In Fieldtest #5, it is mentioned the developers are aiming to have a ranged meta for Starfinder 2e.
Duking it out in melee is fine when
everyone is running around with swords
bigger than their bodies, but in Starfinder Second
Edition, we’re working hard to create a “ranged”
playstyle—the assumption is that most combatants
rely on ranged abilities and Strikes. Lots of encounters
in Starfinder 2E are going to feature flying creatures
(and player characters!), big distances, sniper rifles,
grenade launchers, and more. This is a low-level
encounter, so it doesn’t have all those things, but
you’ll notice that even our basic zombie enemy has
a laser gun, and the Corpse Fleet is much better at
shooting than it is at stabbing! Of course, there’s still
room for melee characters in a ranged meta, just as
there’s room for an archer in a fantasy game. Wouldn’t
it be a shame if a solarian got all up in those creepy
Corpse Fleet faces and did some serious damage?
There's been some discussion around the Operative's damage output, and ranged having higher damage outputs in general, but I'm wondering what the developer's intent is.
I've heard META used in two different ways. The newer one is along the lines of strongest or best, i.e. most effective tactics available. The older one, and the sense I believe the developers are using here, is what everyone else is bringing to the table (or the tournament in its more typical usage setting). In this instance, I expect it means NPCs, monsters, and players will all be bringing ranged weapons to the table, or a way to deal with flying ranged players at the very least.
Given I haven't seen any proposed rules changes for monster generation themselves, and ranged damage is expected to be lower than melee damage in those generation rules:
So during the playtest, what should be the expectation? If everyone is going to have ranged options, then I'd expect less individual damage per action taken to Strike, less absolute need to take move actions (even if the target moves away, you can still shoot), more Take Cover actions to swing exchanges your way, and potentially a similar need to move to eliminate said take cover actions by flanking (in the military sense, not the melee sense) to get clear shots.
Or are people expecting individual ranged damage contributions from players should be going up per action taken? Is there an expectation that monster/NPC generation rules are going to change to mirror that? What about the statement in the Fieldtest about Solarians getting up in their faces and dealing "serious" damage?
A final question is what do people want to see in terms of typical combat flow in Starfinder, and how that would differ from Pathfinder. What should the developers aim for?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a sense, the ranged meta is both of those things you mentioned at first. For one, everyone - including monsters - is assumed to have a ranged option, not having one is an exception. Such as with some wild beast enemies on an unsettled planet or in the vents of your ship.
On the other, ranged is considered to be the default form of combat. Options are usually revolving around it. Basically PF2 in reverse, but maybe not as extreme as might have been common there.
The rules for monsters will be almost completely unchanged from PF2. Basically, what changes is that enemy now get a good ranged attack - which will almost certainly extent to generally better damage than the PF2 book suggests - and that aoe damage will be more common. But that should be all in the advice sections, the actual math should be unchanged. Central elements such as AC, saves and HP will be identical. All of that is part of the "100% compatibility" promise as well - monsters are also compatible.
So yes-ish, individual ranged damage will go up. On both sides of the table. One obvious example would be casters typically using a gun to complement their spells. Otherwise the overall lower damage and higher AC - as you pointed out - would slow the game down substantially. But it is more tha "x does more damage now". It also means that features and feats that would be high-level, limited or such in PF2 are now possible and/or much cheaper.
But that doesn't mean that melee - as per the Solarian thing - is intended to be nerfed compared to the old system. Melee is the same as before, with a bit more movement and CC thrown in. It is just relatively weaker, because ranged combat has gotten better. So the Solarian quote still holds.
(I gotta go, I'll add my thoughts on combat flow later, sry ^^)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think ranged meta means this:
* The assumption that everyone, including monsters, will have at least one ranged attack, if not default to only use ranged attacks. This means that, unlike the melee centric PF2e encounters, a melee character in SF2e is assumed to have a "movement tax" to be within melee range of enemies, much like how ranged characters in PF2e are assumed to have a "reloading tax" unless you are using something like a bow.
* Reloading isn't going to be as prevalent as it is in PF2e, which means ranged characters will have more actions each turn in average.
* You can't flank at range, which means positioning isn't going to be as important besides maybe doing one Stride to get near cover. This means that melee characters won't be flanking as much because it won't be as likely to have allies flanking with you in melee as it is in PF2e, and it's very likely stuff like moving + Take Cover are going to be easy to access actions in SF2e like the new Dive for Cover skill feat. I'm seeing this feat + Sniper Stance being feats that most people are going to take.
* With flying being an assumption, even melee characters will need to have a decent ranged option they can rely on as a plan B.
This would translate to, even if melee characters are going to still be stronger damage-wise than ranged characters, they would have to work it up a little because a ton of stuff that is taken for granted in PF2e isn't going to in SF2e. Movement isn't seen as a tax in PF2e because everyone has to move, even ranged characters if an enemy goes adjacent to them, but since here melee is going to not be as common the one character that focuses on melee will not only have to be a little tanky to withstand getting the focus of the enemy while rushing to them, but also spend at least one if not more actions to get into melee. Not having to reload as much is also huge because that, paired with the fact that combat isn't going to be as mobile as before, means that ranged characters can start shooting enemies without having to bother much about anything. A pure melee character that doesn't have a ranged option is something that's pretty much expected in PF2e for the average martial, but in SF2e a pure melee character will frequently run into encounters in which they won't be able to do contribute much, if at all, since flying is going to be commonplace.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a sense, the ranged meta is both of those things you mentioned at first. For one, everyone - including monsters - is assumed to have a ranged option, not having one is an exception. Such as with some wild beast enemies on an unsettled planet or in the vents of your ship.
On the other, ranged is considered to be the default form of combat. Options are usually revolving around it. Basically PF2 in reverse, but maybe not as extreme as might have been common there.
The rules for monsters will be almost completely unchanged from PF2. Basically, what changes is that enemy now get a good ranged attack - which will almost certainly extent to generally better damage than the PF2 book suggests - and that aoe damage will be more common. But that should be all in the advice sections, the actual math should be unchanged. Central elements such as AC, saves and HP will be identical. All of that is part of the "100% compatibility" promise as well - monsters are also compatible.
So yes-ish, individual ranged damage will go up. On both sides of the table. One obvious example would be casters typically using a gun to complement their spells. Otherwise the overall lower damage and higher AC - as you pointed out - would slow the game down substantially. But it is more tha "x does more damage now". It also means that features and feats that would be high-level, limited or such in PF2 are now possible and/or much cheaper.
But that doesn't mean that melee - as per the Solarian thing - is intended to be nerfed compared to the old system. Melee is the same as before, with a bit more movement and CC thrown in. It is just relatively weaker, because ranged combat has gotten better. So the Solarian quote still holds.
(I gotta go, I'll add my thoughts on combat flow later, sry ^^)
One big thing adding to this-- Pathfinder often assumes melee and then adds specific options to ungate ranged, like Raging Thrower and Flying Blade and Starlit Span. Starfinder classes appear to usually assume ranged and then uses options to ungate melee, like Close Quarters Soldier and Striker Operative.
In Pathfinder this creates a natural flow toward melee options because you frequently have to spend a resource to get ranged and might want a different benefit at that feat/subclass fork. But in Starfinder, the openness runs the other way where it's melee you have to buy the special privilege to use your features with.
I think everyone is freaking out over the Operative's damage i think ti is reasonable for a ranged meta. Without it then the Striker might actually be the better (once again) sub-class/option (Depending on how to view it). If you don't increase ranged damage it will feel as bas as the Gunslinger output,not great. Even if the META of Ranged allows freedom of choice at who you shoot without worrying about moving and reactions.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are many things that reduce ranged damage - Cover, lack of stat, (general) lack of reaction attack access (Soldier, Envoy and Operative have easy ones), no easy to inflict FF due to flanking.
If you use PF2e assumptions about ranged damage, in a game where ranged combat is the expectation, without updating HP values to compensate, you’re going to end up with a slog where both sides are dealing far less damage than was expected when those math assumptions were made.
There are many things that reduce ranged damage - Cover, lack of stat, (general) lack of reaction attack access (Soldier, Envoy and Operative have easy ones), no easy to inflict FF due to flanking.
If you use PF2e assumptions about ranged damage, in a game where ranged combat is the expectation, without updating HP values to compensate, you’re going to end up with a slog where both sides are dealing far less damage than was expected when those math assumptions were made.
Basically this and long term it won't be fun outside of the fact any form of temporary hit points or healing will potentially swing the favor of combat in who's ever hand that can mitigate the most amount of damage. Like 3 action heal can at certain levels invalidate entire rounds of combat with ranged weapons.
I.E The Envoy shoots someone for 1d6+2 damage and rolls a 2, so that's 4 damage while the other party is focusing on another enemy with their d10 weapons, they hit deal 5 damage, and a Cleric/Caster casts 3 actions heal in a 30ft burst rolls 1d8 and heals their entire time for 4-5 hit points immedately negating your side's turn while still allowing their team to blast you.
Perhaps the ranged meta will force you to keep your team up longer if the enemies deal more damage on average then you. Which could easilybe the possibility in monster design.