| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I did my first session testing a commander today at level 1. Will finish the level 1 adventure tomorrow. Party is my commander, a twisting tree magus, a wizard, and a tangible dream psychic. We’re hoping to test the same characters at level 6 next week.
Pincer attack is even better than I thought it would be. My commander has used it every round of every encounter. The off guard without spreading the party out is brutal good at level 1 and has set the wizard up to hit 3 targets with both castings of breathe fire.
First encounter was against a level 3 Aapoph sekmin, I’d never seen one before so I combat assent hit it after the pincer attack, just hitting. It is hard to be a recall knowledge build/class, but not get to use your lore skill for it till third level. Initiative is also brutal at level 1. Magus did over 30 points of damage with a regular hit, having shield and cascaded first round, then hit it with spell strike and hydraulic push, also making it waste an action moving again. It laid the psychic out with 2 slithering attacks in one round (even with amped shield up, but the rest of the party brought it down fast afterwards since it was always off guard.
We only got through 6 rounds of the second rolling encounter. So far we’ve fought 4 shambles zombies, 4 Goblin warriors, a goblin dog, a goblin pyro and a goblin commando, but the commando is about to open another door so we could be in trouble. Pincer attack has kept the party together, out of flanking, and allowed the magus to crit spell strike the pyro out with a single hit. The wizard and psychic are at half hp and but I haven’t been hit with my splint mail and shield. I keep wanting to use form up, and we may have to to beat a retreat after that door opens, but so far pincer attack with both the steps and the off guard make for brutal rounds. The psychic desperately wants to pull off a pincered amped imaginary weapon, but has been having to keep the shield up and move because they keep getting hit by arrows. They still have one focus point, so maybe next session.
Not being on a steed does cramp my movement. It probably would have been a better feat at level 1 than combat assessment, but only really because recalling knowledge at level 1 is a real crap shoot of having the right skills.
Too late to edit: There were 7 shambles zombies. A group of 4 and a group of 3. The 3 died so fast I forgot they were there.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A potential issue is if you have a large group, an ally might have to sit out of all of your tactics all day, and that might feel bad.
So instead of 2+Int squadmates have unlimited squadmates, and move the limit to the Tactics themselves.
Form Up, Reload and Shields Up can target 2+Int squadmate's.
Pincer Attack and Ready, Aim, Fire can affect Int squadmate's.
Double Team and Demoralizing Charge work on 2.
Piranha Assault still affects all, since it's more of a debuff.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wrapped up a test with a level 6 Commander (Apologizing in advance for any mistakes, because my native language is portuguese).
My party was myself (playing with a shortbow, Deceptive Tactics, Battle Medic, Guiding Shot, a Folio with Strike Hard!, Form Up!, End It! and Reload!), a Guardian, a Fighter and a Triggerbrand Gunslinger. Ran through four encounters (moderate against four lvl -2 foes, severe against two level +1 creatures, moderate and severe against an appropriate number of equal level creatures).
My overall impressions of the class were very positive. Strike Hard really shines on a party that has a Fighter or a Gunslinger, but there were instances in which I commanded the Guardian to strike as well.
Reload! did wonders for my Gunslinger, freeing up their action economy.
I remember that one of the encounters feature a couple Boggard warriors, so the Banner helped us succeed against their terrifying croaks.
Drilled reactions helped the Fighter and Gunslinger to benefit from my commands while also using their reactions (I remember the GS used Fake Out a lot).
Deceptive Tactics didn't see much use. It's a nice 1st level feat, but setting a Diversion or Feinting didn't really fit into my action economy. I wonder if having more ways for the Commander to use deception (maybe something to feint for your allies or combining it with the Rogue or Swashbuckler's overextending feints) would help, maybe a feat chain?
I liked being able to use int for Battle Medicine and to use Warfare for initiative.
I got to trigger End it once and it felt very thematic. Everyone at the table loved it.
For suggestions:
1) I felt that the Commander should have more tactics prepared. I took the sixth level feat for the extra tactic, but, even then, three felt like too little.
2) This character I made was a retread of my Warrior Muse Bard. Overall I enjoyed it more, but I feel that Strike Hard should have a small boon attached to it even in its base form, maybe just a +1 to damage (doesn't need to compare to CAnthem)
My MO was Guiding Shot + Strike Hard! and it felt and played great. My fellow players commented that it felt better when they got the bonus, as it felt that my Commander was directing them to employ better stratagems and strikes.
3) During play, my fellow gamers suggested that I command them to perform other maneuvers (Grapples, Disarms and Trips) not part of the current Tactics. It would be nice to get Tactics attached to them as well, maybe similarly to the ones involving shoving and repositioning.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I did a playtest session at L8, which was 2 fights w/ a 10min pause between. Witch(me) + Giant Barb + Guardian + Commander w/ a returning thrown weapon.
First bit of feedback is that while I like the idea of a Martial that can slot in their special abilities each day like spells, the slot limit is really small. It was our Commander's very first complaint, and for good reason. The entire point of a list + prepared system like that is for diversity of options. At low level, Commander play looks even worse in that regard.
I think maybe 1 more active tactic, and 1-2 more in the folio would be fine, but this is with the assumption that the pool of possible tactics will also increase a bit. The Feat to swap one tactic at initiative roll would be amazing to have a core Feature as well, it would genuinely make the class properly preparatory. Needing to guess "are we going to need to Climb in combat today?" is not fun, nor really viable. No one is going to leave that tactic slotted in, but they *might* choose to hot-swap during the initiative roll if the terrain is there. Otherwise those are all dead tactics.
The 10 min to swap out tactics will also almost never be relevant. Not just for the "blind guess" issue, but because the folio size is also limited. Meaning that no one can afford to occupy folio space with those niche tactics to begin with, they will all select the most general-use options they can.
-----------------
-----------------
For our playtest, our Commander spent most of fight 1 experimenting and using different tactics. Near the end of the first fight, he found his routine of boosted Strike w/ a returning thrown weapon + Strike Hard!.
Once he found that routine, the rest of the session was mostly repeating that single turn.
If the C only had 2 actions, he would prioritize giving the Giant Barb a free swing, and if he had only 1, he would either use that boosted Strike, or Amp Message to give a (not-free) reaction strike.
It was the most "just do the same thing over and over again" class that I have ever seen. And the C's pilot did speak negatively about that during the post-game discussion.
There were 2 different uses of Defensive Swap, 1 per each fight. That is a good "niche" tactic that can compliment a "1st priority" tactic like Strike Hard!. Though, of course, it really was kind of insulting to see the Commander get that when the Guardian did not have the option.
Maybe add "can choose to swap positions with the ally" as a rider onto Int Strike to toss the G a bone.
-----------------
-----------------
After the playtest + talk:
Commander may be perhaps the most impossible to balance class by conception that will ever be released.
I don't mean this in a harshly negative way as it may seem, though I might suggest giving the class an Uncommon tag.
Tactics that lack a target limit, which can give benefit to the whole party, are absurd in concept. Spending one action to potentially give one ally a Reload or Raise is a 1:1 trade. Contextually good, but never great.
However, if a party actually builds itself w/ a Commander in mind (such as with a consistent party that lvls up together), you can have 3+ PCs getting free actions. Also, I really do not think Paizo thought to consider NPC party members. It's pretty common to have 1 NPC as balance normalizer and party-nudger.
RaW there's no mention of allies needing to be PCs to be squadmates. Some APs also have them, Gatewalkers has 2 that have been with us for most the campaign, and they are present for combat. And serenity help those GMs that have 6 PC parties.
That party-sized effect is just impossible to balance. If you release a tactic that is "not OP" when 3+ allies can use the action, then it's going to underperform when used by a single ally. It's just conceptually whack.
One of these does get a special mention, though.
Raise is a +2 to AC, with contextual +more for Block, ect. Still absurd in 5 shield party, but it inherently has trouble breaking anything due to how defense that doesn't get triggered is "wasted".
This makes the Shields Up! Tactic superb design in my book. Super potent on paper, but despite potentially saving many actions, it can never really break anything. Well done.
Reload! however, is one of those "I get why it looks fun, but this is obviously a bad idea to design". Because damage is never wasted. And Slings are Simple, 1-Handed, _d6 with Propulsive.
The variance in saving 1 Reload versus 4 really just breaks things. Basically every PC can access a good simple reload weapon, and using that option is a big boost to the party's DPS in a way that is impossible to balance around. Impossible specifically because that Reload action tax is the safety against shenanigans like Cast a Spell + Shoot.
Do you want a party of hand crossbow Eldritch Archers using Activate + Enchanting Arrow every turn? Because that's just an archetype.
- - - - - -
The 2-A Ready, Aim, Fire! is even worse. Any potential "waste" with Reload is thrown out the window here.
I really do not understand how Strike Hard! has the sense to limit itself to 1 target, but the *ranged* version, which is more generically going to be able to cash it's value, does not have an ally limit. Spells do not even need hands/equipment hassle.
Moreover, casters in general have crappy Reactions, making that trade extremely appealing. Meaning that even when exceeding the single Drilled Reaction, and even without the need to invest in runed reload-weapons, a Commander & 3+ PCs with innate cantrips, and/or spellhearts, will absolutely need a GM to re-balance combat around the overpowered tactic. The use of a spellheart even buffs Strike-happy PCs.
And R, A, F! even functions with save cantrips, if that is preferred. Jolt Coils everywhere.
I honestly do not understand how this ability is in the same system as classes like Investigator.
The notion that Commander does not sacrifice any martial prowess to provides these benefits, really does rub me the wrong way. Our Commander even popped off a Battle Medicine, though I think he regretted the Feat spend.
Plant Banner looks absurd next to Combat Medic. Quick note is that there's something likely unintended with the scaling of the party-wide THP scaling. It goes from 1/2 INT --> INT --> level + INT.
Completely whack scaling. Just leave it at PC level, or PC level / 2, ect.
Man after playing Investigator, Commander is *whack*. Even Feats like Rallying Banner would be the cornerstone "Feat taxes" of other classes. 1 Action for _d6 all ally healing? Even as 1 p 10 min, that's absurd.
The only thing keeping that Feat down is the competition for the L8 slot. Defiant Banner as 1-A spammable phys Resist is more action spend, but even more absurd in context. Commander certainly has a lot of competition for 1-A ability to use alongside R, A, F!, but you cannot go wrong with phys resistance.
No joke, I bet if you tallied up the damage mitigation between Defiant Banner and Guardian's Int Strike, Def Banner will be quite competitive. Int Strike is a bit more than 2x the number, but is only per the single hit, and can only help either once or twice per turn at most.
Meanwhile, Def Banner is party-wide and duration based; it is mitigating every bit of phs damage that happens inside the banner. And if you add Plant Banner's THP to that, Commander def will be a better protector than Guardian for just 2 Feats.
Rofl, I didn't even notice that Defiant Banner is somehow not even flourish NOR a tactic. So it does not even compete with all the boosted flourish Strikes that C can do, nor the "1 tactic per turn" limit. Wtf.
I did not expect Commander to be this absurd before the playtest, but yeah, Commander is crazy OP. It may look a bit boring to play, but from a numbers perspective, it's crazy cracked. A defensive Commander does not even really need a Giant Barb.
A routine of boosted Strike + Def Banner + Pincer Attack/ ect is already amazing. Note that Pincer Attack says "melee attacks" not Strikes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ready aim fire has to target 1 target, so overkill is a real possibility. I am hoping to get to test that next week myself.
NPCs and companions feel like they are being considered in this playtest to me, because of the squad size limit. With a high INT it is still a lot, but it is not “all allies” as some have suggested.
Did your playtest include free-archetype? It is really difficult imagining anyone MCing a commander without it, because the class feats are so good. There are almost never less than 2 at each level I feel like I need to have.
Ready aim fire has to target 1 target, so overkill is a real possibility. I am hoping to get to test that next week myself.
NPCs and companions feel like they are being considered in this playtest to me, because of the squad size limit. With a high INT it is still a lot, but it is not “all allies” as some have suggested.
Did your playtest include free-archetype? It is really difficult imagining anyone MCing a commander without it, because the class feats are so good. There are almost never less than 2 at each level I feel like I need to have.
Dang, I put it in the G feedback, forgot here.
It was run as default as possible, no FA, no Call of the Wild, no Rare stuff.
I am really worried about R, A, F!, as pf2e is not designed for simultaneous attacks like that. A foe Commander with 4 allies could easily obliterate PC casters instantly. Pretty sure the attacks would keep coming even if a crit on attack 2 sends them dying, meaning actual instant death.
--------------------
There are a number of classes with bad Feats that would love to spend 3 for 2 of Commanders.
Ironically, two of them are Alchemist and Investigator, the 2 other "Int is your KAS, but you need an attack stat" bastards.
While those two have notoriously bad Feats (and a supposedly potent chassis in exchange), the Commander is the opposite, ludicrously amazing Feats (and a supposedly sub-par chassis that is in reality very good).
--------------------
I think the catch with the squad size limit is super mitigated by the fact that the C gets to choose who they want.
Meaning that the Druid's animal companion is going to trigger Pincer Attack's free off-guard, while the Witch's Independent familiar will be excluded *only if* the Commander is at their limit.
They can easily get the maximal value from their squad size, and if that's an NPC that can hold a runed weapon, it will be them. If it's a familiar or pet, it'll be that instead.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I read the temp HP from planting the banner as refreshing for each ally at the start of their turn, not that everyone’s temp HP refreshes at the start of each ally’s turn. It could probably be clearer, but I think that makes a lot more sense for the ability, and is also less of a head ache for book keeping.
I read the temp HP from planting the banner as refreshing for each ally at the start of their turn, not that everyone’s temp HP refreshes at the start of each ally’s turn. It could probably be clearer, but I think that makes a lot more sense for the ability, and is also less of a head ache for book keeping.
THP from the same source does not stack, so the difference would not involve any significant increase in bookkeeping.
That said, after reading your take on it, I do think that your interpretation is what the devs intended.
I had read Plant Banner's THP effect like a beneficial "pulse" that re-occurs and thrums out at the start of every ally turn.
However, I think your interpretation of a single pulse followed by personal refreshes is more in line with existing pf2e mechanics, and would significantly crank down the power level of the Feat.
While a small tweak in wording could remove the possibility of a "pulse every turn start" reading, that unneeded ambiguity is no affirmation of that interpretation.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just completed a level 1 campaign intro naval battle objective scenario playing a commander.
My commander character:
versatile human, cannoneer/artillerist background, Int +4, Dex +3, Ch +2 Str +1,
Drilled tactics: Reload!, Naval Training (defensive retreat and coordinating maneuvers were not drilled
Feats: Plant Banner, Deceptive Tactics (via natural ambition), Incredible Initiative, Hefty Hauler
Squadmates: 2 Ballista crews of 2 people each
Armor: studded leather Weapons: Arbalest crossbow, rapier
The commander is a just-out-of-academy naval ensign in charge of two scorpion ballistas on a small, swift pirate hunter galley. The galley is pursuing a fast smuggler ship to retrieve a certain high priority cargo item known only to the captain. As the galley is closing in and getting ready to board the smuggler ship, a kraken surfaces and attacks the smuggler ship.
My character's objectives:
1. Fire the ballistas on the kraken
2. Damage the kraken with ballista fire.
3. Once the kraken has destroyed both ships, escape on a rowboat.
My guy met all of his objectives. The stars were plant banner and reload. By planting his banner at the central mast, the increase in his command aura to 40' each direction enabled both the bow and stern ballista crews to benefit from his reload tactic. Ordinarily, a ballista requires 5+ actions to fire, meaning most of the time - and all of the time with a moving target - firing will be once every other round. When the ensign used two Reload! actions on his turn, each one allowed a 2-action reload to be performed as a reaction by one of the crew members, doubling the rate of fire. Since the chance of the kraken not critically succeeding at his artillery basic reflex save was very low, the extra attacks were very helpful in achieving objective #2.
The naval training was great in this scenario as well, especially since it is not limited by the banner emanation. Unfortunately, it didn't save his squadmates from the deadly poisonous kraken ink.
I felt the pain of his second rate fighter power in melee and ranged combat (firing his crossbow and attacking a tentacle), with his dex mod one off the maximum, low strength, and trained rather than expert in martial. I think most commanders would want strength for their combat ability score, but dex made more sense for a naval artillery commander. But the reduction in direct combat ability was more than offset by the commander powers, which were awesome and thematic. The warfare lore was really useful. He felt very cinematic, but did not overpower the other player characters.
I'll update at higher levels, but the introduction to this class I have had was very fun and satisfying. The scenario was pretty niche in terms of using less broadly applicable tactics but the Reload! would work great with a crossbow platoon for sure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
After running some playtests by myself and seeing pretty much similar conclusions being reached by other people, I think the Commander class has a lot of strong points and it would be largely fine if it was released in its current state with some improvement and more options.
However, I think there's an issue that might (or might not) become a problem further down the line when people get more used to the class and more players engage with it.
Commanders need to build around their parties instead of having tactics to use with whatever "tools" (people) they have at hand.
Right now, a lot of tactics are hyper specific and have their power resting on the number of targets and the improved action economy that pretty much explodes in power when you consider the sheer amount of actions it can reach with larger parties (or accounting for NPCs). This can veer into PF1e "Summon" issues, if we consider the action economy advantage it could provide (Creatures were extra bodies, attacks, spells and all around versatility).
With that in mind, I think Tactics should be a bit more broad in applicability. Whether is shifting them from specific actions like Raise Shield, Step or Reload, Trip/Shove/Disarm, Strike into actions that cover a wider ranger of similar movements. Focusing on having Commanders having tactics that suit their parties, not commanders fitting into parties (that are subject to change).
The amount of prepared tactics is incredibly low as well, specially at higher levels, which is a major conceptual problem for the class. Since one of the core ideas for the class is a master tactician-type of character, it would make sense that they would have access to a lot of tactics, even if they needed time to switch gears. I think the class would benefit immensely from being able to prepare much more tactics and be able to learn them like spells. Making them actual "prepared martials".
On that note, more tactics that only could only be use 1/day would have a more prevalent role, specially higher level ones. In fact, in a setting like Golarion, which has magic as a common part of warfare, it's a bit strange that the class doesn't have more ways to engage with it at higher levels. Maybe not in combat, but with feats and features for battlefield communication, fast mobility, weather prediction/control. Stuff that could be achieved by magic or any superhuman means.
Also, it should definitely have a high level feat about Rousing Speeches that grants long-lasting morale buffs. That's Leadership 101.
Up to now (I had tested from level 1 to 8 but I'm still testing).
One thing that I noticed is that have a folio is bad. As well pointed the Tactics are too depend from party composition and the strategies that you have agreed with the other players. So folio vary from useless limitation to a bad thing, a useless limitation is when you had the opportunity to talk with the other players what Tactics you need to take but bad for situations like PFS where do you don't know what PC you will get as squadmates.
Honestly I don't see any reason the have a folio and a preparation for tactics. IMO preparation would be enough and allow the commanders to adapt their tactics for each party. Also have a wide variety of tactics available won't overpower the class once that the tactics are not developed to get benefits from enemies (like damage types) or situation (yet the movement tactics can be used if players starts in a bad positioning but this isn't a game change) but to benefit the PC improving their own abilities whats usually means that you usually get the same tactics every day for the same party composition.
I also agree that the number of prepared tactics is low (at last up to level 8 where I tested) and needs to be improved to give more options and more fun to the class. Currently I basically focus into Pincer Attack and Strike Hard! not only because they are good tactics but because the are general enough to cover most of my party needs. If I had way more tactics I also probably would take and use more situational tactics.
IMO the ideal was if the commander drop the int based squadmate limit (instead it could be 6 at levels 1-9, 7 at levels 10-16, 8 at level 17-19 and 9 at level 20) and instead have 2+int into number of prepared tactics from its full list of tactics. Making Int more relevant and improving the number of prepared tactics a lot.
|
Seems like some clarification is needed on how tactics that grant free actions are supposed to work. Here is a conversation that happened in one session.
...
But I think we may have misplayed the free movement granted by Tepin's Pincer Attack.
The tactic reads: Signal all squadmates affected by your commander’s banner; each can Step as a free action.
Free actions don’t cost you any of your actions per turn, nor do they cost your reaction. A free action with no trigger follows the same rules as a single action (except the action cost). It must be used on your turn and can’t be used during another action. A free action with a trigger follows the same rules as a reaction (except the reaction cost). It can be used any time its trigger is met. (emphasis added)
Since there was no trigger specified for Pincer Attack's granted movement, it should only have been taken during a PC's turn, essentially the way Ulfgar did. Not as a bonus action out of sequence as Locke and Mannak did.
Contrast this with the wording of the air kineticist's Four Winds class feat. There's no action cost or trigger mentioned, it just grants them a half-speed movement that AFAICT they can take immediately as targeted creatures.
I agree with your interpretation.
Looking at the playtest document, there is some circumstantial evidence that this is a result of sloppy editing. Many of the free actions say, "an immediate free action" but not Pincer Attack. However there are other free actions without "immediate" that don't necessarily make sense without the word "immediate" (Ready, Aim, Fire! Valkyrie's Charge is all kinds of poorly worded).
And then there's the consideration that the Commander's signal is a technical trigger.
That's not to argue your ruling but to point out feedback we should all include in our surveys.
On a general note, please consider the effect that a class that grants actions especially free actions and potentially to the entire party, can cause play-by-post games to grind to a halt resolving the tactic. Otherwise, I could see this class getting banned in a lot of non-PFS pbp games.
|
|
"Your banner can be affixed to a weapon or shield you are wielding, or held in one hand and attached to a simple pole."
"To use an ability that has the banner trait, you must be holding your banner in one hand or wielding a weapon it is attached to."
So you have 3 options.
Option 1: Flag on a pole. You must hold it in one hand.
Option 2: Attached to a shield. You must hold the shield in one hand, which makes shields that are not held in hand (such as a buckler) ineligible.
Option 3: Attached to a weapon. There is no restriction on the size or type of weapon mentioned in the rules. There are a few sub-options then.
3a Free-hand weapon. You can have the banner wielded while occupying zero hands.
3b Attached weapon. You are wielding the weapon if you are wielding the item the weapon is attached to.
3c One-hand weapon. Simple enough. You must wield in one hand.
3d Two-handed weapon. Wielded in two hands but can be held in one hand and still use banner trait tactics.
That's how it would work according to RAW, but is that last part actually intended? What about the free-hand weapon case. Why free-hand weapons, but not bucklers?
|
|
Two ways I could think of the reword the banner trait.
If the banner attached to a weapon or shield, it must be wielded, otherwise the banner must be attached to a pole and held in one hand.
This would allow the use of free-hand weapons and shields but would require two-handed weapons have both hands engaged. So if you wanted to use something like Combat Medic, you'd have to spend the action to change grip before using something with the banner trait.
Regardless of how it is attached, you must hold the banner it at least one hand.
Disallows free-hand weapons and bucklers but allows the use of two-handed weapons with only one hand on.
@ Allenderous: good call. In my experience, the “You might….” text is always galling, ponderous and often off the mark for how I pwrsonally imagine anything my character “might” do think or be. I remember seeing such text in DnD books and being vaguely horrified. I feel it comes from a “advice for noobs” mindset that is oftentimes trite, completely idealised and ultra boring. If I was 14 I’d call it…”mid”.
This one in particular is not vaguely, but actually, horrifying.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
After more musing after my playtest, here are my thoughts on Commander.
The class is in a really good spot. It feels fun to play, and it is effective in combat. It can do a wide variety of things, and help the party out in myriad ways.
I think the how many Tactics that you can Drill per day needs to change. Two at level one is fine, but it doesn't become three until level seven, and that is much too long to wait. I would increase the Drilled number by 1 every odd level, the same time a Spellcaster gets a new spell Rank.
The tactics allow you to be flexible in use, but if you only have two choices for 70 percent of a 1-10 AP or home campaign, you won't see that. Given that the Commander will still have only 3 actions per turn, more choices won't be OP as far as I can see.
My one concern is Strike Hard! I think it is a fine Tactic, but, I also think it has the potential to cause issues in myriad ways.
First off, it is the only tactic in the playtest which gives negative action economy. It costs 2 Actions to give back one. Now, I do not think that should change, it is properly costed, but it eats a lot of the Commanders turn, which leads me into my second concern for it.
Other players may push the Commander to take it, and to use it every turn, which could lead to an unpleasant play experience for the Commander player, especially if they are new to TTRPGs or are not as assertive person.
I do think it should be given a rider like 'When a squadmates has been affected by Strike Hard!, they are temporarily immune to Strike Hard! from that Commander for 1d4 rounds.'
I am really excited to see the full class in Battlecry, and would happily play one, as is, in a campaign. Overall, it is a really well done class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Played in a level 7 playtest as a Commander, and GMed a level 12 playtest that had a Commander.
The level 7 playtest was Moderate -> rest -> Moderate -> rest -> Severe -> Extreme -> TPK. In this playtest it felt like my Commander was doing a lot of heavy lifting for the easier fights thanks to the combination of Plant Banner, my Commander being built for grappling, and my Tactics giving me the ability to get my backline out of trouble on-demand. Between the three of these factors (and the presence of our very high-mobility Guardian), our backline got to focus almost entirely on blasting instead of healing, and the only thing that lengthened our TTK was our Barbarian's inability to roll higher than a 6 on the d20. The Extreme fight didn't feel very good though: the centrepiece boss of the fight was a gug, with 15 feet of Reach on its Reactive Strike. It felt like Defensive Retreat made me excellent at protecting my allies from Reactive Strike but I could not protect myself from it at all, nor could I use really things like Plant Banner or Combat Medic to mitigate incoming damage. Are Commander's intended to feel extremely limited in their own mobility? If not, it might be worth letting Commanders respond to their own tactics in limited ways (like maybe Defensive Retreat only gives me 1 Step while everyone else gets 3). It should be noted though that this could just be a case of "Rogue faces ghost's Precision immunity and feels bad" because the fight would likely still have been a win if the casters had significant resources left to use.
The level 12 playtest was chain of 3x Low/Moderate encounters with no rests -> sleep for the night -> Trivial -> rest -> Extreme -> we called off the session early but it looked like it was heading towards a TPK. A lot of the same observations as the previous experience: Defiant Banner's damage reduction felt as awesome as Plant Banner, movement felt very useful. While the Extreme encounter was still ending in disaster, I should note that the Commander did not feel specifically countered the way mine did in the previous playtest, so I do not believe Commanders have an underlying issue that makes them struggle in boss fights.
Some balance thoughts:
- Plant Banner felt a little on the overtuned side, especially for multi-enemy encounters. This becomes especially true at level 15+.
- Similar note as Plant Banner, Defiant Banner is in the same spot. Feels a little too good.
- The combination of Defiant Banner and Plant Banner at level 15 (you can easily have both up on turn 1 of a fight and keep Plant Banner up for the rest of it) feels insanely strong, and is perhaps too overpowered.
- Mountaineering Training and Naval Training need to scale rather than immediately solve problems for the party, in my opinion.
- Ready, Aim, Fire! and its interaction with Psychics using Amped cantrips feels unintentionally powerful, even for the level it's at. Allowing a caster a Reaction cantrip is already a pretty powerful Tactic, Amps push it over the edge.
- Most of the Feats and Tactics aside from the outliers I mentioned above feel like they're well-balanced. When building my character I spent a lot of time debating what I needed and what I didn't, and I think a lack of obvious options like this is a good indication of the class being overall very well put together.
The Banner itself felt a little wonky overall. There is a lot of worrying about handedness, Tactics with and without the Banner trait, etc and I feel like the weirdness does not outweigh the rewards you get for using the banner. I feel like the Commander needs to lean hard in one or the other direction: either make Banner-dependent abilities so uniquely powerful (all of them as powerful as Plant Banner, basically) that it is worth the tradeoff on missing one of the weapon or the shield, or remove the handedness issues of the banner and nerf the few Plant Banner level abilities that are balanced heavily by the banner being an object. The in-between feels like it adds a lot more complexity than it's worth.
There was also a small feels issue in that the Commander feels like it slows down play a lot. I ended up interrupting others to tell them about their forgotten temp HP or Resistances, interrupting them to remind them that you will just help them move as a Reaction so they needn't worry about it on their turn, etc. Unfortunately it is likely that this is just not something that has a good solution.
Finally the Commander does need more Kineticist and backline support in general, but we already have confirmation that this will be part of the final release.
Aside from the small number of issues above, the Commander felt like a thematic and powerful class that fulfilled exactly the mechanical niche it was meant to. If the Commander released mostly similar to what we have now it'd still be one of my favourite classes in the game, and if it gets all the improvements I am hoping for it'll easily be a top favourite!
P.S. I wanna add a small note about Strike Hard! since it has come up so much in other discussions: I don't think it's overpowered or a mandatory "must pick" or an Action-tax. In a lot of cases you will have plenty of options that are not just making your friend attack once more, and you'll use the extra attack in the cases where your party has successfully got an enemy on lockdown and is just trying to wrap it up asap before they work their way out of it.
P.P.S. I was not aware of the existence of this thread as a place to give freeform feedback (as opposed to the guided feedback in the survey itself). Perhaps the survey should linke here once it has been completed?
How could you use Plant Banner and Defiant Banner at same time?
Plant Banner requires you to "plant" your banner into the ground while Defiant Banner has banner trait and requires you holding it.
Unless you are getting it with an action, used other action with Defiant Banner and then another action to planting it again.
How could you use Plant Banner and Defiant Banner at same time?
Plant Banner requires you to "plant" your banner into the ground while Defiant Banner has banner trait and requires you holding it.Unless you are getting it with an action, used other action with Defiant Banner and then another action to planting it again.
Note that I said they'll only stack on turn 1 of a fight. This is why it feels busted to me at level 15:
- Use Defiant Banner (while currently holding your Banner) to give everyone physical resistance 12 till the start of your next turn.
- Plant Banner to give everyone 20 temp HP for one round.
- As long as your banner is left in place, the 20 temp HP refreshes every round, but the Resistance does not.
This is a very powerful combination. On turn 1 you have Resistance 12 + Temp HP 20, which even higher level monsters will struggle to break through. A level 19 monster with high Strike damage deals 42 damage on a hit, so even if they get back to back crit -> crit -> hit, they will be pretty unlikely to burn through a level 15 character's HP pool. Enemies of level 16 or lower are completely out of luck because the first Resistance + temp HP can blank a Strike (or more) and that one turn Resistance scales disproportionately well when foes show up in larger numbers (since each of them will likely have multiple Strikes weakened by it, and then the party will likely take a couple of them out of the combat).
A Cleric in place of the Commander could cast an 8th level AoE Heal for 36 h.p. average (harming undead and depending of feats perhaps Selective, perhaps harming Fiends, perhaps 8 h.p. more, etc.). That seems awfully similar in effect, and without dropping their only holy symbol on the ground and hoping enemies don't pick it up/destroy it. (I would struggle to place my banner at risk at higher levels given the mobility of enemies. Dim Door/Translocate and "yoink!" they have the banner, plus I'd likely prefer my banner on my weapon because of the hands issue.)
So yeah, it's a powerful combination because that's a powerful level to play at. And that Commander's leading with its ace card they've invested in, taking a risk with their Banner, and is (seemingly) well-placed for such a strategy. Meanwhile the 15th level dragon's dropping a 16d6/56 h.p. breath weapon on the party. Or level 15 caster with 8th level Fireball for same (and there are worse 8th level spells). That sounds about fair IMO, arguably even necessary given the Commander's lack of versatility. That's a large chunk of their utility, and as noted, it'll be hard to replicate in later rounds when damage escalates.
Funny thing is I was just thinking that Guardian kinda has to bring similar "seems too strong" numbers to the table to justify its position in the party, though perhaps on a more solo ally level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Cleric in place of the Commander could cast an 8th level AoE Heal for 36 h.p. average (harming undead and depending of feats perhaps Selective, perhaps harming Fiends, perhaps 8 h.p. more, etc.). That seems awfully similar in effect, and without dropping their only holy symbol on the ground and hoping enemies don't pick it up/destroy it. (I would struggle to place my banner at risk at higher levels given the mobility of enemies. Dim Door/Translocate and "yoink!" they have the banner, plus I'd likely prefer my banner on my weapon because of the hands issue.)
First, doing what a caster can do as a martial, without burning a spellslot is literally the waterline of balance to say "That's too good." Casters have to give up a lot to get that spellcasting, and Heal is also known for being an SS tier spell.
Second, Resistance and T HP are both (generally) better than healing. Healing is wasted at max. T HP trades not caring about the HP for a duration. Resistance is wildly better, its value is doubled if they take 2 hits. There are plenty of effects in pf2e that will specify "resistance to the next single hit" explicitly due to that crazy value.
Defiant Banner is absurd for granting lasting Resistance for the turn. The #1 risk of combat in pf2e is multiple foes attacking the same PC in one turn. It's super common, and perhaps overtakes "nat 20 on the 2nd attack" as the primary reason PCs drop dying. Defiant Banner can easily reduce damage 4x when it is needed most against those gang ups, and it will very likely be the difference between a PC going down or staying on their feet.
The typical counter-play vs defensive PCs is to hit them with an AoE, because usually the defensive effects are placed upon a single ally. Defiant Banner does not care. The effect is not even "your allies" it's outright "you & your allies."
Plant Banner is absurd because it's automatic, potentially costing a single action to get refreshing THP for the whole party every turn. My Chiurgeon PCs wish they could spend 2 class Feats for something like that.
Defiant Banner is just busted in its core effect. Even if it was just "you & 1 ally" it would still be worth the Feat.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO the most strange thing of these things are their progression.
Plant Banner:
Defiant Banner:
I simply don't understand these jumps. You simply for no reason gets an enormous boost in these abilities. Why don't simply give the level based bonus since from the beginning? Most resistances spells/abilities improves progressively as you level up so why this thing needs this sudden jump?
The level 7 playtest was Moderate -> rest -> Moderate -> rest -> Severe -> Extreme -> TPK.
Destruction tests are the best kind.
Up to now I only made my tests in severe or extreme encounters (and they currently was pretty deadly specially in lower levels). The main reason is that once we are playtesting resourceless martial classes only the situation where commanders and specially guardians is more pressed are the difficult encounters the normal and easy ones won't test the class efficiently.
I'm gonna throw a dissenting voice into the mix: I agree that 2 drilled tactics feels too low, but I think increasing it by one at every odd level is too much*. You'd have way too many options, and at high level many builds would have the same active tactics running, homogenising the class (though differentiating through feats is still possible). I'm not smart enough to suggest an ideal progression path, but I feel like it should be possible to increase them over time.
* Compare this to a caster: Sure, they get extra spell slots, and at high level you have an absolute wealth of options available to you, but many of the lower-rank spells are practically irrelevant at that point. In practice I tend to use the highest two ranks of spells I have in combat, and anything below that becomes utility (with some exceptions, of course). Plus, spells run out, naturally decreasing your options over time. Let's say that a high-level caster has 7-ish relevant spells at once (including cantrips), and that number goes down with each use. A level 15 Commander would have 9 tactics to choose from, on top of being a martial and always having their melee/ranged strikes available to them, and I haven't even mentioned class feats that open up actions. That's an absolute overload of choices for every round of combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess the flavour of the Commander feels pretty niche, but Uncommon is more for things that don't fit the tone of the world. Druids wouldn't fit in an urban adventure, and Witches not in a low magic setting. The reason the Inventor and Gunslinger are Uncommon are that not everyone likes to have guns and tech in their adventure, because it implies a certain scientific advancement you don't want to deal with. A Commander wouldn't fit every party, I agree, but it does not shape the setting in any way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plus I don't see thematically why a Commander would join a group of adventurers.
Likely a Commander would found a group of adventurers. Or maybe even hire them.
I don't find it unusual that a group would want an experienced leader to help them coordinate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strike Hard! is such a weird Tactic to balance. If you give it any sort of negative rider effect on top of the 2 action cost it becomes almost worthless. The main reason why you take Strike Hard! if for characters like the Barbarian or another class that has damage boosts or a class like the Fighter or Gunslinger who has the attack bonus to help them crit. You might be wasting +1 Action but what you're doing is giving yourself 0 MAP if you use a bow and then a 0 MAP attack to someone else, possibly giving them 3 attacks at 0 MAP if they are someone like a Paladin Champion or someone who can trigger Reactive Strike. This isn't even considering Fortune Strike, which is a strike then you applying SURE STRIKE effect to an ally, that's literally INSANITY. So what you are saying is deal damage, apply a 1 action spell to an ALLY which for starters can't be cast on anyone but yourself normally and second doesn't use a resource then use Strike Hard! You just massively increased the chance of a 0 MAP attack to hit or crit even since a reroll is roughly a +5 in terms of bonus
Plus I don't see thematically why a Commander would join a group of adventurers.Likely a Commander would found a group of adventurers. Or maybe even hire them.
I don't find it unusual that a group would want an experienced leader to help them coordinate.
I mean, the commander is an adventurer.
So like-.. they'd join a group of adventurers for the same reason any other kind of adventurer might, which include a whole variety of reasons that often have nothing to do with the class you picked.
The question feels kind of unintelligible to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm personally worried that Strike Hard! is going to be a "best in slot" option. Many tactics are situational, but an extra attack is pretty much always going to be useful. In all honesty, in the shape it is now, I'd rather not have it at all, no matter how appropriate it feels for the class. Adding some kind of cooldown or a "once per combat" rider to it feels weird, but would prevent people from spamming it every single round.
Also, I think the "action loss" (two actions to do a single-action Strike) is completely fair. It's a powerful ability, plus, people forget it works across a pretty large distance. Instead of walking up to a creature, you can instruct your friend who's already there to smack it. Meaning you can stay out of danger or engage a different enemy. Two actions seems like a very reasonable cost, IMHO.
I'm personally worried that Strike Hard! is going to be a "best in slot" option. Many tactics are situational, but an extra attack is pretty much always going to be useful. In all honesty, in the shape it is now, I'd rather not have it at all, no matter how appropriate it feels for the class. Adding some kind of cooldown or a "once per combat" rider to it feels weird, but would prevent people from spamming it every single round.
Also, I think the "action loss" (two actions to do a single-action Strike) is completely fair. It's a powerful ability, plus, people forget it works across a pretty large distance. Instead of walking up to a creature, you can instruct your friend who's already there to smack it. Meaning you can stay out of danger or engage a different enemy. Two actions seems like a very reasonable cost, IMHO.
The two-action cost and the net-negative action economy already makes it situational, imo. Sure, it is not hard to make it work, but depending on party composition and the amount of things you need to do in your round, the action cost might not be the best option.
Parties with frontlines that do not have a Barbarian, Gunslingers or a 2h-Weapon Fighter make Strike Hard a less attractive option. It's still a good Tactic, because a MAPless attack is good, but depending on your situation, you will prioritize other stuff, specially if Commanders have more prepared tactics to choose from in its released state.
Here's an idea to rework the ability and see if it manages to rebalance it:
[2-Actions] Strike Hard!
You lead by example and push your allies to their limits. Make a Strike, you then choose a squadmate that can hear or see your signal, that ally immediately attempts a Strike as a reaction, they take a -4 Penalty on this Strike. If your Strike is a critical hit, the squadmate does not take the penalty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
During my playtest I used Strike Hard! way less that other tactics like Pincer Attack. It's good to get the combination of Strike + Strike Hard! but outside this use it's hardly better than just to Strike twice. I used way more the combination of Pincer Attack + Strike twice than Strike Hard!
Also Strike Hard! easily becomes superseded by Ready, Aim, Fire! that's usually WAY MORE STRONGER than Strike Hard! in most party compositions.
My concern with Strike Hard!, as I have said, is that other players will see it as BIS and socially pressure the commander player to use it. Mechanically, I think it's fine. I would not change it at all, except maybe the cooldown per recipient aspect I have also previously mentioned.
RAF is much stronger, as it should be, given that it is a pretty high-level tactic that a party has to be built to use effectively.
I am fine with strike hard! Being in the game, as there are circumstances where it is good, but I do see it as a bit of a trap option, both mechanically and for encouraging fun dynamic play.
I might be alone in preferring the commander keeping the number of tactics they can prepare at once, and just wanting the dynamic shifting of adaptive stratagem built into the class, because I think more than 2 makes it hard for the commander to ever do anything other than issue tactics. Eventually , once you get higher level ones, especially limited use ones, I think 3+ make sense, but the class has way too much else going on to just be sitting still issuing tactics.
So if a Comander chooses strike hard! They are committing a lot of resources to a tactic that pretty much requires that everyone is already in position, and no one should want to move. Even with the almost required favorable set up of a barbarian or 2 handed fighter, you still want to make sure the enemy is off-guard before issuing the tactic, and for that to line up well with you also having a good attack to make is incredibly difficult/not at all an every round situation. It is a pretty looking dream that will often only happen once per encounter in a significant fashion, making the trade offs for sitting on it as one of your two tactics fairly significant.
Ready, aim, fire is similarly constrained, because it can only target 1 enemy, so it ends up being overkill
My concern with Strike Hard!, as I have said, is that other players will see it as BIS and socially pressure the commander player to use it. Mechanically, I think it's fine. I would not change it at all, except maybe the cooldown per recipient aspect I have also previously mentioned.
I'm not sure there are other many other tactics (like the Pincer Attack that I had exemplified) that equally helps the party as a whole. I can see some players asking "please use this now" like happens sometime with casters but in the end is up to commander's player to make the decision that this player think is the best for that case and there's a lot of useful tactics that will help everyone (this is one reason why I think that the class needs way more prepared slots to get tactics because this will allow to pick many circunstancial tactics that will help the party in many different situations sometimes better than just to give an Strike to an ally).
During my playtests in mid-level encounters (8 to 14) was pretty common that the commander just used Defiant Banner + Pincer Attack + Strike with a bow. The players many times felt this was way more effective then when the commander used just Defiant Banner + Strike Hard!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason Strike Hard! is too good from a balance standpoint is half MAP, and half PC investment. Getting around MAP, not for the Commander, but for an ally, has too many ways to bust its power wide open.
Firstly, try to think about a class that has the ability to spend 2A to make a Strike at MAP 0. No cooldown, flourish, ect. That would be very, very appealing for a lot of PCs. More than that, it would kind of break the very concept of MAP to begin with; instead of a class's budget being invested into tweaking or stretching MAP that has it's own restrictions and safeties like Hunted Shot, this one just overrules MAP outright.
Now, move into Strike Hard!.
Not only is it a MAP 0 attack, but you offer it to any squadmate. A biiiiig part of balance is the whole swath of "only you" options, especially for Martials. Ranger doesn't get to grant Hunted Shot to an ally, that would be "too good, because that other class was not designed for that power."
But Commander can give a MAP 0 attack to an ally that's specialized in raw Strike damage? Unfortunately, game balance must consider what a fairly optimized party can do with that. The possibility of sending a Strike Hard to an Inventor or Summoner doesn't remove the possibility of that being a Rogue or Barb.
One other balance consideration is that any actions/resources spent on timed Strike buffs now can get a huge increase in value. Runic Weapon, ect are balanced around MAP.
Just playtesting with 2 PCs built decently for Strikes (and no extra Strike buffs), a Giant Barb and Thief Rogue, Strike Hard! was too good.
===========================
I do want to say again that from a math standpoint, the game really cannot tolerate the trade that Strike Hard offers right now.
Our Commanders quickly realized how much value Strike Hard offers, and it became the #1 priority in a turn.
Additionally, they also confirmed that a martial's MAP 0 is still super valuable, and soon optimized themself into a thrown Strike of their own, then commanding out a MAP 0 Strike from the heavy-hitter.
Once they figured that out, Commander became the most boring, 1-dimensional class that I have ever seen.
It took extreme context like someone dropping dying for them to break and use Battle Medicine, because that Strike + command Strike is so mathematically good.
Don't forget that we are not talking about MAP 0 strikes from classes designed for multi-attacking like Monk or Ranger, this is a MAP 0 Strike from the heaviest hitters the system can offer.
==========================
Honestly, I do think I agree that Commander would be healthier for the game, and more interesting to play, if Strike Hard + R,A,F! were deleted outright.
"Do more damage" is just too much of an automatically desirable thing, and every other tactical possibility needs immense contextual importance to overcome that. Without that #1 brain-dead option, the whole class becomes much more engaging, and quite literally, more tactical.
If they are staying, I think at the very least the tactics need the attack trait. The other key nerf would be to make being commanded a per creature cooldown of 1 full turn. You get commanded to Strike Hard, then cannot receive any tactic the next turn. This would force diversity in tactics and ally selection, mitigate the "one big hitter" issue, and would be much more likely to prevent a boring routine from forming.
Just the new wrinkle of "If I take a tactic this turn, that blocks me from getting one next turn" is a huge motivation to make each command count.
Strike hard requires that the ally you want to give the tactic to is in position to make the attack at the start of your turn. You can’t use any other tactics to get them there, and any positioning or buffing needs to already be in place.
This means that the commander is probably delaying to go last in the round, and the enemy has every reason to focus fire down the big weapon wielding martial to begin with, but now it is extra obvious as soon as strike hard happens.
In anything less than a 2 handed weapon in the hands of a martial with free damage bonuses (so not tied to something they need to actively do) strike hard is a pretty bad waste of both actions and the utility you can get out of using a multi target tactic on your allies.
If you stress test the commander against severe and extreme+ encounters vs multiple enemies, you will see a party standing still between 2 rounds just get obliterated.
Already commander tactics are too easily shut down by knocking allies prone, so the -2 penalty there is not even the worst that can happen when an ally is prone that you want to use a tactic with, but it is a big set back, as is any frightened, enfeebled, dazzled or blinded condition. It is a party that is very easy to get shut down.
The Commander only needs to delay once, to go right behind the heavy hitter.
That makes it outright impossible for foes to have counterplay in that respect. Yes, a turn or two will have the heavy hitter not in Strike position, no that does not mean Strike Hard is at all balanced.
-------
And no, Strike Hard does not require a super-juiced martial to be worth it. MAP 0 Strikes are generally worth giving to any martial that Strikes. MAP 0 is very powerful in the system.
A juiced martial is when Strike Hard becomes such an obvious "best option" that the Commander will struggle to justify doing anything else.
Barbs, Rogues, Thaums, Fighters, and even Rangers can be "Juiced Martials" that takes Strike Hard into the "way too good" category.
And if that's augmented further with a cast of Runic Weapon, the consumption of an Energy/Warblood Mutagen, ect, it becomes even more ridiculous.
======================================
In general, all this comes back to the idea that as a concept, using actions to give your allies MAP 0 Strikes is a bad idea.
The system is built with MAP as an unavoidable balancing pillar. Spells have limited slots, and Strikes have MAP. The whole game revolves around that.
Removing that balance keystone not just for a single martial, but to remove MAP *for any other PC in the system* is just a BAD idea.
There's an incalculable number of ways it can be too OP. And because it's such a blank check, it really has to be balanced accordingly. Meaning, the only way it can be done "fairly" is to be good for a super optimized group, and horrible for every "normal" group.
Otherwise, it will break the game for those that take the time to combo with it. From a game design perspective, it really has got to go, or be fundamentally altered.
(and R,A,F! is worse in every way, there's not even the possibility of melee Strike range to worry about. Give every non-shooter squad-mate a Jolt Coil, and R, A, F! is already outright insanity.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason Strike Hard! is too good from a balance standpoint is half MAP, and half PC investment. Getting around MAP, not for the Commander, but for an ally, has too many ways to bust its power wide open.
Firstly, try to think about a class that has the ability to spend 2A to make a Strike at MAP 0. No cooldown, flourish, ect. That would be very, very appealing for a lot of PCs. More than that, it would kind of break the very concept of MAP to begin with; instead of a class's budget being invested into tweaking or stretching MAP that has it's own restrictions and safeties like Hunted Shot, this one just overrules MAP outright.
Now, move into Strike Hard!.
Not only is it a MAP 0 attack, but you offer it to any squadmate. A biiiiig part of balance is the whole swath of "only you" options, especially for Martials. Ranger doesn't get to grant Hunted Shot to an ally, that would be "too good, because that other class was not designed for that power."But Commander can give a MAP 0 attack to an ally that's specialized in raw Strike damage? Unfortunately, game balance must consider what a fairly optimized party can do with that. The possibility of sending a Strike Hard to an Inventor or Summoner doesn't remove the possibility of that being a Rogue or Barb.
One other balance consideration is that any actions/resources spent on timed Strike buffs now can get a huge increase in value. Runic Weapon, ect are balanced around MAP.
Just playtesting with 2 PCs built decently for Strikes (and no extra Strike buffs), a Giant Barb and Thief Rogue, Strike Hard! was too good.
===========================
I do want to say again that from a math standpoint, the game really cannot tolerate the trade that Strike Hard offers right now.
Our Commanders quickly realized how much value Strike Hard offers, and it became the #1 priority in a turn.
Additionally, they also confirmed that a martial's MAP 0 is still super valuable, and soon optimized themself into a thrown Strike of their own, then commanding...
You are overthinking about this. First because the Strike Hard! mechanic already exists in the game since the APG it's called To Battle! with the only main difference being that the commander doesn't waste the target reaction.
The second is that pretty common to make 2 "attacks" without MAP. Basically almost all classes that casts and Strike (low level druids and clerics, summoners (that including can cast a spell and Strike twice and can get a damage boost from Boost Eidolon), magus and eldritch archers (that merges spells with attacks) or kineticists where's usually combine save with attack impulses to avoid MAP) including I have a rogue eldritch archer player that mergers spell damage + attack damage and precision damage commonly.
But about R,A,F! I have to agree that's currently is a bit over powered. Yet less than most people think just remember that fighters and barbarians can make multiple MAPless Strikes with Whirlwind Strike at level 14 feat (and R,A,F! is a lvl 15 class features that's usually stronger than feats of same level). So if we consider R,A,F! targeting different targets it is not too different from a giant barbarian with a reach weapon striking every enemy at 25ft around of it. Also remember that R,A,F! to become pretty strong also uses the allies reactions (yet it can give up 2 extra reactions for free) so it have some extra action cost price.
The point that really makes R,A,F! so OP is its capacity to focus the attacks into a single target. This is what's really makes it so strong.
Strike hard requires that the ally you want to give the tactic to is in position to make the attack at the start of your turn. You can’t use any other tactics to get them there, and any positioning or buffing needs to already be in place.
This means that the commander is probably delaying to go last in the round, and the enemy has every reason to focus fire down the big weapon wielding martial to begin with, but now it is extra obvious as soon as strike hard happens.
In anything less than a 2 handed weapon in the hands of a martial with free damage bonuses (so not tied to something they need to actively do) strike hard is a pretty bad waste of both actions and the utility you can get out of using a multi target tactic on your allies.
If you stress test the commander against severe and extreme+ encounters vs multiple enemies, you will see a party standing still between 2 rounds just get obliterated.
Already commander tactics are too easily shut down by knocking allies prone, so the -2 penalty there is not even the worst that can happen when an ally is prone that you want to use a tactic with, but it is a big set back, as is any frightened, enfeebled, dazzled or blinded condition. It is a party that is very easy to get shut down.
You don't have to go last. Just go after the person you want to use the tactic on, even if they're not next to the ideal target. Hell, I think it's better to go sooner rather than later, because knowing whether an enemy drops helps your party members prioritise. They don't have to spend actions walking over to an enemy if it's gonna drop in a single hit anyway. And more enemies on the field means it's more likely anyone is going to be standing next to an enemy at any one time.
Also, why pretend Strike Hard! is only useful with only a handful of classes? Rogues and Thaums do loads of damage, maybe the Swashbuckler as well. Hell, Ranger with Precision, Inventors (although both of those fall under "free damage bonus"), wildshaped Druids... like half the classes would benefit from SH!, and even those with one-handed weapons or average damage output would kill for an extra attack, and don't pretend otherwise.
Also also, oh no, a debuff, my day is ruined. Yes, getting penalties on to hit sucks, but it's not the end of the world. And in my experience, enemies don't debuff the party often enough to make Strike Hard a bad option.
Yes, Strike Hard! can be situational, but it's still a damn good option to have. And like Trip.H said, it'll become the most brain-dead routine if you have it most of the time, probably the opposite of what's intended with the Commander.
You are overthinking about this. First because the Strike Hard! mechanic already exists in the game since the APG it's called To Battle! with the only main difference being that the commander doesn't waste the target reaction.
To Battle! is an archetype feat at level 8 that costs at least 2 feats to obtain (the dedication, and TB! itself). That's a pretty heavy commitment. Strike Hard! comes basically for free with the class at level one. Plus, since it doesn't eat an archetype, so you can archetype into something else (if you only wanted to get TB!, ignore this if you wanted it for other stuff as well).
Classes that can bend MAP are balanced around it, like Monks. They have restrictions, sometimes multiple, on enabling such MAP bending, and the options they have access to let the designers know how strong they can let each hit be.
Classes that have ways to amp their damage generally do not have ways to bend MAP precisely for these balance considerations.
===============
Marshal is a good point of comparison.
As you observed, Marshal has no way to avoid spending the ally Reaction. This is a big deal due to how variants of Reactive Strike are nearly ubiquitous across martials.
Meaning, those classes are balanced around the possibility of a SINGLE off-turn Strike at MAP 0.
This fundamentally changes what Marshal does, as it's now a normalizing effect to get other PCs closer to their own potential, and it is NOT capable of exceeding it. If an ally is able to trigger their RS, then they cannot get another MAP 0 Strike.
To Battle is also a flourish, which is the #1 thing used to limit MAP bending or Strike + action compression options within the system. The Marshal is giving up much more than the Commander. If Commander needed flourish, it would already prevent combing S H! with Guiding Shot (which is what commander #1 did in my first playtest).
==========
Moreover, the Marshal aura range is 10ft at base. That's actually small enough to matter, it will not even effect an ally flanking opposite a Large foe.
To even have the chance to increase that, it's another Feat, plus a Stance action and skill check that must be Crit Succeeded to increase to 20ft.
But the biggest difference is already what you said, that the Marshal must burn the ally Reaction, while Commander does not.
This is the difference between spending 2 Actions (+ flourish) to give an ally a universal Reactive Strike for a turn, and spending 2 Actions to give an ally a MAP 0 Strike.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Strike Hard is good, and Strike > SH is a solid but potentially boring routine... but I'm not sure either of those things are a problem, per se. Some people like straightforward routines, and having a safe fallback for someone who does isn't a bad thing. Plus handing out strikes is a very central thematic and mechanical component of what many of the people I've seen discussing the idea want out of the Commander, removing the concept entirely is directly stripping away what some people are specifically looking for from the class.
What mostly seems to be missing here is a review of the balance of other tactics (a number of early ones seem a bit too weak and a couple of the high end ones seem too strong) and maybe an expansion of the number of available options the Commander has.
To Battle! is an archetype feat at level 8 that costs at least 2 feats to obtain (the dedication, and TB! itself). That's a pretty heavy commitment.
A heavier commitment than your choice of class?
To Battle! is an archetype feat at level 8 that costs at least 2 feats to obtain (the dedication, and TB! itself). That's a pretty heavy commitment. Strike Hard! comes basically for free with the class at level one. Plus, since it doesn't eat an archetype, so you can archetype into something else (if you only wanted to get TB!, ignore this if you wanted it for other stuff as well).You are overthinking about this. First because the Strike Hard! mechanic already exists in the game since the APG it's called To Battle! with the only main difference being that the commander doesn't waste the target reaction.
It's a minor balance question. Feats have level requirements higher than features (for example Powerful Alchemy was a level 8 feat but when it was turned into a class feature it becomes level 5) also archetypes feats are usually 2 levels higher than theirs equivalents as class feats. Also To Battle! have a move option at cost of just one action too whats justify it's higher level (its not only for attack). So Strike Hard! as part of a class feature at level 1 in a class that doesn't get other benefits beyond tactics at level 1 is in a the right power level IMO. Also it's not like you have a great tactical alternative to damage with tactics before get Ready, Aim, Fire! at level 15.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Firstly, try to think about a class that has the ability to spend 2A to make a Strike at MAP 0. No cooldown, flourish, ect. That would be very, very appealing for a lot of PCs. More than that, it would kind of break the very concept of MAP to begin with; instead of a class's budget being invested into tweaking or stretching MAP that has it's own restrictions and safeties like Hunted Shot, this one just overrules MAP outright.
Several classes, like kineticist, summoner, and magus, can do that anyways. Use 2 action for a Dex save, and a 1 action strike with no MAP.
You could also have Wolf Drag or spell that knocking someone prone next to a fighter or someone else with Reaction Attack. At higher levels Mountain Quake can do it as a single action.
Also, Commander's have Int primary. So their Stike is at -1.
Again, classes are balanced around the options within their own class.
Monks have their monastic weaponry, Summoner Eidolons are super-restricted. You want to do a Hunted Shot? Well, it'll cost you a flourish, you must use a reload 0 ranged weapon, and you can only perform it against your Hunted Prey.
All the other class comparisons are all balanced for what that class can do.
Kineticists, a pseudo-martial with plenty of non-MAP offensive options, are strictly prevented from being compatible with Strikes at all.
It would have been a whole lot easier from a design perspective to make blasts Strikes, but paizo did not want Kins to be able to get other enhancements to their blasts, because there are too many ways to improve Strikes via Archetypes.
As said, Marshal's ability to prompt a Reactive Strike is not the same thing. Every PC has the option to get a Reactive Strike in 2 Feats, the game is accounting for that possibility.
However, no class in the game can defy fundamental things like the Commander giving out MAP 0 attacks.
There is an infinite space of possibility for what Commander can do with its tactics. There is no reason that the class *needs* to have Strike Hard; which is simultaneously the most boring and most balance-breaking tactic they could have given the Commander.
There is no way to deny that Commander offer that unique rule-break. The granted effect of a Strike being unbound from the class it originates from makes it impossible to be balanced because it's not the Commanders build that's in question any more.
As said, Marshal's ability to prompt a Reactive Strike is not the same thing.
How is "If you spend 2 actions, that ally can use their reaction to immediately Strike."
Different from
2 actions: "That ally immediately attempts a Strike as a reaction."
Or
"The target of the message can immediately spend its reaction to Step or Stride.
Amp Heightened (4th) The target of the message can choose to Shove, Strike, or Trip with its reaction instead."
Other than the Commander getting it earlier and having a bit more range?