Alchemist doesn't feel fun at 1st level

[Samurai]

Aricks wrote:

One of the counter arguments I've heard that bomber alchemists are ok is that even if they miss they still do damage. One or two points using a limited resource is a nice compensation but not something to build a class off of.

With debuffs, you have to actually hit to land any effects, and all but the tanglefoot bomb don't last more than a round. Touch AC isn't a thing anymore so you're better off going after soft targets than the big bad, which also limits the effectiveness of your debuffs as a party contribution.

IMO, bomber alchemists shouldn't be balanced around always using quicksilver mutagen, it should be a bonus as it would be for any other class to make up for the drawbacks.

In my house rules, I said redid the Splash damage effect. Basically, you make an attack on the main target, with a crit hit doing double damage, hit doing normal damage, miss doing half damage, and crit miss doing no damage (the bomb was a dud). Targets in the splash area suffer the effects with a hit with a 1 step lesser effect. (So a crit hit does hit damage as a splash, a hit does miss (half) damage splash, and a miss has no splash damage because the effects to a crit miss is nothing.) I feel this is a better way to do splash damage with bombs, and helps make alchemists a bit better.

[Shisumo]

FlashRebel wrote:

Shisumo wrote:

I've seen several people mention the issue of Intelligence as a non-factor in the class' accuracy, and I can't help wondering how important that really is. I don't deny it's true, of course, but given how stat purchasing and advancement works (especially the latter) in 2E, is it really an issue? After all, it's not especially difficult to increase your accuracy stat at the same pace as your Intelligence right up until you get an apex item, is it?

Having the numbers against you at all levels with your bread-and-butter offensive option is definitely a big deal. Taking proficiency, possible item bonus and maximum possible ability bonus into account, the alchemist is always strictly worse than other classes at hitting things. About a -2 difference with spellcasters that don't have items that improve their spell attack rolls but reach legendary proficiency, and -3 with all other classes that use weapons (-5 with fighters specifically). This is not a negligible difference. The fact that the alchemist never goes beyong expert proficiency in any type of attack roll, even when specializing in offense, is baffling. At this point it's better to admit that the alchemist will never be a viable combat class and just an awkward support class.

I'll grant you all of that, but that's a proficiency issue, not a Key Ability one. I was asking specifically about the Intelligence situation.

[Samurai]

Shisumo wrote:

I'll grant you all of that, but that's a proficiency issue, not a Key Ability one. I was asking specifically about the Intelligence situation.

Once again, my house rules have some of the answers for that lack of Int use. The Bombers can add their Int mod to their bomb attacks instead of Dex mod. Chirurgeons can add their Int bonus to their Elixir of Life healing amounts. Mutagenists don't really use Int for much, but that is still 2 of the Fields that get benefits from Int.

[Squiggit]

Shisumo wrote:

I'll grant you all of that, but that's a proficiency issue, not a Key Ability one. I was asking specifically about the Intelligence situation.

I mean, they go hand in hand. Not being able to use your key attribute as an attack stat means you're starting behind the curve on your accuracy even before you factor in proficiency.

[Staffan Johansson]

FlashRebel wrote:

Having the numbers against you at all levels with your bread-and-butter offensive option is definitely a big deal. Taking proficiency, possible item bonus and maximum possible ability bonus into account, the alchemist is always strictly worse than other classes at hitting things. About a -2 difference with spellcasters that don't have items that improve their spell attack rolls but reach legendary proficiency, and -3 with all other classes that use weapons (-5 with fighters specifically). This is not a negligible difference.

Those values are a little bit off, I think. I plotted the difference between an alchemist that starts with Dex 16, increases it at every opportunity, and always has the highest-level alchemist's goggles that's at or below their level on one hand, and a martial that starts with an 18 in their attack stat, increases it at every opportunity, and always has a potency rune on their weapon that's the highest that's equal to or below their level.

At levels 1-6, it's a difference of 1-2 points. Martials pull ahead at 2nd level because +1 potency is a level 2 item and alchemist's goggles are a level 4 item. At level 4, the alchemist closes the gap to +1 again, but at level 5 the martials pull ahead again: the alchemist gets +1 from their stat, but martials get +2 from proficiency.

At level 7 through 9, the alchemist has achieved parity because they are now also experts in their attacks. At this point, both are experts, have +1 weapons, and an 18-19 in their attack stat.

But it doesn't last. At 10th level, the martials gain a +2 advantage because their stats now go to 20 while the alchemist hits the useless 19, and they also increase their item bonus to +2. At 11th, the alchemist closes that gap a little because that's when goggles +2 come online. But at 13th and above, the martials get master proficiency, and there's really no coming back from that. At this point, martials are 3-4 points ahead (except at 15th, where alchemists catch up to Dex 20 - martials pull ahead again at level 16 because their +3 rune comes online then, and when the goggle go up to +3 at 17 the martials get an apex item for their main stat, and I'm assuming the alchemist gets the Int version).

In other words:
Level 1-6: Slim advantage.
Level 7-9: Parity.
Level 10-12: Slim advantage.
Level 13+: Major advantage.

Your point still stands - the alchemist is behind martials when it comes to attacks, but for most of their career the difference is not as big as 3 points.

If they got to attack with Int, they would mostly be at parity or 1 point behind from level 1 to 12, with the exception of levels 5 and 6 (when the martials are ahead in proficiency). At level 13+, they'd be 2 points behind on account of proficiency (3 points at level 16 because of the difference between item levels on potency runes and alchemist's goggles).

[FlashRebel]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

Those values are a little bit off, I think. I plotted the difference between an alchemist that starts with Dex 16, increases it at every opportunity, and always has the highest-level alchemist's goggles that's at or below their level on one hand, and a martial that starts with an 18 in their attack stat, increases it at every opportunity, and always has a potency rune on their weapon that's the highest that's equal to or below their level.

At levels 1-6, it's a difference of 1-2 points. Martials pull ahead at 2nd level because +1 potency is a level 2 item and alchemist's goggles are a level 4 item. At level 4, the alchemist closes the gap to +1 again, but at level 5 the martials pull ahead again: the alchemist gets +1 from their stat, but martials get +2 from proficiency.

At level 7 through 9, the alchemist has achieved parity because they are now also experts in their attacks. At this point, both are experts, have +1 weapons, and an 18-19 in their attack stat.

But it doesn't last. At 10th level, the martials gain a +2 advantage because their stats now go to 20 while the alchemist hits the useless 19, and they also increase their item bonus to +2. At 11th, the alchemist closes that gap a little because that's when goggles +2 come online. But at 13th and above, the martials get master proficiency, and there's really no coming back from that. At this point, martials are 3-4 points ahead (except at 15th, where alchemists catch up to Dex 20 - martials...

Using intelligence for attack rolls wouldn't be strictly necessary since being a source of damage for your party as an alchemist is an option and not the one purpose of the class. It's just ludicrous to not even be good at it when you pick the research field that screams "damage and debuff". Whatever you pick as a research field, you still remain some sort of supportive jack-of-all-trades. All classes with similar career choices to pick (the barbarian's instinct, the bard's muse, the champion's cause, the cleric's doctrine and deity, the druid's order, the ranger's hunter's edge, the rogue's racket, the sorcerer's bloodline and the wizard's thesis) play differently based on this starting choice and often have access to different exclusive feats. What makes the research fields different is what items can be created indefinitely (most of the time items so weak they're barely useful anyway), what type of items can be created in larger amounts during your daily preparations and a few minor special abilities (the chirurgeon's starting ability is a joke).

The worst part of the alchemist isn't really that intelligence doesn't contribute to attack rolls, it actually barely contributes to anything at all aside from class feats that rapidly become mandatory. Seriously why is Powerful Alchemy not a baseline class feature instead of a level 8 feat?

[Vidmaster7]

I don't think using int for atk rolls is the way to go it lacks a certain amount of creativity. Surely their are other ways to balance a class.

[Aricks]

Not sure if you included this in your math, but goggles only help your perpetual bombs keep up with your higher tier bombs and don't stack with the integrated bomb bonuses.

[Staffan Johansson]

Aricks wrote:

Not sure if you included this in your math, but goggles only help your perpetual bombs keep up with your higher tier bombs and don't stack with the integrated bomb bonuses.

I thought of the integrated bomb bonuses as well, but (assuming you use max-level bombs) the bomb bonus goes up at the same levels as alchemist's goggles do, except that you get +1 bombs at level 3 and goggles at level 4.

But yeah, I didn't double up on the bonuses.

[Alchemic_Genius]

The alchemist's to hit being lower honestly doesn't really hit until level 13, where all the other martials get master proficiency and the alchemist is stuck with expert. Personally, I houserule that the alchemist does go up the master at the same time most martials do and the math comes out pretty nice for them.

I have a number of other houserules for the alchemist, mainly to address the mutagenist, but that's a bit beyond the scope of this thread

[Squiggit]

Yeah I agree the accuracy isn't the worst issue, but it's another layer of minor frustration. Especially for mutagenists, since higher accuracy is one of the main features of bestial and quicksilver mutagens but it ends up only really just compensating for their innate issues so you end up with a character who's both a mediocre combatant and saddled with drawbacks too.

[Zapp]

I think our group will simply write off the class until it receives powerups in the form of official errata.

For one thing - for the foreseeable future we will run APs with access to magic shoppes, and one aspect I identify as a major element of the class is deliberately designed to be worthless: item crafting.

Mutagens are another completely underwhelming category.

And bombs that you create and use in the blink of an eye feel entirely artificial.

Call me when you have an Alchemist class that:
a) provide actual discounts on items, but limit the number of items you can work on ***on level not time***
b) uses a believable at-will weapon. Blackpowder weapons would be cool.
c) uses bombs on a limited basis, but they're 1) powerful and 2) really there to be used by "anyone". Compare scrolls of Fireball
d) mutagens that are actually worthwhile

[Squiggit]

A, B and C are probably never going to happen. Paizo doesn't want an artificier, which is why crafting is a thing alchemists can do but is relatively downplayed and designing another weapon to fill a bomb's niche when bombs already exist seems like a waste of publishing space.

Might be fixes in upcoming errata, but it won't be those.

[Lightning Raven]

I just find it weird that the alchemist class doesn't provide bonuses for items it created. This goes for bombs, mutagens and elixirs.

Everyone should, and already have, access to alchemical items, but it would further enhance the class, and make it bring something meaningful to the table, if every item created by one was above average compared to those store-bought items.

Also, the class DC should be inherent, there's literally zero reason why you should be paying such a tax for something that no other class has to. Honestly, this has been such a no-brainer that I struggle to find any compelling argument against it. Of all the changes that need to happen, the alchemist being able to use its own class DC for items crafted is top priority on my list.

[Reziburno25]

I argue that somone choosing alchemist as their primary class should well get more unquie advantages to alchemical items compared to alchemist mutliclass or just someone who grabs alchemical crafting feat.

To be honest alchemist is meant to be the crafting class but really it treats most crafting same as others.

[Timeshadow]

Five things that I think would really help fix Alchemists
1-3 are additional bonuses for each subtype for their main sthick ie:

1: Bombers get +1 to hit with bombs they create themselves.

2: Muties get +1 to hit and +1 AC wile under the effect of their own mutagens (Honestly these guys are like glass and should get some survivability bonus wile fighting)

3: Churgins get poison options (they become optionally the "poisoner")
I would suggest a feat like quick bomber where they poison (with their own poison) an in hand weapon and strike with it (ranged or melee) as one action. Also I'd give +1 DC with any of their poisons they use themselves as a built in. (Oh and add Giant Centipede venom to their perpetual list)

4: As was suggested earlier alchemists should get an intelligent packing feat/ability that reduces the Bulk of potions/elixirs/bombs that they create to 4 items = 1L and Bandolieered Tools are 1L. This should give them some wiggle room to carry everything they need to do their jobs.

5: Last but not least All Alchemists should get an ability to make/brew/create consumables in half the regular time. This would allow them to use downtime more efficiently. (IE pay 1/2 upfront main check done in 2 days then each day counts as 2 for reducing remaining cost)

I think with these changes not only would Alchemists become fun but it wouldn't unbalance them vs other classes.

[Aricks]

Timeshadow wrote:

Five things that I think would really help fix Alchemists

1-3 are additional bonuses for each subtype for their main sthick ie:

1: Bombers get +1 to hit with bombs they create themselves.

2: Muties get +1 to hit and +1 AC wile under the effect of their own mutagens (Honestly these guys are like glass and should get some survivability bonus wile fighting)

3: Churgins get poison options (they become optionally the "poisoner")
I would suggest a feat like quick bomber where they poison (with their own poison) an in hand weapon and strike with it (ranged or melee) as one action. Also I'd give +1 DC with any of their poisons they use themselves as a built in. (Oh and add Giant Centipede venom to their perpetual list)

4: As was suggested earlier alchemists should get an intelligent packing feat/ability that reduces the Bulk of potions/elixirs/bombs that they create to 4 items = 1L and Bandolieered Tools are 1L. This should give them some wiggle room to carry everything they need to do their jobs.

5: Last but not least All Alchemists should get an ability to make/brew/create consumables in half the regular time. This would allow them to use downtime more efficiently. (IE pay 1/2 upfront main check done in 2 days then each day counts as 2 for reducing remaining cost)

I think with these changes not only would Alchemists become fun but it wouldn't unbalance them vs other classes.

Alternatively to #1, if goggles provided something besides an item bonus to bombs, or give them master bomb throwing.

Like 2 and 3 as well. 4 as well unless a bag of holding is standard gear for a level 5+ alchemist.

I think the 4th level class feat was supposed to be something like #5, but in reality the bulk of the time/cost for at level items is after the 4 day start time. For example, expert crafting an 8 pack of lesser elixirs of life at level 5 would only take you 120 days instead of 124.

[Timeshadow]

Aricks wrote:

Timeshadow wrote:

Five things that I think would really help fix Alchemists

1-3 are additional bonuses for each subtype for their main sthick ie:

1: Bombers get +1 to hit with bombs they create themselves.

2: Muties get +1 to hit and +1 AC wile under the effect of their own mutagens (Honestly these guys are like glass and should get some survivability bonus wile fighting)

3: Churgins get poison options (they become optionally the "poisoner")
I would suggest a feat like quick bomber where they poison (with their own poison) an in hand weapon and strike with it (ranged or melee) as one action. Also I'd give +1 DC with any of their poisons they use themselves as a built in. (Oh and add Giant Centipede venom to their perpetual list)

4: As was suggested earlier alchemists should get an intelligent packing feat/ability that reduces the Bulk of potions/elixirs/bombs that they create to 4 items = 1L and Bandolieered Tools are 1L. This should give them some wiggle room to carry everything they need to do their jobs.

5: Last but not least All Alchemists should get an ability to make/brew/create consumables in half the regular time. This would allow them to use downtime more efficiently. (IE pay 1/2 upfront main check done in 2 days then each day counts as 2 for reducing remaining cost)

I think with these changes not only would Alchemists become fun but it wouldn't unbalance them vs other classes.

Alternatively to #1, if goggles provided something besides an item bonus to bombs, or give them master bomb throwing.

Like 2 and 3 as well. 4 as well unless a bag of holding is standard gear for a level 5+ alchemist.

I think the 4th level class feat was supposed to be something like #5, but in reality the bulk of the time/cost for at level items is after the 4 day start time. For example, expert crafting an 8 pack of lesser elixirs of life at level 5 would only take you 120 days instead of 124.

I'd have this stack with the class feat and you get it at lvl 1 it just makes you able to make things faster and in the end make them half price at best and only for your consumables maby even limit it by you type(IE mutigins/Bombs/Elixers and poisons)

[FlashRebel]

Zapp wrote:

I think our group will simply write off the class until it receives powerups in the form of official errata.

For one thing - for the foreseeable future we will run APs with access to magic shoppes, and one aspect I identify as a major element of the class is deliberately designed to be worthless: item crafting.

Mutagens are another completely underwhelming category.

And bombs that you create and use in the blink of an eye feel entirely artificial.

Call me when you have an Alchemist class that:
a) provide actual discounts on items, but limit the number of items you can work on ***on level not time***
b) uses a believable at-will weapon. Blackpowder weapons would be cool.
c) uses bombs on a limited basis, but they're 1) powerful and 2) really there to be used by "anyone". Compare scrolls of Fireball
d) mutagens that are actually worthwhile

From my personal experience, it seems item crafting has always been a hard part to balance properly in RPGs. I remember playing TES with friends, sharing what were our favourite character builds and approaches to different situations, and it always felt like specializing in crafting was always a strictly better option than anything else: you could literally have everything you needed at the moment you needed it, and it's not like you could find the magic items you needed in shops then crafting was a massive advantage. In most other RPGs, crafting was an afterthought that would never give results comparable to just going to loot for more stuff and was more of a hassle overall.

Getting most magic items at a 50% discount by taking a single feat and pumping Spellcraft through the stratosphere was kind of silly, even when accounting for downtime required, not to mention producing exactly what the party needed (fortunately, you still had to provide spells for scrolls, wands and staves so not everything was possible just from a high Spellcraft modifier).

Crafting still gives the advantage to produce the items you need when you don't have access to shops, the time investment on crafting is far less ludicrous (mundane items were hit the hardest, a single set of full plate armor could take months of downtime to make even with a sky-high Craft modifier) but it's no longer a strict monetary advantage that threatens to break the wealth-by-level system. I think I prefer it that way

[Zapp]

Squiggit wrote:

a thing alchemists can do but is relatively downplayed

Note to the publisher:

Don't commit to a class when you're clearly not prepared to give it the goodies people expect.

Why should I recommend any of my players to play a class whose core features are reined in or "downplayed"?

It seems someone had bad luck thinking, when they decided on the Alchemist as a core class offering...

[Zapp]

Squiggit wrote:

and designing another weapon to fill a bomb's niche when bombs already exist seems like a waste of publishing space.

Not sure what you're thinking about here.

Me mentioning blackpowder weapons surely isn't it, though, since there is a huge believability gap between a character that creates bombs in seconds, yet can't give them to others, on one hand, and shooting blunderbusses or pistols on the other.

If bombs were much like scrolls of Fireball - not everyone can create them, not everyone can use them, but they're real objects that can be traded or purchased, and they have intuitive effects (significant damage over a significant area) - the game would have been MUCH IMPROVED.

Waste of publishing space? I think not.

[Zapp]

Squiggit wrote:

Might be fixes in upcoming errata, but it won't be those.

I guess the Alchemist is doomed to be Pathfinder's version of the 5th Edition Beastmaster Ranger... :-(

[Lightning Raven]

Zapp wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Might be fixes in upcoming errata, but it won't be those.

I guess the Alchemist is doomed to be Pathfinder's version of the 5th Edition Beastmaster Ranger... :-(

It has similar structural problems of the Envoy from Starfinder, albeit the Alchemist does fare a little better than that one.

[Zapp]

Since I don't know anything about Starfinders or Envoys, I'll simply summarize what's wrong with the Player's Handbook Beastmaster Ranger subclass:

You gain an animal companion that simply isn't sturdy enough to send into combat without becoming the weak link of the party. A simple Fireball can kill it. And you must continuously give up your action for it to do anything.

And when the devs were called on this they responded in the most heinously dismissive way possible "get a guard dog or something": a blow in the face for all lovers of animal companions - referring to the fact that ANY character can recruit or hire or purchase an NPC ally with its own action economy. Including the critters spellcasters can summon.

In other words: the main feature of your subclass is clunkier and worse than just about every other option, instead of the other way 'round it should be.

Even to this day five years later they STILL haven't
1) admitted the PHB Ranger Beastmaster sucks ("our data says it sees a lot of play" as if that absolves them from an actually good design)
2) published a corrected variant
3) or even a worthy successor*

*) All they have managed to come up with in five years time is various wishy-washy UA efforts that remain playtest material only.

Is any of this what you mean by "structural problems"?

PS. Obviously I don't think the Alchemist comes anywhere near the tragedy of the Beastmaster. But it does appear as if Paizo isn't quite ready to admit one of their CRB offerings was a dud, and needs serious restructuring (not just a new paintjob with a small tweak here and there) Which is the similarity that made me think of the D&D subclass.

[Lightning Raven]

Zapp wrote:

Since I don't know anything about Starfinders or Envoys, I'll simply summarize what's wrong with the Player's Handbook Beastmaster Ranger subclass:

You gain an animal companion that simply isn't sturdy enough to send into combat without becoming the weak link of the party. A simple Fireball can kill it. And you must continuously give up your action for it to do anything.

And when the devs were called on this they responded in the most heinously dismissive way possible "get a guard dog or something": a blow in the face for all lovers of animal companions - referring to the fact that ANY character can recruit or hire or purchase an NPC ally with its own action economy. Including the critters spellcasters can summon.

In other words: the main feature of your subclass is clunkier and worse than just about every other option, instead of the other way 'round it should be.

Even to this day five years later they STILL haven't
1) admitted the PHB Ranger Beastmaster sucks ("our data says it sees a lot of play" as if that absolves them from an actually good design)
2) published a corrected variant
3) or even a worthy successor*

*) All they have managed to come up with in five years time is various wishy-washy UA efforts that remain playtest material only.

Is any of this what you mean by "structural problems"?

PS. Obviously I don't think the Alchemist comes anywhere near the tragedy of the Beastmaster. But it does appear as if Paizo isn't quite ready to admit one of their CRB offerings was a dud, and needs serious restructuring (not just a new paintjob with a small tweak here and there) Which is the similarity that made me think of the D&D subclass.

The Envoys aren't exactly broken like what you're described, but the whole class itself have some issues that keep piling on and on and makes the whole to be way weaker than every other class. What's worse is that it's supposed to be a skill-monkey class with a support-oriented playstyle, which makes things even harder to discuss because every time there will be someone claiming they've having fun with their character, but that doesn't necessarily mean fun because of the class. The biggest problem is similar to the Beastmaster's problem of having its main shtick wrecking your action economy, but instead of giving up an action, the Envoy's at will abilities all compete EVERY round for your actions and what's even worse? They must be applied over and over again every round.

They overestimated the value of the Envoy's at will abilities and in turn gave a bunch of restrictions and small effects, on top of being highly situational of course, when the game itself will rarely ever reach a point where their main strength, infinite resources, become something relevant. The party will always stop when other member's main resources are out anyway, so the Envoy just gets stuck with weak at will abilities that have low impact. Also, not to forget, the class also is the ONLY one that have no new features leveling up past level 3, it only has choices (every class gets choices) and these choices stop at 8th level (the last book added 2 or 3 more choices for level 12, they're not that great), it has no spells neither a better chassis than a spellcaster to compensate.

[Squiggit]

Zapp wrote:

Don't commit to a class when you're clearly not prepared to give it the goodies people expect.

Did anyone expect the PF2 alchemist to be a dedicated crafter? The PF1 Alchemist wasn't even particularly good at crafting with the way magical item crafting worked in that system (and the way alchemical consumables fall off).

You have a point about bombers and mutagenists, but crafting definitely feels wAD.

Lightning Raven wrote:

It has similar structural problems of the Envoy from Starfinder, albeit the Alchemist does fare a little better than that one.

I'd disagree completely. The envoy has a really solid niche available to it in terms of the buffs/debuffs they can provide. It offers unique stuff to the party that's reasonably effective. There are very clearly strong envoy builds that provide stuff to the party other classes can't. They aren't as strong as operatives, but they're definitely solid.

The alchemist's biggest problems are that it's really unfocused as a class mechanically, with a whole bunch of scattered options that don't quite come together... and its unique stuff is just getting items anyone can buy for free.

[Lightning Raven]

Squiggit wrote:

Zapp wrote:

Don't commit to a class when you're clearly not prepared to give it the goodies people expect.

Did anyone expect the PF2 alchemist to be a dedicated crafter? The PF1 Alchemist wasn't even particularly good at crafting with the way magical item crafting worked in that system (and the way alchemical consumables fall off).

You have a point about bombers and mutagenists, but crafting definitely feels wAD.

Lightning Raven wrote:

It has similar structural problems of the Envoy from Starfinder, albeit the Alchemist does fare a little better than that one.

I'd disagree completely. The envoy has a really solid niche available to it in terms of the buffs/debuffs they can provide. It offers unique stuff to the party that's reasonably effective. There are very clearly strong envoy builds that provide stuff to the party other classes can't. They aren't as strong as operatives, but they're definitely solid.

The alchemist's biggest problems are that it's really unfocused as a class mechanically, with a whole bunch of scattered options that don't quite come together... and its unique stuff is just getting items anyone can buy for free.

The problem isn't that the Envoy doesn't have useful abilities, the core ones are considered core because they're the best ones (Get'em, Inspiring Boost and Clever Feint), but the issue is how the action economy is terrible, how the "gameplay loop" of the class is completely focused on repeatedly using the same stuff over and over without any meaningful variation. The Envoy class as a whole could've really used a lengthy playtest, it still feels clunky, like a class still in beta. You know things aren't exactly running smoothly with the class when features within itself specifically call out synergy exclusions (dispiriting taunt, rattling presence, etc). Also, the class doesn't have neither big choices to make (Soldier's combat styles and Operative's specialization) neither gain features over level while every single other class not only has class paths, features and also have the same choices the Envoy have, on top of it, the class completely stops at 8th level and has been this way until recently when they dropped a couple more class features for 12th level. If it at least had a base chassis that compensate for the utter lack of progression and spells (a factor that often compensates a weak chassis and poor progression), then it would be considered fine.

The class has it's strengths, but the class doesn't come nowhere near close to reaching its full potential or at least offering some actually cool choices (specially compared to other classes).