Field Test #4: Team Up with an Envoy!

I can definitely see some fun sniper builds with the From the Shadows leadership style.

Some initial thoughts:

I really like the overall design here. Cool skill monkey stuff, cool subclasses, and lots of strong, flavorful feats. Directives look like a fun mechanic, so do the reactions, and I'm in love with Lead By Example. Great way to make a space Warlord!

I do have a few worries, though.

- The core of this Envoy seems a little anemic when compared to other classes. Chassis is nothing unusual, good enough for a Rogue-adjacent, but as a class with no spellcasting and no other combat features that aren't feats, Directive + Lead should have the power budget of a Rogue's Sneak Attack or a Fighter/Operative's improved weapon proficiency. It doesn't quite feel like it does right now — Get'em is overall a bit worse than a Bard's Inspire Courage or a Mystic's life pool, and they both have full casting on top of those features.

- Staying on a similar lane than point #1, if the class's power is going to come so much from feats, you guys have to be very careful so a class with a stronger defining feature can't cherry pick Envoy's best feats from multiclassing and have the best of both worlds. This is doubly true in this case since their feats are purely utility-based and don't rely on their Class DC or any other statistic, meaning they're as effective for a dabbler as they are for the real class.

- The Charisma key feels a bit out of place right now, mechanically. It makes sense flavor-wise, but almost everything the class does with Charisma is optional, to the point where the Cha key feels more like a restriction than a feature. I'd definitely go 18 Dex 16 Cha here if I could instead of the opposite.

- Having the option to be Int-based and smart instead of Cha-based and charismatic is a must IMO.

- I don't like Get'em being a -1 circ penalty to AC instead of a +1 circ bonus to attack at all. Even if flanking is a lot rarer, having your core feature be redundant with one of the game's main conditions is kinda feelsbad.

Finoan wrote:

I will mention that most of the community thinks that Bard is a bit overtuned. Mostly because of Courageous Anthem.

So I don't expect any classes to be created that match its power level. Certainly none that exceed it.

I highly doubt that is the case and even if it was, the Bard was strictly buffed during the Remaster. So Paizo certainly don't agree with that assessment.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the readers to go through and find all of the many threads on the PF2 advice forums talking about how powerful Bard is because of Inspire Courage.

As for Paizo strictly buffing Bard - what specifically are you talking about? The only buff that I am aware of specifically to Bard is getting all martial weapon proficiency instead of only the short list of the best martial weapons that a Bard would actually want. For a full spellcaster, I don't think that is all that much of a buff.

All of the other buffs are things that apply to characters generally, such as the change in Refocus. That wouldn't change the relative power of one class to another.

Bard certainly wasn't nerfed in the Remaster. But I'm not seeing how Bard was noticeably buffed either.

Some initial thoughts:

I really like the overall design here. Cool skill monkey stuff, cool subclasses, and lots of strong, flavorful feats. Directives look like a fun mechanic, so do the reactions, and I'm in love with Lead By Example. Great way to make a space Warlord!

I do have a few worries, though.

- The core of this Envoy seems a little anemic when compared to other classes. Chassis is nothing unusual, good enough for a Rogue-adjacent, but as a class with no spellcasting and no other combat features that aren't feats, Directive + Lead should have the power budget of a Rogue's Sneak Attack or a Fighter/Operative's improved weapon proficiency. It doesn't quite feel like it does right now — Get'em is overall a bit worse than a Bard's Inspire Courage or a Mystic's life pool, and they both have full casting on top of those features.

- Staying on a similar lane than point #1, if the class's power is going to come so much from feats, you guys have to be very careful so a class with a stronger defining feature can't cherry pick Envoy's best feats from multiclassing and have the best of both worlds. This is doubly true in this case since their feats are purely utility-based and don't rely on their Class DC or any other statistic, meaning they're as effective for a dabbler as they are for the real class.

- The Charisma key feels a bit out of place right now, mechanically. It makes sense flavor-wise, but almost everything the class does with Charisma is optional, to the point where the Cha key feels more like a restriction than a feature. I'd definitely go 18 Dex 16 Cha here if I could instead of the opposite.

- Having the option to be Int-based and smart instead of Cha-based and charismatic is a must IMO.

- I don't like Get'em being a -1 circ penalty to AC instead of a +1 circ bonus to attack at all. Even if flanking is a lot rarer, having your core feature be redundant with one of the game's main conditions is kinda feelsbad.

I definitely wouldn't say no to some flexible key attribute picks similar to rogue rackets. Lead from the Front is practically begging to be a strength build, for example, and the infosphere jockey does make considerably more sense with maxed intelligence.

Perpdepog wrote:

You could also call them your Mark or your Target, though target is kind of broad and Mark may be used for the operative.

How about calling them your Focus?

Because a slang definition of mark is as a target for a swindler or con-artist, which feels like a pretty big chunk of the envoy's flavor, mostly. Focus also conflicts with other game mechanics, like Xenocrat pointed out, which is also a potential problem with target.

I'm surprised so many people are getting tripped up by the wording of the Guns Blazing MAP thing. The intent seemed pretty obvious to me given context: "guns blazing" implies that you are doing a whole lot of attacking. Fair to want it cleaned up, though.

I definitely agree that a flexible key attribute would be a huge help. Leadership and team play rely on more things than just a charming smile, and it'd be much more beneficial for the "skill monkey" class.

I disagree with the thought that Get 'Em! shouldn't compete with off-guard, though. It's much easier to track a debuff on one guy than it is to track a conditional buff on a bunch of guys. Also, in a game where basically anyone can hit you from anywhere, moving out of cover to park yourself right next to an enemy is a much riskier maneuver. Get 'Em! requires only one action from one person for everyone to benefit, while flanking requires an action each from two people (and only benefits those two). More importantly, it doesn't compete with magical self-buffs or many other debuffs (like demoralize).

Karmagator wrote:

Finoan wrote:

I will mention that most of the community thinks that Bard is a bit overtuned. Mostly because of Courageous Anthem.

So I don't expect any classes to be created that match its power level. Certainly none that exceed it.

I highly doubt that is the case and even if it was, the Bard was strictly buffed during the Remaster. So Paizo certainly don't agree with that assessment.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the readers to go through and find all of the many threads on the PF2 advice forums talking about how powerful Bard is because of Inspire Courage.

As for Paizo strictly buffing Bard - what specifically are you talking about? The only buff that I am aware of specifically to Bard is getting all martial weapon proficiency instead of only the short list of the best martial weapons that a Bard would actually want. For a full spellcaster, I don't think that is all that much of a buff.

All of the other buffs are things that apply to characters generally, such as the change in Refocus. That wouldn't change the relative power of one class to another.

Bard certainly wasn't nerfed in the Remaster. But I'm not seeing how Bard was noticeably buffed either.

There are a ton of threads about all sorts of stuff. That doesn't mean the assumption that the majority of the community supports a certain claim is correct or that it is actually true. Especiqlly when "powerful" is not the same as overpowered.

As for the bard buffs, the martial weapon change you mentioned and the fact that a ton of feats - including some of the Muse feats - received major upgrades. I never said the buffs were particularly major, just that it was exclusively. The point is, though, that Paizo wouldn't have done only that if the class was actually problematic.

And my other point still stands as well. A low-level Envoy is currently a strict downgrade to a Bard. When you make something like Get 'em into a core class feature that is like 90% of that class' direct combat capability, then it can't be the worse version of another class' secondary ability. No matter how strong that secondary ability might be. You can't have it both ways.

I disagree with the thought that Get 'Em! shouldn't compete with off-guard, though. It's much easier to track a debuff on one guy than it is to track a conditional buff on a bunch of guys. Also, in a game where basically anyone can hit you from anywhere, moving out of cover to park yourself right next to an enemy is a much riskier maneuver. Get 'Em! requires only one action from one person for everyone to benefit, while flanking requires an action each from two people (and only benefits those two). More importantly, it doesn't compete with magical self-buffs or many other debuffs (like demoralize).

Counterpoint: in practice, Get em is in conflict with far more than anything we have seen so far. Circumstance penalties are like 90% of what anything besides spells apply and off guard is by far the most common condition even before you factor in flanking. Feats, features, items, you name it.

That is before you even get into the bonus damage, which has even greater conflict potential.

There are a ton of threads about all sorts of stuff. That doesn't mean the assumption that the majority of the community supports a certain claim is correct or that it is actually true. Especiqlly when "powerful" is not the same as overpowered.

And that is fine. I'm just pointing out that your disbelief of the statement doesn't mean that the statement is untrue either.

I think that Inspire Courage/Courageous Anthem is very powerful. Probably a bit too powerful. So if your complaint about Envoy is that their ability that seems similar to Courageous Anthem looks less powerful than Courageous Anthem, I don't see that as being something that is likely to change.

Stoke the Heart is also considered a nerfed version of Courageous Anthem. And it was recently buffed, but not in the numbers or bonus types. The only buff it got was that it can now be re-applied to the same target without waiting for a 1-minute cooldown.

Ohrns wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

You could also call them your Mark or your Target, though target is kind of broad and Mark may be used for the operative.

How about calling them your Focus?

Because a slang definition of mark is as a target for a swindler or con-artist, which feels like a pretty big chunk of the envoy's flavor, mostly. Focus also conflicts with other game mechanics, like Xenocrat pointed out, which is also a potential problem with target.

The way Paizo is using the word, Asset, is causing me major cognitive dissonance. I think the they should just call the target a "Sap" instead of an "Asset", 'cause that is how the Envoy is treating them. It also fits the flavor better.

Words other than "asset":

- subject
- target. Perhaps "prepared target"?
- concern
- topic
- specimen

Admittedly, none of this is really amazing, but perhaps it can help.

Counterpoint: in practice, Get em is in conflict with far more than anything we have seen so far. Circumstance penalties are like 90% of what anything besides spells apply and off guard is by far the most common condition even before you factor in flanking. Feats, features, items, you name it.

That is before you even get into the bonus damage, which has even greater conflict potential.

Hm. Not to AC specifically, I think. Circumstance BONUSES, sure, but apart from off-guard--which is trickier to get in a ranged meta--penalties to AC are rare. Status penalties (from frightened, for instance) feel more common, as do circumstance/status bonuses to party member attack rolls.

I'm not sure about all this "bonus damage doesn't stack" stuff. Could you provide a specific citation? Struggling to find it myself.

Maybe Get'em applies penalty to AC and saves?

ALternatively give them more different build in directives,

If the Envoy gets a class feature about an "asset", I'd expect that to be like, an NPC who's providing (possibly unintentional) benefits to you. If we're not going with the most obvious "NPC who's on your side", then I'd want it to be something like "NPC who wouldn't be supporting you, IF they knew that you were on the other side", or "NPC whom who've blackmailed into supporting you" or "NPC whom you have convinced that their best interests are all wrapped up in your best interests". Or heck, "NPC who supports you because you can hook them up with what they want, and that's more important than what side you're on".

I agree with the suggestion about "mark"; it gets the point across, and it has the grifter meaning.

I am enjoying this fresh way to play the Envoy so far!

The good ole cliche of "DON'T YOU DARE DIE ON ME!" as an actual mechanic got a good laugh out of me, and it's also nothing to sneeze at!

I agree with the above calls that "asset" should perhaps be changed to "mark," if for no other reason than that I can forsee a lot of snickers over the use of the word "asset." Mark also seems to fit the flavor of the mechanic better.

I also thoroughly agree with the calls that like Rogues' rackets, perhaps each leadership style should have its own key attribute: Dex for From the Shadows, Hotshot and Guns Blazing; Int for Infosphere Director; Str for From the Front; Cha for In the Spotlight; and Wis for Through Desperate Times.

I'm looking forward to the next sneak peek of this, and it's going to be a long wait until August for me!

Karmagator wrote:

Counterpoint: in practice, Get em is in conflict with far more than anything we have seen so far. Circumstance penalties are like 90% of what anything besides spells apply and off guard is by far the most common condition even before you factor in flanking. Feats, features, items, you name it.

That is before you even get into the bonus damage, which has even greater conflict potential.

Hm. Not to AC specifically, I think. Circumstance BONUSES, sure, but apart from off-guard--which is trickier to get in a ranged meta--penalties to AC are rare. Status penalties (from frightened, for instance) feel more common, as do circumstance/status bonuses to party member attack rolls.

It's usually directly or indirectly off-guard, not a separate penalty. Here is the major conflict potential I can already see at this point, purely in SF2:

1) Your party Solarian (who's still dedicated melee) or maybe Soldier invests in Athletics for combat maneuvers. Both Trip and Grab apply off-guard, so Get 'em becomes largely obsolete, as the grabbed/prone target is now a definite priority.

2) Someone is investing in Stealth, probably the Operative sniper (or hell, the Envoy themselves). Hide makes the enemy off-guard. Sure only for one attack (usually) and only for one person. But anyone running this style will probably be a party's major damage dealer, so "losing" your benefits for them is a problem.

3) Someone is investing in Deception for a Feint or Create a Diversion build. See 2, though I wouldn't be surprised if we saw upgrades on this front. Feint is basically guaranteed to see improvements, given that it is melee-only baseline.

4) Item-related stuff. For example, I'm sure we'll see at least one crit spec that mirrors either the sword or hammer/flail. For example, knocking the enemy prone very much seems like a fit for an explosive or launcher group.

5) Given that I see a lot of people interested in melee builds, it is far from unlikely that many parties will join the flanking train even with the ranged meta. It is just that good.

6) Invisibility cheese

All of these except maybe the last one (depending on your group) will be very, very common situations the Envoy simply has no answer for, in either its chassis or feats so far. Which is a real problem given that your directives are about 90% of your contribution in combat.

I'm not sure about all this "bonus damage doesn't stack" stuff. Could you provide a specific citation? Struggling to find it myself.

Get 'em provides a circumstance bonus to damage, it's not just additional damage. Pretty much every ability that increases your flat damage that you can get via a feat - which is quite a few feats - also does so via a circumstance bonus or at least does so in PF2.

5) Given that I see a lot of people interested in melee builds,

I'm a big fan of flanking, even if I have no skill with melee weapons I always carry a knife just in case I need to flank for someone else who is good with melee weapons. People build melee builds in Starfinder but it's nowhere near as common as they are in Pathfinder.

That moment in Starfinder when you realize no one else has a melee weapon...

My mystic healer had their back to a wall, completely surrounded on all sides by 3 cybernetic zombies. Unable to cast spells or make ranged attacks without getting 3 attacks of opportunities against me, I drew my survival knife and yelled.
"I got them all flanked what are you waiting for?"
The GM stops to point out the bonus for flanking, and then everyone in the party stays back and fires their guns...

I think this class is really cool! Definitely better than their 1e version. I think that Get Em' could certainly use a buff considering its -1 circumstance penalty is easily overridden by several effects such as, but not limited to, off-guard(even if since it's a circumstance penalty and therefore can stack with things like Frightened which is a 100% good game design). When you factor in the fact that, even though it is a support class, it is still a martial class and if its core damage feature is something that doesn't scale with certain weapons traits, and is in fact worse than them, then it will probably feel bad to play comparatively-skill monkey or not. I second that the class is potentially a little MAD wanting high charisma, high dex, and depending on build, either high int, wisdom, or even strength. I disagree with the solution proposed by giving different key attribute options based off of leadership style as from what I can tell the design goal is to give the envoy more flexibility and diverse options, not allow them to specialize akin to something like the rogue's rackets. The class is definitely solid though and I think my favorite feature has to be Adaptive Talent allowing the envoy to share the same niche as rogue yet in a completely different way, and my favorite feat is probably Pardon Me! for its clever twist on Tumble Behind that feels uniquely Starfinder and is quite frankly hilarious.

As a side note, while I love Size Up and Saw it Coming and what it opens up for the envoy, it does feel a little bit more like an operative ability doesn't it? Maybe that's just me though.

So regarding the whole Asset vs. Mark thing, I prefer asset. "Mark" implies disrespect and/or malicious manipulation of the Mark. Asset is a term more commonly used in spy craft, and is more neutral. An asset is something you cultivate and EITHER know how to manipulate, or know how they'll behave.

I agree about letting the Key Attribute modifier be flexible would be smarter.

And with changing "Get 'em" to a status penalty.

The problem with a status penalty is that it doesn't stack with Demoralize

If I were designing Get 'Em, I would make the ability require a check with a skill based on Leadership Style. If it succeeds, the target is flat-footed. If it fails, the target just receives a -1 circumstance penalty to AC. Lead by example grants a +1 circumstance bonus to damage per weapon die and the envoy benefits from it on the triggering attack.

As someone who played the Envoy way back then and had a lot of issues with the class, I'm pretty happy with the direction they have taken the class. This is exactly what I was picturing of an Envoy could and should be.

These new improved playstyles and PF2e's action economy, the class seems to be in a much healthier place (gameplay-wise) than it has ever been, despite being a first draft. The Chassis of the class being stronger is certainly a good bet, since with strong foundations, more types of characters can be made.

I do, however, have a suggestion: Give the Leadership Perks more impactful abilities.

So far, only the "From The Front" leadership style has a good enough mechanic to support the intended playstyle. Armor progression is rare and hard to get in a PF2e-style game (unless they plan on changing that, which is unlikely given how it impacts the core math).

From The Shadows should be better at stealth. Either Full Movement while sneaking from the get go or a roster of abilities like not breaking Stealth when issuing commands (even loud ones), extra mobility while Sneaking and ways to leverage weird types of situations (a big explosion, shower of sparks or something similar).

Guns Blazing, obviously, should enable a guns blazing playstyle, thus it should engage more with Suppressed or maybe even reduced MAP on select weapon groups.

From the Spotlight should gain a special action akin to Spectacle Improv and maybe some extra defenses (AC bonus) or a reaction for survivability.

Hotshot is the hardest one to think of something in combat, but I think the intention is being a Squadron Leader, thus I think it could be something incredibly good but situational like enhancing an Ally's action economy in a situation. Or maybe just "downsizing" their piloting skills from a big ship to a small drone.

For Infosphere Director, I think there's a good opportunity to have a dual playstyle of intimidating by scavenging the target's life only (good against sentient creatures) and the current diversion through computers but improved somewhat (applying dazzled, for example).

Through Desperate Times should gain Battle Medicine, which is already pretty good, but it definitely should be more than just the baseline skill feat (which is easily accessible by every character. This doesn't make good character choices).

The problem with a status penalty is that it doesn't stack with Demoralize

Well, there are only the two types. Unless you want Get 'Em to be an Item penalty for some strange reason.

Edit: Or, I guess if you are arguing that the penalty should be Untyped. But that would make it stack with everything and that just feels way overpowered.

Cyrad wrote:

The problem with a status penalty is that it doesn't stack with Demoralize

Well, there are only the two types. Unless you want Get 'Em to be an Item penalty for some strange reason.

Edit: Or, I guess if you are arguing that the penalty should be Untyped. But that would make it stack with everything and that just feels way overpowered.

Does the Fighter have to worry about his +2 not stacking? Does a caster have to worry about his entire suite of buffs not applying? Does the Soldier not get his Primary Target roll because another Soldier already did?

A core teamplay class feature that is invalidated by teamplay is crazy.

This new Envoy looks pretty cool! As with the other Field Tests so far, the flavour and snappy ability names are just amazing :D So many Envoy feats just have the perfect cultural cachet that helps people immediately understand what's happening or understand the person that's saying them! And man, art continues to be on point. 2e Navasi is legit (and, aww, she's still wearing the original Navasi's tattered, shredded, scarf-cape-collar-tabard thingy!)

Assorted musings:
- "asset" doesn't seem too bad to me. "Mark" might be more appropriate, but I can see it being reserved for other classes (or be a 4th Ed "OGL no-no" word?)

- Maybe this is just the Paizo 3 Action System in general, but, the large smattering of "+1 to niche situations" feels underwhelming to me. Probably just an adjustment to make from 1e to 2e, but, in combat, having someone be your Asset feels very "meh" from what's in the Field Test. Like, +1 to Recall Knowledge, Deception, Intimidate, etc., is nice and all, if you're going to a Bluff or Demoralize, but +1s just don't feel exciting. Even outside of combat, again it's nice, and it's free, but it feels underwhelming, at face value.
"Hey Envoy in 2e, here's +5% chance to succeed when talking to people"
"Oh, cool, I guess? Thanks?"

- I am so happy to see the "allies who can sense you" verbiage in there, for example in the Get In There! and Search High and Low Directives! I can't count the number of times in SF1e where an ability mentions "an ally who can see and/or hear you" and we need to stop play to think through "does that include telepathy?" or "I'm invisible, but the shirren can sense me with blindsense (vibration)" or whatever else! This seems like a good catch-all handling of those situations.

- Maybe I'm just not understanding this yet, but, the way that Lead By Example benefits interact is confusing to me. Like the Take 'Em Alive! Directive's LbE benefit is to have the Directive target also be affected by Get 'Em, but it says "though you don’t benefit from the lead by example effect on the Get ’Em!" Is it worded that way to specifically single out the Envoy as not benefitting from the Get 'Em LbE, but others do? For example: if I use Take 'Em Alive, and then attack the target, it seems clear that the target would get the penalty to AC from Get 'Em, and that I wouldn't get the Get 'Em LbE bonus to damage. But, would my allies?
I can see this getting very confusing, very quickly, if lots of Directives start interacting with other Directives, and Acts of Leadership start proc'ing other Directives/LbEs, too @_@
(Don't really have a solution for that, just pointing out potential confusion.)

- Give me a 4e Warlord you cowards I am a bit disappointed that we don't see an ability for Envoys to grant allies extra attacks. Somewhere, at higher levels or in unreleased material, I hope we get some way for an Envoy to spend 2 or 3 actions (or whatever else to balance this) to let an ally make an attack :D

Overall, this is promising, and I can't wait to see the whole enchilada :) Thanks, Star Friends!

So far, only the "From The Front" leadership style has a good enough mechanic to support the intended playstyle. Armor progression is rare and hard to get in a PF2e-style game (unless they plan on changing that, which is unlikely given how it impacts the core math).

It's not that rare and hard to get. Generally if it doesn't come with your class in one way or another it just requires spending a couple of feats on an archetype... and there are a few different archetypes to pick from.

Also, there's things like Armor Proficiency that take it down to just costing a General feat. Now, this doesn't scale as much as you might like... but the way stats go up, that also doesn't really matter. By the time you actually care about armor scaling, you can easily have cranked your dex with leveling bumps up to the point where you're fine with the lighter kind of armor anyway.

Now heavy armor does matter, as it's possible to buy heavy armor that has a base AC of 6 rather than 5, but the bump to medium? It's really very convenient in a lot of ways. It really is quite nice to have... but it doesn't actually push the needle on overall power by but so much.

- Maybe I'm just not understanding this yet, but, the way that Lead By Example benefits interact is confusing to me. Like the Take 'Em Alive! Directive's LbE benefit is to have the Directive target also be affected by Get 'Em, but it says "though you don’t benefit from the lead by example effect on the Get ’Em!" Is it worded that way to specifically single out the Envoy as not benefitting from the Get 'Em LbE, but others do? For example: if I use Take 'Em Alive, and then attack the target, it seems clear that the target would get the penalty to AC from Get 'Em, and that I wouldn't get the Get 'Em LbE bonus to damage. But, would my allies?

I can see this getting very confusing, very quickly, if lots of Directives start interacting with other Directives, and Acts of Leadership start proc'ing other Directives/LbEs, too @_@
(Don't really have a solution for that, just pointing out potential confusion.)

What they're trying to say is that "Take 'Em Alive!" when you trigger Lead By Example will give a sort of phantom "Get 'Em" that includes the beasline benefits alone (the bonus to hit), but that there's no way to then trigger Lead By example on that phantom "Get 'Em" and get its Lead By Example benefits (the damage).

I am a bit disappointed that we don't see an ability for Envoys to grant allies extra attacks. Somewhere, at higher levels or in unreleased material, I hope we get some way for an Envoy to spend 2 or 3 actions (or whatever else to balance this) to let an ally make an attack :D

Well, PF2 Marshall has To Battle, which is at least technically capable of giving an ally an additional attack at significant expense. It's not impossible.

I also notice the existence of, say, Flensing Slice off of Dual Weapon Warrior. Given that, I could imagine a case where, say, if you get a crit with a weapon attack you could make a follow-up action to let your ally take a shot at the same character.

As an alternate mechanic... well, we have a number of cases where you cna spend a reaction to take a free shot. I have this idea of a feat that would let you give reaction powers like that to your party members - so that if you do some Thing X (like, say, crit on a ranged attack) then you get to pick a party member, and they can spend a reaction taking a free shot at the enemy. That one feels a bit on the weak side weak as a mid-level class feat, but the general idea of "I take class feats and other members of the party get reactions they can trigger" feels very envoy to me.

/******************/

...and for my own stuff, I reiterate... we really should have some way for Envoys and Soldiers to play well together. Like, if you know that you want to play an envoy, and you hear that you're going to be in a four-person team with you and three soldiers, then you should totally have build picks that you could take that would suddenly be very shiny. "Envoy leading a small squad of Soldiers" should be a classic.

Like... "Light 'Em Up" - gives a +1 bonus to DC for area effect weaponry, and the Lead By Example is that if the target is suppressed then that carves their movement rate down even further for the round (or something). Build your Envoy right and they can make it work with no help at all... but it really shines when you work with Soldiers.

What they're trying to say is that "Take 'Em Alive!" when you trigger Lead By Example will give a sort of phantom "Get 'Em" that includes the beasline benefits alone (the bonus to hit), but that there's no way to then trigger Lead By example on that phantom "Get 'Em" and get its Lead By Example benefits (the damage).

It's still a bit unclear IMO if allies get the Get 'Em LbE Damage bonus. Like, at the game table I'd just assume "yes" to keep things moving, but in the interest of the Field Test being a chance to tighten up wording before the Playtest, figured I'd point that out.

Imagine, if you will, a hypothetical higher level Navasi. She uses Take 'Em Alive! as an action, and then uses Directive Y as her second action. Since she's an In The Spotlight Envoy (making things up for an example) her use of Directive Y acts as her Act of Leadership to let her Proc the LbE for Take 'em Alive! which lets her apply Get 'Em without Lead by Example. Finally, as her third action, she uses Directive Z. So by the end of her turn she's applied three Directives, she's Lead by Example, and one of the Directives applied a mini-Get 'Em. Even without knowing what Y and Z do, there's a lot going on here. Imagine if Y or Z also let you chain other Directives, like Take 'Em Alive! does; or imagine if Navasi has an Improved Get 'Em! by level 8 that does different things, and adds more complexity to how it interacts with other things like invoke it?

While really cool, I can see the potential for this system to become very busy, very easily. I'm not sure how that can be managed, but at the very least, I hope that the wording or rulings or FAQs or whatever are crystal clear on how it all interacts.

I think that one of the answers there is going to be that envoys are martial characters, and directives are tuned to be pretty nice as third actions, potentially interesting as second actions, and simply not worth giving up your MAPless attack for. So it might make sense for a Spotlight Envoy to be running two directives in a turn, with the second one triggering the first, your third action is generally going to want to be either an attack or something that triggers Lead By Example on your second directive... or both.

So... technically you *could* be firing off three directives in a turn (with spotlight causing one of them to Lead By Example) you pretty much won't ever actually do that. Taking a shot is pretty much always going to be worth more than your third-favorite directive.

On the other hand, if they intend to have this "Take 'Em Alive" into "Get 'Em" idea be something that happens more than once, then I'd suggest creating a bit better vocabulary for it. Like, call the benefit that you get without Lead By Example the "Basic Benefit" or something, and then you could just say "and if you Lead By Example on X, you get the Basic Benefit from Y". Then other feats could either modify the Basic Benefit or trigger off of use of the directive action, and it would be clear whether or not they applied accordingly.

Cyrad wrote:

The problem with a status penalty is that it doesn't stack with Demoralize

Well, there are only the two types. Unless you want Get 'Em to be an Item penalty for some strange reason.

Edit: Or, I guess if you are arguing that the penalty should be Untyped. But that would make it stack with everything and that just feels way overpowered.

I'm saying that it's an antipattern to make a Charisma-based skill monkey class have a combat class feature that makes using Charisma-based skills redundant in combat. This is why I suggested making the ability to cause off-guard at the cost of requiring a skill check.

Alternatively, maybe Get 'Em could give you the choice of whether it's AC or a saving throw that gets a penalty?

The team is discussing (and admittedly was before this Field Test was written) adding in a circumstance penalty to Reflex saves on Get'Em, just so it better synergizes with Soldiers / Area Weapons / tons of blasty spells.

This also helps us further differentiate the debuff from Courageous Anthem which stacks with get'em due to one being a buff and one being a debuff. That being said, we're not going to hang the entire class chassis on balancing against the PF Bard.

I'll echo others that "asset" is a strange term for a hostile target you're directing violence toward, and that the time needed to mark one as such feels prohibitive for a core class mechanic. More uses for Charisma would also be nice.

Other than that... I love it! I'm a child of 4e, and there's long been a Warlord-shaped hole in my heart. Martial proficiency is a dream, as is the option for Medium Armor, but what I love most is how well I think this'll slot into PF2 games. Inspiring commanders, squirrelly nobles, and eloquent spies rejoice!

EDIT: Not In The Face! is an early front-runner for best Feat of the year, though I do wish it was just Not The Face! instead.

In addition to "asset" being a strange term, I'd make the argument that "Size Up" isn't a great name either - insofar as it's very idiomatic English, which might make things awkward for non-native players (I've been speaking English for over a decade at a close-to-native level and it tripped me up!).

Also: the leadership style names are fun, but it's awkward to say "I'm playing a Through Desperate Times envoy", so I'd maybe try to get them all to be nouns, like Hotshot or Infsophere Director.

Thanks for posting this field test, I was able to read through it today!

When I first read the 1e version of the envoy, my first reaction was that it was underpowered. Then I saw it in action. Its ability to heal Stamina Points made it a compelling class. Especially since the mystic was unable to heal Stamina Points.

With taking away Stamina Point and the envoy's singular ability to heal them, I was afraid that the 2e envoy would again feel underpowered, and I think it does. I think more needs to be added to the class so it doesn't feel like "a bard without casting."

The envoy is a Charisma class and should remain that way, but there aren't many Charisma-based abilities. Although being able to choose another attribute as the key may be an answer, I think for flavor purposes, the envoy needs to remain a Charisma class. I just think it needs more Charisma-based abilities.

I had to reread the acts of leadership rules several times before I understood them. It seems needlessly complicated, or maybe it needs to be explained better. Part of the problem was I didn't yet know that the directives had lead by example benefits. But even after I read the directives with lead by example benefits, then I had to return to the rules for lead by example, and then back to the rules for acts of leadership, I was still trying to piece everything together.

I like that the envoy has become the skill monkey class, but I am worried about the ability to swap skill feats. It reminds me of a time a new player wanted to be the brawler class in Pathfinder 1e. They got overwhelmed with the ability to change combat feats and bailed on the class. There are currently 230 skill feats for Pathfinder 2e, I'm sure it won't be long until Starfinder 2e has just as many. It will be too much for a new player, at level 3, to go through. I also don't like that you can know a language for a day and then forget it. Seems weird. I think a few, set bonuses to skills that can be changed would be better.

I do like the feats that are listed. they seem effective, and their names are full of flavor. I like reactions, and it seems like the new envoy might be the reaction class. Maybe an ability to hand out extra reaction to allies would be cool.

Thanks again for sending out the field test!

Finoan wrote:

Karmagator wrote:

even if the Bard is waaaay stronger.

I will mention that most of the community thinks that Bard is a bit overtuned. Mostly because of Courageous Anthem.

So I don't expect any classes to be created that match its power level. Certainly none that exceed it.

Well, you come across the problem that if one class is by and large just a worse version of a different class, why play the worse class. The envoy needs to be better in some way than the bard (and worse in others) for it to be played

It's gets to support the party bard style AND be a martial, thereby participating in the damage game. That's good enough for me. Plus there's the added benefit that envoys bard style support looks magnitudes more engaging to actually "play". I've never been a fan of bard bc the playstyle looks incredibly boring. Envoy is the final nail in the coffin: I'll never have to touch bard now

Pronate11 wrote:

Finoan wrote:

Karmagator wrote:

even if the Bard is waaaay stronger.

I will mention that most of the community thinks that Bard is a bit overtuned. Mostly because of Courageous Anthem.

So I don't expect any classes to be created that match its power level. Certainly none that exceed it.

Well, you come across the problem that if one class is by and large just a worse version of a different class, why play the worse class. The envoy needs to be better in some way than the bard (and worse in others) for it to be played

It's gets to support the party bard style AND be a martial, thereby participating in the damage game. That's good enough for me. Plus there's the added benefit that envoys bard style support looks magnitudes more engaging to actually "play". I've never been a fan of bard bc the playstyle looks incredibly boring. Envoy is the final nail in the coffin: I'll never have to touch bard now

I mean technically yes. But with its key stat and (so far) complete lack of feats to support an actual aggressive playstyle, the Envoy isn't going to be that much of an improvement over a caster on the damage front, even if you just compare weapons. I mean, you'll still be better, especially since it doesn't look like we will have any casters with martial weapons to start, much less someone with the same gimmick as you like the Bard. But that's before the caster actually casts.

On the fun side, though, I'm 100% with you. Bard gameplay is very one-note to me (heh) and after a few levels it looks like the Envoy will be much more enjoyable.

It's rare to see the build, but, in 1e there was a surprising amount of mechanical support for a melee envoy. Things like Duck Under, Phalanx Fighting,
Take The Hit, or False Flanking (to name a few) enable a very lead-from-the-front playstyle. Wouldn't be surprising to see some of those make a return, especially since we've already seen Not In The Face! make that jump!

I like all the Leadership Styles. Being a charisma-based class I'd like to see more charisma-based Leadership Styles with Leadership Skills for Deception, Diplomacy, and Intimidation. Deception for spies or crime bosses, fake it until you make type leader. Diplomacy for diplomats or corporate management. Intimidate for criminal bosses or drill sergeants with tough leadership style.

HOTSHOT is great for pilots and could be good for ship captains if you can inspire the crew and fly at the same time, which seems to be the case. That suggests some fundamental changes to the way starship currently works.

IN THE SPOTLIGHT is great for being a band leader. Assuming Professional video personality becomes a performance skill in SF2e IN THE SPOTLIGHT will be great for playing a video personality.

INFOSPHERE DIRECTOR works well for having a second Envoy in a band for tech and infosphere support.

My only concern is with Envoys having strong leadership roles and leadership abilities, how well do multiple Envoys play together in the same party? Having different leadership styles helps a lot. The worst case scenario is if 6 random players show up to an organized play game all playing Enovy HOTSHOT Ace Pilots, and only one gets to play the pilot because the ship only needs one pilot. I don't think that happens often enough to balance the class around but could be a good reason to build a default Baseship for the Starfinder Socity use incase that situation comes up.

As far as the PF2e Bard my only concern is how well will Bards and Enovys work together playing in the same band. I think it would be a fun play test to convert Band On The Run into an SF2e play test adventure and play it as Band and Bards on the Run. Not really worried about balance just trying to see how fun of a band can be made.

Other things I like in the Envoy field test. SIZE UP is an exploration activity. I hope more SF2e classes have class exploration activities.

I like that Enovys has several feats that are reactions. I think CHANGE OF PLANS! is great. My character faking to be a safety inspector would love to have WATCH OUT! QUIP is a great flavor feat that also has an effect.

Overall I love what I see so far for the Envoy if anything it just makes me want more. I get you can't pack everything into the core book, but I'm happy to wait for other options in later books. Leadership Styles are relatively short so they seem to be an easy thing to add more of later.

Definitely seems like the most fun support class so far! (Alchemist silently cries in the corner) On a serious note, the level of engagement in your chosen playstyle and the ease with which you're rewarded for doing so really is a solid, promising bit of class design.

It looks like Thurston Hillman already mentioned something about this, but to answer it directly myself:

Does the Fighter have to worry about his +2 not stacking?

No, but that is an individual thing, not a teamwork thing.

Does the Soldier not get his Primary Target roll because another Soldier already did?

Again this is an individual thing.

Does a caster have to worry about his entire suite of buffs not applying?

Absolutely yes.

Bless does not stack with Courageous Anthem. Or Inspiring Marshal Stance even.

There are plenty of other teamwork tactics that don't stack too.

Flanking, prone, and grappled all apply Off-guard and so don't stack the debuff numbers.

Debuffs are included too.
Demoralize and fear gives frightened but it doesn't stack only the bigger effect stays and goblin pox gives sickened but due both are status penalties only the higher applies.

In PF2 and SF2 you need to know if the buff/debuffing that you are applying is circumstance, status or item if you want to do some kind of individual or party combo (like clumsy that is status and stacks with off-guard that's circumstance penalty).

It looks like Thurston Hillman already mentioned something about this, but to answer it directly myself:

Karmagator wrote:

Does the Fighter have to worry about his +2 not stacking?

No, but that is an individual thing, not a teamwork thing.

Karmagator wrote:

Does the Soldier not get his Primary Target roll because another Soldier already did?

Again this is an individual thing.

Karmagator wrote:

Does a caster have to worry about his entire suite of buffs not applying?

Absolutely yes.

Bless does not stack with Courageous Anthem. Or Inspiring Marshal Stance even.

There are plenty of other teamwork tactics that don't stack too.

Flanking, prone, and grappled all apply Off-guard and so don't stack the debuff numbers.

How is that a meaningful difference? Get 'em doesn't magically appear out of the aether, it is a critical element of the Envoy's contribution in combat that you have to spend an action to do. Just like the Fighter's +2, just in a different way. It is completely immaterial if you enable others to accomplish the goal or do it yourself, so long as it works and is effective. The rest is just semantics and a personal preference of direct action vs supporting.

And a Bard (or any caster, really, for example SF2's own Mystic) has a whole lot more options than what you are describing. That arsenal is growing with every level, for free I might add. Not only in the buff department (runic weapon/fang, blur, invisibility, resist energy... etc.), they also have debuffs, healing, damage, utility, cc and any combination of these. If one thing doesn't work, then you can just pick a different spell. There are dozens of the things for every rank, you'll find something. You are never out of options.

Similarly, characters that flank or inflict prone/grappled can do other things or want to do so even if others already inflicted the condition, as they get additional benefits from doing so. It doesn't hinder their goals.

Meanwhile, so far the Envoy has to buy literally everything beyond Get 'em. And if it doesn't work (or in this case is superseded by a better debuff), that is your thing mostly gone. You don't have an actual plan B and at level 1, you can't even buy one.

Literally no other class in SF2 or PF2 has to even consider this problem to this kind of degree.

I think you are talking about different things.

I agree that Get 'em needs an overhaul. Firstly because it competes with a condition, which although it is more common to occur with melees, off-guard is still a very easy condition to obtain and which completely overshadows Get 'em. I like the designers' idea of it also affecting saves, but I think it still needs more improvements, whether it's actually making it the off-guard target against you and your allies (which in my opinion would be the best solution, but it might need more a check to balance the larger bonus, giving -2 if it passes, -1 if it fails or nothing if it fails critically), or making it a status bonus (in this case it stops stacking with Bane or any other status effect that reduces the target's AC).

I don't think it's a question of any kind, worrying or not worrying about your bonuses. Just more fundamentally, in the case of Envoy it's a little too easy to lose the effect of its main ability given that off-guard is probably the most common and easiest condition to obtain in the game.

Furthermore, I still maintain my original concept that Envoy still needs something more, especially because he is a Cha-based class rather than Str or Dex (which effectively leaves it with -1 to hit compared to other martials in the most levels). Maybe a bigger damage bonus, maybe some precision damage, or something else that makes him a little more competitive individually, not despite operating as a support to others and that's it.

I think the difference between internal and external stuff is stacking. Fighter gets +2 and so does Gunslinger, but PF2 devs don't need to worry about someone getting both Fighter and Gunslinger's bonus. They also don't have to worry about it stacking with Flurry Ranger's untyped reduction of MAP.

If Envoy really does get an untyped AC penalty to hand out, and that's Starfinder's standard, then the game design has to worry about what thingslook like a couple years down the road when five party members all have "it's their class's special thing" untyped buffs and debuff s, on top of the usual status, circumstance, and item bonuses and penalties. If a buff or debuff is external, there needs to be something it doesn't stack with.

As for a status penalty, I'd definitely rather have their ability stack with frightened than with flanking. Envoy should be able to intimidate enemies to full effect.

Yeah, Thursty talked about the problems with making it untyped on discord. Basically, then you need to worry about someone getting an effective +5 or +6. Which apparently is really problematic mathematically. But that's too high for me, so I'll just take his word for it XD.

But yeah, making it a status penalty isn't an option. That'd be making the problem worse.

There are a lot of good things that bonuses not stacking does. Prevents OP character build, reduces the math-finder, and makes it easy to design new feats or abilities without power creep, building a character wide instead of high.

In some ways, we have traded math-finder for bonus-compatibility-finder. At the table sorting out bonus stacking takes time and may confuse new players. On the design side the more feats and classes you have the harder it gets to make new ones that don't cancel out each other bonuses.

One of the good things about the 3 action economy is you get 3 actions you get to do as you wish and don't have to think about what type of action they are. So I wonder if doing the same with bonuses would work, by limiting any die roll to no more than 3 bonuses. That would make the gameplay faster at the table and easier to learn. One downside is it makes it easier for players to stack bonuses on their character sheet to generate they got the max number of bonuses.

Starfinder and even more so PF2e are games that favor and encourage teamwork, so maybe a team bonus trait could help prevent individual bonuses from canceling team bonuses.

How is that a meaningful difference? Get 'em doesn't magically appear out of the aether, it is a critical element of the Envoy's contribution in combat that you have to spend an action to do. Just like the Fighter's +2, just in a different way.

To note: Fighter doesn't need to spend an action to get their +2 proficiency bonus.

And yes, the difference is as QuidEst mentioned. You doing something yourself you need only worry about your own bonus types. You doing something that benefits someone else, you do have to worry about stacking and bonus types.

For example: Fighter swinging their weapon at an enemy gets their proficiency boost automatically and untyped. It doesn't conflict with any other bonus that they may have. If the Fighter uses Aid to assist an ally in combat, then they still get their own +2 bonus on their Aid roll from their proficiency, but the bonus that they give to their ally is a circumstance bonus and it won't stack with other circumstance bonuses to attack rolls.

Literally no other class in SF2 or PF2 has to even consider this problem to this kind of degree.

Interestingly, Champion types like Paladin and Redeemer, and Thaumaturge with Amulet implement would both be giving Resist All as a reaction to an enemy attack. In both cases that is the main thing that these classes give above what any generic martial class has. And they also don't stack due to the Redundant Conditions with Values rule.

I think the difference between internal and external stuff is stacking. Fighter gets +2 and so does Gunslinger, but PF2 devs don't need to worry about someone getting both Fighter and Gunslinger's bonus. They also don't have to worry about it stacking with Flurry Ranger's untyped reduction of MAP.

If Envoy really does get an untyped AC penalty to hand out, and that's Starfinder's standard, then the game design has to worry about what thingslook like a couple years down the road when five party members all have "it's their class's special thing" untyped buffs and debuff s, on top of the usual status, circumstance, and item bonuses and penalties. If a buff or debuff is external, there needs to be something it doesn't stack with.

As for a status penalty, I'd definitely rather have their ability stack with frightened than with flanking. Envoy should be able to intimidate enemies to full effect.

I also don't like the idea of untyped penalties. The 3 types (item, circumstance, status) is a I also don't like the idea of untyped penalties. The 3 types (item, circumstance, status) is a significant part of the game balance restriction if you start to workaround it the things becomes more closer to get out of control.

As I said before I prefer that Get 'em put the target off-guard instead get a -1 untyped. But to give an off-guard without check fells too much so it may make it linked to a check but keeping a success result of -1 to AC to prevent it become a problematic mechanic like panache.

Karmagator wrote:

How is that a meaningful difference? Get 'em doesn't magically appear out of the aether, it is a critical element of the Envoy's contribution in combat that you have to spend an action to do. Just like the Fighter's +2, just in a different way.

To note: Fighter doesn't need to spend an action to get their +2 proficiency bonus.

I know what you mean, but how are you attacking (and thus apply your +2) without spending at least an action or a reaction? ;)

Karmagator wrote:

Literally no other class in SF2 or PF2 has to even consider this problem to this kind of degree.

Interestingly, Champion types like Paladin and Redeemer, and Thaumaturge with Amulet implement would both be giving Resist All as a reaction to an enemy attack. In both cases that is the main thing that these classes give above what any generic martial class has. And they also don't stack due to the Redundant Conditions with Values rule.

Easy, each of those two just uses its reaction on a different instance of damage, e.g. they protect each other. There is usually more than enough to go around in any case, seeing only one instance of damage in a round that both of these are within 15ft of is quite unlikely. And even should this very unlikely scenario happen, then the Thaum still has Exploit Vulnerability + Implement's Empowerment to contribute a lot and can just do it next turn. You'd have to be extremely unlucky (or lucky I guess) or playing badly for this to be a constant problem.

And yes, the difference is as QuidEst mentioned. You doing something yourself you need only worry about your own bonus types. You doing something that benefits someone else, you do have to worry about stacking and bonus types.

[...]

I know how the game works. That is still entirely missing the point I was making. At the end of the day, the "why?" is completely irrelevant. What counts is that the Fighter's thing cannot be made inherently redundant by a party member. The Envoy's can. Continuously and easily so.

I disagree with the thought that Get 'Em! shouldn't compete with off-guard, though. It's much easier to track a debuff on one guy than it is to track a conditional buff on a bunch of guys.

that would mean that an envoy doesn't work for a melee heavy party.

Yes, moving into position is "an action" but its an action that takes the place of your third and never gonna get it attack. It's a very small loss. I don't think a classes main feature should rely on people following the games intended meta of ranged attack. That is a very weak platform to be load bearing.

The ability gives a debuff against the target. It uses the Circumstance penalty as the means to affect the target, and it benefits the whole party.

If some party members get specialized off-guard, against the target, the fact that they personally get a better bonus than the other party member granted does not invalidate the fact that the party member helped the other party members. It might not be ideal that the individual might be one of the bigger damage dealer, and an additional boost might have been welcome, but it doesn't invalidate the action.

The cases where the target is already off-guard, is a case where the first part would immediately be redundant (unless the target moves into a position making it lose off-guard during its turn). That has more validity as a concern, but of note, it might have value in the case of the target moving out of off-guard, as well as the fact that the follow me bonus will still stack on top of it.

Potentially, what if each member of the envoy's team was allowed to take the bonus as a circumstance penalty to the target's AC, or as a circumstance bonus to the attacker's attacks? Or even limit the 'alternative bonus' option to their first attack to help minimize how often the option is triggered. But it could help such an action to still provide a viable contribution, even in situations where someone may already be off-guard.

Again, another thought, if concerns this solution is too powerful, you could limit it to a follow me bonus/option that triggers if the person is already off-guard to the Envoy when they attack them. This would limit this additional option to the situations where the target is likely off-guard to others (because they are off-guard to the Envoy) so it limits its usage to more of the circumstances where the normal benefit would have been lost already. Or to avoid the switching of penalty to bonus, you could instead offer that when the Envoy strikes an Off-Guard target, the follow-me benefit gives +1 damage per die to any attacks that strike the same target while considered off-guard to the attacker. (basically move the to-hit bonus that would have been lost to a better damage bonus)

I'm pretty sure they want to avoid having the directives from constantly having to have a roll made to do something. I think one of the feedbacks given to Starfinder play was that rolling to get a bonus to your own action or someone else's action being a standard thing you have to do each round was less fun than activating an ability and knowing it has some effect, even if small. Then ideally having the ability to do something active with your action to. (hence the Directives, buff but automatic) and (follow me, active action that boosts your baseline buff, but does something too) I think that feedback was talked about in past, especially affecting the old implementations of Envoy and Operative classes.

So I don't think they will want a directive as baseline as Get'em to involve rolling to have an impact.