There's this thing, the "ranged meta", that is lurking around. It's nice to speak about the "ranged meta", to determine what you would do when there's a "ranged meta", etc...
But what is the "ranged meta" exactly?
I've seen it in the playtest book! Here's the sentence: "Remember, Starfinder Second Edition has a “ranged meta,” meaning that everyone’s packing a gun or some other ranged weapon, so a lot of combats happen at a distance using cover and tactical positioning, rather than up close and personal like in Pathfinder Second Edition"
Well, I'll modify a bit this sentence to reflect the actual truth: "Remember, Starfinder Second Edition has a “ranged meta,” meaning that everyone’s packing a gun or some other ranged weapon, so a lot of combats happen at a distance using cover and tactical positioning, rather than up close and personal like in Pathfinder Second Edition or Starfinder first edition"
Because, let's state it: the "ranged meta" is a big pile of crap. I've played a Solarian in Starfinder, I've played with Solarians and melee Soldiers in Starfinder and I've never seen a player complaining about melee combat under the "ranged meta" or any similar term. Because there was no such thing as a "ranged meta".
For a ranged meta to actually exist you need to triple the size of maps. As long as fights will start at 20-60ft. Solarians and melee Soldiers will do fine. And the recent maps I got my hands on (from Cosmic Birthday and the playtest adventures) are all as small as PF2 maps. Spaceships are small, buildings are smalls, all combats happen in small areas, there's not a single fight with enough space for a full ranged combat to happen.
So, please, can we just kill this buzzword?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the one hand, I agree with you about encounter design. I don't long range engagements being common. Most combat encounters will not take place on flat planes. Even Star Trek-esque unknown "planets of the Week" will often have caves or dense foliage.
That being said, creating a gameplay environment where Guns are the norm does pose quite a few challenges for the developers, and I do feel they're struggling there.
Out of curiosity, which maps in particular are you having trouble with? With the maps and enemies I’ve run, combat has been primarily ranged, no question. The ranged meta is certainly in need of a few tweaks right now, but it undoubtedly exists.
It sorta exists the problem is ranged is more stationary then melee with less need to move as long as your gun has a range greater then around 25-45 feet which generally is the average distance PCs can move and reach. So guns like the Semi-Automatic Pistol being 60ft is where the ranged meta really kicks off. Guns under 50ft range suffer from the "Just move up and melee them!" which is why I think many guns have under 60ft of movement outside 2 handed weapons, to make the melee Solarian feel justified.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the notion of a "ranged meta" is specifically relevant to flight. Like in Pathfinder having constant flight from level 1 (because your ancestry has wings, for example) would mean that a lot of enemies can never hit you. You can, as a level 1 character with a damaging cantrip stay just out of reach of an unlimited number of level 5 polar bears and plink them to death.
When "almost everybody has a gun" then you don't need to keep a lid on flying because, this tactic no longer becomes a degenerate strategy. This also means that if your plan is "run up to them and hit them until they stop" then you're going to need a way to deal with flyers a lot earlier than you would in Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can understand the pushback against the overexaggerated hype of 'ranged meta'.
I do see how Starfinder2e is going to be more suitable for ranged combat than Pathfinder2e is.
And that is saying a bit since Pathfinder2e does have ranged combat to a reasonable degree. Bow-wielding Ranger, Rogue, and Magus characters are not uncommon. Gunslinger is an entire class dedicated to ranged weapons. Spells generally deal damage at range.
Some of the things that I note though:
The only ranged weapons considered good in PF2 are bows - shortbow or longbow normally. Because they are the only ones with reload 0 and decent damage dice. Shuriken and Air Repeater are honorable mentions, but their d4 size makes them not a good contender. And there are a huge pile of reload 1 weapons available, but it takes most of your turn to use them once - so half of your turns you can't make two Strike actions without some reload gimmicks like Gunslinger has.
From what I see in the class proficiencies and weapon lists, SF2 classes are all proficient with simple weapons and simple weapons include a pretty wide array of ranged weapons that have a 'reload 0 equivalent' magazine - meaning you can make multiple ranged Strike actions in a round with a fairly normal damage die size weapon.
And those things aren't dependent on maps made for a particular adventure. They apply to all adventures published or homebrewed.
I haven't actually played yet, just working on building characters.
Is it a potential issue that ranged weapons don’t deal enough damage? In the modern world, firearms can hit from a distance, and suppressive fire is often needed to close the gap for melee combat. If you're hit, you’re likely to go down quickly. Even today, melee weapons can be more effective in close quarters because ranged weapon damage is focused in a single line, while melee weapons can cause damage even when someone is struggling against them. From my training in disarming people, I’ve found that skilled opponents can neutralize firearms quickly at close range.
At 20 feet, a melee attacker would struggle to close the gap if they’re running directly into the line of fire. However, at 10 feet, the person holding the gun is at a severe disadvantage if the attacker is skilled and charging effectively. Of course we shouldn't spend too much time modeling reality.
|
The playtest adventures seem to put some focus on the "take cover" action and classes like operatives can reduce the cover bonus others get. Personally, I expect that to eventually fade away, and I am fine with that, but I tend to enjoy playing Solarians.
I am actually more worried about flying in this context since even the playtest material had a fair number of encounters that you could trivialize by just not standing on the ground and shooting a gun.
As far as adventure design is concerned, I think that mixing in the occasional enemy that players absolutely want to start engaging from a distance could work out, though a lot of the spellcasting ranges are absolutely not set up for that.
Out of curiosity, which maps in particular are you having trouble with? With the maps and enemies I’ve run, combat has been primarily ranged, no question. The ranged meta is certainly in need of a few tweaks right now, but it undoubtedly exists.
Your combats were at range because the conditions forced you to play at range or because all the characters in the party were ranged ones and as such you just used ranged attacks?
Because more SF2 classes are ranged and more SF2 enemies are ranged. So more characters will tend to fight at range even if they are 30ft. away from their enemies. But there's no ranged meta: ranged is not at an advantage over melee. Fights still start at Sudden Charge distance of the enemy so melee characters will play fine. I have Cosmic Birthday so I can attest the sizes of the maps are rather small, there's just one place where a ranged fight could take place and there's no such fight in here.
Also, but that's more of a personal omen, I'm pretty sure the melee meta will quickly come back in experienced groups. Melee traditionally does more damage than ranged and I haven't seen anything in SF2 that would suggest otherwise. And ranged characters are extremely vulnerable to melee, because of Reactive Strike but also because many of their abilities will be useless once at melee range. And because most combats still start at Sudden Charge distance, melee characters are not really penalized. And if you have at least 2 of them they are not really vulnerable. So, in my opinion, the "ideal SF2 party" has 2 melee combatants like any PF2 party.
And anyway, I've played SF1 with a Solarian and I'm pretty sure many people here played a Solarian or other melee characters in SF1 and I guess their experiences were as fine as mine. Even if Starfinder features more ranged combats than Pathfinder (I won't deny that), fights still mostly happen at very close range and as such there was no "ranged meta" (as in a superiority of ranged over melee).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your combats were at range because the conditions forced you to play at range or because all the characters in the party were ranged ones and as such you just used ranged attacks?
Because more SF2 classes are ranged and more SF2 enemies are ranged. So more characters will tend to fight at range even if they are 30ft. away from their enemies.
Congratulations, you've just described the ranged meta!
|
Engagements constantly starting at 100+ feet away is not viable under the PF2e system. Having playtested fights that start at this range, they’re even more turrety than fights that start at the 30-60 range. It takes so long and so many actions to cross the map to get around your opponent’s cover (during which time you might have no cover) that it simply isn’t worth doing. Unless you’re melee and lose a round or a round and a half having to cross that distance before being allowed to strike.
Characters being assumed to have a ranged attack, and most enemies having a ranged attack as good as or better than their melee attack, already changes a number of things. AoEs become far less valuable, because enemies don’t naturally group. Melee characters need to spend far more actions moving around because enemies aren’t clumping up to flank (ironically a problem I’ve had with both melee soldier and solarian - both of them don’t have action compression which is sorely needed, but operative and ranged soldier do).
You can make a game that starts with both sides at 100+ft (20+ squares). Lancer does it, and weapons in Lancer have less range (typically 8-10, so 40-50ft equivalent without ranged increments) than Starfinder. Objectives do a number in forcing characters to actually move around the map instead of turreting in one place, but part of it is also how you design maps around sightlines and cover. I’ve certainly played on bad lancer maps before where it was impossible to interact with the enemy team.
Starfinder doesn’t seem like it’s going to ever introduce the idea of objective combat as a default, and it doesn’t currently have the tools to really force the opposition to group up or move from their current spot, do engagements at that distance just aren’t that fun.
Will it lead back to the melee problem where reactive strike reach characters simply dominate the game because the distance between you and the enemy isn’t that big? Probably, Operative and Soldier are currently holding their own (so to speak) once they get weapon damage ups off the strength of Hair Trigger / Overwatch. Without those easy reaction attacks operative would probably be fine (devastating aim and the endless aim action compression still makes them do very good damage) stacked up against a guirsame fighter, but soldier probably wouldn’t be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if both PCs and NPCs are typically build to be good at range and you have easy access to vertical mobility... that very much sounds like a ranged meta to me.
"Ranged meta" doesn't mean "melee is s@$+". Just like ranged martials in the melee meta of PF2 aren't bad.
That isn't to say that there are no issues, there definitely are. Map size and underperformance of ranged characters to name the major ones.
But the ranged meta isn't just a buzzword or nonexistent. It just need a little more pep.
Congratulations, you've just described the ranged meta!
You know it's the same in PF2? If the whole party is ranged then you'll fight at range. It doesn't make a meta, though.
For a meta to exist you need to have a set of strategies around the meta. Like, in the context of a ranged meta, melee characters will either be discouraged (because they are not meta) or their role will evolve to accommodate the meta.
If every class plays roughly the same, then there's no meta, there are just more ranged enemies and ranged allies. And more importantly: there's nothing to speak about. So we can kill this buzzword.
"Ranged meta" doesn't mean "melee is s*~$". Just like ranged martials in the melee meta of PF2 aren't bad.
Melee martials are favored over ranged martials in PF2 because ranged martials don't bring much to the table. "Ranged is s!&!" may be an exageration but "ranged is weak" is definitely a thing. If melee characters are doing fine then there's no ranged meta.
Congratulations, you've just described the ranged meta!You know it's the same in PF2? If the whole party is ranged then you'll fight at range. It doesn't make a meta, though.
If the whole party is ranged, which is unlikely because melee is the default for Pathfinder's martial classes, and if enemies are ranged, which is unlikely because melee is the default for Pathfinder's monsters, then indeed, you will have engineered your very own ranged meta there too. It's that simple!
But more seriously, you seem to be under the impression that a ranged meta can only exist if guns are buffed and melee is nerfed or something to that effect, which does not need to happen (though it does implicitly happen in Starfinder with flying ranged enemies making melee impossible without aid). The reverse did not need to happen for melee to be the default in Pathfinder, which is why ranged martials are in fact viable there too.
A crucial aspect of this whole thing that you're missing is that the assumptions of what's default are baked into the classes themselves: in Pathfinder, martials are melee by default and generally have to opt into ranged playstyles, whereas in Starfinder, martials are ranged by default and have to opt into melee playstyles. Subtle changes like these also influence the meta, because it takes a deliberate choice to go off-meta in both cases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But more seriously, you seem to be under the impression that a ranged meta can only exist if guns are buffed and melee is nerfed or something to that effect, which does not need to happen (though it does implicitly happen in Starfinder with flying ranged enemies making melee impossible without aid). The reverse did not need to happen for melee to be the default in Pathfinder, which is why ranged martials are in fact viable there too.
Yeah, that's the definition of a meta. In Pathfinder, ranged martials are weak and as such they are not meta. If your party is full of ranged martials your party is (presumably) weak and not meta.
The fact that there are more ranged martials in Starfinder doesn't create a meta if melee martials still have the upper hand as melee martials will still be the ones defining how your fight goes and ranged martials will still be secondary characters in terms of efficiency. And very quickly experienced players will move toward melee martials and melee will become the defining norm, ie. the meta.
The meta is all about efficiency.
And when you look at the discussions around the "ranged meta", you have one about the role of melee characters for example. If the role of melee characters hasn't changed then there's no ranged meta. There's no way a melee character can have the same role and gameplay under a ranged meta and a melee meta, that's the proof the meta is a lie.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A "meta" only describes what is commonly played, nothing more. And that is all that the devs are saying.
SF2's options are overwhelmingly ranged. Even the people who focus on melee will pretty much always have some kind of ranged options. Enemies are also often build to fight at range.
Ranged/melee balance is a related topic, but not the same thing.
Yeah, that's the definition of a meta. In Pathfinder, ranged martials are weak and as such they are not meta. If your party is full of ranged martials your party is (presumably) weak and not meta.
The fact that there are more ranged martials in Starfinder doesn't create a meta if melee martials still have the upper hand as melee martials will still be the ones defining how your fight goes and ranged martials will still be secondary characters in terms of efficiency. And very quickly experienced players will move toward melee martials and melee will become the defining norm, ie. the meta.
The meta is all about efficiency.
Literally no part of what you've said is true: Pathfinder ranged martials aren't weak, and operate just fine in a melee meta. Melee martials don't have the upper hand in Starfinder combats, and in several official encounters that at this point I'm pretty sure you haven't actually playtested, it will be literally impossible for melee martials to get in melee reach of enemies (this includes the Solarian too). They don't need to have weak melee damage to want to pack a laser pistol as a backup weapon.
Even the people who focus on melee will pretty much always have some kind of ranged options.
See. That's the crux of your whole post: You are stating that melee characters will need to adapt to the meta. If they don't then there's no meta as the strategies are exactly the same just a variation on the party composition.
And I doubt your sentence will be true as I doubt there'll be a ranged meta.
in several official encounters that at this point I'm pretty sure you haven't actually playtested, it will be literally impossible for melee martials to get in melee reach of enemies
Ok, that may be the reason of our disagreement. As I have all the playtest material, can you tell me which encounters so I can read them?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
SF2's options are overwhelmingly ranged.
But there's a key distinction between SF2 being overwhelmingly ranged because the developers for some reason decided to make melee options secondary features for most classes, and SF2 being overwhelmingly ranged because ranged combat is a dominant top order strategy. That seems to be the difference SuperBidi is trying to highlight.
A lot of the discussion on the forums assumes the latter simply out of hand because of the former.
in several official encounters that at this point I'm pretty sure you haven't actually playtested, it will be literally impossible for melee martials to get in melee reach of enemiesOk, that may be the reason of our disagreement. As I have all the playtest material, can you tell me which encounters so I can read them?
Shards of the Glass Planet's second encounter has you fighting flying repair drones that begin making ranged attacks from 30 feet in the air. A Cosmic Birthday has you fighting even more ranged flying enemies, including observer-class security robots, an electrovore, sporelings, plasma moths, and the final encounter, where the GM is specifically instructed to have it rise into the air and make ranged attacks. Because these kinds of enemies feature so often and so prominently, it surprises me that you'd believe melee characters would have it easy in Starfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shards of the Glass Planet's second encounter has you fighting flying repair drones that begin making ranged attacks from 30 feet in the air. A Cosmic Birthday has you fighting even more ranged flying enemies, including observer-class security robots, an electrovore, sporelings, plasma moths, and the final encounter, where the GM is specifically instructed to have it rise into the air and make ranged attacks. Because these kinds of enemies feature so often and so prominently, it surprises me that you'd believe melee characters would have it easy in Starfinder.
I agree for the Glass Planet's drones (our Solarian still managed to get to one of them, the fact that the enemies are flying doesn't mean they can't be reached but I won't be nitpicky).
And for Cosmic Birthday, I don't remember that the rooms had such high ceilings that fly would be an actual asset. I'll check. Because if a simple reach weapon is enough to get to the enemy I don't consider that the enemy is impossible to reach for melee characters.
Also, and more importantly, permanent fly is accessible as early as level 3. So this is it? The ranged meta only happens during the couple first levels?
As a side note, flying enemies trigger Reactive Strike every round. So the number of flying enemies and the accessibility of permanent flight may actually push toward a melee meta.
Do you honestly believe everyone is going to go for Ultralight Wings and a mediocre 20 fly Speed just so that they can start whacking people in melee? A Solarian certainly would need to do that in their current state, but why would anyone else? Sure, you can pretend that enemies can't fly by making all of your encounters take place in small rooms with low ceilings, but that's not even the case in those adventures, and nothing is preventing those enemies from being used in open environments in general.
At the end of the day, the big thing that's missing here is why anyone would jump through all of these hoops just to fight in melee: you seem to be fixated on the assumption that melee is the default in all cases, but you've just demonstrated just how inconvenient it is to even start becoming at all consistent in melee range, let alone good. Why would I have to wait several levels and go through all this trouble to fight in melee when I could just use guns and do much better?
Why would I have to wait several levels and go through all this trouble to fight in melee when I could just use guns and do much better?
And we are back to the same point :)
If ranged is better than melee then yes, I agree about the ranged meta. But I think it's too early to state it (the game is still in playtest) and not in line with my experience with Starfinder 1.
My reaction to this whole "ranged meta" thing is clearly raised by a doubt, the doubt that ranged will become meta considering what I'm seeing. I haven't seen all the options but for ranged to become meta it needs to be significantly buffed over Pathfinder 2 otherwise we will be back to melee meta.
As a side note, all the Pathfinder 2 martial classes support ranged combat as a main schtick (even the Barbarian which is surprisingly strong with thrown weapons). And for 75% of the classes the support is serious (in the form of feat lines or subclasses). Still, the ranged to melee ratio is around 1/4, and mostly concentrated on the classes where the ranged options are better than the melee ones (Alchemist, Investigator and obviously Gunslinger). So the number of options doesn't dictate the meta, at least not solely. Starfinder 2 may end up with a melee meta, it's too early to speak of a ranged meta.
Thanks Squiggit for the reformulation, I was feeling alone here.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flying enemies can technically not fly, fall at the end of their turn (which doesn’t provoke) and then arrest a fall so they don’t take damage/prone from the fall. Of course this does require them have some sort of decent non-ranged damage option to be an effective turn (something which many starfinder enemies currently lack), but it is a way out of reactive strike while flying.
I don’t think anyone wants melee to be completely unviable, but they also don’t want the presence of reactive strike + reach weapons to completely dominate the game. Considering the low engagement distance and otherwise lowered amounts of damage that Starfinder enemies tend to deal, there’s a real possibility of that happening due to melees getting the boost from strength (for early levels) and then easy reaction attacks (later levels) if operative/soldier/envoy’s easy ranged reaction attacks are nerfed without any other ranged compensation.
SF2's options are overwhelmingly ranged.But there's a key distinction between SF2 being overwhelmingly ranged because the developers for some reason decided to make melee options secondary features for most classes, and SF2 being overwhelmingly ranged because ranged combat is a dominant top order strategy. That seems to be the difference SuperBidi is trying to highlight.
A lot of the discussion on the forums assumes the latter simply out of hand because of the former.
I know. But, as I said, those are two different discussions and mixing them serves only to muddy the waters. Even if they are related and people confuse them a lot.
Slamming the "ranged meta" as a misleading buzzword because ranged combat has balance issues is like saying "it rains because the sky is blue".
That is not what "meta" means or what the devs are saying. If we want them to listen, confusing our arguments only risks burying the good point.
And we are back to the same point :)If ranged is better than melee then yes, I agree about the ranged meta. But I think it's too early to state it (the game is still in playtest) and not in line with my experience with Starfinder 1.
Indeed, we are, because you keep missing the point: guns do not have to be overpowered compared to Pathfinder's ranged weapons for them to dominate in Starfinder, because ranged combat is already implicitly favored. As has been pointed out already at length, ranged combat is something anyone can just do, and be good at (unless you're a Solarian). By contrast, melee combat is something you have to commit to be good at, much like how many martials have to opt into ranged builds in Pathfinder. Actually look at Starfinder's classes, and see how their class features and feats implicitly support ranged combat, with melee being an opt-in usually through a subclass. Look at how most of them are proficient in light armor and no further, how the Operative's proficiencies and Aim all inherently favor ranged weapons, how the Envoy's reliance on Charisma discourages them from taking the Strength needed to succeed in melee. All this superficial talk about how martials technically could get into melee range if they wanted to has no bearing on how much more convenient and effective it is to fight at range in this new game, which is how the ranged meta operates.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, we are, because you keep missing the point: guns do not have to be overpowered compared to Pathfinder's ranged weapons for them to dominate in Starfinder, because ranged combat is already implicitly favored. As has been pointed out already at length, ranged combat is something anyone can just do, and be good at (unless you're a Solarian). By contrast, melee combat is something you have to commit to be good at, much like how many martials have to opt into ranged builds in Pathfinder. Actually look at Starfinder's classes, and see how their class features and feats implicitly support ranged combat, with melee being an opt-in usually through a subclass. Look at how most of them are proficient in light armor and no further, how the Operative's proficiencies and Aim all inherently favor ranged weapons, how the Envoy's reliance on Charisma discourages them from taking the Strength needed to succeed in melee. All this superficial talk about how martials technically could get into melee range if they wanted to has no bearing on how much more convenient and effective it is to fight at range in this new game, which is how the ranged meta operates.
Ok, let's talk tactics then.
How viable is a full ranged build in Pathfinder 2? Well, let's be honest, it's not. Reactive Strike melee brutes are among the most infamous party killers, actually nearly all the TPKs I can remember of are caused by these: the Greater Barghest and the Gelugon, the reach skeleton from PFS first season and even Greater Shadows. And what is more of a victim to these Reactive Strike melee brutes than a full ranged party?
So, if Paizo doesn't rule out Reactive Strike from Starfinder 2 everyone will quickly learn that a melee frontline is as necessary to survival than a medic.
How do you fare with a single melee frontliner? Well, not really well. First, it can hardly be considered a frontline so you won't really save your party from melee brutes. Second, charging alone when facing ranged opponents will be suicidal. So you'll need at least 2 melee martials.
And bam, we are back to melee meta. You can bring as many options as you want, if having a frontline is a necessity there won't be any ranged meta. The same way a healer is meta in WoW even if nearly no one plays a healer. Because no one wants to line up for the next TPK.
That's why all your explanations about number of options are pointless. The meta is not dictated by number of options, it's dictated by chances of survival. Lots of bad options don't make a meta.
The PF2 meta is melee and it's clearly legitimate. If Paizo doesn't somehow change the balance between melee and ranged in SF2 then the meta will be melee.
Now, I don't rule out ranged meta. I don't say it can't happen or whatever. I say it's far too early to speak about a ranged meta and prior experience makes it highly unlikely without significant buffs.
|
|
Honestly after prepping A Cosmic Birthday and all released playtest scenarios... ranged combat does have a place but the maps are often set up in a way where 30 to 60 ft abilities are more than enough.
Looking at PF2... he have some pretty good ranged options, mostly involving class features or whole classes like the Kineticist, but flanking is a pretty significant source of ability to hit people.
Even in SF1, the fights where there were wide open spaces tended to be rare, particularly since SF1 also had its fair share of enemies that wanted to engage you in melee.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How viable is a full ranged build in Pathfinder 2? Well, let's be honest, it's not. Reactive Strike melee brutes are among the most infamous party killers, actually nearly all the TPKs I can remember of are caused by these: the Greater Barghest and the Gelugon, the reach skeleton from PFS first season and even Greater Shadows. And what is more of a victim to these Reactive Strike melee brutes than a full ranged party?
Lemme stop you right there: are we talking about a full ranged build or a full ranged party? Because a full ranged party I agree will struggle in Pathfinder, where at least one party member is liable to end up fighting in melee. Reactive Strike, however, is not the all-consuming factor you're making it out to be, as it does not exist on the majority of Pathfinder monsters. This is 2e we're talking about, not 1e.
A full ranged build, on the other hand, will do just fine, which is why we have archer Fighters and Rangers, ranged Investigators and Rogues, even ranged Magi and Monks. If this is the case you're making, I'm not sure what kind of gameplay experience could have led to that, besides this mythical "oops, all ranged" Pathfinder party.
So, if Paizo doesn't rule out Reactive Strike from Starfinder 2 everyone will quickly learn that a melee frontline is as necessary to survival than a medic.
Tell me: which classes have access to Reactive Strike? Which monsters have access to Reactive Strike? Again, this is 2e and not 1e, so Reactive Strike is given piecemeal to monsters, only two of which have the ability in the playtest. Only the Solarian has Reactive Strike out of all the Starfinder classes, whereas the Operative has Hair Trigger and the Soldier has Overwatch, both of which are ranged equivalents to Reactive Strike that are therefore far more likely to trigger.
How do you fare with a single melee frontliner? Well, not really well. First, it can hardly be considered a frontline so you won't really save your party from melee brutes. Second, charging alone when facing ranged opponents will be suicidal. So you'll need at least 2 melee martials.
Which Pathfinder class are you playing for them to struggle this badly with tanking? Pick a Champion or a Monk and you should have your survivability covered. Also, is the rest of the party just standing and watching this whole time? Are they not laying down buffs, debuffs, crowd control, healing?
If this is Starfinder we're talking about: why even need a melee frontliner specifically? Enemies can shoot your back line with their guns, and they'll be able to ignore your melee party member while they're trying to get in range.
And bam, we are back to melee meta. You can bring as many options as you want, if having a frontline is a necessity there won't be any ranged meta. The same way a healer is meta in WoW even if nearly no one plays a healer. Because no one wants to line up for the next TPK.
That's why all your explanations about number of options are pointless. The meta is not dictated by number of options, it's dictated by chances of survival. Lots of bad options don't make a meta.
The PF2 meta is melee and it's clearly legitimate. If Paizo doesn't somehow change the balance between melee and ranged in SF2 then the meta will be melee.
Now, I don't rule out ranged meta. I don't say it can't happen or whatever. I say it's far too early to speak about a ranged meta and prior experience makes it highly unlikely without significant buffs.
Notice the multiple leaps of logic you've taken here: you make the case that an all-ranged party is not a great idea in Pathfinder, which is true, only to immediately extrapolate the same conclusion to Starfinder, despite the fact that enemies there fight at range and generally lack Reactive Strike, effectively eliminating the very concept of a front line. You seem to believe only melee classes can be tanky, even though the Soldier is currently the tankiest class in all of 2e, and you seem to believe that the undesirability of a melee party member charging alone into a crowd is a cue for the entire party to go melee because... reasons? There really isn't any solid logic to what you're saying, all you've been doing is repeating yourself and basing yourself off of assumptions from Pathfinder that others have already told you don't hold true in Starfinder.
Well, that is something, don't you think?
You acknowledge that full ranged parties are not a great idea. Do I need to make any more leap of logic?
Yes. That is in fact exactly what I am asking you to do. Or, rather, I'd like you to not make any further leaps of logic, and explain why this statement, which holds true in Pathfinder where monsters are mostly melee, would also hold true in Starfinder, where monsters are mostly ranged.
Or do I just have to ask you: What will be your ideal Starfinder 2 composition in regard to ranged and melee martials? What makes you think range will be better in Starfinder in such a way that it will become a good idea to focus on range over melee?
Let's perhaps think about this for a second, perhaps even draw upon our playtesting experience, if any: in Pathfinder, I am almost certainly going to run into encounters with mostly melee monsters. If I bring an all-ranged party, those melee monsters are still going to attack them in melee range, at which point the party will be fighting at a disadvantage. This is why an all-ranged party doesn't work well in Pathfinder.
But let's see what happens in Starfinder: the party gets attacked by monsters, and because those monsters will almost certainly have ranged attacks, they will be attacking at range. Your all-ranged party is going to be perfectly-equipped to fight at range, so they'd be best off fighting at range as well. You claim to have experienced this with Shards of the Glass Planet, where as you recall the ranged repair bots are instructed to begin flying 30 feet above the ground. This is too early a level for ultralight wings, so your melee build is unlikely to work unless you're playing a Barathu.
So remind me: why does the party need a melee combatant then? If it's a bad idea for a melee combatant to rush in alone, wouldn't that discourage melee even further? Why should everyone else bend over backwards to fight in melee to make up for this sunk cost?
Tell me: What makes the "ranged meta" more susbtantial than a belief?
Actual playtesting experience, where ranged combat dominated, and by far. Tell me: what proof would you require to believe in the existence of a "ranged meta"? In fact, could you go ahead and define what you believe a "ranged meta" to be in this context?
Lemme stop you right there: are we talking about a full ranged build or a full ranged party?
Party, sorry about that.
Notice the multiple leaps of logic you've taken here: you make the case that an all-ranged party is not a great idea in Pathfinder, which is true
Well, that is something, don't you think?
You acknowledge that full ranged parties are not a great idea. So if you end up with a full ranged party in session 0 someone will switch class? It's the meta at work.
Is a one-martial party more viable in Pathfinder 2?
I personally don't think so. A single martial, as tanky as they can be, will be obliterated against any form of valid threat. So it's not really different from no martials, very quickly the frontline will go down. I think many players won't leave session 0 with a one-martial party.
So do I need to make any more leap of logic? Or do I just have to ask you: What will be your ideal Starfinder 2 composition in regard to ranged and melee martials? What makes you think range will be better in Starfinder in such a way that it will become a good idea to focus on range over melee? Don't you think there's a need for a deep change in the system to make it happen? Because Pathfinder 2 already has feats and subclasses dedicated to ranged combat so we know it's not enough to make a meta out of range.
I'm not the one speaking about "ranged meta". I'm just pointing out there are no real proof of the existence of a "ranged meta". And that a "ranged meta" would be an uphill battle as currently the meta is melee (in a different game but with the same system so we can't completely rule out the Pathfinder 2 experience).
Tell me, what makes the "ranged meta" more susbtantial than a belief?
Edit: Sorry, I partly reframed my post and posted it again. You're really fast at answering ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But let's see what happens in Starfinder: the party gets attacked by monsters, and because those monsters will almost certainly have ranged attacks, they will be attacking at range.
You see the logic issue with your statement?
First, "monsters will almost certainly have ranged attacks". That's not true, a significant portion of SF2 monsters are melee monsters or melee heavy monsters. Even if the portion of ranged attackers is far higher than in PF2 you can't rule out melee combat.
Also, if monsters "almost certainly" have ranged attacks then they will "almost certainly" be attacking at range but also "sometimes" in melee.
So you can't rule out melee combat that easily. And full ranged parties have issues with melee combat in Pathfinder 2 so you can't state with accuracy that they will be fine in Starfinder 2. We need to determine why they struggle and if that is really gone in SF2.
Edit: I don't know how to isolate melee monsters from ranged monsters without reading the monster entry. So I've taken the first monster of every letter on AoN and looked at ranged versus melee and there are more melee monsters or melee heavy monsters than ranged monsters. So I think your assumptions that enemies will be almost certainly ranged is wrong. My experience of SF1 and SF2 (this one's limited) says melee is extremely common among enemies, I'd say it's roughly 50/50.
So remind me: why does the party need a melee combatant then?
"Because a full ranged party I agree will struggle"
These are your words. I don't make your leap of faith of thinking it'll be different in Starfinder 2 unless I have significant prooves.Actual playtesting experience, where ranged combat dominated, and by far.
Have you tested a melee heavy party?
As I told you, I consider it's too early to speak about ranged meta. Because the meta takes a bit more than 2 games to be discovered.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the end the "Ranged Meta" only exists when enemies are either flying or beyond 60ft which is the reach of a average Barbarian or Fighter not wearing heavy armor, not using Ancestry speed increases or fleet, using sudden charge with a reach weapon. Seeing how in order for that to be possible you'd need to be using 2 handed guns which go beyond 60ft.
That is not taking into account as a melee you can simply move up to 25ft feet, sudden charge out to 75ft and melee Strike someone upto 85ft with a reach weapon. Meaning you are stuck at using Simple Guns: Laser Rifle (100ft), Reaction Breacher (100ft), Seeker Rifle (120ft) and Martial Guns: Assassin Rifle (100ft), Injector Rifle (100ft), Shirren Eye Rifle (100ft).
Note: No Advanced Gun has Range above 60ft per Increment
I haven't seen people rather take the -2 Range Increment penalty to attack then moving. Out of the 33 Classes total in Pathfinder and Starfinder combined only until level 2 only 4 classes (12.121%) can feel comfortable taking a shot into the second range increment without feeling like the -2 is a huge problem, starting level 2 everyone who wants to engage in the "Long-Range Ranged Meta" should pick up Ranger Dedication since Hunt Prey is honestly super useful in doubling your range.
But in the end all this Range Meta will make Athletic builds even more aggressive with Disarm, Trip, Grapple, Reactive Strike. Making Fighters with a whip hella good.
You see the logic issue with your statement?
First, monsters will almost certainly have ranged attacks. That's not true, a significant portion of SF2 monsters are melee monsters or melee heavy monsters. Even if the portion of ranged attackers is far higher than in PF2 you can't rule out melee combat.
This is true, though, the vast majority of SF2e monsters have ranged attacks, including the ones that have higher melee modifiers, and the few creatures that lack ranged attacks are usually reskinned from Pathfinder monsters. Just because some monsters favor melee does not mean you need to build your entire team around melee combat just for that eventuality, especially when Starfinder classes generally struggle to be able to do so unless they go for the specific melee subclass (or the Solarian).
"Because a full ranged party I agree will struggle"
These are your words. I don't make your leap of faith of thinking it'll be different in Starfinder 2 unless I have significant prooves.
But you have proof, or you would have if you'd actually playtested these adventures as you claimed. Ranged parties don't struggle at all in Starfinder's scenarios, though all-melee parties certainly will. Again, we've both acknowledged the examples of this, so I don't see why you'd pretend otherwise.
Have you tested a melee heavy party?
As I told you, I consider it's too early to speak about ranged meta. Because the meta takes a bit more than 2 games to be discovered.
As a matter of fact, I have. They suffered horribly against multiple encounters, including those flying repair bots, until they started pulling out their backup laser pistols and started faring a bit better. It's not just that they were at a disadvantage; in several of those situations there was literally nothing they could do, at least not in melee. Funny how encounters in Starfinder seem to be built with ranged combat in mind.
This is true, though, the vast majority of SF2e monsters have ranged attacks, including the ones that have higher melee modifiers
But this is also true in Pathfinder. If a monster has a lame ranged attack it will very certainly come to melee range and the fight will end up as a melee fight.
But you have proof, or you would have if you'd actually playtested these adventures as you claimed.
As I said: 2 PFS quests (because they are more quests than actual adventures) is no proof to me. And they have just a single ranged combat, it's hard to make a rule out of that.
As for Cosmic Birthday, I haven't played it, I just read it (which is very different). I'll look at it more closely but I haven't found anything specifically calling for ranged combat in it, mostly due to the small maps.Anyway, considering our conversation we will just have to agree to disagree. The real meta (not the expected one) will anyway emerge at some point and we will see if it's really ranged or not.
But this is also true in Pathfinder. If a monster has a lame ranged attack it will very certainly come to melee range and the fight will end up as a melee fight.
Most monsters don't have ranged attacks, though, and the ones who do at higher levels use them as backups, much like how monsters in Starfinder have backup melee attacks. There is clearly a degree of mirroring here.
As I said: 2 PFS quests (because they are more quests than actual adventures) is no proof to me. And they have just a single ranged combat, it's hard to make a rule out of that.
As for Cosmic Birthday, I haven't played it, I just read it (which is very different). I'll look at it more closely but I haven't found anything specifically calling for ranged combat in it, mostly due to the small maps.Anyway, considering our conversation we will just have to agree to disagree. The real meta (not the expected one) will anyway emerge at some point and we will see if it's really ranged or not.
I mean, you can keep disbelieving this if you like, but there's been enough playtesting going on for people to unanimously confirm, with you as the sole exception, that combat in Starfinder takes place at range. Choosing that the playtest doesn't count for this sounds to me like you're more concerned about appearing right on the internet than about the facts.
I mean, you can keep disbelieving this if you like, but there's been enough playtesting going on for people to unanimously confirm, with you as the sole exception, that combat in Starfinder takes place at range. Choosing that the playtest doesn't count for this sounds to me like you're more concerned about appearing right on the internet than about the facts.
Between the personal attack and the call to the "people", I think it ends the conversation. One post too far...
Between the personal attack and the call to the "people", I think it ends the conversation. One post too far...
There appears to be a strange practice on these forums where some people post some absolute nonsense, and when challenged on said nonsense with facts, those same people immediately retreat behind an "it's just your opinion, man" and pretend that it was never about saying anything true or meaningful. Apparently, this retreat into the realm of pure, formless opinion is sacrosanct, and to challenge it is deemed offensive, a personal attack even.
This thread, I'd say, is one such example. Beyond the silliness of dismissing my claim as an appeal to "the people" when the topic of discussion is the findings of playtesters, i.e. the people running the Starfinder playtest scenarios you refuse to accept as part of Starfinder, it is evident that your claim is backed up by zero playtesting experience of your own, nor any tangible elements of Starfinder's gameplay. This thread could've been very productive if it had raised meaningful concerns about the implementation of this ranged meta, what could be done to improve it, and so on, but in practice neither the OP nor the ensuing discussion generated any of this, nor was there seemingly any intent to. It's all just been misinformation from the start, in a forum that is meant to be about giving feedback backed up by playtesting experience. If there is a larger body of play experience that suggests melee is in fact dominant in Starfinder, then it would be great to discuss that, but from my own experience and that of the other playtesters I've been following closely (and which you can read up on in these very forums), that has not been the case, and the impossibility of melee in certain situations is in fact one of the issues I reported with the Solarian class as written.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently, this retreat into the realm of pure, formless opinion is sacrosanct, and to challenge it is deemed offensive, a personal attack even.
Maybe take a step back and consider how your own behaviors are contributing to this. It's clearly not beneficial to your posts or the discourse in general when you dip into this territory. I know it's difficult, but you'd probably find conversations becoming more productive if you focused on the meat of both your own and others' positions instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There appears to be a strange practice on these forums where some people post some absolute nonsense, and when challenged on said nonsense with facts, those same people immediately retreat behind an "it's just your opinion, man" and pretend that it was never about saying anything true or meaningful. Apparently, this retreat into the realm of pure, formless opinion is sacrosanct, and to challenge it is deemed offensive, a personal attack even.
This thread, I'd say, is one such example. Beyond the silliness of dismissing my claim as an appeal to "the people" when the topic of discussion is the findings of playtesters, i.e. the people running the Starfinder playtest scenarios you refuse to accept as part of Starfinder, it is evident that your claim is backed up by zero playtesting experience of your own, nor any tangible elements of Starfinder's gameplay. This thread could've been very productive if it had raised meaningful concerns about the implementation of this ranged meta, what could be done to improve it, and so on, but in practice neither the OP nor the ensuing discussion generated any of this, nor was there seemingly any intent to. It's all just been misinformation from the start, in a forum that is meant to be about giving feedback backed up by playtesting experience. If there is a larger body of play experience that suggests melee is in fact dominant in Starfinder, then it would be great to discuss that, but from my own experience and that of the other playtesters I've been following closely (and which you can read up on in these very forums), that has not been the case, and the impossibility of melee in certain situations is in fact one of the issues I reported with the Solarian class as written.
In an ideal world where I'd be some kind of super hero I'd find absolutely respectful words that'd act as an eye opener.
I don't know how to convey that your facts are none. It's just a few experiences viewed through a lens that end up with the conclusions that you like. Which is also my case, I won't say I have a bigger share of truth than you. Stating that an extremely small collection of experience could constitute some form of truth is wrong, statistical relevance asks for a bit more than that. Stating that you have some connection to "the people" is also wrong, just read about confirmation bias.
The fact that you insult "some people", a category that I'm not sure even exist, allow me not to feel insulted. Still, I really do think you should appease your words. People dislike being insulted.
Take a step back. Why is it so unnacceptable to you that I disagree with you? How come that my disagreement should necessarily come from some form of malice? Why can't it question your own beliefs and views?
I mean, my reasoning is sound. It comes from my experience and my point of view but it is solid. I ask legitimate questions. You can disagree, you can think I'm wrong, all of that is fine, but you can't say it's absolute nonsense unless you consider you have a direct access to the truth... which will lead you to a lot of disappointments.
Anyway, I assume you'll dismiss my post entirely. Such posts rarely hit their target. I don't mean you any harm. Also, I do think the conversation is clearly off limits now.
Maybe take a step back and consider how your own behaviors are contributing to this. It's clearly not beneficial to your posts or the discourse in general when you dip into this territory. I know it's difficult, but you'd probably find conversations becoming more productive if you focused on the meat of both your own and others' positions instead.
This is fair, and I agree, but I find the problem is specifically when substance leaves the conversation. When someone goes "well actually, the facts don't matter and I don't care, but I'm still going to repeat myself", it becomes basically impossible to have any constructive discussion, so the only thing that's left to discuss is the unproductive behavior that's blocking further progress. It's probably not the most successful thing to do, flies with vinegar and all that, but I also think that by not calling this out, it just encourages people to degrade conversations whenever they feel like it and get away with it.
I don't know how to convey that your facts are none. It's just a few experiences viewed through a lens that end up with the conclusions that you like. Which is also my case, I won't say I have a bigger share of truth than you. Stating that an extremely small collection of experience could constitute some form of truth is wrong, statistical relevance asks for a bit more than that. Stating that you have some connection to "the people" is also wrong, just read about confirmation bias.
Case in point. While I do not have access to Paizo's feedback form data, I do have access to my own reports, as well as the reports from other playtesters who have shared them with the rest of the community. I have had yet to find even one that suggested a melee meta, and clearly you don't have much evidence to fall back on even from your own purported playtests, during which even you admitted there were encounters where characters had no choice but to fight at range. The thing is, I don't even have to prove the negative: the burden of proof lies on you to provide sufficient evidence that the ranged meta in Starfinder is, in fact, a melee meta as you purport. You have so far been unwilling to provide substantial evidence for this, and have instead preferred to dismiss the very notion of player-driven playtesting, which once again, suggests to me that what interests you the most here isn't the truth.
The fact that you insult "some people", a category that I'm not sure even exist, allow me not to feel insulted. Still, I really do think you should appease your words. People dislike being insulted.
Take a step back. Why is it so unnacceptable to you that I disagree with you? How come that my disagreement should necessarily come from some form of malice? Why can't it question your own beliefs and views?
I mean, my reasoning is sound. It comes from my experience and my point of view but it is solid. I ask legitimate questions. You can disagree, you can think I'm wrong, all of that is fine, but you can't say it's absolute nonsense unless you consider you have a direct access to the truth... which will lead you to a lot of disappointments.
It is not the disagreement that is unacceptable; I think it's fantastic to disagree and to share different perspectives, as often does happen on these forums as well. The problem is that you are not putting facts on the table: when we went over the facts, you dismissed them, and the most tangible bit of evidence you had to provide was the admission that one of the SFS encounters you'd actually playtested, or so you claim, featured enemies that were unreachable in melee. It is you who have continually dismissed facts and valid points not just from me, but from other users on this thread who challenged your opinion. I by contrast have earnestly and directly answered your questions, citing specific examples and facts you could independently verify such as specific encounters, creatures, and feats... all of which you dismissed out of hand. And now, you're projecting that onto me, making me the villain of your story for daring to challenge your argumentative tactics in this conversation, even as you attack my own character and integrity. You must therefore forgive me for not being very sympathetic to your plight, because I feel your behavior throughout this exchange has been very disrespectful indeed, not just of me but of the basic principles of constructive discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the burden of proof lies on you to provide sufficient evidence that the ranged meta in Starfinder is, in fact, a melee meta
I've never said there's a melee meta, I've said there's no ranged meta. So the burden of proof is on you, not on me.
or so you claim
Why do you need to slip an insult?
all of which you dismissed out of hand
The only thing I've dismissed is that flying enemies would create a ranged meta in a game where level 3 characters have access to permanent flight. I think it's a reasonable argument, no?
I'm engaging in good faith I can assure you (it's weird that I have to state it).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me this just sounds like a problem with describing/agreeing on what "ranged meta" means.
From playing Starfinder first edition what it meant was flight was not an uncommon ability, including for enemies to have at early levels, and that generally enemies would rely ranged attacks over engaging at melee range. It doesn't mean that a melee PC isn't viable. In fact, in SF1 my melee characters were the biggest damage dealers (because they needed something to make up for the fact that they had to run through gun fire to get to the enemy). I think the ranged meta callout is to tell/remind players that enemies are (mostly) going to attempt to engage at range, they're not usually going to get in closer than necessary, and that you as player may need to deal with cover, you may need to move around into position to attack effectively without necessarily getting closer to the enemy, you may want to find cover yourself. And importantly for melee, you can expect that your going to find yourself taking hits because you can't use cover, you're going to spend actions getting to an enemy that generally wont do the same, and probably take more hits because you're a more substantial threat being up in someone's face.
To me, that's what the ranged meta means. Of course, it does depend a lot on how your GM plays things, and also what enemies are present. There were definitely finds in my SF1 games where the enemy was some brute of a beast. They might have some ranged spit attack, but it wasn't particularly good, and the party would just stay (flying) at range and shoot them until they died, especially if the range of the enemy attack was substantially less.
I've never said there's a melee meta, I've said there's no ranged meta. So the burden of proof is on you, not on me.
Lol no. You are still trying to disprove the existence of a ranged meta that has been established, and whose personal definition you also appear to be reluctant to disclose. Tell me, what does a ranged meta mean to you, and why does it not exist in Starfinder?
Why do you need to slip an insult?
That is not in fact an insult, and I would perhaps not interpret every challenge as one. I am, however, having a hard time believing you ran that encounter where the GM is specifically instructed to have the monsters fly 30 feet above ground, and thought to yourself that an all-melee party would deal with that just fine at level 1.
The only thing I've dismissed is that flying enemies would create a ranged meta in a game where level 3 characters have access to permanent flight. I think it's a reasonable argument, no?
I don't think it is, first of all because it dismisses the ranged flying enemies you'll be encountering at your starting levels, but also because it does not acknowledge the inherent burden of needing to slot in an augmentation in order to become functional at a certain type of combat, versus being able to not slot in that augmentation and do just fine with guns. I have already given you this explanation, and surprise surprise, you dismissed it.
I'm engaging in good faith I can assure you (it's weird that I have to state it).
Show, don't tell. If you want to be believed on this, please actually engage with what's being said to you, rather than repeat yourself. I think there's a lot to be said about the ranged meta in Starfinder, its flaws, and what ought to be done to improve it, but if we can't agree on what even constitutes a "ranged meta", let alone sufficient evidence to establish its existence, then any attempt at productive conversation on the topic is going to be DOA.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you really want to test ranged meta, when Starfinder Playtest Scenario #3: Wheel of Monsters comes out, one of the maps it uses is 30 x 46 inches on a table or 150 x 230 feet in game. At those ranges, even PCs using ranged weapons will want to move around to remove range increment penalties and find better cover. Not sure if they are using both sides of the map but one side is city streets and the other is a large open field with a trench on both sides. Starfinder Flip-Mat: Enormous Battlefield.
Well, I'll modify a bit this sentence to reflect the actual truth: "Remember, Starfinder Second Edition has a “ranged meta,” meaning that everyone’s packing a gun or some other ranged weapon, so a lot of combats happen at a distance using cover and tactical positioning, rather than up close and personal like in Pathfinder Second Edition or Starfinder first edition"
I've been in many SF1e combats where no one had a melee weapon even when fighting in a building or on a starship where melee would have been useful or even better to have. It's funny when your mystic character gets completely surrounded by zombies, and pulls out their survival knife that they only carrier in case they need to set up a flank for someone who is actually good at melee, yells "what are you waiting for I got them all flanked" then realizes no one else has a melee weapon in the party...
If the developers are saying it's ranged meta then that's likely how they are developing it. That doesn't eliminate melee combat and if a PC or an entire plays melee-only characters and succeeds that doesn't mean there isn't a ranged meta, they're just playing off-meta and there's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't mean the ranged meta is not there or is a lie. Design meta and table or party meta can be completely different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me this just sounds like a problem with describing/agreeing on what "ranged meta" means.
The meta is what the community of players considers the best options.
For example, in PF2, Cleric, Bard, Fighter and Rogue are meta. Most players will consider them solid classes and among the most optimized choices. On the other hand, Alchemist, Investigator and Swashbuckler are not meta, they are not considered strong.
Of course, I'm speaking of preremaster meta, no one knows what the post remaster meta will be: you need months and sometimes even years for a meta to emerge.
That's why I've reacted with this discusion: Paizo claim there's a "ranged meta". But it's backed up by nothing, meta comes from play experience of the community not from whiteroom theory. As of now, there's no meta in Starfinder: if I ask players what they think are the best options in Starfinder they will say they don't know. It's too early.
Now, it looks like Paizo speaking of a ranged meta actually creates a meta. Because the meta is not about the best options but what people consider the best options. So if everyone hammers there's a ranged meta then it creates a ranged meta. So, I may agree on that, even if I see in this discussion that I'm not the only one to consider this so called meta as smoke and mirrors.
If we try to look at the future: Pathfinder 2 has a solid melee meta backed up by years of experience. So without strong alteration of the system this meta will certainly emerge at some point in Starfinder 2 and become the SF2 meta.
As of now, I've seen only one thing that may create a lasting ranged meta in SF2: Ranged AoOs (Hair Trigger for the Operative and there's also a similar reaction for the Soldier). This is really meta altering as it puts ranged damage on par with melee damage. Still, I think meta-altering feats shouldn't exist, not everyone likes to be forced to take Operative Dedication.
So, wait and see. But I dislike seeing many people speaking of a so-called "ranged meta" that is backed up by nothing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The meta is what the community of players considers the best options.
For example, in PF2, Cleric, Bard, Fighter and Rogue are meta. Most players will consider them solid classes and among the most optimized choices. On the other hand, Alchemist, Investigator and Swashbuckler are not meta, they are not considered strong.
On one hand, this clarifies your position significantly, so thank you for that. On the other hand, and I do apologize for being harsh here, but I cannot think of a more useless and counterproductive definition of a meta.
Let’s look at this: you say these Pathfinder classes are meta, but not every party is made up of just those classes, and thank goodness for that. I would in fact go as far as to say that these classes are not super-dominant, and that players generally go for classes that appeal to them thematically or mechanically. Calling these classes “meta” is not particularly true, because they don’t shape the state of play or even act as the default for which classes to pick. They don’t really influence the metagame, which is what a “meta” normally refers to.
Because of this, I don’t even particularly see how this definition could be applied to a “ranged meta”: ranged is certainly stronger than melee in some encounters, because melee is literally impossible in those encounters without the aid of flight or magic, but it does not hinge on guns dealing more damage than melee. That’s not the point, and not what guns need to be “meta” in a game where you’ll naturally be resorting to guns and fighting at range. There are plenty of ways to make guns more desirable than melee besides overpowering guns, and those ways are what Paizo have used to enact a ranged meta in Starfinder. We can discuss how effective those methods are, and what could be done to improve them, but basing the conversation entirely around whether or not guns outperform melee in all situations I think detracts from this.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aww man, no ranged meta? I'll have to inform the player of the Soldier I've been running an informal playtest against with PF2e enemies that the did not wreck face against that batch of melee enemies that made up the boss's mook squad after all. They'll be so disappointed.
Joking aside, they took on a group of heavily armored enemies in a confined environment and kept hitting them with area attacks and the suppressed condition. The speed penalty made it stupidly hard for them the close the distance and the attack penalty kept them fumbling. They came from the previous melee meta so they did not even have the benefit of a higher reflex save that might vex a Soldier in SF2e.
Could more be done to support a ranged meta? Sure but saying it doesn't exist is just... wrong.