I'm curious what this class will do that the Marshall archetype doesn't, but I haven't played the battle lord or whatever Michael Sayre called his 3rd party class. But Path of War rocked so I'm optimistic.
I wonder if this will take the narrative space of 'Skald' and bring it more in-line with 'could be any culture' versus 'seems to be Scandinavian'.
Is that PF2 Lore Warden (less heavy nerfing)?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really will be nice to see a support character option that isn't a caster and doesn't have to sing and dance to buff his or her comrades.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is anyone else super excited for the commander ? Has anyone played the old 4e warlord ? What are you hoping from the class.
Yes and all I'm really hoping for is another type of play style. I want alternatives to Reactive Strike and Haste. I want team works and tactics buffs.
Not duplicates just options.
Yeah... Commander feels like a medium armor proficiency martial - with viable options for a commander based on ranged weapons who'd probably go with light armor. I'd guess that shield block would be available through the class, though it might be a specific class path or as part of a specific lvl 1 class feat.
I was asking myself why warrior muse didn't have medium armor in the Remaster since I felt it was kinda lame they granted it martial weapons to all bards but forced them into a Dex-based role since they were limited to light armor.
Commander is probably the reason.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I usually play Tanks in MMORPGs and stuff, and while Guardian is on the positive side of my "oh this'll be cool" meter, the Commander is what I'm really stoked for, I WANT TO WIELD A GIANT BARBARIAN ONE-HANDED.
(Man, these guides take me back, they were my constant companion in navigating that system, and I loved all the little witticisms and such.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Commander likely doesn't have heavy armor since the Guardian definitely does and they are in the same playtest so likely the same book.
I'm curious what this class will do that the Marshall archetype doesn't, but I haven't played the battle lord or whatever Michael Sayre called his 3rd party class. But Path of War rocked so I'm optimistic.
probably the same thing as dual weapon warrior and fighter, in that they might share a number of the same feats.
But also an Int based option as well. Calling out an enemies weakness to fire or low Reflex saves seems like a good Commander move.
Maybe a Wis based one that spots things really well
Commander Styles
Tactician (Int): boost movement and difficult terrain.
Studious (Int): learn enemy weakness and lowest saves.
Braveheart (Cha): front line encouragement.
Dreadful: (Cha) front line intimidation
Overwatch (Wis): stands in the back, ensuring allies aren't flat footed.
Guerrilla (Wis): stealth and initiative boosts.
Studious
Primary Ability: Int
Once per turn when you attack a creature, you gain a cumulative +2 circumstance bonus to recall knowledge about it. You gain the Spot Weakness feat.
Spot Weakness: Free Action: You can attempt a recall knowledge check against a creature to determine it's lowest saves and vulnerabilities. You can add your level even if you are not trained in the appropriate skill.
On a critical success, you and your allies deal +1 bonus damage to it.
This bonus increases...
Braveheart
You gain the "They make take our lives..." feat.
At level 10, they gain the "but never take our freedom" feat.
....
The sentence I wanted to use that we decided was a little too technical for a broad audience announcement (and probably legitimately not spicy enough), is that one could fairly describe the commander as a "prepared martial" kind of similar to the way one might talk about a "prepared caster"...So I think it'll be less martial, with their aura of granting buffs, and more like a book of tactics you can pull from as the situation demands. I'm pretty optimistic about that take, because making your tactical buffs more limited means they've got room to be a bit more powerful, making the Commander feel more impactful earlier on.
...
If this is what they are going for and it gets executed properly i think i might have a new favourite class.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure GMs will eventually get tired of my "That's twenty-one combat damage from my Commander" joke.
I'm curious what this class will do that the Marshall archetype doesn't, but I haven't played the battle lord or whatever Michael Sayre called his 3rd party class. But Path of War rocked so I'm optimistic.
Wait did he actually cite the Warlord from Path of War as a inspiration? I wasn't able to catch the stream when it happened.
I usually play Tanks in MMORPGs and stuff, and while Guardian is on the positive side of my "oh this'll be cool" meter, the Commander is what I'm really stoked for, I WANT TO WIELD A GIANT BARBARIAN ONE-HANDED.
(Man, these guides take me back, they were my constant companion in navigating that system, and I loved all the little witticisms and such.)
Agreed. Warlord was one of the few things I really liked about 4E.
And I would much prefer to be able to use my action (probably 2 actions?) to order another PC to take an action on my turn, rather than just give them a Quickness effect letting them have more actions on their turn. Feels more like a direct response to something I'm doing than just a regular buff.
Bards Courageous Assault is 2 actions with a +1 bonus to all.
So maybe something like...
Commanders Stike: 2 actions
An ally can use their reaction to make a Stike. Attempt an Aid check to add to that strike (no extra action or reaction needed).
Commanders Aid: you can add your level to Aid checks when attempting to Aid in something your not trained in.
Improved Commanders Aid: when you Aid, you give out a +3 bonus on a critical success, and a +2 on a normal success.
Legendary Commanders Aid: when you Aid, you do not need to roll a check. You always give a +4, circumstance bonus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious what this class will do that the Marshall archetype doesn't, but I haven't played the battle lord or whatever Michael Sayre called his 3rd party class. But Path of War rocked so I'm optimistic.Wait did he actually cite the Warlord from Path of War as a inspiration? I wasn't able to catch the stream when it happened.
I didn’t catch any references to PoW or the Warlord, but Captain Morgan is referring to Michael’s Battlelord class that originally appeared in Liber Influxus Communis for PF1, was expanded in Liber Xpansion and then was revised for PF2 in Battlelord, all published by Amora Games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be really interested in how the Commander differs from the SF2 Envoy, which is honestly very, very close to the play fantasy I'd want from this. Curious how the "prepared martial" element is executed! It reminds me of how people speculated about a Martial Controller class for all of 4e's run.
Design Manager
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn’t catch any references to PoW or the Warlord, but Captain Morgan is referring to Michael’s Battlelord class that originally appeared in Liber Influxus Communis for PF1, was expanded in Liber Xpansion and then was revised for PF2 in Battlelord, all published by Amora Games.
Which is a different class than the commander; as I mentioned elsewhere, battle lord can be fun to play alongside the PF2 commander if you want to go for an Iron Elves / Malazan / Black Company sort of deal. They've both got strong military / officer vibes but the battle lord is built around a subclass structure, has rolling flourishes, and is much more "fightery" than the commander is set up to be (not that the commander can't fight, it definitely can, but the battle lord gets things like advanced weapon training, bravery, and battlefield surveyor baked into its progression.)
They're both still martials and their shared themes of being intelligent leaders means there's some inevitable overlap, but probably the best way I can think to put it is that the battle lord is more like a champion while the commander is more like a bard. The way they do things, the way you build them, and the tools you rely on to do the things they do are all different.
I do think you could have a pretty fun adventure using nothing but those 2 classes, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Commander is going to be a full support martial? Oh, Michael, don't tease me like that! This week is going to be a long one before the playtest.
Curious how the "prepared martial" element is executed! It reminds me of how people speculated about a Martial Controller class for all of 4e's run.
IMO
You know X Tactics. Durring a long rest you can prepare Y of them with your party durring a long rest. Allies must be present during the long rest in order for you to benefit from the Tactic.Something like
Retreat!
1, 2, or 3 action.
1 action: you and an ally can immediately Step
2 actions: you and all allies can immediately Step.
3 action: you and all allies can immediately Step and Stride.
The movement must be away from an enemy. Once a creature benefits from this, they are immune for 10 minutes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, so now I'm imagining the silliness of a party that consists of an Envoy, a Commander, a Battlelord, and a Bard, all madly handing buffs out to one another.
Free archetypes (if available) into Marshal, Alchemist, Medic, and the other Marshal.
I suspect it would actually work out pretty well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, so now I'm imagining the silliness of a party that consists of an Envoy, a Commander, a Battlelord, and a Bard, all madly handing buffs out to one another.
Free archetypes (if available) into Marshal, Alchemist, Medic, and the other Marshal.
I suspect it would actually work out pretty well.
(Frowns, mutters to self angrily) Marshal, Marshal, Marshal!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Action Synergy Team Best Friend Squad Go!Okay, so now I'm imagining the silliness of a party that consists of an Envoy, a Commander, a Battlelord, and a Bard, all madly handing buffs out to one another.
Free archetypes (if available) into Marshal, Alchemist, Medic, and the other Marshal.
I suspect it would actually work out pretty well.
Omigod! I *love* ASTBFSG!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn’t catch any references to PoW or the Warlord, but Captain Morgan is referring to Michael’s Battlelord class that originally appeared in Liber Influxus Communis for PF1, was expanded in Liber Xpansion and then was revised for PF2 in Battlelord, all published by Amora Games.
Only because I *am* an Obsessive Compulsive Wolf....but that quote is by me. Not Captain Morgan. Although IRL my name is Morgan. Just...not a Captain. Though of course some folks insisted on calling me that. Like when I was a captain... of a soccer team. Or president of the P+C. Got a silly alcohol-merchandise related hat that time and everything. Which wasn't exactly a good look. Given it was a school thing. Also the hat was a red tricorn.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The name "commander" is too on the nose. Why not just name it Warlord? Imo it's just a better name.
There's always issues when the name of a class doesn't match up with people's expectations (see: Summoner). I don't think it makes sense to call it the Warlord unless they're specifically trying to emulate the 4e class.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't see "on the nose" as a problem, really? I mean, it's not like "fighter" or "alchemist" are classnames veiled in mists of obscurity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel Guardian is a much worse name than Commander though. Commander sounds fine actually, while Guardian sounds more generic and like a role rather than a class. Kinda like if the class was called "Tank", or if the Commander was "Support" instead.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean the problem with the name "Guardian" is exactly the same problem with the name "Fighter" (anybody can fight) or "Champion" (anyone can be the champion of a cause) and probably a lot of other classes (anybody can invent, anybody can investigate, etc.)
I like "Guardian" a lot better for what is supposed to do than the other possibilities I have heard suggested. It is straight and to the point. I even think it sounds halfway cool... a lot better than "Tank", "Defender", "Warden", "Aegis", "Protector", "Steward", "Keeper", "Bodyguard", or "Watchdog". Afterall, "Bastian", "Sentinel", and "Vanguard" are already taken. I don't necessarily have a problem with all those names; I just think "Guardian" is the best fit and sounds better. In fact, I could see some of those even being names for possible subclasses, if there are any.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The name "commander" is too on the nose. Why not just name it Warlord? Imo it's just a better name.
Because "warlord" is usually somebody who's using military force to prop up control over a destabilized region, and it's generally referring to the person in charge over all? I definitely get that a lot of classes don't use the actual meaning of words, but you it'd be weird to have your lieutenant in the Andoran defensive militia be a "Warlord", but "Commander" is used for platoon leaders and is a lot more neutral in tone.
I think Commander works better as the class name, opening up a lot more character concepts. You could do a Warlord subclass, like you have Tyrant for Champion- maybe focusing on using intimidation.
|
Design Manager
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Warden" is used heavily in ranger feats, "aegis" isn't appropriate for reasons that will become apparent, "protector" is arguably pretty lame even if you don't like guardian, "tank" isn't a class name (it's an MMO role), "stewards" are the folks who keep the throne warm for you while you're off adventuring, "keeper" is creepy, "bodyguard" is a profession (not a class), and "watchdog" is a pet.
Guardian is at least a word they've named superheroes after.
But also, this is the commander hype thread, not the "debate the guardian name" thread ;)
"Warden" is used heavily in ranger feats, "aegis" isn't appropriate for reasons that will become apparent, "protector" is arguably pretty lame even if you don't like guardian, "tank" isn't a class name (it's an MMO role), "stewards" are the folks who keep the throne warm for you while you're off adventuring, "keeper" is creepy, "bodyguard" is a profession (not a class), and "watchdog" is a pet.
Guardian is at least a word they've named superheroes after.
But also, this is the commander hype thread, not the "debate the guardian name" thread ;)
D'oh! That's what I get for having multiple tabs open. I saw the posts about the Guardians name and thought I was in the Guardian Speciation thread. Sorry, my bad.
As for Commander as a class name, I used to hate it a couple years back when some of us were theiry-crafting about potential classes, but i have come around on it and now prefer it to the other names i have heard.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In all honesty, I'm kinda warming up to guardian. It's like the opposite of fighter in that a fighter "fights" while the guardian "guards".
If it ends up having expert proficiency in armor at 1st level then this analogy will work even better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that I’d want to see what I haven't seen mentioned yet is some kind of action reduction to the aid action. Or, more specifically, the prepare part of that. Being able to set your preparation as a free action each turn, and so always prepared to aid a recall knowledge check or a group skill check, would fit an intelligence based class I think.
Getting a higher bonus from using the aid action would also work, but I’d like to see the class lean heavily into the aid reaction.
|
The name "commander" is too on the nose. Why not just name it Warlord? Imo it's just a better name.Because "warlord" is usually somebody who's using military force to prop up control over a destabilized region, and it's generally referring to the person in charge over all? I definitely get that a lot of classes don't use the actual meaning of words, but you it'd be weird to have your lieutenant in the Andoran defensive militia be a "Warlord", but "Commander" is used for platoon leaders and is a lot more neutral in tone.
I think Commander works better as the class name, opening up a lot more character concepts. You could do a Warlord subclass, like you have Tyrant for Champion- maybe focusing on using intimidation.
Also Warlady.