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.
copying Fake Out
Trigger An ally is about to use an action that requires an attack roll, targeting a creature within your weapon's first range increment.
Requirements You're wielding a melee weapon.
With a skilled flourish of your weapon, you force an enemy to acknowledge you as a threat. Make an attack roll to Aid the triggering attack. If you dealt damage to that enemy with the same weapon since the start of your last turn, you gain a +1 circumstance bonus to this roll.
I have no problem with either name. Though I have no real idea of the mechanics of either, Commander works for a leader type and Guardian absolutely works for a protector. I actually really like Guardian as a name.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really excited for the Commander because 1) I love nonmagical support classes, and 2) I think anything that encourages players to look at the battlefield holistically is great for the game.
My one concern for the class is that I'm worried it might amplify martials too much, while not doing enough for casters. Too often, casters are expected to "cheerlead" martials without ever getting similar boosts in return, which leads to a lot feelsbad at the table and repeated arguments within the community. I think my dream for this class is to be the kind of force multiplier for wizards that bards and clerics are for fighters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Martials still need amplification to 'catch up' to casters, if we are going to revive that old tired thought-chain.
I have very rarely run into 'cheerleading' from casters.
If anything, Casters throw out a craptonne of rockets and let the martials 'catch up'.
The perfect blend of support/blast is hard to find.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My one concern for the class is that I'm worried it might amplify martials too much, while not doing enough for casters
they are Int based.
So Recall Knowledge to identify the lowest save world be a big help to casters.Tactical Assessment 1 action
You are adept at sizing up a foe even if you have never heard of them before.
Attempt a Recall Knowledge check against a creature you can see. You can add your level even if you are not Trained.
Critical Success: you learn their lowest savings throw and all of their vulnerabilities.
Success: You learn their lowest savings throw and their highest resistance.
Failure: you learn their highest savings throw.
They are Int based.
So Recall Knowledge to identify the lowest save world be a big help to casters.
I personally don't think the fun or challenge of a tactical combat game should depend so much on meta-knowledge, as it punishes players for not knowing enough trivia while also making people who enjoy reading about creatures feel like cheaters. I'm not saying mystery and discovery aren't important, but there's gotta be more strategic depth than that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally don't think the fun or challenge of a tactical combat game should depend so much on meta-knowledge, as it punishes players for not knowing enough trivia while also making people who enjoy reading about creatures feel like cheaters. I'm not saying mystery and discovery aren't important, but there's gotta be more strategic depth than that.They are Int based.
So Recall Knowledge to identify the lowest save world be a big help to casters.
I don't consider a commander shouting "they are tough but slow" to be meta knowledge.
Nothing about it requires the player to have read the monster manual. It's the character is studying the enemy to determine it's weakness.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't consider a commander shouting "they are tough but slow" to be meta knowledge.
Nothing about it requires the player to have read the monster manual. It's the character is studying the enemy to determine it's weakness.
Right, but what I'm arguing is that knowing or not knowing something about the monster as a player shouldn't be so heavily weighted into a class's power budget. Any RK-based feature should still provide some mechanical benefit for someone who already has relevant meta-knowledge, otherwise the strategic mastermind class is ironically a worse pick for a more experienced player.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, but what I'm arguing is that knowing or not knowing something about the monster as a player shouldn't be so heavily weighted into a class's power budget. Any RK-based feature should still provide some mechanical benefit for someone who already has relevant meta-knowledge, otherwise the strategic mastermind class is ironically a worse pick for a more experienced player.I don't consider a commander shouting "they are tough but slow" to be meta knowledge.
Nothing about it requires the player to have read the monster manual. It's the character is studying the enemy to determine it's weakness.
I heavily dislike the idea that being a more experienced player means having learnt all creatures' statblocks and using it to metagame.
Actually, I feel refraining from metagaming shows a truly experienced and thoughtful player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
knowing or not knowing something about the monster as a player shouldn't be so heavily weighted into a class's power budget.
You don't want features to be based on player knowledge
Any RK-based feature should still provide some mechanical benefit for someone who already has relevant meta-knowledge,
but you don't like my suggestion because a player might have knowledge.
Those 2 statements are at odds with eachother.
Might just be me, but I never tell my players the name of the monster they are fighting.
"A large creature charges out of the darkness and swips with it's claws." That's all the info you get until you make a check, or it breaths fire next turn.
I've had experienced players trying to shut down an Orcs regeneration with fire and acid, due to a Nat 1 on a RK.
My party is full of optimizers and tactically adept players. So i don't have an issue making it a little harder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Might just be me, but I never tell my players the name of the monster they are fighting.
"A large creature charges out of the darkness and swips with it's claws." That's all the info you get until you make a check, or it breaths fire next turn.
I've had experienced players trying to shut down an Orcs regeneration with fire and acid, due to a Nat 1 on a RK.
My party is full of optimizers and tactically adept players. So i don't have an issue making it a little harder.
"A monster comes charging out of the darkness at you."
"What kind of monster?""An ugly monster."
Admittedly, that's pretty entertaining.
Now, there's some degree of implied knowledge that seems like it would be legit. Like, if you find yourself in a fight with a monster who's visibly made of living flame, then you could reasonably expect that fireball might not be the most effective spell to use on it. Still, it's a solid way to approach the issue.
|
knowing or not knowing something about the monster as a player shouldn't be so heavily weighted into a class's power budget.You don't want features to be based on player knowledge
Any RK-based feature should still provide some mechanical benefit for someone who already has relevant meta-knowledge,
but you don't like my suggestion because a player might have knowledge.
Those 2 statements are at odds with eachother.
Might just be me, but I never tell my players the name of the monster they are fighting.
"A large creature charges out of the darkness and swips with it's claws." That's all the info you get until you make a check, or it breaths fire next turn.
I've had experienced players trying to shut down an Orcs regeneration with fire and acid, due to a Nat 1 on a RK.
My party is full of optimizers and tactically adept players. So i don't have an issue making it a little harder.
That's not a lack of meta knowledge, that's a lack of in-character knowledge.
Rolling Recall Knowledge is about knowing something as a character, not as a player. While you can tell the player that the monster is weak to silver or whatever, you can describe it in an in-character/setting manner. (i.e., “You notice that the monster appears to have been deliberately trying to avoid hitting your silver belt buckle when it swung at you.”)
That's not a lack of meta knowledge, that's a lack of in-character knowledge.
No. It's denying the players the data that they'd need to make use of meta knowledge that their characters wouldn't have.
You can do similar things by just messing around with the descriptions - rather than give them no information, you give them a description that might fit the creature reasonably well (or at least fit what the PCs could reasonably perceive of it in the moment they have before the impact), but isn't the official description (and thus doesn't line up with an informative entry in a rulebook)
Mucking about with the stats of a creature can do similar things. "Oh, in this world, trolls are immune to fire, and slow down when struck with cold. Didn't you know? Well, neither did your character."
...and now I'm imagining a game where Recall Knowledge is the actions that you use to force monsters to behave in accordance with the rulebooks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do you mean "every monster we fought in this campaign was a brainchild?"
"A monster comes charging out of the darkness at you."
"What kind of monster?"
"An ugly monster."
"What kind of monster?"
"Roll an RK".Admittedly, that's pretty entertaining.
It's also more engaging IMO.
You're fighting, but don't know what.Now, there's some degree of implied knowledge that seems like it would be legit. Like, if you find yourself in a fight with a monster who's visibly made of living flame, then you could reasonably expect that fireball might not be the most effective spell to use on it. Still, it's a solid way to approach the issue.
oh sure. That would probably be "a bonfire stands up and runs at you".
Sometimes it would be kind of obvious, and it shouldn't take +4 Int to know that fighting fire with fire isn't a good idea.
I still won't say "Living wildfire" or anything like that.
|
|
That's not a lack of meta knowledge, that's a lack of in-character knowledge.No. It's denying the players the data that they'd need to make use of meta knowledge that their characters wouldn't have.
The post I quoted was about denying the players all of the information that the characters do have.
I strongly suspect it doesn't really mean "You see a formless mass of hit points appear to attack you," which is why I questioned it.
...wait, hang on, you responded to the same thing I did and made a similar point.
???
That's not a lack of meta knowledge, that's a lack of in-character knowledge.No. It's denying the players the data that they'd need to make use of meta knowledge that their characters wouldn't have.The post I quoted was about denying the players all of the information that the characters do have.
I strongly suspect it doesn't really mean "You see a formless mass of hit points appear to attack you," which is why I questioned it.
...wait, hang on, you responded to the same thing I did and made a similar point.???
Well, in the particular case of "A monster comes charging out of the darkness at you", you might be a little pressed to pick up on any of those context clues, if there are indeed context clues to be had.
The real disagreement between us, though, seems to be more one of degree than of kind. Like, sure, there *are* context clues that a PC might reasonably expect to be able to pick up on... but they're fewer than you'd think. Consider... oh, say, all of the common ancestries. By my judgement, none of them have the kind of clear context clues that would actually tell a truly uninformed character anything about the difference between them. So now, to play this game properly, we're looking at a level of description that can't distinguish between an elf, a goblin, and an orc. They could probably tell that a leshy was a plant-person rather than an animal-person, but that's about it. So by my read, the level of description he gave there would be appropriate... sometimes. They already clarified that they give more than that when it's sufficiently obvious, and at that point it seems entirely reasonable to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They already clarified that they give more than that when it's sufficiently obvious, and at that point it seems entirely reasonable to me.
well again, my players are pretty good. So I'm sure I am more vague than I would be with a less experienced group.
But, IMO, a reasonable rule of thumb would be to give the creature type.
A beast charges you.
A construct suddenly awakens.
A dragon roars.
An undead breaks out of the coffin.
That's a little hint, and someone trained in occult but not nature won't attempt an RK on a fairy.
They already clarified that they give more than that when it's sufficiently obvious, and at that point it seems entirely reasonable to me.well again, my players are pretty good. So I'm sure I am more vague than I would be with a less experienced group.
But, IMO, a reasonable rule of thumb would be to give the creature type.
A beast charges you.
A construct suddenly awakens.
A dragon roars.
An undead breaks out of the coffin.That's a little hint, and someone trained in occult but not nature won't attempt an RK on a fairy.
Heh. Funny thing is that these days, "It's a dragon" gives you no information whatsoever about which of the four core knowledge skills it is.
Just that it probably has wings, and bite and a breath weapon. Not especially useful.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I heavily dislike the idea that being a more experienced player means having learnt all creatures' statblocks and using it to metagame.
Actually, I feel refraining from metagaming shows a truly experienced and thoughtful player.
I think I'm starting to smell a little roleplay-versus-rollplay debate sneaking into the discussion here, so I'm going to do my best to articulate my feelings without stepping on any toes. I think Pathfinder 2e's a more tactically-inclined game than not, and thus considerations about the roll-y side should take slight priority over the role-y side (which is honestly so lightly enforced by the mechanics that you could almost treat PF2 like a videogame if you wanted, which sounds gross and boring to me but some people really enjoy).
My personal stance on metagaming in combat is that expecting people to play "worse" in order for the game to work correctly is both unrealistic and unfair. I don't like the idea of putting a player into a situation where they feel like they have to do the "wrong" thing on purpose just to maintain the illusion of player-character separation; they should only ever do that if it adds to the fun, such as during a dramatic conversation or to give another player/character a chance to shine. I feel this way because I've seen a lot of players twist themselves into knots over whether or not they're "allowed" to put a bit of meta-knowledge to use, either because the GM was overly militant, or because they themselves were anxious about being a "bad" player.
I also think that a well-designed combat encounter should still be engaging even if the GM straight-up let you read creature stat blocks during the fight. There are more sources of tension and uncertainty than trying to determine whether or not something has a Reactive Strike, and while mystery and discovery are lots of fun--as are the moments when you learn something the hard way--it's not wrong to really lean into the sportier, pseudo-competitive side of PF2's combat. Plus, having the difficulty of a combat hinge on an RK roll or educated guess? Kind of lousy design, TBQH.
I agree that it's immature to try to speedrun an adventure, crack open a monster block in another tab, or spoil the ending of a whodunnit at the expense of everyone else's fun, and I think it's cool for individual tables to work out how much player-character separation is expected. Again, having your character "unknowingly" make a mistake can totally make the game better sometimes (not only is it great for drama, but some TTRPGs actually require mistakes as part of the gameplay loop), and letting newer players take charge and learn by doing is just good table manners. I'm also pretty sure basically nobody's out there memorizing monster blocks unless they're a GM.
But remember, 2e's a tactical game that expects the players to use their brains and teamwork to win. I don't think it's fair to demand certain people use less of their brains in order to play the game well. Also, the commander class is gonna attract a lot of people who think way too hard about combat tactics, and those people are probably more likely to know more than the average player "should." I don't want the class to be a bad fit for those people because half their features require they roll dice to remember whether or not werewolves are weak to silver, you know?
Actually, investigators and thaumaturges both do a pretty good job of adding extra goodies to RK checks so that even the most meta-gaming munchkin of all time can still have fun playing the class. I don't think I actually have to worry that much, lol.
When does the playtest release?
Later today, possibly in around 5 hours.
Given I can only see a screenshot and there’s no level indicated, I’m not sure how tight I think it is yet.
I like the Tactic rider. And a banner is a nice group-nominative.
Would that include thrown weapons?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Swap to ranged weapon" as a free action is very nice, but it's kind of a trap for a Melee focused martial, since on your turn you'll have to use 2 actions to swap back. Or drop the ranged weapon.https://twitter.com/MichaelJSayre1/status/1784827119518064654
2A Ready, Aim, Fire
[Commander] [tTactic]Squadmates in commander banner can; draw ranged weapon as Free Action, Reload as free action, and strike an enemy within you and your squadmate's view as a reaction. Casters can cast cantrip targeting that enemy instead of the other action.
Swap is one action on their turn. Yay, Remaster!
"Swap to ranged weapon" as a free action is very nice, but it's kind of a trap for a Melee focused martial, since on your turn you'll have to use 2 actions to swap back. Or drop the ranged weapon.https://twitter.com/MichaelJSayre1/status/1784827119518064654
2A Ready, Aim, Fire
[Commander] [tTactic]Squadmates in commander banner can; draw ranged weapon as Free Action, Reload as free action, and strike an enemy within you and your squadmate's view as a reaction. Casters can cast cantrip targeting that enemy instead of the other action.
"Swapping allows you to put away one item and draw another in the same action (such as putting away a dagger and drawing a mace)
"Changed in the remastered.
So it take their reaction and 1 action to perform a no-MAP attack, along with 2 action from the commander
But is there a good way to get ruins on those ranged weapon?
Assuming the commander is using his weapon money to outfit his troops, is there something like blazon of shares power? Scrolls of magic weapons?
Also of note, this has the "tactic" tag.
So it might be one of those "prepared" options, and limited in use.
I really hope not all "tactics" require reactions from your allies to activate. Not all groups have 4 players and run out of things to do because your only ally doesn't have more reactions would feel really bad.
I do like the image of a commander buying 3 Arbalest and a Sukgung to hand out to his troops.
Also, that would give them TERRIBLY synergy with Champions, Fighters, and Swashbucklers, who all have their own unique reactions.
Champions in particular and likely guardians too would be the worst offenders of this, since those are the classes that use their reactions every single turn.
I don't mind this one being a reaction because it compresses 3 actions in a reaction for a whole party, but assuming the commander has generic actions like "One-action: Choose one ally to make a strike against a target within range" shouldn't require reactions IMO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Playtest is UP!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, that would give them TERRIBLY synergy with Champions, Fighters, and Swashbucklers, who all have their own unique reactions.Champions in particular and likely guardians too would be the worst offenders of this, since those are the classes that use their reactions every single turn.
I don't mind this one being a reaction because it compresses 3 actions in a reaction for a whole party, but assuming the commander has generic actions like "One-action: Choose one ally to make a strike against a target within range" shouldn't require reactions IMO.
"Once per round, when you use a tactic, you can grant one ally of your choice benefiting from that tactic an extra reaction"
So a champion can participate.
Just not 2 championd.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quick notes.
You grant one bonus reaction to hand out. (2 with a feat).
Banner is 30'. Require for "Banner" tag, can be ignored.
Prepare 2-5 tactics each day,or 10 minutes to change / add an ally.
Tactics are at-will, but once per round per ally (except legendary, which have their own cool down).
Still get feats as normal.
Warfare lore for recall (combat) knowledge, and maybe some other things.
Lazylord is very possible. 2 actions (+your bonus reaction) to grant a Strike at level 1.
As is dumping Int, though you do get legendary DC.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was also a feat that let you hand out another bonus reaction, likely around 10th level.
there is, at 10.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ready Aim Fire being level 15 is both unfortunate and unsurprising. No good way to support a caster DPR until then.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The class is absolutely glorious, I am sold.
I approve of winning combat by twirling a banner while making voices imitating your enemies.