|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm seeing a lot of soldier hate. A lot of hate. A lot of 'this class is useless and terrible and anyone on the design team should be summarily executed' kind of hate.
Here's how I see it.
Take a soldier with a machine gun or a rotolaser. For their action, without moving, they can hit a bunch of people (against their legendary class DC, +3 from their aiming module, literally the highest DC possible in the game), then because of primary target, get a free shot against one guy at no penalty. Then for their third action they can shoot that guy again for a total of -5 MAP.
So that's:
AoE damage against a bunch of people. Even if they save, that's still 1/2 damage.
Then a shot at no penalty
Then a shot at -5.
Let's reframe this. Lets make the conceit that an enemy will always save against your AoE attacks. They won't. Last week in my Season of Ghosts game, I had some players throw out some fireballs that the enemies could only save against on a die roll of 15+, but let's say that enemies always save for the sake of argument.
And now,
Let's say, instead, you had an inventor. They had a 3 action activity to automatically deal 1/2 weapon damage to an area, then shoot twice for a penalty of -0/-5. People would think that would be a pretty good ability.
People seem to be zeroed in, laser focused on the idea that someone might actually save against their big AoE attack. Even if they do, that's still some damage. I can't tell you the number of times my swashbuckler has missed with their confident finisher, but still taken out an enemy because I did damage on a miss. And yes, a large chunk of the soldier is focused around their AoE attacks but that's not all they can do. Just like you sorcerer can't fireball every enemy, your soldier won't be going AoE crazy every fight.
And, just so we are clear, you do NOT have to use the autofire weapon to do a soldier justice. There are line weapons and burst weapons. They don't get you that third shot, but if your party likes running in front of your machinegun, you can switch to something else.
I haven't played one yet, but I've seen a fair share of let's plays and they seem like they are doing okay. And if they need to be brought up a bit, that's fine. Maybe increase their damage so that they do a bit more damage on a miss, I'd be fine with that. But let's give them a chance instead of "I've heard they were bad, therefore me and my group won't even try them and I'm going to complain about them online."
I haven't seen the level of "hatred" that you're talking about.
But, I am getting the impression that an imported Pathfinder Fighter would actually be better at the Soldier's job then the Soldier Class.
Here's what I'm seeing:
* - Key Attribute of Strength or Dexterity is more useful then Constitution - Despite "Walking Arsenal."
* - Expert with Simple, Martial and Unarmed, but also Trained with Advanced weapons.
* - Expert in Perception!
* - With the number of AoE weapons in Starfinder, Expert in Reflex saves is a good thing.
* - Because of the cost of ammunition, lots of AoE attacks aren't worth while anyway.
While it is true, that the Fighter never gets Legendary with Armor, he/she/they does with Weapons. And, downed enemies tend to stop shooting anyway.
|
|
I haven't seen the level of "hatred" that you're talking about.
But, I am getting the impression that an imported Pathfinder Fighter would actually be better at the Soldier's job then the Soldier Class.
Here's what I'm seeing:
* - Key Attribute of Strength or Dexterity is more useful then Constitution - Despite "Walking Arsenal."
* - Expert with Simple, Martial and Unarmed, but also Trained with Advanced weapons.
* - Expert in Perception!
* - With the number of AoE weapons in Starfinder, Expert in Reflex saves is a good thing.
* - Because of the cost of ammunition, lots of AoE attacks aren't worth while anyway.While it is true, that the Fighter never gets Legendary with Armor, he/she/they does with Weapons. And, downed enemies tend to stop shooting anyway.
I've heard the 'They should be ashamed of what they put out and be fired' thing at least once.
So, I hear what you're saying, but as counter points:
*Dexterity would be nice for a better to hit, I'll grant you that.
*A soldier's AoE attacks are based on Class DC, not weapon proficiency.
*A +2 to inititive isn't huge. My swashbuckler goes last every inititve using "after you," and it's been fine.
*By contrast, being able to avoid being mind controlled by expert in will saves is ALSO a good thing.
*Ammunition costs are onerous at early levels, but you can buy a rotolaser and just recharge batteries for free most places. Especially if you have a ship.
Also, Fighter doesn't have:
*Legendary in class DCs
*Soldier can easily suppress targets, making it harder for them to get to you, giving you more rounds that you can shoot them.
*A fighter typically has to take their time shooting each target individually. The soldier can hit everyone, and then attack twice, whereas a fighter trying to autofire would be way worse, OR take longer as they have to, like I said, target each enemy individually. And like you pointed out, downed enemies can't shoot you. So by the same logic, a soldier can mow down a field of enemies, where as a soldier might be able to down one or two, and all the others get to shoot him.
I want to like Primary Target. The action and MAP compression is really powerful. The way it works with automatic weapons is intuitive. However, the way it works with area weapons is so counterintuitive that I've seen people assume the feature doesn't work at all with them. That's a problem. A major load-bearing mechanic of the class is hard to reconcile with what the character is meant to actually be doing.
Constitution as key ability score is awkwardly tacked on. There are class features that exist solely to paper over how Con doesn't do things the character needs. The class still works but there's no reason why it should be written like that.
The class is uncomfortably constrained in gear choices and play style. Everything revolves around two-handed aoe weapons. I'm hoping that this is just the part that they really want to concentrate on testing out and the actual soldier has more options.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think hyperbolically presenting other playtesters giving critical feedback as bloodthirsty murderers is helpful, really. There's a way to give your own feedback without doing any of that.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think hyperbolically presenting other playtesters giving critical feedback as bloodthirsty murderers is helpful, really. There's a way to give your own feedback without doing any of that.
Do . . . do you really not think that there are people out there in social media who are so vitriolic that they wouldn't say things like that? Oh you sweet, sweet summer child.
Now I haven't seen that level of vitriol on the Paizo boards true . . . but there are . . . darker places in the world. The Youtube comments section . . .
|
|
I want to like Primary Target. The action and MAP compression is really powerful. The way it works with automatic weapons is intuitive. However, the way it works with area weapons is so counterintuitive that I've seen people assume the feature doesn't work at all with them. That's a problem. A major load-bearing mechanic of the class is hard to reconcile with what the character is meant to actually be doing.
Constitution as key ability score is awkwardly tacked on. There are class features that exist solely to paper over how Con doesn't do things the character needs. The class still works but there's no reason why it should be written like that.
The class is uncomfortably constrained in gear choices and play style. Everything revolves around two-handed aoe weapons. I'm hoping that this is just the part that they really want to concentrate on testing out and the actual soldier has more options.
Totally reasonable! If you want to clean up the language and make it easier to understand for AoE attack weapons, 100% behind that. Great. But just assuming "This use of them is bad and therefore the entire class is junk" is not the answer. No, yes, let's have a discussion about cleaning it up and such. 100% for that.
I'm even okay with the con as a key ability score. I like it. It is a bit wonky, but it's only a single paragraph and it makes the class feel like they are a big, chonky boy (or girl, or whathaveyou. I'm not here to gatekeep.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been running a Soldier with a group of 2 kineticists and a sorcerer in a PBP game since the field test came out and they have consistently held their own. Granted, I've been a bit generous with the AoE weapons so they have options for what they can use. Regardless, the suppressed condition has been huge whenever the enemy has needed to close the distance or was bottlenecked by a frontliner and they were able to tank some very gnarly hits thanks to being a 10Hp con focused class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I will fully disclose that I am of the camp that the Soldier is really poorly-designed. I don't think the designers should be fired, executed, or even ashamed of themselves, because they worked hard to deliver something they believed in, but then I also think there have been noted issues with the class that were brought up a year ago and not addressed since.
The first thing I'll agree with is that the concern about Reflex saves indeed comes off as overblown to me. Yes, enemies in Starfinder look to have strong Ref saves and poor Fort saves (which I actually really like, that'll favor different spells relative to Pathfinder), but I also think the Soldier's damage and DC are consistent enough that they will almost always be doing something with their Area Fire. I do think suppressed on a successful save ought to be core to the class, rather than just the Bombard's thing, and area weapons could probably stand to deal more damage, but the Soldier's damage to a given target is fairly reliable.
Where I think things break down, however, is in the example the OP gives: it is true that with an automatic weapon, you could make an Area Fire, a Primary Target Strike, and an extra -5 MAP attack all against the same target. By Pathfinder standards, this is bonkers. However, I also think this is exactly what the Soldier shouldn't be designed to do, as their core strength is meant to be their AoE, rather than their single-target damage. They were given this single-target boon mainly because they can't get more than one target at a time in their AoE, and even with this they're still actually pretty terrible at catching lots of targets in their AoE, which limits their ability to apply suppression and thereby draw attention to themselves. I'd also say that if a character can spend all 3 actions on their turn making attacks, that goes against the general idea that characters in 2e should be using their third action to do something a little bit different, and this convention is also broken on other classes like the Envoy and Operative.
I guess all of this is to say that I'd rather get a Soldier who's good at actually catching more than one enemy at a time in their AoE attacks, and actually good at making those enemies attack them by laying down effective crowd control, than a Soldier whose base stats are way too high and who's specifically just good at blasting a single target to oblivion with their AoE attacks. We have over a dozen different classes in 2e who excel at single-target damage, including several Starfinder classes, so I'd rather explore that unique niche a bit more and make it actually work.
I've been running a Soldier with a group of 2 kineticists and a sorcerer in a PBP game since the field test came out and they have consistently held their own. Granted, I've been a bit generous with the AoE weapons so they have options for what they can use. Regardless, the suppressed condition has been huge whenever the enemy has needed to close the distance or was bottlenecked by a frontliner and they were able to tank some very gnarly hits thanks to being a 10Hp con focused class.
What weapon are they using and how are they build, if I may ask?
I've been running a Soldier with a group of 2 kineticists and a sorcerer in a PBP game since the field test came out and they have consistently held their own. Granted, I've been a bit generous with the AoE weapons so they have options for what they can use. Regardless, the suppressed condition has been huge whenever the enemy has needed to close the distance or was bottlenecked by a frontliner and they were able to tank some very gnarly hits thanks to being a 10Hp con focused class.What weapon are they using and how are they build, if I may ask?
The relevant parts are as follows:
Level 5Str +3 Dex +3 Con +4 Int +0 Wis +2 Cha +0
Tactical Scattergun, Tactical Stellar Cannon
Class Feats: Quick Swap, Steady Up, Relentless Endurance
This is from the old Field Test material and I haven't gone through to make sure everything is updated just yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My big issue with the Soldier class so far is that it is too specialized as a base class. Pretty much every Soldier made will be an artillery piece on the battlefield, with a secondary with two-handed melee weapons. Not a single one of the base class abilities will work with, say, a standard laser rifle or dual-wielding boom pistols. Even the various specializations released in the playtest are all about aoe weapons.
I'd like to second this. My main concern with the playtest soldier is that it's a one trick pony, and discussion of how good that trick is comes in second off of that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think some things can be done to make the Soldier a little better. Maybe giving them an extra die on damage for the Area effect attack, similar to how they changed the base damage of spells from 1 die plus attribute to 2 dice. Additionally, the ranges for Auto fire seem much more restrictive than area effect. I think the Bombard is a very well balanced subclass, suppress on everything but Crit success and avoid 1/2 Con friendly targets. In contrast, I don't think the other options for the Soldier seem as developed. I, myself, built a Bombard Soldier and am looking forward to playing it but I ran the two Scenario's for the Playtest and all the people playing Soldiers chose other options, Action Hero and Close Quarter Combatant. I feel that the Soldier, which I like, doesn't play the way the other people want it to. Both my players normally play fighters in PF2E and I think they are comparing the Soldier unfavorably. In the Long term, after the playtest, if that is what you are looking for you should just use a Fighter with "Starfinder" Equipment.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My big issue with the Soldier class so far is that it is too specialized as a base class. Pretty much every Soldier made will be an artillery piece on the battlefield, with a secondary with two-handed melee weapons. Not a single one of the base class abilities will work with, say, a standard laser rifle or dual-wielding boom pistols. Even the various specializations released in the playtest are all about aoe weapons.
So . . . counter argument . . . so are a lot of classes.
Fighter's 'big thing' is that they are good with one set of weapons. They don't even have a sublcass. Literally their only 'thing' is that they get a +2 to hit with one set of weapons past level 5, and they are considered one of the best classes.
Operative's big 'thing' is that they can aim to deal extra damage. Only with ranged weapons. And they have subclasses that give them some extra things that mostly help with that, like ignoring the volley trait on guns, or not provoking reactive strike with guns. Soldiers also get subclasses that give them more abilities.
Swashbucklers get their finishers that, unless they take certain feats, have to be done in melee.
Magus gets to cast a spell an make a melee attack at the same time, and most would argue that's their only 'thing (all their other class abilities support that).' I could keep going on.
If you want to diversify with soldiers you can. Anyone can pick up the whirling swipe feat to be able to AoE attack in melee. And yes, a chunk of their class chassis is devoted to their AoE attacks, but that doesn't mean all of it is. An armor storm soldier with burst of strength can do well with combat maneuvers. You can also help defend your party with feats like "You'll have to go through me!" and "Deflect Missile."
Listen, if you want some more diverse soldier feats that's fine, but being a 'narrowly focused' class is hardly restricted to just the soldier.
My big issue with the Soldier class so far is that it is too specialized as a base class. Pretty much every Soldier made will be an artillery piece on the battlefield, with a secondary with two-handed melee weapons. Not a single one of the base class abilities will work with, say, a standard laser rifle or dual-wielding boom pistols. Even the various specializations released in the playtest are all about aoe weapons.I'd like to second this. My main concern with the playtest soldier is that it's a one trick pony, and discussion of how good that trick is comes in second off of that.
As VampByDay said, the Soldier being quite specialized isn't anything new or unusual for classes. The Soldier only uses big aoe guns (and in some cases melee weapons) just like a Gunslinger only uses guns and crossbows.
It's just that this specific specialization has never really been done before and is therefore more visible. And the specialization here is very cool and far less limited than you make it out to be.
My problem isn't with the class being somewhat of a one-trick pony. I really like that trick. It's purely that that one trick isn't strong or reliable enough.
I think it'd be fine if the Soldier picked up some additional support for conventional laser rifles and such in a subclass-- I think it would be a better fit for the model they're using than the erudite soldier is, honestly, that subclass doesn't need to exist and what it does would be better off being achieved by a feat line-- while the subclass stays oriented to 'what weapon do you use'
I'd theme it as a kind of combat marksman role, where enemies are suppressed by a long range gun steadily trained on them rather than a barrage of fire, I think it could essentially turned suppressed into a ranged version of the Justice Champion Reaction? Base suppressed benefits, but then also you can shoot them if they attack an ally?
Otherwise, I think it's just a 'core book' problem, since we're not getting THAT MANY weapons with automatic or area, compared to what we'll probably have a year or two after launch-- they feel too specialized, but the more these weapon traits are used, the less specialized the soldier will come across.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally like the idea of the Soldier as more of a "Heavy Weapons" class than the "hit them with your laser gun" class. "Hit them with your laser gun" is every class.
Like when I think "marksman" I think "sniper" and then I think "Operative."
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love the soldier, tbh. It's mechanically got a few issues, but the basic mechanics and theme are extremely cool. With its focus on heavy area weapons, its tankiness via armor and Con primary, and defensive options it really kind of steps into a fantasy that doesn't exist elsewhere and I'd hate to see that traded away for a dex or strength focused character that's good at shooting people (aka every other martial).
I'd love to see the class lean even deeper into either being suppressive artillery or an in your face gun tank. This is the stuff myself and my players have been excited about, and again it's something you really can't do anywhere else right now.
Agree with Teridax though that it'd be nice to see them improve a bit at catching groups in their AoEs, but some of that just comes down to encounter design, which makes having those single target options also important to their kit.
I do think one of the Soldier's current main problems -- enemies not clumping up together enough -- ought to be solved by just adding general actions that would encourage this more on everyone, both ally and enemy. I actually think this is where the Operative's ability to ignore cover through Aim should come from, rather than a self-focused buff. Just as an example, if one single action let you assist an adjacent ally and let their next ranged Strike ignore cover, and another single action let you increase a willing ally's cover as if they'd Taken Cover, then there'd be more reasons for both the party and decently intelligent enemies to start grouping together, and give the Soldier more opportunities to catch 2 or more enemies at a time.
|
|
I haven't looked through the feats in a while, but has the soldier got any feat that increases the radius or width of their AoE and auto-fire attacks? If not that could be another lever to pull on. If your enemies refuse to clump inside of your killbox, build a bigger killbox to hold more clumps.
The action hero subclass does that, as does the widen area level 4 class feat.
I haven't looked through the feats in a while, but has the soldier got any feat that increases the radius or width of their AoE and auto-fire attacks? If not that could be another lever to pull on. If your enemies refuse to clump inside of your killbox, build a bigger killbox to hold more clumps.
IIRC it's only Widen Area, a 4th level feat. Basically Widen spell, including the action cost.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's wider area at 4, but it's an action to enable so it kind of ruins their turns.
I think simply widening areas only helps so much though, and runs the risk of making the soldier that much stronger in areas they already excel at*
... What I kind of think they need is maybe some feature that lets them hit two targets that are completely disjointed from each other, as that seems to be the circumstance we've encountered where they struggle the most. I'm not sure what that would look like without running the risk of ruining the area dynamic they already have by becoming a dominant tactic.
*Fundamentally I think the issue I keep seeing with the soldier is that it's not elastic enough. When it works, fighting multiple enemies in tight spaces, especially if they have less than stellar reflex saves, the class can be downright oppressive. We had a homebrew encounter involving a group of zombies and our soldier was effectively getting 3-4 MAPless strikes worth of damage for two actions every round, nevermind literally any other feature.
But against small groups of spread out enemies (especially ones with good reflex saves like a lot of the statblocks we have) the class can feel kind of out of its depth in the same way a rogue standing next to an ooze can feel pretty damn lame, but the former is probably going to be a lot more common.
I will echo the criticism that the Soldier's biggest flaw right now is their rigidity. Because they're made to use AoE weapons specifically, and because Area Fire and Auto-Fire take two actions, this narrows down their options a lot more than most martial classes, and puts all their eggs in one basket: in an ideal scenario where lots of low-level enemies with bad Ref saves are all grouped together in a tiny area, they get super-high returns, but in a much more common scenario where they can only affect one enemy at a time and that enemy has high Reflex saves, their only fallback option is to just keep making AoE attacks and relying on Primary Target to make up on single-target damage.
The combination of rigid action economy and rigid weapon interaction with their core features I think makes the Soldier a bit too feast-or-famine, which I suspect is why a few players have had radically different experiences from each other: some of us have had no real luck catching groups of enemies at a time, so it's been mostly famine, but those of us who did run into that situation, or playtested one of the few encounters that do favor Soldiers, have been impressed by the feast instead. With perhaps a bit more flexibility to their weapon selection and action economy, the Soldier could have the opportunity to suffer less from famine -- other changes would need to be made to let them feast more often (e.g. by incentivizing enemies to group together), but it'd still be nice for them to have a bit more variety and fallback options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like one really counterintuitive change to help with their action economy: Make primary fire increment MAP. Right now having your third action be at -5 is maybe a bit too compelling over spending that action on another ability or skill action.
You'd still be committing two actions to an area attack, but committing two actions to attacks is fairly normal for martials and it would allow primary fire to serve as a relief valve on your action economy to some extent by making that last attack less obviously valuable. You'd still be less flexible than a martial that doesn't rely on special attacks or heavy multiattacking, but probably have a little more wriggle room than some other 2-action classes.
It's objectively a nerf, but would make their turns feel more variable and also probably make it easier to allow them to get more goodies elsewhere. Like suppression a success being default.
Suppress on a success being default would also mean you could give Bombards and Erudites more interesting style abilities too.
Again that's obviously a nerf on its face, but I feel like getting two normal strikes and an area attack off feels a little too obviously correct and makes feat and skill actions not really appealing.
Against a single target soldiers should do decentish damage (for a ranged combatant) area Fire for them is a compressed action with a mapless strike added on and if your going for the best weapon (the vector cannon) a d10 strike is pretty comparable to archery damage outside of a crit.
If you have a lot of lower level enemies then area Fire is likely to be better than a strike and against one high ac enemy quite often you will get some damage rather than none when they succeed the save. Enemies fail saves without adding the item bonuses in that extra 5-15% chance of failure/critical failure will add up.
By level six soldier can make an area attack a strike and strike at -5 which is pretty good whilst potentially debuffing several enemies.
That seems very solid to me, honestly i think they are likely to put out more damage than most kinetesists (who they seem to share space with the at will area effects) whilst having extremely solid defences and protecting allies.
So, a lot of this relies on the expectation that the Soldier will be able to hit multiple enemies at a time, which in practice is simply not the case. In particular, this does not address the concern of the Soldier's flexibility, so let's ask the important question here: what does a Soldier do when they can only affect one target at a time? And the answer is simple: the exact same thing they do when they can affect multiple targets at a time, which means spending at least two actions making an Area/Auto-Fire and applying Primary Target. This is arguably too strong on an automatic weapon where you can just spend your entire turn dealing damage to a single target (not an intended strength of the Soldier), as Squiggit mentions, but its also just really not flexible for a martial class in general, because you have to dedicate most of your turn to this one thing instead of being able to break up your turn into three bite-sized actions. The fact that you're still pushed to do the exact same thing for single-target and multi-target damage in my opinion is quite a significant problem, because that I think contributes to the Soldier feeling quite samey in their turns, and inflexible overall.
With this, I feel it'd be better if the Soldier could do well with single-action Strikes like any martial, and all of the extra-action stuff that let the Soldier tap into their special abilities expanded the action cost from one to two, rather than two to three. It might be okay for a caster to spend all three of their actions on a spellshape+spell, but for a martial class, I think that's quite severely limiting. By contrast, a class that made lots of two-action attacks alongside one-action attacks on some turns would still be more action-intensive than most martials, but would have a lot more flexibility.
I am certain you can use primary target on a single target with area Fire as area Fire say you can (specific trumps general)
Given they have included primary target as a/the core feature of the class, mixing it up between area and single target damage is the intended playstyle. They are meant to have some competency in both like a Magus (with might and magic)and primary target is there spell strike action economy enhancer.
Now you may not enjoy this hybrid playstyle but it's clearly intentional.
I think you misunderstood me: I am well aware that Primary Target can be used with an Area Fire. That is in fact what my post says as well. The criticism I am making is that a Soldier fights against single targets in the exact same way as when fighting against multiple targets, which limits their variety and their flexibility. A Magus can at least vary their spells or cantrips with their Spellstrikes, and has conflux spells along with actual slot spells to do more diverse things, even if their own action economy is quite rigid. Even more simply, a Magus can make single-action Strikes whenever the need arises -- a Soldier can't do this easily with an area weapon, so they're even more restricted.
|
|
I think you misunderstood me: I am well aware that Primary Target can be used with an Area Fire. That is in fact what my post says as well. The criticism I am making is that a Soldier fights against single targets in the exact same way as when fighting against multiple targets, which limits their variety and their flexibility. A Magus can at least vary their spells or cantrips with their Spellstrikes, and has conflux spells along with actual slot spells to do more diverse things, even if their own action economy is quite rigid. Even more simply, a Magus can make single-action Strikes whenever the need arises -- a Soldier can't do this easily with an area weapon, so they're even more restricted.I am certain you can use primary target on a single target with area Fire as area Fire say you can (specific trumps general)
Given they have included primary target as a/the core feature of the class, mixing it up between area and single target damage is the intended playstyle. They are meant to have some competency in both like a Magus (with might and magic)and primary target is there spell strike action economy enhancer.
Now you may not enjoy this hybrid playstyle but it's clearly intentional.
Again, rotolaser, machine gun, even the autotarget rifle allows them to make single target strikes.
Again, rotolaser, machine gun, even the autotarget rifle allows them to make single target strikes.
And again, the Soldier will still want to make Area Fires with an automatic weapon, because otherwise they won't get to add Primary Target to the mix. So once again, we are back at the same problem of the Soldier always doing the same thing, and asking the Soldier to restrict themselves to less than a third of their already small intended arsenal just to have a minimum of flexibility does not strike me as terribly good for the class, but it does implicitly admit that area weapons are too inflexible to use under most circumstances.
|
|
Again, rotolaser, machine gun, even the autotarget rifle allows them to make single target strikes.And again, the Soldier will still want to make Area Fires with an automatic weapon, because otherwise they won't get to add Primary Target to the mix. So once again, we are back at the same problem of the Soldier always doing the same thing, and asking the Soldier to restrict themselves to less than a third of their already small intended arsenal just to have a minimum of flexibility does not strike me as terribly good for the class, but it does implicitly admit that area weapons are too inflexible to use under most circumstances.
I mean, yes, but also, they don’t HAVE to. The rogue wants to be sneak attacking all the time, but there are going to be times where it would be disadvantageous to do so. The fighter wants to be using their favored weapon group, but if the enemy has DR/10 against their sword, maybe it is time to switch it out for a maul for this fight.
Armor storms can grapple, close combat soldiers can suppress with single target strikes, erudite warriors can kinda taunt by suppressing people that don’t attack them. There are other options.
I mean, yes, but also, they don’t HAVE to. The rogue wants to be sneak attacking all the time, but there are going to be times where it would be disadvantageous to do so. The fighter wants to be using their favored weapon group, but if the enemy has DR/10 against their sword, maybe it is time to switch it out for a maul for this fight.
Armor storms can grapple, close combat soldiers can suppress with single target strikes, erudite warriors can kinda taunt by suppressing people that don’t attack them. There are other options.
Rogues and Fighters have the advantage of being able to make single-action Strikes whenever they like. What you're evidencing is that unless you have the right weapon, you're forced to either commit two actions to an Area Fire or not be able to attack that turn at all, and you're generally not going to be able to do much with single actions unless you have the right subclass, which lets you do one thing. That's incredibly rigid.
|
|
Rogues and Fighters have the advantage of being able to make single-action Strikes whenever they like. What you're evidencing is that unless you have the right weapon, you're forced to either commit two actions to an Area Fire or not be able to attack that turn at all, and you're generally not going to be able to do much with single actions unless you have the right subclass, which lets you do one thing. That's incredibly rigid.I mean, yes, but also, they don’t HAVE to. The rogue wants to be sneak attacking all the time, but there are going to be times where it would be disadvantageous to do so. The fighter wants to be using their favored weapon group, but if the enemy has DR/10 against their sword, maybe it is time to switch it out for a maul for this fight.
Armor storms can grapple, close combat soldiers can suppress with single target strikes, erudite warriors can kinda taunt by suppressing people that don’t attack them. There are other options.
I think we are talking past each other. What I'm trying to say is that a soldier will PROBABLY want to area attack each round, but if they can't or it's a bad idea to do so, then they can still fire off single target strikes with things like autotarget rifles, rotolasers, machineguns, etc. And if your soldier's only means of attack is an area-effect attack . . . well then that's like a melee fighter who doesn't have a ranged option. Or a sorcerer who only has area effect attacks. That's a poor decision the player made, not a reflection on the class.
Now, your point isn't without merit. It might be nice to have a weapon with an area effect attack, and a secondary single-fire option. If you want to advocate for such a weapon, I'll be right there with you. But, if I understand you right, you are kind of arguing that the soldier is bad because their only option is to only ever have two-action area fire weapons. Isn't that like saying an archery ranger is bad because they can't attack in melee? They can, they just need to remember to be set up for it.
I don't know about you, but in many of my games, I end up with at least two magic weapons . . . a melee and ranged option. And sure, my less-favored option may lag behind my favored option, but I still have it in a pinch. In my Gatewalkers game, my Swashbuckler has a magic Bow-Staff as their main weapon, and an Elven Curved Blade in case I need to do slashing damage. The ECB is only a +1 weapon, whereas my Bow Staff is +2, but I still have the blade just in case something is resistant to bludgeoning damage.
It might be nice to have a weapon with an area effect attack, and a secondary single-fire option.
I just want to point out that the undermounted grenade launcher exists as a weapon upgrade. Yes, the range is short and grenades are probably not cost-effective; however, the option does exist to switch between area attacks and single shots without being locked into autofire weapons (or having to burn actions to switch weapons).
I think we are talking past each other. What I'm trying to say is that a soldier will PROBABLY want to area attack each round, but if they can't or it's a bad idea to do so, then they can still fire off single target strikes with things like autotarget rifles, rotolasers, machineguns, etc.
Yes, I agree we are talking past each other. Specifically, here's the bit that directly addresses what you've just repeated:
What you're evidencing is that unless you have the right weapon, you're forced to either commit two actions to an Area Fire or not be able to attack that turn at all
In other words, a Soldier should not have to restrict themselves to one of four weapons, most of which are terrible, just to enjoy the prospect of a functional turn.
And if your soldier's only means of attack is an area-effect attack . . . well then that's like a melee fighter who doesn't have a ranged option. Or a sorcerer who only has area effect attacks. That's a poor decision the player made, not a reflection on the class.
Choosing to use one of the very few weapons the class is made to use is "a poor decision"? That's like punishing a melee fighter just for using a melee weapon, or a sorcerer just for having an AoE spell. Sounds like the best decision the player could make is to play another class that isn't nearly as senselessly punitive.
Now, your point isn't without merit. It might be nice to have a weapon with an area effect attack, and a secondary single-fire option. If you want to advocate for such a weapon, I'll be right there with you.
If you're genuinely curious, I've written a lengthy thread where I showcase modded versions of AoE weapons and the Soldier that I've tested out after trying the originals. As it turns out, not forcing the Soldier to spend most of their turn making one AoE attack just to access any meaningful part of their kit is actually really good, and makes the class feel a lot less rigid.
But, if I understand you right, you are kind of arguing that the soldier is bad because their only option is to only ever have two-action area fire weapons. Isn't that like saying an archery ranger is bad because they can't attack in melee? They can, they just need to remember to be set up for it.
That is not in fact what I am saying, so clearly there has indeed some talking past one another. The point I am making is that in order for the class to actually start doing core class things, like Suppressing Fire or Primary Target, the Soldier has to make an Area Fire or Auto-Fire. This makes the class rigid, because if they just make a single-target Strike with an automatic weapon, they don't get any benefit from their class, unless they go for the one subclass that lets them maybe suppress the one target with that Strike. What makes the class even more rigid, however, is that your best strategy for fighting a single target is still to make an AoE attack, because that is the only way of triggering Primary Target. Effectively, instead of being encouraged to use the various tools at your disposal to handle different problems differently, you're being given one big hammer to smash every problem with in the same way. This I think makes the class duller, shallower, and more repetitive overall.
I don't know about you, but in many of my games, I end up with at least two magic weapons . . . a melee and ranged option. And sure, my less-favored option may lag behind my favored option, but I still have it in a pinch. In my Gatewalkers game, my Swashbuckler has a magic Bow-Staff as their main weapon, and an Elven Curved Blade in case I need to do slashing damage. The ECB is only a +1 weapon, whereas my Bow Staff is +2, but I still have the blade just in case something is resistant to bludgeoning damage.
I certainly agree that martial classes should have a backup weapon. You will notice, however, that every AoE weapon save for the starfall pistol has 2 Bulk. Combined with your 3-bulk heavy armor, this means carrying a backup AoE weapon will bring you up to 7 of your 9 starting Bulk before becoming encumbered, without factoring in even a single additional piece of equipment. That's pretty heavy just to be able to make single-action Strikes, at which point you might just drop the area weapon and use only the rotolaser. It'd be nice to play a class that uses more than literally just a single weapon, so I'd rather make the class a bit more flexible.
|
|
I think we are talking past each other. What I'm trying to say is that a soldier will PROBABLY want to area attack each round, but if they can't or it's a bad idea to do so, then they can still fire off single target strikes with things like autotarget rifles, rotolasers, machineguns, etc.Yes, I agree we are talking past each other. Specifically, here's the bit that directly addresses what you've just repeated:
What you're evidencing is that unless you have the right weapon, you're forced to either commit two actions to an Area Fire or not be able to attack that turn at allIn other words, a Soldier should not have to restrict themselves to one of four weapons, most of which are terrible, just to enjoy the prospect of a functional turn.
And if your soldier's only means of attack is an area-effect attack . . . well then that's like a melee fighter who doesn't have a ranged option. Or a sorcerer who only has area effect attacks. That's a poor decision the player made, not a reflection on the class.Choosing to use one of the very few weapons the class is made to use is "a poor decision"? That's like punishing a melee fighter just for using a melee weapon, or a sorcerer just for having an AoE spell. Sounds like the best decision the player could make is to play another class that isn't nearly as senselessly punitive.
Now, your point isn't without merit. It might be nice to have a weapon with an area effect attack, and a secondary single-fire option. If you want to advocate for such a weapon, I'll be right there with you.If you're genuinely curious, I've written a lengthy thread where I showcase modded versions of AoE weapons and the Soldier that I've tested out after trying the originals. As it turns out, not forcing the Soldier to spend most of their turn making one AoE attack just to access any...
So I'm glad we're on the same page. I just think we have some different thought processes is all. I get what you're saying, the soldier WANTS to be area attacking every round, and their core mechanics are based around that. Totally agree. But, you could kinda say the same about the rogue, how they want to be sneak attacking every round. Just like a rouge can choose to forgo their class abilities and not sneak attack every round (maybe getting out into the middle of a group of enemies to flank is a bad idea), the soldier can choose to forgo their class abilities if it isn't useful for them. Not every class ability has to be useful in every situation. The soldier having AoE attack class abilities doesn't take away their ability to strike normally. I get that it's not optimal, but it's hardly required.
And they can be built with other abilities like I said. Close Combat, Erudite Warrior, Armor Storm with wrestling. That's more than half the subclasses that have other stuff to do. So when you make a character, you ask yourself, do you double down on AoE attacks, or diversify? That's a character option you have to make.
I get what you're saying, I just have a different view of it is all.
I will agree, a few more lighter AoE weapons would be nice. That's something we can agree on.
So I'm glad we're on the same page. I just think we have some different thought processes is all. I get what you're saying, the soldier WANTS to be area attacking every round, and their core mechanics are based around that. Totally agree. But, you could kinda say the same about the rogue, how they want to be sneak attacking every round. Just like a rouge can choose to forgo their class abilities and not sneak attack every round (maybe getting out into the middle of a group of enemies to flank is a bad idea), the soldier can choose to forgo their class abilities if it isn't useful for them. Not every class ability has to be useful in every situation. The soldier having AoE attack class abilities doesn't take away their ability to strike normally. I get that it's not optimal, but it's hardly required.
I still don't think that's equivalent, though, because Rogues enjoy immense flexibility that a Soldier does not. A Rogue who really needs to spend two actions doing something else can still make one Strike, just as a Rogue with no off-guard targets can use one of their three actions to Trip, Feint, or flank, which they're really good at. Unlike Soldiers, Rogues excel at skills and skill actions, so they have an immense amount of options at their disposal at any given time, and many of their feats and subclasses build upon this. There will be very few times where a Rogue will not be useful in some capacity, in a way that works with their class mechanics.
By contrast, Soldiers do not have this freedom of action. A Soldier with an area weapon who has to spend two actions doing something else will not be able to make an Area Fire at all. A Soldier faced with enemies that are spread apart can't make them come together. A Soldier faced against one target and able to spend two actions attacking is going to attack in the exact same way as if the target were part of a clumped-up group. Soldiers may be good at Intimidation and perhaps Athletics, but that's about it. You can refer to my thread, but that difference in flexibility doesn't just matter, in my opinion it's critical.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I'm glad we're on the same page. I just think we have some different thought processes is all. I get what you're saying, the soldier WANTS to be area attacking every round, and their core mechanics are based around that. Totally agree. But, you could kinda say the same about the rogue, how they want to be sneak attacking every round. Just like a rouge can choose to forgo their class abilities and not sneak attack every round (maybe getting out into the middle of a group of enemies to flank is a bad idea), the soldier can choose to forgo their class abilities if it isn't useful for them. Not every class ability has to be useful in every situation. The soldier having AoE attack class abilities doesn't take away their ability to strike normally. I get that it's not optimal, but it's hardly required.I still don't think that's equivalent, though, because Rogues enjoy immense flexibility that a Soldier does not. A Rogue who really needs to spend two actions doing something else can still make one Strike, just as a Rogue with no off-guard targets can use one of their three actions to Trip, Feint, or flank, which they're really good at. Unlike Soldiers, Rogues excel at skills and skill actions, so they have an immense amount of options at their disposal at any given time, and many of their feats and subclasses build upon this. There will be very few times where a Rogue will not be useful in some capacity, in a way that works with their class mechanics.
By contrast, Soldiers do not have this freedom of action. A Soldier with an area weapon who has to spend two actions doing something else will not be able to make an Area Fire at all. A Soldier faced with enemies that are spread apart can't make them come together. A Soldier faced against one target and able to spend two actions attacking is going to attack in the exact same way as if the target were part of a clumped-up group. Soldiers may be good at Intimidation and perhaps Athletics, but that's about it. You can refer to my...
Isn't that kind of like saying that a spellcaster can't do two things and still cast their spells? Like, I get that, and it sucks, but that's what the game is all about right? Making tactical choices. And sometimes you are just in a bad place for a turn and have to spend your whole turn moving up to hit an enemy. And again, if you decide to put all your eggs in one basket with only an AoE damage weapon, that's kinda on you, right?
Sure, let's talk about some incremental changes. Some lighter AoE damage weapons, or maybe make an underbarrel grenade launcher with less-expensive grenades, that's all fine. But a lot of people are saying that the soldier is hot garbage and can't be saved. I just wanted to point out that there is potential there. I agree it's a playtest, things should be tweaked. But the class chassis is solid IMO, and with a tweak here or they should do well. Even against a single target, save for half, plus free attack, plus attack at -5 is pretty strong. And because they are mostly a ranged class, they probably won't need to move as much, especially if they are an action hero.
I just . . . I don't agree with your basic premise. That a soldier is terrible. It seems to be predicated on the assumption that they will choose an AoE damage weapons, and only ever use that weapon. And that's just . . . a bad build choice. It's like saying my melee fighter will never grab or use a ranged weapon. Or that a sorcerer will never grab a non-AoE spell. It's just . . . it makes some assumptions where I don't know if they are true.
But we are veering into opinion territory, so I'll drop the issue. You have your thoughts and I have mine.
Isn't that kind of like saying that a spellcaster can't do two things and still cast their spells? Like, I get that, and it sucks, but that's what the game is all about right? Making tactical choices. And sometimes you are just in a bad place for a turn and have to spend your whole turn moving up to hit an enemy. And again, if you decide to put all your eggs in one basket with only an AoE damage weapon, that's kinda on you, right?
Since when is the Rogue a spellcaster? Or the Fighter? You are correct that a spellcaster will usually be spending two of their three actions a turn at least casting a spell, and that makes for a more rigid action economy than for martial classes. That is, also, the point. Martial classes in this game enjoy a more flexible action economy by default, and that is a significant factor behind their power in encounters, which is all the more reason why most martial classes would have absolutely no desire to reduce themselves to the action economy of a caster. The Soldier unfortunately doesn't have the option to just pick single-target guns and make nothing but single-target Strikes (unless of course they want to perform poorly), so they're forced into that same rigidity.
But let's take this a little further: when a caster is in a situation where casting a certain spell isn't a very good idea, guess what: they can cast another spell! In fact, even a low-level caster will have about five different cantrips and two to three spells to choose from, each suited towards different situations. That is, I'm sure you'll agree, quite a large selection, and what's more, the caster can choose which spell to cast without spending any additional actions for the privilege or equipping something bulky on their person (though they can also pick up scrolls, staves, and wands for that purpose). The Soldier, by contrast, has to dedicate generally 2 Bulk for each additional weapon they want to haul around beyond the first, plus money for upgrades as they level up. That weapon is still going to do something similar to the first by dint of both being weapons, and switching weapons takes an action. Other martial classes contend with similar, though less intense restrictions on how many different weapons they can have, plus a more restricted range of things they can do due to relying on feats, rather than spells, for new actions. Effectively, the Soldier has the inflexible action economy of a caster, along with the more restricted range of available actions of martial class, even more so given their especially limited range of synergistic weapons. They effectively get the worst of both worlds.
So yes, you are correct that this game is about making tactical choices, and that it's a good idea not to put all your eggs in one basket. But the point I keep trying to inform you of, the point you seemingly keep missing, is that the Soldier's very design puts all of their eggs in one basket, and prevents them from making tactical choices. The Soldier has the rigid action economy of a caster, coupled with a weapon and action selection even more restricted than that of other martial classes. You can keep ignorantly blaming anyone playing the Soldier for not "making tactical choices", or you could perhaps actually listen to what is being said to you, perhaps even playtest the Soldier for yourself, and see just how limited they are. The tactical choice is yours.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I get your point, I just disagree. I view it this way, the bulk of the soldier class is based around giving soldiers bonuses if they decide to area attack. That doesn't take away their ability to single-action strike like a fighter, or intimidate, or whatever. It's a bonus, the bonus of that class. If that class's bonus thing doesn't work in scenario A, they can fall back to doing the fighter thing and single-target attacking. And sure, they won't be as good as the fighter, but they have this bonus that applies in other situations.
Your hangup seems to assume that a soldier HAS to be using an area-effect weapon instead of an auto weapon, or not having a non-AoE weapon when AoE isn't called for. And that's just a poor decision for the soldier. JUST LIKE if other classes made poor decisions for their classes.
I wouldn't blame the investigator class if an investigator player chose to grab weapons that they couldn't use studied strike with, I'd blame that player. I wouldn't blame an archer for grabbing only a bow and ignoring melee combat. Mitigate the downsides of your own class.
And there are other flexible things the soldier can do. At level 3 their con applies to intimidation, so they can demoralize really well, or an erudite warrior can recall knowledge with their free skill upgrades, or whatever. There's flexibility there. And yes, close combat soldiers can decide to do single-target strikes with their melee weapons and still suppress people if they want.
We have a difference of opinion man. And that's fine. I just don't think the fighter is ad bad as everyone else says it is. Anyway, that's all I wanted to say.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Important to note that was during the field tests, I have since done playtests with the soldier at level 3. The plan is to do 8, 13, 16 and 20.
Soldier’s turn being Area Fire + X (or feat that allows area fire + X) has been pretty much the same through. Edna recorded a log of all actions taken by the party, which I imagine she’ll publish once these playtests are done.
Why does the Soldier area fire so much even against single enemies? The answer is quite simple: it does more damage than striking twice, if striking twice is even an option (unwieldy, you may not be able to afford 2 at level upgraded guns). For instance, at level 3, the soldier’s DC is 20 and their hit bonus is (3 level + 2 trained + 3 dex + 1 item) = +9.
Against a single enemy, such as the Corpse Fleet Officer (AC21, Ref+14) or Elite Tashtari Alpha (AC24, Ref+16), their average damage looks something like
0.25(6.5)+0.5(3.25) = 3.25 (Area Fire) + 0.4(6.5)+0.05(6.5) = 2.925 (Strike) for a total of 6.175 average damage with a Screamer against the officer (Stellar cannon has resist problems). It’s worth noting that even this is a counter I wouldn’t expect an ordinary soldier to have due to the requirement to invest in a general feat to make it trained. Edna took it expecting skeletons, but it would be unviable cost wise to make it advanced for level 4 or 5 (as they need armor upgrade as well), and past there it would have proficiency problems.
Alternately, if they had a non unwieldy weapon like the machine gun. Let’s even say a Seeker Rifle, and assume the Officer doesn’t have piercing resist, they can only really do Strike+Strike for the same action cost, dealing
0.4(5.5)+0.05(5.5)+0.15(5.5)+0.05(5.5) = 3.575 average damage. Nearly half the damage of the screamer, and still substantially less than the stellar cannon.
This pattern follows for the Tashtari, and every other single entity you can think of. Primary target is the soldier’s damage booster like Rage, they simply do more damage when using it relative to regular strikes (not to mention their lower strike accuracy), and so they use it as often as possible. I struggle to think of reasons, outside of range which Shot on the Run patches, that you wouldn’t area fire if you could. The competing options for your attack (in the case of Armor Storm) are much, much worse in Starfinder’s ranged meta.
I would compare it more to a space barbarian than a space fighter, you just Area Fire (where a barbarian just Strikes because they have no metastrikes), but even the barbarian has considerations about athletics stuff and positioning. The soldier mostly doesn’t.
It doesn’t really show up in easier encounters - Lows and Moderates - because even if you don’t play those to the best of the class’ ability, you will win. They aren’t challenging enough to really make you need to get the best out of every action. But at higher difficulty encounters, you sort of need to (unless your class is broken), and the problem that we run into with Soldier is that it actually can’t do anything else. It’s strategy is the exact same every encounter, the choice is merely who to suppress which also may not matter if the enemies don’t need to move (happens a lot more often than you may think).
I sort of question how much of a problem "spends two actions on their gimmick" actually is, especially given that in these discussions we constantly see two strikes being used as a baseline for martials anyways, not to mention other classes that have two action mechanics or actions that pair together.
I certainly wouldn't mind the Soldier gaining more interesting one action options and variety, but realistically the Soldier already does a better job than most ranged martials that have already been published and comes with more class-actions via feats than most (though there's definitely room for improvement on many of them). So I don't really get pretending it's some impossibly rigid outlier that's fundamentally impossible to fix.