Verzen's page

Does anyone have the average DPS per action spent on this class?

Does anyone have the DPS charts for this class per action spent compared to other classes??

Nevermind I'm dumb. It does do that. I just didn't read it close enough.

Carry on.

The reason i think this would be beneficial is instead the player needs to decide if they keep the minor buffs / debuffs or they need to activate it for a big effect.

Just thought this would be an interesting idea but each rune should provide a passive buff until activated. Once I activate it, the passive buff goes away but something big happens

For example a rune of shielding might give me or the rune bearer a passive 1 AC but when i activate it, it provides 10 temporary HP and that passive buff vanishes. Each rune should have these passive bonuses until they are activated.

I don't think 2 slot per level is taking up all that much power budget at all, and frankly I think y'all should consider that something like getting an undead companion is already covered by the undead master at the same efficiency as it would appear in the class itself. The class will still keep the core thrall mechanic no matter what changes occur

Did they get rid of the evil alignment requirement for this though?

Personally I think thralls should just be undead companions. It is far more flavorful

I think the class would benefit GREATLY if it's power budget got rid of spellcasting from its power budget.

Make thralls into companions and can cast different focus spells depending on which type of undead they have. Then the necromancer can deal 1d4 damage (per every 2 levels) to the thrall to cast a focus spell without using a focus point. Some of the focus spells could be support spells such as the necromancer takes bones from a skeleton to create bone armor around an ally, or a spirit will create an aoe of void energy, etc etc. We also already have undead companions as initial support for the class.

Currently the thrall mechanism is super confusing when we already have companions as a concept. Can someone attack my thralls? What are their stats? Etc etc. I didn't immediately see where it's stats are.

The necromancer could simply be a companion focused class that can drain the life of it's companion in order to cast powerful focus spells. Furthermore it's focus spells could be slightly stronger than normal focus spells but can't cast any focus spells without the companion and their max focus spell points instead of 3 is 0.

We already have Vancian spellcasting for a necromancer like system through wizard where they can get an undead summon and cast necromancer spells etc. I think the class would be FAR more interesting and streamlined without vancian spellcasting. Plus, I'm personally a bit done with the Vancian system and having occult spells seems meh

Maybe include a mechanism where when you drain your thrall of life to cast a spell the more like you drain the stronger the spell.

For example.. deal 2d4 damage to the thrall, and ally gains temp hp equal to the amount drained.

And allow for a system where we can customize our thrall companions as well by allowing them to get their own feats depending on the type of undead it is.. make bone necromancers very different from flesh necromancers very different from spirit necromancers.

The class would feel significantly less clunky and combine familiarity with some new interpretations of this familiarity.

Verzen wrote:

I was wrong about falcata. It does go up to expert. But expert with how tight the math is significantly hurts and it is very noticeable with how much accuracy I have. The damage drops pretty dramatically.

As was pointed out to me a while back in a different thread, the system is very well balanced for martial+casters as long as your remember that their weapon strike is a secondary attack. So when you cast a spell, and then strike with a weapon, and you complain that your weapon strike is one proficiency step and maybe 1-2 attribute bonuses down from a martial's, remember that a martial's second attack of the round would ALSO be 4-5 points down from their first strike. Your second attack of the round is about as accurate as their second attack of the round....and it is somewhat unreasonable to ask that an archetype give the character the functional equivalent of a "bypass" of MAP that a straight-class character can't get.

I just don't think cool weapons like that should be punished.

Is it just me or half of these complaints just a function of not knowing how the game works meaning they aren't even issues in the first place,?

Like technically speaking falcatta proficiency progresses to expert and wizard dedication can in theory start off legendary.

How can you "start off legendary" with wizard dedication?

Is it just me or half of these complaints just a function of not knowing how the game works meaning they aren't even issues in the first place,?

Like technically speaking falcatta proficiency progresses to expert and wizard dedication can in theory start off legendary.

I was wrong about falcata. It does go up to expert. But expert with how tight the math is significantly hurts and it is very noticeable with how much accuracy I have. The damage drops pretty dramatically.

Verzen wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

No. We don't need PF3.

Quote:

1) The Issue: Dedications are all but worthless in most cases.

My players and I use dedications all the time. They are far from worthless. Some are better than others. With the remaster change to spellcasting proficiency, caster dedications are even better than they were. So not even sure what you're talking about.

Quote:

2) The Issue: The maths involved in the proficiencies is broken. If I want to wield a Falcata, in 99% of the cases, I can't wield one at high level.

Why can't you wield one? This doesn't even make sense. There is a feat to gain access to a falcata. The only thing the uncommon or rare tags do is leave it up to the GM to allow the falcata or not with something like unconventional weaponry.

There are archetypes like sentinel to boost armor.

If you want to encroach on other classes, the cost should be high. So not even sure what you're talking about here.

3. I don't even know what you're talking about. There are enough options as is for people to try tons of stuff.

4. Backgrounds used to be written because players enjoyed fleshing out their characters. Now they are worked into the mechanics of character building. They can be modified with DM approval as needed. They don't need anything more.

5. PF2 is more generous with stats than any version of the game. I find I have plenty of stat points to have good all around stats if that is what I want. You don't need a max stat in PF2 to be great. I have one player who spreads his stats all around all the time, he doesn't even notice 1 less to hit or damage in PF2.

People optimizing stats in PF2 is more of a personal OCD issue, when the game functions just fine spreading your stats around and building your character as you want.

Former PF1 players (me included) can't help but optimize and maximize stats even when I objectively know that PF2 doesn't require it.

It's 10 plus years of 3E and PF1 where maximized

...

I don't mean power wise. I mean feel wise. An ogre fighter should play differently than an elf fighter. Balanced but different.

No. We don't need PF3.

Quote:

1) The Issue: Dedications are all but worthless in most cases.

My players and I use dedications all the time. They are far from worthless. Some are better than others. With the remaster change to spellcasting proficiency, caster dedications are even better than they were. So not even sure what you're talking about.

Quote:

2) The Issue: The maths involved in the proficiencies is broken. If I want to wield a Falcata, in 99% of the cases, I can't wield one at high level.

Why can't you wield one? This doesn't even make sense. There is a feat to gain access to a falcata. The only thing the uncommon or rare tags do is leave it up to the GM to allow the falcata or not with something like unconventional weaponry.

There are archetypes like sentinel to boost armor.

If you want to encroach on other classes, the cost should be high. So not even sure what you're talking about here.

3. I don't even know what you're talking about. There are enough options as is for people to try tons of stuff.

4. Backgrounds used to be written because players enjoyed fleshing out their characters. Now they are worked into the mechanics of character building. They can be modified with DM approval as needed. They don't need anything more.

5. PF2 is more generous with stats than any version of the game. I find I have plenty of stat points to have good all around stats if that is what I want. You don't need a max stat in PF2 to be great. I have one player who spreads his stats all around all the time, he doesn't even notice 1 less to hit or damage in PF2.

People optimizing stats in PF2 is more of a personal OCD issue, when the game functions just fine spreading your stats around and building your character as you want.

Former PF1 players (me included) can't help but optimize and maximize stats even when I objectively know that PF2 doesn't require it.

It's 10 plus years of 3E and PF1 where maximized your stats was required that created this max stat-dump stat...

I also don't think ancestry feats have enough impact. I wish an orc fighter felt very different from an elf fighter but they mostly feel the same.

Verzen wrote:

1) The Issue: Dedications are all but worthless in most cases. If I have wizard dedication, the way the maths work, the spells will be resisted frequently. It makes it so I can't be a fighter with wizard dedication and then be able to cast any offensive spells. They all have to be regulated to support spells. If I try to utilize it for any offensive spells, the turn will almost certainly be wasted, which reduces character tempo.

The fix: Make it so a dedication doesn't feel like a waste of feats. Make it so it feels like the two classes are merged instead of having the dedication feel like it's 1/3rd the power of the main class. Allow for synergy between the main class and the dedication to occur.

2) The Issue: The maths involved in the proficiencies is broken. If I want to wield a Falcata, in 99% of the cases, I can't wield one at high level. The math is very tight in PF2E where even 1 status bonus to attack is noticeable as seen with bard songs being powerful. As it stands, if I wield a Falcata as say a thaum, id be taking a whopping -6 to attack as it wont advance past trained. If I use a feat for heavy armor, if my class doesn't progress to mastery, that's a whopping -4 to AC at high level with that as well. The general feats that allow for proficiency simply don't work when playing a high level campaign, making them useless feats. If there were better feat support later on such as allowing me to take additional feats to increase said proficiency, that would be a different story. To further complicate the matter, without an understanding of the maths involved and the underlying complications this creates, people new to the system wont understand how these are trap options and will select them and then they'll end up getting screwed in the end.

The fix: Open it up a bit more. Stop being so restrictive with what is viable. Allow viability with multiple options if people want.

3) The Issue: It's been 5 years since PF2E first released In PF1E I was subscribed to paperback

...

The more dedications that exist the more "system mastery" comes into play. For new players it would absolutely be overwhelming to sift through all the bad dedications and try to find the diamond in the rough.

Verzen wrote:

One of the things I hope PF3E accomplishes is to acknowledge the dedication issue.

For example - A fighter with summoner dedication

The summoner dedication now allows the fighter to become a synthesis summoner. They only have both fighter feats and Eidolon abilities while the synthesis eidolon is summoned.

It combines the two rather than try to have them competing over niches.

So you want power creep.

There's no way to add the core feature of one class to another class at full strength without making the character significantly more powerful.

This is what's known as a strawman also a false dichotomy.

Let's assume that each class is powered based on numbers.

A full classes power is represented by '1'

The way the current system is set up is that the main class is '1' while a dedication is around 1/3rd the power. There is no synergy between the main class and the dedication. They often compete over niches such as actions. The main class wins every time.

To avoid power creep, a dedication should make the main class 0.8 and the dedication 0.8 instead of 1 and .33. Make the abilities have a the ability to have synergy, but not be as strong as just doing a main class without a dedication. As it stands right now most dedications aren't useful. Oracle dedication with flame incendiary aura on a fire kineticist is very synergistic. But that's a rarity. I also have to give up 2 kineticist feats to get incendiary aura. Most dedications though aren't useful, compete over the same niche, aren't synergistic, and as such end up as trap options that NO ONE takes. When the book is filled with crap trap options like this, what's the point of them even being in the game? I'd rather have a few options that are all enticing than thousands of options that no one uses.

One of the things I hope PF3E accomplishes is to acknowledge the dedication issue.

For example - A fighter with summoner dedication

The summoner dedication now allows the fighter to become a synthesis summoner. They only have both fighter feats and Eidolon abilities while the synthesis eidolon is summoned.

It combines the two rather than try to have them competing over niches.

I play an inventor. So your whole post is invalid. :P

Seriously though, I disagree with most of your points.

1) Dedications are not worthless. They are a gate to more abilities. The spellcasting you get from it is fine for utility and even for offense - IF you keep investing into the archetype. If you want classes "merged", you need to play a hybrid like a Magus. Expecting a single feat to get you full proficiency in what makes another class special is a but much.

2) That's by design. Weapon and armor choices are supposed to be locked behind classes. You can expand your options with general feats and archetypes but not everyone can learn everything with ease. Your thaumaturge can have full proficiency in Falcata at level 12 if you're willing to invest into it - or even level 1 if your GM is generous with Unconventional Weaponry. And you can have full scaling heavy armor proficiency by level 2.

3) Archetypes are your new subclasses. If you think of a non-free archetype game, you either have your regular class feats or the feats of an archetype. So they are a way to change your abilities and playstyle. Class archetypes could be a bit more frequent, though it looks like we'll get a good few more before the end of the year.

Out of time for now. Might comment on the rest later.

The issue is, it feels like 90% are trap options.

Like, a summoner dedication. My Eidolon is useless in combat and my main class is significantly better than my Eidolon, so what's the point of having an Eidolon or the summoner dedication as a whole? At that point it feels like a waste of feats. This isn't just a rare instance. It's ubiquitous. The problem I see is that when 90% of options are useless or attempt to interfere with a niche your main class already accomplishes, the dedications don't supplement the main class. It tries to subvert what the main class can do, but at 1/3rd the strength of the main class, making getting the dedication worthless. There is almost no way to do synergy between classes at all which causes issues.

I'd rather have it not be an option, than to be an option but not be viable.

As much as I've been a supporter of paizo, there is something innately broken about the maths and game design PF2E has and I feel like the game itself is beating a dead horse at this point.

For example - I love the idea of having 1 level for the character. This makes things easier to understand. (Instead of how PF1E was, where I was like 2 barbarian, 3 fighter, 1 magus etc) I also love the idea that the maths are significantly simplified.

However, with this stated, there are some obvious issues with the game design.

1) The Issue: Dedications are all but worthless in most cases. If I have wizard dedication, the way the maths work, the spells will be resisted frequently. It makes it so I can't be a fighter with wizard dedication and then be able to cast any offensive spells. They all have to be regulated to support spells. If I try to utilize it for any offensive spells, the turn will almost certainly be wasted, which reduces character tempo.

The fix: Make it so a dedication doesn't feel like a waste of feats. Make it so it feels like the two classes are merged instead of having the dedication feel like it's 1/3rd the power of the main class. Allow for synergy between the main class and the dedication to occur.

2) The Issue: The maths involved in the proficiencies is broken. If I want to wield a Falcata, in 99% of the cases, I can't wield one at high level. The math is very tight in PF2E where even 1 status bonus to attack is noticeable as seen with bard songs being powerful. As it stands, if I wield a Falcata as say a thaum, id be taking a whopping -6 to attack as it wont advance past trained. If I use a feat for heavy armor, if my class doesn't progress to mastery, that's a whopping -4 to AC at high level with that as well. The general feats that allow for proficiency simply don't work when playing a high level campaign, making them useless feats. If there were better feat support later on such as allowing me to take additional feats to increase said proficiency, that would be a different story. To further complicate the matter, without an understanding of the maths involved and the underlying complications this creates, people new to the system wont understand how these are trap options and will select them and then they'll end up getting screwed in the end.

The fix: Open it up a bit more. Stop being so restrictive with what is viable. Allow viability with multiple options if people want.

3) The Issue: It's been 5 years since PF2E first released In PF1E I was subscribed to paperback books and I was VERY excited for new books to come in as I knew they would have new options for my favorite pet class. One of the reasons I loved PF1E so much was that every month there were new options, new ways to be creative, new synergies to think of. Nowadays though, in the past 5 years, there has been 1 new instinct for barbarian. Almost no class archetypes, and the ones that exist are straight garbage and downgrades (when class archetypes were literally my favorite part of PF1E), I rarely see support for older classes, I was excited for kineticist but my favorite element (void) will never be coming to PF2E. I highly doubt we will ever see a synthesis summoner either. From what it seems like to me, once a class is released, that class gets abandoned for the next "biggest thing" rinse and repeat. There's no more support, or at least what appears to be very little support, once a class comes out and this is a bit frustrating especially coming from the PF1E paradigm that we grew to love.

The fix: We need far more support released far more frequently for existing classes and make new classes that come out be rarer. I'd rather support what we do have than for new classes to try to fill niches that are already filled by what's currently available.

The issue I see at the end of the day is that we have classes no one actually plays because they are just subpar compared to what's already been released. I loved the idea of inventor, and I played it a few times, but do I know of anyone who still plays inventor? No. I rarely ever hear it mentioned.

We need classes that fill specific niches and then we need variations on how to support said niches. When we release new class after new class that tries to take up niches that already exist, those classes will just be forgotten about and no one will want to play them. I'd rather have archetypes people forget about than whole classes people forget about.

4) The Issue: Backgrounds and skill feats seem like a decent idea to help flesh out a character and give them more options, but in all honesty, these feel like you're 'restricting' backgrounds and the ability to RP a character rather than assisting. When we put backgrounds behind, say, stat blocks, I tend to look at what backgrounds my character can actually have so I dont fall behind in my party rather than any RP semblance of it.

The fix: Make backgrounds and skill feats actually mean something and have a bigger impact and dont make it so I cant select the background I want because it's behind some arbitrary stat increase. I've also heard people complain in a tongue in cheek way that they can't even "take a s#~~ without taking the feat for it" when I tried to convince them to play PF2E.

5) The Issue: Stats are redundant and outdated at this point. In early D&D, stats made sense to help flesh out characters, but now I've noticed that when I play PF2E or D&D5E, the stats are the exact same all the time. Maximize my class stat, dump my bad stat. If all stats are now the same because i feel like my class can't function without maximizing my class stat, thats an issue.

The fix: Get rid of stats completely. It's an archaic system at this point that has become useless to gauge effectiveness and if you don't build appropriately, it can hurt you more than help you.

6) The Issue: In order to promote RP sentimentality, you put points into charisma. This allows you to deceive, intimidate, or have diplomacy. If you can't do any of that because charisma is your dump stat, the game no longer is an RP game. You're just waiting around for the next combat so you can feel useful. Otherwise the sorcerer is in charge of doing all the RP.

The fix: Get rid of charisma as a stat. There shouldn't be a stat that gatekeeps being able to RP. Stop gate keeping the ability to RP efficiently because you aren't a certain class.

7) The Issue: Choices aren't meaningful enough. A lot of times I select certain choices and I'm just like, "Eh. I guess." rather than get excited for it.

The fix: Make each choice meaningful and impactful to the way the character is designed and works,

Bard. Songs.

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Tactical Drongo wrote:

even if one plays a armchair commander

New concept:

Commander whose Commanders Steed is a Legchair.

Literal armchair Commander.

I did play a lazylord as a really old, nearly blind, hard of hearing guy in wheelchair for a one shot once.

I dumped wisdom and he constantly miss-hear things too. Just Int and Cha, talking about the good old days, that just happened to be perfect advice for the combat his allies where in.

Why did I picture Abe Simpson just now lol

if the bard can be trained in martial weapons, a commander should too. Period. I don't think this needs much discussion.

If a bunch of randos of innapropiate classes show up at the table and that makes the commander a worse class than maybe the commander should be tweaked to avoid that? That argument makes it sound as if this wasn't a playtest explicitly to find this kind of problems in a class.

A support contributes to the party. The problem that people have with the commander is that is being markerted as martial, so people expect it to play like a martial (I.E deal damage with weapons) when in this system support and specially in the way the commander does it contributes to the overall damage the party deals per round.

I will say I really appreciate your posts, as you're able to say the thing I am saying but much nicer. ;)

I'm pretty exhausted at dishonest arguments.

But also when someone says, "martial" i think of 'not magic' Not "striking'

The issue is, is that we haven't had a truly non-magical (ie martial) support in PF1 OR PF2 without being significantly clever and cheesy with the rules.

In PF1e I did make a support that gave 6 of my allies +11 AC as long as they were in reach which was a support martial character utilizing multiple class dips. (Alchemist for his many arms, Skald for the AC song variants, etc) (But even that skald was using magic since I was using songs, I guess...)

Verzen wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

Taking away martial weapon proficiency from the commander raises a big risk of it being relatively useless or going unused in PFS games where the team isn't set up to cooperate/benefit or resents a player who doesn't directly contribute anything.

I don't understand how "cannot strike" somehow equates to "doesn't contribute at all"

Do you not understand the concept of support?

In Everquest 1, enchanters were an ESSENTIAL part of the group set up.

You did NOT want them using any damaging spells on the enemies. They were control and pure support classes. ALL they did was support.

The idea of support is still CONTRIBUTING.

If I spend 1 action using the bards song, is that a wasted action? Are bards basically just "two action classes" which aren't as useful as any other class? Of course not. That would be silly.

The idea of a pure support class "not contributing" when they are literally utilizing support capabilities is wild to me.

I want my commander to be a support commander. Not just, "This is another DPS class, but now called commander!"

Well good news then, because the commander is not a DPS class and it takes much more active character building to be even decent as a martial damage dealer with this class than it does to be a good support character. Even casters in PF2 are often better off having some kind of one action damage option available to them, even if they rarely use it, than they are trying to build around "incapable of ever doing damage ever." Which again, the best Commander builds I have seen so far still spend more than 2/3rds of their actions supporting allies, but PF2 requires every character to be able to do more than one thing over and over again.

If ya'll had it your way, ya'll would want each class to do DPS. Just different flavors of DPS.

Tactical Drongo wrote:

Do you never attack as inventor or thaumaturge? I would be really surprised by that

and even if one plays a armchair commander
I think there will be always situations/opportunities to just strike

I personally think 'pure nonmagical support' is still someone who participates in battle

trying to avoid making strikes sounds to me as if you are taking the concept a step to far

I think the concept of the lazylord goes with the assumption that your allies are your weapons, so if you make them attack, that's how you are attacking and contributing to the overall damage of the party. This is IMO fills the niche of "support martial" perfectly because martials are usually assumed to be damage dealers, so a "support martial" would be a martial that supports other party members do damage.

Note that even if your "role" would be to support others, by virtue of being a martial the commander should still be able to be decent at combat too. I want a lazylord, but there's people that want a warlord too, so the class should be able to fullfil both fantasies, which the current class kinda does.

I absolutely LOVE playing support and the support martial I want to see is one that helps my allies do their thing better by giving them extra attacks or casting an extra spell or something like that.

Taking away martial weapon proficiency from the commander raises a big risk of it being relatively useless or going unused in PFS games where the team isn't set up to cooperate/benefit or resents a player who doesn't directly contribute anything.

I don't understand how "cannot strike" somehow equates to "doesn't contribute at all"

Do you not understand the concept of support?

In Everquest 1, enchanters were an ESSENTIAL part of the group set up.

You did NOT want them using any damaging spells on the enemies. They were control and pure support classes. ALL they did was support.

The idea of support is still CONTRIBUTING.

If I spend 1 action using the bards song, is that a wasted action? Are bards basically just "two action classes" which aren't as useful as any other class? Of course not. That would be silly.

The idea of a pure support class "not contributing" when they are literally utilizing support capabilities is wild to me.

I want my commander to be a support commander. Not just, "This is another DPS class, but now called commander!"

Not related to the playtest but could we get companions such as like a Man At Arms in the book as well as an archetype focused on leadership like this? For a call back to the leadership trait.

Xenocrat wrote:

One reason the commander isn't going to fall into certain niches is to make it generally useable with randos who show up at a PFS table. "I just sit in the back and send good vibes or order you around" isn't going to fly socially and in many cases mechanically in that environment.

How is playing a lazylord different than what most casters already do in the system? The full support role exists in PF2e and has existed in TTRPGs for I don't know how much time. The most optimal bard playstyle is to be a buff bot, casters in general using buffs or debuffs is commonplace, and the very inspiration of the commander is the 4e warlord which enables the lazylord playstyle. This whole argument of "it would be boring" literally ignores that the playstyle already exists in the system, but not in the way the commander does it. If you think being a support is boring then probably you don't like the commander and what it represents.

The very fantasy of a commander is effectively to play as Sun Tzu.

I for one love playing support.

Also, the whole purpose of the commander is to give support. I don't need to be next to you because I'm more usueful shouting things at the back. That's how I pinpoint weakpoints in your target, how I inform you and the rest of the party how the enemy team is advancing, how to move appropiately in the battlefield to exploit those weaknesses, etc. That's the kind of commander I and many people want to play.

Not to mention that the whole "its fantasy" argument falls down in the moment you take into account there's a ton of fantasy strategist that never raise a single weapon in their whole story. It's just a bad faith argument.

This is one thing I dislike about the community.

New class gets released. We want to play the class but using a different playstyle that hasn't been explored before. The community argues against it and says, "No. We want another fighter but THIS time it's named Commander!" I've seen previous playtests be the same way where the community would rather not be innovative and would rather experience things and play things we've already experienced and played.

We already have these things. Why do we need the niche filled but under a different name?

Verzen wrote:

Strategists and tacticians usually didn't wade into battle themselves.

Yeah, this isn't really a great argument in a game like Pathfinder where a lot of things aren't adherent to that sort of thing - you usually can't take more than one direct critical hit from a giant axe - in real life, since I assume that's what you're equivalating - and still stand but you can here, so I fail to see how that's really relevant.

If I'm playing a team game, I would expect all of my teammates to actually wade into the battle alongside me.

In PF1 there were Bard builds and some Cleric build (Evangelist I believe) that ONLY focused on support and buffing people up. They didn't wade into battle. Why can't commander do the same?

Verzen wrote:

Strategists and tacticians usually didn't wade into battle themselves.

Yeah, this isn't really a great argument in a game like Pathfinder where a lot of things aren't adherent to that sort of thing - you usually can't take more than one direct critical hit from a giant axe - in real life, since I assume that's what you're equivalating - and still stand but you can here, so I fail to see how that's really relevant.

If I'm playing a team game, I would expect all of my teammates to actually wade into the battle alongside me.

Including bards? That are there solely for support?

exequiel759 wrote:

GameDesignerDM wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Stuff like this would make the commander very unique in that it can alter its playstyle and adapt to the situation.. you know.. what a true commander can do.

Adapting to the situation means not doing the same thing over and over again. With your example, the Commander would just command the Fighter or Barbarian with all 3 actions every round.

Also, boring...

It would also probably annoy the Fighter and Barbarian a whole lot and make them feel like they are just minions to the Commander - the existing Tactics at least are thematically interesting and do different things than "Hey, guy who is going to Strike anyway - make a Strike."

Does a battle muse bard make you feel like a minion? Because I played in a table with a battle muse bard and a character that had amped message from Psychic Dedication and I was happy every time they allowed me to have more actions in combat. If the commander does that but better then people will feel they effectively have extra turns, which means you get to roll more dice, which is usually were most of the fun factor of TTRPGs comes from.

That particular poster's parlance does not engender good feelings about the type of flavor they are envisioning with their ideas - and those other classes still are putting themselves in danger, not "I stand back and don't draw my weapon" - like, no, get up here and put yourself in the thick of it and then you can do your stuff on me.

Strategists and tacticians usually didn't wade into battle themselves.

Verzen wrote:

I dont see how my suggestion is overpowered at all.

You did not address most of the points I mentioned:

You're still getting to attack 3 times without having to spend the actions necessary to move into position.
You get to attack from multiple locations with no cost.

Suppose in your example the Barbarian felled their foe with your first attack. Now you're attacking with the Fighter from potentially up to 60ft away from where that occurred at no penalty.
If you were just a 2nd striker, you'd have to move or Sudden Charge or something to get into position most of the time.

You're getting to double dip the power into single target buffs. If that Barbarian received a rank 6 Heroism, you'd effectively be increasing the power of that spell by an extra third or more since you're getting extra buffed attacks, again at no cost.

Your entire math argument only works if the Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue are in non-magical equipment, with 0 buffs, and are all in range to hit each of the 3 different enemies.

Heck, that's another point: since this character you've suggested requires no stat or equipment investment, you get to invest those extra resources into the rest of the party, which only makes this whole situation worse, since now we're double dipping in economy.

Your suggestion that the ally makes a will save even makes the problem WORSE, since they're saving against the Commander's DC, the Commander is incentivized to have a lower DC, which should never be the case.

Lets face facts. Archer is the same. They dont need to move into position and archers deal insane amounts of damage. A lot more than commanders would be able to do.

You're also wrong as this ability would only effect squadmates (Wasnt mentioned specifically but definitely implied since the class can only effect squadmates) so you need intelligence to effect squadmates.

Bards don't require equipment investment. Neither do psychics who have message amp.

I may have said that backwards but the intent is to offer a chance for the guy to be too stubborn to follow orders.

And yes I get pissed when people purposefully misconstrue what i am saying. And yes i know it's on purpose because people arent that dumb to see what I am saying and then accidentally misconstrue it and then continue to argue about it and ignore correction.

So yes. He did that on purpose. And no. I do not see how my suggestion, which actually deals less dps than the current thing in the PDF is somehow OP.

I am not using it as a generic insult when I am saying that they are misconstruing my argument. Even my original post said, "The same ally cannot be selected more than once per round" and he still said, "Barbarian strikes twice and rogue strikes once" how is it not a strawman at that point? lol

You really don't understand what strawman means, do you? You seem to be flinging it about at anyone who criticizes your idea without any understanding of the meaning. You're using it as a generic insult.

Your responses in this thread seem to be extremely hostile to any criticism of your idea. It's been pointed out that your initial posted concept is not balanced at all, and you just keep trying to kludge on more restrictions and such to make it work.

The thing is, the printed Strike Hard works perfectly well. It's basically a direct copy from Marshal's To Battle! feat at level 8 (well, the two-action version of it - the one action version is available as a separate tactic... that works for the whole party, so a straight upgrade).

Now, allowing the use of cantrips and elemental blasts is a sensible addition. The issue is that all of that should really cost two actions still. What you propose, at best, would basically render it utterly pointless for a Commander to invest in their own offensive options because they can just use whatever party member has the most damaging option at the time from a safe distance. And doing it from a distance is inherently saving on action economy - ranged attacks are usually weaker for a reason!

A strawman is misconstruing an argument. I know what it is. When I repeatedly, not once, not twice, but 5 times said that MAP works for the entirety of the strikes, including whatever the commander does and he repeatedly ignores me and adds +5 to it that is a strawman.

When I repeatedly said you can target the same ally once with it per round and he adds the barbarian strikes twice to his argument that is a strawman.

If one person misunderstands you, that person has just misunderstood you. if everyone is misunderstanding you, maybe its time to step back and explain yourself better.

Incorrect. People need to ask questions if something isnt understood and actually read my responses rather than ignore my responses when I try to clarify.

I will repeat myself in hopes of preventing further strawmen from being murdered.

This is given at level 1 as part of the chassis. It is not a feat. You cannot pick this up as a diff class.

Command: Strike Now! > or >> (Attack trait)

If you spend one action, you can make a strike with an ally using your MAP to make a strike within reach of that ally.

If you spend 2 actions, you can have an ally use a cantrip instead of a strike.

Can not target the same ally more than once per round with this ability.

Multiclass benefit (which I didnt previously add) could be

Command: Strike Now! >>
Target ally makes a strike at a -5 penalty.

Yeah, sorry, but as much as you really want to just take a turn doing Strike Hard 3x, I don't see it happening. There's no way to balance that properly, and your butchering of the Attack trait and MAP concepts isn't going to get you there.

Here's my proof: I'll make a Wizard multiclassing Commander. I cast two actions on a spell that uses saving throws and then Strike Hard to give the barbarian an attack at full bonus. This lets me play a character who functionally is a full spellcaster and full martial at the same time, and with the bonus that I get to deal full melee damage from 30' away!

Your proof is to further strawman my argument?

How many strawmen can you guys make in one argument? Seriously?

Did you not see the part where I said it's part of the class chassis? You get it built in at level 1? That its not a feat you can pick up?

So how is your wizard magically getting this ability? Thats like saying Fighter is over powered because you can just multiclass into fighter to get the +2 bonus to attack and be expert in attack, or you can just multiclass into ranger to get the MAP reduction or you can just multiclass into therm and get the full effect of their abilities to deal more damage.

Plus the chance of hitting with a rogue at -8 it approximately 5%.

Unfortunately edit times meant you answered before the edit was added, but to repost it:

Even if you fix your MAP issues, the ability to attack with Melee damage using Ranged actions by itself is OP.

When the vast majority here are telling you you are wrong, it's probably better to accept it rather than stubbornly deny without justification.

Edit:
To give you the simplest of examples of a normal round:
The barbarian goes next to the target and swings twice.
The rogue goes and flanks the target and swings twice.
The Commander then goes, attacks twice with the barbarian, doing more damage because he now flanks, and then goes once at -8 with the rogue doing even more damage.

Oh look more strawman. What part of, "Can only target one ally per turn with this ability" are you struggling with?

Unfortunately edit times meant you answered before the edit was added, but to repost it:

Even if you fix your MAP issues, the ability to attack with Melee damage using Ranged actions by itself is OP.

When the vast majority here are telling you you are wrong, it's probably better to accept it rather than stubbornly deny without justification.

Edit:
To give you the simplest of examples of a normal round:
The barbarian goes next to the target and swings twice.
The rogue goes and flanks the target and swings twice.
The Commander then goes, attacks twice with the barbarian, doing more damage because he now flanks, and then goes once at -8 with the rogue doing even more damage.

The vast majority aren't saying I am wrong lol.

If you understood statistics, youd understand that the vast majority are silent and the people who want to argue with others are vastly more likely to respond than those who agree who often keep quiet.

Just because you and one or two others piped up doesnt give you the right to use an appeal to popularity on me when its gauged on bad statistical data.

Unfortunately edit times meant you answered before the edit was added, but to repost it:

Even if you fix your MAP issues, the ability to attack with Melee damage using Ranged actions by itself is OP.

When the vast majority here are telling you you are wrong, it's probably better to accept it rather than stubbornly deny without justification.

Edit:
To give you the simplest of examples of a normal round:
The barbarian goes next to the target and swings twice.
The rogue goes and flanks the target and swings twice.
The Commander then goes, attacks twice with the barbarian, doing more damage because he now flanks, and then goes once at -8 with the rogue doing even more damage.

How is it overpowered? Archer deals more damage than a commander would.

Its hilarious that whenever I suggest classes get or emphasize cool schticks, yall keep claiming its OP when other classes can do that thing and more.

Because you apparently don't know the rules to this game, I said it would have the attack trait.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=540&Redirected=1

"An ability with this trait involves an attack. For each attack you make beyond the first on your turn, you take a multiple attack penalty. "

WHICH MEANS if you make a strike using another player as a CONDUIT that strike is effected as per MAP and you keep IGNORING what I am saying and arguing with me. Rather than ask QUESTIONS TO CLARIFY you keep arguing with me. It is absolutely obnoxious.

Verzen wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Now. Show me the maths for your argument showing my suggestion is OP and better than any martial in the game, please. Back it up with maths. Not just baseless assertions with no evidential support.

Who's gaslighting?

the math as:
+7(commander)/+7(barb)/+3(rogue)

Vs a barb doing a rotation of +7/+2/-3

Vs ac 17:
Commander, average damage of (D12 weapon cause why not) 9.5 hits 50% and crits 5%, so 6.3
Barbarian, average damage of 14.5, same odds, 8.7
Rogue average damage of 11 (2d6+4) hits on a 14, crits on a 20, so 30% hit, 5% crit. So average 4.4

5.7+8.7+4.4 = 18.8

3 strike barbarian:
50%+5%crit, 25%+5%, 5%
Average damage 15.225

The commander dealt 23.5% more damage than the barbarian.

How is the barb +7? Does your level 1 barb have +12 attack? If so I think you're cheating.

Dude, you asked for math.

Math proved you wrong.

Let's see what you posted as the ability effect:

Quote:

"If you use one action for this ability, you can order one of your squadmates to strike at a target within range of that squadmate. The 2nd time in a turn that you use this ability, the squadmate makes a strike at a -5 penalty. If this ability is used a 3rd time in the turn, the squadmate makes a 3rd attack at a -10 penalty. These penalties can be reduced based on your squadmates class selection, feat selection, or weapon selection."

So, YOUR attack is at 0 MAP

THE FIRST TIME you use the ability, the barbarian attacks at 0 MAP
THE SECOND TIME you use the ability, the rogue attacks at -4 MAP due to his short sword.

As written, the ability has the Commander doing 25% more damage than the barbarian.

So, OP, proven by actual maths and not your gaslighting ones.

Stop being an idiot. It frustrates me.

I already explained to you the math that you used was wrong. Insisting its right is

...

And I clarified several f*+~ing times and you refused to listen to me and you ignored what I was saying!

Verzen wrote:

I literally showed yall the math and the math is slightly weaker than how it currently is and yall are still arguing with me lol.

Amazing.

That would help if you knew how to math, but you did them wrong.

The correct math shows the Commander doing 25% more damage than a barbarian.

Mellored understood after I clarified, why can't you?

Verzen wrote:

I literally showed yall the math and the math is slightly weaker than how it currently is and yall are still arguing with me lol.

Amazing.

That would help if you knew how to math, but you did them wrong.

The correct math shows the Commander doing 25% more damage than a barbarian.

Okay sure if you randomly strawman my argument and refuse to be corrected and you add in a random +5 to barbarians attack. But im the one doing math wrong. Uh huh.

Verzen wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Now. Show me the maths for your argument showing my suggestion is OP and better than any martial in the game, please. Back it up with maths. Not just baseless assertions with no evidential support.

Who's gaslighting?

the math as:
+7(commander)/+7(barb)/+3(rogue)

Vs a barb doing a rotation of +7/+2/-3

Vs ac 17:
Commander, average damage of (D12 weapon cause why not) 9.5 hits 50% and crits 5%, so 6.3
Barbarian, average damage of 14.5, same odds, 8.7
Rogue average damage of 11 (2d6+4) hits on a 14, crits on a 20, so 30% hit, 5% crit. So average 4.4

5.7+8.7+4.4 = 18.8

3 strike barbarian:
50%+5%crit, 25%+5%, 5%
Average damage 15.225

The commander dealt 23.5% more damage than the barbarian.

How is the barb +7? Does your level 1 barb have +12 attack? If so I think you're cheating.

Dude, you asked for math.

Math proved you wrong.

Let's see what you posted as the ability effect:

Quote:

"If you use one action for this ability, you can order one of your squadmates to strike at a target within range of that squadmate. The 2nd time in a turn that you use this ability, the squadmate makes a strike at a -5 penalty. If this ability is used a 3rd time in the turn, the squadmate makes a 3rd attack at a -10 penalty. These penalties can be reduced based on your squadmates class selection, feat selection, or weapon selection."

So, YOUR attack is at 0 MAP

THE FIRST TIME you use the ability, the barbarian attacks at 0 MAP
THE SECOND TIME you use the ability, the rogue attacks at -4 MAP due to his short sword.

As written, the ability has the Commander doing 25% more damage than the barbarian.

So, OP, proven by actual maths and not your gaslighting ones.

Stop being an idiot. It frustrates me.

I already explained to you the math that you used was wrong. Insisting its right is insisting that the strawman you created is my argument

...

I LITERALLY F&**ING DID MULTIPLE TIMES!!!

7/2/-3

7/2/-3

7/2-3

Doesn't matter who's making the attack on the commanders turn (except fighter who gets a +2) it's still 7/2/-3

MAP EFFECTS THE ENTIRETY OF WHAT THE COMMANDER IS DOING!

You are adding a random +5 bonus FOR NO REASON to the barbarians attack and acting SURPRISED that it now deals more DPS as a result than barbarian because now you're ignoring MAP when my argument is including MAP. For f@$$ sake dude.

I literally showed yall the math and the math is slightly weaker than how it currently is and yall are still arguing with me lol.

Amazing.

Verzen wrote:

Ranged don't have to move either. And? Think of it like ranged attacking but you can only strike targets adjacent to your allies. Same thing.

ranged attacks with a d12 takes 2 actions. One to attack, one to reload.

Then you get to swap to agile weapon for your third attack, without using an action.

Might be fine at higher levels, where 1 improved Strike is weaker compared to other compressed actions.

IF your barbarian has a d12 weapon and you can only target him once per turn with it.

So I have played a high-level Silent Whisper Psychic, which can use Amped Message to let an ally use a reaction to Stride, Strike, Step, Trip, or Shove.

Message is only 1-action, but it costs a Focus point. So it is balanced against all other uses for Focus points in combat.

This ability is *extremely* powerful in play. 1-action unlimited use to give an ally a Strike would absolutely be unbalanced. 2-actions unlimited use seems about right. (Especially since it won't cost your ally a reaction, since you will be gifting it to them.)

*sigh* Again with other people being disingenuous.

Psychics also get spells they can use 2 actions on. Casters are balanced around only casting 1 spell per turn and not balanced around striking. They are balanced around casting level 9 spells or level 10 spells at high level and that additional action usually isnt used for much, as such, that ability deserves to be slightly on the weaker end.

Since this would be the commanders main schtick and since they do not get level 9 or 10 spells, the power budget can be afforded to it.

Verzen wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Now. Show me the maths for your argument showing my suggestion is OP and better than any martial in the game, please. Back it up with maths. Not just baseless assertions with no evidential support.

Who's gaslighting?

the math as:
+7(commander)/+7(barb)/+3(rogue)

Vs a barb doing a rotation of +7/+2/-3

Vs ac 17:
Commander, average damage of (D12 weapon cause why not) 9.5 hits 50% and crits 5%, so 6.3
Barbarian, average damage of 14.5, same odds, 8.7
Rogue average damage of 11 (2d6+4) hits on a 14, crits on a 20, so 30% hit, 5% crit. So average 4.4

5.7+8.7+4.4 = 18.8

3 strike barbarian:
50%+5%crit, 25%+5%, 5%
Average damage 15.225

The commander dealt 23.5% more damage than the barbarian.

How is the barb +7? Does your level 1 barb have +12 attack? If so I think you're cheating.

Dude, you asked for math.

Math proved you wrong.

Let's see what you posted as the ability effect:

Quote:

"If you use one action for this ability, you can order one of your squadmates to strike at a target within range of that squadmate. The 2nd time in a turn that you use this ability, the squadmate makes a strike at a -5 penalty. If this ability is used a 3rd time in the turn, the squadmate makes a 3rd attack at a -10 penalty. These penalties can be reduced based on your squadmates class selection, feat selection, or weapon selection."

So, YOUR attack is at 0 MAP

THE FIRST TIME you use the ability, the barbarian attacks at 0 MAP
THE SECOND TIME you use the ability, the rogue attacks at -4 MAP due to his short sword.

As written, the ability has the Commander doing 25% more damage than the barbarian.

So, OP, proven by actual maths and not your gaslighting ones.

Stop being an idiot. It frustrates me.

I already explained to you the math that you used was wrong. Insisting its right is insisting that the strawman you created is my argument when its not. You then used this bad model which has nothing at all to do with my argument as evidence my argument is wrong. Why are you being dishonest? I dont know how many different ways I must explain this to you for you to get it. At this point I assume you are doing this on purpose making you dishonest.

It's simple. The commanders ability has the attack trait. So if I attack with commander with a +7, then barbarian, barbarian, then rogue, the math is +7/+2/-3. You dont get to randomly give the barbarian +5 because you feel like distorting what I am saying. Stop being dishonest.