Managing Creative Director (Starfinder)
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just gonna hop in here to say what we told people at PAX-U who did the playtest: don't read too intently into these characters.
This is a taster, and not really indicative of a final product. Heck, it's not even a final product for what is effectively a Beta-Test book that we're currently working on :)
That being said, the Operative is a class that the Starfinder team felt strongly about during our design cycle. In first edition, the class became something of a meme in the community for how overarchingly powerful it was when compared to other classes—it was the definitive damage dealer AND was basically the best at skills. This was a problem. I've been on record as saying that 1E should have bumped other classes to be more on par (something we aimed for in Enhanced) but for a new edition, the Operative needed to have a better defined niche than "great at everything."
So in 2E, the goal is that the Operative is the primary ranged combat class. It is no longer the immediate "skill monkey" as that award goes to the Envoy class. Instead, the Operative is a class that puts out consistent fire in combat, able to take advantage at range or up-close with different guns. The sniper build is based around taking single shots at long range, wanting to benefit from as many buffs/debuffs as it can so it can pop out a ridiculous critical that pops a target for massive damage. It's a playstyle we've found has been incredibly fun in our internal playtests, but it's also one facet of Operatives in the new edition.
I wouldn't worry too much about mapping attack proficiency to other classes or how a pre-playtest class demo stacks up against the Fighter. All will be revealed in the coming months. :)
Absolutely, this is 100% me overreacting because of "'nam flashbacks" from older playtests ^^
I hope that Operative will be able to get a Trick Attack ability as like, a feat that you can optionally take. Similar to how with Monk in 2e, you can opt into having Ki or not.
I don't know, it's something I'd like to see with them not lose entirely like how grit was dropped from Gunslinger. Even though without the extra damage, I don't know what purpose it'd serve.
I hope that Operative will be able to get a Trick Attack ability as like, a feat that you can optionally take. Similar to how with Monk in 2e, you can opt into having Ki or not.
I don't know, it's something I'd like to see with them not lose entirely like how grit was dropped from Gunslinger. Even though without the extra damage, I don't know what purpose it'd serve.
Move, ranged Feint and a Strike sound like a very reasonable and effective low-level activity. It'd be easy to include, so they probably will.
|
One of the things I love about the 1e Operative is that, although their trick attack damage is tied to being good at Skills, you have incredibly diversity for which skills. It isn't just "Stealth to hide, or Bluff to feint." You can use Survival to use the surroundings & terrain to your advances, Mysticism to magically empower your attacks, or Piloting to trick-drive at enemies. Heck, there's even a way to use Profession skills to trick attack, opening the door to the dreaded "DPS ChefFinder" build XD
In any case, although it looks like Operatives are no longer the be-all-and-end-all in Skills: if there's still a sneak or trick attack mechanic by which 2e Operatives' damage is tied to a skill, I hope that this Skill Diversity persists. It's awesome seeing Operatives specializing in Disguise, or Sense Motive, or Computers, or whatever, rather than just Stealth all the time.
One of the things I love about the 1e Operative is that, although their trick attack damage is tied to being good at Skills, you have incredibly diversity for which skills. It isn't just "Stealth to hide, or Bluff to feint." You can use Survival to use the surroundings & terrain to your advances, Mysticism to magically empower your attacks, or Piloting to trick-drive at enemies. Heck, there's even a way to use Profession skills to trick attack, opening the door to the dreaded "DPS ChefFinder" build XD
In any case, although it looks like Operatives are no longer the be-all-and-end-all in Skills: if there's still a sneak or trick attack mechanic by which 2e Operatives' damage is tied to a skill, I hope that this Skill Diversity persists. It's awesome seeing Operatives specializing in Disguise, or Sense Motive, or Computers, or whatever, rather than just Stealth all the time.
The damage component seems to have wandered over to Aim, but we would still have the off-guard (the new flat-footed) part at least. Until now, in this kind of context that is pretty much the exclusive domain of the Feint action from the Deception skill (a combination of Disguise and Bluff). Stealth (via the Hide action) can work, but has some severe limitations around needing cover and stuff. Even in SF2, that would be uncomfortably situational.
But I too would be a big fan of seeing many more skills here. The Charisma skills and Stealth have hogged all the good stuff for long enough.
They could also forgo a skill check entirely and just make the off-guard against your attack, but that would be probably boost the feat's level quite a bit, I guess. Not ideal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things I love about the 1e Operative is that, although their trick attack damage is tied to being good at Skills, you have incredibly diversity for which skills.
In theory it's nice, in practice it all looks the same to the people around the table. You roll a skill and there's extra damage. After level 7 there that's just your one attack. An operative with computers plays exactly like an operative sneaking up on people who plays just like an operative jumping out of the skylight with athletics.
Stunt and strike worked a lot better where the skill and the debuff at least made you think about what you're doing for the situation. The skill diversity comes into play for different skills not just the one skill i'm maxed out in.
One of the things I love about the 1e Operative is that, although their trick attack damage is tied to being good at Skills, you have incredibly diversity for which skills.In theory it's nice, in practice it all looks the same to the people around the table. You roll a skill and there's extra damage. After level 7 there that's just your one attack. An operative with computers plays exactly like an operative sneaking up on people who plays just like an operative jumping out of the skylight with athletics.
Stunt and strike worked a lot better where the skill and the debuff at least made you think about what you're doing for the situation. The skill diversity comes into play for different skills not just the one skill i'm maxed out in.
If you are RPing it, that shouldn't be the case. It'll also affect what else your character can do, since you wouldn't spam this all the time, so having variety there has a lot of impact on possible builds.
So it would be nice even in practice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are RPing it, that shouldn't be the case.
The mechanics do not encourage the role playing that is a problem with the mechanics. "you can just role play it" is a solution to everything and thus a solution to nothing. This is doubly so when people are trying to keep combat moving.
Its much harder for the player to come up with 400 cinematic uses of a stealth trick attack than 100 stealth 100 computers 100 athletics etc.
It'll also affect what else your character can do, since you wouldn't spam this all the time
... Yes. Yes in fact you DO spam this all the time. Every time. This is all an operative does. Its the main complaint with the class. Triple attacking is bad unless you specifically build for it and even then is maybe AN option. (I do have an operative who likes to tripple attack)
If you mean hypothetically for sf2, the three action system is not immune to this problem. A 3 action trick attack that is better than anything else= spam trick attack. A 2 action trick attack has the same problem as casters: its allegedly a 3 action system but once you use two of them there aren't a lot of good 1 action things to do. In pf 1 a caster is move cast in pf2 a caster is.. move 2 actions to cast. No fundamental difference.
If you are RPing it, that shouldn't be the case.
The mechanics do not encourage the role playing that is a problem with the mechanics. "you can just role play it" is a solution to everything and thus a solution to nothing. This is doubly so when people are trying to keep combat moving.
Its much harder for the player to come up with 400 cinematic uses of a stealth trick attack than 100 stealth 100 computers 100 athletics etc.
It takes pretty much nothing, barely a sentence, to give something like this your own spin and integrate your actions into the environment. The difference between just throwing numbers at each other and that little bit of effort is night and day. At the end of the day, mechanics are important, but not everything.
This is a perfectly workable solution, why are you so strongly opposed to it on what is certainly going to be an optional feat? It wouldn't even prevent a Stunt and Strike feat (chain) from existing either.
It'll also affect what else your character can do, since you wouldn't spam this all the time... Yes. Yes in fact you DO spam this all the time. Every time. This is all an operative does. Its the main complaint with the class. Triple attacking is bad unless you specifically build for it and even then is maybe AN option. (I do have an operative who likes to tripple attack)
If you mean hypothetically for sf2, the three action system is not immune to this problem. A 3 action trick attack that is better than anything else= spam trick attack. A 2 action trick attack has the same problem as casters: its allegedly a 3 action system but once you use two of them there aren't a lot of good 1 action things to do. In pf 1 a caster is move cast in pf2 a caster is.. move 2 actions to cast. No fundamental difference.
This is the SF2 discussion, so why would I view it from the SF1 angle?
What you are describing is only one option of several, the system has far more to offer than that oversimplification. It can happen, but unlike 1e, isn't going to happen all the time. But staying in that scenario, the caster could often just as easily Demoralize, Bon Mot, prepare/use a scroll/wand/other consumable, Hide, Take Cover, shoot their gun/bow, or use one of the 1-action things that plenty of classes/archetypes offer. If you want options for your third action, you have or can get them. Yes, the system isn't immune from the issue, but the difference is very much fundamental.
The third action is also not where skills end. If I build a character who's really into Computers and Trick Attack only allows for, say, Stealth and Deception, then the feat is obviously not an option for me. If you simply go with more skill options, it is. Again, this is a perfectly fine solution.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An operative with computers plays exactly like an operative sneaking up on people who plays just like an operative jumping out of the skylight with athletics.
Disagree. Sure the actual Trick Attack works the same regardless of Skill used (mechanically, anyways) but I'm not even talking about only Trick Attacks in combat encounters. I'm saying that in 1e, it's nice to have a breadth of flavours of Operatives. It's pretty common in my experience to roll up to a Society table and find two+ Operatives that use different skills to Trick - and that (usually) also means they have different Stat distributions, and shine in different ways in skill encounters, too. And that's a good thing.
I don't even buy your argument that RP doesn't matter for Trick Attacks. Sure, very few people come up with a unique description of how their Operative uses their Skill to get a momentary advantage for every single Trick Attack attempt (and, I'd argue, people probably shouldn't.) But, cool attack narration comes up often enough that it's nice that every Trick Attack description isn't a Stealth-based "I approach from the shadows and stab."
This simple solution might not be quite as good, but it has the major advantage of not taking like two full pages to implement. So we will probably actually get it, unlike a close recreation of Stunt and Strike.
Hell, you could even combine the two and simply allow Trick Attack to do a variety of skill actions. The power would be dramatically different depending on the skill, so probably not, but still.
I'm saying that in 1e, it's nice to have a breadth of flavours of Operatives.
It WOULD be, but since they only need dex and then int, 95% of operatives are built that way. The only thing the occasional survivalist operative does differently is makes sure the mystic doesn't get to roll the survival check. And you won't notice the difference till they have to make the survival check.
If the operatives thing is good at ALL of the skills then every operative looks alike because they're all good at all the skills.
they may be using very different skills but they still play the exact same way.
This is a perfectly workable solution, why are you so strongly opposed to it
Because its completely inaccurate to call it a solution and it has the bonus irritation of claiming the people that disagree with you suck at role playing: a sure sign that there is absolutely nothing of substance behind the ideas or the criticism.
This is the SF2 discussion, so why would I view it from the SF1 angle?
half the point of a new edition is to try to evolve and improve. X was amazing keep that Y could have been better and z went horribly, horribly, wrong is important feedback. Especially if you're building something as specific as the operative not the rogue.
What you are describing is only one option of several...
If the option exists and is superior, not different, that option and the only option have very little difference. 10 feet of movement and +1 to hit are options, +1 to hit and +2 to hit are not.
pf2 swashbuckler does trick attack better then the sf1 operative. outside of ranged attacks of course.
This is a perfectly workable solution, why are you so strongly opposed to itBecause its completely inaccurate to call it a solution and it has the bonus irritation of claiming the people that disagree with you suck at role playing: a sure sign that there is absolutely nothing of substance behind the ideas or the criticism.
Curiously, what you are describing as a certain failure is something that has worked perfectly well for people. Just because it isn't a perfect solution doesn't make it not a solution.
Especially given that the solution you want will almost certainly not happen. Trick Attack doesn't seem to be a class feature anymore and you can't dedicate a whole page or more to a single optional feat.
As a sidenote, you were the one who stated that this would mean all those Operatives would be the same, for the simple fact that they would have the same mechanics. What I told you was just a basic RP explanation to spruce things up a bit, which thousands of 5e players (and those from other rules-light systems) seem to be happy enough with. If you want to be insulted by that, sure...
What you are describing is only one option of several...If the option exists and is superior, not different, that option and the only option have very little difference. 10 feet of movement and +1 to hit are options, +1 to hit and +2 to hit are not.
Thankfully, that is, as usual, not how PF2 works. The vast majority of 2/3-action activities in PF2 are entirely situational, as would be the Trick Attack feat I proposed above. Even if you made the off-guard automatic, then the activity would still only be the default choice when you literally only get one shot per turn, don't have a different activity that is more suitable to the circumstances and have nothing else important to do this turn.
That is also not what you said. You went for the usual bogus "the 3-action economy is basically the same as the old one" argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
pf2 swashbuckler does trick attack better then the sf1 operative. outside of ranged attacks of course.
Still not well, so maybe we shouldn't highlight that too much :P
I'm sorry... is the complaint here that people were making too much use of 1e operative's primary class feature and were building their characters to be good at said primary class feature? That doesn't exactly strike me as bad design. It's like complaining rogues specialize in sneak attack too often, barbarians use rage too much, or casters only ever spam spells.
I'm sorry... is the complaint here that people were making too much use of 1e operative's primary class feature and were building their characters to be good at said primary class feature? That doesn't exactly strike me as bad design. It's like complaining rogues specialize in sneak attack too often, barbarians use rage too much, or casters only ever spam spells.
Not quite, I'm pretty sure the problem addressed is slightly different. It's not that you shouldn't use your main ability or be good at. It is that a main ability that makes every turn the exact same, no matter the circumstances, is bad design. Simply because it is the optimal choice every time. And by how the ability reads and what I see/hear, that is exactly what Trick Attack does a lot. Move, roll a skill check, roll an attack. All day, every day. None of the examples you mention do that.
|
|
At a certain point, this whole debate kinda ... breaks down. We're not there quite yet, and sure it's argumentum ad absurdum, but we're just a stone's throw away from "ugh I can't believe that Striking is the best way to defeat enemies in combat. For so many classes, all you do, every turn, is roll a die, and if you succeed, roll damage."
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
At a certain point, this whole debate kinda ... breaks down. We're not there quite yet, and sure it's argumentum ad absurdum, but we're just a stone's throw away from "ugh I can't believe that Striking is the best way to defeat enemies in combat. For so many classes, all you do, every turn, is roll a die, and if you succeed, roll damage."
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
"not quite there yet" is the key to many things ^^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you mean hypothetically for sf2, the three action system is not immune to this problem. A 3 action trick attack that is better than anything else= spam trick attack. A 2 action trick attack has the same problem as casters: its allegedly a 3 action system but once you use two of them there aren't a lot of good 1 action things to do. In pf 1 a caster is move cast in pf2 a caster is.. move 2 actions to cast. No fundamental difference.
There kind of is, because PF2 caster is not move and two actions to cast. It's cast a three-action spell, or cast a two action spell, and then do something else, and that "something else" could be move or Recall Knowledge or make a weapon attack or toss a Bon Mot or intimidate or cast a one-action spell or....
the three-action system in PF2 is all about leaving one action left over and challenging you to come up with something to do with it. On the martial side, a third action attack is generally going to suffer from crippling MAP. On the caster side, you spend two actions casting and then what? That third action is fundamentally less valuable but still worth something, and has a number of options of its own. Makes things more interesting.
Also, PF2 rarely has any one specific action be "better than anything else" under all circumstances. Stuff gets a lot more situational than that. There's a lot of stuff that feeds into that, up to and including things like enemy design. I see no reason why SF2 wouldn't strive to do the same.
Now, what would be cool would be to have multiple different Trick Attack feats, based on different skills, that basically functioned like metamagic feats for casters, and effectively augmented/replaced Aim. So you could have your trick attack based on stealth or bluff or intimidate, but they'd be doing somewhat different things, and if the trick attacks you had were vs Will and you were going up against someone with a hefty Will defense, then maybe you might want to just Aim after all because your chances of pulling off that trick attack weren't all that great.
I'm sorry... is the complaint here that people were making too much use of 1e operative's primary class feature and were building their characters to be good at said primary class feature? That doesn't exactly strike me as bad design. It's like complaining rogues specialize in sneak attack too often, barbarians use rage too much, or casters only ever spam spells.
As stated, no. I don't blame the people. I don't blame water for flowing down hill and I don't blame gamers for seeing a mechanically superior option and taking it.
What I do blame is the system for making the option so mechanically superior that everything flows that way. Trick attack is perfectly workable but it does get very boring (boxy but good?), takes up your entire turn, and crowds out other options.
Kishmo stated that an operative rolling computers to trick and one using stealth were different, I disagree. 1d20+17 computers to trick and 1d20+17 stealth to trick don't evoke anything different for me. Operatives are all good at all the skills, So I don't see much mechanically different between all of them being good at all the skills. There's only 20 skills* , operatives get 10 skill points per level (8 +2 in their specilizations) at first level are highly incentivized to have an 18 dex/ 16 int, so you're looking at 13/20 skills to start, 14 at level 4, 15 at level 6 when you pick up the +4 dex +2 int Ability crystal...
Rogues can sneak attack and barbarians rage, but those actions don't define the mechanics of your entire round. Some rogues concentrate on moving for more sneak attacks and some concentrate on having all the attacks so that ONE day when they can full attack sneak there will be viscera all across the dungeon! A raging barbarian might have 6 natural attacks to nibble things to death or 1 giant power attacked swing with a giant axe or grapple or throw boulders or stand somewhere holding a pike daring the trible of goblins to get within reach of their storm giant halbard.
*yes there's an infinite number of professions
Stunt and strike is a much better system for having the skills show some variety in the attack and effect.
There kind of is, because PF2 caster is not move and two actions to cast. It's cast a three-action spell, or cast a two action spell, and then do something else, and that "something else" could be move or Recall Knowledge or make a weapon attack or toss a Bon Mot or intimidate or cast a one-action spell or....
Because your spell slots are so limited if you have a 3 action cast spell when you're holding still is going to be the only time you use it.
Weapon attacks being thrown into the mix are now a thing with enhanced taking the somatic components out, I think the free hand kept that from being really viable before now.
Under the old system recall knowledge was free, so recall knowledge cast spell isn't m uch oc a change.
Now, what would be cool would be to have multiple different Trick Attack feats, based on different skills,
That would be stunt and strike from the operative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1d20+17 computers to trick and 1d20+17 stealth to trick don't evoke anything different for me.
Yup, same. In SF1, the flavor reasoning behind trick attack wore off after, like, the second time it was used at our table.
If the mechanics don't show off the inherent differences of the skills, it will quickly be forgotten. It's the whole reason we have rules for different ancestries, different weapons, and different classes. If "roleplay it out" were sufficient, none of us would be here playing PF2.
1d20+17 computers to trick and 1d20+17 stealth to trick don't evoke anything different for me.Yup, same. In SF1, the flavor reasoning behind trick attack wore off after, like, the second time it was used at our table.
If the mechanics don't show off the inherent differences of the skills, it will quickly be forgotten. It's the whole reason we have rules for different ancestries, different weapons, and different classes. If "roleplay it out" were sufficient, none of us would be here playing PF2.
Well, the realistic alternative is a single feat - there is no way they'll make several versions of the same thing - that only allows for Create a Diversion and Hide. Possibly ranged Feint. Which might as well all be the same thing in this context. And anyone who doesn't specialize in Deception or Stealth can go take a hike as usual. Doesn't sound any better to me.
At a certain point, this whole debate kinda ... breaks down. We're not there quite yet, and sure it's argumentum ad absurdum, but we're just a stone's throw away from "ugh I can't believe that Striking is the best way to defeat enemies in combat. For so many classes, all you do, every turn, is roll a die, and if you succeed, roll damage."
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I can't think of a smaller difference than crossing out one name inserting another and have the ability be the same in its mechanics.
Melee at least always has positioning. (one reason i really hate unflankable critters) Ranged combat does largely break down to what you're suggesting. Biohackers can avoid that as ranged vs. living targets anyway. But even then you have the option of one shot or two.
There are areas in between rolling dice and getting results and rolling the SAME dice and getting the same results. The game does use most of them.
Roll multiple times, with variations: roll before, roll after, spend something to roll after, take 10 and don't roll
Operatives should have been reliable but not brilliant in their fields, while other classes got wildly swingy dice pools.
My dream for a 3d6 system is probably out of luck, but an operative using assurance while the mechanic takes 2d20 pick the best does make them different: like picking doc brown or a mechanic to fix your brakes.
Missed the edit to add: different flavor with the exact same mechanics was 4e's motto.
Because your spell slots are so limited if you have a 3 action cast spell when you're holding still is going to be the only time you use it.
Weapon attacks being thrown into the mix are now a thing with enhanced taking the somatic components out, I think the free hand kept that from being really viable before now.
Under the old system recall knowledge was free, so recall knowledge cast spell isn't m uch oc a change.
The basic principle still holds, though. "Optimal play" turns are a lot less uniform under PF2 than they were under any form of 3.x. Casters still have move/cast and cast/move, but now they have a bunch of other options as well. It's no longer possible to pour all of your character build resources into doing one very specific thing incredibly well, and then having the correct tactical choice be to do that specific thing at every opportunity. You're going to have skills and skill feats whether you like it or not. You can spend any or all of those three actions on movement. spells that take all three actions are uncommon enough that they won't be your default turn, and taking all three actions to full attack is almost never the correct answer except for very specific builds that often require setup turns to pull off the three-action frenzyblender turn correctly... and that's before you get to your class. In general, your class is also going to give you interesting options during your turn, and picking only one of them as The Thign You Do isnt' going to be correct.
Now, if you're a stumbling stance monk with Stunning Fist, then yeah - you're going to want to try to fit a Flurry of Blows action in somehow pretty much every turn regardless of whatever else is going on... and then you'll have two other actions to work with, because FoB only takes one but it cranks your MAP up all by itself. Well, you're a cha-based character with access to an in-class casting proficiency. Consider picking up Intimidate and/or a good vs save cantrip? There are *lots* of options out there, and the options don't all simplify down to a single "this is my ideal turn which I will use every single time". You;re going to have tactical decisions to make every turn, and in most cases, those decisions won't be entirely trivial. That's what we're talkign about, right?
I do agree that "same effect, just off of yet another different skill" is not a particularly interesting or meaningful difference. I have faith that they will not do this thing. Not only would it be bad design in a way that we haven't previously seen them do bad design, but PF2 has very little in the way of direct skill substitution. There's a bit, but not a lot.
Missed the edit to add: different flavor with the exact same mechanics was 4e's motto.
It did get better as it went, but... you're not entirely wrong.
The other motto was "We're here for the CharOppers and the tacticians and no one else." I think that was the one that really hurt it the worst... and I say that as someone who was very much a core part of its target audience. As a CharOp/tactical game it was exquisite. It... just failed at all the other bits.
PF2, by contrast, has the "lots of flavor with remarkably thin mechanical support". Like, PC skeletons can be choked into unconsciousness, drowned, and afflicted with dreadful blood poisons... though against the latter, at least, they have a +1 circumstance bonus to save. If you want to stand there and declare yourself a skeleton? The rules will agree with you. You are a skeleton. It... just doesn't mean quite as much as you might otherwise expect.
The basic principle still holds, though. "Optimal play" turns are a lot less uniform under PF2 than they were under any form of 3.x
Yes and no and no. For an individual character they vary a bit more. Seemingly until you have all 3 actions spoken for and then they vary between move A and B or ABC.
For characters in general they seem a lot more samey. A lot of the crazyness is gone, and I think that hurts starfinder a lot.
The basic principle still holds, though. "Optimal play" turns are a lot less uniform under PF2 than they were under any form of 3.xYes and no and no. For an individual character they vary a bit more. Seemingly until you have all 3 actions spoken for and then they vary between move A and B or ABC.
For characters in general they seem a lot more samey. A lot of the crazyness is gone, and I think that hurts starfinder a lot.
Well... there's some of that, certainly. In particular, "generic early-game martial" and "generic early-game caster" wind up with some pretty serious similarities to one another. They've been branching out from that in useful ways as they go, though - the 2-hander barbarian and the 2-hander fighter and the 2-hander Champion do indeed have some significant similarities in standard turns, but the magus is pretty distinct from that lot. The Thaumaturge is likewise fairly different and has enough internal variation with the various implements to have more than jsut three or four Thaumaturge patterns to play with, and the Kineticist is its own very special thing that's quite different from anyoen else while also havign a lot of internal differences between builds.
...but I'd say that that's a reason for hope for SF2, rather than despair... because as they get to better know the implications of this system that they've built, they've been able to flex and stretch and come up with more and more divergent classes. So we're not going to get a bunch of classes like Fighter/Ranger/Champion/Barbarian/Rogue who tread a lot of similar chunks of tactical space. From the sounds of things, the Operative and the Soldier are the closest things we're going to get to "generic martial", and they're already pretty solidly different from one another in playstyle.
That said, that still doesn't counter your point fully. SF2 characters are likely going to be less divergent from one another in their tactical playstyle than SF1 characters... but I think I'm okay with that tradeoff. Designing a character to do one wacky thing absurdly well is fun, but that's the design phase. Once your'e at a table playing, having meanignful tactical choices to make is a lot more interesting and enjoyable than just hitting the "do my one wacky thing" button over and over again every chance you can get, or dealing with the case where the GM decides that it's just entirely too cheeseball, and sets things up so that your one wacky thing doesn't work, and then you're sad because you're basically crippled and half-useless.
As far as crazyness in general? We'll see. I expect that we'll lose some, and that is a sadness, but I have hopes that the devs can salvage a fair bit one way or another. I certainly expect them to try (it's the obvious play) and I think it's enormously too early to declare that they have failed.
I hope the Aim action has a variant or two, particularly without having to take a feat. Damage plus cover reduction will be good in a lot of situations, but there will plenty of cases where the cover reduction is entirely pointless. In that case the lower damage will feel pretty bad, so I'd want an alternative.