Following the debrief we got for two upcoming Pathfinder classes, I think it's time to bring up a familiar topic: area weapons in Starfinder 2e, as outlined in Field Test #1, make targets do a Reflex save against your class DC. The premium user of area weapons is meant to be the Soldier, a class also outlined in that field test. However, this isn't entirely true, and as written in the field test, the best user of area weapons is in fact the Kineticist, a Pathfinder class whose class DC is the only one to go all the way up to legendary proficiency rank.
Now, at the time, this generated a lot of discourse: a common line was that it made mechanical sense for the Kineticist, a class with lots of access to AoE, to be good at AoE weapons, but it still didn't really make thematic sense for Aang from Avatar to spray a rotolaser more accurately than the battle-trained soldier who specializes in exactly that, nor is it good form in 2e for a class to encroach on an entirely different class's specialty like that (we certainly don't see classes in Pathfinder getting legendary weapon accuracy by accident). Eventually, it was suggested to factor in the weapon-user's proficiency in said weapon somehow, so that only those meant to be good at using those weapons would truly excel at area attacks, and that looked like it would resolve the issue. Unless, of course, we ended up with a class that had both master martial weapon proficiency and a legendary class DC...
So yeah, the Commander is a class with both master martial weapon proficiency and a legendary class DC. In many ways, their problem is the inverse of the Kineticist's, where they're perfectly-suited thematically for firing area weapons, but mechanically have absolutely nothing in their kit that makes them inherently good at AoE damage. Sure, the Soldier's tankier and can shoot one target in their area an extra time, but that in my opinion still doesn't hold up to a +2 to weapon accuracy in Pathfinder given what the Fighter can achieve, and that's before factoring in the entire unique system of tactics the Commander brings to the table. One could dismiss this by saying the Commander's a Pathfinder class and this is Starfinder (even though PF2e and SF2e are meant to be mutually compatible), but this problem is bound to appear if we ever get a martial class with a legendary class DC in Starfinder, which is not impossible. Clearly, if area weapons are still to keep relying on class DC (and maybe weapon proficiency), then something needs to be done to make sure that the Soldier doesn't get beaten at their own game by some random other class that happens to have a legendary class DC.
Now, there are lots of ways this could be achieved: you could pull a Gunslinger, for instance, nerf area weapons, and put that power back into the Soldier so that they'd be the only class who'd really want to use them. You could double down on the Soldier's usage of area weapons by giving them a legendary class DC, plus lots of other perks that guarantee they wouldn't get outmatched. You could even give the Soldier some bespoke mechanic that let them override the DCs of area weapons in a way that always worked to their advantage. Personally, though, I'm of the opinion that basing area weapon damage on class DC is a fundamentally bad idea: as shown with the Commander, class DC isn't a bucket that automatically signals good AoE damage, and we could see this already in other Pathfinder martial classes that use class DC mainly for single-target effects. In general, class DC isn't a bucket that signals anything in particular, which is why it's used so differently from one class to another.
There's a ton of other issues tied to switching from attack rolls to Reflex saves on a weapon that I won't rehash here, but the long and short of it is that area weapons, as written in the field test, could probably use a different implementation for their AoE attacks. Given how these weapons specifically tap into AoE damage, which martial classes in 2e typically aren't supposed to have, I'd even go as far as to suggest bundling them into a brand-new weapon category, so that Pathfinder classes like the Fighter and Gunslinger can't access them easily, but classes like the Soldier or any other AoE-capable character in Starfinder can. Perhaps the implementation for AoE weapons has already advanced far beyond that field test and accounted for all of the above, so this post could very well already be obsolete, but if that's the case, I'd also be curious to read a developer update on the subject, as I otherwise do really like the concept of AoE weapons and am looking forward to playing with them in SF2e.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're making a loooot of assumptions for a class we've only seen 5 levels of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure that with the update to automatic fire, that version of aoe weapons will stick around.
I have my own reservations concerning some of it, but PF2 overlap issues are very much not part of that. The concern is understandable, those are problems I will certainly face myself, but we can't make balance decisions based on that. The default assumption is that these are separate systems.
Now, that SF2 will get a class with legendary class DC is a whole other story. I'm still not sold that even a Soldier with only master DC would somehow be inferior to a class that just gets the better DC, not with 9 feats geared around this exact playstyle and additions from the chassis. The other guy is unlikely to have more than 1 or 2 feats and nothing but the DC from the chassis. As a very crude comparison, a level 16 Fighter without feats for his playstyle is going to be decent, but will get absolutely outclassed by most other martials who have a solid build going.
And all of this is assuming the Soldier doesn't get legendary, even if that is reasonable. But our look into the class was very brief and is confirmed to be massively out of date. So if any of this even matters on the class side, we won't know for another two weeks.
So I'd like to continue this when we have the full info.
You seem to be assuming a crossover campaign as the default. Yes, there are balance and thematic issues for the GM to be aware of in such a campaign. Just because the systems are compatible doesn't mean mixing them will be the default assumption.
You seem to have missed this part of the post:
One could dismiss this by saying the Commander's a Pathfinder class and this is Starfinder (even though PF2e and SF2e are meant to be mutually compatible), but this problem is bound to appear if we ever get a martial class with a legendary class DC in Starfinder, which is not impossible.
As already noted in the OP, the concern is not exclusive to crossover campaigns; it creates a problem in SF2e as well where any class with a legendary DC is going to also have amazing accuracy with area weapons, regardless of whether or not AoE damage is part of their strengths. As it so happens, though, Paizo themselves are in fact balancing with crossover play in mind, with Michael Sayre specifying that Fighters and Gunslingers aren't supposed to be great with these weapons due to their focus on single-target damage. The Soldier themselves is getting overhauled so that they're not "Fighter in space", so whether you like it or not, Starfinder 2e is getting designed with Pathfinder 2e in mind, and that includes some (though not all) balance considerations.
You're making a loooot of assumptions for a class we've only seen 5 levels of.
Not really, particularly as this topic is barely about the Soldier at all. From what we've been told, the class's DC will only go up to master, so that's already an issue, but the bigger point is that the implementation of AoE weapons as we've seen it makes it far too easy for random classes to suddenly become great at AoE damage, where otherwise they wouldn't have access to it.
Now, that SF2 will get a class with legendary class DC is a whole other story. I'm still not sold that even a Soldier with only master DC would somehow be inferior to a class that just gets the better DC, not with 9 feats geared around this exact playstyle and additions from the chassis. The other guy is unlikely to have more than 1 or 2 feats and nothing but the DC from the chassis. As a very crude comparison, a level 16 Fighter without feats for his playstyle is going to be decent, but will get absolutely outclassed by most other martials who have a solid build going.
This is simply not true, though. A Fighter who archetypes all of their feats is still going to be fundamentally amazing at weapon combat, because a +2 to your attack rolls over every other martial class is just that good in the math of 2e, the same system Starfinder is being updated into. There is no archetype that lets you get legendary proficiency or even master proficiency in weapons if you don't have it already, and the one archetype that allowed that in the past was nerfed specifically to preserve niche protection.
And this is why I also think the excuse that we should all just pretend Pathfinder and Starfinder won't exist in the same system with the explicitly advertized intent of cross-compatibility is just that, an excuse: Starfinder is certainly going to shake up balance in its own environment, but from what we've seen it's very much not trying to shake up the fundamental math of the system it's entering, nor does it have any reason to do so. The core problem with AoE weapons using class DC is that the mechanic assumes class DC is the bucket for AoE damage, when so far that has very much not been the case. Casters, who access AoE, remain forever only trained in their class DC, and those are just the ones who got updated with the remaster (premaster casters are untrained). No developer commentary on SF2e casters, including the Mystic or Witchwarper, suggested this would change for Starfinder, even though these AoE weapons are expressly meant to be reliable backup weapons for casters too. Thus, the classes with the highest class DC are martial classes, plus the Kineticist, and martial classes in 2e are single-target damage classes by default. We may not have all that much info to go with, but the info we've gotten so far is sufficient to evaluate that the implementation of AoE weapons for player characters, as was listed in the one field test that featured them, doesn't seem to be working as intended and is prone to abuse. This doesn't mean we should scrap AoE weapons, far from it, but in my opinion there's got to be some alternative implementation that would work better for classes meant to benefit from those weapons, and prevent that abuse from happening at all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're making a loooot of assumptions for a class we've only seen 5 levels of.Not really, particularly as this topic is barely about the Soldier at all. From what we've been told, the class's DC will only go up to master, so that's already an issue, but the bigger point is that the implementation of AoE weapons as we've seen it makes it far too easy for random classes to suddenly become great at AoE damage, where otherwise they wouldn't have access to it.
Yes really. You're essentially repackaging the argument that no other martial class should exist because fighters have an additional +2. The counterpoint to that is the same as the counterpoint to this, you're disregarding everything else in the classes. We've got 14 more days before the full class playtest drops with a fuller range of gear and feats. If the soldier only got expert in their class DC, I might be more on board but you really should wait until the full playtest is released before spilling this much digital ink on a class that we have only seen 5 levels of. I certainly would not complain if soldier got legendary class DC progression but considering that it is stated to be the AoE weapon class somehow not expecting them to have a huge amount of synergistic abilities for the AoE weapons is just silly.
Yeah a Kineticist could use AoE weapons but why would they? They've got a bunch of more immediately flexible impulses and have 0 abilities that interact with AoE weapons.
Yeah a Commander could use AoE weapons but why would they? AoE weapons are usually two actions to fire and that's two less actions for the Commander to spend on positioning and using their tactics. They also have 0 abilities that interact with AoE weapons.
A Soldier gets primary target, inflicts the suppressed condition and has 5 feats that directly improve their use of AoE weapons so far.
Also, random classes should also be able to make some use of AoE weapons too. They're meant to be balanced as effective weapons, soldier is just going to be the class that gets more out of them mechanically.
Yes really. You're essentially repackaging the argument that no other martial class should exist because fighters have an additional +2.
Lol no, and if you really believe this then you truly haven't bothered to read the OP properly. The point being made is that random classes that have no inherent AoE should not become top-tier in AoE through AoE weapons by having the highest accuracy possible. Again, no class in Pathfinder becomes legendary or even a master in weapons by accident, which is why the Fighter gets to be the weapons specialist in an environment full of martial characters who are themselves good with weapons, and why characters who aren't martial can't encroach on that by obtaining master, let alone legendary weapon proficiency. The fact that the Soldier is meant to be the AoE weapon specialist but doesn't do a great job of it is secondary to this, though still an issue.
Yeah a Commander could use AoE weapons but why would they? AoE weapons are usually two actions to fire and that's two less actions for the Commander to spend on positioning and using their tactics. They also have 0 abilities that interact with AoE weapons.
For the simple reason that they have legendary accuracy with said weapons. Again, a +2 in accuracy is enough for the Fighter to be the best weapons user in the game, without even needing special interactions with weapons for this benefit to be felt. Assuming AoE weapons are worth using at all, then they're going to be desirable to classes who can get absolute max accuracy out of them regardless of inherent interactions with their own kit. It is spectacularly naïve to assume a martial class wouldn't touch a weapon like this when a) the Commander does in fact have an incentive to use weapons of their own, b) the Commander has tactics that perfectly accommodate filling in their third action as they fire, and c) the Commander would be dealing AoE damage, a desirable thing that they can't otherwise output with the best accuracy available for those weapons. Weapons in Pathfinder have caused immense balance headaches for far less.
Also, random classes should also be able to make some use of AoE weapons too. They're meant to be balanced as effective weapons, soldier is just going to be the class that gets more out of them mechanically.
You're absolutely right, AoE weapons are indeed meant to be balanced as effective weapons, which means they would be especially effective in the hands of people who can fire them with legendary accuracy, irrespective of special interactions with said weapons. Thank you for disproving your own bad-faith excuses for dismissing the possibility of classes like the Commander or Kineticist even touching those weapons.
But also, you seem to still be missing the point at hand, at this stage in a way that appears deliberate: there is a world of difference between making some use of a weapon, and having the best possible accuracy with that weapon. Again, as shown with the Fighter, that alone is enough to make a class top-tier with weapons that are already effective in 2e, in a way that is extremely difficult and likely undesirable to try to surpass with bespoke class features. The alternative is to balance these weapons like the Gunslinger's firearms, i.e. by making them weak and shifting a lot of power onto the class meant to excel at them, but that defeats the purpose of those weapons being a decent choice for everyone.
I'm sure not going to type out all of this on my phone, sry, but one sidenote I have to mention - the Kineticist specifically is a strange thing to bring up.
He already has better aoe than any normal aoe weapon would possibly give him. And you don't really have the money to keep one "just in case". I'm not sure if that is at all levels for all elements (if you only use 1) but is sure is the case when you even need to consider the legendary DC... at level 19. It certainly isn't a contest then, not even a hint of one.
As far as I can tell, Kineticist is only relevant as a measuring stick for the Soldier insofar as that they can kinda fill the same role, tanky with heavy aoe focus. I'm really interested to see how the Soldier feels next to a Kineticist whipping out ALL SHALL END IN FLAMES every round, just because. And yes, the caps are necessary :D
...welp, so much for this only being a short sidenote... Sorry for the sidetrack, I know this isn't the point XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff
Okay, at this point it would be hypocritical for me to keep at this after saying it's silly to spend so much time debating a subject when we have only seen a 1/4 of a class that should be a major relevant factor in the conversation. You say I'm deliberately ignoring the math, I say you're deliberately ignoring the further context of the relevant classes and equipment. Whatever. Now I'm deliberating stepping out of here.
Teridax, I quickly get tunnel vision myself, so please trust me when I say this - you gotta get out of that tunnel. Take a step back. You are really way, waaaay to quick on the trigger when throwing around accusations like people acting in bad faith. No, they aren't. They just disagree with you. We are all decent people here.
---
To the actual point:
Just because something is an effective weapon doesn't automatically make someone that is legendary in it top tier.
For one, again, LEVEL 19. We haven't seen even a whiff of what the Soldier is packing for most of the game, much less this late in the game where all classes get some truly insane stuff. Its level 1 kit is already pretty spicy. Largely guaranteed suppressed condition on every targeted enemy (the "suppressed even on success" part of Bombard seems to be baseline now) and getting rid of the single-target weakness of the category. There were also hints of things comparable to the level 9-ish glow-up that classes like the Rogue get. So I'm expecting we haven't seen nothing yet.
Two, I fundamentally disagree on the entire point. Even the crude Fighter analogy I made doesn't support it - a Fighter without weapon feats is anything but top tier. Plenty of builds compare well to a fully build Fighter, even in its own roles. And a Fighter with weapon feats and one without are night and day. Without he is still pretty decent and even good with a two-handed build. But he simply doesn't have the versatility or power to compete with other endgame builds, much less endgame monsters. Having halfway decent DPR isn't enough by then.
Soldiers get Legendary Class DC Proficiency.
This is fantastic news, thank you for sharing! I remember around the time of the field test that this wasn't a certainty, and I'm glad the class is being put at the highest level of accuracy for the weapons they're meant to be specialists in.
With that in mind, though, what about classes like the Commander? What about other potential classes with legendary class DC but no inherent access to AoE damage? What about casters? As I understand, these guns are meant to be good uses for a caster's third action, but that's going to be difficult without giving casters a scaling class DC, which isn't the case so far in Pathfinder. On the flipside, if classes like the Commander can suddenly become great at AoE damage just because they have a legendary class DC, regardless of whether they're meant to be good at AoE, that sounds like a niche protection issue that would have to be addressed.
You say I'm deliberately ignoring the math, I say you're deliberately ignoring the further context of the relevant classes and equipment. Whatever. Now I'm deliberating stepping out of here.
What I am pointing out, and what you are deliberately ignoring, is that the Soldier is only part of the problem. Thankfully, we now have a developer response confirming that the Soldier will have top-tier accuracy with AoE weapons, and so is set to be the best user of those weapons in the game, which is excellent news. However, the other issue remains that if a Commander, or a class like the Commander, gets their hands on an AoE weapon, they'll go from having no AoE capability at all to significant AoE capabilities thanks to their top-tier class DC. Assuming AoE weapons are still balanced to be generally good, the Commander would not need special interactions with them to be exceptionally good with said weapons, owing to their exceptionally high class DC. If your only response is to keep refusing to engage with the subject matter and try to deflect, then by all means, feel free to leave this conversation.
Teridax, I quickly get tunnel vision myself, so please trust me when I say this - you gotta get out of that tunnel. Take a step back. You are really way, waaaay to quick on the trigger when throwing around accusations like people acting in bad faith. No, they aren't. They just disagree with you. We are all decent people here.
So here's the thing: I assume that you, the person participating in this argument, are a human being with functional enough eyesight, reading comprehension, game awareness, and basic reasoning to engage in at least some elementary level of discussion. You in particular, Karmagator, are someone I have seen post frequently on these forums and in the subreddit, so I know for a fact that you know the systems being talked about more than you're letting on here. This is why it is particularly strange for you to formulate responses like these:
I'm sure not going to type out all of this on my phone, sry, but one sidenote I have to mention - the Kineticist specifically is a strange thing to bring up.
He already has better aoe than any normal aoe weapon would possibly give him. And you don't really have the money to keep one "just in case". I'm not sure if that is at all levels for all elements (if you only use 1) but is sure is the case when you even need to consider the legendary DC... at level 19. It certainly isn't a contest then, not even a hint of one.
As far as I can tell, Kineticist is only relevant as a measuring stick for the Soldier insofar as that they can kinda fill the same role, tanky with heavy aoe focus. I'm really interested to see how the Soldier feels next to a Kineticist whipping out ALL SHALL END IN FLAMES every round, just because. And yes, the caps are necessary :D
...welp, so much for this only being a short sidenote... Sorry for the sidetrack, I know this isn't the point XD
When the entirety of your response's contents were already fully addressed in this thread's OP:
Now, at the time, this generated a lot of discourse: a common line was that it made mechanical sense for the Kineticist, a class with lots of access to AoE, to be good at AoE weapons, but it still didn't really make thematic sense for Aang from Avatar to spray a rotolaser more accurately than the battle-trained soldier who specializes in exactly that, nor is it good form in 2e for a class to encroach on an entirely different class's specialty like that (we certainly don't see classes in Pathfinder getting legendary weapon accuracy by accident).
Notice how the highlighted bit anticipates your response exactly.
With this, I'm left with a rather unfortunate choice of assessment to make: either there has been such a complete and repeated failure in basic reading comprehension that intelligent discussion was a non-starter, or the responder did in fact read the post correctly, but chose to deflect and otherwise not engage with the post in good faith out of misplaced defensiveness, which sadly happens often in these spaces. Because I know for a fact that you can read and converse intelligently when you want to, I have to lean towards the latter rather than the former, and the same applies for Han Del, a similarly experienced forumite who really should know better.
To be clear, my post really does unambiguously spell out the issue I'm taking with AoE weapons, from the title to the following:
Personally, though, I'm of the opinion that basing area weapon damage on class DC is a fundamentally bad idea: as shown with the Commander, class DC isn't a bucket that automatically signals good AoE damage, and we could see this already in other Pathfinder martial classes that use class DC mainly for single-target effects. In general, class DC isn't a bucket that signals anything in particular, which is why it's used so differently from one class to another.
So, just to quickly address your latest reply: you know better than to pretend that level 19 is a late level for a legendary DC when that's the default for any legendary spell or class DC, and classes who get to that legendary DC get earlier proficiency bumps, a significant intended benefit. Similarly, you know better than to insist on talking about a feat-less Fighter, because not only will the class still be a top-tier weapons user thanks to all of the essential benefits baked into their class features (this is a fundamental difference in how 2e is designed compared to 1e), but you're also deliberately ignoring the existence of archetypes that give access to the synergistic feats you're trying so hard to exclude. 2e has been around for years, and so have you, so let's not act brand new.
But let's humor what you're saying anyway: none of this addresses the fact that this implementation of AoE weapons means that any class with a legendary class DC and no inherent AoE damage, like the Commander, suddenly gains a massive power-up in a field they're absolutely not intended to be at all good at. Again, you have been around for long enough in 2e to know that this kind of niche encroachment is something the system bends over backwards to avoid. Not only that, but classes like the Commander in particular are going to be above-average in their ability to use these weapons, because legendary class DCs are extremely rare. If we are assuming that AoE weapons are balanced to be good on more than just the Soldier, which for most weapons in 2e does not require special weapon synergy either, then it logically follows that classes like the Commander are going to be exceptionally good at using those, which raises a problem given how AoE damage is not part of their niche.
It's not just the Commander that's the issue, though: the flipside to this is that casters, who thus far are only either trained or untrained in class DC, are going to have a hard time making good use of these weapons despite the fact that they're being pushed to fire more guns in Starfinder. This is less of a problem, because you could just make their class DC scale at the same rate as their spell DC, but then that also begs the question as to why this wasn't done for remastered casters in Pathfinder, who are generally good at AoE and are meant to be compatible with this system too. In all cases, there is an implementation problem at hand that ought to be addressed sooner rather than later, so that it doesn't give the developers a headache in the future. You are welcome to engage with this, but pretending that there's no issue or risk whatsoever, against all evidence that I know you've been exposed to, does not constitute engaging with the subject matter in good faith.
Soldiers get Legendary Class DC Proficiency.
Well, that's that then. I should have remembered that, it was already confirmed at Paizocon... whoops.
Thanks for jumping in Thursty, I'm very much looking forward to how the Soldier looks in all its glory ^^
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And btw Teridax, holy **** you need to chill. Constantly assuming the worst of people and reading their replies in the most hostile light possible does not make for a good discussion...
For example - my reply about the kineticist is perfectly fine. You said it doesn't make thematic sense for Aang to carry a rotolaser. I merely said that that is extremely mechanically niche, downgrading your character, and implied that it was PF2 anyway, so can't be a consideration for SF2 balance. Aka, I reasonably consider this a non-issue for SF2.
And about level 19 - not with a single word did I ever mention that that is late for legendary DCs. What I explicitly said is that by then, pure proficiency and nothing else is far from enough to be top-tier. A statement I absolutely stand by.
What I also implied that in practice even in PF2 basically nobody spends significant time at levels 19 and 20. So why should an entire weapon category require fundamental adjustments around that?
When another SF2 class runs into this, the devs will keep it in mind, both thematically and mechanically. Again, how this affects PF2 options is explicitly not a concern. Trying to make it one isn't going to change anything. The Starfriends keep hammering the point home - compatible does not mean balanced. That extends to theme as well.
In regards to casters - they are much in the same boat as the Kineticist, they've got little use for simple aoe weapons. Using regular simple guns and grenades is perfectly fine as far as encouraging casters to engage with the arsenal goes, imo. More martial-leaning casters will find their ways as usual.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Soldiers get Legendary Class DC Proficiency.
I don't know why but my first thought after reading this was: "What's this?! By God, it's Bernie Sanders with a steel chair!"
Soldiers get Legendary Class DC Proficiency.I don't know why but my first thought after reading this was: "What's this?! By God, it's Bernie Sanders with a steel chair!"
I've no idea how you arrived there of all places either. My first thought on yours was "hey, this could actually work! You could reflavor a weapon as a steel chair and the Soldier can make area attacks with melee weapons now."
The second was a mental picture of an extremely buff Bernie Sanders dropping from the air with a steel chair XD
And btw Teridax, holy **** you need to chill. Constantly assuming the worst of people and reading their replies in the most hostile light possible does not make for a good discussion...
No, you need to stop blaming your poor argumentation on others. If you wanted good discussion, you would have answered the topic of conversation pertinently, with relevant and accurate information. Instead, you have gone out of your way to avoid doing this, and have instead preferred to gaslight the person you are talking to when called out on it. As the chain indicates, I did not assume the worst of your first comment, and you were the first to make accusations unprovoked, before repeating a stream of arguments that had already been debunked or addressed in the very first post of this thread.
For example - my reply about the kineticist is perfectly fine. You said it doesn't make thematic sense for Aang to carry a rotolaser. I merely said that that is extremely mechanically niche, downgrading your character, and implied that it was PF2 anyway, so can't be a consideration for SF2 balance. Aka, I reasonably consider this a non-issue for SF2.
So this is already a lie. Let's look at your reply about the Kineticist:
I'm sure not going to type out all of this on my phone, sry, but one sidenote I have to mention - the Kineticist specifically is a strange thing to bring up.
He already has better aoe than any normal aoe weapon would possibly give him.
Notice how this is the first argument you had to make for the Kineticist -- the argument I explicitly anticipated in the thread OP. Even if your comment were to be taken at face value, it still shows that you were deflecting -- none of what you say has any relevance to the fact that the Kineticist being especially accurate with certain weapons is not part of the class's flavor, yet is still a consequence of the implementation of AoE weapons. The argument that the Kineticist has no relevance to SF2 because "it was PF2 anyway" is itself also directly addressed in the thread OP:
One could dismiss this by saying the Commander's a Pathfinder class and this is Starfinder (even though PF2e and SF2e are meant to be mutually compatible), but this problem is bound to appear if we ever get a martial class with a legendary class DC in Starfinder, which is not impossible.
Emphasis added. Please understand that it is difficult to assume that you are acting in good faith when you are showing no visible effort to read or engage pertinently with the material you have been presented.
And about level 19 - not with a single word did I ever mention that that is late for legendary DCs.
This is also a falsehood. Let's go back to your post:
Just because something is an effective weapon doesn't automatically make someone that is legendary in it top tier.
For one, again, LEVEL 19.
Emphasis yours. If you did not want to highlight the late level at which the proficiency bump would take place, when why bold out this part?
What I explicitly said is that by then, pure proficiency and nothing else is far from enough to be top-tier. A statement I absolutely stand by.
Based on what evidence? Again, as already mentioned, Pathfinder 2e very much does not expect you to pick feats to fulfil the essentials of what your class is meant to do -- or in this case, be good at the stuff your proficiency allows you to be good at. Legendary weapon proficiency is enough for the Fighter to be the best weapons-user in the game, whether or not they archetype into some entirely different niche.
What I also implied that in practice even in PF2 basically nobody spends significant time at levels 19 and 20. So why should an entire weapon category require fundamental adjustments around that?
Notice how despite claiming only a couple sentences ago that you weren't trying to dismiss the matter of legendary proficiency based on it coming at a late level, you are doing exactly that right here. Also: because that's part of the system's core design philosophy? Again, I'm sensing a very 1e mentality here where according to you, balance somehow ceases to be relevant in 2e because either things break down at levels few people play, or the much earlier levels that people do often play where you see similar numerical gaps are not relevant for... reasons. Again, you have been playing 2e and engaging with its design for far too long to make a statement so contrary to its most basic design principles in good faith.
When another SF2 class runs into this, the devs will keep it in mind, both thematically and mechanically. Again, how this affects PF2 options is explicitly not a concern. Trying to make it one isn't going to change anything. The Starfriends keep hammering the point home - compatible does not mean balanced. That extends to theme as well.
But this too is an attempt to deflect, and so by muddying the waters around what it even means for those games to be compatible. Putting aside how this problem is in fact relevant for SF2e alone -- you can't design a class with a legendary DC without them also automatically becoming great at AoE via these weapons -- the stated intent is and always has been for elements of these games to be picked from one into the other with minimal disruption. This is why the rules for archaic weapons were both included (for crossplay), and then made optional (so that PF2e characters aren't straight-up nerfed in SF2e). You are correct that the developers aren't tying themselves to Pathfinder when it comes to deliberate changes in meta they want to enable, such as a greater focus on ranged combat and a reduced focus on Earth-like environmental challenges, but characters suddenly encroaching on a niche they would otherwise have no access to is not part of this stated change in meta. As already indicated, the implementation of both the Soldier and AoE weapons was partly driven by a desire to avoid abuse from Pathfinder classes like the Soldier and Gunslinger, so no matter how many times you insist otherwise, PF2e, and just 2e in general, is very much relevant to the design and balance decisions made for Starfinder.
In regards to casters - they are much in the same boat as the Kineticist, they've got little use for simple aoe weapons. Using regular simple guns and grenades is perfectly fine as far as encouraging casters to engage with the arsenal goes, imo. More martial-leaning casters will find their ways as usual.
Hold on, so why are grenades relevant when bombs in 2e take one action to draw and then another to throw, but AoE guns that explicitly fit the mechanical and thematic niche of Starfinder casters are excluded? Why assert your opinion as fact like this when nothing supports your claim that casters are being deliberately excluded from using AoE weapons, despite being very much encouraged to use guns?
But also, on the topic of tunnel vision: why be this exclusively defensive throughout this entire conversation? Why deploy this much effort into dismissing and invalidating the mere possibility that there could be a way to mitigate the risks associated with the implementation, and deny that there are any such risks at all? You speak of hostility, yet your interaction in this conversation has been almost entirely antagonistic, and the bulk of your posts have focused on dismissing what I've had to say. Do you seriously imagine yourself having a real-life conversation the way you did here and coming across as constructive?
Just as a random thought experiment, if the DC of AoE weapons were based on spell DC rather than class DC, and the Soldier had a class feature at level 1 that let them use their class DC for AoE weapons instead, that would neatly solve the current problem of other classes like the Commander suddenly and accidentally becoming much better at AoE (and, again "much better" is a point you have conspicuously avoided addressing). Doubtless it has risks, problems, and edge cases of its own, but it would at the very least match up the AoE damage DC to the bucket typically used for AoE damage.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see. This is exactly why I regularly see people just leaving discussions with you, as demonstrated above. I'm out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, you need to stop blaming your poor argumentation on others. If you wanted good discussion, you would have answered the topic of conversation pertinently, with relevant and accurate information.
It isn't gaslighting if it is what you actually wrote.
Yes, you also wrote this:
One could dismiss this by saying the Commander's a Pathfinder class and this is Starfinder (even though PF2e and SF2e are meant to be mutually compatible), but this problem is bound to appear if we ever get a martial class with a legendary class DC in Starfinder, which is not impossible. Clearly, if area weapons are still to keep relying on class DC (and maybe weapon proficiency), then something needs to be done to make sure that the Soldier doesn't get beaten at their own game by some random other class that happens to have a legendary class DC.
But the entirety of your OP is that this is practically guaranteed to happen or else no other class in Starfinder is ever allowed to have legendary class DC.
People are allowed to disagree with that. Without that disagreement being seen as a personal attack against you.
Pointing out that this argument makes the assumption that allowing Pathfinder2e classes in Starfinder2e is the default is a valid criticism of the argument.
Reacting as though everyone else is using ad hominem when they are actually disagreeing with your presented argument is not valid logic.
It isn't gaslighting if it is what you actually wrote.
Wrote where? Also, why and how would this be your point of entry into a discussion?
But the entirety of your OP is that this is practically guaranteed to happen or else no other class in Starfinder is ever allowed to have legendary class DC.
The point is that it has already happened. With just the material we have been given, you can give an AoE weapon to the Commander and make them a powerful AoE damage-dealer, where previously they weren't able to do this at all. Because of the way 2e's math works, this is guaranteed to happen with any Starfinder class with a legendary class DC as well, whether or not AoE is meant to be their specialty. The problem already exists, it is not hypothetical.
People are allowed to disagree with that. Without that disagreement being seen as a personal attack against you.
Except Karmagator did in fact engage in personal attacks:
Teridax, I quickly get tunnel vision myself, so please trust me when I say this - you gotta get out of that tunnel.
And btw Teridax, holy **** you need to chill. Constantly assuming the worst of people and reading their replies in the most hostile light possible does not make for a good discussion
I see. This is exactly why I regularly see people just leaving discussions with you, as demonstrated above. I'm out.
I certainly agree that there is a difference between polite disagreement and character attacks, but as outlined already, this person went out of their way to be antagonistic and to attack my character, blaming their refusal to engage with discussion in good faith on me being overly emotional or suffering from tunnel vision (which I'm guessing is their way of saying I didn't humor attempts to deflect from the central point of my thread, which I brought to the forefront regularly). As pointed out already, the contents of their replies were either points that had already been addressed in the OP, or that had no relevance to the subject matter at all. For that matter, your own reply here is entirely off-topic, which raises questions as to what you yourself are aiming to achieve.
Pointing out that this argument makes the assumption that allowing Pathfinder2e classes in Starfinder2e is the default is a valid criticism of the argument.
But it's not when compatibility between the two games is the default, as stated by Paizo themselves. Pretending that this isn't the case, and that we should just act like there's no interaction between the two games at all or that their fundamental workings are different, despite both being part of 2e, is disingenuous when this compatibility was explicitly mentioned in the playtests, like so:
To start off, we are working to make sure that Starfinder Second
Edition is going to be 100% compatible with Pathfinder Second
Edition, meaning that you’ll be able to use content from both
games interchangeably. Do you want to take that monster you
enjoyed from a Pathfinder adventure and toss it against a bunch
of laser-toting space adventurers? Go right ahead! Did you instead
want to have a Gatling gun–toting soldier adventuring alongside
your cleric and wizards? Yeah, you’ll be able to do that now too! Our
goal is to make it so you can take your library of beloved Pathfinder
products and have them seamlessly work with your Starfinder
games, or take our future Starfinder releases and incorporate them
into your Pathfinder games—as long as your GM approves!
Emphasis added. Not just compatible, 100% compatible. Not just able to work, but work seamlessly. It's right there in the very first playtest packet we got, which I saw, you saw, and everyone else on this thread has seen as well, so there is no excuse to pretend otherwise. Notice, by the way, the continual reference to external sources to support my claims, as opposed to the whole lot of conjecture and baseless opinions conjured up by a handful of people so desperate to try to invalidate the merest suggestion that there may be a minor problem in a game in ongoing development, as this community is wont to do.
Reacting as though everyone else is using ad hominem when they are actually disagreeing with your presented argument is not valid logic.
Again, my statements are backed by actual Paizo content. Your claims and similar ones made to the same effect are not, and are in fact directly contradicted by said content. You're not using logic at all by making these baseless accusations, and more broadly have plainly demonstrated zero interest in having a conversation relevant to the actual topic of discussion.
The real question here is: what are you so afraid of? My thread here doesn't tear down Paizo, Starfinder, or even the mechanic I criticized, it merely highlights an edge case that may cause more problems in the future. This is only mildly critical feedback in a game that is still in the playtesting stages, and where the developers have solicited feedback time and again. Thursty was even kind enough to come here and confirm the Soldier's legendary DC, which is terrific news that benefits us all. What benefit is it to you or anyone else to generate the kind of noise in your post, let alone try so hard to invalidate constructive criticism and the person making it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm down for bazooka commanders, sounds cool! And aang can totally whip out the gattling laser if he so chooses in the scifi setting....it would be for flavor reasons though, not because it would be better than his preloaded AOE available in feats. Also from the beginning the developers elaborated that compatible did not equate to balanced...the strix hoofing it next to the ysoki in the jetpack or the naturally flying jellyfish is just going to have to make do. Similarly, the dueling pistol wielding pistolero is going to feel a little dated next to laser pistol wielding operative. Similarly, yea, the kineticist is great with the bazooka bc the GM *chose* to add a "compatible" class that was made for a different game. Class DC as a method of giving soldier decent aoe offense (but still rightfully well below casters) in 2handed weapons and grenades seems a simple enough solution for the con based debuff menace they're going for. It also opens up switch hitting on a frontline bruiser which is pretty unique and something I totally want them to keep. The only concern I see is the being judicious with class DC for future starfinder 2e classes...then again it was 4 years before we got out first legendary DC class in p2E so SF2e could go for a while before they have to tackle that hurdle (unless aoe weapons are thematic for the class in which case its a non issue). Also, who said the bazooka was supposed to be a meaningful option for the casters? Also, Teri, my reading comprehension is fine. The above points that you did preempt were done so with counters I don't agree with. Have a wonderful day!
I'm down for bazooka commanders, sounds cool!
Great! Are you ready to have Fighters cast spells with legendary spell proficiency at your table as well in that case?
Also from the beginning the developers elaborated that compatible did not equate to balanced...the strix hoofing it next to the ysoki in the jetpack or the naturally flying jellyfish is just going to have to make do.
You are indeed correct, Paizo have stated that there will be certain discrepancies in balance owing to the new meta they are engineering for Starfinder... which based on all given information so far, does not include breaching niche protection willy-nilly. They've certainly spoken about wild environments being less of a challenge in a high-tech environment, combat focusing more on fighting at a distance, and some ancestries resultingly being allowed to fly at level 1, but so far no developer has said anything about single-target specialists suddenly accessing exceptionally good AoE. Quite the opposite, in fact, as Michael Sayre has explicitly stated that the implementation of AoE weapons in Starfinder avoids single-target classes like the Fighter and Gunslinger also becoming amazing at AoE as well through cross-pollination. There is therefore no denying that compatibility with Pathfinder 2e, and adherence to 2e's design principles in general beyond Pathfinder, drives Starfinder 2e's design in this respect.
Similarly, the dueling pistol wielding pistolero is going to feel a little dated next to laser pistol wielding operative.
As a matter of fact, they're not. Paizo made the rules for archaic weapons an optional variant specifically to avoid underpowering PF2e classes in SF2e, and explicitly stated they were putting balance over verisimilitude. You are of course welcome to implement this variant at your table and punish players for the temerity of wanting to have fun through the cross-game compatibility that was promised, but that is not the default.
Similarly, yea, the kineticist is great with the bazooka bc the GM *chose* to add a "compatible" class that was made for a different game.
It is strange to see this mentality so often emerge in Starfinder-related discussion where people blame the GM for the terrible crime of running a game as advertized, using the options they were given, and finding themselves with edge cases that disrupt play. The Kineticist may not be mechanically disruptive, since they already access AoE readily, but the Commander certainly is, given that they have no AoE damage in their kit whatsoever and are therefore not intended to be AoE powerhouses. Perhaps this is just a 1e thing, but given how often you hang around in the Pathfinder 2e forums, you ought to know better, WWH.
Class DC as a method of giving soldier decent aoe offense (but still rightfully well below casters) in 2handed weapons and grenades seems a simple enough solution for the con based debuff menace they're going for. It also opens up switch hitting on a frontline bruiser which is pretty unique and something I totally want them to keep.
I'm with you there, I do think it's great that the Soldier gets to be a martial class that specializes in AoE damage, and that's a solid niche to set them apart from other martials, including Pathfinder classes (that was, in fact, the entire point of the redesign, once again because of compatibility and expectations of cross-game play). I don't think anyone here is opposing the Soldier's AoE damage specialty, quite the opposite, and irrespective of the issues with AoE weapons themselves, it's great to know they're getting the best DC possible for them.
The only concern I see is the being judicious with class DC for future starfinder 2e classes...then again it was 4 years before we got out first legendary DC class in p2E so SF2e could go for a while before they have to tackle that hurdle (unless aoe weapons are thematic for the class in which case its a non issue).
This is perhaps the first relevant response made in this thread by someone other than Thursty. If nothing else, thank you for this, and at least acknowledging the risk here that got outlined in the OP.
I do think, however, that there is a flaw in the reasoning: it took 4 years for PF2e to come up with a legendary DC class because 2e was fresh when Pathfinder 2e released (2e the system PF2e and SF2e both use, not just PF2e), and since then the developers have matured their design philosophy around it by leaps and bounds, all while expanding and refining its ruleset. Given that SF2e is being made now, with all the benefit of those advancements, it is not unlikely that we'd get another legendary DC class (besides the Soldier, a class confirmed in this very thread to also have a legendary DC), and soon, not that putting a problem off until later is a sensible practice to begin with. Just based on existing SF classes, the Biohacker looks like a strong contender for legendary class DC, and if Paizo decide to make the class more single-target focused to distinguish them from PF's Alchemist (because again, cross-game compatibility's a thing in 2e) that is a problem that will come up.
Also, who said the bazooka was supposed to be a meaningful option for the casters?
An excellent question! Would you care to point to the comment that suggested building SF casters around using bazookas specifically? Because I can gladly point you to the bits where Paizo explicitly talk about making guns more viable on casters, and as you well know, guns in SF2e include AoE guns, some of which are simple weapons that martial classes have no reason to use. I'm also assuming here that Paizo has updated the rules for AoE weapons in some way to factor in weapon proficiency, otherwise casters really would use bazookas just as well as they'd use any simple AoE gun, as would literally any other class for that matter.
Also, Teri, my reading comprehension is fine. The above points that you did preempt were done so with counters I don't agree with. Have a wonderful day!
Excellent to hear! Which counters do you disagree with specifically? Explicitly laying out your disagreement using your own words could perhaps help discussion move forward, particularly as much of your post's contents has already been brought up in this thread and "disagree" with Paizo material and developer comments. You're welcome to continue disagreeing on that front if you so wish, but that does not automatically entitle your disagreement to be taken seriously.
Alright, in the effort of actually engaging the topic, which I didnt bother with before (bc I like the current implementation and don't honestly think it's going to change), what are the alternatives?
An area weapon action proficiency? Now absolutely no PF2e classes can pick up the gattling gun and spray with it (which is fine bc again "compatible does not equal balanced"). However, now every SF2e class would track weapon proficiency as well as proficiency for certain actions with those weapons. Ultimately a new proficiency track for a small subset of actions that will join the tab keeping of weapon, armor, spell DC, skill, and class DC proficiency tracking. Idk if the addition pays for itself considering the size of the niche it would be protecting; that gets a no from me.
Alternatively, as mentioned above you could go the PF2e gun/gunslinger route of making area attacking with weapons generally cumbersome and not worth it, while juicing the soldiers ability with them to "hopefully" bring them up to par in combat contribution. I see a lot of criticism (admittedly from online communities, so in no way representative) about guns and don't like them personally outside of gunslinger and inventor, so I would be bummed if a whole swathe of itemization was intentionally bad for a majority of the martials in the game.
Another option is to take away area fire from weapons and put it all in the soldier. Obviously a lot of people would miss the idea of spraying down a hallway of mechs or space zombies with a machine gun and having soldier be the only method of getting it, so I can't imagine that going over well.
A spicy one would be making it a skill action with a new "suppression" skill and stipulate that classes can only ever get to master in suppression unless otherwise noted. Then, give soldier automatic advancement in suppression. This is fairly clean compared to other alternatives but arbitrarily locking other people from getting legendary in one particular skill bc of niche protection reasons would a first and I think it chafes mechanically.
Ultimately grenades, bazookas, and gun spray tying off class DC is simple and clean to me; it keeps most martials competent in it and means casters have to make do with shooting a laser pistol or rifle as their third action (which is good bc I personally think spraying down the hallway with suppressing fire is a martial niche and not something the mystic or witchwarper should be doing). Additionally, area fire being a two action activity means most other legendary DC classes are going to have a bevy of two action activities that they would be loathe to forego just to do something as mundane as spray with a machine gun. It works for soldiers bc they have mechanics that encourage it; it's MADE for it. If the nanocyte ends up being legendary DC, I don't care about them being good with rotolasers, soldiers is going to be better with them bc it's whole sctick is going to be using area damage to hem enemies all within a beefy frontline chassis.
P.S. the bazooka thing was me misremembering mechanics. Stellar connon is just a martial weapon attack roll with burst. I may be remembering wrong but I thought I heard grenades using class DC but I could be wrong.
So first off: genuinely, thank you for this post, WWH. I think it's a genuinely great response, and gets to what I've been wanting about actually engaging with the subject matter and discussing potential alternatives. Hopefully this sets an example for others too.
An area weapon action proficiency? Now absolutely no PF2e classes can pick up the gattling gun and spray with it (which is fine bc again "compatible does not equal balanced"). However, now every SF2e class would track weapon proficiency as well as proficiency for certain actions with those weapons. Ultimately a new proficiency track for a small subset of actions that will join the tab keeping of weapon, armor, spell DC, skill, and class DC proficiency tracking. Idk if the addition pays for itself considering the size of the niche it would be protecting; that gets a no from me.
I agree with this. Looking at this kind of implementation, it would add more stuff to every SF2e class proficiency sidebar while excluding PF2e classes from gameplay their SF2e counterparts are intended to access, so it likely wouldn't be the way to go.
Alternatively, as mentioned above you could go the PF2e gun/gunslinger route of making area attacking with weapons generally cumbersome and not worth it, while juicing the soldiers ability with them to "hopefully" bring them up to par in combat contribution. I see a lot of criticism (admittedly from online communities, so in no way representative) about guns and don't like them personally outside of gunslinger and inventor, so I would be bummed if a whole swathe of itemization was intentionally bad for a majority of the martials in the game.
Another option is to take away area fire from weapons and put it all in the soldier. Obviously a lot of people would miss the idea of spraying down a hallway of mechs or space zombies with a machine gun and having soldier be the only method of getting it, so I can't imagine that going over well.
I also agree with this: if the Soldier is meant to be the one good user of area weapons, just as the Gunslinger is meant to be the only good user of firearms in Pathfinder, then it would make sense to apply the same balancing method of making the guns weak and the class extra-good at using them, or even make AoE guns exclusive to the class, but whereas there's good reasons to not make firearms super-desirable natively in a fantasy setting, there's no reason to exclude scatterguns and similarly common guns from a sci-fi setting. It would also go against the intent of making these guns desirable on more characters, namely casters, so I'd rather go for an implementation that didn't lock them to just one class.
A spicy one would be making it a skill action with a new "suppression" skill and stipulate that classes can only ever get to master in suppression unless otherwise noted. Then, give soldier automatic advancement in suppression. This is fairly clean compared to other alternatives but arbitrarily locking other people from getting legendary in one particular skill bc of niche protection reasons would a first and I think it chafes mechanically.
I agree that this might weird some players out, though I also think the big issue is that being good at AoE damage shouldn't really be a skill anyone can advance. Some classes are just not meant to be good at AoE, and that's okay. I also suspect making this a skill would mess with the math of the AoE DCs, because becoming a master at a level when nearly everyone else would still only be trained in their class DC would make accuracy progression on weapon-based AoEs go absolutely coconuts.
Ultimately grenades, bazookas, and gun spray tying off class DC is simple and clean to me; it keeps most martials competent in it and means casters have to make do with shooting a laser pistol or rifle as their third action (which is good bc I personally think spraying down the hallway with suppressing fire is a martial niche and not something the mystic or witchwarper should be doing). Additionally, area fire being a two action activity means most other legendary DC classes are going to have a bevy of two action activities that they would be loathe to forego just to do something as mundane as spray with a machine gun. It works for soldiers bc they have mechanics that encourage it; it's MADE for it. If the nanocyte ends up being legendary DC, I don't care about them being good with rotolasers, soldiers is going to be better with them bc it's whole sctick is going to be using area damage to hem enemies all within a beefy frontline chassis.
See, I feel the opposite way: shooting a gun accurately down that hallway is very much a martial thing to do, especially with classes like the Operative being all about precision, but in a world where your technomancer is going to be using a gun, said space wizard firing a hail-mary down that same hallway and toasting a crowd of mooks just as expertly as if they'd done so with a fireball would be very much appropriate, both mechanically and thematically. Casters using guns for their third action is great, but I think this goes beyond: when you, the caster, can fire an AoE gun competently, that takes a huge amount of pressure off of having cantrips or even levelled spells just for that purpose. You could still equip those for different damage types, more range, more damage through spell slots, and so on, but simply having decent access to those guns means you have tons more freedom to go for more niche and utility-oriented spells to supplement a solid baseline of AoE damage, a thing you're meant to do anyway. By contrast, I don't think it's terribly important for martial classes to access, let alone excel at AoE damage, because unless the class is specifically meant to have it through bespoke class features, AoE damage is simply not a thing martial classes are meant to do well in 2e.
For this reason, how about a slightly weird proposal, which I did make above but was lost on the other commenter: what if your AoE weapon DC was based not on class DC, but spell DC? The Soldier would then specifically have a feature at level 1 that lets them use their class DC instead of their spell DC when making an AoE weapon attack. By connecting the AoE damage DC to the pre-designated bucket for AoE damage, the best dealers of AoE damage would be... well, the best intended dealers of AoE damage. There'd certainly be some weirdness to making a weapon mechanic scale with a spell DC, though arguably that makes about as much sense as that mechanic scaling scaling with how good your class is at doing class stuff. Beyond that, it would allow every caster in 2e to opt well into AoE guns, easily allow the Soldier to excel at AoE guns with that basic adjustment, and protect that mechanic from breaches in niche protection from martials with legendary class DCs.
That's the heart of the disagreement then, I think spray and pray should be a martial thing. Casters will have much more powerful AOEs by way of spells. More of a preference thing really, so the end result will be a matter of designer preference. The idea of Jesse Ventura spraying the jungle with a minigun trying to clip the predator (obviously a soldier) and doing so as effectively as....a scrawny nerd seems fundamentally wrong to me. Now that scrawny nerd snapping his fingers and fireballing the jungle bc he studied all things arcane checks out to me. I don't think the area fire is going to be a caster feature. Reach spell and aoe cantrips are going to be their version of at will aoe. Mechanical (nuts and bolts) aoe seems firmly the realm of the martially inclined and in a ranged meta where everyone has ranged and casters will have BETTER AOE...I think thats fine. Also spraying taking half a clip means martials won't have their teeny AOE power with anywhere near the frequency of caster cantrips aoe power. Proficiency (outside of soldier) also means that martial weapon aoe won't scale as well as caster cantrips aoe
Also circling back to that end paragraph, in a ranged meta commander spraying bullets well is bad, but wizard spraying bullets well is good? AOE damage (that is comparatively piss poor when stacked against focus or lvled spells) staying the sole preview of casters, at the expense of ludo narrative dissonance of the gattling wizard, is not the solution I'd opt for.
That's the heart of the disagreement then, I think spray and pray should be a martial thing. Casters will have much more powerful AOEs by way of spells. More of a preference thing really, so the end result will be a matter of designer preference.
While there is room for disagreement here, I don't think it comes down purely to personal preference in a system known for its niche protection. AoE damage is very much not a martial specialty, it is something casters excel at. Martial classes are single-target specialists by default, and it takes special class features to make them good at AoE if that is indeed their intended niche. This is why weapon AoEs don't use some preestablished model like Whirlwind Strike and make Strikes against AC, for instance, because that would make the Fighter and Gunslinger among the best users of AoE weapons when that is very much not an intended strength of theirs. The problem with the Commander is the exact same problem the developers wanted to avoid with those legendary proficiency classes in the first place, hence why I do think that risk needs to be taken seriously.
The idea of Jesse Ventura spraying the jungle with a minigun trying to clip the predator (obviously a soldier) and doing so as effectively as....a scrawny nerd seems fundamentally wrong to me. Now that scrawny nerd snapping his fingers and fireballing the jungle bc he studied all things arcane checks out to me. I don't think the area fire is going to be a caster feature. Reach spell and aoe cantrips are going to be their version of at will aoe.
I don't see that as particularly unrealistic, tbh. Sgt. Cooper is obviously a Soldier, so he's going to be automatically better with that minigun than the scrawny nerd even if they're using the same DC value, but that scrawny nerd has spent their entire career practicing the use of spells and other magical effects that often cover large areas. They've almost certainly studied how to make use of angles, terrain features, and other measurements to blast an area as optimally as possible, and as anyone with fireball in their spells can attest, pinpointing the exact area to target quickly becomes second nature to one with such abilities. This may perhaps not be so realistic for a fantasy caster who's probably never seen a gun before, but to a sci-fi caster who uses guns on a regular basis in combat, I'd even go as far as to say that it would be unrealistic for them to not be familiar with those effects.
Mechanical (nuts and bolts) aoe seems firmly the realm of the martially inclined and in a ranged meta where everyone has ranged and casters will have BETTER AOE...I think thats fine.
Absolutely not, in a game where the Technomancer is a thing and casters are being pushed to use guns too.
Also spraying taking half a clip means martials won't have their teeny AOE power with anywhere near the frequency of caster cantrips aoe power. Proficiency (outside of soldier) also means that martial weapon aoe won't scale as well as caster cantrips aoe
So... are AoE guns meant to be good or not? You can't have it both ways, where AoE is meant to be a thing worth accessing for martial classes, but where it's too costly or cumbersome to use adequately.
Also circling back to that end paragraph, in a ranged meta commander spraying bullets well is bad, but wizard spraying bullets well is good? AOE damage (that is comparatively piss poor when stacked against focus or lvled spells) staying the sole preview of casters, at the expense of ludo narrative dissonance of the gattling wizard, is not the solution I'd opt for.
What ludonarrative dissonance? Casters are supposed to use guns in Starfinder, that's something the developers are actively working to enable as part of their identity in this new game. Again, Starfinder is not Pathfinder, even if the two games use the same system, so I do think we need to think about casters there as actual characters who live and integrate into a sci-fi world. A space mage would absolutely be using tech to supplement their magic (again, that's why we have Technomancers), even if we should still pay heed to the mechanical niches of different classes and avoid having martial classes excel at AoE when not supposed to.
That's the heart of the disagreement then, I think spray and pray should be a martial thing. Casters will have much more powerful AOEs by way of spells. More of a preference thing really, so the end result will be a matter of designer preference.While there is room for disagreement here, I don't think it comes down purely to personal preference in a system known for its niche protection. AoE damage is very much not a martial specialty, it is something casters excel at. Martial classes are single-target specialists by default, and it takes special class features to make them good at AoE if that is indeed their intended niche. This is why weapon AoEs don't use some preestablished model like Whirlwind Strike and make Strikes against AC, for instance, because that would make the Fighter and Gunslinger among the best users of AoE weapons when that is very much not an intended strength of theirs. The problem with the Commander is the exact same problem the developers wanted to avoid with those legendary proficiency classes in the first place, hence why I do think that risk needs to be taken seriously.
The idea of Jesse Ventura spraying the jungle with a minigun trying to clip the predator (obviously a soldier) and doing so as effectively as....a scrawny nerd seems fundamentally wrong to me. Now that scrawny nerd snapping his fingers and fireballing the jungle bc he studied all things arcane checks out to me. I don't think the area fire is going to be a caster feature. Reach spell and aoe cantrips are going to be their version of at will aoe.I don't see that as particularly unrealistic, tbh. Sgt. Cooper is obviously a Soldier, so he's going to be automatically better with that minigun than the scrawny nerd even if they're using the same DC value, but that scrawny nerd has spent their entire career practicing the use of spells and other magical effects that often cover large areas. They've almost certainly studied how to make use of angles,...
Spraying WILL be decent for martials, but due to the dreaded *RELOAD ACTIVITY* (spooky campfire ghost story voice) it's only going to happen once, maybe twice a fight. Two sprays and you reload, and given most fights only last 3-4 turns, you won't see it spammed when weighed against vagaries of the turn and other specific class actions that are desired.
Spraying WILL be decent for martials, but due to the dreaded *RELOAD ACTIVITY* (spooky campfire ghost story voice) it's only going to happen once, maybe twice a fight. Two sprays and you reload, and given most fights only last 3-4 turns, you won't see it spammed when weighed against vagaries of the turn and other specific class actions that are desired.
Okay, so AoE weapons are meant to be good, then, given how having to reload once for every multiple Area/Automatic Fires (4 for a commercial/advanced Scattergun, 2 for a Rotolaser, 4 for a commercial/advanced Stellar Cannon) is immensely better than reloading every shot like for most PF2e firearms, and in the case of several firearms can let you spray & pray throughout the whole combat. In the case of area weapons, spraying & praying is the only thing you'll be doing with them anyway, so again, I think that makes sense as a cantrip substitute for casters and not quite so much as a mainstay for martial classes, who I don't think should be laying down constant AoE anyways (unless they're a Soldier).
*shrug* We'll see how it shakes out in the playtest
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@WWHsmackdown - from a quick read through this:
From the direction we have seen so far, aoe attacks will likely be an option every round, not just once or twice per fight. Or at least close enough. Automatic fire was thankfully changed to not take half your ammo, but 1+ 1 per target. It looks like it will be a question of choice for everyone but the Soldier, not ability. How much of a choice in regards to your primary it remains to be seen, though.
But I'm right there with you, this is a perfectly thematic and mechanically ok ability for martials to get. If casters can occasionally have large bursts of single target damage far beyond any martial, then martials potentially having mediocre aoe options isn't a dealbreaker. Seeing as a higher prevalence of aoes was a goal of SF2 iirc, this works.
There might be some issues at low levels to work out, though. Aoe spells below level 5 can often be rather terrible and have weird +2 scaling. Haunting Hymn comes to mind.
---
As far as alternatives go, I'm still a big fan of the basic attack roll idea, rather than a basic save. To not reiterate too much from older posts - now you get the fun of rolling everything, it is quicker (especially if you do one roll for everyone), you are targeting AC and it neatly solves the proficiency problem. And since the Soldier gets legendary anyway, it doesn't matter that it does jack to solve the Commander issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the subject of making attack rolls instead of forcing a save: I did make this suggestion back when Field Test #1 launched, citing Whirlwind Strike, and the developer response was: this wouldn't work, and so specifically because of the Fighter and Gunslinger. They may be Pathfinder classes, but they are nonetheless relevant in a system where they're meant to be compatible, and tying the accuracy of AoE attacks to the designated bucket for single-target damage means you get a problem similar to the Commander: the best classes for this AoE damage would also be classes that already specialize in single-target damage, an issue that very much has relevance in SF2e when the Operative's looking like they're set to have expert-to-legendary proficiency in guns. You would have that exact same breach of niche protection that's being brought up here, which is why we should probably be taking that a bit more seriously.
I also don't really think it's in anyone's best interests for AoE weapons to be mediocre: if we look at PF2e's firearms, which are intentionally made weak, then making AoE weapons similarly weak would mean that the only good user of them would be the Soldier. If an AoE weapon's going to be worse than a cantrip, then casters will have no reason to use them, but if your AoE weapon's also not worth just shooting twice as a martial class, then it's going to be difficult to advocate those weapons for them either. If AoE weapons are truly weak right now, which I'm not sure is the case, then I think it would be better to buff them, but make sure that the best users of those weapons are classes who already deal good AoE damage, rather than the ones who don't. Casters pay for their versatility, including their ability to output strong single-target damage in limited amounts, whereas martial classes are specialists by default, so unless casters in SF are intended to become much better at low-cost, single-target damage, I'm not sure it would be all that great for balance for martials to suddenly all become good at AoE either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will point out, its not that weird for the Commander to be good at area fire-- placing artillery fire to maximum effect seems like something an officer does, and they won't get suppression and such the way the soldier does, neither will the Kineticist (who it must be reminded, has hardiness as their key stat.)
I will point out, its not that weird for the Commander to be good at area fire-- placing artillery fire to maximum effect seems like something an officer does, and they won't get suppression and such the way the soldier does, neither will the Kineticist (who it must be reminded, has hardiness as their key stat.)
It would certainly seem like it, I agree, but when you look at the playtest material, it's clear the developers took great pains to restrict the Commander to single-target damage whenever possible. You'd think that tactics like End It!, Piranha Assault, Demoralizing Charge, or Executioner's Volley would easily lend themselves to multi-target damage, but each and every time, it's about focusing down a single target. I think there is therefore strong reason to argue that the Commander is not meant to access good amounts of AoE damage, and their legendary class DC is there exclusively for the sake of their utility.
On the subject of making attack rolls instead of forcing a save: I did make this suggestion back when Field Test #1 launched, citing Whirlwind Strike, and the developer response was: this wouldn't work, and so specifically because of the Fighter and Gunslinger. They may be Pathfinder classes, but they are nonetheless relevant in a system where they're meant to be compatible, and tying the accuracy of AoE attacks to the designated bucket for single-target damage means you get a problem similar to the Commander: the best classes for this AoE damage would also be classes that already specialize in single-target damage, an issue that very much has relevance in SF2e when the Operative's looking like they're set to have expert-to-legendary proficiency in guns. You would have that exact same breach of niche protection that's being brought up here, which is why we should probably be taking that a bit more seriously.
Huh, damn that dev response makes a lot of sense. The Fighter progression really doesn't need an additional boost ^^. Yeah, that idea very much doesn't work then. Too bad XD
The second part I will (hopefully) respond to later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Welp, for some reason I have time right now, so here is part 2 - about the state of AoE weapons and caster stuff.
I'm of the opinion that, even provided they don't follow the frankly unusable rotolaser example, these weapons will be rather niche and situational by their very nature. This does not include stuff like grenades or single-use per fight rocket launchers or the Soldier, but strictly permanent automatic and area weapons.
Area weapons are pretty obvious, very few characters will give up their single-target capabilities. So they will be kept as weaker backup weapons (unless we get fundamental economy changes), if at all, given their extreme bulk.
Automatic fire weapons are more interesting to many characters. You still have a "normal" weapon and if the opportunity presents itself you can do some aoe. But they very much have the "small aoe" issue in an environment that is even less suited to them than PF2. You can also only target reflex saves. It can be quite decent, even though the damage is still just weapon damage, but how often will that actually play out? You aren't catching a lot of people with guns in a 20ft cone or 30ft line. And, depending on how much worse the weapon is to compensate for the automatic trait, how willing will people be to make that compromise?
There are just too many "ifs" and too low a practical ceiling for me to be seriously concerned about casters at this point. I get the concern, though.
I think the bigger takeaway for me is that at least automatic fire should be quite "cheap" in the weapon budget to encourage people to use it.
It'll be really interesting if the playtest changes any of this. Or maybe grenades and stuff will be the mainstay?
Actually, I'm reasonably sure that casters will instead be quite happy overall. Yes, martials will get some aoe capability and the Soldier a lot. Pretty spicy, but probably not fundamentally different from the Kineticist.
But the buff to caster single target damage via "cast gun" is just as significant, if not more for a caster. Because yes, their low-cost single target damage is very much going up. They're not suddenly all warpriests and it is far from knocking anyone's socks off, but my players have been very happy with it so far.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the buff to caster single target damage via "cast gun" is just as significant, if not more for a caster. Because yes, their low-cost single target damage is very much going up. They're not suddenly all warpriests and it is far from knocking anyone's socks off, but my players have been very happy with it so far.
You might be right, perhaps the devs are letting classes blur niche boundaries a little bit in SF2e by giving casters better access to single-target damage and martials better access to AoE damage, in which case that could very well balance out for the most part. I'd personally quite like that, assuming the breach in niche protection is equal both ways, as that could allow characters to do a greater variety of things without individual classes feeling like they're getting their lunch eaten by everyone else.
I still do think, however, that classes like the Commander remain an issue, because while accessing AoE damage is one thing, becoming super-accurate with it I think is a different thing entirely when the baseline is that those classes aren't innately good at single-target damage at all. If the entire implementation of AoE guns was changed just to avoid the Fighter and Gunslinger also becoming really good at AoE on top of single-target damage, irrespective of lack of synergy with those specific guns, then it stands to reason that we should be avoiding the same on the Commander, a single-target damage class, and prospective future classes with a similar profile. I think it would be a shame for AoE weapons to be made weak on all but the Soldier, as I'd rather they were as popular as other guns, and I do still feel like there's some slightly tweaked implementation out there that would allow that while mitigating those edge cases.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, what I'm seeing so far is a slight blurring of the lines that is just all-around pretty neat ^^.
As for the rest we'll have to agree to disagree for now. Who knows what the playtest does with it, much less the inevitable mid-playtest changes or the final product.
Only slightly more than one week left... ahh, the wait is killing me XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the rest we'll have to agree to disagree for now. Who knows what the playtest does with it, much less the inevitable mid-playtest changes or the final product.
This is true, AoE weapons have already changed a little bit, and it's quite possible they'll have changed in ways we don't know that would address every concern neatly. Though I don't hesitate to give critical feedback when I think it's constructive, I also trust Paizo to deliver their content up to their usual high standard of design, and in general I'm really looking forward to how Starfinder will take 2e and shake it up enough for it to deliver an amazing sci-fi RPG.
Only slightly more than one week left... ahh, the wait is killing me XD
Tell me about it! I'm super-stoked to find out more about the new classes. The Witchwarper's theme is incredible, the Solarian's mechanics look super-fun to play with, and the Operative looks to deliver the secret agent class I've been waiting a long time for too.