Command: Strike now! A suggestion

[Verzen]

Level 1
Command: Strike now! > or >> (one or two actions.)

Built in to the class. Gained at level 1.

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.

If you use two actions for this ability, you can command a squadmate to use a cantrip that they know or that they have prepared to a target within range of your squadmate.

You can only use this ability once per squadmate per turn.

Effect: This will allow me to have access to all attack cantrips my party has as well as being able to strike with any ally in my party. Instead of going into the melee I can stand back and order others to strike for me.

An alternative, make your squadmate roll a will save DC

Critical success = The squadmate gets +2 to his strike. If they critically strike, they roll an additional damage dice. If it's a spellcaster and the target critically fails their save, they roll an additional damage die and increase any non damage numbers by 1.
Success = Squadmates make a strike like normal or cast a cantrip like normal.
Failure = Squadmates make a strike at an additional -2 penalty
Critical Failure = The squadmate doesn't make a strike and cannot be effected by Command: Strike Now! for 10 minutes.

Balance: This is balanced in that rather than me making the strikes, I have my allies make the strikes for me, using their numbers instead of my own. It allows some spellcasting support at level 1 that people really want and it allows us to be able to stand back rather than wading into combat. It allows us a way to deposit our actions that feels good about being a commander.

[exequiel759]

I really like this approach! I certainly don't like that a ton of tactics require reactions when I feel the action cost of you doing nothing to make someone else do the thing is already enough to balance it.

[Mellored]

exequiel759 wrote:

I really like this approach! I certainly don't like that a ton of tactics require reactions when I feel the action cost of you doing nothing to make someone else do the thing is already enough to balance it.

you grant 1 free reaction per turn. With feats to grant 3.

So it kinda doesn't take any.

[exequiel759]

I mean, not really. 1 reaction to a single ally means that for certain parties it could still be troueblesome, and the feat to grant two reactions is 10th level.

Either make it so all your allies get an extra reaction per turn or make it so features don't take reactions.

[Mellored]

exequiel759 wrote:

I mean, not really. 1 reaction to a single ally means that for certain parties it could still be troueblesome, and the feat to grant two reactions is 10th level.

Either make it so all your allies get an extra reaction per turn or make it so features don't take reactions.

affecting more allies should take more (re)actions

With Ready, Aim, Fire for instance.

Granting 1 attack takes 2 action
Granting 2 takes 2 actions + a reaction
Granting 3 takes 2 action + 2 reaction
Etc...

Granting 6 attacks with 2 action would be ridiculous.

[exequiel759]

Taking into account Ready, Aim, Fire requires you to be at least 15th level, I don't think being a little over the top hurts that much. But besides that, if the tactics that affect a single ally (like Strike Now!) have to be nerfed to compensate for the tactics that are strong then I would prefer to nerf stuff like Ready, Aim, Fire! to allow other players to have more breathing room with their reaction economy.

[Mellored]

exequiel759 wrote:

Taking into account Ready, Aim, Fire requires you to be at least 15th level, I don't think being a little over the top hurts that much. But besides that, if the tactics that affect a single ally (like Strike Now!) have to be nerfed to compensate for the tactics that are strong then I would prefer to nerf stuff like Ready, Aim, Fire! to allow other players to have more breathing room with their reaction economy.

if it affects a single ally, they don't need to spend a reaction.

If it affects multiple allies, then it needs to scale the reaction cost (Form Up!)

If a particular tactic affects multiple allies and isn't strong enough to need reactions, then it's a free action. (End It!).

[QuidEst]

Eh. I'm gonna very strongly disagree with the premise, because that makes a pretty boring and unbalanced class.

Your own stats would't matter at all, because you'd never have a reason to attack with them.

You'd be getting access to a two-handed barbarian weapon with the first strike, and a Rogue's agile sneak-attack with the next two. Heck, you can even get the barbarian strike followed by a two-action save-based cantrip and ignore the penalties altogether.

You also would't have to bother moving for your melee strikes, you just pick an ally already near someone. Enemy dies? Switch over to a ranged ally or somebody in another position.

The class does need "ally makes an attack" as an option, because that's kind of the schtick for something like the class, but two actions is pretty fair when you don't have to move yourself and you get your pick of the party's martial features to add on. If you yourself are already in position, you can make your own MAP-free strike as well. If you improve it even further, it's just "Fighter/Barbarian gets to play more" and none of the group activity tactics get used.

[Mellored]

Also, not really a fan of granting multiple attacks to the same ally.

I am for the idea of granting cantrips.

[exequiel759]

I'm not against reactions used as a balance method for some tactics, but I feel currently there's too much tactics that use reactions. I would want at least for the most basic tactics like "you attack an enemy" or "you stride up to your movement or step" to not require reactions, as long as they only work with a single ally.

I still think the amount of free reactions you give should scale on its own. Otherwise its literally a feat tax.

[Verzen]

Mellored wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

I mean, not really. 1 reaction to a single ally means that for certain parties it could still be troueblesome, and the feat to grant two reactions is 10th level.

Either make it so all your allies get an extra reaction per turn or make it so features don't take reactions.

affecting more allies should take more (re)actions

With Ready, Aim, Fire for instance.

Granting 1 attack takes 2 action
Granting 2 takes 2 actions + a reaction
Granting 3 takes 2 action + 2 reaction
Etc...

Granting 6 attacks with 2 action would be ridiculous.

Ready aim fire is as strong as those abilities that hit everyone with a strike such as the one inventor has.

[Verzen]

Mellored wrote:

Also, not really a fan of granting multiple attacks to the same ally.

I am for the idea of granting cantrips.

I put in the actions must be used on different allies

You can have a Barbarian strike then a Rogue strike but not the Barbarian striking twice.

[exequiel759]

Also, in regards to mobility tactics, let's remember that Four Winds is a thing that exists. Two actions to grant up to four actions to your allies, no reactions needed.

[Mellored]

exequiel759 wrote:

I would want at least for the most basic tactics like "you attack an enemy" or "you stride up to your movement or step" to not require reactions, as long as they only work with a single ally.

They don't take a reaction if you only target a single ally. Effectively.

It's only the multi-target ones that need more than your bonus reaction.

And even then there are 2 flavors of Mass Step that are free actions.

[Mellored]

exequiel759 wrote:

Also, in regards to mobility tactics, let's remember that Four Winds is a thing that exists. Two actions to grant up to four actions to your allies, no reactions needed.

Defensive Retreat

2 action and grant up to 6 allies can Step 3 times (half your speed), no reaction required.

Don't provoke, but a little more restricted where you move.

[exequiel759]

Form Up does take a reaction though. Its kinda weird that a class that doesn't focus on commanding has a better mobility command option than the class that specializes in it. Also the whole "it doesn't take reactions effectively" doesn't mean anything if you want use two tactics on a single ally. It's perfectly reasonable to assume someone would want to use Form Up! and then Strike Hard! with an ally to move then into melee of an enemey and then attack, so hope your allies don't have reactions of their own because otherwise you are screwed.

And before someone says that you could use them on two different allies, what if you don't have more than one ally? During 99% of the year my group only consist of three people (GM, two players) so why would my table be less effective with a commander than a table with more players? There isn't a single class that works like this and I certainly was excited about this class for someone at Paizo to say "well, bad luck". I'm not saying this is going to be the case because this is just a playtest, but I want to make emphasis that commanders will be much more difficult to use in certain tables.

[Verzen]

QuidEst wrote:

Eh. I'm gonna very strongly disagree with the premise, because that makes a pretty boring and unbalanced class.

Your own stats would't matter at all, because you'd never have a reason to attack with them.

You'd be getting access to a two-handed barbarian weapon with the first strike, and a Rogue's agile sneak-attack with the next two. Heck, you can even get the barbarian strike followed by a two-action save-based cantrip and ignore the penalties altogether.

You also would't have to bother moving for your melee strikes, you just pick an ally already near someone. Enemy dies? Switch over to a ranged ally or somebody in another position.

The class does need "ally makes an attack" as an option, because that's kind of the schtick for something like the class, but two actions is pretty fair when you don't have to move yourself and you get your pick of the party's martial features to add on. If you yourself are already in position, you can make your own MAP-free strike as well. If you improve it even further, it's just "Fighter/Barbarian gets to play more" and none of the group activity tactics get used.

I ultimately just want something SIMILAR to Ready! Aim! Fire! But scales better and I start off with it at level 1 and can use it instead of attack. I should have the option of standing in the back and directing combat rather than actively participating.

[exequiel759]

Verzen wrote:

I ultimately just want something SIMILAR to Ready! Aim! Fire! But scales better and I start off with it at level 1 and can use it instead of attack. I should have the option of standing in the back and directing combat rather than actively participating.

This is exactly what I wanted too. If you want to play a commander that goes into battle you already have the marshal archetype and eventually the commander archetype to have other martials fill that role. I feel it would be really unique for a martial class to have the option to not engage in combat all if they don't want, using their allies as pawns in a chess game.

With that said, if someone wants to engage in combat as a commander I think the option should exist, but much like a warpriest cleric or an untamed druid are decent martials on their own they don't outshine the true martials. I want the commander to feel this niche and feel different from someone with the marshal archetype.

[Mellored]

exequiel759 wrote:

Form Up does take a reaction though.

but that's a Stride.

Four Winds is half a Stride.

Quote:

Also the whole "it doesn't take reactions effectively" doesn't mean anything if you want use two tactics on a single ally.

You can't.

"While you can use multiple tactic actions a round, a character cannot respond to more than one tactic per round, regardless of source."

No having 4 commanders granting 12 Strides to a single character in a single round.

Quote:

It's perfectly reasonable to assume someone would want to use Form Up! and then Strike Hard! with an ally to move then into melee of an enemey and then attack, so hope your allies don't have reactions of their own because otherwise you are screwed.

Does seem odd that there isn't a move+attack option until Demoralizing Charge. And then that's suddenly 2 people with a fear rider.

Though that does allow 2 strides as free action. They don't need to use their reaction at the end.

Similar for Coordinating Maneuver. It can just be used to Step.

Quote:

And before someone says that you could use them on two different allies, what if you don't have more than one ally?

then they won't use a reaction.

And you probably want to use your third action to Strike.

[QuidEst]

Verzen wrote:

QuidEst wrote:

Eh. I'm gonna very strongly disagree with the premise, because that makes a pretty boring and unbalanced class.

Your own stats would't matter at all, because you'd never have a reason to attack with them.

You'd be getting access to a two-handed barbarian weapon with the first strike, and a Rogue's agile sneak-attack with the next two. Heck, you can even get the barbarian strike followed by a two-action save-based cantrip and ignore the penalties altogether.

You also would't have to bother moving for your melee strikes, you just pick an ally already near someone. Enemy dies? Switch over to a ranged ally or somebody in another position.

The class does need "ally makes an attack" as an option, because that's kind of the schtick for something like the class, but two actions is pretty fair when you don't have to move yourself and you get your pick of the party's martial features to add on. If you yourself are already in position, you can make your own MAP-free strike as well. If you improve it even further, it's just "Fighter/Barbarian gets to play more" and none of the group activity tactics get used.

I ultimately just want something SIMILAR to Ready! Aim! Fire! But scales better and I start off with it at level 1 and can use it instead of attack. I should have the option of standing in the back and directing combat rather than actively participating.

That might be asking a little much, in the same way as asking to be able to just hang back and send in an animal companion to fight for you. It's possible, but it probably shouldn't be quite as good as contributing more actively, and being willing to at least fire a shortbow will go a long way towards making it better.

I want to build a lazy character, or a hands-free character, or a noble directing battle too, but I'm expecting there to be some tradeoff of either reduced effectiveness if I just ignore an entire character's martial proficiency, or some compromise in just how uninvolved they opt to be.

My guess is the best bet is building the best "hands-off" character you can and playtesting that is the best way to achieve what you want, since suggested fixes for underlying issues don't do as much as just bringing up the issue. "Lazylord" is a concept a few people have mentioned wanting, so you're certainly not alone.

[exequiel759]

Mellored wrote:

but that's a Stride.

Four Winds is half a Stride.

Four Winds eventually is a full stride too, and besides, why does a kineticist of all classes has a better commanding option than the class that is literally called commander? Everyone has access to Reactive Strike but fighters get it for free and at 1st level, so it makes logical sense for the commander to have a similar feature but that's better than a very niche option than a single element of the kineticist has.

Mellored wrote:

"While you can use multiple tactic actions a round, a character cannot respond to more than one tactic per round, regardless of source."

Lol I didn't notice that one. Well, I have problem with that too then.

It could be easily changed to "you can't benefit from the same tactic in any given round" so you can have Form Up! + Strike Hard! to help a single ally.

Mellored wrote:

then they won't use a reaction.

And you probably want to use your third action to Strike.

Sigh...

You are missing the point here. I don't want to make strikes. I want to stay behind and command my allies. I want to only unsheat a weapon like every 5 combats and only if I really have to. That's the kind of class I expected when they announced a "commander" class.

[QuidEst]

exequiel759 wrote:

Mellored wrote:

but that's a Stride.

Four Winds is half a Stride.

Four Winds eventually is a full stride too, and besides, why does a kineticist of all classes has a better commanding option than the class that is literally called commander? Everyone has access to Reactive Strike but fighters get it for free and at 1st level, so it makes logical sense for the commander to have a similar feature but that's better than a very niche option than a single element of the kineticist has.

Four Winds is worse for half the levels, and better for half. They're comparable because the air element is all about mobility and movement, so it's just as much in air's wheelhouse as it is in Commander's.

[exequiel759]

"Worse" is certainly subjective here.

Four Winds is two actions, no reactions, two Stride up to four allies.

Form Up! is one action, with a reaction, to Stride allies within your banner's aura into a square within the aura as well.

In both scenarios you likely aren't going to move your allies into melee of the enemies because 1/2 Stride usually isn't enough movement and unless for some reason the commander wants to be in the front lines before combat it likely won't be enough to move someone into melee either. If you want to just use Form Up! and nothing else then Form Up! is better, but assuming in release you are going to be capable of using more than one tactic on a particular ally, then Four Winds is better.

I also disagree they are comparable because air element is all about mobility. Yes, air element is about mobility, but more about your own mobility rather than those of your allies, while moving someone is like the most basic option a commander / warlord class is expected to have, to the point I'm surprised you have to prepare it at all.

I really hope on release instead of having to prepare two tactics (assuming they go with this subsytem and don't use something similar to a kineticist's impulse feats), that you can prepare two tactics but have other two tactics which are set on stone and are always prepared, being the generic "I make an ally Stride or Step" and "I make an ally Strike an enemy within range" tactics that most people are going to prepare anyways.

[Mellored]

exequiel759 wrote:

Four Winds eventually is a full stride too, and besides, why does a kineticist of all classes has a better commanding option than the class that is literally called commander? Everyone has access to Reactive Strike but fighters get it for free and at 1st level, so it makes logical sense for the commander to have a similar feature but that's better than a very niche option than a single element of the kineticist has.

I would call it equivalent at low level.

Compare higher level features with higher level features.
Like granting 2 strides + 2 strikes.

Quote:

It could be easily changed to "you can't benefit from the same tactic in any given round" so you can have Form Up! + Strike Hard! to help a single ally.

that really wouldn't solve the issue of 4 commanders sending 1 guy across the map and back.

Quote:

You are missing the point here. I don't want to make strikes. I want to stay behind and command my allies. I want to only unsheat a weapon like every 5 combats and only if I really have to. That's the kind of class I expected when they announced a "commander" class.

not seeing an issue with that.

Plant Banner, Stike Hard
Defiant Banner, Stupefing Raid.
Raise Shield, Demoralizing Charge
Etc...

I guess if you only had 1 ally it might be a bit tricky, but still doable.
Maybe they could add a few 3 action tactics as well.

[shroudb]

exequiel759 wrote:

"Worse" is certainly subjective here.

Four Winds is two actions, no reactions, two Stride up to four allies.

Form Up! is one action, with a reaction, to Stride allies within your banner's aura into a square within the aura as well.

In both scenarios you likely aren't going to move your allies into melee of the enemies because 1/2 Stride usually isn't enough movement and unless for some reason the commander wants to be in the front lines before combat it likely won't be enough to move someone into melee either. If you want to just use Form Up! and nothing else then Form Up! is better, but assuming in release you are going to be capable of using more than one tactic on a particular ally, then Four Winds is better.

I also disagree they are comparable because air element is all about mobility. Yes, air element is about mobility, but more about your own mobility rather than those of your allies, while moving someone is like the most basic option a commander / warlord class is expected to have, to the point I'm surprised you have to prepare it at all.

I really hope on release instead of having to prepare two tactics (assuming they go with this subsytem and don't use something similar to a kineticist's impulse feats), that you can prepare two tactics but have other two tactics which are set on stone and are always prepared, being the generic "I make an ally Stride or Step" and "I make an ally Strike an enemy within range" tactics that most people are going to prepare anyways.

I don't see that.

Air kineticist is all about EVERYONE'S mobility, yours, ally's and enemy's mobility as well.

It's the defacto edge of the element, it shines in no other aspect, middling damage, no other utility except mobility, no defensive options, no other support options, etc.

So, to flip the question:
Whe shouldn't the subclass dedicated to mobility NOT have the best option for it, and a character that's a general support with multiple other support abilities have that instead?

A quick recount of Air impulses/junctions tied to mobility options:
Four Winds: self and allies
Cushion: self and allies
Dash: self
Shroud: (flying) enemies
Flinging: Ally and enemies
Cyclonic: starts as self, apply to allies later on
Ghosts: Self and allies
Infinite expanse: enemies
Aura Junction: allies and self
Critical junction: enemies
Impulse Junction: self

That's more than half the Impulses for air somehow linked to mobility and 3/5 of the Junctions.

[exequiel759]

Mellored wrote:

that really wouldn't solve the issue of 4 commanders sending 1 guy across the map and back.

How it wouldn't? You won't be able to be target of Form Up! more than once per turn.

[exequiel759]

shroudb wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

"Worse" is certainly subjective here.

Four Winds is two actions, no reactions, two Stride up to four allies.

Form Up! is one action, with a reaction, to Stride allies within your banner's aura into a square within the aura as well.

In both scenarios you likely aren't going to move your allies into melee of the enemies because 1/2 Stride usually isn't enough movement and unless for some reason the commander wants to be in the front lines before combat it likely won't be enough to move someone into melee either. If you want to just use Form Up! and nothing else then Form Up! is better, but assuming in release you are going to be capable of using more than one tactic on a particular ally, then Four Winds is better.

I also disagree they are comparable because air element is all about mobility. Yes, air element is about mobility, but more about your own mobility rather than those of your allies, while moving someone is like the most basic option a commander / warlord class is expected to have, to the point I'm surprised you have to prepare it at all.

I really hope on release instead of having to prepare two tactics (assuming they go with this subsytem and don't use something similar to a kineticist's impulse feats), that you can prepare two tactics but have other two tactics which are set on stone and are always prepared, being the generic "I make an ally Stride or Step" and "I make an ally Strike an enemy within range" tactics that most people are going to prepare anyways.

I don't see that.

Air kineticist is all about EVERYONE'S mobility, yours, ally's and enemy's mobility as well.

It's the defacto edge of the element, it shines in no other aspect, middling damage, no other utility except mobility, no defensive options, no other support options, etc.

So, to flip the question:
Whe shouldn't the subclass dedicated to mobility NOT have the best option for it, and a character that's a general support with multiple other support abilities have that instead?...

Giving someone the ability to fly =/= giving someone the ability to move for free.

One gives you a movement option, the other one moves you directly.

The commander is the class built moving and making your allies do stuff.

The air kineticist isn't.

I also disagree the air kineticist has middling damage taking into account you can take Desert Wind with Element Overlap.

Not to mention that saying that a full class should be comparable to a subclass of a class is IMO already misguided.

[Mellored]

exequiel759 wrote:

Mellored wrote:

that really wouldn't solve the issue of 4 commanders sending 1 guy across the map and back.

How it wouldn't? You won't be able to be target of Form Up! more than once per turn.

Defensive Retreat (15')

Form Up (25')
Coordinate Maneuver (5')
End It (5')
Pincer Attack (5')
Stupefing Raid (25')
Demoralize Charge (25')
Valerie's Charge (50')

= 155'
Twice the speed they could take on their own turn.
And there "will be more tactics".

[QuidEst]

Mellored wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

Mellored wrote:

that really wouldn't solve the issue of 4 commanders sending 1 guy across the map and back.

How it wouldn't? You won't be able to be target of Form Up! more than once per turn.

Defensive Retreat (15')

Form Up (25')
Coordinate Maneuver (5')
End It (5')
Pincer Attack (5')
Stupefing Raid (25')
Demoralize Charge (25')
Valerie's Charge (50')

= 155'
Twice the speed they could take on their own turn.
And there "will be more tactics".

But wait, there's more! Elf can take a feat to make their steps ten feet instead of five, doubling all the step distances. Honestly, thirty foot Defensive Retreat sounds like something you could build around.

[AnotherGuy]

QuidEst wrote:

Mellored wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

Mellored wrote:

that really wouldn't solve the issue of 4 commanders sending 1 guy across the map and back.

How it wouldn't? You won't be able to be target of Form Up! more than once per turn.

Defensive Retreat (15')

Form Up (25')
Coordinate Maneuver (5')
End It (5')
Pincer Attack (5')
Stupefing Raid (25')
Demoralize Charge (25')
Valerie's Charge (50')

= 155'
Twice the speed they could take on their own turn.
And there "will be more tactics".

But wait, there's more! Elf can take a feat to make their steps ten feet instead of five, doubling all the step distances. Honestly, thirty foot Defensive Retreat sounds like something you could build around.

It'd be cool, but unfortunately elves don't have a feat to allow them to step 10'. They get a feat that gives them a bespoke action that lets them step twice, they're still only stepping 5 feet whenever they are granted a step action.

[QuidEst]

AnotherGuy wrote:

QuidEst wrote:

Mellored wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

Mellored wrote:

that really wouldn't solve the issue of 4 commanders sending 1 guy across the map and back.

How it wouldn't? You won't be able to be target of Form Up! more than once per turn.

Defensive Retreat (15')

Form Up (25')
Coordinate Maneuver (5')
End It (5')
Pincer Attack (5')
Stupefing Raid (25')
Demoralize Charge (25')
Valerie's Charge (50')

= 155'
Twice the speed they could take on their own turn.
And there "will be more tactics".

But wait, there's more! Elf can take a feat to make their steps ten feet instead of five, doubling all the step distances. Honestly, thirty foot Defensive Retreat sounds like something you could build around.

It'd be cool, but unfortunately elves don't have a feat to allow them to step 10'. They get a feat that gives them a bespoke action that lets them step twice, they're still only stepping 5 feet whenever they are granted a step action.

Ahhh, yes; I misremembered it because when it came out it was basically "you step 10 feet", but that was actually future-proofing for this sort of thing. Elastic Mutagen would work, but that feat is waaay too situational, and a quicksilvered Alchemist deserves to move thirty feet away from trouble.

[exequiel759]

Mellored wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

Mellored wrote:

that really wouldn't solve the issue of 4 commanders sending 1 guy across the map and back.

How it wouldn't? You won't be able to be target of Form Up! more than once per turn.

Defensive Retreat (15')

Form Up (25')
Coordinate Maneuver (5')
End It (5')
Pincer Attack (5')
Stupefing Raid (25')
Demoralize Charge (25')
Valerie's Charge (50')

= 155'
Twice the speed they could take on their own turn.
And there "will be more tactics".

Defensive Retreat requires you to move away from the enemy.

I give you the other ones though, but at that point, if you want to have like 5 commanders to move a single ally does it really matter? Movement is nice and can win an encounter, but this amount of movement is kind of an overkill, specially if multiple characters have to waste their turns to make it possible.

[Mellored]

exequiel759 wrote:

Mellored wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

Mellored wrote:

that really wouldn't solve the issue of 4 commanders sending 1 guy across the map and back.

How it wouldn't? You won't be able to be target of Form Up! more than once per turn.

Defensive Retreat (15')

Form Up (25')
Coordinate Maneuver (5')
End It (5')
Pincer Attack (5')
Stupefing Raid (25')
Demoralize Charge (25')
Valerie's Charge (50')

= 155'
Twice the speed they could take on their own turn.
And there "will be more tactics".

Defensive Retreat requires you to move away from the enemy.

I give you the other ones though, but at that point, if you want to have like 5 commanders to move a single ally does it really matter? Movement is nice and can win an encounter, but this amount of movement is kind of an overkill, specially if multiple characters have to waste their turns to make it possible.

it makes no narrative sense for 5 guys to cheer on 1 guy to make him move 3x as fast.

You could also have a fighter make 6 extra attacks.

Or both. Move 155' and make 6 attacks.

Either way, you shouldn't be able to stack actions like that.

One tactic per round is fine. Just add some extra tactic to fill in the holes.
Like 3 actions to grant a cantrip, or 3 actions to Stride + Strike.

[Dubious Scholar]

QuidEst wrote:

AnotherGuy wrote:

QuidEst wrote:

Mellored wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

Mellored wrote:

that really wouldn't solve the issue of 4 commanders sending 1 guy across the map and back.

How it wouldn't? You won't be able to be target of Form Up! more than once per turn.

Defensive Retreat (15')

Form Up (25')
Coordinate Maneuver (5')
End It (5')
Pincer Attack (5')
Stupefing Raid (25')
Demoralize Charge (25')
Valerie's Charge (50')

= 155'
Twice the speed they could take on their own turn.
And there "will be more tactics".

But wait, there's more! Elf can take a feat to make their steps ten feet instead of five, doubling all the step distances. Honestly, thirty foot Defensive Retreat sounds like something you could build around.

It'd be cool, but unfortunately elves don't have a feat to allow them to step 10'. They get a feat that gives them a bespoke action that lets them step twice, they're still only stepping 5 feet whenever they are granted a step action.

Ahhh, yes; I misremembered it because when it came out it was basically "you step 10 feet", but that was actually future-proofing for this sort of thing. Elastic Mutagen would work, but that feat is waaay too situational, and a quicksilvered Alchemist deserves to move thirty feet away from trouble.

You want Tiger Stance on Monk, which does increase your Step distance to 10 feet.

[exequiel759]

Mellored wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

Mellored wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

Mellored wrote:

that really wouldn't solve the issue of 4 commanders sending 1 guy across the map and back.

How it wouldn't? You won't be able to be target of Form Up! more than once per turn.

Defensive Retreat (15')

Form Up (25')
Coordinate Maneuver (5')
End It (5')
Pincer Attack (5')
Stupefing Raid (25')
Demoralize Charge (25')
Valerie's Charge (50')

= 155'
Twice the speed they could take on their own turn.
And there "will be more tactics".

Defensive Retreat requires you to move away from the enemy.

I give you the other ones though, but at that point, if you want to have like 5 commanders to move a single ally does it really matter? Movement is nice and can win an encounter, but this amount of movement is kind of an overkill, specially if multiple characters have to waste their turns to make it possible.

it makes no narrative sense for 5 guys to cheer on 1 guy to make him move 3x as fast.

You could also have a fighter make 6 extra attacks.

Or both. Move 155' and make 6 attacks.

Either way, you shouldn't be able to stack actions like that.

One tactic per round is fine. Just add some extra tactic to fill in the holes.
Like 3 actions to grant a cantrip, or 3 actions to Stride + Strike.

For the matter, I also think a ton of tactics could be compressed into a single one. Having I don't know how many tactics that are effectively Step + whatever sounds really weird when you could easily have a single one, and if anything, then have feats to add more interactions to it or just allow you to choose one of those interactions when you use that tactic.

[QuidEst]

Dubious Scholar wrote:

You want Tiger Stance on Monk, which does increase your Step distance to 10 feet.

There we go! I was sure there was something somewhere. Not that Monk needs even more mobility help or spare actions, of course.

[Mellored]

exequiel759 wrote:

For the matter, I also think a ton of tactics could be compressed into a single one. Having I don't know how many tactics that are effectively Step + whatever sounds really weird when you could easily have a single one, and if anything, then have feats to add more interactions to it or just allow you to choose one of those interactions when you use that tactic.

I could see that.

As well as some multi-action ones.

1 action: ally can step
2 actions: multiple allies can step
3 actions: everyone step 3 times.

I'll also though our the idea of meta-tactis. Like Meta Magic.

1 action
If your next action is a Tactic, all targets can Step before or after the Tactic.

[exequiel759]

if I'm not mistaken, I think there's 18 tactics in the playtest.

The offensive and mobility categories are seemingly just a thing of the basic tactics, so unless something happened and they forgot to add it to the higher level ones or they plan on doing so in release, I'd assume for now that those aren't going to be a thing on release.

Then, Mountainering Training and Naval Training could be merged into single tactic called "Athletic Training" or something like that.

Defensive Retreat, Form Up!, Coordinating Manuvers, End It!, Pincer Attack, and Stupefying Raid could probably be merged into a single tactic that allows you to Step (one-action), Stride (two-actions), or Step + Stride or Step / Stride + some other effect.

Reload! could be merged into Strike Hard! allowing someone to reload a ranged weapon if they need like eventually Ready, Aim, Fire! does.

Ready, Aim, Fire! should probably become the squad version of Strike Hard!. It kinda is already, though just for ranged characters.

This would leave us with like 10 or so tactics. Not like I have a problem with having a ton of tactics, though I'm pretty sure Paizo isn't going to treat tactics like spells and print more of them in every singel book. If anything, so far already printed content hasn't really received much updates in the form of new content, so I don't think the commander is going to be the exception for it.

[LeoChep]

I agree with it

[Ectar]

What you ask for is crazy overpowered. Trading 1 for 1 actions is mega powerful; you give extra attacks to your best striker and it's better than just being a 2nd striker:
You didn't have to move in to position. You didn't have to raise your STR high to hit, nor your CON to survive hits. You get to double up on the power of a single-target buff. You can "melee" from myriad different squares in the same turn.

Your proposal grants unbelievable power at level 1 and makes no concessions or limitations that make it okay.
There's a reason Strike Hard! is 2 actions and an ally's reaction.

[Verzen]

Ectar wrote:

What you ask for is crazy overpowered. Trading 1 for 1 actions is mega powerful; you give extra attacks to your best striker and it's better than just being a 2nd striker:

You didn't have to move in to position. You didn't have to raise your STR high to hit, nor your CON to survive hits. You get to double up on the power of a single-target buff. You can "melee" from myriad different squares in the same turn.

Your proposal grants unbelievable power at level 1 and makes no concessions or limitations that make it okay.
There's a reason Strike Hard! is 2 actions and an ally's reaction.

From a math perspective, heavily disagree.

Lets provide two different situations.

You are a commander plus barbarian + fighter + rogue

Vs 2 fighters plus barbarian plus rogue.

As a commander, I order the barbarian to attack, the fighter to attack, then the rogue to attack.

The barbarian ends up with +7, 1d10+8 (raging) with an average of 11-19 which is 27/2 = 13.5 damage. Against an AC of 18, you need to roll a 11 to hit along with a roll of 20 to crit.

A crit is 2 times so 20 = 27 damage while a roll of 11 to 19 is 13.5. There is a 45% chance to roll 13.5 damage along with a 5% chance to roll 27 damage.

So you end up having math that looks like this.. (27 * .05) + (13.5 *.45) = average damage for your first strike.

A barbarian with 4 bonus rage damage and 18 strength with a 1d10 weapon deals 7.425 average damage for its first strike.

I then use the fighter for my next command. He's using a 1d8 weapon and has 18 strength. 18 AC still to beat with a +9 to attack. 1d8+4 = 5 to 12 damage or 17/2 = 8.5 damage on average with a single strike. Given that this is the 2nd time ive used this ability this turn, that would endure a -5 penalty to the strike. So instead of a +9, it is actually a +4 which means I need to roll a 14 to hit or a 20 to crit.

That's (8.5*.3)+(17*.05)=3.4 avg damage for the 2nd strike.

Rogue is the 3rd strike which is 1d4+1d6 sneak attack damage. Lets assume the rogue has 14 strength, but 18 dex.

7-10 = -3 for their attack. So in order to strike the target they must roll a 20 to hit.

That's (1d4+2+1d6)*.05or in other words 4.5+3.5 = 8*.05 or 0.4 damage on average

Adding all this up its 11.225 damage in a single turn. It's 10.4 damage on avg if I used fighter first instead of the barbarian with a 1d8 weapon.

Let's assume that I am a barbarian that just does its full attacks.

(13.5*.45+27*.05)+(13.5*.20+27*.05)+(13.5*.05) = 12.15 for barbarian
(8.5*.5+17*.1)+(8.5*.3+17*.05)+(8.5*.1) = 10.2 damage for fighters

Now this is assuming fighters aren't taking advantage of any of the crit trigger weapons such as pickaxes and the like which can cause them to do even more damage than that.

So BY THE NUMBERS, commander utilizing this ability seems to deal an average amount of damage as to what their party can deal and this is modular, as well, as it will be adjusted based on the rest of the parties composition so they will never be able to "outshine" any particular member of the party.

So how is it overpowered again?

[Verzen]

Ectar wrote:

What you ask for is crazy overpowered. Trading 1 for 1 actions is mega powerful; you give extra attacks to your best striker and it's better than just being a 2nd striker:

You didn't have to move in to position. You didn't have to raise your STR high to hit, nor your CON to survive hits. You get to double up on the power of a single-target buff. You can "melee" from myriad different squares in the same turn.

Your proposal grants unbelievable power at level 1 and makes no concessions or limitations that make it okay.
There's a reason Strike Hard! is 2 actions and an ally's reaction.

The issue with requiring 2 actions for 1 is that i might as well just make a barbarian as bringing a commander to the party actually 'weakens' the party composition rather than strengthens it.

[shroudb]

Verzen wrote:

Ectar wrote:

What you ask for is crazy overpowered. Trading 1 for 1 actions is mega powerful; you give extra attacks to your best striker and it's better than just being a 2nd striker:

You didn't have to move in to position. You didn't have to raise your STR high to hit, nor your CON to survive hits. You get to double up on the power of a single-target buff. You can "melee" from myriad different squares in the same turn.

Your proposal grants unbelievable power at level 1 and makes no concessions or limitations that make it okay.
There's a reason Strike Hard! is 2 actions and an ally's reaction.

The issue with requiring 2 actions for 1 is that i might as well just make a barbarian as bringing a commander to the party actually 'weakens' the party composition rather than strengthens it.

Nah, cause with those 2 actions you get a MAPless attack.

So, 1 action to Strike at full MAP and 2 actions for your Barbarian to strike at full Map is better than you striking at -5 MAP a second time.

Same thing goes for something like a rogue, you attack once at full MAP and then give your rogue another MAPless sneak attack, and etc.

If it was 1 for 1 it would be OP. It would translate to a martial that never suffers from MAP, doing 3 attacks with 0 MAP in a turn.

[Verzen]

Ectar wrote:

What you ask for is crazy overpowered. Trading 1 for 1 actions is mega powerful; you give extra attacks to your best striker and it's better than just being a 2nd striker:

You didn't have to move in to position. You didn't have to raise your STR high to hit, nor your CON to survive hits. You get to double up on the power of a single-target buff. You can "melee" from myriad different squares in the same turn.

Your proposal grants unbelievable power at level 1 and makes no concessions or limitations that make it okay.
There's a reason Strike Hard! is 2 actions and an ally's reaction.

If a pre-existing class can do everything the commander can do, but better, then why is there a need for commander in the first place?

Think of it like this, if I was creating a new class for world of warcraft and I'll call it the... spellweaver. But mages upstage Spellweavers in literally everything they can do and Spellweavers bring nothing truly unique and even deal less DPS than mages do, then by bringing the Spellweaver, I am actually worse off than if I just brought a mage.

If commanders can't contribute as much DPS on average using full strikes as others can, and their tool kit doesn't compensate for anything unique, then in the end what's the point of commander?

As written, I am using my allies reactions which means champion can't benefit from it as they need their reactions to protect others and ironically Guardians can't benefit from it either. Granted this is mitigated slightly by giving a free reaction, but if you have a guardian and champion on the same team, one of them isnt going to benefit from your abilities.

And nothing the current commander can do really helps out DPS or combat at level 1.

I just think Strike Hard should be built into the class chassis, turned into 1 actions, and be given MAP along with preventing you from targeting the same ally more than once in a round AND given the option to instead spend 2 actions to allow an ally to cast a cantrip would make the commander significantly more desirable in terms of offensive capabilities.

[Verzen]

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Ectar wrote:

What you ask for is crazy overpowered. Trading 1 for 1 actions is mega powerful; you give extra attacks to your best striker and it's better than just being a 2nd striker:

You didn't have to move in to position. You didn't have to raise your STR high to hit, nor your CON to survive hits. You get to double up on the power of a single-target buff. You can "melee" from myriad different squares in the same turn.

Your proposal grants unbelievable power at level 1 and makes no concessions or limitations that make it okay.
There's a reason Strike Hard! is 2 actions and an ally's reaction.

The issue with requiring 2 actions for 1 is that i might as well just make a barbarian as bringing a commander to the party actually 'weakens' the party composition rather than strengthens it.

Nah, cause with those 2 actions you get a MAPless attack.

So, 1 action to Strike at full MAP and 2 actions for your Barbarian to strike at full Map is better than you striking at -5 MAP a second time.

Same thing goes for something like a rogue, you attack once at full MAP and then give your rogue another MAPless sneak attack, and etc.

If it was 1 for 1 it would be OP. It would translate to a martial that never suffers from MAP, doing 3 attacks with 0 MAP in a turn.

Uh no.

Your argument against a misconstruction of my argument which means its a strawman.

Please steelman my argument.

Barbarian makes a full attack at 7/2/-3
Fighter makes a full attack at 9/4/-1
Rogue makes a full attack at 7/2/-3

Commander makes a full attack at 7/4/-3 (Barbarian, then fighter, then rogue)

Using the barbarians strike, then fighters strike, then rogues strike.

As opposed to whats in the playtest which is Barbarian makes a full attack at 7/2/-3 and then I make him strike one additional time at 7 and then use my strike which is a 7.

So that's 7 for my strike using lets say a 1d8+4 weapon or 5-12 damage or 8.5 on average against 18 AC = 11 along with 20 to crit which would be 8.5*.45 + 17*.05 = 4.675 + (13.5*.45+27*.05) = 7.425 for the second strike which would be 12.1 on average damage. Ironically, my suggestion is less powerful (that you guys were calling overpowered) than the current playtest suggestion, but my idea is more INTERESTING than the current playtest suggestion.

[Verzen]

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Ectar wrote:

What you ask for is crazy overpowered. Trading 1 for 1 actions is mega powerful; you give extra attacks to your best striker and it's better than just being a 2nd striker:

You didn't have to move in to position. You didn't have to raise your STR high to hit, nor your CON to survive hits. You get to double up on the power of a single-target buff. You can "melee" from myriad different squares in the same turn.

Your proposal grants unbelievable power at level 1 and makes no concessions or limitations that make it okay.
There's a reason Strike Hard! is 2 actions and an ally's reaction.

The issue with requiring 2 actions for 1 is that i might as well just make a barbarian as bringing a commander to the party actually 'weakens' the party composition rather than strengthens it.

Nah, cause with those 2 actions you get a MAPless attack.

So, 1 action to Strike at full MAP and 2 actions for your Barbarian to strike at full Map is better than you striking at -5 MAP a second time.

Same thing goes for something like a rogue, you attack once at full MAP and then give your rogue another MAPless sneak attack, and etc.

If it was 1 for 1 it would be OP. It would translate to a martial that never suffers from MAP, doing 3 attacks with 0 MAP in a turn.

The math doesn't lie.

[Verzen]

Sorry, I did the math wrong. It wouldnt be 1d8+4 it would be at most 1d8+3 (with 16 strength)

So 4-11 = 15 or 7.5 damage instead of 8.5 damage

So 7.5*.45+15*.05

4.125 + 7.425 = 11.55 avg damage for commander in the playtest, my suggestion would be 11.225 avg damage.

This is if you're targeting the barbarian. Might even be more if you target a crit focused fighter.

[Verzen]

I dont see how my suggestion is overpowered at all.

[hesai]

Verzen wrote:

Ectar wrote:

What you ask for is crazy overpowered. Trading 1 for 1 actions is mega powerful; you give extra attacks to your best striker and it's better than just being a 2nd striker:

You didn't have to move in to position. You didn't have to raise your STR high to hit, nor your CON to survive hits. You get to double up on the power of a single-target buff. You can "melee" from myriad different squares in the same turn.

Your proposal grants unbelievable power at level 1 and makes no concessions or limitations that make it okay.
There's a reason Strike Hard! is 2 actions and an ally's reaction.

The issue with requiring 2 actions for 1 is that i might as well just make a barbarian as bringing a commander to the party actually 'weakens' the party composition rather than strengthens it.

u are right,but we doesn't have reason to 'strengthens it'.

if it will strengthens it,the barbarian turn to weakness.
we just need to find the eval.

[Verzen]

hesai wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Ectar wrote:

What you ask for is crazy overpowered. Trading 1 for 1 actions is mega powerful; you give extra attacks to your best striker and it's better than just being a 2nd striker:

You didn't have to move in to position. You didn't have to raise your STR high to hit, nor your CON to survive hits. You get to double up on the power of a single-target buff. You can "melee" from myriad different squares in the same turn.

Your proposal grants unbelievable power at level 1 and makes no concessions or limitations that make it okay.
There's a reason Strike Hard! is 2 actions and an ally's reaction.

The issue with requiring 2 actions for 1 is that i might as well just make a barbarian as bringing a commander to the party actually 'weakens' the party composition rather than strengthens it.

u are right,but we doesn't have reason to 'strengthens it'.

if it will strengthens it,the barbarian turn to weakness.
we just need to find the eval.

Actually, funny enough I was wrong.

The playtest deals more damage than my suggestion, but my suggestion is more interesting imo.