We've been told that this edition will focus on ranged combat (or something akin to that, I don't remember the verbatim :B).
What are your thoughts on it, from what we've been shown?
Personally, I remember been told exactly that when I set up to GM Against the Aeon Throne (by people, not necessarily any devs) and feeling confused when players would slog through fights with actual hits turning to 1 or 2 damage, until it got to the melee combatant's turn so they could actually strike down the enemy.
I do really like the idea of the game having a focus on ranged combat, though, and I hope it comes through fun.
EDIT: Just to clarify something real quick, I did only GM the first book of Against the Aeon Throne and haven't had the chance to interact with the game again, so I'm unsure if my impression would've changed on later levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've been told that this edition will focus on ranged combat (or something akin to that, I don't remember the verbatim :B).
What are your thoughts on it, from what we've been shown?
I'm not sure that 'focus' on ranged combat is quite accurate. But it will certainly be more front and center than it is in Pathfinder2.
In Pathfinder2e, ranged combat has some limitations. The only reload 0 ranged weapons are martial weapons (or advanced weapons) other than the two die size d4 air repeater firearms. So reloading firearms and crossbows is action heavy to use, and bows are limited to certain classes or those who spend feats to get proficiency. Also, ranged weapon damage - especially the 1-action bows - often don't have the traits that add strength damage. So ranged options have the double damage detriment of lacking strength damage and having lower die sizes. Spells often do better as a ranged option for many characters. Pick up a cantrip or two from an archetype or an ancestry feat and use that if you need to keep your distance.
There are certainly many ranged character builds that do quite well in PF2. Starlit Span Magus and Gunslinger are designed specifically for that and for Magus, Starlit Span is often regarded as the strongest of the Magus Studies.
The difference in Starfinder2e is that ranged weapons are going to have simple weapon options with larger die sizes (I am seeing d6 for the laser pistols) and will have an entire fight's worth of capacity by default. So using a ranged weapon is something that is available to every character as a 1-action damage option.
So everyone is going to be packing some sort of pistol at least. Some classes are going to use them better than others. And I am still expecting that melee weapon damage will be a bit higher because it will have added strength bonus damage - but that is only a difference of a few points per hit if that is all that is missing.
The playtest material for soldier is also more-or-less built around ranged weapons already (though I suspect the finished product will have more melee support). We're very likely to go from the paradigm in PF2e where there's a lot of primarily melee classes with some ranged options to more of a 50/50 split.
I'm not sure that 'focus' on ranged combat is quite accurate. But it will certainly be more front and center than it is in Pathfinder2.
I don't know about that, what we have heard so far sounds very much like ranged combat will indeed be the actual focus, much like PF2 focuses on melee combat for martials.
As to how that will probably be accomplished? To me it looks like a mix of enemy design, encounter/map design, class support and weapon design.
Enemy design - Most enemies will have a very capable ranged option and quite a few will have aoe capabilities, making your own ranged options, finding cover and a loose formation a priority.
Encounter/map design - While the good old 5ft hallway fight will probably still exist here and there, it looks like SF2 maps will be quite more open and can feature significant verticality. Both are a pain when you aren't primarily a ranged character.
Class support - By simply offering far more and better support for ranged martial characters, as well as integrating cover use into feats, many people naturally gravitate towards them. It looks like like out of the 4 core martials, one is a switch hitter favouring melee (Solarian), one is slightly in favour of ranged combat (Envoy), and two heavily favour ranged combat (Soldier and Operative).
Weapon design - If the power difference between melee weapons and ranged weapons isn't quite as big, there are fewer restrictions on who can reasonably make use of them (see class support) and you can actually get a few more interesting traits on them (compared to PF2), then more characters will be naturally interested in them. So more people will actually play them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure that 'focus' on ranged combat is quite accurate. But it will certainly be more front and center than it is in Pathfinder2.I don't know about that, what we have heard so far sounds very much like ranged combat will indeed be the actual focus, much like PF2 focuses on melee combat for martials.
I'm not sure we are disagreeing on the vision of what we are expecting for Starfinder2e.
We are likely disagreeing on what we mean by various words that are being used.
When I hear 'focus on ranged combat', I am thinking that the vision is for nearly exclusive ranged combat. That a melee character would feel out of place. That a melee build would be quite sub-optimal such as requiring several feats or even an archetype. That in an SFS game if a character draws a melee weapon at the start of combat, the other players at the table are going to think that the player of the melee character is being deliberately disruptive.
I certainly don't think that matches the description of PF2 regarding ranged weapons. Ranged characters don't feel out of place. Ranged builds are only sub-optimal if you are trying to start with a class that doesn't have ranged weapon support natively. And if a character starts combat by drawing a ranged weapon, that isn't looked down on in a negative manner.
So by that measurement I don't think that Pathfinder2e 'focuses on melee combat' either. I think PF2 has some incentives for melee - or rather some disincentives for ranged. But overall, that leaves ranged characters in a pretty decent place. Especially if we are counting spellcasters with their 30 foot range as ranged combat. I would estimate my gut instinct feel on it to be about 60% melee and 40% ranged.
So if you are considering that the PF2 60/40 preference for melee is best described by 'focus on melee combat', then I guess it is fine to say that SF2 is going to 'focus on ranged combat'.
Yeah, in that case we mean the same thing. Though I wouldn't include casters here specifically, as this whole change is really about ranged weapon users. Casters will be tangentially affected via extending ranges, but not fundamentally.
For me "focused" means that the system visibly caters towards something, in this case a certain playstyle. Such as PF2 not having a single actually ranged-exclusive class, but several almost entirely melee-exclusive ones (Barb, Swashbuckler, Champion, and to a lesser extent Rogue). Or several times more melee feats and subclasses compared to ranged ones.
Such as PF2 not having a single actually ranged-exclusive class, but several almost entirely melee-exclusive ones (Barb, Swashbuckler, Champion, and to a lesser extent Rogue). Or several times more melee feats and subclasses compared to ranged ones.
If Gunslinger doesn't qualify as a ranged-exclusive class, then I don't know what would. It is too much to ask for a TTRPG to have a class that is literally unable to have any melee options - which is what I think of with the term 'ranged exclusive'. Of the Gunslinger subclasses, only two of them involve melee weapons at all - one by pairing melee with ranged weapons, and one by using combination melee/ranged weapons.
And most classes have something for ranged. Even if it is just thrown weapons like Barbarian and Swashbuckler and Champion have.
So, similarly I am expecting that SF2 classes are generally going to have melee weapon options as well - even if they are fewer and more basic. And there may even be a class or two that are what I would call 'melee focused' and you might call 'melee exclusive'.
I don't have the same amount of knowledge about SF1 as others here (I listen to some podcasts that play it, but don't have the time to run/play anything myself), but I think I can see how, despite having tons of cool guns available, melee is still king. Everyone can do opportunity attacks, the way actions are split up makes blending attacking and mobility together a little tricky, and the biggest, sexiest DPR comes from smacking dudes really hard. Nonetheless, looking at the few flip maps and adventures I have available, I'm seeing more attention paid to cover, lines of sight, and so on, and specifically remember a lot of shenanigans in Aeon Throne 3 involving catwalks. So, the physical layout is there (sometimes), but looks to me like it's more of formality, allowing the casters and ranged characters to pepper a bit before the melee characters close and finish the job. Meanwhile, if someone does close on you, it's difficult to get away without either taking damage or devoting your whole turn to the retreat. (NOTE: This is strictly observational/theoretical knowledge, so I'll absolutely defer to those of you with more actual play experience.)
PF2 (where I have actual, hands-on experience) changes this up a bit, mostly via the three-action system and making attacks of opportunity exclusive to specific creatures and melee-heavy builds. However, while ranged combat is more approachable, melee is still heavily incentivized: tons of special maneuvers only work in melee (champion reactions, swashbuckler finishers, etc), big numbers are still mostly the property of hand-to-hand martials, and official adventure map design is usually either really bland or really cramped. In fact, killing power is so concentrated in melee that it's not uncommon to hear casters and ranged characters complain about feeling overshadowed. Yes, you absolutely can build a strong ranged martial, but gameplay tends to be a little repetitive because there are fewer fun things to do from range.
So, SF1 can already do thoughtful map design, and PF2's engine is better at flexibility/mobility. However, we're still stuck with melee's overwhelming lethality in both games, and there's an absence of spicy ranged mechanics in either (ignoring spells). So, ranged attack options will probably need a slight buff overall, although not too much of one: melee needs to maintain some advantages to make up for it being much higher risk now that everyone has a gun. Classes will also need to provide more stuff to do from a distance in order to keep things from devolving into boring, repetitive rounds of everyone deciding to shoot twice and take cover.
Pulling back for a second to look at both TTRPGs and videogames as a whole, however, the most interesting engagements tend star a mix of melee and ranged combatants. This is because they can put pressure on each other: sluggers can rush and disrupt snipers, who in turn make the slugger's approach a dangerous endeavor. The pressure between the two keeps everyone moving as they try to force the other into their preferred method of engagement. I find this superior to engagements that involve either sluggers or snipers alone, as those tend to devolve into disorganized mosh pits or extended games of peek-a-boo, respectively. Having both types on both sides keeps combatants from getting locked into either.
the biggest, sexiest DPR comes from smacking dudes really hard
It actually comes from a sharpshoot soldier with bullet barrage gear boost triple attacking something with a heavy weapon (usually X-Gen or Reaction Cannon) on a gunner's harness at only a -3 penalty to all attacks, while the melee guy has -6 when he isn't running around to get in range (or burning haste circuits) and after 13th level adding 2d6 per hit in bonus damage to further narrow the damage gap from strength bonus.
[Ok, at 16th it's really a full BAB build precog or mystic when he casts Chronal Assault twice in one round to get eight attacks off at effectively full BAB, no multiattack penalty. I guess you can use melee for it, although your smacks won't be as good as a solarion or melee specced soldier.]
Such as PF2 not having a single actually ranged-exclusive class, but several almost entirely melee-exclusive ones (Barb, Swashbuckler, Champion, and to a lesser extent Rogue). Or several times more melee feats and subclasses compared to ranged ones.If Gunslinger doesn't qualify as a ranged-exclusive class, then I don't know what would. It is too much to ask for a TTRPG to have a class that is literally unable to have any melee options - which is what I think of with the term 'ranged exclusive'. Of the Gunslinger subclasses, only two of them involve melee weapons at all - one by pairing melee with ranged weapons, and one by using combination melee/ranged weapons.
Plus the Vanguard's Reload and all but the initial deed require you to go into melee to use them. The other two don't just involve melee weapons, they outright force you to use them and stay in melee for all abilities that they grant. So with half of its subclasses not being actual ranged attackers, I can't in good conscience call the Gunslinger any real degree of "range-focused".
And most classes have something for ranged. Even if it is just thrown weapons like Barbarian and Swashbuckler and Champion have.
Yes, they have something ranged. A couple of feats at most. And their classes and feats provide strong anti-synergy even then. It's an afterthought or a backup at most. That's the only reason I said "almost entirely" not "entirely".
Pulling back for a second to look at both TTRPGs and videogames as a whole, however, the most interesting engagements tend star a mix of melee and ranged combatants. This is because they can put pressure on each other: sluggers can rush and disrupt snipers, who in turn make the slugger's approach a dangerous endeavor. The pressure between the two keeps everyone moving as they try to force the other into their preferred method of engagement. I find this superior to engagements that involve either sluggers or snipers alone, as those tend to devolve into disorganized mosh pits or extended games of peek-a-boo, respectively. Having both types on both sides keeps combatants from getting locked into either.
Absolutely agreed. Which is why I think mixing the two systems will probably be the most interesting way to play.
So, SF1 can already do thoughtful map design, and PF2's engine is better at flexibility/mobility. However, we're still stuck with melee's overwhelming lethality in both games, and there's an absence of spicy ranged mechanics in either (ignoring spells). So, ranged attack options will probably need a slight buff overall, although not too much of one: melee needs to maintain some advantages to make up for it being much higher risk now that everyone has a gun. Classes will also need to provide more stuff to do from a distance in order to keep things from devolving into boring, repetitive rounds of everyone deciding to shoot twice and take cover.
That looks to be exactly what's happening. While this is obviously subject to change, we have already seen the "normal" weapon with no serious drawbacks move from d6/deadly d10 (shortbow) to d8 (rotolaser), the weapon with drawbacks from d8 (longbow) to d10 (stellar cannon) and the "one-handed d6" pew pew gun from advanced to simple. In terms of class-support, the Soldier gets essentially a minimum of 2 MAP-less attacks per round. We also have seen hints of maneuver traits on ranged weapons.
Melee users will probably still be the king of maneuvers and will definitely have somewhat stronger weapons that also add STR to every attack, as well as easy access to damage reactions like Reactive Strike. And RS in particular is devastating when you can catch a ranged character. So they will definitely still have the edge, they are just going to have to be a lot more mobile now.
Encounter/map design - While the good old 5ft hallway fight will probably still exist here and there, it looks like SF2 maps will be quite more open and can feature significant verticality. Both are a pain when you aren't primarily a ranged character.
How much this can be a factor will be heavily limited to just people using official modules unless Paizo shifts to be far more informative and guiding in regards to encounter design then they have been in the past.
Encounter/map design - While the good old 5ft hallway fight will probably still exist here and there, it looks like SF2 maps will be quite more open and can feature significant verticality. Both are a pain when you aren't primarily a ranged character.How much this can be a factor will be heavily limited to just people using official modules unless Paizo shifts to be far more informative and guiding in regards to encounter design then they have been in the past.
I don't think so. It looks like SF2 will continue the "ranged combat is cool now" angle pretty heavily. It doesn't take in-depth guidance rules for a GM - even a new one - that when most of your PCs want to use their awesome new guns, then building most maps as tunnel fights or cqc urban combat will probably not go over well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Re: informing GMs, the Lancer core rulebook actually has a section on battlefield design and different mission objectives that absolutely rules. Really wish more GM toolkits had stuff like that.
Plus the Vanguard's Reload and all but the initial deed require you to go into melee to use them.
Vanguard needs melee range and positioning, but they are still using ranged weapons.
The other two don't just involve melee weapons, they outright force you to use them and stay in melee for all abilities that they grant. So with half of its subclasses not being actual ranged attackers, I can't in good conscience call the Gunslinger any real degree of "range-focused".
So two subclasses being fully ranged-only, one subclass being melee range with ranged weapons, and two subclasses being hybrid melee/range...
And don't forget that even with the hybrid melee, they have lower proficiency with their melee weapons.
Gunslinger is pretty heavily tipped in the direction of ranged combat.
Yes, they have something ranged. A couple of feats at most. And their classes and feats provide strong anti-synergy even then. It's an afterthought or a backup at most. That's the only reason I said "almost entirely" not "entirely".
Yes. But having something is more than enough for me to say that the classes are not melee-exclusive.
Just like I am expecting that even the ranged leaning classes in Starfinder are going to have melee options. Even if it is only something.
They could try making some cool tricks for ranged to do.
In starfinder 1 ranged combat isn't just worse its BORING. Your options are hit and hit twice. Melee has combat manuevers, cleaving, flanking, and oodles of combat feats to spice up and improve hitting people with weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think so. It looks like SF2 will continue the "ranged combat is cool now" angle pretty heavily. It doesn't take in-depth guidance rules for a GM - even a new one - that when most of your PCs want to use their awesome new guns, then building most maps as tunnel fights or cqc urban combat will probably not go over well.
If it is just implied rather than actually giving advice and instruction, then no, most gms (especially new gms) will continue to design their dungeons the same as they do for the other D&Ds.