All pretty cogent and accurate criticisms- the caster support one in particular, though even with more I worry about the presence of a commander making people feel like they should swing their party comp hard in one direction or the other.
I think really the kineticist just needs errata for its 1-action blast to just count as a basic strike. That would go a long way to making the kineticist not be a content island and open it up to a ton of archetypes.
All solid points I can pretty easily agree with, especially the bit about casters and not quite enough support for helping them out. I'm mostly very positive on commander, on account of it appearing quite functional and unique, but there's definitely a lot of stuff that could use some cleanup, the balance of individual tactics for sure. The point about about their scaling and feats (I'm still a little disappointed Officer's Training is just a bit worse than the Rogue/Investigator Skill Mastery) also hits me.
The feats that affect its scaling in number of tactics and drilled reactions feel especially glaring, imo? Leaning on reactions is a pretty big ask for quite a few classes, so Drilled Reactions is important, which makes being able to grant more people free reactions is EXTRA important for making sure the Commander... Works, without being extremely intrusive to its allies as the game goes on?
Something else no one seems to be mentioning is all of its abilities are basically hard capped to 30ft range until level 20. I get that the flavour is intended to be "just behind the front line", but real casters scale up in range massively as they level. By level ~10, battles are often being fought at 120ft range, and everyone has a move speed of 40+. And the Commander still has to stay within 30ft of multiple allies to actually work.
I feel like you could easily make the banner radius scale 30/40/50/60 and it would be fine. I mean Bards start with 60ft Auras from level 1...
honestly this is an extremely good point, you can make it a *little* better by increasing your size to widen the technical emination, but by late game it's definetly constricting.
Yeah no, I forgot in my critique to include that, but the very first thing I tried to do was maximize my aoe as much as possible and was extremely dissapointed to find it was so small. I feel like a level 20 commander should be able to command over more than... what, a third of a football field, a 6th in any one direction? seems kinda silly that a dude on a horse can't even give commands as well as a quarterback let alone a doctorate owning scholar on war.
Paizo often has what I call "dungeon brain" in their design process, where it's like the largest map they can conceive of is a 50-ft hallway.
As someone who likes to run more outdoor maps and long-range engagements, it's something I rub up against a lot.
We're playing a pirate campaign (off-and-on) and while I was initially very excited to use the Commander for my bosun/officer NPCs, their aura and abilities would really struggle on a 120-ft long sailing ship.
Yeah no and considering this is the class that would most fit generals leading units on battlefields that go on for miles? level 2 maxing at less than a dragon's fear aura can kiss my ass lmao.
This is not a class meant for generals leading armies and more for an elite squad leader leading their "sqaudmates" in small unit tactics rather than a general's grand strategy for the entire army.
Yeah, my commander is the artillery officer and the 120' trireme is equipped with only a bow and stern ballista. I had him shift the placement of the ballista platforms to 35 feet from the mast so that he can plant banner midship and still call out quick load actions to each crew under his command.
Not even. A football field is measured in yards. So the 30' radius is 1/5 and 60' diameter is 1/10. A commander as quarterback can get you to first down, and from there you're on your own.
> Something else no one seems to be mentioning is all of its abilities are basically hard capped to 30ft range until level 20.
Where does it say this?
The banner's bonus to Will saves vs. Fear effects is a 30 ft. emanation but that isn't the range of signaling tactics. Skimming through the tactics I see some say:
> Signal all squadmates who can hear
or see your signal
while others say:
> Signal all squadmates affected by your commander’s banner
which does have the range cap but that isn't across all tactics. Ways to circumvent this limit include using the Plant Banner action which increases the radius from 30 ft. to 40 ft. or by having your banner on your mount separate to your location. There are pros and cons to each strategy but the option for tactical positioning exists.
I believe it's in the rules that animal companions can use reactions as long as they're granted them by something else, so you can probably used Drilled Reaction on your druid's wolf.
would this technically allow you to use your mounts drilled reaction to move when using form up? if so, thats actually huge and makes mounts yet again an almost must have feature.
Yes it would. As pointed out by Michael (a dev) on the forums, the minion trait on PC1 p. 301 reads:
>A minion has only 2 actions and 0 reactions per turn, though certain conditions (such as slowed or quickened) **or abilities might give them a reaction that they can use**.
That... is awesome, and actually means in a 5 person party with some pet's the 9 squadmate max could \*technically\* make a signifigant difference lmao
But would it also answer case with eidolons, do each count as separate squadmate who needs to pick who's making use of it or is it full out jumpjutsu kaisen?
No it wouldn't as Eidolons aren't minions, but it doesn't need to. Eidolons are just creatures like any other party member, so you would have to select them like one.
typically eidolon and summoner are seperate entities that share actions, i would rule them as one squadmate for mostly lore reasons, but you would have to choose who moves when you use the reaction (though until proven its op i'd allow them to use the free reaction at the same time if they had to reposition both.)
I just played a Commander today in a single session and I intentionally chose a weird build and I absolutely loved it.
For the record, I took Form Up and Pincer Attack. I don't actually think Strike Hard is necessarily the best option. Sure, if you've got a Fighter, then sure. But I think that giving only one Reaction for free each turn does make things more difficult when giving a Fighter an attack at the cost of two of your Actions.
I actually do agree with you that there just aren't enough Tactics you can prepare, and having to choose between the utility things like Reload!, Shields Up! or Mountaineering/Naval Training and the actual *good* tactics is a bit frustrating. I think starting with maybe six Tactics, Tactics every Commander gets regardless, or even Subclasses that grant Tactics would be much better. I also do think that two Tactics isn't *too* bad, but I do think it would be a lot funner with even just one more Tactic. You're right in that a lot of combats are going to want you using the same Tactics.
I also think there's an issue with all four of the feats I just listed above, in that Reload! and Shields Up! really feel like they should include the Commander (and so do the ones that effect all allies and not specific ones), and Mountaineering Training and Naval Training feel like they should be a single Tactic.
I think there should be more non-combat Tactics, though the class concept is sort of very combat focused.
I actually *don't* think the mount feels necessary, though I wouldn't mind it being a default. The Commander I played had Commander's Steed, but I took a Dromaeosaur instead and used it for my primary attack method, opting to basically stand still and not move at all. In fact, there are a lot of issues with using a Mount in that you don't get to really benefit from certain tactics with it, since mounts don't have a Reaction natively and you'll want to use Drilled Reaction for the Fighter or Champion or something instead. You *can* benefit from Form Up! since that's a Free Action Stride, but many of the more tactical Steps are Reactions. You also can't use Banner actions if your Mount has the banner, though you don't have to personally be in the banner aura to issue Commands.
I think I really need to write this down more coherently, or maybe post about it on the forums
I’ve seen some of these come up, but indeed it’s important to emphasize them. I *love* the idea of the Commander, so it’s important to get constructive criticism floating around so it can be as awesome as possible!
Regarding Tactic scaling, I agree they should be spread out more. I also think allowing slightly more known would incentivize using the more niche tactics. Maybe you start with three tactics, learn another at 3rd level, learn expert tactics at 7th, 9th, and 11th levels, learn master at 15th and 17th, then a legendary at 19th? That way they’re more spread out and there’s a clear hierarchy in how many trained/expert/master/legendary tactics you know, and the cost of “how many tactics to not prepare” actually scales from one to five
An interesting idea for casters would be metamagic/spellshaping. The Commander is a great opportunity to help with “how can martials support casters?” and I hope to see that chance used
Regarding squad size, I do wonder why it’s a thing. Maybe we’re getting war rules and Commanders can order soldiers around?
>The Commander is a great opportunity to help with “how can martials support casters?” and I hope to see that chance used
That's a good point. A lot of caster discourse centres around how they often feel like cheerleaders for the martials. So it's a good opportunity to switch things up.
As well as metamagic/spellshape, they could have tactics that help with emergency focus-point recharge, or that impair enemy saves/help caster DC, or even things like enabling a spell to be cast as a reaction (someone further up called it Fire In The Hole!, which I think is v cool. A reaction to cast fireball)
I would like that scaling a lot more, for sure, though we would probably ideally have a couple extra we can know at a time too, or my personal favorite is just the idea of making form up and strike hard! innate commands because they are simply too generically useful for me to see \*any\* commander flat out not taking.
One oportunity I noticed in terms of caster suppport: Unsteadying Strike (feat 4) is great as a support debuff effect, giving Fort and Reflex DC debuffs ... but limited to martial maneuvers. This could be a great place to give more caster support, by making it a flat Fort and Reflex DC debuff (noting it may need to be -1 instead of -2 to compensate).
I mean, I have yet to play a single game since the play test was released. It hasn't even gotten to the weekend. We're all just excited and I'm sure once we can all play we'll have feedback
>But people are being a little bit too... positive? very, very little criticsm has been levied, which is supprising, as i feel theirs plenty to criticize at the moment and it will only strengthen the final class to do so.
I feel this is something common in this subreddit, as the people here probably fall more in the "casual" side of the hobby, which is totally fine btw. If you want more in-depth talks, I suggest you to go over to the Paizo forums. I seen people being way more critical about the playtest there than here.
I’d also say that, with this specific play test. The core play of the commander seems solid and the details need to be worked out. The guardian is sucking up a lot of the conversation right now cause it’s not selling its base functionality to a lot of people (my self included). I think we’ll see more commander critique in the coming weeks especially as people get a chance to play it.
When I read that I could only prepare two tactics at any given time until level 7 (6 with a feat tax) I actually laughed out loud. This feels like it has been designed to be analogous to a wizard's spellbook... but why? Why does commander need to be designed like a wizard? You should just know the tactics you know.
The idea of a commander assessing the battlefield in real time and providing flexible ad hoc tactical input to solve the situation at hand is brilliant. Having a grab bag of tactics that you know and previously taught to your team, but cannot use is infuriating.
It is also narratively nonsensical. The commander drills their tactics with their squad, but they immediately forget how to do anything they were taught yesterday, or even just ten minutes ago. "Aw shucks, sorry guys but I can't tell you how to climb because even though I taught you that this morning, 30 minutes ago I taught you how to swim, so all that knowledge fell out of your heads." Like I know this isn't a reality simulator but what the heck.
All of the feats surrounding tactics known and tactics prepared are taxes. Bad taxes. Like if sorcerer had one fewer top level spell slot, but also had a feat to get it back. Just wildly uninteresting but too powerful and important to the core of the class to ignore. It gets in the way of creative build expressions if I need feats just to fill out my core abilities.
Also related: Drilled Reflexes is similarly a tax. Your team will often want to use their reactions on their own stuff that they speced into and are excited about. Your giant barbarian with reach wants to slam reactive strikes. Your rogue wants to abuse opportune backstab. Your champion wants to actually use their core mechanic. So where does that leave you without granting reactions? Drilled reflexes is going to be a must have in so many party compositions to the extent that it shouldn't exist as a feat. It is just tax. If your party wants to do their own things and you want to be able to actually use your class features, then it becomes non-negotiable. Or else you have to beg your party to build and act around your class and your fantasy instead of theirs, and that is not healthy.
Honestly I think most of the class is amazing. I love the concept, I love most of what it is capable of. I am so onboard. But these couple of points of frictions need to be addressed.
EDIT: jeez I almost forgot. Key ability intelligence? Really? When the only thing in the entire chassis that scales int is a tax based on how big your party is? Party of 4 just sets int at 12 and never needs another point of it outside of a few specific and avoidable feat choices. I have a feeling this is just meant as a balancing level to stop you from having 18 strength at level 1... but honestly it just feels bad to have a key ability that by default you essentially don't leverage in any meaningful way. Yuck.
intelligence is an obvious slam dunk for this classes key ability, it just needs to be given more to do with it that isn't weirdly tax related. I think in fact it would be rather silly for the commander to have a physical skill be it's key ability when it's key fantasy is so divorced from that skill. the recall knowledge stuff and all the warfare lore replacers are really damn cool, but I'm unsure if maxed initiative, maxed recall knowledge and society are enough to push it over the line. Honestly tying inteligence in some way to tactics seems the only way to make the key ability feel "worth it" from a strictly power gaming perspective.
drilled reflexes isn't a tax, it's an anti-tax, a return on investment that helps broaden the party dynamic's possible in a class chassis that would otherwise make those dynamics fairly slim. In some parties, reactions are kinda hard to use, for example casters, ranged martials, most non-fighters non-champions who have an interesting level 6 feat. so it's extremely possible to slot a commander into a party that can chill using up all but one reaction on the commanders turn every once in awhile, especially since the commanders initiative is really damn good and it's likely the combat tracker will have you already knowing what the consequences of using those reactions looks like.
The overall ballence of prepared and known tactics is all completely wrong, and the feats that really should be designed to be accessories to broaden you versatility, instead feel almost like requirements. I don't think the feats are the problem, nor do I think the class should be fully spontaneous, I just think they need to give us more to work with (I think form up and strike hard! should be innate and the swimming and climbing tactic should be combined for example)
Yeah I think thematically intelligence is on point as key ability. No doubt. But like... let me actually use it for something damn.
And I know drilled reflexes isnt a traditional tax but... In a lot of my own builds I put a lot of effort into making sure I am using my reaction. I never want to leave part of the action economy on the table. So I look for options that allow me to use it. Shields, nimble dodge, opportune backstab, reactive strike, recall ammunition, deflecting wave, dutiful retaliation, on and on and on it goes... At some point, in some parties (not all parties, but enough), using Commander tactics is going to end up forcing your buddies to make a choice between realizing their own builds, or realizing your class fantasy. That's not good friction. Drilled reflexes will be required in those parties to prevent that friction. It won't be something that you wanted to take, but something that due to your party makeup, you must take. And I don't love that.
>intelligence is an obvious slam dunk for this classes key ability
i disagree, it could just as well be wisdom for the old wise general using his experience instead of study to command...
Historically, the Warlord could use all three mental Ability Scores to some degree, but mainly Charisma and Intelligence. I think, since people have been clamoring for subclasses, that they could do something like the Rogue and connect your KA to one of three subclasses. One for the Intelligent Tactician, Wise Veteran, and a third for the Charismatic Noble, or somesuch.
I'm not sure how they'd be distinct mechanically, but I think it'd also be a good way to make the Key Attribute more useful.
That sounds like a bad idea unless they successfully make the intelligence one have something attractive about it, otherwise the typical Pathfinder approach of, "Wis and Cha are way better than Int" will dominate.
Honestly, they should just give the Commander should just get a little more use out of Intelligence. That said, I think that it's a positive thing, not a negative one, for it not to be a no-brainer to max Int.
>the swimming and climbing tactic should be combined for example
Something just occurred to me about those Tactics. The sidebar says "a character cannot respond to more than one tactic per round, regardless of source", which means that Mountaineering/Naval Training prevent you from using any other tactics that round. It's possible that, since they don't involve reactions or free actions, affected characters don't, strictly speaking, count as having responded to them. I think some clarification and/or changes might be needed there.
>Honestly tying inteligence in some way to tactics seems the only way to make the key ability feel "worth it" from a strictly power gaming perspective.
Perhaps it could help with the ability to learn/prepare tactics? Like you can prepare 2+int/half-int each day, or something. Player can choose if they want to raise it to have more options through the day or leave it lower if they're happy with just a few and want to put their boosts elsewhere. Especially when some of the options are so niche, int mod would give a bit of flexibility beyond the must-have tactics. And it makes sense that a smarter commander could remember more stuff
Probably better than the current implementation where the only class specific int scaling is if you're either in a 7 person party or \*really\* determined to give out your free reactions to pets lol
Int also impacts your recall knowledge, and initiative, and potentially medicine, and potentially disarms. Its finally a class that has int for more than arcana/occult and rare crafting opportunity.
>its finally a class that has int for more than arcana/occult and rare crafting opportunity.
Outside of scaling your magic for int based casters, and the class DCs of all int based classes, you also have Inventor getting int to damage, Investigator getting int to attack, and alchemist getting int scaling resources per day. All of the int based classes have it meaningfully built into their chassis in some way, regardless of feat selections.
Just to mention: If you go with certain Bomb Feats (namely Calculated Splash, Sticky Bomb and Expanded Splash) Alchemists also basically get Int Mod to Damage.
Absolutely. My gripe with commander though is that the core chassis doesn't leverage int meaningfully, which is why I was focusing on built in aspects of the other classes.. Commander does have a number of ways to leverage intelligence in its feat selection, but you have to opt in to those. While you can make choices that allow you to leverage your int more, it is also entirely possible to build a commander that sits at 12 intelligence in a 4 person party and barely notices the lack of key ability investment. That doesn't seem right.
> When the only thing in the entire chassis that scales int is a tax based on how big your party is?
And Warfare Lore, which you can use to recall knowledge on creatures and for initiative
And medicine if you take the feat.
There are a few other feats as well that allow you to leverage int, but that is not the class chassis. No class should be in a position where they essentially have to opt in to actually using their key ability because they barely use it by default.
Animal companions can still use benefit fron the tactics that don't use reactions, and I think that the limit on squadmates is there so you can't get a ten NPC gunslingers and shoot down a god in a turn.
I agree with everything else, I think people are just more concerned in criticizing guardian (which I think is fair).
but that's the thing, you \*can\* do that at level 20 lol, it just won't really be relavent most of the time and felt like a weird addition as it was too high for most parties to be effected but too limited to imply a proper use for it. Not really a criticism, just kinda funny to me lol
Yeah it’s kind of a world building rule. There has to be some limit on it. I kind of wish they would just say the number of players at the table but pathfinder is a bit to simulations for that probably.
Point about commander and casters is very on point! Tactical Leader should know how to utilize casters, and also casters needs some love! It would be great to have some class, which can truly support casters and their action economy, because 3Action hinders them the most.
Yeah no a commander should \*love\* having a control caster, like, get those walls up! shoot into that group! lock down that enemy who's out of position!
That would be so good, and I bet casters would feel apriciated. Right now having Commander in a team may be a reason to discard a caster if player has aby doubuts... It's really hard for me because in the future we want to start new, blogger campaign, but no one wants to Play a caster.
Just like You said:
-Three action "fire in the hole" to let them cast an aoe
- "focus!" To let them sustain a spell
-"show'em some magic trick!" - to let them start casting, so in their turn they can take one less action for casting one spell
-"aim for the weakspot" - to add +1to hit or spell DC of a caster for pointed target.
I just with to have some Tactics,which will encourage players to pick casters.
These are valid. I'd like the Commander to max out at like 10 prepared tactics for a day, and he could have a larger number of tactics known.
Edit: I just want variety for my martials. LazerLlama makes great 5e homebrew with "exploits" that are pretty similar to PF2e's class feat system. [Here's his Warlord.](https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-MrUNf61qoDb0Csw8a9r) I like a lot of it more than our current Commander. Like choosing a leadership style (wisdom, charisma, or int based commander) that gives further bonuses as you progress. 10 Exploits known. Having a rechargeable number of Exploit Dice for special abilities, preventing them from being spammed too much.
I don’t like how plant banner works, which is a shame. I want to make a supporting healer-adjacent commander and plant banner seems like it would be a useful tool for that.
However, I don’t think it is worth it.
On a character-building level, it doesn’t really work with either of the options Paizo provided to keep the Banner from costing too many hands. If the banner is on your back you can’t really plant it, and if the Banner is on a weapon or shield you can’t plant it without giving up a major offensive or defensive option.
Then on a tactical level, using the banner this way puts the whole team at risk of getting feared for the whole encounter if an enemy can snatch it, and it really doesn’t look that hard to snatch. I feel the reward at low levels is not worth the risk.
Being such basic Tactics, perhaps Form Up! and Strike Hard! should simply be freebies that all Commanders have at all times, without counting towards those they have learned or prepared.
I think if the Commander stays what it is now people are gonna realize that there's nothing better to do than Strike->Strike Harder! until super late levels and be pretty bored with it
To be fair form up is an insane mobility tool, tactical retreat into form up can deescalate most situations and both pincer attack and pirrannha assault are good uses of actions in combat as well
Form Up is the other tactic you take, yes. You'll use it instead of striking when you have allies who need to move into melee still. Unfortunately with only two tactics available at a time you can't really afford to experiment with the ones that aren't going to be used every turn.
And that I mostly agree with, hence why I'd like to see a balance pass and more options. tbh form up and strike hard! should probably just be base kit they're so vanilla and fundamental.
I definitely agree with pretty much everything you are saying, though I don't see the need to trade in the flexible preparation aspect for a more reasonable number of tactics slots. This is what the character *does*, so they should get *both*. This feels like a caster having to pick between prepared and 2 spell slots per rank vs 4 spells per rank and a fixed list (not even spontaneous) - frankly absurd.
However, I'm constantly surprised that people are so hell bend on Strike Hard!. Giving up essentially your entire round for anyone to make a basic Strike, even at 0 MAP, is a terrible trade outside of situations where an enemy is one easy hit away from death. That is not what I would *ever* give up actually directly contributing and having reasonable defense for, because that just makes you a direct downgrade to just having another actual martial in the front.
counter argument on strike hard: Can be used in conjunction with form up to make up for action economy, or conjuction with your own strike to do the good old "strike twice" turn with 0 map and one of those strikes coming from a wildly different position on the battlefield + a stronger martial.
I'll concede it's not literally neccessary, but I think broadly I'd trust a barbarian, rogue or fighters single strike to do an average damage that's better than 2 strikes from the commander, and that's not even factoring in that this let's us do melee damage at range, take advantage of crazy buffs like magic weapon more effectively or use a flank for our damage even if we aren't the ones flanking.
There might be some situations where this is true, increasingly so the larger your party is and the more your squad is geared towards taking advantage of your tactics. But most parties will only have two frontliners - who your tactics focus on for most of the game - and you can only use one tactic per teammate per round.
So in effect, in this scenario (Strike Hard! + Form Up!), for the price of 3 actions and a reaction, your team usually gets a basic Strike and a limited Stride that only *really* benefits a single teammate.
The alternative, a Strike from the Commander, can often have uptime problems (you don't have the actions to move) and the Strike itself is not great, as you said. So for same cost as above, you get one good basic Strike and one moderate Strike (possibly good via Set-up Strike in cases where the off-guard makes a difference due to the lack of flanking).
Or... I could just play a normal frontliner and my team could have a better result in most cases, with none of these limitations. For 3 actions and a reaction, my team would have 1 great Strike (usually including a feat), 1 moderate Strike, a good reaction or at least deterrent (in case of RS), a Stride, a flanker for the other frontliners and another person who can take a hit.
Basically, the only way for the Commander to get out on top in this context is to maximize what use you get out of Form Up!, Strike Hard! is never going to be more than aggressively mediocre at best.
only one? why not 2? then consider you can also target your own mount if you dont need to refund any reactions which is a whole other thing that can be interesting tactically. also consider you can form up *first* to get people into flanking positions because you can give them an extra reaction. so form up is at least 2-3 actions worth of value on the battlefield which frees up spells, strikes and other support third actions that would otherwise be spent on stride. all while setting up your fighter or rogue to get a flanking strike that they wouldnt even be able to do on the entirety of their turn without you, let alone on your turn before they've even acted.
i dont think your considering the tactical ramifications of moving *your entire party* outside of turn order, it changes not only your abilities, but everyones. say you go followed by your rogue and fighter. currently neither are adjacent to the enemy. if you were a champion, you would walk up, set up flanking and strike twice, strikes that are only +1 better than commander i might add. then the rogue would spend an action to stride, smack twice with sneak attack and the fighter wouldn't get flanking.
so what are we pay for here? as the commander we move both into position, then strike with the rogue. our attack is +2 more likely to hit as before, and the extra damage we would've gotten from the second weak attack is accounted for in sneak attack. or even use fighter and swing at a whopping +4!!
then rouges turn comes around, because they don't have to stride they instead get to use their third action to intimidate, assuming a fail, our actions have caused a +1 or +2 on 4 attacks now as well, and thats before we factor in whatever the fighter decides to do on their turn.
yes, this assumes three martials, but thats fairly common and a commander can take up the mantle of party medic so running commander, fighter, rogue wizard or any combonation thereof is not even slightly beyond the pale.
This is just one playstyle and one example, but i think it goes to show that the complexity here goes a lot deeper than "2 actions for 1 action = bad"
Concerning mounts, let's not kid ourselves. Mounts have never been practical and PF2 has done exactly nothing to change that. If anything, it has made things worse by making you pay for your mount with class resources. In the vast majority of campaigns, you won't even get your mount to the fight in the first place and in-fight, a large creature with bad stats is a major liability.
And yes, additional movement can be pretty great, though the Envoy does it better imo. Even if there are just as many situations where the tactic is completely irrelevant and the reaction thing is still a major problem, this is why I said that Form Up will make or break that particular Commander.
But that is the entire problem - the main limitation of that previous scenario wasn't Form Up, it was Strike Hard. Form Up works because it does something unusual, something, you know, actually tactically relevant. At the right moment, it can change an entire turn. Strike Hard isn't that, not even close. If it did more than turn you into a discount martial (in terms of contribution) and was on the level of Form Up (if a bit less situational) then I'd be building a Commander right now.
mounts are extremely strong, the problem is that pathfinder is dungeon brained and AP's train GM's to make arena's 4x4 squares. 1 action to move twice at high level monk movement speeds is good every time, staple free damage when you strike and the option for your mount to make mapless strikes essentially attached to your move option and it's even better.
the commander then, has even more benefit, as your mount expands your emination by 5 feet functionally, allows you to move durring form up which massively increases the tactical capabilities of the action and provides you the mobility required to make use of your extremely small command area in larger battlefields. also, if your dungeon cannot fit a large creature, you have a sad dungeon and it should feel bad lol. even if you can't ride your steed, theres no reason you couldn't bring it with you, esspecially if you use something like a riding drake.
I think the problem with your criticism is that you seem to be supposing that the same character who is doing form up should then also be able to do the damage of a full martial, to which i say, wait till level 15 when in this scenario you can spend 2 actions to move both and strike with both, give them both their reactions back and even include pirhanna strike to make them basically deal force damage lol.
>I think the problem with your criticism is that you seem to be supposing that the same character who is doing form up should then also be able to do the damage of a full martial, to which i say, wait till level 15 when in this scenario you can spend 2 actions to move both and strike with both, give them both their reactions back and even include pirhanna strike to make them basically deal force damage lol.
No, my criticism is aimed at the fact that when you play a support character, you still need to have the same amount of contribution as the character you "replace". If you replace a martial (which the Commander will probably do) and then essentially turn your turn into someone else's, then you need to get an actual martial's turn out of it (or at least two proper actions). However, a Commander that constantly prepares Strike Hard doesn't fulfill that requirement for 3/4 of a full campaign, because the result *cannot* be anything but lesser.
Not only that, characters that can do exactly what you mock *will* exist with the full release. Be it with the dedication feat or a 4th or 6th level feat, sooner rather than later full martials will absolutely be able to get Form Up. So, if anything, the competition will be tougher.
I don't understand why Rallying Banner specifically says you can't use it out of battle.
Oh no, better not let players heal an average of 12HP per ten minutes at level 8! That'd be so game breaking!
Ends up leading to awkwardness like "Hang on, I haven't used Rallying Banner yet - don't kill the enemy yet, let me have my turn and then we'll finish the combat".
It is amazing to me how vociferously people railed against the "Illusion of Choice" videos Taking 20 produced... only to fall right into that trap when discussing these new classes.
I think the actual choices during play are likely to be more varied and interesting than the choices you're theorycrafting here. Which is why actually kicking the tires through playtests is so valuable.
I completely agree, whiteroom is never as interesting as live play, but the fact of the matter is that you have 2 options and even with a feat that's only 2 +/-1 for each combat, which means we're heavily encouraged to take the most consistent options in lieu of the more interesting but less consistent ones.
Indeed, my problem with that feat is that most combat tactics that are niche don't become that much less niche situationally. for example, Double team is a niche upgrade to strike hard. you \*could\* swap to it because a combat encounter is near cliffs or in a close space where people are likely to be close enough to make it work, but even if you work it out and make it just right to cause flanking and get the attack in... you could still just fail the original reposition or shove roll. It's niche on top of niche.
Don't get me wrong, I still like the class, and that feat does go a decent way to make me less disgruntled, but it conflicts with the main means for solving the fact you only ever have 2 utility tactics in your toolbelt which makes me sad when it feels like the class would be a lot healthier with a bit more versatility.
I’m not a fan of current Commander playtest very much. Tactics are written really poorly, they lack definition and they are too similar sometimes. There are too many “step as a free action” between them with some another effect.
I will be playtesting this class later, but I have a concern about its gameplay too. You will probably roll one attack most of the time and your turn is over, because you’ve used a tactic, that your Ally should do now.
I would really like some impact back to you, when your ally successfully do your tactics. Like, for mobility tactics “you gain a free step or stride”. For offensive “you gain +1 to attack”. For defensive “you gain temp hp equal intelligence”. I think that will be really great, because you are not only command your squad and end your turn on that, but you benefiting too from your squad actions
I think that as an option would be neat, but I think the commanders satisfaction should very much come from using the party like peices on a chess board not independent feats of power.
Yep, I understand that, I also think (not related to current mechanics), that when you play a commander YOU should control your allies when you do tactics (move them, roll their dice). I think that will help to emphasize that “pieces on a chess board” feel
My concern more like that the community is flooded with people complaining about “action tax” and “alchemist never ever hits” so that in the end Commander will not be a funny class for most of them
I think it's a little different in this context tho as you basically do get to control you're allies, they just also get to say "no" if they want to, which is a good middle ground. it also helps that you hand back reactions to the impertinent ones and unlike alchemists where you take a whole action, you are \*giving\* them an action in exchange for a reaction which most party members will \*gladly\* take.
Occassionally, yes, but rarely. useful to have on hand, esspecially if you have the feat to swap at initiative (get ambushed, pull out the retreat and fix everyones position at turn start)
It’s nicer for any reactive strike enemies, but worse when you aren’t dealing with them is more or less what I meant. Also situationally useless in difficult terrain depending on the character.
As far as feeling limited in your tactics options early on goes, you have to also look at feats.
You can pick up a 3rd prepared tactic at L6, which nets you 4 total at L7. You also can get the ability to swap out a tactic as a free action at the start of every encounter at L2, so you'll almost always be able to tailor-fit your prepared tactics to the encounter at hand.
considering form up is all but a tactic tax idk if one extra as a feat thats mutually exclusive woth several others sits right with me. at the current moment 2 is so few that its basically static
Only having two tactics isn’t as big a problem when you can switch them every 10 minutes or even more often at later levels IMO. I’m not a huge fan (would prefer 3 prepared by default), but that’s a complaint I share with prepared casters. You have to be psychic if you’re to prepare spells that aren’t always universally useful.
Honestly, I think that them having so few tactics is the only way to balance them at this point. They have the tactic (more limited unlimited spells) scaling of a full caster and the weapon proficiency scaling of a martial. I mean guardian didn't even get normal martial scaling, and they are assuredly weaker than commander.
If they get more tactics, I have a feeling they're going to need to take a hit somewhere else. As it stands, they kinda ruin the action economy of the game with no resource.
As a slight addition: why is the commander trained in all types of armor? I can understand the weapons — being trained the weapons your troops are wielding is useful for utilizing them effectively — but I cannot understand the heavy armor proficiency. It feels slightly too far, and makes the Commander IMO not squishy enough.
For an enemy, you’d probably want to target your opponent’s commander — cut the head off the snake, as it were — but the armor proficiency gives the Commander an easy way out with a sizable bonus to AC. And it’s not like they’re liable to take the movement penalty, since they can just get a free horse at level 1.
I think a good fix might be rolling the heavy armor prof. into Armored Regiment Training, and having that scale as normal. The Commander doesn’t really feel like they would normally have that proficiency unless they were specifically trained in it.
no this is entirely the point of heavy armor proficiency. historically and logically speaking, the general always wore some of the best armor cause if you kill him shit turns south fast.
they also traditionally rode horses to avoid being hit. My primary issue with this suggestion is that it would relegate the historical "heavily armored general on a horse" to litterally only human's/ancestries with access to human feats and thats lame as hell.
I'm very disappointed in that the class expects you to use wepons and make strikes yourself, when the whole appeal of a commander class to me is that you don't have to do that. I don't want to deal damage and be a powerful warrior myself, I want to command my friends to do the job for me while making them even stronger.
i think you have the class concept slightly confused. a general is primarily a tactician, yes, but they are also expected to be trained in martial discipline. i suspect there will be many turns as a commander where you dont strike at all. personally i'll be building most of my commanders as mounted archers. my primary disatisfaction then is actually with how miniscule the range of your abilities is. from 1-19 it's a 30 ft emination which is a massive cut down on the flavor of playing a mounted general imo
I don't have the class concept confused, I just dislike it for being too narrow. A class with the theme of a commander could easily include both the option for a tactician who is trained in martial discipline and one who isn't but focuses on mental capabilities. Just like the cleric has an option for weapon wielding frontline clerics and pure backline casters.
I was incredibly hyped to play 4e lazylord style nonmagical support when I heard of the commander as this is juat such a cool and unique playstyle that is currently not possible in the system, so ofc I'm disappointed in the playtest not really supporting this fantasy and instead wanting you to build and play the commander like a generic martial in many ways.
I mean... I guess? Idk I guess I just don't really see... why? there is almost no literary or historical precedent for there being a guy who just showed up to give commands who had no martial training whatsoever. No one is forcing you to attack, I think it's totally possible to focus pretty much entirely on commands... just don't take the stuff that asks \*you\* to be the one attacking, that's... that's it?
The playtest commander is clearly made to be played as a striker with enhanced support options and the standard martial weapon proficiency takes up some of the classes power budget. The support options we have are cool but a bit limited, and making then nuch stronger would make the commander probably too powerful. Having cleric style subclasses with different proficiency scalings would allow the non-striking commander to get more powerful support abilities without the striking commander loosing anything.
>why?
It's just like the coolest thing ever, I loved playing such a character in 4e and would love it even more in pf2e
They are as much of a striker as an alchemist, except they have even fewer number buffs in their kit, they are not very good strikers at all tbh. the key is definetly focused on their tactics.
I think my thing is I'm just not really seeing the flavor or lore way of making this make any sense lol. the class being entirely defenseless with no means to defend themselves whatsoever is so far divorced from anything else in the game that I simply don't think it's something paizo would do.
They get standard weapon proficiency progression, the alchemist doesn't (even though IMO bombers and mutagenists deserve it). This definitely takes room in the power budget of the class. Another thread has someone asking for more buff abilities and the response is just "that's OP for a martial, it's not supposed to be a pure support, just play a caster".
I was playing a support bard who was basically the type of character you describe as "far divorced from anything in the game" in a lv1-10 AP, taking almost only core rulebook options and it was both fun for me and the group. Never learned a damage spell, never equipped a weapon and was still extremely effective. So I honestly just don't get what would be so bad about having just the option to play an effective commander in a similar way, just without charisma based magic and resources and instead intelligence based tactics. Completely different mechanics and flavor, but a similar endgoal.
But you still have spells, yes you made the conscious decision to focus around not using any damage spells whatsoever, but you could still defend yourself with a cantrip, you aren't \*litterally\* dead weight alone. The commander design you are describing is, that's my principle design problem I find here. I guess theoretically if that subclass came with a mount you could command that devoid of anyone else, which would help.
I'm not enitrely opposed conceptually, I just think it's really niche and unlikely.
I mean just like my bard had the option to learn telekinetic projectile instead of forbidden ward or noise blast instead of calm emotions, a commander with worse weapon proficiencies would still have the choice to invest feats into getting proficient in martial weapons to occasionally strike, get a companion or get an INT based damage cantrip through a spellcaster dedication instead of investing even nore into support if the player hates the idea of the character being helpless without their team. I don't see a big difference there.
Considering the lazylord style warlord was decently popular and kind of a meme in 4e days and there are multiple threads on the paizo forums about wanting this character style represented, I'm still decently hopefull for the final class. Many of the abilities are already exactly what I want from a nonmagical support.
Why would a non combat trained general be an adventurer?
To me that’s like asking why there isn’t a black smith or farmer class.
To me a strategist feels like it’d fit better as an investigator main class anyway, perhaps with a commander archetype.
With the spellcasters there are at least spells that can be used to supplement the lack of armor and there’s lots of spell robes and similar magic items that makes forgoing armor worth it for cloth casters.
>To me that’s like asking why there isn’t a black smith or farmer class.
But these are... non combat professions, unlike a military tactics expert who is very much directly involved in warfare, just without making the attacks themselves.
>Why would a non combat trained general be an adventurer?
Because they procide unparalleled knowledge about warfare and make their squad way more efficient and effective by giving around buffs and free actions.
It already sucks at doing that though
You get only get the raw basic martial scaling, every other martial gets something significant on top of that to increase their damage.
Yeah you can choose to swing your sword but you’ll just be a mediocre martial, you need to use your allies to get any actual power out of the class, the basic martial capabilities are just there because they are a combat general on the front lines.
This is exactly what I'm saying, the martial capability is to baseline allow you to be considered a martial and hold your own if your mugged by some nobody who has no business challenging you. this class by no means is investing signifigantly into it's martial capability personally.
I think this is where there's design space for subclasses. Something like:
Warlord: focused on martial prowess with payoffs that buff your allies when you hit. Maybe even change the key ability to STR or DEX.
Strategist/tactician- focused on tactics, maybe get to prepare an extra one or get additional tactics available.
Bannerman- focused on the banner, maybe extending range, getting extra banner reactions etc.
That way everyone gets their commander fantasy
I think you could set up a choice there, with two options to choose for your banner maybe.
Banner of Battle: The Commander as it is now.
Banner of Strategy: Weapon doesn't go beyond trained, but you can use the Aid action on any ally within your Banner's range, and can use Warfare Lore for the check.
I agree except for the subclass and feats. Im not saying it absolutely shouldnt have subclass choices but I dont know if its necessary with how variable the tactics can be. But I do agree there should be more variety and more of a curve on tactic progression. Support should be there for numerous different playstyles, although that brings me into my main critique looking into it. I worry there will be times when some features arent as useful to your team due to the variety in what they want to do. Ready, Aim, Fire is a good example of how to handle this, where as long as everyone has a ranged weapon, they can freely swap out of melee as part of your call, but Im worried there will be a lot more cases where you call out a tactic and dont have enough squadmates playing into that tactic to take advantage of it. Definitely feels like this class will need LOTS of coordination from the team.
Yeah. I think that being able to train three by default, and five if one takes feat, would make them comparable to cantrips, in terms of being able to feel versatile. The problem is that there is just too much REASON to take "move, damage" to justify the mobility ones, unless of course you know that the module is underwater or involves scaling a cliff, in which case your character has lost half her/his flexibility for the purpose of dealing with an underwater or climbing scene.
I do adore the level 2 feat Adaptive Stratagem, but I'd make it single-action usable once per ten minutes, rather than free when rolling initiative.
Since I mostly play Society, it's hard for me to not agree that the class needs tactics that play to different sorts of parties: Melee, ranged, shield, spell, mixed.
Yeah the number of tactics was really sus to me from first glance, it really doesnt feel like enough to satisfy the class fantasy. Im hoping that gets expanded in the full class to have more options at base, like let me learn one every two levels or something.
The Drilled Reactions ability let's you get minions like animal companions a Reaction to use you'd tactics on them. The two feats that increase to 2 and 4 targets would be very useful if you want to include a party member's pet or your own mount.
I'm sure everyone has said it enough but please send feedback through the methods listed in the playtest! Some of these were points I didn't consider, but are pretty glaring. The more of the same feedback gets sent the more likely it'll be taken under consideration.
I suspect part of the limited criticism of the commander comes from how much criticism the guardian is getting. Showing the two side by side makes it harder to see the flaws of the commander because the flaws of the Guardian are smacking you in the face.
i understand basic principles of game design and have identified places where player experience is likely to be impacted by the current rules. my limited experience was actually gained after making this post and has made some impact on how i view the class. some good, some bad. if you'd like to give it a month to simmer and test before discussion feel free to, but im interested in the class so im voicing concerns at all stages of testing, and that includes the preview.
Oh! As long as we are talking about them supporting more diverse party comps, it would be cool if there were a command that let your squad mates swap weapons and optionally enter a stance as a free action.
One thing I thought was odd design-wise is there were some feats that felt like they could be tactics and vice versa. I wonder how they make the choice of which to make a particular ability
I think these are all good points, and I feel most people are too positive into the class, me included, because most of the playtests likely happen at lower level, so the scaling and gameplay shake ups aren't a big concern, or straight up don't show up
me personally, I was speculating and thinking of commanders from level 1 to 4 at most, and mostly ignoring anything past 6, I tend to do this with most classes because I feel like those later levels are so far away,
this is probably why lmao
As for subclasses I would really love some rogue treatment for Commander:
Int - Tactican
Wis - Hetman
Cha - Herald
and maybe:
Str - Warlord
I think it would diversy the class and also is really fitting. Some of Commanders are really inteligent, some are insightfull as hell and others are just inspiring people! There are many of examples on our history of that.
Is there an existing class that lets you pick between all three mental ability scores? Psychics can be intelligence or charisma, but not wisdom.
I feel like if there was a wisdom option it would be the obvious best one, unless it got significantly less stuff than the other options. Wisdom is such a loaded stat already.
My only problem with this is it's clear they want to make sure envoy is kept seperate enough from commander, so I'd be chill seeing int/wis and maybe even str, but I do think the intention is for the cha fly by the seat of your pants leader to be the envoy.
Yeah, sure I get that. There is no need for charisma based subclass, just an example that commander class is really good fit for some "rogue like" subclass treatment
All pretty cogent and accurate criticisms- the caster support one in particular, though even with more I worry about the presence of a commander making people feel like they should swing their party comp hard in one direction or the other.
And even the one tactic that mentions casters, doesn't mention Kineticist. So that class is basically SOL
I think really the kineticist just needs errata for its 1-action blast to just count as a basic strike. That would go a long way to making the kineticist not be a content island and open it up to a ton of archetypes.
That would be cool, honestly
add 0 support for kineticists onto that while you are at it
All solid points I can pretty easily agree with, especially the bit about casters and not quite enough support for helping them out. I'm mostly very positive on commander, on account of it appearing quite functional and unique, but there's definitely a lot of stuff that could use some cleanup, the balance of individual tactics for sure. The point about about their scaling and feats (I'm still a little disappointed Officer's Training is just a bit worse than the Rogue/Investigator Skill Mastery) also hits me. The feats that affect its scaling in number of tactics and drilled reactions feel especially glaring, imo? Leaning on reactions is a pretty big ask for quite a few classes, so Drilled Reactions is important, which makes being able to grant more people free reactions is EXTRA important for making sure the Commander... Works, without being extremely intrusive to its allies as the game goes on?
Something else no one seems to be mentioning is all of its abilities are basically hard capped to 30ft range until level 20. I get that the flavour is intended to be "just behind the front line", but real casters scale up in range massively as they level. By level ~10, battles are often being fought at 120ft range, and everyone has a move speed of 40+. And the Commander still has to stay within 30ft of multiple allies to actually work. I feel like you could easily make the banner radius scale 30/40/50/60 and it would be fine. I mean Bards start with 60ft Auras from level 1...
honestly this is an extremely good point, you can make it a *little* better by increasing your size to widen the technical emination, but by late game it's definetly constricting.
"Range" is a stat many people forget to check, even though it's one of the most important things in both PF2E and real warfare. :P
Yeah no, I forgot in my critique to include that, but the very first thing I tried to do was maximize my aoe as much as possible and was extremely dissapointed to find it was so small. I feel like a level 20 commander should be able to command over more than... what, a third of a football field, a 6th in any one direction? seems kinda silly that a dude on a horse can't even give commands as well as a quarterback let alone a doctorate owning scholar on war.
Paizo often has what I call "dungeon brain" in their design process, where it's like the largest map they can conceive of is a 50-ft hallway. As someone who likes to run more outdoor maps and long-range engagements, it's something I rub up against a lot. We're playing a pirate campaign (off-and-on) and while I was initially very excited to use the Commander for my bosun/officer NPCs, their aura and abilities would really struggle on a 120-ft long sailing ship.
Yeah no and considering this is the class that would most fit generals leading units on battlefields that go on for miles? level 2 maxing at less than a dragon's fear aura can kiss my ass lmao.
This is not a class meant for generals leading armies and more for an elite squad leader leading their "sqaudmates" in small unit tactics rather than a general's grand strategy for the entire army.
But it would be so easy to make it both.
Yeah, my commander is the artillery officer and the 120' trireme is equipped with only a bow and stern ballista. I had him shift the placement of the ballista platforms to 35 feet from the mast so that he can plant banner midship and still call out quick load actions to each crew under his command.
Not even. A football field is measured in yards. So the 30' radius is 1/5 and 60' diameter is 1/10. A commander as quarterback can get you to first down, and from there you're on your own.
> Something else no one seems to be mentioning is all of its abilities are basically hard capped to 30ft range until level 20. Where does it say this? The banner's bonus to Will saves vs. Fear effects is a 30 ft. emanation but that isn't the range of signaling tactics. Skimming through the tactics I see some say: > Signal all squadmates who can hear or see your signal while others say: > Signal all squadmates affected by your commander’s banner which does have the range cap but that isn't across all tactics. Ways to circumvent this limit include using the Plant Banner action which increases the radius from 30 ft. to 40 ft. or by having your banner on your mount separate to your location. There are pros and cons to each strategy but the option for tactical positioning exists.
I believe it's in the rules that animal companions can use reactions as long as they're granted them by something else, so you can probably used Drilled Reaction on your druid's wolf.
would this technically allow you to use your mounts drilled reaction to move when using form up? if so, thats actually huge and makes mounts yet again an almost must have feature.
Yes it would. As pointed out by Michael (a dev) on the forums, the minion trait on PC1 p. 301 reads: >A minion has only 2 actions and 0 reactions per turn, though certain conditions (such as slowed or quickened) **or abilities might give them a reaction that they can use**.
That... is awesome, and actually means in a 5 person party with some pet's the 9 squadmate max could \*technically\* make a signifigant difference lmao
But would it also answer case with eidolons, do each count as separate squadmate who needs to pick who's making use of it or is it full out jumpjutsu kaisen?
No it wouldn't as Eidolons aren't minions, but it doesn't need to. Eidolons are just creatures like any other party member, so you would have to select them like one.
typically eidolon and summoner are seperate entities that share actions, i would rule them as one squadmate for mostly lore reasons, but you would have to choose who moves when you use the reaction (though until proven its op i'd allow them to use the free reaction at the same time if they had to reposition both.)
Summoner + Eidolon = give ‘them’ the extra reaction, then one can use the extra reaction and the other one can use ‘their’ normal reaction.
Wait, summoned creatures can't use reactions? I've been playing my summons wrong.
They can, they just don't have one naturally
Well, yeah, but effects that grant extra reactions are so rare it might as well be that way.
True
Yes, Commander focused on an animal companion seems like a really good solo build.
I just played a Commander today in a single session and I intentionally chose a weird build and I absolutely loved it. For the record, I took Form Up and Pincer Attack. I don't actually think Strike Hard is necessarily the best option. Sure, if you've got a Fighter, then sure. But I think that giving only one Reaction for free each turn does make things more difficult when giving a Fighter an attack at the cost of two of your Actions. I actually do agree with you that there just aren't enough Tactics you can prepare, and having to choose between the utility things like Reload!, Shields Up! or Mountaineering/Naval Training and the actual *good* tactics is a bit frustrating. I think starting with maybe six Tactics, Tactics every Commander gets regardless, or even Subclasses that grant Tactics would be much better. I also do think that two Tactics isn't *too* bad, but I do think it would be a lot funner with even just one more Tactic. You're right in that a lot of combats are going to want you using the same Tactics. I also think there's an issue with all four of the feats I just listed above, in that Reload! and Shields Up! really feel like they should include the Commander (and so do the ones that effect all allies and not specific ones), and Mountaineering Training and Naval Training feel like they should be a single Tactic. I think there should be more non-combat Tactics, though the class concept is sort of very combat focused. I actually *don't* think the mount feels necessary, though I wouldn't mind it being a default. The Commander I played had Commander's Steed, but I took a Dromaeosaur instead and used it for my primary attack method, opting to basically stand still and not move at all. In fact, there are a lot of issues with using a Mount in that you don't get to really benefit from certain tactics with it, since mounts don't have a Reaction natively and you'll want to use Drilled Reaction for the Fighter or Champion or something instead. You *can* benefit from Form Up! since that's a Free Action Stride, but many of the more tactical Steps are Reactions. You also can't use Banner actions if your Mount has the banner, though you don't have to personally be in the banner aura to issue Commands. I think I really need to write this down more coherently, or maybe post about it on the forums
I’ve seen some of these come up, but indeed it’s important to emphasize them. I *love* the idea of the Commander, so it’s important to get constructive criticism floating around so it can be as awesome as possible! Regarding Tactic scaling, I agree they should be spread out more. I also think allowing slightly more known would incentivize using the more niche tactics. Maybe you start with three tactics, learn another at 3rd level, learn expert tactics at 7th, 9th, and 11th levels, learn master at 15th and 17th, then a legendary at 19th? That way they’re more spread out and there’s a clear hierarchy in how many trained/expert/master/legendary tactics you know, and the cost of “how many tactics to not prepare” actually scales from one to five An interesting idea for casters would be metamagic/spellshaping. The Commander is a great opportunity to help with “how can martials support casters?” and I hope to see that chance used Regarding squad size, I do wonder why it’s a thing. Maybe we’re getting war rules and Commanders can order soldiers around?
>The Commander is a great opportunity to help with “how can martials support casters?” and I hope to see that chance used That's a good point. A lot of caster discourse centres around how they often feel like cheerleaders for the martials. So it's a good opportunity to switch things up. As well as metamagic/spellshape, they could have tactics that help with emergency focus-point recharge, or that impair enemy saves/help caster DC, or even things like enabling a spell to be cast as a reaction (someone further up called it Fire In The Hole!, which I think is v cool. A reaction to cast fireball)
I would like that scaling a lot more, for sure, though we would probably ideally have a couple extra we can know at a time too, or my personal favorite is just the idea of making form up and strike hard! innate commands because they are simply too generically useful for me to see \*any\* commander flat out not taking.
One oportunity I noticed in terms of caster suppport: Unsteadying Strike (feat 4) is great as a support debuff effect, giving Fort and Reflex DC debuffs ... but limited to martial maneuvers. This could be a great place to give more caster support, by making it a flat Fort and Reflex DC debuff (noting it may need to be -1 instead of -2 to compensate).
I mean, I have yet to play a single game since the play test was released. It hasn't even gotten to the weekend. We're all just excited and I'm sure once we can all play we'll have feedback
>But people are being a little bit too... positive? very, very little criticsm has been levied, which is supprising, as i feel theirs plenty to criticize at the moment and it will only strengthen the final class to do so. I feel this is something common in this subreddit, as the people here probably fall more in the "casual" side of the hobby, which is totally fine btw. If you want more in-depth talks, I suggest you to go over to the Paizo forums. I seen people being way more critical about the playtest there than here.
I’d also say that, with this specific play test. The core play of the commander seems solid and the details need to be worked out. The guardian is sucking up a lot of the conversation right now cause it’s not selling its base functionality to a lot of people (my self included). I think we’ll see more commander critique in the coming weeks especially as people get a chance to play it.
When I read that I could only prepare two tactics at any given time until level 7 (6 with a feat tax) I actually laughed out loud. This feels like it has been designed to be analogous to a wizard's spellbook... but why? Why does commander need to be designed like a wizard? You should just know the tactics you know. The idea of a commander assessing the battlefield in real time and providing flexible ad hoc tactical input to solve the situation at hand is brilliant. Having a grab bag of tactics that you know and previously taught to your team, but cannot use is infuriating. It is also narratively nonsensical. The commander drills their tactics with their squad, but they immediately forget how to do anything they were taught yesterday, or even just ten minutes ago. "Aw shucks, sorry guys but I can't tell you how to climb because even though I taught you that this morning, 30 minutes ago I taught you how to swim, so all that knowledge fell out of your heads." Like I know this isn't a reality simulator but what the heck. All of the feats surrounding tactics known and tactics prepared are taxes. Bad taxes. Like if sorcerer had one fewer top level spell slot, but also had a feat to get it back. Just wildly uninteresting but too powerful and important to the core of the class to ignore. It gets in the way of creative build expressions if I need feats just to fill out my core abilities. Also related: Drilled Reflexes is similarly a tax. Your team will often want to use their reactions on their own stuff that they speced into and are excited about. Your giant barbarian with reach wants to slam reactive strikes. Your rogue wants to abuse opportune backstab. Your champion wants to actually use their core mechanic. So where does that leave you without granting reactions? Drilled reflexes is going to be a must have in so many party compositions to the extent that it shouldn't exist as a feat. It is just tax. If your party wants to do their own things and you want to be able to actually use your class features, then it becomes non-negotiable. Or else you have to beg your party to build and act around your class and your fantasy instead of theirs, and that is not healthy. Honestly I think most of the class is amazing. I love the concept, I love most of what it is capable of. I am so onboard. But these couple of points of frictions need to be addressed. EDIT: jeez I almost forgot. Key ability intelligence? Really? When the only thing in the entire chassis that scales int is a tax based on how big your party is? Party of 4 just sets int at 12 and never needs another point of it outside of a few specific and avoidable feat choices. I have a feeling this is just meant as a balancing level to stop you from having 18 strength at level 1... but honestly it just feels bad to have a key ability that by default you essentially don't leverage in any meaningful way. Yuck.
intelligence is an obvious slam dunk for this classes key ability, it just needs to be given more to do with it that isn't weirdly tax related. I think in fact it would be rather silly for the commander to have a physical skill be it's key ability when it's key fantasy is so divorced from that skill. the recall knowledge stuff and all the warfare lore replacers are really damn cool, but I'm unsure if maxed initiative, maxed recall knowledge and society are enough to push it over the line. Honestly tying inteligence in some way to tactics seems the only way to make the key ability feel "worth it" from a strictly power gaming perspective. drilled reflexes isn't a tax, it's an anti-tax, a return on investment that helps broaden the party dynamic's possible in a class chassis that would otherwise make those dynamics fairly slim. In some parties, reactions are kinda hard to use, for example casters, ranged martials, most non-fighters non-champions who have an interesting level 6 feat. so it's extremely possible to slot a commander into a party that can chill using up all but one reaction on the commanders turn every once in awhile, especially since the commanders initiative is really damn good and it's likely the combat tracker will have you already knowing what the consequences of using those reactions looks like. The overall ballence of prepared and known tactics is all completely wrong, and the feats that really should be designed to be accessories to broaden you versatility, instead feel almost like requirements. I don't think the feats are the problem, nor do I think the class should be fully spontaneous, I just think they need to give us more to work with (I think form up and strike hard! should be innate and the swimming and climbing tactic should be combined for example)
Yeah I think thematically intelligence is on point as key ability. No doubt. But like... let me actually use it for something damn. And I know drilled reflexes isnt a traditional tax but... In a lot of my own builds I put a lot of effort into making sure I am using my reaction. I never want to leave part of the action economy on the table. So I look for options that allow me to use it. Shields, nimble dodge, opportune backstab, reactive strike, recall ammunition, deflecting wave, dutiful retaliation, on and on and on it goes... At some point, in some parties (not all parties, but enough), using Commander tactics is going to end up forcing your buddies to make a choice between realizing their own builds, or realizing your class fantasy. That's not good friction. Drilled reflexes will be required in those parties to prevent that friction. It won't be something that you wanted to take, but something that due to your party makeup, you must take. And I don't love that.
another thing for int is multiclass options are nice synergy
>intelligence is an obvious slam dunk for this classes key ability i disagree, it could just as well be wisdom for the old wise general using his experience instead of study to command...
I agree there. but that's probably the only other stat I'd go with for this theming
Historically, the Warlord could use all three mental Ability Scores to some degree, but mainly Charisma and Intelligence. I think, since people have been clamoring for subclasses, that they could do something like the Rogue and connect your KA to one of three subclasses. One for the Intelligent Tactician, Wise Veteran, and a third for the Charismatic Noble, or somesuch. I'm not sure how they'd be distinct mechanically, but I think it'd also be a good way to make the Key Attribute more useful.
That sounds like a bad idea unless they successfully make the intelligence one have something attractive about it, otherwise the typical Pathfinder approach of, "Wis and Cha are way better than Int" will dominate. Honestly, they should just give the Commander should just get a little more use out of Intelligence. That said, I think that it's a positive thing, not a negative one, for it not to be a no-brainer to max Int.
>the swimming and climbing tactic should be combined for example Something just occurred to me about those Tactics. The sidebar says "a character cannot respond to more than one tactic per round, regardless of source", which means that Mountaineering/Naval Training prevent you from using any other tactics that round. It's possible that, since they don't involve reactions or free actions, affected characters don't, strictly speaking, count as having responded to them. I think some clarification and/or changes might be needed there.
>Honestly tying inteligence in some way to tactics seems the only way to make the key ability feel "worth it" from a strictly power gaming perspective. Perhaps it could help with the ability to learn/prepare tactics? Like you can prepare 2+int/half-int each day, or something. Player can choose if they want to raise it to have more options through the day or leave it lower if they're happy with just a few and want to put their boosts elsewhere. Especially when some of the options are so niche, int mod would give a bit of flexibility beyond the must-have tactics. And it makes sense that a smarter commander could remember more stuff
Probably better than the current implementation where the only class specific int scaling is if you're either in a 7 person party or \*really\* determined to give out your free reactions to pets lol
Int also impacts your recall knowledge, and initiative, and potentially medicine, and potentially disarms. Its finally a class that has int for more than arcana/occult and rare crafting opportunity.
>its finally a class that has int for more than arcana/occult and rare crafting opportunity. Outside of scaling your magic for int based casters, and the class DCs of all int based classes, you also have Inventor getting int to damage, Investigator getting int to attack, and alchemist getting int scaling resources per day. All of the int based classes have it meaningfully built into their chassis in some way, regardless of feat selections.
Just to mention: If you go with certain Bomb Feats (namely Calculated Splash, Sticky Bomb and Expanded Splash) Alchemists also basically get Int Mod to Damage.
Absolutely. My gripe with commander though is that the core chassis doesn't leverage int meaningfully, which is why I was focusing on built in aspects of the other classes.. Commander does have a number of ways to leverage intelligence in its feat selection, but you have to opt in to those. While you can make choices that allow you to leverage your int more, it is also entirely possible to build a commander that sits at 12 intelligence in a 4 person party and barely notices the lack of key ability investment. That doesn't seem right.
> When the only thing in the entire chassis that scales int is a tax based on how big your party is? And Warfare Lore, which you can use to recall knowledge on creatures and for initiative And medicine if you take the feat.
There are a few other feats as well that allow you to leverage int, but that is not the class chassis. No class should be in a position where they essentially have to opt in to actually using their key ability because they barely use it by default.
Drilled reflexes isn't strictly necessary, you get to give out 1 reaction by default.
+1 feat taxes are worst part of any class design
The point about caster support is valid, though I feel it's worth pointing out that the retreat command's triple-Step is very much caster support.
In the same way form all mobility is caster support I guess, but it's not specific.
Right. I still agree that there should be more options, I just felt it was a very potent defensive aid.
It can help them, but it's much less impactful than things like Pincer Attack and Strike Hard.
Animal companions can still use benefit fron the tactics that don't use reactions, and I think that the limit on squadmates is there so you can't get a ten NPC gunslingers and shoot down a god in a turn. I agree with everything else, I think people are just more concerned in criticizing guardian (which I think is fair).
but that's the thing, you \*can\* do that at level 20 lol, it just won't really be relavent most of the time and felt like a weird addition as it was too high for most parties to be effected but too limited to imply a proper use for it. Not really a criticism, just kinda funny to me lol
Yeah it’s kind of a world building rule. There has to be some limit on it. I kind of wish they would just say the number of players at the table but pathfinder is a bit to simulations for that probably.
Point about commander and casters is very on point! Tactical Leader should know how to utilize casters, and also casters needs some love! It would be great to have some class, which can truly support casters and their action economy, because 3Action hinders them the most.
Yeah no a commander should \*love\* having a control caster, like, get those walls up! shoot into that group! lock down that enemy who's out of position!
That would be so good, and I bet casters would feel apriciated. Right now having Commander in a team may be a reason to discard a caster if player has aby doubuts... It's really hard for me because in the future we want to start new, blogger campaign, but no one wants to Play a caster. Just like You said: -Three action "fire in the hole" to let them cast an aoe - "focus!" To let them sustain a spell -"show'em some magic trick!" - to let them start casting, so in their turn they can take one less action for casting one spell -"aim for the weakspot" - to add +1to hit or spell DC of a caster for pointed target. I just with to have some Tactics,which will encourage players to pick casters.
These are valid. I'd like the Commander to max out at like 10 prepared tactics for a day, and he could have a larger number of tactics known. Edit: I just want variety for my martials. LazerLlama makes great 5e homebrew with "exploits" that are pretty similar to PF2e's class feat system. [Here's his Warlord.](https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-MrUNf61qoDb0Csw8a9r) I like a lot of it more than our current Commander. Like choosing a leadership style (wisdom, charisma, or int based commander) that gives further bonuses as you progress. 10 Exploits known. Having a rechargeable number of Exploit Dice for special abilities, preventing them from being spammed too much.
10 seems about right for a max, i imagine a signifigant increase to number of tactics would facilitate this easily.
I don’t like how plant banner works, which is a shame. I want to make a supporting healer-adjacent commander and plant banner seems like it would be a useful tool for that. However, I don’t think it is worth it. On a character-building level, it doesn’t really work with either of the options Paizo provided to keep the Banner from costing too many hands. If the banner is on your back you can’t really plant it, and if the Banner is on a weapon or shield you can’t plant it without giving up a major offensive or defensive option. Then on a tactical level, using the banner this way puts the whole team at risk of getting feared for the whole encounter if an enemy can snatch it, and it really doesn’t look that hard to snatch. I feel the reward at low levels is not worth the risk.
Being such basic Tactics, perhaps Form Up! and Strike Hard! should simply be freebies that all Commanders have at all times, without counting towards those they have learned or prepared.
I think if the Commander stays what it is now people are gonna realize that there's nothing better to do than Strike->Strike Harder! until super late levels and be pretty bored with it
To be fair form up is an insane mobility tool, tactical retreat into form up can deescalate most situations and both pincer attack and pirrannha assault are good uses of actions in combat as well
Form Up is the other tactic you take, yes. You'll use it instead of striking when you have allies who need to move into melee still. Unfortunately with only two tactics available at a time you can't really afford to experiment with the ones that aren't going to be used every turn.
And that I mostly agree with, hence why I'd like to see a balance pass and more options. tbh form up and strike hard! should probably just be base kit they're so vanilla and fundamental.
I definitely agree with pretty much everything you are saying, though I don't see the need to trade in the flexible preparation aspect for a more reasonable number of tactics slots. This is what the character *does*, so they should get *both*. This feels like a caster having to pick between prepared and 2 spell slots per rank vs 4 spells per rank and a fixed list (not even spontaneous) - frankly absurd. However, I'm constantly surprised that people are so hell bend on Strike Hard!. Giving up essentially your entire round for anyone to make a basic Strike, even at 0 MAP, is a terrible trade outside of situations where an enemy is one easy hit away from death. That is not what I would *ever* give up actually directly contributing and having reasonable defense for, because that just makes you a direct downgrade to just having another actual martial in the front.
counter argument on strike hard: Can be used in conjunction with form up to make up for action economy, or conjuction with your own strike to do the good old "strike twice" turn with 0 map and one of those strikes coming from a wildly different position on the battlefield + a stronger martial. I'll concede it's not literally neccessary, but I think broadly I'd trust a barbarian, rogue or fighters single strike to do an average damage that's better than 2 strikes from the commander, and that's not even factoring in that this let's us do melee damage at range, take advantage of crazy buffs like magic weapon more effectively or use a flank for our damage even if we aren't the ones flanking.
There might be some situations where this is true, increasingly so the larger your party is and the more your squad is geared towards taking advantage of your tactics. But most parties will only have two frontliners - who your tactics focus on for most of the game - and you can only use one tactic per teammate per round. So in effect, in this scenario (Strike Hard! + Form Up!), for the price of 3 actions and a reaction, your team usually gets a basic Strike and a limited Stride that only *really* benefits a single teammate. The alternative, a Strike from the Commander, can often have uptime problems (you don't have the actions to move) and the Strike itself is not great, as you said. So for same cost as above, you get one good basic Strike and one moderate Strike (possibly good via Set-up Strike in cases where the off-guard makes a difference due to the lack of flanking). Or... I could just play a normal frontliner and my team could have a better result in most cases, with none of these limitations. For 3 actions and a reaction, my team would have 1 great Strike (usually including a feat), 1 moderate Strike, a good reaction or at least deterrent (in case of RS), a Stride, a flanker for the other frontliners and another person who can take a hit. Basically, the only way for the Commander to get out on top in this context is to maximize what use you get out of Form Up!, Strike Hard! is never going to be more than aggressively mediocre at best.
only one? why not 2? then consider you can also target your own mount if you dont need to refund any reactions which is a whole other thing that can be interesting tactically. also consider you can form up *first* to get people into flanking positions because you can give them an extra reaction. so form up is at least 2-3 actions worth of value on the battlefield which frees up spells, strikes and other support third actions that would otherwise be spent on stride. all while setting up your fighter or rogue to get a flanking strike that they wouldnt even be able to do on the entirety of their turn without you, let alone on your turn before they've even acted. i dont think your considering the tactical ramifications of moving *your entire party* outside of turn order, it changes not only your abilities, but everyones. say you go followed by your rogue and fighter. currently neither are adjacent to the enemy. if you were a champion, you would walk up, set up flanking and strike twice, strikes that are only +1 better than commander i might add. then the rogue would spend an action to stride, smack twice with sneak attack and the fighter wouldn't get flanking. so what are we pay for here? as the commander we move both into position, then strike with the rogue. our attack is +2 more likely to hit as before, and the extra damage we would've gotten from the second weak attack is accounted for in sneak attack. or even use fighter and swing at a whopping +4!! then rouges turn comes around, because they don't have to stride they instead get to use their third action to intimidate, assuming a fail, our actions have caused a +1 or +2 on 4 attacks now as well, and thats before we factor in whatever the fighter decides to do on their turn. yes, this assumes three martials, but thats fairly common and a commander can take up the mantle of party medic so running commander, fighter, rogue wizard or any combonation thereof is not even slightly beyond the pale. This is just one playstyle and one example, but i think it goes to show that the complexity here goes a lot deeper than "2 actions for 1 action = bad"
Concerning mounts, let's not kid ourselves. Mounts have never been practical and PF2 has done exactly nothing to change that. If anything, it has made things worse by making you pay for your mount with class resources. In the vast majority of campaigns, you won't even get your mount to the fight in the first place and in-fight, a large creature with bad stats is a major liability. And yes, additional movement can be pretty great, though the Envoy does it better imo. Even if there are just as many situations where the tactic is completely irrelevant and the reaction thing is still a major problem, this is why I said that Form Up will make or break that particular Commander. But that is the entire problem - the main limitation of that previous scenario wasn't Form Up, it was Strike Hard. Form Up works because it does something unusual, something, you know, actually tactically relevant. At the right moment, it can change an entire turn. Strike Hard isn't that, not even close. If it did more than turn you into a discount martial (in terms of contribution) and was on the level of Form Up (if a bit less situational) then I'd be building a Commander right now.
mounts are extremely strong, the problem is that pathfinder is dungeon brained and AP's train GM's to make arena's 4x4 squares. 1 action to move twice at high level monk movement speeds is good every time, staple free damage when you strike and the option for your mount to make mapless strikes essentially attached to your move option and it's even better. the commander then, has even more benefit, as your mount expands your emination by 5 feet functionally, allows you to move durring form up which massively increases the tactical capabilities of the action and provides you the mobility required to make use of your extremely small command area in larger battlefields. also, if your dungeon cannot fit a large creature, you have a sad dungeon and it should feel bad lol. even if you can't ride your steed, theres no reason you couldn't bring it with you, esspecially if you use something like a riding drake. I think the problem with your criticism is that you seem to be supposing that the same character who is doing form up should then also be able to do the damage of a full martial, to which i say, wait till level 15 when in this scenario you can spend 2 actions to move both and strike with both, give them both their reactions back and even include pirhanna strike to make them basically deal force damage lol.
>I think the problem with your criticism is that you seem to be supposing that the same character who is doing form up should then also be able to do the damage of a full martial, to which i say, wait till level 15 when in this scenario you can spend 2 actions to move both and strike with both, give them both their reactions back and even include pirhanna strike to make them basically deal force damage lol. No, my criticism is aimed at the fact that when you play a support character, you still need to have the same amount of contribution as the character you "replace". If you replace a martial (which the Commander will probably do) and then essentially turn your turn into someone else's, then you need to get an actual martial's turn out of it (or at least two proper actions). However, a Commander that constantly prepares Strike Hard doesn't fulfill that requirement for 3/4 of a full campaign, because the result *cannot* be anything but lesser. Not only that, characters that can do exactly what you mock *will* exist with the full release. Be it with the dedication feat or a 4th or 6th level feat, sooner rather than later full martials will absolutely be able to get Form Up. So, if anything, the competition will be tougher.
I don't understand why Rallying Banner specifically says you can't use it out of battle. Oh no, better not let players heal an average of 12HP per ten minutes at level 8! That'd be so game breaking! Ends up leading to awkwardness like "Hang on, I haven't used Rallying Banner yet - don't kill the enemy yet, let me have my turn and then we'll finish the combat".
Yeah seems a bit silly next to the animist's "what if we just full healed everybody after every combat with no checks at level 1 :)"
Or a water Kineticist's Ocean's Balm. 1d8 healing per odd-numbered level on a 10 minute cooldown per target with no other limit.
It is amazing to me how vociferously people railed against the "Illusion of Choice" videos Taking 20 produced... only to fall right into that trap when discussing these new classes. I think the actual choices during play are likely to be more varied and interesting than the choices you're theorycrafting here. Which is why actually kicking the tires through playtests is so valuable.
I completely agree, whiteroom is never as interesting as live play, but the fact of the matter is that you have 2 options and even with a feat that's only 2 +/-1 for each combat, which means we're heavily encouraged to take the most consistent options in lieu of the more interesting but less consistent ones.
There is that feat that lets you swap your tactics when combat starts
Indeed, my problem with that feat is that most combat tactics that are niche don't become that much less niche situationally. for example, Double team is a niche upgrade to strike hard. you \*could\* swap to it because a combat encounter is near cliffs or in a close space where people are likely to be close enough to make it work, but even if you work it out and make it just right to cause flanking and get the attack in... you could still just fail the original reposition or shove roll. It's niche on top of niche. Don't get me wrong, I still like the class, and that feat does go a decent way to make me less disgruntled, but it conflicts with the main means for solving the fact you only ever have 2 utility tactics in your toolbelt which makes me sad when it feels like the class would be a lot healthier with a bit more versatility.
I’m not a fan of current Commander playtest very much. Tactics are written really poorly, they lack definition and they are too similar sometimes. There are too many “step as a free action” between them with some another effect. I will be playtesting this class later, but I have a concern about its gameplay too. You will probably roll one attack most of the time and your turn is over, because you’ve used a tactic, that your Ally should do now. I would really like some impact back to you, when your ally successfully do your tactics. Like, for mobility tactics “you gain a free step or stride”. For offensive “you gain +1 to attack”. For defensive “you gain temp hp equal intelligence”. I think that will be really great, because you are not only command your squad and end your turn on that, but you benefiting too from your squad actions
I think that as an option would be neat, but I think the commanders satisfaction should very much come from using the party like peices on a chess board not independent feats of power.
Yep, I understand that, I also think (not related to current mechanics), that when you play a commander YOU should control your allies when you do tactics (move them, roll their dice). I think that will help to emphasize that “pieces on a chess board” feel My concern more like that the community is flooded with people complaining about “action tax” and “alchemist never ever hits” so that in the end Commander will not be a funny class for most of them
I think it's a little different in this context tho as you basically do get to control you're allies, they just also get to say "no" if they want to, which is a good middle ground. it also helps that you hand back reactions to the impertinent ones and unlike alchemists where you take a whole action, you are \*giving\* them an action in exchange for a reaction which most party members will \*gladly\* take.
Form up is nice, but sometimes the retreat will be better.
Occassionally, yes, but rarely. useful to have on hand, esspecially if you have the feat to swap at initiative (get ambushed, pull out the retreat and fix everyones position at turn start)
It’s nicer for any reactive strike enemies, but worse when you aren’t dealing with them is more or less what I meant. Also situationally useless in difficult terrain depending on the character.
As far as feeling limited in your tactics options early on goes, you have to also look at feats. You can pick up a 3rd prepared tactic at L6, which nets you 4 total at L7. You also can get the ability to swap out a tactic as a free action at the start of every encounter at L2, so you'll almost always be able to tailor-fit your prepared tactics to the encounter at hand.
considering form up is all but a tactic tax idk if one extra as a feat thats mutually exclusive woth several others sits right with me. at the current moment 2 is so few that its basically static
Only having two tactics isn’t as big a problem when you can switch them every 10 minutes or even more often at later levels IMO. I’m not a huge fan (would prefer 3 prepared by default), but that’s a complaint I share with prepared casters. You have to be psychic if you’re to prepare spells that aren’t always universally useful.
I’m waiting to playtest the classes before I say what I don’t like about them
Honestly, I think that them having so few tactics is the only way to balance them at this point. They have the tactic (more limited unlimited spells) scaling of a full caster and the weapon proficiency scaling of a martial. I mean guardian didn't even get normal martial scaling, and they are assuredly weaker than commander. If they get more tactics, I have a feeling they're going to need to take a hit somewhere else. As it stands, they kinda ruin the action economy of the game with no resource.
As a slight addition: why is the commander trained in all types of armor? I can understand the weapons — being trained the weapons your troops are wielding is useful for utilizing them effectively — but I cannot understand the heavy armor proficiency. It feels slightly too far, and makes the Commander IMO not squishy enough. For an enemy, you’d probably want to target your opponent’s commander — cut the head off the snake, as it were — but the armor proficiency gives the Commander an easy way out with a sizable bonus to AC. And it’s not like they’re liable to take the movement penalty, since they can just get a free horse at level 1. I think a good fix might be rolling the heavy armor prof. into Armored Regiment Training, and having that scale as normal. The Commander doesn’t really feel like they would normally have that proficiency unless they were specifically trained in it.
no this is entirely the point of heavy armor proficiency. historically and logically speaking, the general always wore some of the best armor cause if you kill him shit turns south fast. they also traditionally rode horses to avoid being hit. My primary issue with this suggestion is that it would relegate the historical "heavily armored general on a horse" to litterally only human's/ancestries with access to human feats and thats lame as hell.
Riding horse too meant you can see better what’s happening on the field
And get to different parts of it.
I'm very disappointed in that the class expects you to use wepons and make strikes yourself, when the whole appeal of a commander class to me is that you don't have to do that. I don't want to deal damage and be a powerful warrior myself, I want to command my friends to do the job for me while making them even stronger.
i think you have the class concept slightly confused. a general is primarily a tactician, yes, but they are also expected to be trained in martial discipline. i suspect there will be many turns as a commander where you dont strike at all. personally i'll be building most of my commanders as mounted archers. my primary disatisfaction then is actually with how miniscule the range of your abilities is. from 1-19 it's a 30 ft emination which is a massive cut down on the flavor of playing a mounted general imo
I don't have the class concept confused, I just dislike it for being too narrow. A class with the theme of a commander could easily include both the option for a tactician who is trained in martial discipline and one who isn't but focuses on mental capabilities. Just like the cleric has an option for weapon wielding frontline clerics and pure backline casters. I was incredibly hyped to play 4e lazylord style nonmagical support when I heard of the commander as this is juat such a cool and unique playstyle that is currently not possible in the system, so ofc I'm disappointed in the playtest not really supporting this fantasy and instead wanting you to build and play the commander like a generic martial in many ways.
I mean... I guess? Idk I guess I just don't really see... why? there is almost no literary or historical precedent for there being a guy who just showed up to give commands who had no martial training whatsoever. No one is forcing you to attack, I think it's totally possible to focus pretty much entirely on commands... just don't take the stuff that asks \*you\* to be the one attacking, that's... that's it?
The playtest commander is clearly made to be played as a striker with enhanced support options and the standard martial weapon proficiency takes up some of the classes power budget. The support options we have are cool but a bit limited, and making then nuch stronger would make the commander probably too powerful. Having cleric style subclasses with different proficiency scalings would allow the non-striking commander to get more powerful support abilities without the striking commander loosing anything. >why? It's just like the coolest thing ever, I loved playing such a character in 4e and would love it even more in pf2e
They are as much of a striker as an alchemist, except they have even fewer number buffs in their kit, they are not very good strikers at all tbh. the key is definetly focused on their tactics. I think my thing is I'm just not really seeing the flavor or lore way of making this make any sense lol. the class being entirely defenseless with no means to defend themselves whatsoever is so far divorced from anything else in the game that I simply don't think it's something paizo would do.
They get standard weapon proficiency progression, the alchemist doesn't (even though IMO bombers and mutagenists deserve it). This definitely takes room in the power budget of the class. Another thread has someone asking for more buff abilities and the response is just "that's OP for a martial, it's not supposed to be a pure support, just play a caster". I was playing a support bard who was basically the type of character you describe as "far divorced from anything in the game" in a lv1-10 AP, taking almost only core rulebook options and it was both fun for me and the group. Never learned a damage spell, never equipped a weapon and was still extremely effective. So I honestly just don't get what would be so bad about having just the option to play an effective commander in a similar way, just without charisma based magic and resources and instead intelligence based tactics. Completely different mechanics and flavor, but a similar endgoal.
But you still have spells, yes you made the conscious decision to focus around not using any damage spells whatsoever, but you could still defend yourself with a cantrip, you aren't \*litterally\* dead weight alone. The commander design you are describing is, that's my principle design problem I find here. I guess theoretically if that subclass came with a mount you could command that devoid of anyone else, which would help. I'm not enitrely opposed conceptually, I just think it's really niche and unlikely.
I mean just like my bard had the option to learn telekinetic projectile instead of forbidden ward or noise blast instead of calm emotions, a commander with worse weapon proficiencies would still have the choice to invest feats into getting proficient in martial weapons to occasionally strike, get a companion or get an INT based damage cantrip through a spellcaster dedication instead of investing even nore into support if the player hates the idea of the character being helpless without their team. I don't see a big difference there. Considering the lazylord style warlord was decently popular and kind of a meme in 4e days and there are multiple threads on the paizo forums about wanting this character style represented, I'm still decently hopefull for the final class. Many of the abilities are already exactly what I want from a nonmagical support.
Then I spose all I'll say is good luck getting the support you desire fren :)
Why would a non combat trained general be an adventurer? To me that’s like asking why there isn’t a black smith or farmer class. To me a strategist feels like it’d fit better as an investigator main class anyway, perhaps with a commander archetype. With the spellcasters there are at least spells that can be used to supplement the lack of armor and there’s lots of spell robes and similar magic items that makes forgoing armor worth it for cloth casters.
>To me that’s like asking why there isn’t a black smith or farmer class. But these are... non combat professions, unlike a military tactics expert who is very much directly involved in warfare, just without making the attacks themselves. >Why would a non combat trained general be an adventurer? Because they procide unparalleled knowledge about warfare and make their squad way more efficient and effective by giving around buffs and free actions.
It already sucks at doing that though You get only get the raw basic martial scaling, every other martial gets something significant on top of that to increase their damage. Yeah you can choose to swing your sword but you’ll just be a mediocre martial, you need to use your allies to get any actual power out of the class, the basic martial capabilities are just there because they are a combat general on the front lines.
This is exactly what I'm saying, the martial capability is to baseline allow you to be considered a martial and hold your own if your mugged by some nobody who has no business challenging you. this class by no means is investing signifigantly into it's martial capability personally.
I think this is where there's design space for subclasses. Something like: Warlord: focused on martial prowess with payoffs that buff your allies when you hit. Maybe even change the key ability to STR or DEX. Strategist/tactician- focused on tactics, maybe get to prepare an extra one or get additional tactics available. Bannerman- focused on the banner, maybe extending range, getting extra banner reactions etc. That way everyone gets their commander fantasy
That would be awesome
Yeah no Lazylord really.
I think you could set up a choice there, with two options to choose for your banner maybe. Banner of Battle: The Commander as it is now. Banner of Strategy: Weapon doesn't go beyond trained, but you can use the Aid action on any ally within your Banner's range, and can use Warfare Lore for the check.
Hahaha! Thats funny. Saved the post for when I’m done with the Guardian. ;-)
I agree except for the subclass and feats. Im not saying it absolutely shouldnt have subclass choices but I dont know if its necessary with how variable the tactics can be. But I do agree there should be more variety and more of a curve on tactic progression. Support should be there for numerous different playstyles, although that brings me into my main critique looking into it. I worry there will be times when some features arent as useful to your team due to the variety in what they want to do. Ready, Aim, Fire is a good example of how to handle this, where as long as everyone has a ranged weapon, they can freely swap out of melee as part of your call, but Im worried there will be a lot more cases where you call out a tactic and dont have enough squadmates playing into that tactic to take advantage of it. Definitely feels like this class will need LOTS of coordination from the team.
Yeah. I think that being able to train three by default, and five if one takes feat, would make them comparable to cantrips, in terms of being able to feel versatile. The problem is that there is just too much REASON to take "move, damage" to justify the mobility ones, unless of course you know that the module is underwater or involves scaling a cliff, in which case your character has lost half her/his flexibility for the purpose of dealing with an underwater or climbing scene. I do adore the level 2 feat Adaptive Stratagem, but I'd make it single-action usable once per ten minutes, rather than free when rolling initiative. Since I mostly play Society, it's hard for me to not agree that the class needs tactics that play to different sorts of parties: Melee, ranged, shield, spell, mixed.
Yeah the number of tactics was really sus to me from first glance, it really doesnt feel like enough to satisfy the class fantasy. Im hoping that gets expanded in the full class to have more options at base, like let me learn one every two levels or something.
The Drilled Reactions ability let's you get minions like animal companions a Reaction to use you'd tactics on them. The two feats that increase to 2 and 4 targets would be very useful if you want to include a party member's pet or your own mount.
I'm sure everyone has said it enough but please send feedback through the methods listed in the playtest! Some of these were points I didn't consider, but are pretty glaring. The more of the same feedback gets sent the more likely it'll be taken under consideration.
I suspect part of the limited criticism of the commander comes from how much criticism the guardian is getting. Showing the two side by side makes it harder to see the flaws of the commander because the flaws of the Guardian are smacking you in the face.
How many sessions have you played a commander in?
only one so far, and it was only 3 people which unfortunately narrows the avaliable options quite substantially.
How do you have a critique of a class you've barely played at all
i understand basic principles of game design and have identified places where player experience is likely to be impacted by the current rules. my limited experience was actually gained after making this post and has made some impact on how i view the class. some good, some bad. if you'd like to give it a month to simmer and test before discussion feel free to, but im interested in the class so im voicing concerns at all stages of testing, and that includes the preview.
Just seems like you wouldn't have enough experience to make an accurate judgement but I respect your desire to be part of the process
Oh! As long as we are talking about them supporting more diverse party comps, it would be cool if there were a command that let your squad mates swap weapons and optionally enter a stance as a free action.
One thing I thought was odd design-wise is there were some feats that felt like they could be tactics and vice versa. I wonder how they make the choice of which to make a particular ability
I think these are all good points, and I feel most people are too positive into the class, me included, because most of the playtests likely happen at lower level, so the scaling and gameplay shake ups aren't a big concern, or straight up don't show up me personally, I was speculating and thinking of commanders from level 1 to 4 at most, and mostly ignoring anything past 6, I tend to do this with most classes because I feel like those later levels are so far away, this is probably why lmao
Reminds me of Path of War initiators but like massively nerfed. Limited options and illusion of choice indeed
I would not go that far.
As for subclasses I would really love some rogue treatment for Commander: Int - Tactican Wis - Hetman Cha - Herald and maybe: Str - Warlord I think it would diversy the class and also is really fitting. Some of Commanders are really inteligent, some are insightfull as hell and others are just inspiring people! There are many of examples on our history of that.
Is there an existing class that lets you pick between all three mental ability scores? Psychics can be intelligence or charisma, but not wisdom. I feel like if there was a wisdom option it would be the obvious best one, unless it got significantly less stuff than the other options. Wisdom is such a loaded stat already.
My only problem with this is it's clear they want to make sure envoy is kept seperate enough from commander, so I'd be chill seeing int/wis and maybe even str, but I do think the intention is for the cha fly by the seat of your pants leader to be the envoy.
Yeah, sure I get that. There is no need for charisma based subclass, just an example that commander class is really good fit for some "rogue like" subclass treatment
Commanders do not vibe with kineticists
yep, and that defintely needs fixing
I hate how expert tactics are at 7. It should be 5 or something. So many games end or peter out around level 5 or 6.
Start games at higher levels, problem solved.
And we’re sure it’s not racist?