Area weapons and proficiencies

[FlorianF]

(This may [must!] have been discussed but it seems the forum search doesn't work on my browser, and I'm not on Discord).

Contrary to all other weapons, anybody can use any area/auto-fire weapon using their likely best stat (class DC). That may be OK (there's the same situation with grenades), but what's clearly problematic is your proficiency with simple/martial/advanced wpns makes no difference. A mystic or an envoy can load up on the plasma cannon (advanced weapon) and use his full class DC, while an advanced pistol would suck.

I'm not trying to argue that area weapons are too powerful or anything, but
1) that clearly that's not in line with the distinctions made for every other weapon.
2) it's not normal that you have no reason to choose a simple rather than an advanced weapon (except soldiers! their primary target power is affected...)

I guess some would argue that it's deliberate, but I have no faith in this hypothesis. Seems very clear to me that's because, contrary to D&D4, PF1/2/SF1/2 has no concept of "attack vs. Reflex", nor the concept of a "Reflex DC" or "Attack DC". Hence, designers were stuck using the fireball mechanics for area weapons, requiring a DC, and the only DC that exists is the class (and spell) DC. BEcause there's no Reflex DC, using multiple attack rolls would attack the AC, which would be a bit odd (would be OK for auto-fire, I guess).

Am I missing something rules-wise? I see there was a thread during playtest where people said "they will fix this". Did they?

[Rotfell]

It's pretty deliberate. Has been topic since playtest and we got an official confirmation here, so we can assume that this stance hasn't changed.

The proficiency matters for soldiers (who can strike with weapons that don't strike), for everyone who wants to strike with automatic weapons (that can strike), and for everyone who wants some extra damage with weapon specialization.

[Rotfell]

FlorianF wrote:

Seems very clear to me that's because, contrary to D&D4, PF1/2/SF1/2 has no concept of "attack vs. Reflex", nor the concept of a "Reflex DC" or "Attack DC".

Sorry to be that guy and put something else on top of it, but there is Reflex DC used in the system. Here the general rule. Now onto what uses it:

Disarm (though Disarming Shot uses an attack roll instead of an Athletics check)
Tumble Through (though Will DC with Pardom Me)
Trip
Sabotage
Swerveshift (bonus to the Reflex DC)
Cerebral Circumvention (same)
Magboots (bonus as an item)
Swallow Whole

With disarming shot, we even have an attack roll vs reflex dc, therefore the reason of the decision lies elsewhere.
As a back-then vivid D&D4e player, I know how nice it was to have defenses, but I think the reason it was put the roll back to those who defend against such effects is for abilities that shifts the degree of success, which are baked in many characters and seldom any enemy creatures.
Also, it makes it clear: Attacks either hit or not (unless in very special cases where there is a failure element), while most saves use all 4 degrees of success. Treating Plasma Cannon like a fireball makes sense, so instead of adding yet another rule onto AoE-weapons, having them use some of the standard mechanics just makes so much sense.