Field Test #4: Team Up with an Envoy!

There's a game design philosophy saying "Reward the behavior you want to see in your game." The DM Academy added a second part to it "Don't accidentally punish it."

One of the things that makes PF2e different from 5e or PF1e is the importance of teamwork. One idea would be to give Get'em and other bonuses that affect the entire party or a group a team trait that allows it to stack. But then limit the total of bonuses to 3 overall bonuses to the die roll. Maybe also limit a party to one team trait bonus at a time, or that could stack but also still be limited to 3 overall bonuses.

Under the current system, it seems it would become harder over time to design new content because of bonus compatibility issues, especially with bonuses that affect an entire group.

Just throwing this out there, but I didn't check if it already has been suggested:

Pivoting Get'em to a circumstance bonus to damage for the teammates and a attack penalty for the target (since they're being focused on, it's kinda hard to shoot back).

Basically, a +2 damage per weapon dmg dice (or whatever numhber) as and offensive benefit and the enemy takes a -2 circumstance penalties to all their attacks until the focus fire stops (A.K.A. the Envoy stops using Get'em). This would be quite a decent ability all around AND it would be nice against PL+3 and PL+4 enemies (and perfect targets for a focus fire playstyle).

Let the hit chance and AC penalties happen through other avenues.

Just throwing this out there, but I didn't check if it already has been suggested:

Pivoting Get'em to a circumstance bonus to damage for the teammates and a attack penalty for the target (since they're being focused on, it's kinda hard to shoot back).

Basically, a +2 damage per weapon dmg dice (or whatever numhber) as and offensive benefit and the enemy takes a -2 circumstance penalties to all their attacks until the focus fire stops (A.K.A. the Envoy stops using Get'em). This would be quite a decent ability all around AND it would be nice against PL+3 and PL+4 enemies (and perfect targets for a focus fire playstyle).

Let the hit chance and AC penalties happen through other avenues.

This is definitely an interesting direction to explore. It's not ideal, "Get 'em" sounds a lot more like an ability that focuses fire aka "screw this guy in particular" than a suppression effect. And ofc it also conflicts with the Soldier and anyone else who uses the new suppressed condition. Both would provide a circumstance penalty to attack rolls.

But let's be real, the Soldier will probably be able to suppress multiple targets reasonably often. With some work and hopefully enemies that have not yet learned about spacing. And they want to suppress anyway, as they get it for free and a lot of their abilities require it. As a Soldier, I'm not 100% certain I wouldn't mind this, but probably.

---

A bit off-topic, but maybe changing some of the Soldier's abilities from "a target you suppressed this turn" to "a suppressed target" would be a good idea, given that with the new fieldtest we have learned it is not a condition exclusive to the Soldier.

Causing an enemy to take a -1 to hit feels like a candidate for a feat to me. I do like the idea of extra damage quite a lot; that's something that IIRC classes don't hand each other as often outside of spells.

In SF 1 the low level envoy definitely had a problem where I could throw coordinated shot on someone, run around the badguy, and now between flank and coordinated shot I was contributing MORE than the class all about contributing.

Causing an enemy to take a -1 to hit feels like a candidate for a feat to me. I do like the idea of extra damage quite a lot; that's something that IIRC classes don't hand each other as often outside of spells.

-1 to hit feels more like Don't Get'us than Get'em. I also like the extra damage idea, I can see Get'em meaning hit them harder. Damage might be easier to use and avoid stacking issues?

Perpdepog wrote:

Causing an enemy to take a -1 to hit feels like a candidate for a feat to me. I do like the idea of extra damage quite a lot; that's something that IIRC classes don't hand each other as often outside of spells.

-1 to hit feels more like Don't Get'us than Get'em. I also like the extra damage idea, I can see Get'em meaning hit them harder. Damage might be easier to use and avoid stacking issues?

My idea is that when there's a ton of people focus-firing on you, you either don't fight back or do it poorly because of the precaution. Also, as a guaranteed penalty, it would be good against higher leveled enemies, because these types of fights can be incredibly frustrating because even if you try to be clever or use a debuff to help your team, you still have a low chance of success.

I would, however, make the -2 at least a possibility. Maybe even a spread for basic saving throw of 0/-1/-2/-3 for crit success -> crit fail.

The use of Get'em I don't see anyone talking about is for anyone to just yell [/b]"Get'em"[/b] then roll a bluff or intimidate check to try to make the target think everyone is after them, so they flee. This avoids all the bonus stacking issues and encourages teamwork because aid to skill checks can stack.

On a more serious note (although I really would try bluffing Get'em.) With all the talk of bonuses stacking is there a list or database of bonuses listed by or filtered by type?

The use of Get'em I don't see anyone talking about is for anyone to just yell [/b]"Get'em"[/b] then roll a bluff or intimidate check to try to make the target think everyone is after them, so they flee. This avoids all the bonus stacking issues and encourages teamwork because aid to skill checks can stack.

On a more serious note (although I really would try bluffing Get'em.) With all the talk of bonuses stacking is there a list or database of bonuses listed by or filtered by type?

That's incredibly DM dependent and more system and encounter design. I mean if you're going up against a party of space explorers you don't get into the fight if the thought of them using coordinated fire on you is a problem.

The space between Won't run away without that trick, and will run away with it, doesn't leave a whole lot of room.

So... I was thinking abtou the "Light 'em Up!" directive (the one that's supposed to tie into area effect fires) and might I suggest somethign like...

- base effect: you and your allies get a +1 circumstance bonus to reflex DCs against the target until the beginning of your next turn
- Lead from the front: If you attack the target with an area effect weapon, then you and your allies get that +1 circumstance bonus to reflex dcs again all targets of any attack that includes the target.

...though that +1 does still feel a little anemic.

I think the problem is... it doesn't feel cool enough to be your Cool Thing. Like, there's nothing wrong with directives. As a way to burn a third action, or even a second, they're fine. No real complaints. The problem is that it feels like they're supposed to be the Envoy's Cool Thing, and it just doesn't feel like they have enough oomph to really bring that.

If I want to play an envoy, then my fantasy is that I'm going to be out there contributing a bit to the weight of fire and doing my part that way some, but mostly I'm going to be making my allies awesome. I want to have that moment where the team soldier or operative finds out that there's going to be an envoy in the party and their face lights up like they're a little kid who's discovered that they get two birthdays this year. I want to have that moment where I'm building my character and I reach out to all of the other characters int eh party to find out what they're doing, so that I know how to give each of them personalized presents out of my class feat selections. I want to make everyone else better. The current version... just doesn't really give that, in a visceral way. A +1 here or there is nice and all, sure, but it's not anything they couldn't get out of someone being a tripper or an intimidation specialist or whatever.

I think it's that the envoy... is kind of stretched too thin. It's a martial with the core martial chassis. That's a good thing, and I approve. It's the party-buffing character. That's awesome and I want it. It's the skill-monkey. Well... okay. It's got a bunch of random reactions, I guess? I mean... most of them seem pretty weak too. It's got its build budget spread out over a bunch of different things, and it feels like pretty much all of them wound up pretty meh as a result. There's nothing you can really dial in on and make awesome.

Now, it's true that the feats on this thing are capping out at level 5, and that might well be part of it, but... it doesn't really feel like it's going to get a lot better. Like, the Soldier really gave the impression that it was building the (science) fantasy of a big beefy character with heavy armor and an enormous gun who grabbed ALL of the attention in the room. We only saw the beginning, but the beginning was pretty clearly a foundation that was going to keep going and doing more of that. The Envoy... is not so much. It's basically saying "I hand out a lot of little +1 bonuses, and maybe some situational +2s. As you level up I'll be happy to give you tiny bonuses to even more things". I mean, you definitely get a feeling of consistent vague helpfulness. In any scene you're in, the Envoy is going to have something useful to do, and they're going to make the rest of the party slightly better, but... it doesn't really feel satisfying in the same way.

The use of Get'em I don't see anyone talking about is for anyone to just yell [/b]"Get'em"[/b] then roll a bluff or intimidate check to try to make the target think everyone is after them, so they flee. This avoids all the bonus stacking issues and encourages teamwork because aid to skill checks can stack.

On a more serious note (although I really would try bluffing Get'em.) With all the talk of bonuses stacking is there a list or database of bonuses listed by or filtered by type?

AoN does that for items, but I don't think it is also available for all bonuses.

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

Hm. Nah. Get 'Em isn't really "load bearing," it's just the directive you get right away for free. Like all other directives, it should be situational, because a class that does the same sequence of actions every turn is boring. The fact that it doesn't stack with off-guard means that envoys have to pay attention to the field and coordinate with their team.

For instance, if Punchy and Stabby are going to move in to flank, they won't need the Get 'Em bonus once they're in position, freeing up the envoy to do something else on their next turn. But if Punchy moves before Stabby, she can still benefit from a basically free effective +1 on her turn while setting Stabby up for his +2.

Now, let's say Stabby really likes to feint. Maybe he's a swash or rogue. He's not gonna benefit much from Get 'Em... unless he's in a position where he can't set up. Which, because the battlefield is never ideal, will certainly happen, so having the option doesn't hurt. What he will like, though, is Get in There, which will allow him to move in close and/or withdraw, saving himself actions that he can then use for feinting. So an envoy with a melee-heavy party that includes Stabby specifically will be encouraged to change up their directive from turn to turn. Thus, their eyes don't glaze over as they put their character on autopilot and just zone out for the rest of the encounter.

Now, let's imagine a different scenario, where Get 'Em indeed stacks with everything, so it's a free +1 to hit basically always. That's... kinda bad? I mean, that's why people complain about bards: they're both too good and too repetitive. It doesn't matter if you're doing well if you're bored out of your mind or feel pressured to not deviate from your routine, y'know? Making Get 'Em a little less good (i.e. as presented) could potentially make the class more fun overall.

Or not. That's what playtests are for, lol.

TL;DR: A single tool not being the best option literally all of the time is good, actually.

What you are saying is definitely correct. But if Get 'em is supposed to be situational, rather than your go-to "standard" directive that always mostly works, why is it the only one you get for free?

Because currently your only real alternative is at level 2 and you have to buy it.

What are you supposed to do when you are level 1 (where you'll probably spend a good 8-10 hours)? Or when you want any of the other feats at that level?

If you got the other directives for free like a kineticist gets impulses, then that would be alright, but the current system is rather like making a spellcaster pay feats for learning spells.

Haven't seen anyone point this out yet, but the description in the post mentions providing temporary Hit Points, but I didn't see any feats at this point that do this. I assume there'll be some Inspiring Boost-like class of feats that come along that'll provide the temp HP, but right now they appear to be missing.

Another possible way I could see the buffs working for Envoys is giving them directives that affect the action economy. For example, maybe as a higher-level variant of "Watch Out!" you have a reaction where the Envoy calls out to the person being attacked, and they're granted a reaction to attack the attacker.

I also think "Adaptive Talent" is a particularly great ability for the Envoy.

I agree with some other points that you could build an Envoy that isn't actually driven by Charisma ... but that's also true in 1st edition. I don't see it as a critical flaw here. Maybe have more abilities tied to Charisma ... like your directives can only affect a number of allies equal to your Charisma modifier.

What are you supposed to do when you are level 1 (where you'll probably spend a good 8-10 hours)? Or when you want any of the other feats at that level?

Good point! Obvious "not a designer" disclaimer, but I think having a few guaranteed directive drops via baked-in progression would really help there. Or possibly let the envoy take bonus class feats? That might be neat, if tough to balance.

Others have also suggested giving the envoy a second class feature to give them a little more oomph, but I'm wary about making this a damage-focused thing because I feel like it'd cause players to over-focus on it. Maybe poach from the 4e warlord some more and allow them to donate a single action to a teammate or something? Also incredibly dangerous balancing territory, but I played a character like that in another TTRPG and it was surprisingly fun. Having the donated action either still count for MAP or not work for strikes would help prevent abuse of the party's strongest martial, and some kind of limiting factor like flourish/2 actions/focus points could keep the envoy from spamming it. (Actually, using focus points to share actions with teammates would be dope; with a full pool, you could give someone an entire extra turn or help the whole party set off a combo).

As for early level blues, Thurston mentioned earlier that the team was considering expanding Get 'Em's circumstance penalty to include reflex saves. I think this is a great idea, as it increases the number of builds who would benefit from Get 'Em: ranged soldiers, spellcasters, and athletics specialists would all be more than happy to exploit a relfex drop, especially in a meta where cover is expected to play a larger role. So, you'd still get something out of slapping a Get 'Em on an off-guard target.

Hm. Nah. Get 'Em isn't really "load bearing,"

Not get em. The idea that starfinder is pew pew lasers. In SF1 that lasted until people saw navasi do 2 damage with a pistol while Obo was smashing things for 10 with her doshko.

it's just the directive you get right away for free.

It's not free. You had to become an envoy to get it.

Like all other directives, it should be situational, because a class that does the same sequence of actions every turn is boring. The fact that it doesn't stack with off-guard means that envoys have to pay attention to the field and coordinate with their team.

It also means that for first level, your entire class is irrelevant in combat under the wrong circumstances. Fairly common circumstances at that.

Enhanced did a lot to fix it, but Envoy felt REALLY bad until improved get em kicked in. It wasn't just because you were locked in to the same action routine, it was because you fairly often had no effect on the fight than to just be a worse soldier. If you had to move and attack, no get em. Or no attack and then you have less effect on the combat than a melee soldier with coordinated shot.

If you're worried about the attack routine, you have 3 actions. if one of them is always get em that still leaves 2 other actions to combo with.

For instance, if Punchy and Stabby are going to move in to flank, they won't need the Get 'Em bonus once they're in position, freeing up the envoy to do something else on their next turn.

Like shoot shoot and shoot like a worse soldier/operative? Because if your class consists of one feat and that feat shuts off in a stiff breeze then you don't have a class when initiative starts.

But if Punchy moves before Stabby, she can still benefit from a basically free effective +1 on her turn while setting Stabby up for his +2.

IF the envoy goes before stabby sure. Thats a lot of ifs though, and the more you need to line up probabilities the less they are likely to all come together. You're also taking the envoys baseline performance from All the people on the team attacking to just the one person attacking without flank: a MUCH smaller audience.

I think I have seen ONE envoy go the improved feint route in no small part due to how ubiquitous flat footing your opponents was (mostly from operatives)

I mean, that's why people complain about bards: they're both too good and too repetitive. It doesn't matter if you're doing well if you're bored out of your mind or feel pressured to not deviate...

How are their other actions? Haven't played/seen one except one of my clerics has it as an archetype.

Random thought: Envoy is the obvious class to get at least a few feats that boost Aid Another. Possibly for specific situations? Possibly a feat that would let you trigger your lead bonus for one directive off of it? I wouldn't want to spend a lot of build budget on it because of the previous "envoy is already spread too thin" thing, but at least having it as an option shouldn't be too costly, right?

Although... really what it is is that I wouldn't want to spend a small-to-moderate amount of build budget on it. If it gets decided that Envoy is going to spend enough budget on boosting Aid Another to make it actually awesome, and then you actually make it actually awesome, that could be kind of cool. Pretty big departure from the current vague plan, though.

Other thought: I can sort of see the idea of a character who's all about being generally somewhat useful under all circumstances and always providing helpful little boosts to their allies in a sort of "unsung heroes" way where your contributions are individually small enough that they never seem like much but you're just always making your buddies slightly better and it stacks up. It's just that... it feels like it should be more of an archetype than a class. A class is where you go to get your awesome on, where you get the stuff that's simply too beefy to fit in anywhere else. "I'm generally useful in a lot of little ways" doesn't really need that kind of concentration.

Karmagator wrote:

What are you supposed to do when you are level 1 (where you'll probably spend a good 8-10 hours)? Or when you want any of the other feats at that level?

Good point! Obvious "not a designer" disclaimer, but I think having a few guaranteed directive drops via baked-in progression would really help there. Or possibly let the envoy take bonus class feats? That might be neat, if tough to balance.

Baked into the chassis like the Kineticist would probably be the ideal solution. With the same numbers, even. Two to start with. Then another at 5th and every 4th level after. They are still regular feats, so if you want more, you can take them like that.

That would allow for a good variety in gameplay, even early on, and feel like you can actually react to different situations appropriately. And its a proven concept, even.

Others have also suggested giving the envoy a second class feature to give them a little more oomph [...]

That wouldn't be a good idea. The Envoy already has a lot going on with its chassis. If they got more free directives plus the Get 'em save penalty change, that'd be enough for me.

Maybe drop Acts of Leadership down from 6th to 3rd or even 1st. Again, makes it more complicated, but that really seems to be the gameplay changer of this class. Before, all subclasses are rather same-y, but with that feature, you all of a sudden should see substantial differences. It seems like a waste to wait for level 6 for that.

---

Random thought: Envoy is the obvious class to get at least a few feats that boost Aid Another.

Definitely. One or two really impactful ones in the level 2-6 range should be enough. Something along the lines of Assisting Shot would make sense - do an action, get Aid as a bonus. Or a reaction like Fake Out where you can Aid certain rolls without spending an action first.

Reply to BigNorseWolf: SF1's not-so-secret melee supremacy is a known issue, and one that Thurston has called out in interviews. I think having Get 'Em NOT double down on 2e's already strong melee meta is therefore a boon; those DPR-obsessed hooligans can go blow their own actions while ranged characters (and casters, hopefully!) enjoy an increased variety of bespoke buffs.

What I meant by "free" is that Get 'Em requires no rolls or resource consumption beyond the single action it costs to "cast." That alone is really good; most other AC-lowering activities require a check, slot, or actively putting yourself in danger.

Now, if anyone shoot-shoot-shoots on their turn, then they suck at the game (or they're a flurry ranger and I hate them). The envoy gets tons of skills and flexible feats, so their "third action" pool is massive. This is in addition to whatever envoy-specific stuff they get, like additional directives and feats.

In regards to the Stabby example, I'm factoring in smart play, such as delaying from the players and multiple enemies from the GM (keep in mind most combats aren't against one guy, and envoys will often get a bonus to initiative thanks to Saw It Coming). The situation you are anticipating here--multiple melee-heavy characters in the same party who perpetually standing adjacent to the only valid target, with literally nothing else to do--sounds like trying to force every adventure to play like Abomination Vaults. Which sucks. I mean, sheesh, Get 'Em still works if you have an ODD number of melee allies, since flanking is a two-player activity.

Finally, bards. The problem with bards is that the "optimal" way to play is to become a Courageous Anthem bot. This is often considered to be really disastisfying as it's both a hands-off buff and something your teammates will expect to be always up. I don't like flurry rangers for similar reasons: it's not fun when the most boring way to play your character is also the "best." Hence, situationality on Get 'Em is good, as there will be times when you don't have to use it.

I do think the Envoy still needs some fleshing out--many have already pointed out that this early-game preview feels incomplete--and I'm 100% in support of Get 'Em applying to saving throws, too. I'm only arguing against making off-guard and Get 'Em stack. The PF2/SF1 melee meta doesn't need any more buffs, and the envoy should not be beholden to the optimization-obsessed killjoys who want to carry that meta into SF2.

My experience with bard must be very different from most peoples because being a 'Anthem bot' is the least of my problems(in fact I don't really have any problems, it turned out better then I expected, especially compared to the envoy I've been playing in sf1, until it hit level 6+ recently). And its only gotten better with the remaster. Get 'em seems even more constraining since you have to take a second action just to get the damage bonus, and you can do multiple directives on one turn so you have less excuses to not do it even if you are opting for a different one in a turn. Not really a complaint though, having a really good 'third action' is only a good thing in my mind(and its SO much better then low level sf1 envoy).

Also I find the idea that you will get the Saw It Coming bonus 'often' very unlikely unless the gm is setting it up for you regularly.

Reply to BigNorseWolf: SF1's not-so-secret melee supremacy is a known issue, and one that Thurston has called out in interviews. I think having Get 'Em NOT double down on 2e's already strong melee meta is therefore a boon; those DPR-obsessed hooligans can go blow their own actions while ranged characters (and casters, hopefully!) enjoy an increased variety of bespoke buffs.

What I meant by "free" is that Get 'Em requires no rolls or resource consumption beyond the single action it costs to "cast." That alone is really good; most other AC-lowering activities require a check, slot, or actively putting yourself in danger.

Now, if anyone shoot-shoot-shoots on their turn, then they suck at the game (or they're a flurry ranger and I hate them). The envoy gets tons of skills and flexible feats, so their "third action" pool is massive. This is in addition to whatever envoy-specific stuff they get, like additional directives and feats.

In regards to the Stabby example, I'm factoring in smart play, such as delaying from the players and multiple enemies from the GM (keep in mind most combats aren't against one guy, and envoys will often get a bonus to initiative thanks to Saw It Coming). The situation you are anticipating here--multiple melee-heavy characters in the same party who perpetually standing adjacent to the only valid target, with literally nothing else to do--sounds like trying to force every adventure to play like Abomination Vaults. Which sucks. I mean, sheesh, Get 'Em still works if you have an ODD number of melee allies, since flanking is a two-player activity.

Finally, bards. The problem with bards is that the "optimal" way to play is to become a Courageous Anthem bot. This is often considered to be really disastisfying as it's both a hands-off buff and something your teammates will expect to be always up. I don't like flurry rangers for similar reasons: it's not fun when the most boring way to play your character is also the "best." Hence, situationality on Get 'Em is good, as there...

I agree with this in the sense that it's probably better in general for the Starfinder meta to use the class actions buffs and conditions themselves to incentivize the ranged weaponry so that their meta revolves around it-- I think that's actually the healthiest route because it would heavily suggest a balance point where what's optimal in a combined game depends on which classes you're packing having a Bard and/or melee classes could incentivize a melee playstyle, whereas having an Envoy/Suppression etc, incentivizes a ranged character.

Admittedly, I feel like off-guard already works that way in Pathfinder, its so much easier to get off-guard in melee for melee strikes that it gently encourages melee combat (without invalidating bows and guns and spells) so a similar "Ranged Focus" where melee builds are valid, but don't get buffed as easily Ranged builds do, would be entirely appropriate for Starfinder.

One thing I notice: From the Front is weirdly (and unpleasantly) split. In particular, its Leadership skill is Athletics, and it has an act of leadership of "raise a shield", while not having "perform an Athletics maneuver". That's... a bit awkward. Like, you can square the circle by picking an ancestry that gets a decent natural attack or grabbing a weapon with trip or grab traits, and it's possible that multi-arm ancestries will let you get out of this too, but there's a basic conflict between those two.

Then, too, every other Leadership Style other than Guns Blazing has an Act of Leadership that's directly associated with their leadership skill... and it makes sense that "perform an athletics maneuver" would be an act of leadership and that From the Front would be the one to get it. I guess it was just... too good already, or something?

On the flip side... do we need a melee envoy? I mean, it's shiny to those folks who want to poach envoy for pF2, but....

On the flip side... do we need a melee envoy? I mean, it's shiny to those folks who want to poach envoy for pF2, but....

Yes, yes we do.

More seriously, consider the flip side to your flip side. How is the game better by not enabling more builds, and giving folks the option of a melee envoy if they want one? Giving people a segment of a class that lets you play the opposite of its expected range mode is a pretty obvious hole to fill, and it helps to diversify builds for, yes, if people want to poach classes for PF2, but also for telling other kinds of stories in SF2.

On the flip side... do we need a melee envoy? I mean, it's shiny to those folks who want to poach envoy for pF2, but....

Might be useful if your Envoy is the captain of a Brutaris team, or a Vesk leader with a Doshko. So I don't think it's bad to have an option for melee, but it's not something I think the class should be built around. Also, a melee option for the Envoy could come in a later book if it's not meant to be a main-class feature.

More seriously, consider the flip side to your flip side. How is the game better by not enabling more builds, and giving folks the option of a melee envoy if they want one? Giving people a segment of a class that lets you play the opposite of its expected range mode is a pretty obvious hole to fill, and it helps to diversify builds for, yes, if people want to poach classes for PF2, but also for telling other kinds of stories in SF2.

Well, if we want to keep the game biased towards ranged combat, then part of doing that is not having a bunch of great melee combat builds for everyone. If there are solidly competitive melee combat builds for Soldier and Operative and Envoy and Mechanic and Solarion and every other martial class that comes out then the push to make SF2 more range-focused starts getting maybe a bit anemic, yes?

I certainly think that we should have melee support in a bunch of the classes, though it probably doesn't need to be every single one-- it should probably be comparable to the state of melee in pf2e, where plenty of the martial classes have ranged support, and a couple are even ranged centric, but the focus is squarely on melee.

That's why I'd prefer for the ranged combat to be emphasized by the accessibility of particular conditions, rather than imposing hard limits-- this is still the kind of game you play if you want to be a jedi type with a laser sword.

Replying to Dead Phoenix: Thank God! I used scare quotes for a reason, but having a counterexample pop up right away is a huge releif.

I think the Courage!Bot assumption partially comes from certain PF2 fan communities that expect everyone who isn't a melee trooper to pour everything they've got into buttering up the frontliners, who then devote themselves to dealing as much damage as possible. It's a lousy, boring meta that arose from too many solo bosses on small, featureless maps in both APs and home games.

As is probably already apparent from my aggressive prose, I actively despise this expected state of play and refuse to allow the cooler, spacey sister game to fall prey to the same garbage. Godspeed to the people who enjoy it, but they already have a game for that.

Replying to The-Magic-Sword: I already faved your comments, but I wanted to just say that comparing suppressed to off-guard as mechanical nudges meant to encourage specific playstyles is neat. Ideally, we'll see some nice push and pull between the two, as All Ranged All the Time leads to endless games of peek-a-boo.

Perpdepog wrote:

More seriously, consider the flip side to your flip side. How is the game better by not enabling more builds, and giving folks the option of a melee envoy if they want one? Giving people a segment of a class that lets you play the opposite of its expected range mode is a pretty obvious hole to fill, and it helps to diversify builds for, yes, if people want to poach classes for PF2, but also for telling other kinds of stories in SF2.

Well, if we want to keep the game biased towards ranged combat, then part of doing that is not having a bunch of great melee combat builds for everyone. If there are solidly competitive melee combat builds for Soldier and Operative and Envoy and Mechanic and Solarion and every other martial class that comes out then the push to make SF2 more range-focused starts getting maybe a bit anemic, yes?

No, because a big source of what makes ranged combat better in SF2 can come from its weaponry. More one-handed weapons, which incidentally lend themselves well to both ranged and switch-hitting, as well as weapons with more varied damage types and larger damage dice can go a long way to making ranged weapons and ranged combat more viable. Ranged combat is already plenty useful in PF2 because of, well, not being next to someone to do it. If the enemy has more ranged capability then they also get that option, which innately makes melee combat more dangerous. That, plus a wider breadth of ranged weapons, plus whatever support ranged combat will get (Because ranged/melee isn't a zero sum game, you can support both) will make ranged combat plenty usable, maybe even preferable.

those DPR-obsessed hooligans can go blow their own actions while ranged characters (and casters, hopefully!) enjoy an increased variety of bespoke buffs.

If your buff is bespoke then it is incredibly limited in both usability and power.

If your buff is supposed to be bespoke for the situation then you absolutely need more than one, even at first level. Or your functionally don't have your main class feature. A bard might be boring but its at least functional. there are levels where the sf1 envoy isn't.(or well wasn't)

One thing i really like about starfinder 1 is that you can throw any group of mixed nuts on an adventure and they'll be fine. It might be because a lot of my pf2 stuff is low level but I do not see HOW you survive those levels without a healer. Who gets stuck with that boring job has me flash backing from everything to the 80s table top to wow raids.

Similarly Ranged has to stand or fall on its own. If you need a party with everyone taking a role they don't like to make it come together that's not going to fly. Then you're just going to get the four melee monsters.

I think there is a lot of value in giving melee options to many, if not all characters. It makes sense in-universe and from a story standpoint. We humans like our oldschool melee combat, so it shows up in fiction all the time. Even in sci-fi and especially science fantasy settings. It just helps us tell more stories. Just look at Star Wars and 40k for prominent examples. [Sidenote.... I just noticed that 40k is actually a science fantasy universe...]

Enemy design, encounter design, better ranged weapons, more vertical mobility and strong ranged support should be enough to encourage the ranged meta. And if people want to play off-meta, then that's good for them.

For the Envoy specifically, we probably have to worry the least. They noticeably have literally no weapon feat support at all. As far as we know at least. Your directives are so much more valuable compared to everything else you can do and to effectively do that, you need to be able to Strike many targets at will. I therefore don't think most people will be willing to bother with the constraints of melee weapons for slightly better but still poor damage and not much else.

But yeah, From The Front should get a few more additions. IMO it omits things that would make the gameplay much smoother and varied. "Make an Athletics check", as Sanityfaerie said, and "use a move action to move towards an enemy you can perceive". I mean, who doesn't love a good charge? It's even in the description, but not actually part of the Acts of Leadership.

One thing i really like about starfinder 1 is that you can throw any group of mixed nuts on an adventure and they'll be fine. It might be because a lot of my pf2 stuff is low level but I do not see HOW you survive those levels without a healer. Who gets stuck with that boring job has me flash backing from everything to the 80s table top to wow raids.

From the reviews I've seen it sounds like some of the low-level monsters in the Remastered Monster Core have been adjusted to make low-level play more new player friendly. It also sounds like some of the low-level undead have also lost the ability to paralyze, which was really deadly at low levels.

SF2e might even play better than PF2e because all the aliens will be built with all the experience from years of PF2e to help balance them better. SF2e is also getting a really long playtest which will help too.

I think there are a lot of reasons that melee feels favored in PF2 compared to ranged that are much better to address than simply not making classes with melee features or synergies in SF2:

- The damage difference between ranged and melee being too big in the early game. While it eventually goes down to like 15-20%, having no stat mod to damage can be as much as a fifty percent damage loss in the first few levels, when people are having their first experiences with the game

- Short ranges on most spells

- AP maps being too small for range to make a difference

- Many melee creatures having such high speeds that they can reach you in one Stride no matter what

- Melee characters having a better reaction game overall (I see they're already addressing this some with Envoy)

- Etc.

One thing i really like about starfinder 1 is that you can throw any group of mixed nuts on an adventure and they'll be fine. It might be because a lot of my pf2 stuff is low level but I do not see HOW you survive those levels without a healer.

PF2 accomplishes the mixed nut approach by making healing incredibly accessible. Three out of four spell lists have recovery options, and anybody with decent wisdom can effectively patch up their friends between encounters. This allows the "burden" of healing to be shared, but I think seeing support play as a burden at all is a huge problem in the TTRPG community. (Indeed, a problem you seem to be a part of yourself, my good wolf! I mean, "the boring job?" For shame!)

But, since 3/4ths of all casters and a common skill choice doesn't include every single party, PFS adds an additional layer of protection: everyone gets a free, level-appropriate healing potion at the start of each session. I think home games could probably do the same thing, no problem.

Ranged has to stand or fall on its own.

It does--which is why things like weapon, enemy, ability, spell, and map design are all going to be important--but that still doesn't mean Get 'Em has to apply to off-guard targets. That's a case of the melee monsters yet again having their cake and eating it too. I'm certain the class with a billion skills can come up with something to do on those turns when the only target on the field is already flanked/tripped/whatever (and Get 'Em potentially providing a reflex nerf--please, Thurston, please--or damage boost makes it still useful in that situation anyway).

I do agree, however, that giving first level envoys additional toys besides Get 'Em would be nice. The leadership styles are a decent start, but one more free directive--perhaps of the player's choice--would really help. Technically, the level one class feat kind of does that, but there are a bunch of other feats that aren't directives competing for the same slot. This extra directive would soothe a lot of gripes the "but muh off-guard" broskis have with the class, without making Get 'Em so strong and universally applicable that it becomes a mandatory part of the action rotation.

If you're going to hand out an extra directive at level 1... possibly attach it to the leadership style? Then have a level 1 feat that's basically "poach a directive from some other leadership style" I mean, otherwise, before level 6 your class path is worth less than a background. It's a bit thin.

I think there are a lot of reasons that melee feels favored in PF2 compared to ranged that are much better to address than simply not making classes with melee features or synergies in SF2:

- The damage difference between ranged and melee being too big in the early game. While it eventually goes down to like 15-20%, having no stat mod to damage can be as much as a fifty percent damage loss in the first few levels, when people are having their first experiences with the game

I think there is a much simpler explanation for why melee is favored in PF2e or better explained as a simple way to change that. Just arm all the PC's opponents with bows. The other design factor is since most of the opponents are not armed with bows the PCs can only fly at high levels to prevent them from flying above the melee and raining down ranged attacks while out of reach of the opponent. In Starfinder we can fly at first level because most of our opponents can shoot back.

- Short ranges on most spells

True in both games. (opens a can of worms) The problem with spells is not that their range is too short but that they lack range increments like ranged weapons. (closes the can of worms)

- AP maps being too small for range to make a difference

True in both games. Real long-range combat needs to happen outdoors or in very large open indoor settings like a giant cave or starship loading dock. Starfinder has many encounters in buildings, or in cramped spaceships that are as small as any topical room in PF2e Starfinder also uses PF maps sometimes.

- Many melee creatures having such high speeds that they can reach you in one Stride no matter what

I've seen this happen in Starfinder too. which game it happens in more often I can't say.

Besides map size, the other big factor is where the MG places the PCs vs the opponents on the map to start. I've seen encounters in Starfinfer that used a fully open 30" x 24" map but the opponents started close enough to be in melee range on their first turn.

Even with a big open space the 3 action economy allows melee creatures to close range really fast. That will be true in PF2e and SF2e

- Melee characters having a better reaction game overall (I see they're already addressing this some with Envoy)

I agree, I'd also like to see ranged combat get more tactical choices that benefit teamwork.

Indeed, a problem you seem to be a part of yourself, my good wolf! I mean, "the boring job?" For shame!)

Not. Cool

If I WANT to play a support character that's one thing. And I will.. IF i can find a unique gaming mechanism that I enjoy doing it with. In PF1 i had a lot of fun with everything from splitting ridiculous amounts of damage with high con clerics using shield other to a white furred brown furred transmuter turning the party into various monsters complete with a pamphlet entitled "I'm a WHAT?"

But no one should feel they HAVE to. If the game is forcing that on players by practical necessity (and it feels like low level pf2 play does) that's an element of design I do not like, and the solution is not as you've done repeatedly in this thread, to tar everyone that doesn't like it as a dirty selfish munchkin.

That's why we have different games, some are going to require different roles in a group, and some aren't. Personally, I much prefer games that require support characters, and it's a major perk of the system for me-- at least partially because they tend to be optimized out of games where they aren't required for the hardest content.

One thing i really like about starfinder 1 is that you can throw any group of mixed nuts on an adventure and they'll be fine. It might be because a lot of my pf2 stuff is low level but I do not see HOW you survive those levels without a healer. Who gets stuck with that boring job has me flash backing from everything to the 80s table top to wow raids.

Have you played PF2e with the remaster rules yet? I just got the Remaster Monster Core yesterday and noticed several of the low-level creatures had their attack bonus reduced, and level 1 ghouls lost Paralysis which was really deadly at low level.

AEON +9 > +7
LYRAKIEN +9 > +7
GIANT BAT +10 > +9
GHOUL Paralysis > Stench and Forbidden Craving curse.
GOBLIN WARRIOR +8 > +7
VIPER +8 > +6

I started playing PF2e again last week and had to update my character for the remaster changes. I was expecting my cantrips to get nerfed, especially electric arc. Electric Arc went from 1d4 plus your spellcasting ability modifier to 2d4 Although it lowers the minimum damage, it actually increases your maximum damage if you don't have your ability modifier maxed out. This makes building a spell character without their main ability maxed out more viable.

Acid Splash became Caustic Blast and when from 1d6 acid damage + 1 splash damage to 1d8 acid damage with a basic Reflex save; on a critical failure, the creature also takes 1 persistent acid damage.

I haven't looked into healing yet but so far looks like at least some minor changes to benefit low-level play in other areas, which could reduce how much healing you need overall.

So I'm feeling hopefully that low-level play in SF2e might actually be better than it is in PF2e, because SF2e getting a really long play test and can learn from the lessons learned from PF2e.

But no one should feel they HAVE to. If the game is forcing that on players by practical necessity (and it feels like low level pf2 play does) that's an element of design I do not like, and the solution is not as you've done repeatedly in this thread, to tar everyone that doesn't like it as a dirty selfish munchkin.

Well for PF2, you can just be trained in medicine, play a combat focused cleric of a god with a healing font, or be any alchemist and prepare a few elixers of healing.

One of the things I was impressed with coming from 5e was how much access there was to healing, without making it the focus of your build.

Also, maybe it's not the worst idea to talk with everyone while building characters and talk about healing. maybe someone wants to try, but that's an intimidating role to take, Maybe no one wants to, and the DM makes sure to adjust encounters or give you an NPC Alchemist. There are tons of options for healing.

And the Mystic in SF2e will be a great healer, there is an envoy subclass for it, and from the sounds of thigns, there might be an operative subclass, and maybe even a witchwarper subclass.

Well for PF2, you can just be trained in medicine

You don't just need to be trained in medicine at low levels.

1 level 2 trained 2ish wisdom= +5 healing. (the +1 healers kit is a few levels away)

You are about ~50 % likely to fail to heal your comrade for an hour
Within that fail rate you are 20% likely to DAMAGE someone, possibly killing them. so you really can't use that option. Worse if you don't have a 14 wisdom.

The mundane healer needs battle-medicine, a skill boost in medicine (which matters less as you level), and assurance, because the person bleeding out on the ground is the LAST person who can take 1d8 hp of damage at the worst possible time. Thats still going to hard cap you at around 2-3 encounters, and you'll be dragging people home at the end of 3 like its calden caydens bar crawl.

My experience leveling up has been that healing moves from a 2 action job most of the time, to occasionally, to Oh crap it just hit the fan, oh right this person can heal its been so long we forgot about that....
0

Also, maybe it's not the worst idea to talk with everyone while building characters and talk about healing

And get a collective groan. New system new class new way of healing is interesting once. But unless there's more than one it's just "the healer" and its rarely what people will be chomping at the bit to play.

support should be viable enough on its own to justify its existence without being a necessity. Requiring it, even just to slog through the low levels, is a step backwards from starfinder 1.

And get a collective groan. New system new class new way of healing is interesting once. But unless there's more than one it's just "the healer" and its rarely what people will be chomping at the bit to play.

support should be viable enough on its own to justify its existence without being a necessity. Requiring it, even just to slog through the low levels, is a step backwards from starfinder 1.

I play a Tengu Oracle Healer Harrow card-reading fortune teller in PF2e It's been a great support character, good with healing and support spells. I have the electric arc cantrip through an ancestry feat, great damage cantrip but with lots of character flavor and tie-in. The fortune-telling is mostly for flavor but has great tie-ins with almost all of my spell, and feat choices, as well as social encounter skills. I have my shield painted with a layout for a card reading, and use my shield as a card reading table when needed, I even often use the raise shield action in social encounters as a way to advertise my card reading services. Out of all my crazy character concepts it's been one of the most viable, and never has felt like "Just the healer."

One of my least viable characters in PF2e is my goblin merchant sorcerer, who started with 0 spells useful in combat, and later still only has 1 damage and 0 combat support spells. Other than being great at social skills, the only 2 useful things they contribute to the party is they are good with a sling (need to be able to defend their merchandise) and a backpack full of supplies that cover as many situations as possible, and or sell. I guess they play like a support class, without any support features other than shopping. This gets to my point if you are in a party without a healer buy potions of healing. I do the exact same thing in Starfinder, in one of the current Starfinder games I'm playing in my operative, because we don't have a healer, they bought 4 healing serums which is the party's entire HP healing source. Every character I make has at least one healing potion or serum in case the healer goes down.

I do agree that PF2e plays a bit differently than SF but I feel it's just different not a step backwards. The other thing to keep in mind is that SF2e is based on PF2e remaster not just PF2e, I don't think there has been time for PF2e adventures to take full advantage of some of the remaster changes that SF2e will be built around. I started asking around in the PF2e general forum to see how the remaster benefited low-level play.

Has the PF2e remaster improved low level play? If so how? .

I haven't had time to ask yet but the next question I have for PF2e players is are there any scenarios or quests that use the remaster rules and balancing that would better reflect what we will see used in SF2e?

Replying to Big Norse Wolf

So what, a system should never allow you to be hurt because then you require a healer, a role which you cannot imagine anyone enjoying, and you seem to actively encourage people to develop the same attitude.

This is the whole point of having a party, different play styles working together to cover weaknesses. Do you also object to social encounters because that requires someone to build as a Face?

I LOVE playing support characters. weather protective or healing. Just as epic moments can come from healing as can come from tanking or DPR. It's a weird mentality to me that "healing is boring, or not fun". my dream is to have that moment where my time is on the brink and I can just go, "We do not fall today!" and hit them with a massive heal, or buff that can turn the tide.

Replying to Big Norse Wolf

So what, a system should never allow you to be hurt because then you require a healer, a role which you cannot imagine anyone enjoying, and you seem to actively encourage people to develop the same attitude.

All of this is wrong. None of it remotely follows from what I said.

Starfinders stamina system allows you to be hurt and come back largely without a healer. Starfinder has a lot of solutions for healing not covered by your coffee break, because that primary mechanism has already done a lot of the heavy lifting. Any backliner with a mystic cure 1 gem can give an emergency levelX 6 ish point heal to the tank. Any mystic can dip healing with an epiphany, and if all else fails Calden Cayden brand six packs can have you feeling better one way or another if you drink enough of them.

I do not think healing needs to be done THIS way is NOT the same as I don't want healing to be a thing.

I know some people like that role, but its not 1/4 of players.

I'm not making converts. Just stating how most people find it.

Do you also object to social encounters because that requires someone to build as a Face?

Social encounters

need an ability to go south anyway in case gamers or the dice find it.
are a minority of encounters (the encounters where you will be hurt? Most of them. Including the social encounters when they go south)
Take up a skill or two at most

The comparison to requiring an entire character dedicated to them is just not genuine.

I mean, that's the point people upthread are making, isn't it? In order to heal you need one skill, Medicine. That's fewer skills than social encounters require, and with similar kinds of stakes because you're rolling skill checks for both. All your complaints about needing to hyper-focus in order to be successful arguably apply to social encounters too, which would mean they're a similarly un-fun playstyle if needing those kinds of checks as failure points, and that being your role in the party, is the crux of the argument.

That's what I think Zoken44 is getting at, correct me if I'm wrong.

I mean, that's the point people upthread are making, isn't it? In order to heal you need one skill, Medicine.g.

Yes, people are making that assertion. I feel that assertion is so far removed from reality (fantasy reality?) as to either be Asmodean level rules lawyering or completely disingenuous. As a practical matter, yes you can heal with the medicine skill. No, that is not sufficient healing at low levels. Yes, I can technically dig the foundtion of a house with a spoon. No, not going to happen.

Perpdepog wrote:

I mean, that's the point people upthread are making, isn't it? In order to heal you need one skill, Medicine.g.

Yes, people are making that assertion. I feel that assertion is so far removed from reality (fantasy reality?) as to either be Asmodean level rules lawyering or completely disingenuous. As a practical matter, yes you can heal with the medicine skill. No, that is not sufficient healing at low levels. Yes, I can technically dig the foundtion of a house with a spoon. No, not going to happen.

At least in PFS organized play, everyone has the option of getting a free healing potion at the start of each scenario. Without magic healing, the old-school way would have been to go back to town and rest for a week or two, that's still an option if time is not an issue.

I find playing a healer in Starfinder more boring than in PF2e. I have a lot of fun playing my Mystic combat medic, but it's not from using my healing abilities. Even with the Medic archetype you still have to wait until someone has at least 1 point of HP damage, and often by then the fight is almost over. I do like Starfinder stanima rules if I'm playing a non-healer.

I've been asking around about the changes to low-level play in the PF2e remaster and what I'm seeing looks encouraging. It looks like there are several changes making low-level combat more balanced. Much of that is linked to in my previous post in this thread. It might only be a few small changes but small changes mean fewer crits, which is why low-level play can be so deadly in PF2e.

I have also found out that the first adventures and scenarios using the remaster rules haven't come out yet, so most people don't actually have experience playing with the remaster rules and balancing that SF2e will be based on. It sounds like the first AP using the remaster comes out at the end of April and scenarios using the remaster will start with season 6.

Just found out the PF2e begginers box got updated to the remaster on March 4th if you have that already you can download the updated PDF

Perpdepog wrote:

I mean, that's the point people upthread are making, isn't it? In order to heal you need one skill, Medicine.g.

Yes, people are making that assertion. I feel that assertion is so far removed from reality (fantasy reality?) as to either be Asmodean level rules lawyering or completely disingenuous. As a practical matter, yes you can heal with the medicine skill. No, that is not sufficient healing at low levels. Yes, I can technically dig the foundtion of a house with a spoon. No, not going to happen.

It may be removed from your personal reality, but it's never been an issue in mine. To date I've been in five different campaigns, each starting at level 1, and medicine's always worked well for us. Is it the exclusive thing we lean on? No. But that's what elixirs and potions are for.

To date I've been in five different campaigns, each starting at level 1, and medicine's always worked well for us.

I see no mechanism for you getting passed a roughly 50% fail rate.

Perpdepog Actually you made a BETTER point than I was making. thank you.

BigNorseWolf Then don't play second edition. No one is going to take your first edition books away from you.

Perpdepog wrote:

To date I've been in five different campaigns, each starting at level 1, and medicine's always worked well for us.

I see no mechanism for you getting passed a roughly 50% fail rate.

At 1st level, someone trained in medicine with a +2 wisdom could take 10