| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Soldier's class fantasy is being the biggest, strongest guy wielding the biggest, heaviest weapons. Walking Armory is a class feature that exists solely to let the Soldier be strong without investing in strength. It doesn't make much sense, and is especially punishing to Soldiers who want to mix in melee combat (such as with stock striker) since strength is frankly just terrible in this system.
Similarly, even if Soldier's KAS is not moved to Strength I think something needs to be done with Primary Target to make Dex less mandatory. If you were to use a flamethrower as another class dexterity does nothing for you, but if you're a Soldier it's essential since you have to make strikes where you normally wouldn't. I think Soldiers with Area weapons should feel comfortable dumping dexterity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like key STR and adjustments. The current setup is weird for several reasons, both mechanically and for story purposes. Several features purely only there to compensate for CON, DEX being mandatory for one of your core mechanics, and the average big beefy boy having a stat line that has more in common with a Rogue than another big boy.
My vote is for STR KAM, 12HP per level and a 1st level feature that adds the brutal trait to all aoe weapons. Done!
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
To go against the thread, I do actually want them to stay Con. The tanky unkillable brute is much more interesting to me than another Big Bonk strength class.
To go against the thread, I do actually want them to stay Con. The tanky unkillable brute is much more interesting to me than another Big Bonk strength class.
Having a STR KAM is not mutually exclusive with being a tanky unkillable brute. Far from it. Just by going from 10 HP to 12 HP as I have suggested, you are replicating a lot of what CON does towards that goal. Sure, your Fort Save will be a bit lower, but still very high just due to proficiency alone. And the HP would stay mostly or even exactly the same, depending if you want to go "only" to +4 or all the way to +5.
CON just doesn't do a lot, which is the problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay so why not let Soldier like my idea for Envoy choose their KAS? Con is cool but why not let Close Quarter choose Str also and let the gun ones be able to choose between con or Dex>
Because you can easily adjust for one specific KAS, but not three different ones. All of these would need different class features to make work.
And DEX is the direct opposite of the class' theme, so that would be an even harder sell than CON.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To go against the thread, I do actually want them to stay Con. The tanky unkillable brute is much more interesting to me than another Big Bonk strength class.Having a STR KAM is not mutually exclusive with being a tanky unkillable brute. Far from it. Just by going from 10 HP to 12 HP as I have suggested, you are replicating a lot of what CON does towards that goal. Sure, your Fort Save will be a bit lower, but still very high just due to proficiency alone. And the HP would stay mostly or even exactly the same, depending if you want to go "only" to +4 or all the way to +5.
CON just doesn't do a lot, which is the problem.
No more Con/primary stat intimidation, you're still dealing with MAD on all the ranged Soldiers (more if you still want to improve Con), it's lower starting HP, no more absurd Fort saves, and the vibe/theme shifts. Melee becomes the primary Soldier instead.
No more Con/primary stat intimidation
If a CON Soldier gets to use CON for Intimidation, there is nothing preventing us from doing the same with STR. And even if we don't, just stacking CHA like most other characters doesn't impede the class fantasy in the least.
The CON Soldier just has to break several rules to be even remotely functional.
you're still dealing with MAD on all the ranged Soldiers (more if you still want to improve Con)
This problem will have to be solved either way, just moving to STR doesn't hurt this either. Which is exactly why I suggested the brutal trait to actually solve the problem.
it's lower starting HP
The starting HP would be identical at a completely normal +2 in CON (for the STR Soldier) and you would actually have more if you went all-in at +3.
no more absurd Fort saves
You would still have almost the best fort save in the game. For most of the game it would be lower by 1 or 2. Only at level 17 you get to -3. If you start with +3, you can even get even for 6 levels. It hardly breaks the fantasy.
and the vibe/theme shifts. Melee becomes the primary Soldier instead.
Yes, the vibe and theme shifts... more towards the actual theme. Because the current mechanics very much don't paint the same picture as the flavor text does. You would actually be big and beefy, not only for some select parts and only starting at level 3.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like Con soldier. Primary target being an off stat doesn't bother me bc the area damage is the main attack and that goes up to legendary. Primary target can be viewed as a second strike with very lenient MAP in that light. And this is coming from someone that is going to go for 14 dex 14 str on his playtest soldier, lol. Soldier spraying, getting stuck in, and taking a beating meshes pretty well with Con in my eyes.
One way to hedge the options would be to let the soldier take their pick of str, dex, or con. That way even if the constitution based mechanics don't work out the class is at least no worse off than a regular martial. This then raises two questions.
1. What constitution based mechanics?
The soldier gets a limited ability to use its constitution where you'd normally use strength. If you played a soldier that maxed strength and dumped Con right now you'd lose out on little more than class DC, and only because that's locked to the key ability score. A high dex soldier right now loses armor penalty offsets that they don't need because they're using light armor anyway and the bonus to athletics maneuvers that they weren't planning on using anyway. And this leads to the follow up question.
2. Would you still pick constitution as a key ability score if there were other options?
If we had Strength or Dex as options we'd still have the same class DC, but now matched with better strikes in our chosen score. What we have in the soldier is a square peg being hammered into a round hole. We're being pushed into spamming AoEs now because our features make us particularly good at that, but because we aren't much good at making regular strikes. And that leads into a central conflict to the soldier's design. The basis of constitution as a KAS is that relying on class DC area attacks frees us from having to be good at strikes, and then the signature boost to our area attacks is a free strike against the primary target. It makes me feel like I'm buying three of something during a buy one get one special. It might actually still be a good deal but it feels bad anyway.
Pathfinder's kineticist addressed this by enabling Constitution to attack rolls. What happens if we do this and then drop Walking Armory and Fearsome Bulwark? Obviously the soldier gets more SAD because now they're always using Con for all attacks. In fact that makes them awesome switch hitters all by itself. They still end up needing Dex and Strength to be able to get the most out of the armor of their choice, and absent special rules may end up slightly behind on armor class at first level due to having neither dex nor str favored. The easiest/laziest patch over the armor class issue would be to grant expert armor proficiency at level 1. These guys are supposed to be tough anyway, right?
What does Con for strikes get us? Soldiers would become as good as any martial at making conventional strikes, and would be equally capable in melee as at range. I consider the first part of that good. The second part is possibly more powerful than intended, though we already get a bit of that in Whirling Swipe. Strength and Dexterity remain valuable secondary scores. Strength gives you melee damage and athletics. Dex gives you stealth and lets you get away with using lighter armor. The idea still bugs me a bit since it's just more of poaching things that belong to other ability scores.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Make CON the deciding attribute when it comes to heavy weapons.
DC for Heavy Weapons = 10 + CON + Weapon Proficiency + Tracking = BimBamBoomShakalaka.
It would negate the need for Dex (Soldiers use heavy armor after all, why would they bother with dex unless they want to use non-heavy weapons?) and better allow the class fantasy of the big heavy guy with a big heavy gun.
I mean, just look at the Iconic. That girl thicc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Make CON the deciding attribute when it comes to heavy weapons.
DC for Heavy Weapons = 10 + CON + Weapon Proficiency + Tracking = BimBamBoomShakalaka.
It would negate the need for Dex (Soldiers use heavy armor after all, why would they bother with dex unless they want to use non-heavy weapons?) and better allow the class fantasy of the big heavy guy with a big heavy gun.
I mean, just look at the Iconic. That girl thicc.
I might be misunderstanding what you mean here, but I believe this is already the case? CON is your KAS, so the DC for Area and Auto-Fire attacks is based on CON. If STR was the KAS then it'd be based on STR instead.
The issue is Primary Target being a normal strike roll. I think it makes sense for Auto-Fire characters to want Dex but Area weapons shouldn't care.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if Primary Target was also based on Con, akin to a kineticist's elemental blast?
This is what I meant. ALL heavy weapons would use Con, not just Soldier using it because its his Class DC.
Think about it - with a heavy weapon, in order to aim better you need to shoulder the heavy recoil of the weapon. CON is perfect for that.
Just making con-to-hit the default for heavy weapons seems pretty ambitious. Con is already a stat you have to invest in, giving it that much offensive potency is something we haven't seen since the Scarred Witch Doctor. Though I dunno, maybe they aren't concerned about that given the Soldier already exists as it is.
I think Primary Target having lower to-hit is intended. It makes it a soft MAP in that it's not going to be as good as a first strike but it's probably going to be better than making a second attack for most classes.
I don't think so. Because for those instances the system goes for the hard -2. And it wouldn't let you catch up either, like you currently do from 5-9 and 15-16.
I'm pretty sure that's just a side effect of the CON key stat.
This isn't quite on-topic for the thread, but I still find the focus on intimidation odd overall.
It makes sense thematically, to me at least. The Soldier is basically a walking tank or at least assault howitzer, that is pretty damn scary.
It's just weird that it is part of the chassis, rather than like any other choice as normal. Well, expect of CON and Primary Target making it necessary, which would neatly bring us back on-topic ^^. So in a way, it is on-topic.
To me, the Soldier's usage of Constitution in their feature list reads a bit like Gretchen Wieners from Mean Girls trying to make "fetch" happen: it feels awkward, there are better-fitting alternatives out there, and every additional attempt at trying to make it happen only grates further.
Specifically, the three major points of dysfunction in my opinion are Walking Armory, Fearsome Bulwark, and Primary Target: Walking Armory is basically there to make Con do the work of Strength, even though the class wears heavy armor, looks like they should be really strong, and nearly half their subclasses use Strength. Fearsome Bulwark makes your Charisma in Intimidation worthless partway through your leveling, whereas there already exists a feat to let your Strength make you more intimidating. Finally, Primary Target requires you to invest in Dex to not make awful ranged Strikes, even though the class is otherwise explicitly designed to dump Dex by wearing heavy armor and using their class DC for ranged attacks. It's a mess, and the end result is likely going to be a lot of weedy, low-Strength Soldiers with high Int, which while well-served by the Erudite Warrior subclass and their entirely unnecessary auto-scaling skill, I don't think ought to define the whole class.
Meanwhile, let's consider what a Strength-based Soldier would look like: they wouldn't need help wearing armor or carrying items, because that's what Strength covers already, and they wouldn't need a stat switch for Intimidation checks, because they can already plug their Strength into those with feat support. You could even just give them Athletics instead of Intimidation as a base skill, and let them opt into Intimidation simply because it's fitting for the class (this would also help Armor Storm Soldiers, who currently don't become trained in the skill they need to be actually good at their subclass's benefit). The only thing you'd need would be an adjustment to Primary Fire or to the base class that'd let you use Strength for attacks with AoE weapons, and not only would you be set, you'd also fix the problem of Primary Fire being severely behind in accuracy next to the AoE DC. If we really need a class for every attribute, the Solarian in my opinion would be a much better fit, as they have a lot more features custom-made for them that already plug attributes into what they do.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
People keep saying Walking Armory just makes up for not investing in Strength but-
So what? I don't understand why that's a problem.
Like yeah they could switch the class to Str and remove the class features that fuel Con but...
They could also just not do that because that's what the class features are for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People keep saying Walking Armory just makes up for not investing in Strength but-
So what? I don't understand why that's a problem.
Like yeah they could switch the class to Str and remove the class features that fuel Con but...
They could also just not do that because that's what the class features are for.
You're totally right, we should also rework Pathfinder's Fighter to use Intelligence as their sole key attribute. Can't wear heavy armor? Make their Bulk limit scale with Int because they're working smarter, not harder. Can't make good Athletics maneuvers? Same deal, add a feature for that. In fact, let's add that feature at 3rd level and also make it work for Acrobatics checks. Who even needs attributes or mechanical coherence when you can just slap on more features until it sort of works!
EDIT: This exchange actually helped me zero in on why I've been finding the Soldier so awkward: it's not just that they have features designed to shoehorn in a stat or a playstyle, most of their distinct core class features serve that purpose. Out of the class's four 1st-level class features, two are about making Constitution and AoE attacks work even when they're not a great fit. This increases to three out of five when you include Fearsome Bulwark, and beyond that it's just proficiency bumps. Writing down all these compensatory features isn't free when each one eats into the class's power budget, complexity budget, and limited page space, and if the Soldier didn't spend so much of that overcompensating for an ill-fitting key attribute, they could instead have actual tools for handling fights competently when enemies don't clump together.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're totally right, we should also rework Pathfinder's Fighter to use Intelligence as their sole key attribute.
IDK, I think the fighter, like the Soldier, is mostly fine as is... but if you want to make a thread about that go ahead I guess?
Honestly, sort of a weird way to throw shade, given that you're the one that wants attribute swaps.
if the Soldier didn't spend so much of that overcompensating for an ill-fitting key attribute, they could instead have actual tools for handling fights competently when enemies don't clump together.
So do you think the Soldier in its current state is underpowered? That's a somewhat separate issue but I'd be interested in hearing in which ways you think the class is too weak.
People keep saying Walking Armory just makes up for not investing in Strength but-
So what? I don't understand why that's a problem.
Like yeah they could switch the class to Str and remove the class features that fuel Con but...
They could also just not do that because that's what the class features are for.
The problem is that the class still has a number of options that ask you to invest in strength. If you decide you want to use those options you aren't benefiting from Walking Armory.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IDK, I think the fighter, like the Soldier, is mostly fine as is... but if you want to make a thread about that go ahead I guess?
Honestly, sort of a weird way to throw shade, given that you're the one that wants attribute swaps.
I suppose everything really does have to be spelled out on the internet, doesn't it.
The point being made is that your justification is vacuous. Literally any class could be made to work with literally any attribute, no matter how ill-fitting, by tacking on enough features that swap attributes. If you tried hard enough, you could have Int Fighters, Dex Barbarians, and Con Soldiers with a laundry list of attribute swaps and compensatory features. That doesn't mean that's the best way to go about things, however.
You are correct that I requested one (1) attribute swap to make a Strength Soldier work well, and that's to let Primary Fire specifically work with Strength on the attack roll. You certainly jumped at the chance for the gotcha, but in this particular case the goal isn't even specifically to accommodate Strength (you have other stats to boost), but to specifically discourage boosting Dex, an otherwise ill-fitting stat for a big walking tank. Even on a Con-based Soldier, this is a reasonable thing to request to avoid Primary Fire sucking as much as it does now. This is assuming the feature even needs to stay, and is better than having Constitution do the job of three different attributes at once.
What is bizarre with all the talk about how the Soldier needs a Con key attribute because the stat fits the class is that in the end, the Soldier is still going to be boosting their Con regardless. They will still be incredibly durable, and as Karmagator said they could easily be given 12 HP/level if they switched key attributes. There is no universe in which dumping Con on the Soldier is going to be a good idea, so Soldiers are going to have high Con even if it's not their key attribute.
So do you think the Soldier in its current state is underpowered? That's a somewhat separate issue but I'd be interested in hearing in which ways you think the class is too weak.
It's a weird one, because in Pathfinder they'd be absolutely overpowered due to their high defenses and AoE. In Starfinder, however, at least the current state of the playtest, they have a few serious problems:
So effectively, the Soldier right now I think struggles to make use of their biggest strengths in Starfinder combat, namely their high survivability and their AoE. This could perhaps be okay if the class had more fallback options, different AoEs to choose from, and so on, but instead pretty much all of their power is put into making the same area attacks, which I think makes them not only inflexible, but also repetitive and shallow. There's a difference between simple and simplistic design, and in my opinion the Soldier, along with other SF2e classes, falls into the latter camp.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In theory I don't hate the idea of con Soldier, I think it fits the class fantasy, but the mechanics don't support it. This is a strength class they surgically impanted constitution into, not a class that is good at constitution. I actually think Soldier should be a strength class and Solarian should be a con class. Kineticist set the precedent that mystical powers that come from the "body" more than traditional spellcasting is done with con. It might risk Solarian being even more similar to Kineticist than it already seems to be, but I think it'd be fine, with a focus on the cycling mechanic and more traditional melee martial prowess instead of a pseudo-caster versatility it would still have a real identity of its own.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People keep saying Walking Armory just makes up for not investing in Strength but-
So what? I don't understand why that's a problem.
Like yeah they could switch the class to Str and remove the class features that fuel Con but...
They could also just not do that because that's what the class features are for.
Is this exact scenario really what class features are for?
As far as I am concerned, unique class features are supposed to add stuff to your class. Make them feels interesting, flavorful and competent.
Walking Armory does none of that, not even the flavor. The flavor is already done by other features. It is purely a mechanical bandaid, giving you back something you should already have. Utterly boring.
So I think the real question isn't "why should we change it", but rather "why should we keep it?"
And I just don't see a good reason why we should. The STR solution is simpler and makes the class much more functional.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A STR Soldier with brutal and 12 HP would be very, very close to how strong it currently is. For most Soldiers it would basically be "add +1 to your Primary Target rolls and reduce your Fort save slightly". So it is not a stretch that they would add it.
Paizo not putting it into the Playtest has nothing to do with them not considering it. They explicitly ask us in the Soldier section if the Soldier should get a different key stat. It's also a playtest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
all of that build on the assumption soldier will get brutal on two handed gun
if paizo want to do that then it would have been that way in the playtest
instead they go with giving con everything strength do other than attack and damage instead
just because solarian should be switch to con doesn't mean soldier will and should be switching to str
"They've done it this way, so that's the way it's gonna be forever" is just about the most clear-cut case of missing the assignment when the topic of discussion is first-draft playtest material that is guaranteed to change substantially. The entire point of this playtest is for us to give constructive critical feedback that can help the devs make the changes they need to deliver the best game they can, including overhauls if need be.
Karmagator's entirely right that Paizo is already explicitly asking us if the Soldier should be keyed to a different attribute, and that switching the Soldier to Con would not require substantial changes to the class, even if they would streamline it significantly. My take on why they keyed the Soldier to Con in the first place is that Paizo wanted a cute spread of one class for each attribute: Soldier got Con presumably because the devs made a choice between that and Strength, and gave the latter stat to the Solarian. Switching the Solarian to Con would not require substantial changes either and could even be to the class's significant benefit, so I don't think it would harm either class to see what a switch would look like.
I was going to advocate for waiting for the Vanguard to roll out something as out there as a con-based martial, but I'm coming around to letting the Solarian have it. It's mainly historical reasons that make the Vanguard seem like a better fit than the Solarian.
I'm not overjoyed about the idea of Soldier getting only strength without a dexterity option, but I think it's more sensible than constitution.
So long as strength soldier switch hits as effectively as Con soldier I wouldn't care about witch attribute was used. Brutal standard on a class would be wild though. I'm guessing they would need to fluff that ability as "your accuracy is not from nimble marksmanship and an eye for drawing a bead, but a burly death grip on ungainly bucking weaponry" or something equally evocative
So long as strength soldier switch hits as effectively as Con soldier I wouldn't care about witch attribute was used. Brutal standard on a class would be wild though. I'm guessing they would need to fluff that ability as "your accuracy is not from nimble marksmanship and an eye for drawing a bead, but a burly death grip on ungainly bucking weaponry" or something equally evocativeIt's kind of why I don't think Con to hit, perhaps only with Primary Target but who knows, would also work for a soldier. If soldiers use big chunky weapons, Con as the thing allowing you to not be swept away by them makes a fair amount of sense. It's already responsible for the save keeping you from being grabbed or shoved, for example.
That's fair. I do also like the themeing that con gives the class
I think maybe if Envoy and Soldier will have only a +3 maybe AC of monsters will be a tad bit lower then normal. If anything Strength does not help a soldier to hit with guns which is the problem here. The Ranged meta is gonna be Dex first Str probably never. Out of 6 classes only 1 actually NEEDS Str and that is the Solarian to do anything since it is melee and every other class needs either dex as in Enboy, Operative and Soldier or their KAS since they are a caster for both attack roll and saving throw spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
everything could change from playtest to official release
paizo willing to go one way over the other to such extend doesn't show a strong possibility of this potential change
Have you actually read the playtest material? Because here's what it says on page 121:
While the soldier is meant to be a walking mansized warmander (that’s a type of Veskarium mech), is Constitution as a main attribute too much for the soldier? Should it be more focused on Dexterity or Strength? Certainly, some of the fighting styles are going to really push you one way or another, with the close quarters style setting you up for a good time in melee, while the bombard is gonna let ya… bombard! Do the fighting styles add enough to the gameplay, or should they be expanded to give more as you progress?
I don't know about you, chief, but Paizo explicitly asking whether Strength or Dexterity would be a better choice of key attribute for the Soldier very much indicates a strong possibility of change to me. Pretending otherwise is just making pointless noise on a feedback forum.
I will say, the one thing going for Con on the Soldier is the symbolism of Constitution being the stat for tankiness, with Strength being the designated melee stat. If this is really what's making the Soldier a Con class right now and not a Strength class, I would still prefer to enable that the 2e way, such as by giving the class Hefty Hauler and Intimidating Prowess for free at level 1, instead of the atrocious attribute-swapping abilities the class has right now. I also genuinely don't think it's a good idea for the Soldier to end up with the equivalent of 12 HP per level, legendary heavy armor proficiency, and legendary Fort saves all in one go, not just because that's far too much compared to the durability Pathfinder's tankiest classes get, but because that excessive tankiness is unnecessary in a ranged-centric game where gun damage is lower than melee damage.