|
Haven't done any playtesting yet, so take this with a grain of salt, but here is my impressions on the operative from my initial readthrough.
CLASS FEATURES
Aim
- I'm a fan of this being compressed into nearly all their feats, I do not want for the operative's turns to be Aim, Strike, Strike a lot of the time. Having them be able to use 2 actions to do their damage, and have 1 action spare, is a lot better in my opinion.
- Aim currently patches up the Operative's otherwise terrible damage from level 1-3 (ranged weapon no stat mod), however as you level up the Operative effectively has 2 damage boosters - Sneak Attack and Fighter's increased proficiency. Effectively they lose the +4-7 from strength to gain +1-5d4 (+1-5d6 with a feat).
- For reference operative damage compared to soldier and a melee fighter. For all three characters we assume the biggest weapon, and maxxed out energy runes (for the operative and soldier this means Frost, Flaming, Shock, Loudener and for the fighter this means Flaming, Frost, whatever)
Mobile Reload
- This not being an actual action like Running Reload means it combines with all the actual actions that reload stuff. Running Reload isn't in SF2e (yet) so you can't get a double stride off running reload, but it does currently combo with Instant Reload to let you Stride or Step as a free action (once per turn).
Operative Specializations
- Infiltrator can be quite hard to use. I don't understand why the initial exploit requires the target be unaware of you, rather than you simply being undetected by them so it would work with Sneak. Ghost Tap is a bit better, but has no Aim compression built in so it is a bit awkward to actually use. Aim + Ghost Tap means you already need to be behind cover or invisible.
- Saboteur only works against tech creatures and items. I'm not sure what % of monsters in the final product this will apply to, but it feels kinda bad to have your entire subclass turn off if the monsters don't shake out right.
- Skirmisher gains Hair Trigger, one of the Operative's best feats, as a bonus feat at level 1. IMO the enhanced exploit is rather mediocre, but for level 1-8 this is likely the best subclass.
- Sniper is rather unclear what it works with. What is a "Sniper Rifle"? Is it a weapon with the Sniper weapon group? Meaning just the Assassin Rifle and Shirren-Eye Rifle? Or does the Seeker Rifle apply because the description refers to it as a Sniper? If it's the first, this is rather bad from an action economy perspective - these single shot rifles really don't work well with Hair Trigger or Kill Steal from an action economy perspective, so it can be hard to use them. The enhanced exploit is a bit strange as well, considering you need to Aim, Strike, Reload, Strike which only seems to work with Always Ready or Instant Aim?
- Striker isn't as bad as it looks at first glance. Most of the best weapons for Operative are simple weapons - the martial guns are mostly automatics and area weapons with bad range. The Seeker Rifle is a clear winner if its not a misprint, and if it is the Laser Rifle and Acid Dart Projector aren't that far behind. Yes, the 1st level feature is not very good, but the 9th level feature does work with ranged attacks and isn't once per turn, so I think at level 9 this is probably better than Skirmisher.
Tactical Advance (and upgrades)
- Neat I guess, unsure how common Reactive Strike and similar reactions will be in SF but its nice to have.
Critical Aim
- The Seeker Rifle happens to be a Projectile weapon which is probably one of the best critical specializations there is (save vs slowed 1). The only better one is Shock but you don't want to use a Slinging Coil.
Tactical Barrage
- To add to the absurdity of damage boosters this class has, we also now get Flurry Edge on top of fighter accuracy and sneak attack.
--------------------------------------------------------------
FEATS
Mostly going to point out the ones that are unclear or way too good.
- Double Tap / Burst Fire - It's kind of unclear if Burst Fire is supposed to mean both the initial attacks have No MAP. Given similar wording on Gunslinger's [url=https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=3177]Bullet Split[/b] I would assume yes (otherwise Bullet Split would be awful) but it might just make the next attack at 1 less MAP and the first 2 attacks are resolved as normal. Also can be combined with Follow-Up Fire if you went with 2 1 handers.
- Hair Trigger - This may actually be one of the most absurd reactions ever printed. Reactive Strike on anyone within your weapon's first ranged increment is basically a guaranteed reaction attack, which means you're getting another MAP free strike every round. Gets better when you consider Hypernerves. There appears to be no rule against stacking the same augmentation multiple times, so an operative can have up to 7 (1+5 con+1 augmented body) Hypernerves (8 if Human) meaning they can ignore their reaction limit (up to) 21 times per day to make ANOTHER MAP free strike. Also gets absurd with Combat Reflexes, but that's level 20.
- Devastating Aim - I don't know why this feat exists. I thought we were past having feats that just give a straight numerical improvement to your main class feature?
- Impeding Shot - It's a strictly better Debilitating Shot from fighter
- Fish in a Barrel - 2 actions for a guaranteed crit on hit with aim compression, if it wasn't competing with Burst Fire this would probably be nutty.
- Follow-Up Fire - Free action? The PF version of this costs 1 action, I guess there's no doubling rings in starfinder so having 2 up to date guns is probably really expensive?
- Instant Reload - As mentioned before, free stride or step.
- Infinite Aim - Considering the amount of Aim compression you get, you really don't need this.
----------------------------------
Also the art on page 96 is top tier, other classes suffer from not having art as cool : (
The quadruple threat of fighter accuracy, sneak attack, hair trigger and eventually flurry edge is just way too much and I think wildly inappropriate. Class is just eating the whole pie of ranger, rogue, and fighter, gunslinger too honestly
I think the class is certainly overtuned, but arguably worse than that, I feel the class is all over the place in regards to flavor, or at least how that flavor is represented by class mechanics. I get that the operative used to be rogue in space back in SF1e, but with the shift into a more gunslinger-y approach I think things like the d4s from aim, on the move (and its improvements), specialized skill set, and tactical barrage don't belong with the new operative identity.
I also don't entirely like the fact that operative has fighter proficiency scaling because that means its going to be just a direct upgrade from the gunslinger in every way. I think it would be way more interesting for the operative to have regular martial proficiencies and have a chassis more similar to the swashbuckler and build around one strong attack per round. That or have the class built around debuffing like a ranged rogue with debilitating injury.
The quadruple threat of fighter accuracy, sneak attack, hair trigger and eventually flurry edge is just way too much and I think wildly inappropriate. Class is just eating the whole pie of ranger, rogue, and fighter, gunslinger too honestly
I am going against the grain here. Its certainly true that it gets stuff from several classes but all of those features (apart from the +2 attack that fighters get) are notably weaker versions of said class features. I could see it lose out on fighters +2
Given the flavour as main damage dealer it makes every so much sense it has such features. Its the specialisation of the class. Its very identity.
I think the class is certainly overtuned, but arguably worse than that, I feel the class is all over the place in regards to flavor, or at least how that flavor is represented by class mechanics. I get that the operative used to be rogue in space back in SF1e, but with the shift into a more gunslinger-y approach I think things like the d4s from aim, on the move (and its improvements), specialized skill set, and tactical barrage don't belong with the new operative identity.
I completely disagree that flavor is everywhere. Its quite specific actually. Also Given that there is a ranged "meta" and guns are the standard weapons it makes all the sense for it to be more gunslingy (in fact all classes should lean into that) and the "d4s from aim, on the move (and its improvements), specialized skill set, and tactical barrage" not only fit but make sense. It also meshes with the SF1 operative who had "tactical barrage" (though much much earlier) and superior movement and and "sneak attack" (trick attack).
I also don't entirely like the fact that operative has fighter proficiency scaling because that means its going to be just a direct upgrade from the gunslinger in every way. I think it would be way more interesting for the operative to have regular martial proficiencies and have a chassis more similar to the swashbuckler and build around one strong attack per round. That or have the class built around debuffing like a ranged rogue with debilitating injury.
You are describing the rogue but in space. Thats boring and not creative at all. And above all not the concept of the operative.
I think what you guys are doing wrong is comparing it with PF2e (too much). Yes the systems share alot and should interchange some stuff but they are not the same nor balanced to be the same. There are spells that were high lvl in PF that are much lower in SF. There are items that were high lvl and rare in PF but common in as fcuk in SF. So comparing apples and tomatoes might not be the best thing
The class should be compared with Sf2 classes first and foremost and then the classes in PF2e. The PF2 classes have all gotten buffs so I think we should also take those into account. Also the Gunslinger is terrible. And the swashbuckler is very complex which the operative is not meant to be and the strenght of its one attack is questionable. Aim is after all precision damage so it won't be good against undead and robots (presumably).
My issue is "hair trigger". Its needs fixing. My proposal right now is to remove the "ranged attack" trigger. At least as a start. That also gives the feat "Deflection Fire" and its upgrade a reason to exist.
It's not a matter of comparing the operative to X PF2e class, but the fact that the operative has the exact same features of multiple PF2e classes and in some cases those are better than their PF2e equivalent. Rogues have to jump through multiple hoops to do ranged sneak attack, while the operative just at the cost 1 point of damage per damage die in average can freely use it at range and with multiple attacks. Reactive Strike is a big part of the fighter identity and most martials that can take it through feats do it ASAP, while the operative not only has it earlier than all those martials or even for free at 1st level, but also can threaten targets at range with it. Most of the gunslinger's reloads are bespoke actions that most of time are X action + reload, while the operative can reload when doing that action, which means they not only stack with each other but also give way more flexibility to the operative. Tactical barrage comes way later in the class, but when you have access to it, unlike a flurry ranger, you have a proficiency of legendary and a sneak attack-like feature on top of that.
SF2e intention is not to make melee combat obsolete by doing everything ranged do more damage, but have ranged combat being the default by having stuff like ignoring cover or getting cover more easily, monsters designed with ranged options which would mean people that want to go in melee will need to spend actions to do so putting them at a disadvantage, or the common taxes of ranged characters of PF2e like reload being non-existing in SF2e due to how their weapons are going to function. A character that goes into melee in SF2e is going to still be dealing more damage per attack than a ranged one, but unlike PF2e in which most are melee so stuff like positioning aren't seen as action taxes would be seen as such here. You also don't even need to compare the operative to the other classes in the playtest because it overshadows them completely too.
I do not believe it is overtuned or powerful. It is simply making up for the Gunslinger's low damage which a ton of people dislike. The idea of moving around, shooting with precision damage actually makes the Gunslinger actually playable in the form of Operative.Hair Trigger seems OP but it's not as OP as people make it out, it's only once a round so with many mooks it might not make a massive issues. Losing any of this kit would make it feel like a ranged character without bonus damage and once again making melee too good feeling.
I do not believe it is overtuned or powerful. It is simply making up for the Gunslinger's low damage which a ton of people dislike. The idea of moving around, shooting with precision damage actually makes the Gunslinger actually playable in the form of Operative.Hair Trigger seems OP but it's not as OP as people make it out, it's only once a round so with many mooks it might not make a massive issues. Losing any of this kit would make it feel like a ranged character without bonus damage and once again making melee too good feeling.
What people don't seem to understand that even if the gunslinger damage is low (which I agree its true for its class fantasy) that doesn't mean that the operative should come and take away all the cake while the gunslinger isn't watching. If they remake the gunslinger to be something else in the new remastered Guns & Gears then I wouldn't have (as much) problem with it, but as far as I know the operative replaces not only the gunslinger but entire classes at doing their stuff and it does it way better than all of them.
Also, I totally disagree with the idea of "Hair Trigger isn't strong because it doesn't work against mooks" as if you needed complex tactics to take down mooks in the first place and those encounters weren't there just to have the PCs feel strong.
My issue is it taking bespoke class features, or damn near bespoke class features, from other classes. More over the operative equivalent of reloading+moving actually stacks with the gunslinger's as per raw. Operative's calls out any time you interact to reload, gunslinger has bespoke reload actions. If you take gunslinger dedication you can combine these and get weird nonsense like striding twice. I'm personally fine with fighter accuracy here, but I can see it going or being limited to after taking the aim action. Mainly it's just eating too many people's lunches. I'd like to see the class chill tf out a little
It doesn't need to add sneak attack dice, have fighter accuracy, be very mobile, get a fantastic reactive strike equivalent and later down the road also get the flurry edge. It doesn't need to do *everything*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is going to sound a little harsh, but the more I playtest this material, the more I get the impression that much of the contents were written in a way that captures the trappings of 2e, but not necessarily its essence. There are a lot of bits of design that I think belong more in 1e than in 2e, such as an overabundance of ability-switching features, self-focused steroids, and unnecessarily overinflated stats.
In the case of the Operative, Aim I think is one such bit of design: at its core, Starfinder's combat is currently not very deep in my opinion, because ranged combat isn't nearly as fleshed-out as melee, and there's no real incentive for characters to do anything except entrench themselves in cover and shoot for the rest of their turn in extremely static firefights. As a result, it's often difficult to deal much damage (especially because many characters have inflated HP and AC), and combat can get a bit boring. Normally, this should have been a call to do a dive into ranged combat in 2e and come up with more mechanics to make it dynamic and interesting, including by incentivizing characters to reposition and catch enemies from an angle where they're not benefiting from cover. Instead, SF2e's classes got loaded with mechanics like Aim, which don't really address any problem so much as let you ignore cover-based gameplay even further, all while dealing damage approaching that of a melee Fighter. Rather than encourage interactivity, the mechanic kills it, making a class even more repetitive and static in an early-stages game that currently struggles with repetitive and static ranged combat. Not only does it overpower the class, it disincentivizes them to make use of their mobility too, particularly as there's no great benefit to moving around right now in most firefights.
In my opinion, what we need isn't this kinds of self-centered steroid, so much as a few additions to combat in general that would make fighting at range more dynamic. If cover were more directional, for instance, and Taking Cover behind something made you off-guard to attacks from angles where you're not benefiting from cover, that would encourage mobile classes like the Operative to catch enemies out of position and deal extra damage via much greater accuracy than attacking through cover. You wouldn't need steroids to deal extra damage in this way, and that baseline mechanic would give at least slightly more reason to move around (and not just hog the same bit of cover the whole time).
I agree with both AestheticDialectic and Teridax here. I would be totally on board with an operative that took the chassis of the fighter but made ranged instead. Starfinder's guns seem to be a little weaker than PF2e firearms (which I find weird, but that's another discussion) so I'm not against the operative having a damage steroid, but its current damage steroid its just too much. I also totally dislike stuff like Devastating Aim because who isn't going to take it? It's not even the only feat like that and PF2e is explicitly designed to avoid having those kinds of feats.
I would the operative to function like this...
Sharpshooter
You can spot a target’s weak points. You deal an amount of precision damage with guns equal to your Dexterity modifier. You gain the Operative's Aim action.
Operative's Aim
[Concentrate] [Operative]
Requirements You’re wielding a ranged weapon that doesn’t have the area trait.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
You take careful aim at a single creature that you are aware of, designating them as your mark. Until the end of your turn, your ranged Strikes against your mark using the required ranged weapon reduce the circumstance bonus to AC your mark gets from cover by 1. These benefits only apply if your mark is within your weapon’s first range increment. You can only have one mark at a time. As your operative level increases, so does your ability to Aim. At 11th level, you reduce the circumstance bonus to AC your mark gains from cover by 2 rather than 1. At 17th level, you reduce the circumstance bonus to AC your mark gains from cover by 4 rather than 2.
Operative's Specialization doesn't give you a skill feat.
Hair Trigger becomes a baseline feature.
Mobile Reload and Tactical Advance are merged into a 2nd level operative feat. Masterful Advance becomes a 10th level feat that upgrades itself with the Galaxy Renowned effect at 18th level. On the Move is either removed or becomes a feat like the old barbarian's Fast Movement.
Specialized Skill Set is removed.
Tactical Barrage is removed.
Devastating Aim is removed.
Oh, I forgot about the operative's save progression. I would just take the gunslinger's save progression and do an exact copy of it. Stubborn's effect feels really appropiate for an operative. And since I removed two 17th level features, Aim could probably be improved to apply to your second range implement or even third if an earlier feature increases it to your second range increment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it should be assumed that range combat is the default in Starfinder and thus ranged combat should just match melee damage numbers and this can be addressed simply by making guns in this game match melee weapons in PF2E. Then the occasional melee class instead gets tech to deal with the ranged combatants. Maybe the solarian can do something like biotic charge from mass effect using mechanics like the laughing shadow magus focus power. One example. I also really like the idea of taking cover giving off guard to angles not providing cover. It feels intuitive, and encourages finding ways to get a better angle on enemies and move out of compromising positions
I think it should be assumed that range combat is the default in Starfinder and thus ranged combat should just match melee damage numbers and this can be addressed simply by making guns in this game match melee weapons in PF2E. Then the occasional melee class instead gets tech to deal with the ranged combatants. Maybe the solarian can do something like biotic charge from mass effect using mechanics like the laughing shadow magus focus power. One example. I also really like the idea of taking cover giving off guard to angles not providing cover. It feels intuitive, and encourages finding ways to get a better angle on enemies and move out of compromising positions
I feel a more compatibility-friendly way of going about ranged-centric combat would be to deflate HP and AC numbers, so that you're operating with a lower baseline on both ends. Right now, classes like the Mystic and Witchwarper have unnecessarily inflated HP and armor proficiency relative to their Pathfinder counterparts, which combined with more frequent use of cover makes it no surprise that gunfights in SF2e would be a bit too protracted. If they had 6 HP per level and no armor proficiency, the lower damage of guns would threaten them more, and close-quarters classes wouldn't need further compensation just to survive getting in range. This would also mean that if a melee class from PF2e were to enter a Starfinder game, their generally higher durability would naturally enable them to get in range more easily, and the lower damage of guns would let their melee contributions shine more (and the same would go for the Solarian).
My issue is it taking bespoke class features, or damn near bespoke class features, from other classes. More over the operative equivalent of reloading+moving actually stacks with the gunslinger's as per raw. Operative's calls out any time you interact to reload, gunslinger has bespoke reload actions. If you take gunslinger dedication you can combine these and get weird nonsense like striding twice. I'm personally fine with fighter accuracy here, but I can see it going or being limited to after taking the aim action. Mainly it's just eating too many people's lunches. I'd like to see the class chill tf out a little
It doesn't need to add sneak attack dice, have fighter accuracy, be very mobile, get a fantastic reactive strike equivalent and later down the road also get the flurry edge. It doesn't need to do *everything*
Except apart from +2 to attacks the Operative never took any features, TActical Barrage existed on the operative in Sf1, sneak attack exister in SF1 as well.
If you made classes weaker to accomodate to the "ranged meta" (as I already described, you don't need to this to make a ranged meta) that would mean those classes, if used in a PF2e game, would be really weak. Classes are specifically mentioned to be designed to be cross compatible without much effort, so, if anything, guns should be buffed a little.
Except apart from +2 to attacks the Operative never took any features, TActical Barrage existed on the operative in Sf1, sneak attack exister in SF1 as well.
No. The closest thing to Tactical Barrage in the SF1e operative were Triple Attack and Quad Attack, which aren't things you really need in SF2e due to how the action economy works, or even stuff like Double Tap which serve the same purpose in a sense. Also, the SF1e operative's trick attack doesn't work like the SF2e's operative aim works. One was an action that allowed you to use a skill while using it to deal extra damage, the other one is an action that increases your damage in the current turn.
If you made classes weaker to accomodate to the "ranged meta" (as I already described, you don't need to this to make a ranged meta) that would mean those classes, if used in a PF2e game, would be really weak. Classes are specifically mentioned to be designed to be cross compatible without much effort, so, if anything, guns should be buffed a little.
Buffing guns itself harms compatibility, as cross-play games would have everyone just picking SF's overpowered guns. I don't think SF2e's current crop of classes is weak by any stretch, nor would be made so by a downgrade to some of their HP and AC, given how there isn't a single one among them that has less than 8 HP per level or anything worse than light armor proficiency.
If you made classes weaker to accomodate to the "ranged meta" (as I already described, you don't need to this to make a ranged meta) that would mean those classes, if used in a PF2e game, would be really weak. Classes are specifically mentioned to be designed to be cross compatible without much effort, so, if anything, guns should be buffed a little.Buffing guns itself harms compatibility, as cross-play games would have everyone just picking SF's overpowered guns. I don't think SF2e's current crop of classes is weak by any stretch, nor would be made so by a downgrade to some of their HP and AC, given how there isn't a single one among them that has less than 8 HP per level or anything worse than light armor proficiency.
At least in their current state, SF2e guns are weaker than PF2e firearms IMO.
Yeah, you don't have to reload with SF2e guns but they don't seem to have as much traits and, which is important, fatal. I also feel that people that want to mix SF2e and PF2e likely will be using SF2e guns over PF2e firearms anyways, with the exception being gunslingers which we don't know what are they going to get in the new remastered G&G to probably compensate that. Also, I'm not meaning to take every gun and add like a bizillion traitrs and increase their damage considerably, I rather meant something like increasing their damage die size by one and add a trait or increase range a little if needed. Nothing too major.
In either way, either buffing weapons or deflating HP and AC will hurt the compatibility in some way anyways, though IMO if casters are already squishy in PF2e making them even squisher will be a huge nerf unless SF2e casters were made stronger in other areas, while, and I'm sorry for repeating this, but we don't know if the remastered G&G could also buff firearms in PF2e too. A ton of people have argued that firearms felt weak in PF2e for years now, so I wouldn't be surprised Paizo took that feedback and is planning to adjust them a little. I don't see other reason on why Paizo would want to remaster G&G first other than because Starfinder is a thing now and they don't want to have systems overlap as much. Also, even if we could technically reduce the caster's HP to 6 + Con, I think at least having light armor proficiency is non negotiable since all the art has characters wearing sci-fi armors and such.
At least in their current state, SF2e guns are weaker than PF2e firearms IMO.
Yeah, you don't have to reload with SF2e guns but they don't seem to have as much traits and, which is important, fatal. I also feel that people that want to mix SF2e and PF2e likely will be using SF2e guns over PF2e firearms anyways, with the exception being gunslingers which we don't know what are they going to get in the new remastered G&G to probably compensate that. Also, I'm not meaning to take every gun and add like a bizillion traitrs and increase their damage considerably, I rather meant something like increasing their damage die size by one and add a trait or increase range a little if needed. Nothing too major.
If they're weaker than ranged weapons in Pathfinder, then sure, buffing them would be good, but I do think not needing to reload oughtn't be devalued, as you basically get to make twice as many attacks in a combat encounter. If guns are meant to be more popular on more classes beyond just the Operative, I'd also prefer to up their base damage die rather than give them the fatal trait outside of weapons made for more accurate classes. You're also right that G&G could be buffing firearms, though we'll have to wait and see to confirm that.
In either way, either buffing weapons or deflating HP and AC will hurt the compatibility in some way anyways, though IMO if casters are already squishy in PF2e making them even squisher will be a huge nerf unless SF2e casters were made stronger in other areas
To be clear, I'm talking about bringing HP and AC down to par with Pathfinder, not below it. Casters in SF2e are already stronger than the average Pathfinder caster by dint of having 4 slots per rank, 8 HP per level, light armor proficiency, and strong class features to boot, so something's gotta give. Perhaps one of these classes could have 8 HP per level in exchange for fewer spell slots, but it is strange that both classes have the maximum amount of generic spell slots on top of robust survivability for a caster. Similarly, there is neither precedent nor reason for a class to have Barbarian-level HP, Champion-level AC, and a legendary save, i.e. the Soldier.
A world in which the initial SF2e casters had 6 HP per level and no armor proficiency (in exchange for better features, especially the Witchwarper and their Quantum Field), just like equivalent Pathfinder casters, the martial providers of ranged damage or utility had 8 HP per level and light armor proficiency, just like equivalent Pathfinder classes, and the bruisers had either top-end AC or HP, but not both, just like Pathfinder classes, is a world where those Starfinder classes would have parity with Pathfinder classes, and wouldn't need inflated damage to be threatened.
The flipside to this is that making more ranged enemies should likely entail giving them lower Constitution and probably higher Dexterity, making for a meta where enemies ought to have lower HP overall and a vulnerability to Fort saves, yet better protections against Ref saves. This could shake things up a little for spellcasters, all while feeding into a larger metagame where enemies are squishier, yet make up for it with more ranged capabilities. By contrast, Pathfinder enemies often have high Constitution and therefore more HP, letting them survive the journey to melee range and resist Fort saves even as they often fare worse at range and against Ref saves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be totally fair, I didn't even notice casters having 4 slots. In that case I totally agree with you SF2e should probably be brought down a little.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you made classes weaker to accomodate to the "ranged meta" (as I already described, you don't need to this to make a ranged meta) that would mean those classes, if used in a PF2e game, would be really weak. Classes are specifically mentioned to be designed to be cross compatible without much effort, so, if anything, guns should be buffed a little.Buffing guns itself harms compatibility, as cross-play games would have everyone just picking SF's overpowered guns. I don't think SF2e's current crop of classes is weak by any stretch, nor would be made so by a downgrade to some of their HP and AC, given how there isn't a single one among them that has less than 8 HP per level or anything worse than light armor proficiency.
Buffing SF2E guns(clarifying this), would be the best way and not the class chassis because bringing an operative into PF2E would have them use PF2E weapons and not SF2E guns. I think equipment is the easiest way to solve for the meta without giving classes things in their chassis that become problematic when porting them over, but also lets PF2E classes operate within the SF2E paradigm by equipping the new high tech gear
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be totally fair, I didn't even notice casters having 4 slots. In that case I totally agree with you SF2e should probably be brought down a little.
But yeah the casters are juiced TF up in this play test. Armor, 8 HP, 4 slots and a bunch of bespoke class features and feats. I understand the HP and armor because of the ranged meta making it even more likely for caster to get wrecked, but I think again this should be solved in gear. SF1E had "shields" in the science fiction sense and those acted like temp HP that came back every round. Giving casters unique gear that gives them a magical barrier of 1 or 2 extra temp HP every round gets sort of close to solving for this meta issue
Editing this to add:
I think they should also give us some kind of supplemental book that gives subclasses and feats to PF2E classes that help them adapt to the new meta. Like maybe Champions can have a larger aura due to enemies and allies being presumably further apart. Just a thought. Haven't gotten to playtest yet
Oh, I assume there's going to be content for PF2e classes in SF2e to be better suited for their new enviroment. I don't know if its going to be in the Player Core, but likely in APs and other suplemental books. I do like the idea of shields to make casters are little more tanky, though as I said I think that light armor is going to be minimum everyone will have in regards to proficiencies in SF2e regardless of if they are a caster or martial.
And honestly, I don't think that's too bad. I feel squishy casters (psychic, sorcerer, summoner, witch, and wizard) receive unnecesary punishment for not having it. I'm the sure reason why they don't have it is because of a mix of legacy and because it doesn't fit the sterotypical image of a caster rather than because it would be overpowered otherwise. I wouldn't bother if they added a magical robe that scaled with unarmed proficiency and happened to be an approximate of light armor for casters. SF2e likely won't need this, but PF2e casters into SF2e would need something like that to not become the focus of monsters.
Buffing SF2E guns(clarifying this), would be the best way and not the class chassis because bringing an operative into PF2E would have them use PF2E weapons and not SF2E guns. I think equipment is the easiest way to solve for the meta without giving classes things in their chassis that become problematic when porting them over, but also lets PF2E classes operate within the SF2E paradigm by equipping the new high tech gear
If we're porting SF classes into PF, I don't see why we couldn't also port SF equipment along with them too, and PF characters are going to be dealing with those supercharged guns in SF as well. I fully endorse bringing guns to the level of non-firearm ranged weapons in PF (because Pathfinder firearms are made intentionally weak so the Gunslinger can shine through their own mechanics), but I wouldn't want anything beyond that.
And on the subject of caster HP and AC, I think at least one of the two casters needs to be forced down to 6 HP per level and no armor proficiency: what we need isn't a game where classes can't be allowed to be squishy, because that's a game incompatible with classes like the Psychic, Sorcerer, Witch, and Wizard. What we need is a class where those classes can be squishy and combat still works. Given how there's lots of complaints about damage being too low, making at least some classes squishier could help solve this problem in part, as would mechanics that'd let characters find openings in an opponent's cover, and making the tank classes actually capable of drawing attention to themselves instead of their squishier teammates.
I have not read the Soldier in full yet, but from the Field Test, a soldier can be a variant fighter that focuses on two-handed weapons with better tankiness. I can see an Amiri Soldier build going rather nicely.
The Soldier is the exact class that defeats your argument. Their specialty is undeniably area weapons, with the bulk of their class features, core progression, and class feats catering to this. Playing the antagonistic GM by denying them access to the relevant weapons or ammo in your game just means your player won't get to actually play a Soldier properly, so I think it should follow that including SF classes in your games is going to entail allowing SF weapons as well, and giving characters access to the appropriate ammunition. Post-Gap classes crossing over into Golarion is already a blip in the canon, so there is no reason why including SF classes in your PF games would be okay but including SF weapons and ammo wouldn't be.
Counterpoint: Close Quarters Soldier.
Counterpoint: no, for a number of reasons.
So effectively, you are asking for anyone thinking of playing a Soldier in a Pathfinder game to restrict themselves to one subclass and a tiny number of feats, and even then their class would have a ton of mechanics they wouldn't get to use without access to space-age weapons. Do you really think this is a fair thing to ask of your players?
I'm just telling you how you can make it work in Pathfinder as a fantasy class. In an Adventure Path, they won't be able to afford a single item until mid to late game without modifying the setting.
But they don't work as a fantasy class, is the point. They're a space-age class made to work with space-age equipment, as are most other SF2e classes. I would sooner disallow the class at my table than put my player in the extremely unpleasant situation of only playing half a class the whole way through. The better solution would be to actually work with the player and lean into the compatibility, and therefore give the party the equipment they need.
Problem is, Pathfinder just does not have fully automatic weapons beyond those that were recovered from Russia and those that are recovered from Numeria. Of which, these weapons are either in collections or being sold by highly exclusive traders.
They also don't have Starfinder classes. In enabling Starfinder content, you are playing around the canon and allowing content from one game to cross the Gap over into the other. Using the canon as an excuse to screw over a player wanting to play a certain class you've allowed is therefore not a valid excuse.
Not necessarily. An Envoy works in any age. Medieval, modern, futuristic, even prehistoric.
Envoys also rely on the infosphere, and the flavor of the other SF classes hinges on some variant of the cosmos or more modern technology as well. I think the more sensible approach is to accept that these classes come from a distinct game, one that has space-age equipment, and that massaging the canon to accommodate some of this content could very well justify accommodating the rest in any amount.
Yes, and that's only one option cut off. The majority of the class functions without hiccups.
Accessing the infosphere is part of the class's Size Up core feature, not simply the Infosphere Director subclass.
Even then, it's easy to adjust if you homerule a little.
Literally anything can be made to work with enough homebrew and houseruling. That is neither here nor there when the subject is compatibility right out the box, which would be impeded by including SF classes in a PF game while denying them access to the equipment their class needs to function. That you are going out of your way here to accommodate one class but not another here begs the question of why you wouldn't just let a Soldier use area weapons in that same game.
Still can use the 1 hour version to network and gather information. But GM side I'd allow a player to use a library instead of the infosphere.
Even if I did not homerule, they'd still function well enough for my purposes even if I gave them Computers Lore and a useless feat. The goal was to get Loremaster Lore and Recall Knowledge as an Act of Leadership. Vanilla, the character still works for my purposes, as the goal was met. Notice, I swapped out the skill for just a lore skill that only has thematic uses, zero tactical uses.
Besides, no amount of enabling equipment will fix the fact a feat like Digital Diversion will not affect any enemies you run into in a Pathfinder game. So what if you allow your players to have a gun? They still will have a feat that is useless unless you give all of their enemies phones.
Again, you're missing the point: right now, you are admitting that you are going out of your way to make your Envoy work. Where's all this effort for the Soldier? Why even need to go through this effort when you could simply reflavor SF2e equipment or make it work in your game if you're going to be including SF content anyway? It is the double standard at play that is the issue here, all in defense of hypothetically overbuffing guns, which I maintain is something that does not need to happen in a game where the central problem at hand is that most SF classes are too durable and most NPCs have too little reason to not entrench themselves behind cover.
There are three reasons I am not putting as much effort into the soldier at the immediate hour
1. I only read the field test for the Soldier. I'm going to be reading the soldier after I go to sleep following this conversation, and get up to continue studying the book.
2. When I read the field test, I immediately recognized that the Soldier simply cannot easily be implemented without either large scale GM houseruling to make it work in a Pathfinder landscape, to either change the class, or to change the world around the class. I saw one narrow avenue that could work, and figured I'd take a crack at it then.
3. I haven't attempted to build a character with it yet. Now, I have a player who is a HUGE Final Fantasy 7 fan, so I am planning on doing a test character build for them to see if I can get them a working greatsword build before pitching it to them to try. So far I'm thinking Soldier with the Mauler archetype. But that's just a tentative idea, and I won't be able to make a call on feasibility until after I resolve reason 1 for me not having the level of effort in the soldier as the envoy.
The thing you need to understand is personally, I think most of the class mechanics are fine, but I care about the Lost Omens campaign setting, and I like to try to work within it, not against it. I'll happily change mechanics, but I try to stay within lore parameters.
Right, so by your own admission, you are putting effort into this, but specifically to make the Soldier and other Starfinder classes less functional, even though there is a near-infinity of different ways you could justify the existence of area weapons or other guns in the canon (including literally just reskinning them). This isn't about reading the field test in great depth or the like, this is just about not going out of your way to inject needless incompatibility.
Haven't done any playtesting yet, so take this with a grain of salt, but here is my impressions on the operative from my initial readthrough.
CLASS FEATURES
Aim
- I'm a fan of this being compressed into nearly all their feats, I do not want for the operative's turns to be Aim, Strike, Strike a lot of the time. Having them be able to use 2 actions to do their damage, and have 1 action spare, is a lot better in my opinion.
- Aim currently patches up the Operative's otherwise terrible damage from level 1-3 (ranged weapon no stat mod), however as you level up the Operative effectively has 2 damage boosters - Sneak Attack and Fighter's increased proficiency. Effectively they lose the +4-7 from strength to gain +1-5d4 (+1-5d6 with a feat).
Where dud you get 5d4+1 from ? I thought Aim granted 4d4 ? Also doesn't both Gunslingers and ofc fighters get increased prof ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Problem is, Pathfinder just does not have fully automatic weapons beyond those that were recovered from Russia and those that are recovered from Numeria. Of which, these weapons are either in collections or being sold by highly exclusive traders.
Upon a cursory google search, the earliest example of an automatic weapon is the Maxim gun in 1884.
As of today in Pathfinder, Wealday, the 7th of Arodus, 4724 AR. The current technology year of Golarion is about 1842, give or take about five years. This measure is based using the Light Writer as a landmark.
We're about 40 years off from seeing Alkenstar pumping out fully automatic weapons from which a Soldier can get their full abilities, assuming an Earthlike technology growth, of which Golarion's can either advance faster, or slower than ours. We're barely due to start seeing revolvers popping up.
But alike, if disallow is what you'd rather do, then fairdo.
Just for the record, the current Earth year in Golarion is 1924. We know this because of Reign of Winter.
I also think the solution to have a soldier in PF2e is very simple; reflavor. It is that insane to think of a crossbow that shoots multiple bolts towards a direction? This is a fantasy world after all, and realism has little say on that.
Not everything from Starfinder is gonna be fully compatible with Pathfinder mate. The devs even warned us of that. Best I can do is make the best of it what I can in the conversion.
You are correct, not everything in Starfinder is fully compatible with Pathfinder... except when the Starfriends referred to this, they referred to the ranged meta in Starfinder that allows characters to fly at level 1. What they did not say is that Starfinder's guns can't be reflavored to fit the world of Golarion (as Exequiel mentions, the timeline for PF2e is parallel to an era where automatic and area weapons exist in the Universe). You are pulling every excuse in the book to justify your cherry-picking of Starfinder mechanics at your table irrespective of how funcional the result is. While you can certainly do so at your discretion, that does not mean your choices are the right thing to do at everyone else's table, much less the developers' intention.