| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While the choice of Int for the class key attribute makes sense to a class where the lore is tactically support its allies. Mechanically I fell like the int is being underutilized from the class chassis.
In practice we have a martial class that its main key attribute is not use for its normal martial proficiencies (Strike for example) only being used in a strange way to improve the number of allies that you can use your tactics whats creates a strange situation where the int bonus that you really need depends from how much PC the party will have.
This lack of usage of the main attribute in battle probably may end making many players to choose not improve it's main attribute in order to improve it's Str or Dex (depending if will focus into melee or range) once that in a normal 4 PC party they probably will miss way more their own combat abilities than some bonuses they get from some feats that uses int.
Also this risks the class being put in a similar situation to some classes like Alchemist where instead of make a pure alchemist due the optimization many players choose to pick it as archetype instead in order to get the best of battle focuses martial abilities from martial focused classes like fighter with the flexibility of an alchemist archetype and I fell that a similar situation probably will happen with the commander too (especially because we already have the marshal archetype already doing this very well using Cha a stat that many people consider better than Int).
My initial propose to solve this situation was simply just change the key attribute to Str or Dex but historically the designers never accepted any key attribute change suggestion in any playtest before so its very unlikely that they will accept this now.
The other solution is to give some extra damage ability or any other extra attack benefit like all other non-str/dex focused martial classes put into their chassis in order to compensate the lower hit rate and critial rate .
I want your opinions about this before put this into the Commander Feedback topic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your first attack was made by the barbarian.
Your second attack should be a little bit behind.
Also, there are several ways to use Warfare Lore for other things.
All Recall Knowledge Checks, Climbing, Swimming, Create a Diversion, and Feint
As well as a feat to use Int for Medicine instead of Wis.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While the choice of Int for the class key attribute makes sense to a class where the lore is tactically support its allies
Does it really? I think you could easily justify Wis or Cha too.
But besides, I agree with you. I think having Str or Dex KAS and the delayed martial proficiency that guardians have (for some reason) would make more sense for the commander to fully focus on their support role.
My initial propose to solve this situation was simply just change the key attribute to Str or Dex but historically the designers never accepted any key attribute change suggestion in any playtest before so its very unlikely that they will accept this now.
It happened with the kineticist though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
- Commander gets a scaling semi-universal lore off it used for initiative as well, and a lot of knowledge options. The skill also subs in for various skill actions through some options.
- They have stat substitution available for medicine.
- Save DCs. Used by four of the tactics.
- The following feats: Plant Banner (party temp HP), Defiant Banner (party physical damage resistance), Targeting Strike (stat to ranged damage on one attack per round)
- The bigger the party, the more Int they need. Four person, just the minimum +1 is enough. Five requires +2, and six takes +3. It avoids any reasonably sized party being a problem.
So, there are plenty of options to use it, but only initiative and creature IDing are hurt if you avoid options that require Int- at least for a four-person party.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
- Save DCs. Used by four of the tactics.
Save DC for 3 feats too.
Standard Bearer SacrificeConfusing Commands
Demand Surrender
But I like that you can ignore it if you want
3 Str, 3 Con, 1 Int would play just fine.
Kineticist had Con as its key ability in the playtest and in Rage of Elements.My initial propose to solve this situation was simply just change the key attribute to Str or Dex but historically the designers never accepted any key attribute change suggestion in any playtest before so its very unlikely that they will accept this now.It happened with the kineticist though.
Did they? I was pretty sure they didn't. Well, forget what I said then.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
- Save DCs. Used by four of the tactics.
Save DC for 3 feats too.
Standard Bearer Sacrifice
Confusing Commands
Demand SurrenderBut I like that you can ignore it if you want
3 Str, 3 Con, 1 Int would play just fine.
Thanks; I missed that.
If I were to suggest something, it would probably be making the basic tactics known be 2 + Int. If you put even one boost into Int, you get at least as many. Only having four is a little limiting for my tastes. But, this doesn't really mesh well with Paizo doing away with stat-scaled numbers of options, so I wouldn't really expect that to be a route they took.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally would rather they got more opportunities to use their class dc, personally.
My initial propose to solve this situation was simply just change the key attribute to Str or Dex but historically the designers never accepted any key attribute change suggestion in any playtest before so its very unlikely that they will accept this now.It happened with the kineticist though.
It's a standard thing in a playtest of any non-caster class that doesn't have Str/Dex as their KAS that there the class doesn't get enough mileage from their KAS. I think they err on the side of this.
Like the playtest kineticist had Con as a KAS and was still rolling Str/Dex to hit. The playtest Investigator had Int as a KAS but didn't have Devise a Strategem (indeed most of the playtest Investigator's stuff keyed on Perception, so you were better off boosting Wisdom.)
While the choice of Int for the class key attribute makes sense to a class where the lore is tactically support its alliesDoes it really? I think you could easily justify Wis or Cha too.
Cha OK once that charisma is related to give commands to allies. But Wis is basically your own force of will and instincts. It's a bit harder to justify.
Anyway I think that the justification to use tactics with Int is weak and could be change to other stat but as I said this never happened before. Thaumaturge doesn't got Int or Wis as alternative for its stats and Psychic didn't get Wis as option for Subconscious Mind (yet still possible once that's a subclass that could be expanded in a new book).
But besides, I agree with you. I think having Str or Dex KAS and the delayed martial proficiency that guardians have (for some reason) would make more sense for the commander to fully focus on their support role.
The delayed martial proficiency comes from Champions is because the Guardian get Legendary proficiency for AC at level 15 (Champion gets at lvl 17). So is a trade of between Martial proficiency and Armor proficiency. It's not exactly makes sense here for Commander.
The delayed martial proficiency comes from Champions is because the Guardian get Legendary proficiency for AC at level 15 (Champion gets at lvl 17). So is a trade of between Martial proficiency and Armor proficiency. It's not exactly makes sense here for Commander.
I mean, being ahead in proficiency for literally two levels doesn't make the delayed proficiency make sense. It IMO makes sense in the commander because its a class that is meant to support first, be a martial second, so it would make sense for their martial side to be weaker. The guardian, meanwhile, is meant to be a martial that tanks, so having a delayed proficiency is literally a huge nerf, more so when you don't even start with expert in armor.
I personally would rather they got more opportunities to use their class dc, personally.
Could be too. I was thinking that another good thing is the own Commander getting benefits from its own tactics too (not only the allies) specially for those that requires Class DC checks.
The delayed martial proficiency comes from Champions is because the Guardian get Legendary proficiency for AC at level 15 (Champion gets at lvl 17). So is a trade of between Martial proficiency and Armor proficiency. It's not exactly makes sense here for Commander.I mean, being ahead in proficiency for literally two levels doesn't make the delayed proficiency make sense. It IMO makes sense in the commander because its a class that is meant to support first, be a martial second, so it would make sense for their martial side to be weaker. The guardian, meanwhile, is meant to be a martial that tanks, so having a delayed proficiency is literally a huge nerf, more so when you don't even start with expert in armor.
I'm not completely against this idea of inverted progression for Commander with Armor Proficiency progressing faster than Weapons Proficiency once that the class is more supportive focused.
I personally would rather they got more opportunities to use their class dc, personally.Could be too. I was thinking that another good thing is the own Commander getting benefits from its own tactics too (not only the allies) specially for those that requires Class DC checks.
I believe all the Class DC checks affect enemies. Mostly frightened.
I know I'm talking about it may be able to use a free-action/reaction to it's own too.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally would rather they got more opportunities to use their class dc, personally.
I think this might be the better way to incentivize more utilization of Int as the KAS. Granted you could justify any KAS with more uses of the class DC, but it is what it is.
I think the extant utilization is decent since it hits a number of somewhat meaningful areas, with the # of squadmates, temp hp, Warfare Lore and stuff.
But a few more DC-based tactics or abilities would make the int tie-in stronger.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's a bit of a shame that there aren't Commander options for having Int, Wis or Cha as a key stat. There are different types of commander in fiction:
The Intelligence Mastermind that knows every strategy and identifies every enemy weakness through study of the enemies culture etc.
The wise and/or mystical commander with an uncanny or supernatural sense of how the battle is playing out, able to instinctively feel the flow of the fighting and instantly spot weaknesses in the enemies formation.
The commander who is charismatic and as a result is loved by his squad mates, able to easily communicate anything to them, and maybe also strike a bit of terror in the opponent.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about:
◆) For every point of Intelligence bonus, you can prepare one Tactic.
◆) For every Tactic you can prepare, you can scribe two into your Folio.
◆) At regular intervals (ex: 3rd / 7th / 13th / 19th), your Intelligence bonus is treated as cumulatively one higher for these purposes.
And the Multiclass dedication feats just gives one Tactic to start, plus one or two more eventually, with increasingly higher INT requirements.
|
What about:
◆) For every point of Intelligence bonus, you can prepare one Tactic.
◆) For every Tactic you can prepare, you can scribe two into your Folio.
◆) At regular intervals (ex: 3rd / 7th / 13th / 19th), your Intelligence bonus is treated as cumulatively one higher for these purposes.And the Multiclass dedication feats just gives one Tactic to start, plus one or two more eventually, with increasingly higher INT requirements.
I like that, though I don't think you need the bump to increase Int -- maybe keep the existing feats that simulate that.
I can't speak to wisom, but I suspect one reason we're not seeing charisma commaners is because the Envoy, from Starfinder 2E's playtest, is going to be covering the charisma angle, and has a similar flavor of helping and buffing their allies.I think it's a bit of a shame that there aren't Commander options for having Int, Wis or Cha as a key stat. There are different types of commander in fiction:
The Intelligence Mastermind that knows every strategy and identifies every enemy weakness through study of the enemies culture etc.
The wise and/or mystical commander with an uncanny or supernatural sense of how the battle is playing out, able to instinctively feel the flow of the fighting and instantly spot weaknesses in the enemies formation.
The commander who is charismatic and as a result is loved by his squad mates, able to easily communicate anything to them, and maybe also strike a bit of terror in the opponent.
Maybe but are different games and neither needs to self restrict due other made something close.
I like that, though I don't think you need the bump to increase Int -- maybe keep the existing feats that simulate that.What about:
◆) For every point of Intelligence bonus, you can prepare one Tactic.
◆) For every Tactic you can prepare, you can scribe two into your Folio.
◆) At regular intervals (ex: 3rd / 7th / 13th / 19th), your Intelligence bonus is treated as cumulatively one higher for these purposes.And the Multiclass dedication feats just gives one Tactic to start, plus one or two more eventually, with increasingly higher INT requirements.
Me too. This already helps the class to put more value to its key attribute. Yet I still think it needs more... :P
But I really like this suggestion specially in place of the currently "Preparing and Changing Tactics" mechanics. IMO there's no reason to use int as limit of how many party members you can instruct, instead use it to increase the number of tactics make way more sense IMO.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to come back to this idea as more folks get experience playtesting the class.
The idea that INT only matters for number of squadmates doesn't match my play experience with the class and I would love to hear what others who have tried it out in play are feeling about how important INT was to the class.
My commander started with a 3 INT. The Commander is a MAD class, as in it offers a lot of strong Tanking and Support options that need stats like STR, DEX or CON to work, so I think it would be a mistake to make INT so important that every single Commander is pretty much forced into building to 4 in it at start. It doesn't need wizard-like utility out of its KAS.
At the same time, at level 1, 4 out of our 6 feat options get bad if you don't have at least a 2 INT, and will be strongly encouraging you keep boosting it over play. I don't really know how you could add INT to a Animal Companion feat, and there is something fitting about the Armored Regiment Training feat being a decent feat for the meathead commander who might have a 2 or lower INT and have a very limited number of tactics they can use in play.
At level 3, you are giving up a lot of your class abilities if you don't have any intention of raising your INT above 2. The odds of you having a high wisdom with this class are low and covered by starting with good proficiency with perception and will, the same as the bard class. Any class that is strongly pushing you to boost INT and STR at the same time, and be up close in Melee is going to suffer somewhere, but with heavy armor and expert ref save with master boost, you really don't need to be boosting Dex with this class unless you are going to tank STR and use a ranged weapon (I think the reload! tactic should let you reload as well).
Which means letting CON slide is very dangerous for this class because you have bad Fort Saves and low HP for a martial class. All this is to say that the ability to roll initiative regularly with an autoscaling INT skill, and the strong desire to control the initiative order, even if you will end up delaying a lot, is a much bigger deal than it might at first feel like it is.
So my play experience is that if you are feeling like you want to tank your INT to fill in CHA or WIS, you are really fighting against this class' core design. THat is a big part of why neither CHA or WIS make sense to me as possible KAS for this class, because you'd want to change their entire proficiency progression as well as their level 3 class feature. Physical stat KAS for the tactical genius class feels off to me, even if many of the best builds will probably involve having a 16 in your INT and one of STR or DEX. It is just much better, in my opinion, for INT to stay the KAS with some light incentives not to completely tank it, rather than heavy incentives to maximize it, and let it otherwise sit on a strong martial chassis that will never outshine other strike heavy martials, because you get no action compression for making more than one attack in a round, and because your KAS will never support going all out with your attacks.
I could see tying number of tactics to INT in some fashion for a slight push to its value, and maybe realigning how it affects the number of allies you can share individual tactics with, as well as some more feat and tactic options that use your class DC, but I don't see needing to do anything more drastic with INT for this class to make it the one stat you can't afford to tank...which I think is a very interesting use of the KAS.
I disagree on the class being MAD. Str only matters if you want to go melee, you have medium and heavy armor so you can easily leave Dex at +1 or +0 easily, and the class doesn't need Con more than any other half-martial like the investigator or thaumaturge. You could easily pull Str +3, Dex +1, Con +1, Int +4, Wis +0, Cha +0 and be fine. If you don't care about maxing your KAS, then you can start with a +2 Con even.
I don't disagree that Wis or Cha as KAS make sense though, but I feel Paizo isn't going to change the KAS since there isn't a precedent for that. I think on release the subclasses would likely take the idea of Combat Medic and Deceptive Tactics and allow the character to use Warfare Lore for certain skill actions, in a sense allowing you to sorta be a Wis or Cha character but with Int instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO the idea of use Wis or Cha makes sense but it's not the problem. The problem is that the a mental attribute is still sub-used.
As I said in OP. I do not believe that the designers will change the KAS that's why I think that the class needs something in its chassis thats justify its used and that don't looks like a tax like the number of squadmates currently is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree on the class being MAD. Str only matters if you want to go melee, you have medium and heavy armor so you can easily leave Dex at +1 or +0 easily, and the class doesn't need Con more than any other half-martial like the investigator or thaumaturge. You could easily pull Str +3, Dex +1, Con +1, Int +4, Wis +0, Cha +0 and be fine. If you don't care about maxing your KAS, then you can start with a +2 Con even.
I don't disagree that Wis or Cha as KAS make sense though, but I feel Paizo isn't going to change the KAS since there isn't a precedent for that. I think on release the subclasses would likely take the idea of Combat Medic and Deceptive Tactics and allow the character to use Warfare Lore for certain skill actions, in a sense allowing you to sorta be a Wis or Cha character but with Int instead.
I agree that a lot depends on your party, but as a heavy armor class, your Fort save and HP will be terrible if you don’t try to keep up with Con you are going to go down fast. The mount will help for folks that don’t want to boost STR, but a -10 penalty to spd will really hurt if you are not mounted. None of your movement abilities move you, so you will very often be spending an action moving to keep up or reposition yourself. I agree that an 18 INT is possible, but I like that this is a class that doesn’t necessitate maxing your KAS to be effective. I don’t want too much more tied to it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a majority of Commander players avoid maxing out Int (and likely want a non-Int Apex item), then how "key" is it as a KAS?
Or maybe it's not really a martial after all but more an oddball like the Alchemist, having a unique party role and struggling to work independently? And like an Alchemist, one's vision of a Commander might best be achieved w/ MC Commander and a different class chassis. How much has Paizo already factored for those builds as competition?
I'd be of a mind to take MC Wizard myself, maybe seek out a decent focus spell. Or maybe rig Snares w/ that Class DC. But an actual martial role w/ the Commander chassis? That'd be a struggle IMO, playing catch up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess the question is: is Int as important to the Commander as Wis is to the Cleric?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be of a mind to take MC Wizard myself, maybe seek out a decent focus spell. Or maybe rig Snares w/ that Class DC. But an actual martial role w/ the Commander chassis? That'd be a struggle IMO, playing catch up.
IMO, Psychic archetype fits well: you can start off with Message for an Amped focus spell that allows you to double up on movement on someone [or strikes]. You can also pick up other cantrips Amps for focus use.
I think that there are several interesting avenues to explore with increasing Intelligence's usefulness in the class. Aside from improving the number of targets for their tactics, of course.
To me, I think this class could really benefit from a boost to Initiative so that they can chose to go first or opt to act after enemies/teammates, thus, I think they could either add Int to Perception Initiative Checks or replace Wisdom.
Another good one is to take a page out of old PF1e casters and allow INT increase the number of prepared tactics, since their current number can be too low and will only aggravate once there are more options.
Hopefully there are more tactics that involve using the class DC as well, that's a surefire way of making the KAS feel meaningful if the feats are good.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Warfare Lore already applies to initiative at 3rd level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a majority of Commander players avoid maxing out Int (and likely want a non-Int Apex item), then how "key" is it as a KAS
I mean, I'm currently playing a thaumaturge and I took an apex for Str instead of Cha, because besides Esoteric Lore, the class doesn't really use Cha for much and people don't argue about it. There's a few implements that use it I think, but my particular thaum doesn't use it for anything that isn't esoteric lore.
If a majority of Commander players avoid maxing out Int (and likely want a non-Int Apex item), then how "key" is it as a KASI mean, I'm currently playing a thaumaturge and I took an apex for Str instead of Cha, because besides Esoteric Lore, the class doesn't really use Cha for much and people don't argue about it. There's a few implements that use it I think, but my particular thaum doesn't use it for anything that isn't esoteric lore.
Heck, I'm of a mind to play a Dwarf Thaumaturge simply to ignore Charisma altogether*, but I wouldn't call that a fault or norm of the class.
Did you ignore or cap Charisma before 18/+4? More relevant, how many others do so? With all the praise for the scroll feats, I'm thinking there's more cost to ignore Charisma there and it's non-standard to do so. Meanwhile it'll be fairly standard to ignore Int for Commanders once you can cover your team.*I enjoy non-standard builds, and in PFS1 people would joke about not being able to determine what class I was playing because I'd mix in so many odd abilities for breadth. I'd tell them my party role of course, but telling them my class so often misled strangers I stopped.
---
On the flip side, maybe Paizo considers the few Int abilities so valuable, like initiative & team#, that they believe they've already covered this well enough. Hmm.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the flip side, maybe Paizo considers the few Int abilities so valuable, like initiative & team#, that they believe they've already covered this well enough. Hmm.
Its a play test still, this sort of discussion is what we are here for.
The problem is that Int itself is generally the weakest of the core stats. On paper, from a stat on stat view, its tempting to say that's Charisma. Which is probably why during the PF2 playtest, Charisma was the key stat for how many items you could have invested.
In reality however, Charisma has many very strong feats and skills that key off it, and it has generally a lot of support.
Int's benefits are generally more marginal / situational, and largely lack direct combat application.
This means that Int based classes generally get less from their KAS investment.
So even if the Commanders utilisation of Int is fine and on par with how other classes use their KAS, it feels lacking because the inherent value of a high Int is lower.
Warfare Lore already applies to initiative at 3rd level.
Can't believe I missed this. Granted, it's not a blanket bonus like the one I was thinking of, but it's very unlikely you will start combat without seeing an enemy.
If a majority of Commander players avoid maxing out Int (and likely want a non-Int Apex item), then how "key" is it as a KASI mean, I'm currently playing a thaumaturge and I took an apex for Str instead of Cha, because besides Esoteric Lore, the class doesn't really use Cha for much and people don't argue about it. There's a few implements that use it I think, but my particular thaum doesn't use it for anything that isn't esoteric lore.Heck, I'm of a mind to play a Dwarf Thaumaturge simply to ignore Charisma altogether*, but I wouldn't call that a fault or norm of the class.
Did you ignore or cap Charisma before 18/+4? More relevant, how many others do so? With all the praise for the scroll feats, I'm thinking there's more cost to ignore Charisma there and it's non-standard to do so. Meanwhile it'll be fairly standard to ignore Int for Commanders once you can cover your team.*I enjoy non-standard builds, and in PFS1 people would joke about not being able to determine what class I was playing because I'd mix in so many odd abilities for breadth. I'd tell them my party role of course, but telling them my class so often misled strangers I stopped.
---
On the flip side, maybe Paizo considers the few Int abilities so valuable, like initiative & team#, that they believe they've already covered this well enough. Hmm.
I have Charisma maxed out with my thaum, I just didn't take the apex for it.
I have the scroll feats and not even a single time in like 16 levels I haven't used a single spell with a DC for them. I have them for extra healing and utility. I guess I technically lied when I said I didn't have anything that uses Cha, but since nobody rolled against it I guess I was telling the truth too lol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be of a mind to take MC Wizard myself, maybe seek out a decent focus spell. Or maybe rig Snares w/ that Class DC. But an actual martial role w/ the Commander chassis? That'd be a struggle IMO, playing catch up.IMO, Psychic archetype fits well: you can start off with Message for an Amped focus spell that allows you to double up on movement on someone [or strikes]. You can also pick up other cantrips Amps for focus use.
I'd consider Magus MC as well. At lower levels it offers Int-based cantrips, a once-per-battle Spellstrike, and a few nice focus spells. I especially like Shielded Strike for a bit of action reduction which I think a Commander could make good use of. Force Fang might occasionally be useful, too.
A Commander/Magus MC that invests heavily in the archetype (or uses the Free Archetype rules) reminds me of a very martial-focused PF1 Eldritch Knight build using Lore Warden. Spellstrike is even similar to the Eldritch Knight capstone ability, but here you could get it at 4th level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with MCing a commander is that there are too many great feats in class at every level to pass on. Without free archetype you are giving up a lot to take an archetype.
My biggest complaint about the commander is they have these clutch feats you really want to take…at levels where there are sometimes 3 more feats that perfectly fit your build. I am hoping some (adaptive stratagem) can be worked into the class chassis, but skipping level 2 commander feats would be hard. Especially since Cantrips costing 2 actions eats heavy into your commander stuff. The magus spellstrike one sounds cool for free archetype, but if free archetype let you take your own class multiclass, it would be hard not to want to MC into commander and just keep taking more feats.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with MCing a commander is that there are too many great feats in class at every level to pass on. Without free archetype you are giving up a lot to take an archetype.
My biggest complaint about the commander is they have these clutch feats you really want to take…at levels where there are sometimes 3 more feats that perfectly fit your build. I am hoping some (adaptive stratagem) can be worked into the class chassis, but skipping level 2 commander feats would be hard. Especially since Cantrips costing 2 actions eats heavy into your commander stuff. The magus spellstrike one sounds cool for free archetype, but if free archetype let you take your own class multiclass, it would be hard not to want to MC into commander and just keep taking more feats.
I get what you mean, but this is definitely a good "problem" to have in a class.
I agree! I love how good the class feats are for this class.
I do think Commander being an INT class may be partially intended as a buffer against Dedication poaching. However, I think that's going to have near-zero effect, as any class that can swing +2 Int has strong reason to go for the Dedication. Even with 0 class Features, it may be one of the best Archetypes for Feat poaching.
There's just an insane amount of power in those L1&2 Feats. I don't know how many have noticed, but Plant Banner refreshes its THP at the start of each ally turn in a round. For a "one and done" action like that, the reward is beyond absurd. Its like a weaker Timber Sentinel in it's per-hit protection, but due to the huge zone and "one and done" nature, it is waaaaay better.
After that, the 2nd Feat to escape lockout still has great options. Any class that makes raw Strikes has their melee/ranged option for an evergreen "Strike, but better" Feat.
And by working in both directions, Defensive Swap is a great reaction for anyone, squishies, heavy lads, and everyone between.
Note that Def Swap triggers off the attack roll. Which means that roll must have been made, you have seen the roll.
Meaning if an adjacent ally has the AC to make a hit a miss, Def Swap is absurdly good. Like, "breaks the fundamental concept of targeting a low AC" level of good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Defensive swap triggers off the targeting of an attack roll, not the completion of an attack roll. It is still good, but it is not that cheesy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Defensive swap triggers off the targeting of an attack roll, not the completion of an attack roll. It is still good, but it is not that cheesy.
I honestly do not know if the devs really think players will use that trigger before the roll as written, but I can say that 99% of the time in practice, the act of making the roll is what triggers the Reaction, meaning the Reaction takes place after the roll occurs.
Quite literally, the player has to react to something having happened in order to interrupt and use the Reaction. GMs do not declare Strikes before making rolls, the attacking roll itself is player's first sign of committed hostility.
Rogue's Nimble Dodge has similar wording, and the same issue.
For our Amb Vlts campaign, even with VTT automation to turn Nimble Dodge into an on/off toggle, that Reaction was a big headache.
Eventually, the Rouge had to declare in black and white what their default "I would use Nimble Dodge in *this* but not *that* specific context." That enabled the GM to partially play the Rogue to spend that key Reaction on the player's behalf, and that player had to trust the GM to use reach down and partially play the PC.
=====================
The alternative is for the GM to stop every single time such a Reaction could happen, and specifically prompt and give time for the player to choose to use it, or not to, and only after make the roll.
I've only played 3 APs so far, but that Amb Vlts campaign is the only time I've seen a table go to the effort of not "cheating" by simply letting the Reactions happen after the roll is made.
And while it does technically break RaW, I have to apply that experience to the C's Def Swap Feat as well.
I cannot imagine GMs running it as the rules say, and stutter-stopping every potential use to ask for Reactions before the roll is made.
Def Swap is even worse in this regard compared to Nimble Dodge. As a simple "use every round" self-buff, N Dodge can at least have a flowchart of choice shared w/ the GM, though even then, some guesswork in regard to "I'd rather have saved it" type cases can cause friction.
Def Swap can possibly happen far too often, while being used far too infrequently for that GM partial-piloting to have much chance of helping.
========================
I had kinda thought that such a trigger had been put into the pf2e design bible under "MUST NOT USE" after lessons learned from the existing Reactions.
Seeing it happen again in brand new content, when it clearly breaks things when run in reaction to rolls, is honestly pretty troubling. I had hoped the core devs making new classes would know better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t know. We play tested level 2 today. I picked defensive swap since my party is mostly cloth casters. My GM always has declared actions and targets before rolling, and it is relatively easy to do. Even if you use foundry you have to select a target before rolling if you want to have the affect apply directly. Targeting is called out as a separate step anyway. It probably doesn’t work with PbP, but I don’t think it is the development teams responsibility to accommodate every possible style of play when coming up with ideas
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My experience is the same as Unicore here - in general, I tend to say 'the devil moves adjacent to [insert character here] and then makes a Strike against them using their rusted wings.' I then start to roll the dice and the normal steps for a strike, but the statement comes first. If someone start saying something as I roll the dice, I'll tend to just cover the dice before anyone sees them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm personally quite happy with the implementation of the Commander's key attribute. It does factor into your core abilities, so it's justified on top of making your Strikes slightly less effective than those of a more direct martial class, but the fact that you can also largely opt out of Int means a Charisma-based Commander also works well. Picking tactics that don't use your class DC and committing to Charisma skills I think is perfectly viable, and lets you complement your tactics by also debuffing enemies with Demoralizes and Bon Mots.
My experience is the same as Unicore here - in general, I tend to say 'the devil moves adjacent to [insert character here] and then makes a Strike against them using their rusted wings.' I then start to roll the dice and the normal steps for a strike, but the statement comes first. If someone start saying something as I roll the dice, I'll tend to just cover the dice before anyone sees them.
I think this issue may be a tolerable annoyance for in-person play, but is massively increased for VTT play.
At a table with others, there's far more opportunity for the player to react to the GMs non verbal cues /movements to interrupt prior to the roll itself. The players can see the GM reaching for a die, ect.
In Forge VTT, the player may have 1-2 seconds after a little targeting indicator to cut off the GM with something like "--If he's swinging at me I want to save my N Dodge for the next guy."
and that's the best-case. Most of the time, VTT play gets to move faster thanks to the automation, but players do not get to see their GM moving to click the roll button. Even the lag of VoIP contributes to this, as any accompanying words from the GM will come through a bit slower than the attack roll in the log.
And in Roll 20, forget it. That system is so barebones I have no idea if the GM is even making rolls half the time, and there's over a dozen "what's your AC?" speedbumps per session whenever the GM thinks a roll may be close (if any reader has only played Roll 20, please give Forge a try).
===================
IMO, that type of trigger really is at best an annoying speed bump, as it prompts players to interrupt what is otherwise all GM.
Just a few seconds after, once the roll is done, is when the ball naturally passes to the player. That is a perfect spot for a Reaction.
Things like Shield Block, Deflecting Wave, ect are the great design to compare against the "a roll is coming but not yet made".
====================================
Even just focusing on that trigger in isolation, "A creature targets you with an attack" is not a real piece of the pf2e system.
After a quick refresher in the Playing the Game section, afaik there is no actual step anywhere in the rules that says to declare an attack separately like that. The most specific it gets is to say that Step 1 is to roll a d20. Not "declare your action and target"
That trigger is relying on the table to add a new speedbump step into the core gameplay loop, but only when the PC in question is capable of interrupting. And to tie it back into the Commander, whose ability keys off their relative position w/ other allies... yeah, it's a bit of a s!%~show.
=======================
Mentioning this issue was originally a barely-conscious minor gripe I was adding as a rider, but now that I've actually thought about it specifically, I'm even more solidified in my displeasure and I'm feeling a little emboldened to rag on it as outright bad design.
VTTs only make the interruption and disruption of that trigger more difficult to ignore.