animal is likely to pick off the more fragile target before the tougher one. At best, an entirely mindless enemy would be just as likely to focus one character over the other, which means that all else held equal, the mystic is still more likely to get focused in nearly all circumstances where enemies can target every party member equally easily. Expecting every GM to consistently make enemies self-defeatingly stupid just to maintain the illusion of tanking is not, in my opinion, sound design, and I sincerely doubt this is what Paizo expects either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that tanks often provide an extremely safe environment for less sturdy characters is very much not hyperbole, especially in APs and even more so when you actually have two frontliners. I've played one of the probably most unsuited tank frontliners there is - a two-handed Tyrant - for well over a year and even that worked extremely well despite our GM very much not holding back. It isn't just my table either, I've seen/watched this phenomenon at plenty of others.
I'm very much with Sanityfaerie here - just because frontliners cannot prevent damage to their team to the degree they could before doesn't mean they have no reason to exist.
The Soldier is still a very effective anchor point for your team's formation. Positioning (and by extension LOE/LOS) will be even more important than in PF2, simply because otherwise cover will ruin your day. From that standpoint alone the Soldier is amazing, as they can outright prevent rapid flanking movements and are hard to dislodge to dislodge.
I also don't understand why everyone would still shoot the mystic while you are protecting them. A Soldier has far more HP due to 10HP/lvl plus their insane CON modifier and has +1 AC due to heavy armor, but that still makes them a halfway decent target compared to the Mystic with their +2 or +4 circumstance bonus to AC alone. That plus the suppressed condition is an amazing damage mitigation ability, extremely so against melee enemies. Worst case scenario is that you have created a lose/lose situation for the enemy. On top of that the Soldier gets far better damage dealing capabilities than most PF2 tank builds. And who knows, maybe the Soldier will get overwatch/perimeter defense type abilities (basically ranged AoO of sorts) later on?
And it's not like PF2-style tanking will fully go away. In a narrow environments like a space station, a starship, natural environment or just a good old building, it'll make a return. Melee enemies aren't gone either.
---
What I think we'll also see is somewhat of a distribution of responsibility in that regard, which I'm pretty happy about. In PF2 safety is first and foremost the frontliner's job. Everyone is beholden to not get caught out of position and casters can contribute a lot, but for the most part the rest of the team is on offense or objective duty. In SF2, safety is now everyone's job. To that end I also really hope that deployable/mobile cover options will be given due consideration.
We'll also probably see off-tanks (classes that are quite sturdy but focus on offense) taking a more central role. The scenario that Sanityfaerie in their second post and I in my original one is still a perfectly valid way of keeping your team safe. Offense being the best defense and all that.
For my part I'm perfectly happy with going a bit away from the old "stand in front, get hit in the face repeatedly until you go down" style. I just hope that nobody gets the idea to implement taunt abilities. Those are fine in video games, but not in TTRPGs.
The fact that tanks often provide an extremely safe environment for less sturdy characters is very much not hyperbole, especially in APs and even more so when you actually have two frontliners. I've played one of the probably most unsuited tank frontliners there is - a two-handed Tyrant - for well over a year and even that worked extremely well despite our GM very much not holding back. It isn't just my table either, I've seen/watched this phenomenon at plenty of others.
Forgive me, but if your casters managed to keep themselves safe despite your champion lacking a reaction that punishes enemies for damaging party members besides yourself, I'm not sure your character ought to be the one taking credit here. From my own play experience, casters are only "extremely safe" when the GM throws monsters in an encounter only at the frontmost member of the party, and even so, focusing fire so heavily on one party member with even a mildly difficult encounter is likely to not end well for the tank.
The Soldier is still a very effective anchor point for your team's formation. Positioning (and by extension LOE/LOS) will be even more important than in PF2, simply because otherwise cover will ruin your day. From that standpoint alone the Soldier is amazing, as they can outright prevent rapid flanking movements and are hard to dislodge to dislodge.
I also don't understand why everyone would still shoot the mystic while you are protecting them. A Soldier has far more HP due to 10HP/lvl plus their insane CON modifier and has +1 AC due to heavy armor, but that still makes them a halfway decent target compared to the Mystic with their +2 or +4 circumstance bonus to AC alone. That plus the suppressed condition is an amazing damage mitigation ability, extremely so against melee enemies. Worst case scenario is that you have created a lose/lose situation for the enemy. On top of that the Soldier gets far better damage dealing capabilities than most PF2 tank builds. And who knows, maybe the Soldier will get overwatch/perimeter defense type abilities (basically ranged AoO of sorts) later on?
Why is the mystic taking cover but not the soldier? Suppression may limit flanking, but it will not stop enemies from taking cover, and if LOS is broken between enemies and the mystic, that impedes the mystic's effectiveness as well. At the end of the day, what you are describing still does not generate a situation where the enemy can't reach the mystic as easily as the mystic can reach the enemy, and even a mystic taking cover will have equal or less AC than the soldier, so we're still at the same problem.
And it's not like PF2-style tanking will fully go away. In a narrow environments like a space station, a starship, natural environment or just a good old building, it'll make a return. Melee enemies aren't gone either.
Melee-exclusive combat is gone. Even in narrow environments, you are still likely to deal with ranged threats.
What I think we'll also see is somewhat of a distribution of responsibility in that regard, which I'm pretty happy about. In PF2 safety is first and foremost the frontliner's job. Everyone is beholden to not get caught out of position and casters can contribute a lot, but for the most part the rest of the team is on offense or objective duty. In SF2, safety is now everyone's job. To that end I also really hope that deployable/mobile cover options will be given due consideration.
This is the problem I am pointing out: if safety is everyone's job at the same time, then we end up with a homogenization of durability, because tanking as a role is effectively dead. The end result to making a class like the soldier more durable is that you paint a bigger target on the mystic's back, because the soldier currently possesses no tools that create an imbalance in target access. It's not necessarily bad for tanking to not exist and for everyone to just be more offense-oriented, it just makes for a less diverse environment, and even fewer distinct niches to fill.
We'll also probably see off-tanks (classes that are quite sturdy but focus on offense) taking a more central role. The scenario that Sanityfaerie in their second post and I in my original one is still a perfectly valid way of keeping your team safe. Offense being the best defense and all that.
This may well end up just being a difference in semantics, but if you have a character whose role is specifically to draw focus to themselves, then you have a tank. The "off-tank" you are describing here is effectively how Pathfinder's barbarian works, in that the class launches themselves into the thick of melee, heavily disrupts enemies around them, and makes themselves a much more immediately available and desirable target than the rest of their team. Contrary to the assumption you seem to be making here, tanks in Pathfinder can and do deal significant damage; it is not an either-or situation. The problem with your and Sanityfaerie's conjecture, however, is that injecting this kind of tanking into Starfinder will put the soldier in an even more awkward position, given that they lack that kind of mechanic. I certainly would welcome those kinds of tanks, as that would once again eliminate the need to bloat the mystic's HP per level (or they could just become a 3-slot caster, either would be fine), but it does highlight how the soldier, at least in the state we saw them in the field test, could use a lot more tweaking.
For my part I'm perfectly happy with going a bit away from the old "stand in front, get hit in the face repeatedly until you go down" style.
This to me suggests that you may be running tanking slightly differently from how it's meant to work in Pathfinder, because in Pathfinder, getting hit until you drop to 0 is not how tanks are meant to operate. You are certainly meant to take the bulk of the enemy's damage, but your survival is just as important as anyone else's, and you're not expected to risk death just so that the entire rest of the team can avoid taking a scratch. In mechanical terms, it's also not terribly optimal to concentrate damage on a single team member when the party member with Ward Medic is going to be a lot better at healing the entire team at once. This is certainly how tanking often works in MMOs, and even in other TTRPGs, but dropping to 0 is a much bigger deal in 2e, and significantly less optimal than distributing at least some of that damage away to other party members.
Forgive me, but if your casters managed to keep themselves safe despite your champion lacking a reaction that punishes enemies for damaging party members besides yourself, I'm not sure your character ought to be the one taking credit here. From my own play experience, casters are only "extremely safe" when the GM throws monsters in an encounter only at the frontmost member of the party, and even so, focusing fire so heavily on one party member with even a mildly difficult encounter is likely to not end well for the tank.
That's just the narrow corridor technique in action plus interference by the backup frontliner and a decent caster. Also, pretty much no tank has such a reaction, so it isn't nearly as essential as you describe.
Why is the mystic taking cover but not the soldier? Suppression may limit flanking, but it will not stop enemies from taking cover, and if LOS is broken between enemies and the mystic, that impedes the mystic's effectiveness as well. At the end of the day, what you are describing still does not generate a situation where the enemy can't reach the mystic as easily as the mystic can reach the enemy, and even a mystic taking cover will have equal or less AC than the soldier, so we're still at the same problem.
You wanted me to describe a way that the Soldier could draw fire away from the Mystic. I did, so I don't understand your reasoning here. The Soldier has the advanatge that they don't need to take cover, they can take the fire for quite a while.
The Mystic also barely cares about LOS. The only spells that worry about cover are attack spells (which suck on anyone but the Magus in any case) and targeted Reflex save spells. Neither the divine nor the primal spell list are big on either of those. You basically just need to see the enemy, which you can even with greater cover. Enemy spellcasters on the other hand are rare and enemy ranged attackers very much care about cover.
Lastly, the AC difference between a Mystic and Soldier is 1 for the vast majority of the game (i.e. starting at level 5 or even 1 if you take 12 STR for some reason). That if armor stats remain the same as in PF2. Coming from that even just standard cover gives +2 to AC, so in the scenario I described above the Mystic would have at least 1 more AC than the Soldier.
Melee-exclusive combat is gone. Even in narrow environments, you are still likely to deal with ranged threats.
Not necessarily. I'm sure there will still be quite a few enemies that are melee-only. It won't be the standard, but that's not the same thing as being nonexistent.
This is the problem I am pointing out: if safety is everyone's job at the same time, then we end up with a homogenization of durability, because tanking as a role is effectively dead. The end result to making a class like the soldier more durable is that you paint a bigger target on the mystic's back, because the soldier currently possesses no tools that create an imbalance in target access. It's not necessarily bad for tanking to not exist and for everyone to just be more offense-oriented, it just makes for a less diverse environment, and even fewer distinct niches to fill.
The difference in durability between a Soldier and a Mystic is still extreme. The durability buff for casters is neat, but 8HP with only light armor (without DEX as KAS) and little in the way of defensive abilities or mobility is still bad.
And just because you continue to claim that tanking is dead doesn't make it true. We already gave you three credible ways that tanking could work. It's just one niche (face tank) getting smaller and several others (offtank, striker, controller) getting larger.
This may well end up just being a difference in semantics, but if you have a character whose role is specifically to draw focus to themselves, then you have a tank. The "off-tank" you are describing here is effectively how Pathfinder's barbarian works, in that the class launches themselves into the thick of melee, heavily disrupts enemies around them, and makes themselves a much more immediately available and desirable target than the rest of their team. Contrary to the assumption you seem to be making here, tanks in Pathfinder can and do deal significant damage; it is not an either-or situation. The problem with your and Sanityfaerie's conjecture, however, is that injecting this kind of tanking into Starfinder will put the soldier in an even more awkward position, given that they lack that kind of mechanic. I certainly would welcome those kinds of tanks, as that would once again eliminate the need to bloat the mystic's HP per level (or they could just become a 3-slot caster, either would be fine), but it does highlight how the soldier, at least in the state we saw them in the field test, could use a lot more tweaking.
That's simply because the Soldier isn't designed for that style of tanking as far as we know, that'll likely be a job for the Solarian and a way for PF2 classes to fit in. It isn't a problem with either the class or our supposition.
I'll also point out that that is a very limited definition of tanking. That's also why I prefer the term "frontliner", because it is less focused on just eating damage. Any form of damage mitigation and battlefield control accomplishes much of the same thing, so I see no reason to exclude those.
And again, no amount of tanking that is reasonable will allow for a 6HP/no armor caster in SF2. AoE threats being common alone makes that impossible.
This to me suggests that you may be running tanking slightly differently from how it's meant to work in Pathfinder, because in Pathfinder, getting hit until you drop to 0 is not how tanks are meant to operate. You are certainly meant to take the bulk of the enemy's damage, but your survival is just as important as anyone else's, and you're not expected to risk death just so that the entire rest of the team can avoid taking a scratch. In mechanical terms, it's also not terribly optimal to concentrate damage on a single team member when the party member with Ward Medic is going to be a lot better at healing the entire team at once. This is certainly how tanking often works in MMOs, and even in other TTRPGs, but dropping to 0 is a much bigger deal in 2e, and significantly less optimal than distributing at least some of that damage away to other party members.
Ofc that was a mild exaggeration, but that's just how it works out in APs quite often, not a deliberate strategy. With highly limited space to maneuver, having to scrape parts of the frontline off the pavement is not uncommon, particularly early on. That's why you have a second frontliner to help you out, but doesn't remove the core problem. Not that this was an issue later, higher level champions are incredibly hard to kill if you have decent teamwork.
Lastly, the AC difference between a Mystic and Soldier is 1 for the vast majority of the game
this is just not true. im gonna go out on a limb here and guess that soldier will have champion armor progression and mystic will have caster progression, which means by level 7 soldier will always has a +2 from proficiency until level 17, when it becomes a +4. even if they get bumped up to other martial armor progression for some reason, mystic will still be behind by 2 for more then half the levels.
That's just the narrow corridor technique in action plus interference by the backup frontliner and a decent caster. Also, pretty much no tank has such a reaction, so it isn't nearly as essential as you describe.
Expecting every encounter to take place in a narrow corridor is already not a sound assumption, but you are also incorrect, as the fighter's Attack of Opportunity is excellent at preventing enemies from reaching the back line, especially so in narrow corridors. Just so that we avoid making any straw men, the point being made isn't that a tank specifically needs a reaction to draw focus to themselves, but that they merely need some sort of mechanic conducive to it. Tanks in general do have such mechanics, though evil champions do not, which is why they don't really function as tanks so much as durable melee damage-dealers. From what you've described below, it sounds like your GM did have the opportunity to just have enemies move into the back line and start digging in, but simply chose to focus your character instead.
You wanted me to describe a way that the Soldier could draw fire away from the Mystic. I did, so I don't understand your reasoning here. The Soldier has the advanatge that they don't need to take cover, they can take the fire for quite a while.
As pointed out already, a mystic taking cover is still going to be squishier and easier to hit than a soldier out in the open, so your argument doesn't work, but your claim that the soldier doesn't need to take cover is itself questionable: what does a soldier do with their third action that makes taking cover less valuable than doing something else compared to the mystic? Why isn't everyone taking cover if doing so would have your party take less damage overall? If all a character needs to do to "tank" is to just not take cover, why does that justify a need for only some characters to be more durable when everyone could do this just as well?
The Mystic also barely cares about LOS. The only spells that worry about cover are attack spells (which suck on anyone but the Magus in any case) and targeted Reflex save spells. Neither the divine nor the primal spell list are big on either of those. You basically just need to see the enemy, which you can even with greater cover. Enemy spellcasters on the other hand are rare and enemy ranged attackers very much care about cover.
The majority of Reflex save spells are in fact part of the primal list, so once again you are incorrect here. Spellcasters are neither rare in Pathfinder nor in SF1e, so I'm not seeing why we're relying on the assumption that enemies will never be throwing spells or using items that can deal with cover. Really, what's becoming apparent here is that your primary means of trying to justify your stance here is to rely on conjecture, which in my opinion doesn't make for a terribly solid argument.
Lastly, the AC difference between a Mystic and Soldier is 1 for the vast majority of the game (i.e. starting at level 5 or even 1 if you take 12 STR for some reason). That if armor stats remain the same as in PF2. Coming from that even just standard cover gives +2 to AC, so in the scenario I described above the Mystic would have at least 1 more AC than the Soldier.
This has already been disproven above, but just to make it clear, the soldier will almost certainly have 3 more AC than the mystic at most stages of the game, and if they get champion or monk-level progression that would go up to 5 more AC. Even with cover involved, the mystic is still likely to find themselves the easier target.
Not necessarily. I'm sure there will still be quite a few enemies that are melee-only. It won't be the standard, but that's not the same thing as being nonexistent.
The developers explicitly stated ranged is going be the default mode of combat, to the point where they will be allowing flying ancestries at level 1 just because doing so would no longer break encounters. Even the wolves in Starfinder shoot lasers. You are once again relying on conjecture to support your argument, so effectively nothing of substance.
That's simply because the Soldier isn't designed for that style of tanking as far as we know, that'll likely be a job for the Solarian and a way for PF2 classes to fit in. It isn't a problem with either the class or our supposition.
I'll also point out that that is a very limited definition of tanking. That's also why I prefer the term "frontliner", because it is less focused on just eating damage. Any form of damage mitigation and battlefield control accomplishes much of the same thing, so I see no reason to exclude those.
I pointed out that this is a question of semantics; it doesn't seem like you read that part of the post you're responding to. If your character is not focused on eating damage, they have no reason to be durable, which is why Pathfinder frontliners like the rogue or magus have 8 HP/level. Your own definitions here are needlessly confusing and don't map onto who actually is or isn't a frontliner, particularly as the soldier is primarily a ranged combatant.
Really, it does not have to be complicated: if a character is meant to take a lot of damage, they're a tank, and in order to take more damage than others on the team, a tank needs to be able to make themselves the more desirable target. As already pointed out, Pathfinder classes do this in a variety of ways, but the soldier does not. If they are meant to be a tank, they are currently not doing that very well.
And again, no amount of tanking that is reasonable will allow for a 6HP/no armor caster in SF2. AoE threats being common alone makes that impossible.
Putting aside how Pathfinder itself has a lot of AoE and still manages to have 6 HP/level caster, this too reeks of narrow corridor syndrome, in what appears to be an even more pronounced version of white rooming: unless this is explicitly the mission statement of Starfinder 2e (and so far it's not), combat encounters are not going to take place exclusively, nor even primarily, in narrow corridors. Paizo's playtest encounters did not take place in narrow corridors, and in fact one of the most common criticisms of the soldier, which Paizo themselves acknowledged and corroborated with their own playtesting, is that it is easy enough for people to space themselves out in encounters that the soldier's heavy AoE focus often ends up feeling like a detriment. AoE is really not the issue here.
Ofc that was a mild exaggeration, but that's just how it works out in APs quite often, not a deliberate strategy. With highly limited space to maneuver, having to scrape parts of the frontline off the pavement is not uncommon, particularly early on. That's why you have a second frontliner to help you out, but doesn't remove the core problem. Not that this was an issue later, higher level champions are incredibly hard to kill if you have decent teamwork.
So is it an exaggeration, or is it not? Because what you are describing has very little to do with my own experience of combat in PF2e, and looking through the game's APs, the large majority feature plenty of open spaces for most of their encounters, certainly more than enough space for the party to not have to constantly bunch together as if openly inviting a Fireball. It sounds like you decided to base your entire opinion of combat in Pathfinder, and now Starfinder, off of Abomination Vaults, or some similarly old AP that features more cramped encounters.
Lastly, the AC difference between a Mystic and Soldier is 1 for the vast majority of the gamethis is just not true. im gonna go out on a limb here and guess that soldier will have champion armor progression and mystic will have caster progression, which means by level 7 soldier will always has a +2 from proficiency until level 17, when it becomes a +4. even if they get bumped up to other martial armor progression for some reason, mystic will still be behind by 2 for more then half the levels.
We have no information to that effect. Claiming my statement is wrong based on pure guesswork proves exactly nothing.
As pointed out already, a mystic taking cover is still going to be squishier and easier to hit than a soldier out in the open, so your argument doesn't work, but your claim that the soldier doesn't need to take cover is itself questionable: what does a soldier do with their third action that makes taking cover less valuable than doing something else compared to the mystic? Why isn't everyone taking cover if doing so would have your party take less damage overall? If all a character needs to do to "tank" is to just not take cover, why does that justify a need for only some characters to be more durable when everyone could do this just as well?
A Mystic behind cover has better AC than a Soldier who is not, at least after the first few levels (and probably not for levels 11 and 12). So they are objectively not easier to hit. They are more squishy, unless maybe they Take Cover to get greater cover, but they are still a terrible target.
And that the Soldier doesn't need to take cover is in no way addressed by your counterargument. I've never stated that you shouldn't Again, you wanted me to give you a way for the Soldier to draw fire and I've given you one. And there should be plenty of situations where taking cover is not the best thing a Soldier can do. What that is is highly situational, but moving to a better position should come up regularly. Even if that opens you up to potentially taking more damage, you have the survivability to make that trade-off well worth it. You are also suppressing and damaging the enemy meanwhile, so not taking cover is hardly the only thing you are doing to tank.
The majority of Reflex save spells are in fact part of the primal list, so once again you are incorrect here.
I put the qualifier "targeted" in there for a good reason, so no.
Spellcasters are neither rare in Pathfinder nor in SF1e, so I'm not seeing why we're relying on the assumption that enemies will never be throwing spells or using items that can deal with cover. Really, what's becoming apparent here is that your primary means of trying to justify your stance here is to rely on conjecture, which in my opinion doesn't make for a terribly solid argument.
I don't know about SF1, but enemies with significant spellcasting capabilities are rare as hell in PF2. And I never claimed that the tactic I described will always work, that's simply your assumption. No tactic works in all situations. Thursty already said that AoE threats will be much more common in SF2, with area weapons, grenades and monster abilities to that effect. I merely stated that many enemies will care about cover, which is correct.
This has already been disproven above, but just to make it clear, the soldier will almost certainly have 3 more AC than the mystic at most stages of the game, and if they get champion or monk-level progression that would go up to 5 more AC. Even with cover involved, the mystic is still likely to find themselves the easier target.
Where exactly?
The Mystic starts out with 17 AC, the Soldier with 18. Then the difference in favour of the Soldier goes up to 2 at level 2 (or during level 1) due to heavy armor. At level 5, the gap will go back to 1 as the Mystic gets their last point in DEX to fill out their armor requirements. That is all the info we have so far. We can reasonably assume that the Soldier will have at least the accelerated armor progression like the Fighter. But that is only 4 levels of +3 in total, which is far from "most stages of the game", so I've no idea where you are taking your certainty from. So we have at most 7-8 levels where my statement is not true. Granted, calling 12-13 levels the vast majority is a bit of an overstatement, but still not wrong.
It could just as well be that the light armor standard is +2/3 with no need for STR instead of the current +1/4. But that is pure guesswork, just as the Soldier getting the Champion progression is.
I pointed out that this is a question of semantics; it doesn't seem like you read that part of the post you're responding to. If your character is not focused on eating damage, they have no reason to be durable, which is why Pathfinder frontliners like the rogue or magus have 8 HP/level.
Durability grants independence. Just because you are not a dedicated tank doesn't mean you have no reason to be durable. Most Rangers, Swashbucklers and many Fighters and even quite a few Barbarians aren't played as tanks, yet they are still durable.
---
That's all I've got time for right now (sorry :/), but I think at this point we have to agree to disagree on this whole thing and just see how it works out. I don't think we are making significant progress here.
Should a Soldier be able to lay down a withering field of fire (assuming the right weapons) so the enemy has little choice but to try and take them out because they're causing too much damage to ignore? ABSOLUTELY.
Should a Solarian be able (assuming the right weapons and attack bonuses) that is devastating the other side, or interfering with their attacks to such a degree that enemies don't have a thought to spare about shooting at the Mystic? ABSOLUTELY.
Should a Technomancer be able to blast the areas where the enemies are with spells to a degree that makes them the obvious target to attack? ABSOLUTELY.
Should a Mechanic who's operating a drone swarm be interfering with so many enemies or making so many attacks that they draw all the attention away from the Soldier, Solarian, Mystic, and Technomancer because they simply have to deal with that threat first? ABSOLUTELY.
Should a Mystic who's throwing out powerful spells and healing allies every turn make themselves such a nuisance that the enemy decides they need to die first? ABSOLUTELY.
Should a Witchwarper be able to disrupt enemies so hard by bringing in strange phenomena from alternate realities that the enemy has to deal with them before getting ahead in the fight? ABSOLUTELY.
... see how easy it is to make this kind of argument for literally any class? If every class is getting balanced around dealing lots of damage or applying lots of support, that still leads us to an environment where literally any team member can paint a target on their back just by doing what they do, which still leads to an environment where tactically-minded enemies are still going to be better off focusing the squishier target first.
A Mystic behind cover has better AC than a Soldier who is not, at least after the first few levels (and probably not for levels 11 and 12). So they are objectively not easier to hit. They are more squishy, unless maybe they Take Cover to get greater cover, but they are still a terrible target.
Basing yourself exclusively off of early levels when we both know the soldier is set to have martial-level armor progression and the mystic caster-level progression is intellectually dishonest, plain and simple. The Soldier is visibly designed to have high AC (they even get proficiency in heavy armor), and given what we know about how that works in 2e, that is going to outstrip the protection offered by standard cover on the mystic. Going into greater cover each time is heavily action-intensive, and is liable to significantly hamper your mystic more than it will help them.
And that the Soldier doesn't need to take cover is in no way addressed by your counterargument. I've never stated that you shouldn't Again, you wanted me to give you a way for the Soldier to draw fire and I've given you one. And there should be plenty of situations where taking cover is not the best thing a Soldier can do. What that is is highly situational, but moving to a better position should come up regularly. Even if that opens you up to potentially taking more damage, you have the survivability to make that trade-off well worth it. You are also suppressing and damaging the enemy meanwhile, so not taking cover is hardly the only thing you are doing to tank.
This is a lie, as I have addressed your argument directly here:
As pointed out already, a mystic taking cover is still going to be squishier and easier to hit than a soldier out in the open, so your argument doesn't work, but your claim that the soldier doesn't need to take cover is itself questionable: what does a soldier do with their third action that makes taking cover less valuable than doing something else compared to the mystic? Why isn't everyone taking cover if doing so would have your party take less damage overall? If all a character needs to do to "tank" is to just not take cover, why does that justify a need for only some characters to be more durable when everyone could do this just as well?
Emphasis added. It is you who are failing to respond adequately to counterarguments, and relying on conjecture rather than substantiated fact.
I put the qualifier "targeted" in there for a good reason, so no.
Cover provides a bonus against area of effect Reflex saves, so you are still incorrect, but on top of that those targeted Reflex saves are still more likely to be in the primal list. You can shift the goalposts as much as you like, you are still wrong.
I don't know about SF1, but enemies with significant spellcasting capabilities are rare as hell in PF2. And I never claimed that the tactic I described will always work, that's simply your assumption. No tactic works in all situations. Thursty already said that AoE threats will be much more common in SF2, with area weapons, grenades and monster abilities to that effect. I merely stated that many enemies will care about cover, which is correct.
Spellcasters aren't rare in PF2e at all, and your argument was specifically this:
Enemy spellcasters on the other hand are rare and enemy ranged attackers very much care about cover.
So not only is this not what you've said, I have in fact already answered your point succinctly by pointing out that your claim here is conjecture, as nothing prevents enemies from using existing tools that bypass cover or provide additional means of protection for themselves besides cover. Your line of argumentation is almost entirely conjectural.
Where exactly?
Here:
this is just not true. im gonna go out on a limb here and guess that soldier will have champion armor progression and mystic will have caster progression, which means by level 7 soldier will always has a +2 from proficiency until level 17, when it becomes a +4. even if they get bumped up to other martial armor progression for some reason, mystic will still be behind by 2 for more then half the levels.
You can pretend that this is merely "guesswork" and only base yourself off of very early levels, but as already pointed out, that is a weak and intellectually bankrupt defense that says nothing useful about the game's actual math and its impact on gameplay.
It could just as well be that the light armor standard is +2/3 with no need for STR instead of the current +1/4. But that is pure guesswork, just as the Soldier getting the Champion progression is.
Just to be very clear on this: the soldier does not need champion-level AC progression to have 3 more AC than the mystic at most levels, making the mystic an easier target even under standard cover. If they end up with champion-level AC progression, that difference would go up to 5, making the soldier a harder target to hit even with the mystic under greater cover.
Durability grants independence. Just because you are not a dedicated tank doesn't mean you have no reason to be durable. Most Rangers, Swashbucklers and many Fighters and even quite a few Barbarians aren't played as tanks, yet they are still durable.
Please actually read what I've said:
If your character is not focused on eating damage, they have no reason to be durable
All of the classes you mention are going to be eating damage as part of their usual mode of play. Tanking is part of their playstyle, and the concept of a "dedicated tank" simply does not exist in Pathfinder, as even the champion does many more things besides soak damage.
That's all I've got time for right now (sorry :/), but I think at this point we have to agree to disagree on this whole thing and just see how it works out. I don't think we are making significant progress here.
My apologies if this and the above come across as harsh, but the reason we are making no headway here is because you have so far focused almost exclusively on contradicting what others have been saying, rather than having an actual discussion. The intent here is not to attack you, much less Starfinder 2e or Paizo, so much as point out that there are certain implications to tinkering with SF2e's balance as has been done so far, and consider alternative means of achieving similar goals, along with their pros and cons. So long as your stance is to deny the very existence of these implications and alternatives at all costs, this conversation will remain a non-starter.
Basing yourself exclusively off of early levels when we both know the soldier is set to have martial-level armor progression and the mystic caster-level progression is intellectually dishonest, plain and simple. The Soldier is visibly designed to have high AC (they even get proficiency in heavy armor), and given what we know about how that works in 2e, that is going to outstrip the protection offered by standard cover on the mystic. Going into greater cover each time is heavily action-intensive, and is liable to significantly hamper your mystic more than it will help them.
One, I specifically said that that is true outside of the early levels, so I'm saying the opposite of what you claim.
Two, there are exactly two classes in PF2 who can have better AC than a Mystic in standard cover (once they fill their armour out) and that's the DEX Monk and the Champion (starting at 7). After all, you need +2 above standard to achieve this after level 5, so you need a higher proficiency. We know that the Soldier is designed to be tanky, we know literally nothing about it's AC progression beyond it getting heavy armor. The Fighter gets heavy armor as well and doesn't meet your claim outside of the 4 gap levels either.
Cover provides a bonus against area of effect Reflex saves, so you are still incorrect, but on top of that those targeted Reflex saves are still more likely to be in the primal list. You can shift the goalposts as much as you like, you are still wrong.
Cover only helps against AoEs when the cover is between you and its point of origin. It is trivial to prevent that by simply placing the point behind the enemy. Most of the Reflex spells on the primal list - and I'm pretty sure on every other list as well - are AoE and I don't think I even know one which is targeted on the divine one.
Emphasis added. It is you who are failing to respond adequately to counterarguments, and relying on conjecture rather than substantiated fact.
I talked about the Soldier not necessarily needing to Take Cover, because they can take it and do something else and as a bonus draw a bit of fire away from others. I also said that you aren't merely not taking cover, your suppression is directly defending your team. You basically responded with "but Take Cover is really good" and "if that all you do, what's the point". That isn't a counterargument.
So not only is this not what you've said, I have in fact already answered your point succinctly by pointing out that your claim here is conjecture, as nothing prevents enemies from using existing tools that bypass cover or provide additional means of protection for themselves besides cover. Your line of argumentation is almost entirely conjectural.
Maybe at your table actual spellcasters are more common, but in most APs you'll barely see a handful across 6 books. Be that as it may, it doesn't change the argument. Just because an enemy might have a couple of grenades doesn't mean your cover is suddenly not good anymore. Most enemies will still be affected by it, so it is a perfectly valid strategy. I really don't know what you want from me here.
You can pretend that this is merely "guesswork" and only base yourself off of very early levels, but as already pointed out, that is a weak and intellectually bankrupt defense that says nothing useful about the game's actual math and its impact on gameplay
One, you might want to read more carefully before throwing around insults, as pointed out above. Two, I don't need to pretend it is guesswork, because it literally is.
Just to be very clear on this: the soldier does not need champion-level AC progression to have 3 more AC than the mystic at most levels, making the mystic an easier target even under standard cover. If they end up with champion-level AC progression, that difference would go up to 5, making the soldier a harder target to hit even with the mystic under greater cover.
I even made a whole paragraph outlining how your claim is objectively wrong, based on hard numbers. Just baselessly claiming the opposite isn't helpful.
So I'll do it again in summary: The Mystic doesn't fill out its armor until level 5, which means it is 1 below the standard AC (3 DEX plus 1 AC from armor for a total of 4 instead of the usual 5). The Soldier is 1 above standard due to heavy armor, so +2 above the Mystic for a few levels. By 5 the Mystic is at standard, so apart from possible gap levels like on the Fighter, the only difference we know about from that point is the +1 due to heavy armor.
All of the classes you mention are going to be eating damage as part of their usual mode of play. Tanking is part of their playstyle, and the concept of a "dedicated tank" simply does not exist in Pathfinder, as even the champion does many more things besides soak damage.
You said "focused on eating damage". That is not even remotely the same as being able to take a hit. Sorry, I can only answer to what you write, I can't look into your head.
My apologies if this and the above come across as harsh, but the reason we are making no headway here is because you have so far focused almost exclusively on contradicting what others have been saying, rather than having an actual discussion. The intent here is not to attack you, much less Starfinder 2e or Paizo, so much as point out that there are certain implications to tinkering with SF2e's balance as has been done so far, and consider alternative means of achieving similar goals, along with their pros and cons. So long as your stance is to deny the very existence of these implications and alternatives at all costs, this conversation will remain a non-starter.
I gave my thoughts and suppositions at length in the old thread and partially in this one. We don't have much to go on, most of this is pure guesswork, so that's what I've got so far. Other than poking holes in other people's arguments from my POV and (dis)agreeing on fundamental views is all I can really do?
Maybe I'll think of something else after Wednesday, but I guess that's kinda it for now.
I'm not a fan of the assumption that tanking needs to be a thing that somebody needs to be specialized in. It should be a tactic, not a class, and available to any character that can deal out a load of damage or make it so you're effectively the only character open to attack.
I'm pretty sure that's not their argument, assuming you are replying to Teridax. I read it as them being worried about classes not being able to sufficiently specialize in that department. Leading to what you get when you do a full 8HP party in PF2. My group is currently doing an "oops all Rogues" thing and it gets wild.
And it's a reasonable worry. My disagreement over how actually problematic the changes will be in play, is very subjective given how little we have to go on.
On the topic of "the Soldier will probably get the Champion's armor progression" - I wouldn't be so sure.
Between 10HP, CON as KAS, heavy armor and the -1 from your suppressed condition, the Soldier is already one of the most durable classes across both systems. So much so that the devs were worried that it was too tanky already. Even though it was (I think) mentioned as a possibility, I seriously doubt that they are going to give us +2 AC on top of that.
One, I specifically said that that is true outside of the early levels, so I'm saying the opposite of what you claim.
Then why go with this?
The Mystic starts out with 17 AC, the Soldier with 18. Then the difference in favour of the Soldier goes up to 2 at level 2 (or during level 1) due to heavy armor. At level 5, the gap will go back to 1 as the Mystic gets their last point in DEX to fill out their armor requirements. That is all the info we have so far.
As already mentioned, trying to contradict others on principle does not make for productive conversation, and leads you to lie in ways such as this. Please don't do this. You are also very acutely trying to sidestep the fact that martials in 2e have a default +2 in AC over casters by cherry-picking levels, which similarly does not make for a sound argument.
Two, there are exactly two classes in PF2 who can have better AC than a Mystic in standard cover (once they fill their armour out) and that's the DEX Monk and the Champion (starting at 7). After all, you need +2 above standard to achieve this after level 5, so you need a higher proficiency. We know that the Soldier is designed to be tanky, we know literally nothing about it's AC progression beyond it getting heavy armor. The Fighter gets heavy armor as well and doesn't meet your claim outside of the 4 gap levels either.
If you have to assume that the soldier will have worse-than-standard-martial AC progression for your argument to work, your argument isn't terribly solid. There is literally nothing to suggest that the soldier will not have at least standard martial AC progression, which means they will find themselves with a net +3 over the mystic. That in turn means they will often find themselves harder to hit even while the mystic takes cover, defeating the purpose of trying to draw fire.
Cover only helps against AoEs when the cover is between you and its point of origin. It is trivial to prevent that by simply placing the point behind the enemy. Most of the Reflex spells on the primal list - and I'm pretty sure on every other list as well - are AoE and I don't think I even know one which is targeted on the divine one.
It is not trivial to place the point of origin of an AoE effect in a manner that consistently bypasses cover, and what you are presently admitting is that you effectively made up a red herring with no major relevance to the discussion at hand. Cover matters just as much to the players as it does to the enemy, and you have nothing of substance to say against that.
I talked about the Soldier not necessarily needing to Take Cover, because they can take it and do something else and as a bonus draw a bit of fire away from others. I also said that you aren't merely not taking cover, your suppression is directly defending your team. You basically responded with "but Take Cover is really good" and "if that all you do, what's the point". That isn't a counterargument.
That is not what I've said at all. To reiterate once again:
As pointed out already, a mystic taking cover is still going to be squishier and easier to hit than a soldier out in the open, so your argument doesn't work, but your claim that the soldier doesn't need to take cover is itself questionable: what does a soldier do with their third action that makes taking cover less valuable than doing something else compared to the mystic? Why isn't everyone taking cover if doing so would have your party take less damage overall? If all a character needs to do to "tank" is to just not take cover, why does that justify a need for only some characters to be more durable when everyone could do this just as well?
I will keep bringing this out every time you lie in this manner, so there is no point to doing so. As the above plainly indicates, I questioned your assumption, which you're still insisting upon, that the soldier would be avoiding taking cover when it clearly also benefits them. I also questioned why this benefit is particular to the soldier when deliberately forgoing cover to refocus fire is a thing literally anyone could do. I also already pointed out that the soldier's suppression doesn't change the question of focus in any way, as attacking the soldier is unlikely to stop them from laying down more suppression for at least a few more turns. Focus-firing the mystic, by contrast, still has a much greater likelihood of taking out a potentially far more disruptive party member. Rather than address any of these points, you have instead so far chosen to prevaricate and ignore what's been said entirely, which to me suggests that you don't actually have a cogent answer.
Maybe at your table actual spellcasters are more common, but in most APs you'll barely see a handful across 6 books. Be that as it may, it doesn't change the argument. Just because an enemy might have a couple of grenades doesn't mean your cover is suddenly not good anymore. Most enemies will still be affected by it, so it is a perfectly valid strategy. I really don't know what you want from me here.
Putting aside how your claim about APs and Pathfinder monsters is outright false (it's also demonstrably wrong for what few Starfinder 2e monsters we've seen so far), the fundamental problem is that you are still trying to pretend that cover doesn't matter as much to enemies as it does to the party, and that one side has tools the others will somehow never access. Rather than rely on specious claims and conjecture in order to say nothing at all (perhaps this is why you're at a loss for what to say), you could perhaps try to actually engage in the subject of conversation in a way that isn't wholly defensive and combative.
One, you might want to read more carefully before throwing around insults, as pointed out above. Two, I don't need to pretend it is guesswork, because it literally is.
But it's not, is it? You've now had several people point out to you that you are relying on speculation and false assumptions, and at the end of the day you are plainly arguing dishonestly if you are trying to argue that martials and casters in 2e are balanced around having the same AC. You are expecting enemies in Starfinder to not use spells, grenades, or AoE weapons, you've heavily relied on your own anecdotal experience to make claims about Pathfinder that are simply not true, and you've knowingly made false claims just to avoid answering counterarguments that inconvenienced you. What is all of this for? What are you even trying to say here?
I even made a whole paragraph outlining how your claim is objectively wrong, based on hard numbers. Just baselessly claiming the opposite isn't helpful.
And as your own outline of the fighter's AC progression shows, your claim is bunk. The soldier consistently has better AC than the mystic, and frequently has such better AC that even standard cover will not bridge that gap. You are blatantly cherry-picking levels to create the false impression that martials and casters have equal AC, which is dishonest. The fact that you continue to focus your comparison on levels 1-5, even as you feigned indignation at being called out on exactly this, compounds just how specious you need to make your argumentation in order to avoid having to face basic facts as to the way classes in 2e are balanced.
You said "focused on eating damage". That is not even remotely the same as being able to take a hit. Sorry, I can only answer to what you write, I can't look into your head.
You seem desperately intent on enforcing a distinction without a difference. May I ask why? All of these aforementioned classes are going to be drawing focus as part of their basic gameplay of getting into the thick of combat and making themselves highly available. The swashbuckler in particular excels at disrupting enemies with skill checks and drawing lots of attention to themselves: though you may not consider such a class a tank, they do incorporate tanking into their contributions, which is why they're not just a rogue variant.
I gave my thoughts and suppositions at length in the old thread and partially in this one. We don't have much to go on, most of this is pure guesswork, so that's what I've got so far. Other than poking holes in other people's arguments from my POV and (dis)agreeing on fundamental views is all I can really do?
Maybe I'll think of something else after Wednesday, but I guess that's kinda it for now.
I'm not sure you realize that what you've just said outlines a massive problem with your approach to this discussion: by your own admission, you're operating on no substantial information, don't have anything meaningful to say, and yet still chose to generate a thread that was nothing more than a thinly-veiled argument from the very first post. You never wanted a real discussion, because you were on the defensive before anyone else even had a chance to say anything on the matter here. Do you really not see the problem here?
As it so happens, I do think I have something to actually say on the matter, and I would have preferred to open conversation with that instead of dealing with repeated attempts to shut all intelligent conversation down. Here's my stance on the matter, for what it's worth:
So in conclusion, this second field test and what the developers have said so far raise two important questions that I believe can inform us much better on what Starfinder 2e will look like:
Question 1: Are Starfinder 2e's classes being given a bigger power budget than Pathfinder 2e's classes?
If yes, then this suggests SF2e and PF2e are set to have not just different metas, but also entirely different balancing benchmarks. This is potentially interesting, as it could lead to the development of classes that can do things that really wouldn't fly in Pathfinder, perhaps even literally, but also goes directly against Field Test #1's stated goal of the two editions being "100% compatible", and of making Pathfinder content "seamlessly work" with Starfinder games. Not necessarily a bad thing, but also not a design choice without its tradeoffs.
If no, then the mystic as it stands is by all evidence more powerful than existing Pathfinder 2e casters, and ought to be adjusted accordingly, such as by having fewer spell slots per rank if we're sticking to the better defenses.
Question 2: Are Starfinder 2e's tanking classes meant to draw focus towards themselves and away from their allies?
If yes, then the soldier's tanking is arguably not fit for purpose and could do with some tweaks, as could other parts of their design. So far, the class doesn't inherently feature any mechanics that would make enemies want to focus them over a class like the mystic, a choice made easier by the greater target access of Starfinder's enemies. If other tanks like the solarian to manage to draw enemy focus towards themselves more, then the soldier risks finding themselves in an awkward position (and there would be less pressure to make classes like the mystic more durable).
If no, then the implementation of durability overall in Starfinder is likely going to have to change significantly, because tanking as a contribution some classes can make distinctly better than others would effectively be gone. Making one character significantly more durable than others has the immediate net effect of making that target less desirable to focus over those that are squishier and easier to hit. This would, in turn, achieve the opposite effect of tanking, and thereby encourage a homogenization of not only HP and AC values, but also of other contributions. Again, a game in which tanking is no longer really a class contribution so much as a thing everyone can opt into on the fly is not necessarily bad at all, and could in fact encourage a fresh and different play dynamic, but once again carries tradeoffs and larger design implications.
And that's pretty much my piece. Had this thread allowed room to express this kind of opinion from the onset, I feel we could've had a very different and much more productive conversation, but at least it's out there now.
I'll drop the rest, I think it's better for both our sanity. However, I still genuinely want to know where you take that general +2 base AC from that martials supposedly have ver casters like the Mystic (outside of Monk and Champion ofc). Because I'm looking at the numbers and am truly confused. Half of the martials have the exact same progression (starting trained, expert at 13) as the Mystic is likely to have (same as Druid or Bard), at least until level 19 when they become master and the Mystic likely won't. Their base ACs are identical from 5-18 for that reason. Even the "special" classes that get expert or even master 2 levels earlier only differ on those levels. Outside of the Fighter who also gets native heavy armor, but that is still only a +1 over a "normal" martial.
Anyway, hopefully onto something more productive.
Question 1: Are Starfinder 2e's classes being given a bigger power budget than Pathfinder 2e's classes?
If yes, then this suggests SF2e and PF2e are set to have not just different metas, but also entirely different balancing benchmarks. This is potentially interesting, as it could lead to the development of classes that can do things that really wouldn't fly in Pathfinder, perhaps even literally, but also goes directly against Field Test #1's stated goal of the two editions being "100% compatible", and of making Pathfinder content "seamlessly work" with Starfinder games. Not necessarily a bad thing, but also not a design choice without its tradeoffs.
If no, then the mystic as it stands is by all evidence more powerful than existing Pathfinder 2e casters, and ought to be adjusted accordingly, such as by having fewer spell slots per rank if we're sticking to the better defenses.
I'd say vaguely yes, but it's a bit more complicated than that. I think it's not so much the rough idea of the class budget that has changed (insofar that has ever existed), but rather the price points are drastically different in many areas. Certain things are much cheaper than in PF2, so when you take the PF2 perspective, a class can appear unusually powerful.
The different meta leads directly to a different balance in many aspects, or as the team have said "100% compatible doesn't mean 100% balanced". For example, when ranged combat is the norm, ranged feats can't be as restricted as in PF2. So a SF2 ranged attacker will likely have more options and stronger options earlier than a PF2 one. And when you are inherently more threatened, the most vulnerable parts of the roster will need to be a little sturdier and armor/8HP is much more "affordable" as a result.But that isn't all. It isn't strictly an indicator of a bigger budget, but the Soldier's Walking Armory - i.e. an automatic, permanent stat replacer - is something that has been avoided in PF2. What is a noticeable difference, though, is the access to strong, on-demand AoE at range. As far as I can tell, the new meta doesn't really make that necessary aside from the need for range.
And finally, the Mystic. This class obviously has a larger power budget, even when you discount the increase in durability as I do. 4 slots, a renewable heal pool and the full benefits of what is comparable to a sorcerer bloodline. That's pretty spicy. And I'm personally completely fine with that. Given how PF2 handles the Bard or the Animist, it's not like there isn't precedent either. And when the SF devs explicitly don't feel beholden to the balance of a different system, I don't feel compelled to be either.
Question 2: Are Starfinder 2e's tanking classes meant to draw focus towards themselves and away from their allies?
If yes, then the soldier's tanking is arguably not fit for purpose and could do with some tweaks, as could other parts of their design. So far, the class doesn't inherently feature any mechanics that would make enemies want to focus them over a class like the mystic, a choice made easier by the greater target access of Starfinder's enemies. If other tanks like the solarian to manage to draw enemy focus towards themselves more, then the soldier risks finding themselves in an awkward position (and there would be less pressure to make classes like the mystic more durable).
If no, then the implementation of durability overall in Starfinder is likely going to have to change significantly, because tanking as a contribution some classes can make distinctly better than others would effectively be gone. Making one character significantly more durable than others has the immediate net effect of making that target less desirable to focus over those that are squishier and easier to hit. This would, in turn, achieve the opposite effect of tanking, and thereby encourage a homogenization of not only HP and AC values, but also of other contributions. Again, a game in which tanking is no longer really a class contribution so much as a thing everyone can opt into on the fly is not necessarily bad at all, and could in fact encourage a fresh and different play dynamic, but once again carries tradeoffs and larger design implications.
I'm leaning into the "no" direction or I'm at least making the suggestion that that is no longer a primary job of durable classes, at least not in the traditional sense.
The Soldier protects somewhat via offense, i.e. the suppressed condition, a pretty good damage output and aggressive maneuvering, not really by drawing fire. The latter can happen, but it's going to be situational and far less reliable than in PF2. But especially if the "cover fights" idea becomes really prevalent, an in my eyes convincing reason for the Soldier's durability becomes clear. Mobility. We still need classes who can move without being protected or shot to bits, just like before. If anything, even more so, as focus fire becomes so much easier to achieve. Otherwise we run a real risk of fights bogging down into essentially trench warfare. So we will see a shift from defense to aggression for "tanks", but that is just a redistribution. It's a bummer if you liked that playstyle in particular, but doesn't mean a role fundamentally doesn't exist anymore.
There is some homogenization happening at the bottom, but I think you are really, really overestimating the actual effects. The Mystic is still immobile, can't take a hit and will almost certainly have a terrible save progression, just like comparable PF2 casters. You're just a little less boned.
Hopefully the Wednesday stream will shed at least a bit of light on both of these questions, among other things, even if it is far from the final product. Because, really, we have way basically next to no information to go on right now.
I'll drop the rest, I think it's better for both our sanity. However, I still genuinely want to know where you take that general +2 base AC from that martials supposedly have ver casters like the Mystic (outside of Monk and Champion ofc). Because I'm looking at the numbers and am truly confused. Half of the martials have the exact same progression (starting trained, expert at 13) as the Mystic is likely to have (same as Druid or Bard), at least until level 19 when they become master and the Mystic likely won't. Their base ACs are identical from 5-18 for that reason. Even the "special" classes that get expert or even master 2 levels earlier only differ on those levels. Outside of the Fighter who also gets native heavy armor, but that is still only a +1 over a "normal" martial.
You keep answering your own question: martial classes have their AC progress at earlier breakpoints than casters, and end up with one proficiency tier above that of casters at minimum, i.e. master versus expert. In a game where even just a couple levels' difference in expert attack proficiency between casters and martials, and the resulting +3 difference it generates, is considered a massive deal, that is a far more important difference than you're giving it credit.
I'd say vaguely yes, but it's a bit more complicated than that. I think it's not so much the rough idea of the class budget that has changed (insofar that has ever existed), but rather the price points are drastically different in many areas. Certain things are much cheaper than in PF2, so when you take the PF2 perspective, a class can appear unusually powerful.
The different meta leads directly to a different balance in many aspects, or as the team have said "100% compatible doesn't mean 100% balanced". For example, when ranged combat is the norm, ranged feats can't be as restricted as in PF2. So a SF2 ranged attacker will likely have more options and stronger options earlier than a PF2 one. And when you are inherently more threatened, the most vulnerable parts of the roster will need to be a little sturdier and armor/8HP is much more "affordable" as a result.
But that isn't all. It isn't strictly an indicator of a bigger budget, but the Soldier's Walking Armory - i.e. an automatic, permanent stat replacer - is something that has been avoided in PF2. What is a noticeable difference, though, is the access to strong, on-demand AoE at range. As far as I can tell, the new meta doesn't really make that necessary aside from the need for range.And finally, the Mystic. This class obviously has a larger power budget, even when you discount the increase in durability as I do. 4 slots, a renewable heal pool and the full benefits of what is comparable to a sorcerer bloodline. That's pretty spicy. And I'm personally completely fine with that. Given how PF2 handles the Bard or the Animist, it's not like there isn't precedent either. And when the SF devs explicitly don't feel beholden to the balance of a different system, I don't feel compelled to be either.
I'm not sure we can really conflate earlier access to some features with straight-up more power. In an environment where ranged combat is more prevalent, it makes sense for abilities such as at-will flight or gun feats to be made available sooner, because that's one of the perks of guns being more prevalent in the setting. It does not, however, automatically imply a need to give classes straight-up more stats, or do things like replace stats, which in my opinion weren't so much a balancing decision as a design kludge for the soldier specifically that I feel hasn't entirely worked out so far.
As per the above, I also don't think we can automatically jump to the conclusion that the mystic and other SF classes are being given a larger power budget, even if the mystic is clearly stronger than PF casters, because the soldier themselves doesn't appear to be power-crept in the same way, and the mystic's extra durability was mentioned as a necessary measure, rather than part of a larger goal to make SF classes more powerful. The bard is certainly a strong class, but remains a 3-slot caster, and the animist has not yet been released, with Paizo expressly stating that they were going to trim stuff from the class as we saw it in playtesting. It is entirely possible that the mystic's implementation may also change, particularly in light of other class releases.
The Soldier protects somewhat via offense, i.e. the suppressed condition, a pretty good damage output and aggressive maneuvering, not really by drawing fire. The latter can happen, but it's going to be situational and far less reliable than in PF2. But especially if the "cover fights" idea becomes really prevalent, an in my eyes convincing reason for the Soldier's durability becomes clear. Mobility. We still need classes who can move without being protected or shot to bits, just like before. If anything, even more so, as focus fire becomes so much easier to achieve. Otherwise we run a real risk of fights bogging down into essentially trench warfare. So we will see a shift from defense to aggression for "tanks", but that is just a redistribution. It's a bummer if you liked that playstyle in particular, but doesn't mean a role fundamentally doesn't exist anymore.
The problem with this assessment is that the soldier, as we've seen them, is not especially mobile. They can certainly take a hit even when out of cover, but we've so far seen absolutely zero class features or feats that improve their mobility on the battlefield, a significant omission if this is meant to be a key intended core class strength. On the contrary, the soldier's action economy and associated feats encourage the class to stand still and fire all day, which doesn't sound terribly mobile to me. Trench warfare, as you describe it, appears to be the soldier's specialty.
On that note, I feel it is also worth challenging this assumption you're making that it's everyone else's job but the soldier's to keep taking cover: as Paizo has explicitly said thus far, they actually want weapons fire to be a reliable option for a third action, especially for casters like the mystic who'd want to "cast gun". If the mystic has to keep using actions to take cover, on top of the two actions they'd be using to cast spells, they wouldn't really be able to cast gun or heal others, unless they drop their spellcasting for a round to do just that. The mode of play you have been describing therefore sounds to me a bit different from Paizo's statement of intent.
There is some homogenization happening at the bottom, but I think you are really, really overestimating the actual effects. The Mystic is still immobile, can't take a hit and will almost certainly have a terrible save progression, just like comparable PF2 casters. You're just a little less boned.
On the contrary, I think you are severely underestimating how impactful 2e's math is in practice. 8 HP per level classes include Warpriest clerics, magi, rogues, and many other classes that can wade into Pathfinder's melee combat and still survive, even if they wouldn't be quite as durable as 10 HP/level classes. You also seem to be forgetting that ranged attacks deal less damage than melee attacks, meaning that although everyone can get targeted more easily, everyone will also be taking less damage per attack overall than in melee. A 8 HP/level class is therefore much more survivable in this environment than even in Pathfinder, though is still likely to find themselves focused before tanks such as the soldier unless the latter have a means of drawing fire towards themselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll drop the rest, I think it's better for both our sanity. However, I still genuinely want to know where you take that general +2 base AC from that martials supposedly have ver casters like the Mystic (outside of Monk and Champion ofc). Because I'm looking at the numbers and am truly confused. Half of the martials have the exact same progression (starting trained, expert at 13) as the Mystic is likely to have (same as Druid or Bard), at least until level 19 when they become master and the Mystic likely won't. Their base ACs are identical from 5-18 for that reason. Even the "special" classes that get expert or even master 2 levels earlier only differ on those levels. Outside of the Fighter who also gets native heavy armor, but that is still only a +1 over a "normal" martial.You keep answering your own question: martial classes have their AC progress at earlier breakpoints than casters, and end up with one proficiency tier above that of casters at minimum, i.e. master versus expert. In a game where even just a couple levels' difference in expert attack proficiency between casters and martials, and the resulting +3 difference it generates, is considered a massive deal, that is a far more important difference than you're giving it credit.
You are agreeing with the math, so why do you ignore it? This discussion came about because you claimed that the base AC of the Soldier will be higher AC than a Mystic's who is in standard cover at "most stages of the game". So basically, they usually have at least a 3 higher base AC.
Even if the Soldier would have the Fighter's AC progression, which is far from guaranteed given that the Field Test explicitly says "which means they probably aren't [...] benefiting from the peak of AC, the math tells us that that is literally only true for the levels 11, 12 and 17-20. That's 6 levels out of 20 in a worst case scenario, which isn't even remotely "most states of the game".
You later even claimed that that the +2 is for all martials, except that by any actual math, that is literally only level 19 and 20 for all martials.
Your statements are demonstrably false, yet you are accusing me of lying, arguing in bad faith and cherrypicking? I'm the one shutting down intelligent conversation?
Get a reality check, mate.
You are agreeing with the math, so why do you ignore it? This discussion came about because you claimed that the base AC of the Soldier will be higher AC than a Mystic's who is in standard cover at "most stages of the game". So basically, they usually have at least a 3 higher base AC.
Even if the Soldier would have the Fighter's AC progression, which is far from guaranteed given that the Field Test explicitly says "which means they probably aren't [...] benefiting from the peak of AC, the math tells us that that is literally only true for the levels 11, 12 and 17-20. That's 6 levels out of 20 in a worst case scenario, which isn't even remotely "most states of the game".
You later even claimed that that the +2 is for all martials, except that by any actual math, that is literally only level 19 and 20 for all martials.
Your statements are demonstrably false, yet you are accusing me of lying, arguing in bad faith and cherrypicking? I'm the one shutting down intelligent conversation?
Get a reality check, mate.
Lol. I'm not sure if pointing this out any further will help matters, given how you've insisted upon repeating yourself, but the math I have just presented to you, which others have also shown you, does not support your stance. The soldier has consistently more AC than the mystic, and as indicated to you, those breakpoints are significant, and reinforce the fact that the soldier will be a consistently less desirable target. Deliberately ignoring these breakpoints and the different proficiency tracks of casters and martials is cherry-picking no matter how you choose to spin it, and that you continue to not only do so, but even try to claim the moral high ground, is intellectually bankrupt.
You can feign indignation all you like, but it is plain to see that you came here to argue before anyone else even had a chance to speak, and even now when presented with the opportunity to discuss Starfinder's design in a more productive manner, you still insist upon dragging it down to an argument. You are visibly not interested in having an actual conversation, much less allowing others to express their viewpoints without feeling the need to pre-emptively police them, which makes this entire thread a farce. Next time, don't pretend you want to have a discussion with others when what you truly want is for said "discussion" to be a one-way street.
As an addendum, on the subject of reality checking:
So the long and short of all this is that, all else held equal, an enemy would find themselves far better-disposed to focus the mystic over the soldier, even if the mystic decides to hide behind cover the whole time. What the above also shows is that your line of argumentation on the matter is wrong in virtually every single respect, to say nothing of how transparently it relies on cherry-picking of factors, awkward min-maxing for the specific purpose of this argument, and other intellectually dishonest tactics. I'm so glad you invited me to "get a reality check", because it offered me the perfect opportunity to demonstrate just how far removed from reality your own argumentative stance has been. Many thanks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One. Splint mail costs 13 of your 15 starting GP. According to Field Test #1, just your weapon costs 4 GP, so buying heavy armor at the start means you cannot afford a weapon. So the mistake is purely on your side.
Two. Neither HP, Fort saves or anything else were part of the disputed claim, this was purely about AC. Nor was it ever in doubt that the Soldier has more AC than the Mystic. I never claimed otherwise, so spare me the the attempt to back up your argument with irrelevant information.
At level 5, the mystic can boost their Dex to sort-of equalize to +1, and remain there all the way to level 10. Assuming standard caster-martial proficiency tracks, the soldier will then jump to +3, go back to +1 at level 13 all the way to level 16, and then permanently revert to +3 at levels 17 and above. Thus, the soldier always has more AC than the mystic at all levels, and for half the game's levels, including the starting and end levels, will have more AC than a mystic in standard cover.
Now to the actual meat of the matter. Even by your own count, which (assuming the fully accelerated track) is correct aside from level 1, the highest AC difference between the Soldier and Mystic until level 11 will be 2 (1 for DEX and 1 for heavy armor). Same with level 13-16, so 14 levels total. Standard cover is +2, so the ACs at those levels are either identical or +1 in favour of the covered Mystic. "Half of the game's levels"... are you ok?
At this point I have to assume that you are trolling.
--
As a sidenote, there is no single standard martial proficiency track. We have like 5 separate ones - Monk, Champion, completely unaccelerated martial (5 classes), partially accelerated martial (Ranger, Thaumaturge, Inventor) and Magus/Fighter for the fully accelerated track.
One. Splint mail costs 13 of your 15 starting GP. According to Field Test #1, just your weapon costs 4 GP, so buying heavy armor at the start means you cannot afford a weapon. So the mistake is purely on your side.
For starters, splint mail costing 13 GP means you can obtain it at level 1, end of. Second, you are relying on Pathfinder and Starfinder prices simultaneously when it is obvious the two use different economies, while also assuming that SF2e heavy armor will be inaccessible at level 1. Literally no part of your argument here has any value.
Two. Neither HP, Fort saves or anything else were part of the disputed claim, this was purely about AC. Nor was it ever in doubt that the Soldier has more AC than the Mystic. I never claimed otherwise, so spare me the the attempt to back up your argument with irrelevant information.
False, all are relevant to the subject of whether the soldier or mystic are better to focus. It is evident you are shifting the goalposts and cherry-picking which numbers to focus on because you know looking at the bigger picture further disproves your stance, a dishonest tactic that was already called out in the post you are responding to.
Now to the actual meat of the matter. Even by your own count, which (assuming the fully accelerated track) is correct aside from level 1, the highest AC difference between the Soldier and Mystic until level 11 will be 2 (1 for DEX and 1 for heavy armor). Same with level 13-16, so 14 levels total. Standard cover is +2, so the ACs at those levels are either identical or +1 in favour of the covered Mystic. "Half of the game's levels"... are you ok?
At this point I have to assume that you are trolling.
I'd ask you the same question, as you've clearly missed the salient part of my post that applies here:
Already, the mystic taking standard cover will be just as easy to hit as a soldier out in the open. Committing this much to Dex early on also means the mystic will either have 5 less HP than the soldier, a whopping 36% less, or 4 less HP than the soldier (which is still a large 29% less) and an ability flaw, which unless you want to tank your AC will apply to Int or Charisma, neither of which are great. The mystic is thus by far the easier target to focus, even with just an AC difference of 1.
Emphasis added. No matter what spin you try to put on things, the mystic is by far the easier target to take out through focus fire, and so across all levels, with particularly stark emphasis across half the game's levels. The fact that you have to not only lie repeatedly, but also ask everyone else to ignore every other aspect of the game's math that makes this fact all the more obvious, demonstrates that you have nothing true or interesting to say on the matter. I would ask you to change tack and approach this topic in good faith, but let's be honest, that was never your intention even before you created this thread.
As a sidenote, there is no single standard martial proficiency track. We have like 5 separate ones - Monk, Champion, completely unaccelerated martial (5 classes), partially accelerated martial (Ranger, Thaumaturge, Inventor) and Magus/Fighter for the fully accelerated track.
It is interesting that you would try to muddy the waters here, because even you chose to go for the fighter track given that both classes were proficient in heavy armor, and we both agreed to not assume that the soldier wouldn't find themselves with champion-level armor progression (which could very well still happen, and make your argument even weaker). None of the other classes you bring up match the soldier's profile, and even in the case where the soldier went up to master proficiency at level 19 (which, I'm sure you'll agree, would be atypical for an armor-heavy tank), the net conclusion would still be the same. The problem with your insistence upon bringing the entire broad conversation down to AC is that even if one were to get down to your level here, you'd still be wrong, as martial classes rather evidently have better AC than casters in 2e. That is a core intended part of the game's math. Pretending otherwise is what constitutes actual trolling, to say nothing of all the other valid points you've conspicuously avoided addressing or outright pretended didn't exist.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... I do have things to say in response to at least some of this but, uhhh....
I don't think this particular debate needs the help, you know?
In PF2 enemies focus martials because they do the damage, casters support. Killing a non healing caster makes the fight easier but still life threatening. Killing the martials is close to winning the fight. If creatures wanted to get to casters they would, the "defender"/" tank" abilities mostly protect other martials.
I'd rather classes be closer in survivability and have less hard tanking abilities so you can field far more variety of party compositions.
In PF2 enemies focus martials because they do the damage, casters support. Killing a non healing caster makes the fight easier but still life threatening. Killing the martials is close to winning the fight. If creatures wanted to get to casters they would, the "defender"/" tank" abilities mostly protect other martials.
This is a very strange assessment to make, because damage doesn't actually have an immediate impact on encounters: sure, if you do enough damage and kill your opponent, you'll win the fight, but unless you're fighting an enemy with special rules around HP, like a troop, most creatures will be just as effective at 1 HP as they will be at full HP. By contrast, effects like buffs, debuffs, crowd control, and terrain manipulation have an immediate and significant impact on encounters, which if left unchecked can completely swing the fight in favor of those who apply them. Casters excel at outputting those effects, because they are expressly designed to exert tremendous battlefield control. Martials, by contrast, don't access those strengths nearly as well, so even with their strength at single-target damage, they can't turn the tide of a fight as easily as a caster can with a single spell. If non-mindless enemies could easily reach the squishier casters, they would, and that's why Paizo had to buff the mystic's HP.
Let's humor this, though: suppose every class got similar durability, which by itself isn't a bad thing, but does imply buffing mostly casters... what do the martials get in return? Balance doesn't necessarily have to be a zero-sum game if we're choosing not to follow Pathfinder's power budget, but if casters and martials are balanced relative to one another in PF2e, it stands to reason that buffing casters in SF2e would require also buffing martials for that balance to remain. What should they get to remain on par with casters who, on top of their amazing battlefield influence, would also have comparable survivability?
|
The last two SFS scenarios I've played in have completely turned my idea of a tank upside down while playing a mystic healer combat medic, which, is mostly useless in combat other than throwing grenades, and one area of effect damage spell. The first few rounds of combat my healing is not useful until people start taking HP damage, and area-of-effect attacks are hard to do when the rest of your party is directly engaged with the enemy.
So a few times now I've held the front line or most of the front line, letting players who have better-ranged attacks be able to attack freely, and safely. This also lets me use my area attacks more often, even if that means dropping a grenade in my own square. This has been very effective against zombie hoards and swarms. Being able to heal myself helps to hold the front line longer.
My character is not optimized to fight that way at all, they have low dex and poor EAC/KAC But has me curious just how far could I tank out a mystic healer if built for it. A healer being a tank is a good proactive way of keeping the rest of your team healed.
This is a very strange assessment to make, because damage doesn't actually have an immediate impact on encounters: sure, if you do enough damage and kill your opponent, you'll win the fight, but unless you're fighting an enemy with special rules around HP, like a troop, most creatures will be just as effective at 1 HP as they will be at full HP. By contrast, effects like buffs, debuffs, crowd control, and terrain manipulation have an immediate and significant impact on encounters, which if left unchecked can completely swing the fight in favor of those who apply them. Casters excel at outputting those effects, because they are expressly designed to exert tremendous battlefield control. Martials, by contrast, don't access those strengths nearly as well, so even with their strength at single-target damage, they can't turn the tide of a fight as easily as a caster can with a single spell. If non-mindless enemies could easily reach the squishier casters, they would, and that's why Paizo had to buff the mystic's HP.
Let's humor this, though: suppose every class got similar durability, which by itself isn't a bad thing, but does imply buffing mostly casters... what do the martials get in return? Balance doesn't necessarily have to be a zero-sum game if we're choosing not to follow Pathfinder's power budget, but if casters and martials are balanced relative to one another in PF2e, it stands to reason that buffing casters in SF2e would require also buffing martials for that balance to remain. What should they get to remain on par with casters who, on top of their amazing battlefield influence, would also have comparable survivability?
Pf2 is balanced around martials being the force and casters being force multipliers.
Try putting an all caster group through APs and they will struggle much more then an all martial group.You don't need to balance around that, each class can be good on its own. You don't need to think casters need to be squishy or martials need more health and saves, just make each class bring a full balance of options to the table.
If SF2 can get the number of class releases PF2 is having, then you can get lots of different classes. Having a beefy front liner to draw fire while everyone else piles on is great but there's plenty of other ways classes can be put together to work together. Buffs can be created in such a way that squishier classes get more out of them, like giving someone plate AC or temp HP as if they had 12HP a level.
If the balance of the game is everyone is a target, then you balance out from there, some classes will be good at drawing fire by repositioning and flanking or by locking down mech armor to increase damage output, some will be good at buffing to reduce and heal damage or decrease status effects, some will be good at controlling the flow of battle with structures or effects. Having access to a huge list of various spells makes it seem like casters can do so many things and yet its the Bard and Druid, who have great class abilities on top of spells that make them the best casters in PF2. Those class abilities in SF2 could push them into being viable front liners or flankers, there's a lot more room then just buffer/debuffer.
Squishy martial or beefy caster would be great to see, as well as more two action activities for martials and one action abilities for casters, and action compression for both as you level. We're getting more and more interesting classes in PF2, hopefully that's a good starting point for SF2 classes.
Pf2 is balanced around martials being the force and casters being force multipliers.
Try putting an all caster group through APs and they will struggle much more then an all martial group.
About that: The Rules Lawyer compared the performance of an all-martial party to that of an all-caster party, and even pitted the two parties together. In both cases, the casters won. I am curious to know what your contrary opinion is founded upon.
You don't need to think casters need to be squishy or martials need more health and saves, just make each class bring a full balance of options to the table.
Alright, let's entertain this: what does a martial need to be balanced if they have, say, caster save proficiencies and 8 HP per level? Because taking away those saves or that durability isn't power-neutral, and at the end of the day, you're conspicuously dodging the question I asked you of what you believe SF2e martial classes need, specifically, to keep pace with SF2e casters who are demonstrably more powerful than PF2e casters at the moment.
If SF2 can get the number of class releases PF2 is having, then you can get lots of different classes. Having a beefy front liner to draw fire while everyone else piles on is great but there's plenty of other ways classes can be put together to work together. Buffs can be created in such a way that squishier classes get more out of them, like giving someone plate AC or temp HP as if they had 12HP a level.
... why? A status or circumstance bonus to AC or just regular temp HP already works fine, and works for everyone. Why are we looking to specifically invalidate martial classes and their benefits here?
If the balance of the game is everyone is a target, then you balance out from there, some classes will be good at drawing fire by repositioning and flanking or by locking down mech armor to increase damage output
How will they be good at drawing fire? As discussed already, the problem with the Soldier is that they don't incentivize drawing fire to themselves, quite the opposite.
Having access to a huge list of various spells makes it seem like casters can do so many things and yet its the Bard and Druid, who have great class abilities on top of spells that make them the best casters in PF2. Those class abilities in SF2 could push them into being viable front liners or flankers, there's a lot more room then just buffer/debuffer.
There's a lot to unpack here: on one hand, the Druid and the primal spell list in general are really not amazing at buffing and debuffing, and in fact excel at direct AoE damage, combat forms, healing, summoning, and general direct fighting stuff. On the other, the Bard excels precisely because the class is the best buffer/debuffer in the game. I fully agree that casters shouldn't just be relegated to buffing or debuffing, but that's not all they are in 2e.
Squishy martial or beefy caster would be great to see, as well as more two action activities for martials and one action abilities for casters, and action compression for both as you level. We're getting more and more interesting classes in PF2, hopefully that's a good starting point for SF2 classes.
We already have both. The Rogue isn't made to facetank damage, for instance, and casters like the Bard, the Witch, and now the Mystic all specialize in having extra one-action options. This isn't to say we can't have more, but it sounds like what you want isn't actually a world where casters have more third actions (because that's going to happen in SF2e also with shooting guns and taking cover), so much as one where casters get to have all of the benefits of martials, and martials get saddled with all of the typical drawbacks of casters. Again, what are you proposing to apply to either side of this equation to balance things out?
The entire paradigm of "tanking" from MMOs is really inappropriate in the first place. A "tank" in Starfinder ( or most tabletop RPGs ) is not defined by their ability to mechanically draw aggro and compel enemy decisions. A "tank" is defined by *survivability*, having the armor or HP or whatever that allows them to take hits, and thus take risks. Why is this important? Because this allows a "tank" to engage in risky exposed actions that force the enemy to respond or suffer, as NPC forces *also* have victory conditions and things they are trying to achieve. A Soldier doesn't need some mechanical superpower to force Will saves on enemies, if they instead do things like "I am a heavy melee fighter with high mobility, I can just bum rush the comparatively squishy spellcasting officer leading the enemy force". The enemy NPCs don't focus on Soldier and shoot less at the Operative and Mystic because they failed a Will save; they focus on the Soldier because *he's trying to cut down their leader*.
And therein lies the problem: the Soldier is focused far more on AoE damage than single-target damage, so even the Mystic is at equal leisure to cut down their leader or harm them in other ways via spells, but even if the Mystic takes cover, they will still be easier to take down than the Soldier. Assimilating TTRPG tanking to MMO tanking is the real mistake here, because TTRPG tanks don't need taunts to get enemies to focus them: as pointed out already, every Pathfinder tank has one or more mechanics that incentivize enemies to go for them instead of squishier targets, and the Soldier specifically lacks these in a game where enemies also have easier access to targets at a distance. There is effectively little reason right now to focus the Soldier right now when you'd have a much easier time taking out the Mystic first.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, my two main thoughts on this discussion:
1. As some people have already touched upon, while blocking and choke points and range control may be the primary defensive strategies in a melee-oriented setting, in Starfinder? The name of the game is 'cover and concealment'.
Cover and concealment work much better with a 3-action economy. I use it all the time in Pathfinder 2e but rarely in Starfinder. A lot of it depends on the map too. If you want to encourage characters to use cover more, give some classes and creatures a bonus to hit targets without cover, or an attack of opportunity if some moves and ends their turn without cover. Would be great to put the fear of snipers into the game.
|
|
I don't see any reason that should be a class feature. It should be basic to the combat system. If you think cover should be more effective, the obvious fix is just make it more effective vs everything that's trying to hit you along a line of sight.
I don't like the idea of AOO's for that. Cover is the exception, not the rule, and you shouldn't need another rule to cover a deficiency in the basic rule. Just fix the basic rule so it gives the amount of effect for cover that you want.
IMO this can largely be fixed by GM'ing appropriately. I think cover should be completely flexible from +1AC for barely any cover to +8AC or so for most of your body is behind hard cover.
If it were my game system to design, shields would be carried cover and work the same way as other cover.
The idea is not how effective cover is or not, it's putting the fear of not having cover into the game when a sniper is around. Real snipers are feared enough that the current response to a real sniper attack is to hide while calling in an artillery or air strike to take them out. I don't expect snipers to get one-shot kills in the game but giving them an AOO would help make them more feared. In Pathfinder2e AOOs are limited to Fighters and some monsters, and only for melee attacks. With Starfinder being more ranged combat oriented having only snipers having long-ranged AOOs would not be out of place, with melee AOOs going to another class.
|
|
I have no problem with established ideas getting broken. Especially when brainstorming.
I don't think it even breaks any established ideas, it just adds one more limited situation where the AOO mechanic could be used in a way that is closer to how real established sniper combat is. Snipers don't run around shooting at targets they set up and wait for an opportunity. You could even have the sniper give up an action to gain the sniper AOO action. or call it a reaction if you like.
I wouldn't be surprised if SF2 introduced overwatch-type abilities instead of AoO on some characters, i.e. you designate an area or direction and you can reaction-shoot anything that performs certain actions in that area (e.g. move).
That would certainly be more useful than AoO on anything that isn't designed to spend tons of time in melee.
|
|
I feel like it should be called something other than AOO (or reactive strike as it will be called in the remaster) for readability reasons and so it can get its own identity. A ranged AOO would not only be very different from a normal AOO, but would also be broken, as things like moving and making a ranged attack would provoke, making it less of a control tool and more of a DPS, as unless you have a melee character that wants to step 5 ft at a time to the sniper, you will be shot. Limiting what triggers it would tone it down, and actually discourage you from doing what does still trigger it.
Good point about the 5' move to avoid the AOO that would actually make it much easier for a sniper to hit someone. So maybe call it a ranged Aoo that would have different triggers and was to avoid it. Because snipers use scopes, the area affected could be limited to a cone facing one direction, that could be set up using an action to cover an area, with aranged AOO active.
|
|
I wouldn't be surprised if SF2 introduced overwatch-type abilities instead of AoO on some characters, i.e. you designate an area or direction and you can reaction-shoot anything that performs certain actions in that area (e.g. move).
That would certainly be more useful than AoO on anything that isn't designed to spend tons of time in melee.
Something like that could be done as a feat, archetype, or operative specialization
you can already do that by readying an action. only reason people dont really do that as is, is because it takes 2 actions to do it(and if no one actives your trigger, its a complete waste of 2 actions) and under most circumstances you are better off just shooting twice(plus some other useful action). though some kind of class feature or feat that make it more effective(only costs 1 action, gives you multiple reactions, whatever) could be interesting.
|
|
Another requirement that might be to gain a ranged AOO or reaction a sniper has to be hidden, getting a bonus to attacks. If the opponent is unaware of the sniper the sniper might get a trick attack as well on the first shot, or instead of a trick attack cause the opponents to have to make a will save or be shaken. This could make spotting a sniper more important, and encourage players/Opponents to seek cover.
It's been decades since I've played Squad Leader/Cross of Iron and on longer have the games around so had to look up how their sniper rules worked, this line stood out to me:
"snipers were most effective when they were not shooting. Until the first shot rang out, my opponent would have no idea where I had placed my sniper. I found that my opponent would be cautious in his moves, darting from cover to cover." from Snipers in Advanced Squad Leader .
Not saying Starfinder should be turned into Squad leader, but never hurts to look out side the box by looking at a different box.