Class Preview: The Envoy

It looks like the base attack bonus may be similar to 3, 3.5, and Pathfinder. The flurry of blows is good point. The language of average attack bonus is associated with iterative attacks. They may still have removed them and there are categories of attack bonuses. So you would get one attack with the average attack bonus.

Dave2

TheGoofyGE3K wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

Nice to see some Investigator style in the class, maybe they can get a combat improvisation to add extra die to attack rolls too? It looks like we have the same BAB progression and iterative attack process as we know from 3.X?

Perhaps, though I'm pretty sure someone in the playtest attacked twice at level 2

True but that might have just been a Solarion version of Flurry of Blows...

Except the technomancer got an extra magic missile from taking a full round action.

Torbyne wrote:

TheGoofyGE3K wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

Nice to see some Investigator style in the class, maybe they can get a combat improvisation to add extra die to attack rolls too? It looks like we have the same BAB progression and iterative attack process as we know from 3.X?

Perhaps, though I'm pretty sure someone in the playtest attacked twice at level 2

True but that might have just been a Solarion version of Flurry of Blows...

Except the technomancer got an extra magic missile from taking a full round action.

So, the Envoy is average BAB progression... which implies there is a progression above and below it. But we dont have any 9th level casters which are normally the only ones to get low BAB progression. So perhaps we have some 1/2 BAB 2/3 casters but new mechanics like... double casting spells? There isnt enough to be definitive yet but it is possible at least. guhh though, the idea of reduced spell casting AND poor BAB progression is not exciting. Still, if there was only 3/4 and full BAB you wouldnt really call one average since it definitely stands out from the only other point of comparison in the game, yeah?

Maybe unless you are going to say something like good base attack at level 20 is 20 average is 15 at level 20 and poor is 10 at level 20. This also gives varying progression based on weather the base attack is good, average, or poor. Remember there are also proficiencies and specializations they may add allot.

Dave2

Maybe unless you are going to say something like good base attack at level 20 is 20 average is 15 at level 20 and poor is 10 at level 20. This also gives varying progression based on weather the base attack is good, average, or poor. Remember there are also proficiencies and specializations they may add allot.

Dave2

Not sure what you mean. Maybe I'm crazy, but isn't what you just said Full, 3/4, and 1/2 BAB?

CKent83 wrote:

So do all classes get Weapon Specialization, or just the Envoy? I thought it would be a Soldier specific thing.

As will soon be clear, every class gets weapons specialization.... with some weapons. We'll discuss why that makes the soldier happy when we do the solider class preview. :)

Please tell me that it's not because now they can do things other than fighting. Fighting is the Fighter (or Soldier, in this case) thing. I really hope that they have a mechanic that boosts their damage that is specific to them.

That was Torbyne who was talking about BAB of 1/2 and 3/2 when looking at iterative attacks. It was based on the language of average attack progression. I indicated that it could be tied to progression such as good =20 level 20, average =15 at 20, poor =10 at 20. It could still just be 1 attack for BAB.

I think that specializations, class abilities, and feats my contribute to damage scaling. Also resolve may figure into it also.

The Soldier will get access to more specializations, and therefore not have to use feats to get additional proficiencies and specializations. Also I would guess like Envoy they will have class abilities and be able to use resolve also. So the Soldier would be best at using weapons and armor.

Dave2

That was Torbyne who was talking about BAB of 1/2 and 3/2 when looking at iterative attacks. It was based on the language of average attack progression. I indicated that it could be tied to progression such as good =20 level 20, average =15 at 20, poor =10 at 20. It could still just be 1 attack for BAB.

I think that specializations, class abilities, and feats my contribute to damage scaling. Also resolve may figure into it also.

The Soldier will get access to more specializations, and therefore not have to use feats to get additional proficiencies and specializations. Also I would guess like Envoy they will have class abilities and be able to use resolve also. So the Soldier would be best at using weapons and armor.

Dave2

Right, by stating that the Envoy is "Average progression" than we are most likely looking at there being three progression tracks with the Envoy being the middle one. This does not then mean we have the same system of iterative attacks locked to that progression. But the big take away for me was that we already know there are no 9th level casters in the core book but now it seems we do have 1/2 BAB progression which is an odd balance.

I absolutely agree that resolve seems to be a catch all pool that encompasses all that Ki, Arcana, Inspiration, Stamina, Rage, Grit, Panache, luck... etc etc all of these things are in Pathfinder (and oh how i hope to only have one point pool to track!) Feats, themes and class abilities should all have innate abilities to affect game play and allow new uses of resolve, i am anxious to see what they have cooked up!

I am not exactly sold on specializations taking over proficiencies, even in Pathfinder a proficiency is just "use without a penalty" which every class should have all or most of them at level 1. If the Envoy and Mechanic just have "heavy" or "advanced" armor level locked to level 5 when they get that specialty it will kill a lot of class identity for classes that get that at level 1. Specialization should allow more ways to use or better modifiers with the use of a thing.

I really don't want to see the Soldier as having Weapon Specialization in lots of different weapons if it works like it does in Pathfinder. Why have specialization in greatswords, mauls, and great axes when you can only use one at a time? Turns being a "weapon master" into a "weapons proficienter."

"Fear me; for I am slightly above average in lots of different kinds of weapons, that I can only use one of at a time, just like everyone else... oh wait, maybe I should run..."

Steven "Troll" O'Neal wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

TheGoofyGE3K wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

Nice to see some Investigator style in the class, maybe they can get a combat improvisation to add extra die to attack rolls too? It looks like we have the same BAB progression and iterative attack process as we know from 3.X?

Perhaps, though I'm pretty sure someone in the playtest attacked twice at level 2

True but that might have just been a Solarion version of Flurry of Blows...

Except the technomancer got an extra magic missile from taking a full round action.

So, the Envoy is average BAB progression... which implies there is a progression above and below it. But we dont have any 9th level casters which are normally the only ones to get low BAB progression.

NPC classes and/or monster racial Hit Dice might use a 1/2 BAB progression without impacting the PC classes at all.

I really don't want to see the Soldier as having Weapon Specialization in lots of different weapons if it works like it does in Pathfinder. Why have specialization in greatswords, mauls, and great axes when you can only use one at a time? Turns being a "weapon master" into a "weapons proficienter."

"Fear me; for I am slightly above average in lots of different kinds of weapons, that I can only use one of at a time, just like everyone else... oh wait, maybe I should run..."

My hope is that with weapon damage scaling as well as spell damage, the soldiers abilities will be focused on adding combat utility to the soldier based on the weapon used. So maybe when utilizing Melee weapons, the soldier can choose a charge like ability to close the gap (pun unintended, but I'm rolling with it) without worrying about attacks of opportunity, or perhaps someone using long distance sniper weapons can choose an ability to penetrate (I already regret using that word) full cover (even total cover) still dealing damage to the target. Little things like that would make soldier combat unique and useful. A technomancer may be able to shoot magic missiles, but being able to completely neglect cover or close the distance between enemies can completely change the way the battlefield looks, which is something I really missed in many core non-casters, and which turned me off from them to a large degree (not that many players don't enjoy them, it's more of a personal complaint).

Also we may have no 9th level casters in the core, but that doesn't mean there won't be 9th level casters ever. This could simply be an issue of looking a head and leaving an option open for "bad" bab progression.

Torbyne wrote:

Steven "Troll" O'Neal wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

TheGoofyGE3K wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

Nice to see some Investigator style in the class, maybe they can get a combat improvisation to add extra die to attack rolls too? It looks like we have the same BAB progression and iterative attack process as we know from 3.X?

Perhaps, though I'm pretty sure someone in the playtest attacked twice at level 2

True but that might have just been a Solarion version of Flurry of Blows...

Except the technomancer got an extra magic missile from taking a full round action.

So, the Envoy is average BAB progression... which implies there is a progression above and below it. But we dont have any 9th level casters which are normally the only ones to get low BAB progression.

NPC classes and/or monster racial Hit Dice might use a 1/2 BAB progression without impacting the PC classes at all.

While technically a valid option that allows the Envoy to be "average" it is very misleading because Envoy is a PC class and the default assumption is that it will be compared to other PC classes. If the only PC class options are "average" and "Better" than average is not really average, it is slow or low compared to fast or high progression.

Also we may have no 9th level casters in the core, but that doesn't mean there won't be 9th level casters ever. This could simply be an issue of looking a head and leaving an option open for "bad" bab progression.

Ninja'd!

Also we may have no 9th level casters in the core, but that doesn't mean there won't be 9th level casters ever. This could simply be an issue of looking a head and leaving an option open for "bad" bab progression.

That would be an odd choice as far as launching a new game with what would look like a gaping hole in the class options to a lot of players. Even people completely new to TTRPGs would be likely to come across the references to missing slow BAB, 9th level casters and think they bought an incomplete rule set to say nothing of players who have done table tops before and know that it means one of the core pillars of D20 games from the past 17 years is only going to appear in a paid for add on later down the road... It could be the route they are taking but it doesnt seem like a good option to me as far as establishing what the game is. If there wont be any slow BAB chassis in the core book than dont waste space telling people that there is going to be a whole new type of class introduced at some later point. When you get around to introducing the 1/2 BAB class than you have that book give a side bar explaining it is the "slow BAB" to go along with the core book's "Normal" and "Fast". Just like we didnt need the Pathfinder core book to tell us that all of the presented classes were "Gritless" but that a Grit class would be introduced at a later point.

Torbyne, this is just a blog preview saying the class has average BAB. The book probably doesn't put it like that.

@Torbyne: The difference is that people are already looking for 9/9 casters, even if they are just conversions of the Pathfinder 9/9 spellcasting classes, of which some have 1/2 BAB. Thus, it makes sense to say something about not having them in the Starfinder Core Rulebook, while leaving open the possibility for them to show up later(*). It didn't make sense to say anything about Grit, about which nobody had any previous expectations, and which probably hadn't even been invented as a Pathfinder concept when the Pathfinder Core Rulebook came out.

(*)Edit: And it's up front, not under the table.

Heck, the core rule book will feature 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells despite the lack of 9th level casters at launch.

I would disagree, if the core book does not have a 9th level caster class than you shouldnt make a 9th level caster shaped hole that is called out in the core rulebook for a new game. Even if this is just a preview, they should use terminology of the new game, not the old one that they are trying to differentiate Starfinder from.

I wouldn't worry about there being a hole like that. Everything in the book is used and usable in the book (yes, including whatever sounded like 7th, 8th, or 9th level spells; I'm not sure what was revealed), and you get everything you need to play the full Starfinder experience. In fact (personal opinion time), while you could convert in 9-level casters (as UnArcaneElection indicates), given all the scifi additions as well, the game is probably slightly more balanced and in line with assumptions if you don't.

It seems likely to me that "medium BAB" was just a shorthand to describe the envoy class's situation compared to Pathfinder without a giant chart of numbers or a math formula; I wouldn't necessarily take it to mean that somebody else is going to be slower.

I wouldn't worry about there being a hole like that. Everything in the book is used and usable in the book (yes, including whatever sounded like 7th, 8th, or 9th level spells; I'm not sure what was revealed), and you get everything you need to play the full Starfinder experience. In fact (personal opinion time), while you could convert in 9-level casters (as UnArcaneElection indicates), given all the scifi additions as well, the game is probably slightly more balanced and in line with assumptions if you don't.

It seems likely to me that "medium BAB" was just a shorthand to describe the envoy class's situation compared to Pathfinder without a giant chart of numbers or a math formula; I wouldn't necessarily take it to mean that somebody else is going to be slower.

Good to know, thank you for the clarification :)

Since this class seems to most closely resemble a bard or investigator, I really hope those improvisations are potent in order to make up for the loss of spellcasting.

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

CKent83 wrote:

So do all classes get Weapon Specialization, or just the Envoy? I thought it would be a Soldier specific thing.

As will soon be clear, every class gets weapons specialization.... with some weapons. We'll discuss why that makes the soldier happy when we do the solider class preview. :)

Please tell me that it's not because now they can do things other than fighting.

They better be able to do things other than fighting. Repeating a class that is useless when combat music isn't playing would be a terrible mistake.

The comments on the operative (a note saying: 'lessons from the rogue') alleviates some of my worries in that regard, but it would crazy for the soldier to be a one trick pony.

I just want the soldier to be able to intimidate. I don't think that's too much to ask.

I just want the soldier to be able to intimidate. I don't think that's too much to ask.

This just in: soldier only capable of intimidating. All weapons are just cosplay props that haven't been tagged by security.

What makes you fear they won't be able to?

What makes you fear they won't be able to?

I'm guessing fighter, with low skills and not much room for charisma. (The advanced training options did help a bit with that.)

Just noticed he has a tail cuff/ring. That is awesome!

If you love it you should put a ring on it!

The blog post on the Operative listed seven specializations that will be in the core book but I haven't noticed a listing of specializations for the Envoy. How many specializations might the Envoy have in the core book?

i had the impression that the operative specialization was unique to that class, it would be interesting if every class had a specialization option on top of just class choice, theme and archetype but that might get to be a little too many pieces to balance? maybe?

The blog post on the Operative listed seven specializations that will be in the core book but I haven't noticed a listing of specializations for the Envoy. How many specializations might the Envoy have in the core book?

None, as far as I can tell. It's a la carte (like investigator) rather than specialized (like vigilante).

I had read the blog posts out of order so inferred that the Envoy would have specializations as well. The rogue talent/alchemist discovery/etc format would work well with the Envoy.

For the Envoy I think it's called improvisations.

TheGoofyGE3K wrote:

Just noticed he has a tail cuff/ring. That is awesome!

If you love it you should put a ring on it!

That's right! Vesk love tail!

kaid wrote:

TheGoofyGE3K wrote:

Just noticed he has a tail cuff/ring. That is awesome!

If you love it you should put a ring on it!

That's right! Vesk love tail!

So long as it is an optional sub-system than, hey dude, more power to you.

They better be able to do things other than fighting. Repeating a class that is useless when combat music isn't playing would be a terrible mistake.

The comments on the operative (a note saying: 'lessons from the rogue') alleviates some of my worries in that regard, but it would crazy for the soldier to be a one trick pony.

I don't care if they're a 1 trick pony as long as they are a threat in combat.

I mean c'mon. A fighter, rogue, paladin, ranger, and barbarian spend their days like this:

Class_____Morning__Afternoon_____Evening
Fighter___Weapons__Weapons_____Weapons
Rogue____Weapons__Trap Finding__Sneaking
Paladin___Weapons__Riding_______Praying
Ranger___Weapons__Tracking_____Enjoying Nature
Barbarian_Weapons__Drinking_____Sleeping

Based on my calculations, the most effective person with a weapon should be the fighter. The fighter should have all of their bonus feats, precision based damage that scales at the same rate as the rogue, as many HP as the barbarian, and none of the ranger's or paladin's utility. That's fine because that is what they are. While other classes are out doing things that give them utility outside of hitting mean things with sharp pieces of metal, fighters are still there plugging away, putting in two, three, maybe four times the work in the training yard. I'm fine playing a character that does that. A 1 trick pony with a trick that never gets old.

So if everyone gets access to the fighter specific feats, what does the soldier (that I'm assuming is the fighter analog for Starfinder) get from the other classes that shows they are the one putting in work at the shooting range (or wherever you go to train weapons in Starfinder)?

Voss wrote:

They better be able to do things other than fighting. Repeating a class that is useless when combat music isn't playing would be a terrible mistake.

The comments on the operative (a note saying: 'lessons from the rogue') alleviates some of my worries in that regard, but it would crazy for the soldier to be a one trick pony.

I don't care if they're a 1 trick pony as long as they are a threat in combat.

I mean c'mon. A fighter, rogue, paladin, ranger, and barbarian spend their days like this:

Class_____Morning__Afternoon_____Evening
Fighter___Weapons__Weapons_____Weapons
Rogue____Weapons__Trap Finding__Sneaking
Paladin___Weapons__Riding_______Praying
Ranger___Weapons__Tracking_____Enjoying Nature
Barbarian_Weapons__Drinking_____Sleeping

Based on my calculations, the most effective person with a weapon should be the fighter. The fighter should have all of their bonus feats, precision based damage that scales at the same rate as the rogue, as many HP as the barbarian, and none of the ranger's or paladin's utility. That's fine because that is what they are. While other classes are out doing things that give them utility outside of hitting mean things with sharp pieces of metal, fighters are still there plugging away, putting in two, three, maybe four times the work in the training yard. I'm fine playing a character that does that. A 1 trick pony with a trick that never gets old.

So if everyone gets access to the fighter specific feats, what does the soldier (that I'm assuming is the fighter analog for Starfinder) get from the other classes that shows they are the one putting in work at the shooting range (or wherever you go to train weapons in Starfinder)?

And I hope such a limited option is available to you. But personally I want to be good at hitting things (I love hitting things), but also have some ability outside of combat. I'm playing two campaigns right now. In both I play a "hit things" style character. In one I'm playing a zealot vigilante, so I have decent skills and spells. Plenty to do at any point of a game. The other I'm playing a Chaokinetic Knight. I have not as good of skills, and most of my utility hasn't really come online yet. Guess which one I have more fun playing? The one with more options. Don't get me wrong, I like my kineticist, she is fun during combat and she has an interesting dynamic with the other characters, but if it doesn't have hit points I don't do much.

It sounds to me that by the very nature of Class and Theme, it will take dedicated effort to make 1 trick pony characters. Even if all the Soldier brings to the table is Hitting Things Good, you would still have to choose a theme that also only brings Hitting Things Good to get that one dimensional. But you should be able to do Hitting Things Good while choosing a theme for ship roles or skills on a Soldier chassis. Else what is a theme for?

what does the soldier (that I'm assuming is the fighter analog for Starfinder) get from the other classes that shows they are the one putting in work at the shooting range (or wherever you go to train weapons in Starfinder)?

We'll talk about what makes a soldier's combat options different from other classes when we do the soldier class preview. :)

We'll talk about what makes a soldier's combat options different from other classes when we do the soldier class preview. :)

I'd prefer to also see some non-combat options. :P

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

We'll talk about what makes a soldier's combat options different from other classes when we do the soldier class preview. :)

I'd prefer to also see some non-combat options. :P

Soldier-Medic will beat you into health.

Soldier-Drill Sergeant will yell you into remembering things better.

This is easy ^_^

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

We'll talk about what makes a soldier's combat options different from other classes when we do the soldier class preview. :)

I'd prefer to also see some non-combat options. :P

Soldier noncombat options tend not to be unique to the solider. But they have access to plenty of noncombat possibilities... in some ways more than other folks.

Which we'll discuss in their class preview. :)

Soldier noncombat options tend not to be unique to the solider. But they have access to plenty of noncombat possibilities... in some ways more than other folks.

Which we'll discuss in their class preview. :)

You evil teasing man ;(

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

We'll talk about what makes a soldier's combat options different from other classes when we do the soldier class preview. :)

Soldier noncombat options tend not to be unique to the solider. But they have access to plenty of noncombat possibilities... in some ways more than other folks.

Which we'll discuss in their class preview. :)

This makes my anxious hurt. ;P

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Soldier noncombat options tend not to be unique to the solider. But they have access to plenty of noncombat possibilities... in some ways more than other folks.

Which we'll discuss in their class preview. :)

You evil teasing man ;(

Now I'm even more anticipating the Soldier preview.
And because of Murphy by admitting this I'm cursing it, so that the preview gets pushed back to the last one to be released.

I had to resist the urge to explain to the most recent blogposts that they weren't starfinder class previews and this was wrong of them.

But hey, 20% chance. Those crop up like 9 in 10 chances, right? Or is that 1 in a million last desperate chances?

Good on the soldier, though. Modern to future soldiers can't reasonably be one-trick ponies. There are a lot of non-combat skills and specializations required to be an effective member of a modern or future military (and honestly a past or fantastic one, but that ship has rather sailed)

The Operative and the Soldier both have subtypes, specializations for the Operative and Fighting Styles for the Soldier.

Does the Envoy have these kinds of subtypes?

The Operative and the Soldier both have subtypes, specializations for the Operative and Fighting Styles for the Soldier.

Does the Envoy have these kinds of subtypes?

I think they implied the improvisations were more how the customization goes. Like rogue Talents, while the subtypes are more like Ranger combat styles

The implication is there, yes, but the Operative also has things like rogue talents, but also has Specializations.

The envoy has two different kind of selectable class features. Unlike the soldier and operative, neither is as hard-coded in a bundle at fighting styles of operative specializations.

Cool, thanks for the clarification.