My apologies if I misunderstood, the impression I got was that you were in fact claiming that boosting Dex made the Mechanic MAD, and that dumping one of their scores for Charisma was something they should be allowed to do without much consequence. If that's not the case, then disregard that part of my post.
I will, however, continue to push back on Wis supposedly not being this score the Mechanic can boost, because it is. It doesn't have to be a super-high value at early levels to be an attribute you can boost to +4 or even +5 across your career thanks to your four boosts every five levels. This is also the standard on martial classes, none of whom so far have Wis as a key attribute, and none of whom use Wisdom to Strike. Let's then please not pretend that the Mechanic is at an unusual disadvantage here, because they're in literally the same situation as every other martial class in this respect.
Aw, so much I think they need a feat to let them make INT Mod of Grenades every morning or something that playas into INT, maybe let them apply INT to damage of their guns? This feels as INT as the Commander did in the Battlecry Playtest, there for soem things but otherwise almost completely ignorable if it wasn't for a single feature of Warfare Lore.
I am not a huge fan of -1 Offensive Stat Martials personally. I find them a bit harder to have fun with when you miss or didn't crit cause you were a single point off but the other Martails rolled the same and either hit or crit instead. Why I like the Investigator INT to attack rolls once a turn.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fine with the -1 martials bc that hurt accuracy usually pays for a lot of features that make them more engaging than fighter, rogue, etc.
|
Update 2: So, the downside of melee drone, melee mechanic without int is a solid lack of feat support. Most of the time, I just repeatedly pick up the minor drone improvements multiple times. Though, those minor improvements don't really increase their combat effectiveness. So, I'm still on the 'functional', but not 'well functional'.
So, I went a different direction. I built a ranged drone, ranged mechanic without int. I tried building it around Coordinated Fire. The damage dealt difference went down a bit due to lack of stat to damage. The first problem I ran into was the cost. Only one drone chassis starts with a ranged attack and that deals d4 damage. So, the solution was to equip it with a weapon. The cost of upgrading both the mechanic's weapon and the drone's weapon was notable. The feat support is better than melee, with the movement, and cover stuffs. That said, still not an impressive ability to dish out damage.
For both builds, without int, much of the damage and some utility options are out.
My conclusion, while one can build a drone mechanic without int, it will not function well. It will just function. As such, I remain unconvinced that an int shift is necessary for that subclass.
The above puzzles me, as I found myself having little trouble picking options, including well beyond the level range at which I playtested my zero-Int drone Mechanic. Here is the list of options I found useful, with the ones I picked bolded out:
So with the exception of three levels, a zero-Int drone Mechanic can choose from more than half the feats available to them at that level, and this is counting the feats that require other subclasses as prerequisites. The number of feats you can't pick due to low Intelligence are a minority, and there are enough feats that you never have to pick the same feat twice if you don't want to. Perhaps going for a melee-centric build in a ranged-centric game like Starfinder is what limited your options, Cupi, but the claim that there aren't enough feat options for a zero-Int drone Mechanic smells like BS to me.
As I understand it it's mature at 4th level (Tactical Drone), graceful/burly at 8th level (Refined Chassis), advanced at 14th level (Advanced Companion), and specialized at 18th level (Specialized Drone). As a few others have mentioned, someone messed up the progression as well as the prerequisites, as the order should be advanced/mature at level 4, graceful/burly at level 8, and specialized at level 14.
|
|
Hmm..yes, you are correct about the drone mechanic. It appears to be solid without any int investment.
I am still not impressed by the option, personally. Many feats are spent just to keep the drone relevant. Many of the feats that increase its effectiveness beyond standard are int dependent. (High Voltage, Rocket Boosters, Spinning Blades, Shockwave Pulse) This is not to imply that it doesn't work, but that it could be significantly more effective with Int investment.
Notes:
*Apparently explosive shot doesn't have too be placed on a ranged weapon
*I picked Commercial at 1 because the AC of the drone concerned me (particularly the melee drone)
*auto target reaction only gives a ranged strike
*cloaking companion would help the ac issue of the melee drone.
*cloaking field would be interesting for a ranged duo or melee duo
*modify drone, like the progression feats, seems almost necessary for any drone mechanic
I think I may have an olive branch. What about getting a number of customizations equal to 1/4 your level (minimum 1) max Int mod?
Bonus customizations sounds good, yes! I'd still want to bake a basic level of Int dependence into the base Mechanic, rather than expect every current and future subclass to have it, but if the drone needs a boost (and I'm not entirely convinced it does, as it's not meant to be as powerful as a PC), that could certainly do it. I do still think the idea of having the number of mods you get scale with Int would be a smooth solution, including in addition to what's being proposed, because it'd achieve that Int scaling on the core class in a way that I think would make thematic sense (the smarter you are, the more ways you know to modify stuff), while still allowing a Mechanic to take less Int if they so choose at an appropriate tradeoff: if you get 2 + Int mods as a baseline, plus the two from your subclass, going for 0 Int still means you'd have several mods to choose from, you'd just be less versatile than a high-Int Mechanic. If you just want two baseline mods anyway and don't care about the rest, that could be fine on your build, and Mechanics boosting their Int more would be rewarded with more options.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, so at least part of my assessment was correct, then. I'm going to push back once more on the criticism of the Mechanic's need for Dex, because martial classes that key off of a mental attribute don't need to use it for their attack rolls to be encouraged to build that attribute. The Investigator isn't just a minority here, they're the exception, and Devise a Stratagem is meant to be a defining mechanic of the class.
Just to break it down as much as possible:
|
|
I wouldn't say that the mechanic as a whole is mad at the moment. Though, the turret subclass certainly is. The mine mechanic is only dependent upon Int, and the drone is not dependent upon any specific ability score.
Though, this is from a viewpoint that dex, con, and wis are not auto dependent abilities.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the rule of thumb in 2e, whether Pathfinder or Starfinder, is that by default you will very much want to boost Dex, Con, and Wis even if your class doesn't explicitly tell you to do so: Dexterity is responsible for your AC and your Reflex saves, Constitution is responsible for your HP and your Fortitude saves, and Wisdom is responsible for your Perception and Will saves. Unless you can substitute one stat for another, such as Strength for Dexterity if you're a heavy armor class, these attributes will have such an impact on your character in and out of encounters that you're better off boosting them along with your key attribute than not. This I think is all the more true in Starfinder, where gun-based combat will have most characters boosting Dex for their Strikes.
This is also why I don't think the Mechanic in particular being required to boost Dex on one of their subclasses is necessarily a huge deal -- that's already something they're going to be doing, because they'll want Dex to shoot anyway. There's a case to be made for using Int on the turret instead, but even so, the Mechanic will still want to boost Dex for all of the reasons mentioned. If the Mechanic had reason to boost those four scores and then Strength or Charisma, then they'd be properly MAD (and the Inventor has this problem with their Strength-based melee Strikes), but as it stands there's very little reason to build Strength in SF2e unless you're a Solarian, and the class has no special reason to go for Charisma either. There is therefore plenty of room to get exactly what you'd want from this class using your four attribute boosts every five levels.
|
Why does it want to strike pretty often? For the drone and the Mine exocortexes, not really. action command the drone/deploy a mine, move, take cover, hide, modify.
Also, the inventor doesn't add int to his strikes. Nor does the magus. the Swashbuckler, while it ain't their KAS, is heavily encouraged to invest in charisma. +3 in two traits is perfectly viable, even give you a +2 in some other thing, so if you wanted to swap strength for dex, you'd still be able to have a viable build, just be kind of low armored for a couple levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've ran plenty of dump save characters (usually dumping either wis or dex depending on the character) and have found the game perfectly functional. These characters have gained versatilities for their decreased defenses. I've always felt it's been a fair trade; I don't consider the three save stats mandator, you'll just be in more danger for opening up a less than optimal avenues of play.
For example my unarmed, laughing shadow magus/psychic has tragically low will, which has led to me failing saves and going lower in initiative....BUT HE'S STILL ALIVE and I get to be the party's RK repository bc he's such a smarty pants and my spell DCs are better than a magus that tanks int. I think the game works fine with these kinds of trade offs.
A drone mechanic absolutely wants to strike because it does so more accurately than the drone (drones don't get item bonuses as long as they continue to pull from animal companion rules, and you get expert strikes like 10 levels faster than the drone, let alone master). The drone gets two less accurate strikes that don't share your MAP for an action, which is good, but you'll still want to spend an action on your own MAPless strike.
|
|
But you're a skill based support martial. Isn't it easy to conceive of a playstyle, especially if they let you mod other characters equipment, where you would forego striking on your turn to make other's strikes better?
Again, it's similar to the Inventor. You can build someone to hit hard and often if you want. Or you can build someone to support the team.
You're not that skill based (you're a Witchwarper with bonus feats and an extra legendary skill) and you're not that supportive. You're damage and control, just less so than the Soldier, with various utility, personal buff, and debuff options.
If you can make up the damage of your strike elsewhere with buffs then maybe. But that's generally not how things work out, and what do you do when you can't reach people to buff?
Ah, right. So, then why is my experience different than that?
Your GM might not be using the right mix of (final product/setting) monsters who should have universal ranged options, or might not be using the rational but perhaps unfair tactic of focus firing down one PC at a time. You might also be using too many reactions such as reactive strike on NPCs/monsters.
The playtest also sort of stepped on the NPC ranged meta by handing out things like the Operative reaction that could disrupt/penalize ranged attacks. We know that's getting nerfed in various ways, and given that the mechanic playtest turret/drone reaction only triggers on movement, not spellcasting or ranged attacks, they may be nerfing this stuff alot to bring back safe ranged attacks.
On the PC side maybe your group just liked melee options and leaned into that by preference more than expected, and the maps you played and foes you fought let you get away with it. If you did a Solarian and a melee Operative or Soldier you're already heavier melee than "normal" in a party, and if you rarely fought people at 70+ range (with difficult terrain in the way) or who could fly and ranged attack kite you then melee can work reliably.
Even then Melee will always feel better then ranged because despite everything I feel most of the time range feels lack luster but I suppose in the end that is not a real issue. Fighting enough enemies at range would quickly change that but unfortunately that would cause the opposite efect, everyone should be ranged vs melee because a party that can shoot 5-120ft away is better then any melee unless you can get up to them and sudden charge but that is putting you in range of all the other ranged enemies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We also need to remember that all of the weapons in the playtest, ranged and melee, were fairly awful and so adding strength damage made the best of a bad situation. We'll have to see how much ranged weapons got buffed comparatively in the final release.
It will be interesting to see how full melee groups fair against full ranged and mixed. It seems difficult for an all ranged group to go against a full melee encounter with the short ranges, low damage and lack of accessible "overwatch" type reactions. I wonder how much focus firing, even through melee, would change things.
|
|
I played a switch hitter operative. Another player played a Solarian, another a witchwarper, and finally an envoy.
There was a mix of ranged and melee depending on the combat. Moving into flanking for the solarian happened just as often as staying at range.
There were few open maps plus purely ranged enemies.
And, the meta of most damage as quickly as possible to end the fight hasn't changed. Given that, at early levels, melee allowing weapon plus stat on damage is significant. That, plus the ability to get around cover bonuses to AC and flanking to lower AC, leads to melee being a solidly desirable route.
Honestly, I'd be really surprised if they can manage to mechanically push a ranged meta.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I'd be really surprised if they can manage to mechanically push a ranged meta.
They don't need to push it, they just need to enable a ranged meta. Having a ranged meta lets opponents deal with flying PCs at any level. If an all ranged party is more viable, then it is in PF2e, then mechanically they have succeeded in enabling ranged meta in the game, but what the players choose to play is still up the the players.
The other big issue with a ranged meta is simply making more of the maps larger to enable it, but that also depends on what's going on in the adventure. I don't expect a lot of ranged meta inside a starship or office building, but the right map can make it better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being a martial class without STR/DEX as KAS works fine for Thaumaturge.
Being an INT spellcasting class without INT as KAS works fine for Magus.
I'm not seeing a problem here.
At least, not with the game design and rules. The problem seems to be the 'feels bad' of not getting the highest number possible - something that triggers FOMO for some players.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being an INT spellcasting class without INT as KAS works fine for Magus.
...it works in a specific way. The spell class feature essentially has the ability to ignore int via replacing it with a KAS attack. So, maybe not the best example.
Thaumaturge is an great example because it seems to be able to operate just fine without any investment into cha. The class maintains its flavor and doesn't completely depend on its KAS. In fact, I'd say it depends less on its KAS than mechanic does.
In opposition to the "KAS must be what the class DEPENDS on" folks, I'd say that there is a whole design space available for classes to be varyingly independent of their KAS.
As a disclaimer, I am certainly of the opinion that KAS could (and maybe should) be a little more flexible than they are. For example, in the home games that I gm, I allow magus' to use Int as their KAS, Thaumaturges can use Int, and so on. Also, the class stat boost, in my games, is always just a free boost. A wizard can't change their casting stat from Int, but if they really want to they could go 18 dex at lvl 1. The flavors of the classes aren't drastically changed but the viable build options are drastically opened. I'm not saying that I really think that they should do this, but I think it would make for a better game.
Edit: Also if a turret mechanic could get ahold of quick draw, they could have whole turns where they don't use dex. Aoe turret plus quick draw grenade.
Being an INT spellcasting class without INT as KAS works fine for Magus....it works in a specific way. The spell class feature essentially has the ability to ignore int via replacing it with a KAS attack.
Only for a very small selection of spells and only when trying to deal damage.
For everything else - regular casting instead of using Spellstrike, using buff/debuff spells, or even using Spellstrike with a spell that involves a saving throw - the Magus is using their INT for the casting attack bonus or save DC.
As for the rest of that, that is an impressive pile of houserules. But having houserules that you prefer to run with is not evidence that the classes are broken and unplayable without them. Or even that the houserules make the classes better.
The general advice for players building their characters is that a +3 at 1st level for the attribute you use to attack things with is sufficient. Having a +4 is better, but it isn't really necessary. I'll say that again more specifically. If you build a Barbarian and build them with only a +3 STR at 1st level, that is a character that will work fine. There is nothing wrong with that.
Yes, there are already classes that are unable to get a +4 at 1st level for their primary attack attribute. That does not cause characters that are built with those classes to be inferior characters. Other threads go into the math for it and show that the downsides of only having a +3 to start with are rather marginal. Things like only being 1 point behind and only for half of the levels. And there are benefits. Some of the secondary things that the character will be doing end up being one point ahead of characters built with the +4 starting KAS.