Battlecry! Playtest Debriefing

So excited to see the guardian and commander in full glory! Thanks to everyone who gave their feedback!

Super excited to see how Commander shakes out! Very cool design, I'm definitely looking forward to seeing all the tactics!

I appreciate how open this process is! Can't wait to meet the new iconics (at GenCon maybe??) and see how they play out on the battlefield!

Leaping heroically in front of an ally to take a hit is exactly what I was hoping for Intercept Strike. Excited to see the final versions of both of these!

GET DOWN!

HAHA, I LIVE!

Intercept strike getting a bit of movement was my biggest hope! That's awesome. Very excited for the final version! Thanks you Jason

I’m a bit concerned about how it sounds like they really want a negative for taunting, when it’s already eating an action and you are getting hit, ideally. Ultimately, if you’re making the effective AC to hit the people you’re protecting the same as your own, there’s still no reason for the creature to not just ignore you, as everyone is on the same level at that point and the others are still priority.

I understand the fear of it being overpowered, but what good is the class if it can’t do its main function? in my humble onion, I would rather a more interesting interpretation like fascinated and must attack you or something.

If you do give the Commander a mascot, I hope the option remains to have the mascot be a mount. I found that part really useful and thematic.

I'm sad that there's not an option for "Guardian that isn't based around taunting" in the cards.

A big thank you to everyone at Paizo involved in sifting through, parsing, and working with all of the feedback given for this playtest. Reading through the debrief makes me feel like all of the big points of feedback given here and in other community spaces have been heard loud and clear, and I look forward to seeing the finished work! I'm especially excited to play a Commander with even more tactics to choose from; seeing a class like this in Pathfinder is a dream come true.

I would love if the Guardian imposed a penalty to targeting allies.

Home, sweet home.

I didn't remember to get this into the survey, but hopefully other people mention it: free actions without triggers wait until the character's turn to activate under baseline rules; if the Commander granted free actions are meant to trigger on the Commander's action, then they need reference to the Commander's action being the trigger. And if not, that needs to be more clear in the class/feature description.

This sounds so exciting; thanks, guys! I got to do one session with a playtest awakened animal commander, and they were a pretty big hit at the table. I'm already looking forward to getting to update them.

I'm really looking forward to the commander having more tactics. That way even someone who dunderheads like I did will have some for most situations, just in case they forget that they're fairly easy to swap. I also really like the idea that Master Tactics will be 1/10 mins, and Legendary Tactics will be 1/day; that makes them both feel more special, helps reduce load, and has the side-effect of letting those tactics be more powerful while still encouraging you to really learn your bread-and-butter tactics you intend to use a lot.

Also glad to hear the guardian's Intercept Strike is going to be a bit more mobile. What has me super excited are their more generalized resistances. That's not a space that has really been core to a class before, barb is probably the one that comes closest, and I'm looking forward to the pseudo-HP bumps they grant. Also add my voice to those glad that we can yell, "Get down Mr. Wizard!" in the heat of combat.

I'm sad that there's not an option for "Guardian that isn't based around taunting" in the cards.

Hopefully, with Intercept Strike having a larger zone of control, you'll be able to not lean on Taunt as much when the class comes out.

If you do give the Commander a mascot, I hope the option remains to have the mascot be a mount. I found that part really useful and thematic.

The idea is that it doesn't really need to be specifically limited to a mount. It could be, but also like, why not a falcon that carries your squad's pennant or a hunting hound that helps your River Kingdoms commander hunt bandits through the forest?

I’m a bit concerned about how it sounds like they really want a negative for taunting, when it’s already eating an action and you are getting hit, ideally. Ultimately, if you’re making the effective AC to hit the people you’re protecting the same as your own, there’s still no reason for the creature to not just ignore you, as everyone is on the same level at that point and the others are still priority.

I understand the fear of it being overpowered, but what good is the class if it can’t do its main function? in my humble onion, I would rather a more interesting interpretation like fascinated and must attack you or something.

I think it actually says the opposite, focusing on the penalty applied to hitting your allies, as opposed to the benefit to hitting you

i look forward to what you decided to settle on for the guardian. Thank you for giving the chance to see the prelim version and playtest it.

pH unbalanced wrote:

If you do give the Commander a mascot, I hope the option remains to have the mascot be a mount. I found that part really useful and thematic.

The idea is that it doesn't really need to be specifically limited to a mount. It could be, but also like, why not a falcon that carries your squad's pennant or a hunting hound that helps your River Kingdoms commander hunt bandits through the forest?

Or be like the Polish 22nd and adopt your own Wojtek.

Aside from the obvious and unsurprising failure of my one-kobold "change Taunt's name" crusade, this sounds like it covers just about all of my concerns! Super excited to see what comes out. It's my first time properly taking part in one of these playtests, and although I didn't play a guardian (just played alongside a couple), it was really neat trying to analyze what was going wrong and right with the class.

I'm a big fan of the idea of changing Banner's name, for the same reason I was on my BS about Taunt--I like it when core class abilities have names that help me flavor what my character is doing, and "banner" does feel a little confusing when it might be attached to a, like, ordinary sword.

Oh, and the mascot idea is super cute; a good way to make the ability more accessible to non-mounted combat builds. I'm picturing a commander with a little fairy familiar yelling "Hey, listen!" to rally her allies.

Taunt feels like a huge branching path puzzle. We had, like, seven different ideas for where y'all could go for it, ranging from crazy stuff ("what if it just gives you an aura enemies can't pass through without damaging you first, like the kineticist gets to do by conjuring walls") to much more modest ideas ("what if attacking allies made the attacker vulnerable to your attacks, creating an indirect punish mechanic flavored as 'making yourself too obtrusive a threat to ignore', like the Heavy from TF2") to pure nihilism ("just give up and make it a feat"). It's a challenging mechanic, but I'm rooting for it!

By the way, the "damage you to pass" mechanic feels like what I'd do with Hampering Strikes. We have to let the Guardian be better at defending her allies than a level 1 wood kineticist!

I'm really, really excited about the Commander!

Here's me hoping that the Guardian can meaningfully satisfy more concepts other than the "beefy meatshield" tank.

Being too narrow was one of the reasons why many PF1e classes became Archetypes in PF2e (or were simply ignored), wasn't it? Like Cavaliers and Vigilantes.

The Guardian is the class I’ve always wanted and never had. No pressure.

I would certainly like the idea of the banner to become a little more flexible though. I don't like the imagery of my character waving a flag everywhere they go because otherwise I don't have class features, more so when a similar character concept can be achieved with the marshal archetype that doesn't need a banner whatsoever.

I didn't remember to get this into the survey, but hopefully other people mention it: free actions without triggers wait until the character's turn to activate under baseline rules; if the Commander granted free actions are meant to trigger on the Commander's action, then they need reference to the Commander's action being the trigger. And if not, that needs to be more clear in the class/feature description.

Given it's not their own thing giving them the Free Action, but someone else actively giving them the ability to take the Free Action, that probably innately counts as the Trigger. Which to be fair has Precedent going all the way back to the original PF2e CRB, with Liberator Champions' Liberating Step. Unless you'd argue that doesn't let the ally Step when it goes off, and instead they have to wait for their turn, in which case... I think you're the minority opinion on that one.

@Jason: Really like the changes proposed to the Guardian, but I do hope that -

(A) Offensive capabilities of the Guardian are looekd at. I think Guardians should have some ability to provide forward-progress as needed...

(B) Less importantly, I hope some thought is given to whether we want to tie Guardian features to Heavy Armor... I think Medium Armor is such a niche choice that it shouldn't be penalized...

I would certainly like the idea of the banner to become a little more flexible though. I don't like the imagery of my character waving a flag everywhere they go because otherwise I don't have class features, more so when a similar character concept can be achieved with the marshal archetype that doesn't need a banner whatsoever.

I could go for some stylistically different options, myself. But if they stick with the banner because of its historical significance I'd understand.

I'm still concerned about guardians having below-average weapon proficiency compared to other martials. While raw damage output obviously isn't the main goal of the class, I feel like a defense-oriented melee class shouldn't be outright discouraged from trying to make Strikes, especially given the class's martial flavor (and especially given that existing defensive classes, namely champions, don't have the same limitation). If you can't use a weapon well then you feel more like a very insistent punching bag rather than a cool protector guy.

Here's the thing: I personally don't think I mind Guardians having (by default) weak attacks, but they absolutely need better action options. So many of their abilities currently are passive, reactive. If you aren't multiclassed, it's genuinely hard to know what to do on a turn, which makes the lack of strong Strikes feel kind of weak.

I kind of like the idea of Guardian normally having weaker weapon scaling, but getting an ability/feat that brings their math up to that of a traditional frontliner--if Taunted enemies ignore them to focus on allies.

I've been having a lot of fun with Commander. Definitely eager to see how they grow.

Here's the thing: I personally don't think I mind Guardians having (by default) weak attacks, but they absolutely need better action options. So many of their abilities currently are passive, reactive. If you aren't multiclassed, it's genuinely hard to know what to do on a turn, which makes the lack of strong Strikes feel kind of weak.

I kind of like the idea of Guardian normally having weaker weapon scaling, but getting an ability/feat that brings their math up to that of a traditional frontliner--if Taunted enemies ignore them to focus on allies.

Since they have more reactions to protect folks, I think an elegant solution is more Reactive Strikes!

Other classes use their actions for offense... you use them for defense, and you can spend your excess reactions for Strikes if you didn't use them defensively.

I can't wait for Battlecry. Both classes look amazing and are right up my alley. Can it be next year now plz?

Commander seems to be shaping up to be great.
Guardian still sounds like it wants to be martyr the class.
Hope there's lots of great martial options in the book overall.

Commander seems to be shaping up to be great.

Guardian still sounds like it wants to be martyr the class.
Hope there's lots of great martial options in the book overall.

I'm especially looking forward to any new archetypes we get. I'm hoping for lots of archetypes themed off of various military organizations, like Nirmathi Rangers or Druma's Blackjackets. Possibly some animal companion options too, some forms of specialization that make them better in armor, or that turn them into chargers.

We might also get a handful of monster statblocks, which could be cool; a range of troops would be nice to have for general use.

I recently ran a solo AP / playtest of a campaign I gm'd 2 years ago. The Guardian basically solo'd the final boss of Age of Ashes with the slight support of a caster keeping the boss on the ground. Obviously it was thanks to hampering sweeps that the boss never left the ground again, but guardian is imo on of the craziest classes you ever printed.

The class is overpowered but not with their core abilities. Taunt is a super hero already, but only if you use it on range. It's perfect for time where you tank the boss and then taunt everything running to the backline on 120ft. Just stop taunting the moment the enemy is around you. Intercept strike was in my testing completely useless besides 1 or 2 crits throughout the campaign, which is alright for a free ability.

The class chassis itself with the feats turns it into on of the best classes ever printed.

I am very happy for everything you have mentioned about your plans for the Commander.

I am glad you are reconsidering the Guardian. I would really like to see it work. But my issues with the Guardian were as much conceptual as mechanical. Taunt is a terrible name for a guarding action.

I love the sound of all of this and it really is awesome how open y'all are about the actual mechanical response to the playtest, where as other games... for the Dashing and Daring, only talk about "Well we got this percentage positive and this percentage negative which tells us..." and doesn't actually say "So these features were pain points which we plan to change going forward."

Nice.

I love these "book report" style post-playest blogs. It's like watching a kid turn in their homework that they actually did themselves.

More tactics per day, cool. And I like the idea of stronger, more complex tactics getting a limit, to keep the lower level ones worthy of a folio slot.

For the Guardian, I'm glad to see the re-work include added mobility and increased toughness. I think those were sorely lacking as compared to other classes organized around defending.

Cheers!

I'm especially looking forward to any new archetypes we get.

The main thing I'm holding out hope for is some kind of DEX-melee class archetype for fighter (other classes too, but mainly fighter). I like the theme of being the weak-but-agile melee guy, but aside from Reflex saves and switch-hitting (which are legitimately good benefits), the only stuff you can actively do with DEX itself in melee combat (namely Balance and Tumble Through) is extremely situational. It'd be nice to have a class archetype to grab more broadly-useful DEX feats like Tumble Behind and Sly Disarm. In addition, if I'm playing a DEX-based melee fighter, I'd want to give up my medium/heavy armor proficiency, armor specialization effects, and probably some Fortitude proficiency in exchange for better Reflex proficiency and/or a higher Speed and/or other "weak but fast" benefits.

Just to be clear, with the "mascot" proposal, this would still allow a mount, right? The mascot just lets it work with animal companions in general.

I guess it's a bit of a silly question but my ability to parse nuance from text is pretty limited.

EDIT: Nevermind I actually spotted someone has already asked, and had the answer. I need new eyes. Maybe ones that shoot lasers.

I hope the Reload! Tactic allows the commander to reload as well. Gotta have my 40k commissar concept lol.

Absolutely LOVED the Guardian playtest, and very happy to see that the broader feedback pretty well matches our group's ideas. Very much looking forward to seeing these classes on the table.

Michael Sayre wrote:

pH unbalanced wrote:

If you do give the Commander a mascot, I hope the option remains to have the mascot be a mount. I found that part really useful and thematic.

The idea is that it doesn't really need to be specifically limited to a mount. It could be, but also like, why not a falcon that carries your squad's pennant or a hunting hound that helps your River Kingdoms commander hunt bandits through the forest?

Or be like the Polish 22nd and adopt your own Wojtek.

Hey, Awakened Animals are a thing now, so you could play Commander Wojtek and validate your rank. :-)

I'm sad that there's not an option for "Guardian that isn't based around taunting" in the cards.

The subtext implies Paizo has to rework the class, at least to be meatier, more versatile than the skeleton it was. *hoping*

Perpdepog wrote:

Michael Sayre wrote:

pH unbalanced wrote:

If you do give the Commander a mascot, I hope the option remains to have the mascot be a mount. I found that part really useful and thematic.

The idea is that it doesn't really need to be specifically limited to a mount. It could be, but also like, why not a falcon that carries your squad's pennant or a hunting hound that helps your River Kingdoms commander hunt bandits through the forest?

Or be like the Polish 22nd and adopt your own Wojtek.

Hey, Awakened Animals are a thing now, so you could play Commander Wojtek and validate your rank. :-)

My playtest commander was Commander Hardapple, pronounced Har-DOPPLE, who was an awakened warhorse warleader which wore a dummy on their back to pass themselves off as a human on horseback.

I hope the final versions are polished and amazing but to be honest, the playtest classes did not really vibe with me, and at worst I felt that the commander could be disruptive at the table (as other players will have to pay more attention when it is not their turn) so yeah, good luck.

Of course, it's perfectly fine that the product does not appeal to everyone, and I am already well served with classes I enjoy.

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Here's the thing: I personally don't think I mind Guardians having (by default) weak attacks, but they absolutely need better action options. So many of their abilities currently are passive, reactive. If you aren't multiclassed, it's genuinely hard to know what to do on a turn, which makes the lack of strong Strikes feel kind of weak.

I kind of like the idea of Guardian normally having weaker weapon scaling, but getting an ability/feat that brings their math up to that of a traditional frontliner--if Taunted enemies ignore them to focus on allies.

Since they have more reactions to protect folks, I think an elegant solution is more Reactive Strikes!

Other classes use their actions for offense... you use them for defense, and you can spend your excess reactions for Strikes if you didn't use them defensively.

The funny thing is, we were actually talking about how much better a job a fighter with a scythe did at protecting the backlines. Turns out, a reaction that punishes enemies for fighting anyone but you already exists! It's called Reactive Strike, and it's a lot better at protecting the backlines than anything the Guardian could bring to bear in either of our playtest games.

and at worst I felt that the commander could be disruptive at the table (as other players will have to pay more attention when it is not their turn) so yeah, good luck.

This is totally correct and a fair critique! Here's a way to rephrase that, though: Other players no longer have to zone out when it's not their turn. Waiting for your turn to roll around is boring! The only reason people stop paying attention between turns--which is, tactically, a huge mistake--is because paying attention feels boring. It's an inherent flaw to the game that while paying attention to what allies and enemies are doing is highly optimal, many players find it dull and uninspiring, since they don't have anything to contribute. Classes that give allies more to do between turns effectively disrupt that boredom.

I'll also note that when you fully zone out between your turns, you then have to have what just happened recapped to you every single round, which means you don't actually start figuring out your action until your turn comes around. If every player is doing this, the combat slows down, and the wait becomes even longer, and paying attention to recap after recap becomes even more boring!

I agree. Getting people to pay attention on other people's turns is a good thing, and something game mechanics should be encouraging. Zoning out is disruptive to multiplayer gaming, and while I'm not faulting anyone who does it (That'd be the pot calling the kettle black), if games can help people maintain their attention, that's great.

I really don't want to see all legendary tactics be once-per-day tactics. I get that they could be made stronger, but it removes the element of choice from the option. In the playtest you could choose between a 1/day save or consistent encounter offence. With this change all the legendary tactics would become something you try to save for as long as possible each day. Plus, I feel offensive tactics are easy to justify not using in a dire situation if you are planning to save it for the boss.

I'm guessing you can still swap your legendary tactics out between combats after their once per day use.

Blake's Tiger wrote:

I didn't remember to get this into the survey, but hopefully other people mention it: free actions without triggers wait until the character's turn to activate under baseline rules; if the Commander granted free actions are meant to trigger on the Commander's action, then they need reference to the Commander's action being the trigger. And if not, that needs to be more clear in the class/feature description.

Given it's not their own thing giving them the Free Action, but someone else actively giving them the ability to take the Free Action, that probably innately counts as the Trigger. Which to be fair has Precedent going all the way back to the original PF2e CRB, with Liberator Champions' Liberating Step. Unless you'd argue that doesn't let the ally Step when it goes off, and instead they have to wait for their turn, in which case... I think you're the minority opinion on that one.

I assumed the Commander's action served as a trigger for the granted free actions until a GM during the playtest pointed out the rule on free actions. Player Core pg. 15

However, they're writing an entire book with the new class in it. We shouldn't have to rely on assumption and referring to pre-remaster class features that don't work well without ignoring a printed rule when they can just slip into the Tactics rules text a line to the effect of, "Free actions granted by a tactic can be used even when it's not your turn."