|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
SF1 operatives getting 5 levels worth of early access to a typically highly thematic exploit did a lot to engender me to a particular specialization.
I fell in LOVE with the Ghost because of level 5 cloaking field.
The early access was the biggest draw of the entire class to me and helped define the specializations. Sure any other operative could pick it up at 10, but by 11 I get a unique thing anyway, and 5-9 is a massive chunk of adventuring time.
Looking to the SF2 Operative:
At character creation we get a skill increase and a skill feat for something relevant to our specialization. The latter is kind of whatever; any two operative could end up with the exact same skillset irrespective of specialization. The skill feat is one level early access, since we don't start with a free skill feat, but it's only a level before any other operative could pick up the same thing.
The actual unique things the specializations grants, the exploits and advanced exploits, are almost all combat-specific abilities. Intellectually I understand the desire to make the operative into more of a striker and shift skills more over to the Envoy, but it feels like this is too far in that direction. It makes the specialization choice irrelevant outside of combat, which feel wrong to me.
Two changes I'd like to see for the operative:
1.) Auto-scaling of the specialization skill. Possibly in lieu of the free skill feat at 3,7,15. I think the raw numbers increase is a better indication of the operative's abilities than the skill feat.
Granted, the skill feats actually ARE early access to something that could be obtained a bit later by other specializations, but they just aren't that cool, imo.
2.) A unique, not specifically combat-related, ability somewhat early on. I'm thinking like the 4-6 range. Could be something baked into the base specialization or, I think more likely, actual class feats with a specialization as a prereq. Just something the specialization can get that helps them stand out. Especially outside of changes to the turn-by-turn combat routine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the contrary, I don't like at all that the class still has skills-relevant stuff when the intention is to clearly shift the focus towards being a pure striker and not a martial / skill monkey hybrid anymore. With that said, I do agree the subclasses feel a little unfocused, but mostly because they aren't consistent with each other. Some give you passive benefits, some give you actions, some give you feats, and some give you multiple of these benefits but in different orders.
I think the perfect standard would be for each specialization to give you both a passive benefit and a bespoke action as their exploit, and then have the enhanced exploit either be an improvement of the passive benefit or the bespoke action. I could also see a similar chassis but by replacing the passive benefit but with a feat instead, but I would prefer something a little more unique that can't be taken by other specialization and, optimally, stuff like Hair Trigger or Keep Them in Your Sights should be baked into the class rather than be feats because otherwise they feel a little too mandatory to take.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it would do the Operative some good to not be so laser-focused on just doing big damage, particularly as I feel their bonus damage should come from using their skills and mobility to exploit their enemies' positioning (if such a thing were to actually be implemented in 2e's ranged combat), rather than piling on steroids. They should definitely still be a striker IMO, but I also feel they could be made a bit of a skill specialist relative to the Envoy's generalist, with a +2 to their subclass skill at all levels. In fact, if the Operative could become an expert at 1st level in their skill, a master at 3rd level, and legendary at 7th level, with free, level-unrestricted skill feats for that skill, that could give them the early access that's currently somewhat missing.
I think it would do the Operative some good to not be so laser-focused on just doing big damage, particularly as I feel their bonus damage should come from using their skills and mobility to exploit their enemies' positioning (if such a thing were to actually be implemented in 2e's ranged combat), rather than piling on steroids. They should definitely still be a striker IMO, but I also feel they could be made a bit of a skill specialist relative to the Envoy's generalist, with a +2 to their subclass skill at all levels. In fact, if the Operative could become an expert at 1st level in their skill, a master at 3rd level, and legendary at 7th level, with free, level-unrestricted skill feats for that skill, that could give them the early access that's currently somewhat missing.
I just disagree with this. Paizo wants the operative to be the "simple" class to play in SF2e and be the equivalent of the fighter here, so if on top of the extra accuracy you make it an even better skill monkey than most classes why bother playing something else besides flavor?
If you removed the fighter scaling proficiencies, then maybe. Still, expert at 1st level, master at 3rd and legendary at 17th won't happen because that's not how the system was made in the first place, but as I said earlier, I don't think Paizo is negotiating the accuracy boost unless everyone happened to be against it, which isn't happening.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just disagree with this. Paizo wants the operative to be the "simple" class to play in SF2e and be the equivalent of the fighter here, so if on top of the extra accuracy you make it an even better skill monkey than most classes why bother playing something else besides flavor?
If you removed the fighter scaling proficiencies, then maybe. Still, expert at 1st level, master at 3rd and legendary at 17th won't happen because that's not how the system was made in the first place, but as I said earlier, I don't think Paizo is negotiating the accuracy boost unless everyone happened to be against it, which isn't happening.
The Fighter's actually a very good example of how the Operative is not a simple class. At level 1, you get amazing proficiencies and two reactions, so you don't need to track anything much except for opportunities to use your Reactive Strike or Shield Block, both of which are obvious when they trigger, easy to do, and powerful when you use them. By contrast, let's look at what you get as a level 1 Operative:
So already, that's a fair bit more to grok, and this is without factoring in On the Move starting at 3rd level, which gives you another action on top of a speed bonus you'll have to keep track of. The class is certainly simplistic, in that their gameplay is really lacking in variety right now due to easily falling into an optimal loop of Aim + Strike x2, but I don't think they're terribly friendly to newer players.
By contrast, what I'd like is to streamline the Operative, yet also tone down their excessive damage. I'd like to take Aim out of their kit entirely, and instead make the class use their mobility to try to catch enemies out of position, something that currently isn't really possible due to how generically good cover is. What I want is a class with Gunslinger-level damage and accuracy, and a different set of tools on the side to complement that. Advance proficiency on one skill with few extra trained skills does not a skill monkey make, and would be closer to the Swashbuckler in terms of specialization, so that on an accurate and mobile, yet squishy ranged class I think should leave plenty of room for other classes to shine.
With Paizo's entire thing about not copying Pathfidner 2E Classes in space you will run into the problem of Starfinder 2E not being newbie friendly and you would move into the position of Pathfinder 2E being the newbie friendly game if you do not cross play with the much simiplier Pathfidner 2E classes such as Fighter or Barbarian. After this long I would be super surprised if they made a straight simple class for Starfinder 2E wgere we had multiple years to consume the basic rules.
This seems partially less like a different system, if intentional or not but more like a massive, massive ever expanding expansion pack for Pathfinder 2E. With the hype of Compatibility I think one needs to look at it as the lenz, you can play either system but the core of the system is Pathfinder 2# which for Starfinder 2E Society you need to ask, can we choose Spells from Pathfinder 2e?
So I expect Operative to be a Fighter + Rogue hybrid to continue, it's not really complicated if you look at each part one by one. You simply do the following rotation as an Operative. Aim, Shoot, Shoot. You use feats to make Aiming better by doing Aim + 1 Bonus Action, Shoot, Shoot.
Some of the sub-classes make the rotation more complex but you don't need it.
Starting level 2 you will most likely get Hair Trigger gaining a Reactive Strike basically, so it's included in the basic rotation. Maybe the problem is the fact you lost all of the Operatives Skill functions from Starfinder 1st Edition? Would it feelbetter to be able to do skill actions more effective as it stands?
Because as it stands the ONLY two classes good at in combat skill actions is Solarian for Athletics because Strength KAS and Enboy because Charisma KAS and Dirty Trick/Other Charisma skill actions with their high attributes. Soldier and Operative will have lower Charisma and Strength. Operative could have a +3 Charisma over Soldiers who want +3 Strength because they need Dexterity to hit with their gun in Primary Target.
Sorry the last bit was off topic but the point still stands I believe.
Oh, I totally agree the operative is far from simple, but I was literally quoting someone on the dev team that said that the operative is meant to have that role (I don't remember who said it, and I also don't remember where I heard it, so I could be entirely wrong and nobody said it. Correct me if I'm wrong).
I'm fully expecting them to either simplify the operative into a more straightforward "fighter but with Aim" or rather drop the fighter profiencies and make it closer to a swashbuckler (some skill monkey-ing, aim being more like finisher though hopefully it wouldn't restrict more attacks that round, Hair Trigger becoming a base feature but closer to Opportune Riposte rather than Reactive Strike, etc). Funnily enough, if you took the current swashbuckler and made it ranged instead it would be really similar to the SF1e operative, though with less trained skills. Ideally, however, I wouldn't want a carbon copy of the swashbuckler either, that's why I'm leaning more towards a simpler operative in its current state rather than the more (accurate?) SF1e operative conversion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I agree totally that the Operative is the designated striker for SF2e, I just think that there's lots of examples of strikers who do more than just lay down big damage. The Fighter is not the gold standard for strikers, it is the upper bound of what a striker can be. Meanwhile, you have strikers like the Gunslinger, Magus, Ranger, Rogue, and Thaumaturge who all get to contribute far more than just single-target damage, even at legendary proficiency, so I think the healthier approach ought to be to treat those classes as the benchmark for acceptable Strike damage, rather than the class specifically designed to sacrifice pretty much everything that's not about fighting in exchange for being really good at fighting, and just that.
I also agree with ElementalOfCuteness that it's a difficult balancing act to release six separate classes into a system that already has 23 of them, make those six classes each distinct from all the others, yet also make them as accessible and new player-friendly as can be. 2e was designed specifically to accommodate classes like the Fighter, the Cleric, the Rogue, and the Wizard, with others playing with that space on a more secondary level, so it's difficult to keep carving out new niches. I do, however, think there's room for improvement with what we've got. Just as a brainstorming exercise:
And with that, you'd hit the following:
So effectively, you'd get to be a good striker and have a very specific set of skills, without treading on the toes of other classes. Obviously, this isn't something to playtest when the Operative in the document is very different and needs to be assessed on its own merits, but surely it's worth considering at least?
Your proposals aren't that different from the ones I made in other post (this) but I think auto-scaling and a bonus to skills is a little too much, specialize for a class that, unlike swashbuckler, doesn't really need to use that skill for anything (with a few exceptions).
I also do like aim because it kinda calls back to videogames a little, which is something a ton of feats the operative do (360 No Scope being an example) so its clearly intentional, though its current iteration leaves a lot to be desired. I also don't entirely like that there's so much ways to use aim as part of other actions because at that point why bother making it an action in the first place? I think it would be much better if either a) Aim became a bespoke action that includes the attack itself, like a ranger's Hunter's Aim or the gunslinger's Sniper's Aim feats, though instead of giving you a +2 to attack you would reduce AC from cover, or B) it stays in its current state but the extra damage is either nerfed or removed. I could see an operative that didn't have a damage steroid having free skill feats and skill increases like a swashbuckler, but I kinda feel the operative needs to have some damage steroid like Dex to damage with guns or a circumstance bonus to damage equal to your damage die because, at least in their current state, SF2e guns feel a little weak and uninspired. Also, even if I'm guilty of being one of the people that wants to protect the niche of other classes like the gunslinger and I wouldn't want for the operative to become a direct upgrade, I certainly do want a class that would be like a gunslinger but wouldn't have to waste as much power budget on making reloads not suck and that could be a little more straightforward.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your proposals aren't that different from the ones I made in other post (this) but I think auto-scaling and a bonus to skills is a little too much, specialize for a class that, unlike swashbuckler, doesn't really need to use that skill for anything (with a few exceptions).
I would say our proposals are actually a fair bit different. Your suggestion keeps Aim and makes the Operative fairly static as a baseline, while giving them extra damage by default and the means to ignore cover. By contrast, my proposal aims to take away the Operative's bonus damage entirely and make them much more mobile by default, pushing them to find their bonus damage by exploiting enemies' positioning. It is because of this loss of damage, and the baking of the skill into a check within the exploit, that I think the auto-scaling would be justified: whereas the Gunslinger would start out bonus firearm and crossbow damage, action compression in their reload, and a powerful tempo advantage when rolling initiative, the Operative would have more mobility, an extra skill increase, and one advance feat that'd rely on that skill. As the Gunslinger would get more deeds, you'd get more exploits instead.
I also dislike Aim in part because of its excessive gameyness: having references to games is cool, but a button to straight-up ignore cover I reduces interactivity overall in a game where cover can already be bypassed through positioning. Granted, right now it's not very rewarding, but in my opinion making it rewarding should be the priority, instead of focusing on a generic loop where the Operative has little incentive to do anything except Aim + Strike x2, and almost every other character is pushed to entrench themselves behind cover and engage in a repetitive combat loop from the same static position.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tearing out all of its class features for the goal of making it "extremely simple" sounds like an absolute nightmare scenario. The class already isn't really that intricate, and if any knobs need tuning we already have its more direct passive benefits that could be pared back instead. Tearing out everything for a couple extra skill increases isn't it.
The operative should be embracing the features that make it more nuanced, not shedding them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tearing out all of its class features for the goal of making it "extremely simple" sounds like an absolute nightmare scenario. The class already isn't really that intricate, and if any knobs need tuning we already have its more direct passive benefits that could be pared back instead. Tearing out everything for a couple extra skill increases isn't it.
The operative should be embracing the features that make it more nuanced, not shedding them.
What nuance? For all the features it's got, the Operative has an extremely rote play pattern, as the class is pushed to Aim + Strike at least once every turn, and usually Strike a second time after that or use a Mobile Reload if their gun has a capacity of one. Again, the class is almost the opposite of the Fighter, in that the latter class generates a ton of variety from only a small handful of core features, whereas the Operative's overloaded features all congeal into a repetitive and fairly uninteractive rotation. The class could do a lot more with a smaller number of features that were about actually enabling options, rather than just adding power.
Tearing out all of its class features for the goal of making it "extremely simple" sounds like an absolute nightmare scenario. The class already isn't really that intricate, and if any knobs need tuning we already have its more direct passive benefits that could be pared back instead. Tearing out everything for a couple extra skill increases isn't it.
The operative should be embracing the features that make it more nuanced, not shedding them.
Its not a matter of "stripping down class fearures" alone, its a matter of the operative having a power budget way higher than any class in either system that it should be expected for it to have things removed from it or turned into feats.
Btw, the more I think about aim the less I like it tbh. The problem though is that if we remove it in favor of some skill feats and auto-scaling skill it feels...a little boring? The class would still feel like a direct upgrade from the gunslinger since they would play the same but operatives wouldn't need to reload and would have much better mobility too, and it would also be better at a few skills. I think operatives need something that makes them feel different from a fighter or gunslinger in play style. What about Hair Trigger becoming a baseline feature but it only functions against your aimed target? (Aim should be modified to last until you change targets or something like that). Probably the niche of the operative could be reactive attacks that leave oponents off-guard and later on impose more conditions. Kinda like a "Han Solo shoots first" kind of deal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Btw, the more I think about aim the less I like it tbh. The problem though is that if we remove it in favor of some skill feats and auto-scaling skill it feels...a little boring? The class would still feel like a direct upgrade from the gunslinger since they would play the same but operatives wouldn't need to reload and would have much better mobility too, and it would also be better at a few skills. I think operatives need something that makes them feel different from a fighter or gunslinger in play style. What about Hair Trigger becoming a baseline feature but it only functions against your aimed target? (Aim should be modified to last until you change targets or something like that). Probably the niche of the operative could be reactive attacks that leave oponents off-guard and later on impose more conditions. Kinda like a "Han Solo shoots first" kind of deal.
I mean, in the case of the stuff I suggested it would be a class feat that used a skill, not a skill feat, and I don't think having incredible movement would really be boring or too similar to the Gunslinger, but sure, you could change things up a bit more if you wanted to. For instance, rather than being permanently quickened, you could gain Parkour at 1st level and move up to twice your Speed (also, the action really needs to lose the frequency and actually gain the flourish trait), cementing the class's mobility, which is not a strength of the Gunslinger (the Gunslinger, by contrast, has great action economy overall). In general, I would much rather emphasize the class's mobility rather than give them Hair Trigger, which in addition to being an immensely overpowered feat is one I think makes gameplay generally boring, due to acting as nearly-free extra attack each round. The class is already likely to shoot first, given their up-to-legendary Perception, and I don't think Hair Trigger ought to be eliminated entirely so much as reworked, but the general thing I'd want to avoid with the Operative, along with any other class, is pushing them into this very static playstyle where they just sit on their perch and shoot as much as they can for as much damage as possible, ignoring any counterplay the opponent might attempt in response. Right now, that's how they play, which is one of many reasons why I feel they ought to change besides their balance issues.
I wouldn't be against an operative built around mobility, but at the same time I think it would kind of a waste? I mean, SF2e is going to be a more static game overall. Mobility as a secondary attribute of the operative could be fine to deal against the few melees, but probably not as its main focus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't be against an operative built around mobility, but at the same time I think it would kind of a waste? I mean, SF2e is going to be a more static game overall. Mobility as a secondary attribute of the operative could be fine to deal against the few melees, but probably not as its main focus.
Starfinder certainly is a more static game right now, but I really don't think it should be. Putting aside how mobility is an intended strength of the Operative (along with like a bajillion other mechanics that form the cornerstone of other classes, but still), I genuinely don't think combat in SF2e is fit for purpose right now, and so precisely because all everyone does is stand behind cover and shoot until one side or the other falls down. It's incredibly boring and repetitive gameplay that has none of the depth or dynamism of Pathfinder's melee-centric gameplay, and that's because 2e's combat was designed with melee in mind first, and ranged combat second. I don't think the system needs a combat overhaul or anything, but I do think there needs to be a few targeted changes and additions to combat in SF2e in order to make it more dynamic. As a few examples:
Ideally, I do think that characters should be moving around a lot in 2e regardless of whether it's Starfinder or Pathfinder, I just think they need to be moving around in different ways and for different reasons. Movement is a big part of what makes a combat situation change from round to round, and the above mechanics would reward a hyper-mobile Operative by making them much better at catching enemies off-guard, turning them into more of a ranged Rogue in that sense than a Gunslinger or any other sort of class. They'd play differently from a Rogue, of course, right down to what they'd do to off-guard enemies, but would have that incentive to hit their targets where it really hurts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What nuance? For all the features it's got, the Operative has an extremely rote play pattern, as the class is pushed to Aim + Strike at least once every turn, and usually Strike a second time after that or use a Mobile Reload if their gun has a capacity of one.
Our operative found that to not be particularly true in practice. Aim sometimes isn't worth using, since its base damage bonus is rather small, in lieu of skill actions (or sometimes even additional strikes). Not to mention working in exploits and other class actions.
You certainly can play an operative that just sits there and does nothing but attack with all their actions, but I'm not sure how that's meaningfully more problematic than a Barbarian or Fighter or Ranger doing the same.
The class could do a lot more with a smaller number of features that were about actually enabling options, rather than just adding power.
Actually enabling options, sure. Stripping out class features just to make it simpler, no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really only played SF1e once for a one-shot, so I don't know how that system handled the static gameplay. Were there mechanics that forced people to move or not be as static, or was SF1e a more static game overall? Probably that could help us find a solution for the mobility problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
SF1 was a lot more static in the same way PF1 was (though full attacks were slightly less overbearing in SF).
The operative in particular however was somewhat more mobile because its main combat gimmick allowed a move action and then an attack as bonus damage, but took up their entire turn (to compare to SF2, imagine if Aim was a 3 action ability that included a stride and a strike in it).
... It's sort of interesting, in the sense that the SF2 operative has basically nothing in common with its SF1 counterpart.
The SF1 operative was the most mobile character in a static system, while the SF2 version cares the least about mobility since it can bypass cover. Skills have been extremely de-prioritized, exploits made a smaller component of the class budget.
I almost wonder why it's called an Operative tbh.
|
|
... It's sort of interesting, in the sense that the SF2 operative has basically nothing in common with its SF1 counterpart.The SF1 operative was the most mobile character in a static system, while the SF2 version cares the least about mobility since it can bypass cover. Skills have been extremely de-prioritized, exploits made a smaller component of the class budget.
I almost wonder why it's called an Operative tbh.
I think this is really the root of my disappointment. This new Operative seems fine for what it is being designed for.
It's just that what it's designed for is not very similar to another thing I liked a lot with the same name.Expectations and whatnot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our operative found that to not be particularly true in practice. Aim sometimes isn't worth using, since its base damage bonus is rather small, in lieu of skill actions (or sometimes even additional strikes). Not to mention working in exploits and other class actions.
Interesting, what skill actions were they using and when? Why were you Striking three times in a turn? Because the Skirmisher I tested out was sitting very comfortably, Aiming and Striking twice a turn with their seeker rifle, while using Hair Trigger to land a third, MAP-free attack each round without eating into their turn. There wasn't really much opportunity to make Acrobatics checks, given that they had nobody to Tumble Through and no surface to Balance on, and no real reason for them to move either.
You certainly can play an operative that just sits there and does nothing but attack with all their actions, but I'm not sure how that's meaningfully more problematic than a Barbarian or Fighter or Ranger doing the same.
But you can't, is the thing. MAP exists to push martial classes to only Strike twice at most per turn unless you're going for a very specific playstyle, like Flurry Ranger, and then use their third action to do something else, like a skill check or movement. Aim breaks this by working as a reliable, on-demand attack steroid, so as long as it's good (and it is now), there will be very few times by default where the optimal turn won't be to just Aim + Strike x2, or Aim, Strike and reload if you're wielding a one-shot gun. Aim crowds out more varied actions, is the issue, in a game where combat is already too static for its own good.
Actually enabling options, sure. Stripping out class features just to make it simpler, no.
... and give it more things to do and more actual choices, is the point. The Operative is very much proof that more stuff does not equal more gameplay, and taking away the things that block out more actual choices from happening would do them a world of good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think which skill you used as an operative was largely dependant on your specialization in SF1e. Probably the default was bluff to do like a feint, but regardless of which skill you used the goal was to leave the opponent off-guard (flat-footed as it used to be called). I could be wrong since I only skimmed the class a few times over the years (I took some of the operative features over to a re-unchaining I made of the rogue back in PF1e).
I would totally be on-board with a more mobile operative that had easier means to leave their opponents off-guard (not in the same way the SF1e version did it, as I feel is a little too game-y for my tastes). However, I would want to see how to implement that playstyle with the new more accurate operative. I would need to see the exact implementation to see if it would be broken or not, but it sounds like it could be a little overpowered. I guess if it didn't have aim it would be fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would totally be on-board with a more mobile operative that had easier means to leave their opponents off-guard (not in the same way the SF1e version did it, as I feel is a little too game-y for my tastes). However, I would want to see how to implement that playstyle with the new more accurate operative. I would need to see the exact implementation to see if it would be broken or not, but it sounds like it could be a little overpowered. I guess if it didn't have aim it would be fine.
Just as a thought exercise, here's a mockup of what an Operative of that kind could look like:
TL;DR: you could have this extremely lean class chassis that would still give you 4 Operative feats contingent on a skill you'd be at a +2 over most others, along with mobility that'd let you cover huge distances in a single action. Coupled with changes to cover that'd make creatures off-guard from certain angles, your core gameplay would basically be hunting for those angles at all times using Parkour, and landing lots of nasty crits thanks to the combination of your legendary proficiency and off-guard, with your Operative feats perhaps helping with this too. I'd want to focus on playtesting the actual material first for the time being, but I'd be quite keen to playtest this, maybe draft a few extra feats, and see how this version of the Operative (and cover) would play out, as I think it could be promising.