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.
Strike x2 is used as the baseline for a martial class's damage because, assuming all is well, that's what a martial class will be doing. 2e in practice, though, is not a game of rote turns, and so characters will often be doing different things: you might need to spend two actions Striding, for example, and if you're someone like a Fighter with Sudden Charge, you can spend two actions doing that, Striking as part of the action, and then Striking again with your third actions. The option to just make one Strike on your turn, or make one Strike as part of another composite action and another Strike before or after that, represents a massive amount of flexibility.
This is also why the Magus is known for having an exceptionally rigid action economy, because they're a martial class that has to dedicate two actions towards Spellstriking. Of course, they can also spend their turn Striking normally, using a conflux spell that has them make a Strike, or casting a spell that's not part of a Spellstrike, so they're a lot more flexible than the Soldier in this respect. It really is the Soldier that is uniquely positioned to have a very rigid playstyle, and the two-action firing cost of AoE guns I think is the key factor.
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).
A better job at what? The Soldier doesn't get additional actions from their core class, only select subclasses, and their core class features push them to make Area Fires, with their feats also largely revolving around the use of Area Fires. Of all the published classes in 2e, the Soldier really is the one that puts all of their eggs in one basket by design.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strike x2 is used as the baseline for a martial class's damage because, assuming all is well, that's what a martial class will be doing.
So to reiterate, the vast majority of the time in good conditions, the supposedly flexible class and the supposedly rigid class are expected to invest the same amount of actions into attacking. Especially for ranged characters who are in general less likely to struggle with movement issues.
and if you're someone like a Fighter with Sudden Charge
What makes Sudden Charge good and Shot on the Run bad?
This is also why the Magus is known for having an exceptionally rigid action economy, because they're a martial class that has to dedicate two actions towards Spellstriking.
Plus an additional action recharging.
Of course, they can also spend their turn Striking normally
Is that a joke? You just spent several posts passionately arguing that striking normally was an untenable option for Soldiers. There's no room in your own argument for calling it a decent turn for a Magus. At least action heroes and close combatants can suppress with strikes.
A better job at what?
Providing options. A soldier can spend a feat almost every level unlocking new combat actions to give them more potential choices in combat. Meanwhile our supremely flexible paragon of open ended game design rogue is going to strike as many times as possible to maximize sneak attack damage and end their turn.
The Soldier doesn't get additional actions from their core class, only select subclasses, and their core class features push them to make Area Fires, with their feats also largely revolving around the use of Area Fires. Of all the published classes in 2e, the Soldier really is the one that puts all of their eggs in one basket by design.
Yes, the Soldier is expected to Area fire a lot.. but so what? You've already established that most other martials are doing the same or worse. We can look at Gunslingers spending all their actions shooting and reloading just to keep up, flurry archers expected to make four to five attacks per round, operatives aiming and striking twice, swashbucklers needing to set up their damage with another action, rangers and thaumaturges needing to reapply their steroid whenever they change enemies, magi having a 2+1 action routine, even archer fighters striking over and over because that's what they're best at. We look at all of that and conclude that soldiers are the only problem here? That's just not reality.
So to reiterate, the vast majority of the time in good conditions, the supposedly flexible class and the supposedly rigid class are expected to invest the same amount of actions into attacking. Especially for ranged characters who are in general less likely to struggle with movement issues.
Had you read perhaps just a smidge ahead of the reply, instead of answering point-by-point as you likely did, you would have seen a pretty clear-cut example of why that flexibility matters (hint: Strike x2 can be broken down and incorporated into other actions). You also seem to have missed the operative term: assuming all is well. As we all likely know from actually playing games in the system we are discussing, a myriad of situations can and will arise where all is not well, and we may find outselves only able to Strike once in a turn as we do something else, sometimes even not at all. Being able to easily adapt to that eventuality is a big reason why classes like the Fighter are so flexible, and why classes like the Soldier are not.
What makes Sudden Charge good and Shot on the Run bad?
Who said Shot on the Run was bad?
Plus an additional action recharging.
Indeed! The additional action is thankfully something you can factor into your off-turn with an Interact action or a conflux spell, but you're right that it's not nothing. Even so, the Magus still remains far more flexible than the Soldier, for all of the reasons already mentioned.
Is that a joke? You just spent several posts passionately arguing that striking normally was an untenable option for Soldiers. There's no room in your own argument for calling it a decent turn for a Magus. At least action heroes and close combatants can suppress with strikes.
Perhaps you should try reading what I've said again, in good faith this time and with perhaps a little more attention to detail: there is, for starters, the itty bitty issue that many Soldiers won't be able to make single-action Strikes, because that is something area weapons just don't do. When a Soldier does just spend an action Striking with an automatic weapon or some backup weapon, that is almost entirely unsupported by their class. By contrast, if you're a Magus, you will be making single-action Strikes, because in most cases you'd be stupid to attempt a Spellstrike at a -5 MAP immediately after using a conflux spell (and also, you often will want to do something else instead). You also appear to have forgotten that the Magus does have class features that support their single-action Strikes, namely Arcane Cascade.
Providing options. A soldier can spend a feat almost every level unlocking new combat actions to give them more potential choices in combat. Meanwhile our supremely flexible paragon of open ended game design rogue is going to strike as many times as possible to maximize sneak attack damage and end their turn.
Speaking of jokes, here's you claiming the Soldier is more flexible than the Rogue, because... *checks notes* they have the same basic feat progression as any other martial class? Did it somehow escape you that the Rogue has a far greater wealth of skill actions and skill feats to draw from in addition to new actions gained from their class feats that let them do a variety of things in combat?
Yes, the Soldier is expected to Area fire a lot.. but so what? You've already established that most other martials are doing the same or worse.
Lol no, I haven't. I've established martials can do this in the best-case scenario, and in situations other than the best case scenario they have the flexibility to just make one Strike.
We can look at Gunslingers spending all their actions shooting and reloading just to keep up, flurry archers expected to make four to five attacks per round, operatives aiming and striking twice, swashbucklers needing to set up their damage with another action, rangers and thaumaturges needing to reapply their steroid whenever they change enemies, magi having a 2+1 action routine, even archer fighters striking over and over because that's what they're best at. We look at all of that and conclude that soldiers are the only problem here? That's just not reality.
What's out of reality is your terminally white-room depiction of every Pathfinder class, which is so out of touch with the practicalities of combat that it makes me question when the last time was that you've played a 2e game (if you truly believe classes to be this reductive, it also makes me question whether you even enjoy 2e at all). I'll actually not disagree with you on Operatives, because those classes do genuinely have a fixed rotation, but every other class gets a ton of different things to do and will be relying on their different things to do in order to deal with enemies that are themselves designed to disrupt their "best case scenario" rotations. Gunslingers and Swashbucklers will be wanting to make skill checks, Rangers and Fighters will have a plethora of different actions to incorporate into their flurries by the time they can make 4-5 attacks a turn, and Magi and Thaumaturges have a bevy of buttons to press thanks to their spells and implements, respectively, with most Magi being forced to spend their third action after their Spellstrike doing something else, and their next turn doing something other than Spellstriking as they recharge. Meanwhile, the Soldier mostly still just Area Fires, and sometimes has actions that let them do one other thing and Area Fire.
I get that you really like the idea of AoE weapons and their two-action attacks, but I think we've reached the point where the fantasy is being used to occlude reality. Spending two actions just to make one attack is simply not good, and it's especially not good to force an entire class to revolve around this. Rather than try to deny the facts at all costs and reject the independent findings of several people who've actually playtested the class, it might be better to face them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It’s true, many baseline PF2e martials do want to spend 2 actions Striking if they can, similar to how Soldier wants to spend 2 actions Area Firing, and both (well the good PF2e martials at least) get some sort of compression to make it less stuck.
Why does the Soldier feel so rote compared to a regular martial then? I can’t exactly tell you, but the feeling is there. I suspect it’s to do with the fact that it does it from range, so it never feels like it has to change up its turn for being slowed/prone/grappled/whatever, its almost never out of range, etc. The only consideration is cover and even then there’s an extremely large amount of places to stand which get around center-to-center cover, so often times the soldier’s turn being Area Fire (or Shot on the Run) + something (demoralize if everything isn’t already immune) feels… uninteractive I guess? There’s nothing I can do to make them reconsider what they’re going to do, there’s not a selection of Metafires available from level 1 with distinct effects that they choose from. There’s no reason to hit them over another PC, except for Close Quarters and even then there’s very little reason to hit them.
It certainly comes away with the feeling that the class doesn’t actually care what’s in the encounter or on the battlemap, it’s turn is already solved into infinity. The only choice you’re really making is what damage types of guns did you buy.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Moving on to other things:
I'm curious to see how the Erudite warrior fares. Single action, suppressed no roll seems strong, but then they can get rid of it with a single attack roll. Still, that's an attack against (presumably) your heaviest-armored guy and not some wizard in the back with no armor. Also, I'm always a sucker for the old warrior-poet or warrior-scholar archetype (as in character theme, not the mechanical archetype in the game) so I do want to try it out, especially since they don't seem to have gotten much attention.
Also, it might be nice to have a commando Fighting Style. Just for those people who want to bust down doors with a semi-automatic rifle and not a big minigun or something. Not sure how it would work . . . maybe supress on a hit with a semi-auto rifle? Dunno how to work it out but I'm sure there's a way.
President
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've removed a few posts that were devolving into personal attacks and insults. I've left up a few that had good points but were dangerously close to falling into the same spiral. Please focus on the specifics of your disagreement and not the person behind it.
As always, please refer to the Community Guidelines...
And be awesome to each other.
-Jim
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just throwing in my experience, I ran a 2e Soldier in a playtest, and while yeah he pretty much did the same thing every turn, it didn't feel that different from playing any other martial character.
My sniper gunslinger shoots, reloads, hides.
My flurry ranger hunts, runs up, and attacks a bunch.
My swashbuckler gains panache and uses a finisher.
They're all pretty much pre-determined what they're going to do before the fight begins, and maybe I'm a simple man, but that's what I like doing.
And I have to say, blasting away with a Stellar Cannon after the Graviton Solarian bunched up the enemies for him felt just really great.
|
|
Just throwing in my experience, I ran a 2e Soldier in a playtest, and while yeah he pretty much did the same thing every turn, it didn't feel that different from playing any other martial character.
My sniper gunslinger shoots, reloads, hides.
My flurry ranger hunts, runs up, and attacks a bunch.
My swashbuckler gains panache and uses a finisher.
They're all pretty much pre-determined what they're going to do before the fight begins, and maybe I'm a simple man, but that's what I like doing.
And I have to say, blasting away with a Stellar Cannon after the Graviton Solarian bunched up the enemies for him felt just really great.
Thanks for letting us know about your experiences.