As a TL;DR I'd say the class is more or less fine as is but I think it needs a ton of polish to fully develop its potential, though I want to go a little more in-depth about each aspect of the class and say what I think of each of them and what I would improve.
I'm kinda disappointed we don't have a choice between Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma for the KAS of the commander, but I kinda expected that to be the case when the class was announced as "inteligent" so I don't have much problems with it. I'm not against the class having heavy armor, though since I envisioned this class as someone that stays on the back to command their allies I would certainly prefer for heavy armor to be removed and move that budget elsewhere, which I think the class kinda needs. I also would probably give it 3 + Int skills rather than 2, since I feel 1 set skill + 3 flexible skills + 1 lore + your Int bonus on skills is more, eh, I don't know, symmetrical? This is a very minor rambling so don't think much about it.
My only problem with this ability is that it foces you to have an actual item. One of the appeals of the marshal archetype was that you had like a commanding pressence which made those around you follow your commands. I'm not against having a banner, but I would want the option to not have one if I want. Also the whole "if your banner is destroyed your allies become frightened 1" feels like an easy debuff for allies and more so when destroying it removes some of your abilities. I think this feature should be made more abstract, allowing someone to flavor their "banner" whatever they want. You want to hold an actual banner? Fine. You want to have a great pressence? Fine too. You want to have your family's crest somewhere on your armor? Absolutely.
I won't go in-depth about each tactic because it would take ages, but I'd summarise my opinion by saying that I'm not exactly a big fan of any of those we have in the playtest. There isn't one I would call bad, but I'm not excited for them either. I do feel the whole tactics system is kinda...weird? I feel having "tactics feats" which you can take similar to a kineticist's impulse feats would be much easier to implement and understand for people. Like a kineticist, make it so commanders start with two tactics feats and one commander feat at 1st level, and then they can use their other commander feats to take tactics feats.
I think this feature is a fix for a problem the class itself creates. Not all groups have 4 players, and there's classes which use their reactions constantly, so why instead of having tactics take your allies' reactions why don't balance them around being free actions? For example, Strike Hard! could easily just require two actions, since giving up two actions for someone else to make an attack seems like a fair trade to me. If you want to have some tactics that really compress actions (like Ready, Aim, Fire!) then a good balancing point could be reactions, but a ton of them should IMO just be free actions.
I feel this one kinda steps up in the Thaumaturge's feet a little too much, and also makes the investigator look even worse than it already does, though it fits the flavor of the class and the theme of being an smart tactician. I'd probably keep the using Warfare Lore bit for iniative since I feel that's the coolest part about it and allow characters to choose between using their own roll or yours for iniative (not the overall modifier or result, the number you rolled on the d20) to represent how there's some factor of coordination with your allies. Overall this is one of the most cool features so this is very minor nitpicks.
As I said earlier I thought of this class as being a full support martial that if so desired could choose to stay away from combat to command their allies. I don't feel the class truly allows you to do this without losing some power from the class, but I'm surprised when reading the guardian that the class gets delayed martial progression when if anything I thought the commander would be the class that should get that. I think the delayed progression fits the commander much better, and I feel it could give more budget to the class to allow less reliance on reactions since the commander itself wouldn't be as involved in combat as it currently is.
I also won't go in-depth about feats for now because it would take a while, but I feel this is probably one of the best parts of the commander, at least certainly the one I enjoy the most. I'll mention the feats I think need some tweaking below, with some modifications I would probably make to them:
Armored Regiment Training
I think this one should reduce movement penalties as a whole, not just during exploration mode.
Combat Assestment
I know this feat already exists but 1/day per target is just bad, which also hampers all the feats that use it in the class.
Battle-Tested War Horse
A mature animal companion 2 levels late and that doesn't have an action when you don't command it is a problem.
Battle-Tested Destrier
Same as Battle-Tested War Horse.
Drilled Reflexes
If reactions are going to be a big part of the class, then this should be a baseline benefit, not a feat you have to take, because otherwise this would be a feat tax.
I would even make this one part of the 1st level feature.
Practiced Reflexes
The same as with Drilled Reflexes. If anything, make this one the 10th level feat.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Delayed progression is so terrible, the commander shouldn't get it, the guardian should just lose it.
Likewise, having heavy armor as an option is great and Warfare expertise is a very cool way for the class to bolster its own thematic niche.
So really dislike a lot of these suggestions.
Same with Squiggit, don't like a single suggestion here. I can understand why you don't like how it's not full support but I think having the ability to wade into battle is important for allowing it.
Banner I think is mostly a balancing part.
Having Tactics be free action would be too much IMO, basically making the action conversion way too cheap. It's a good problem to have to be limited by reactions.
I think both playstyles could be allowed, though currently the class only allows you to a more conventional martial playstyle because allies can benefit from tactics more than once per round. If I'm allowed to play the "lazylord" as people are calling it, I don't care much if the proficiencies scale like martials or not.
I'm not asking for making all tactics a free action though, but I want for at least the most basic "I make an ally attack" and "I make an ally move" to be free actions. Those that affect multiple allies I can see why they would require reactions, though its not like there's similar features in the system already like Four Winds that allow for something similar without forcing allies to use their reactions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Delayed progression is so terrible, the commander shouldn't get it, the guardian should just lose it.
Likewise, having heavy armor as an option is great and Warfare expertise is a very cool way for the class to bolster its own thematic niche.
So really dislike a lot of these suggestions.
Absolutely, almost everything suggested here would ruin the class for me
No thanks.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff like this would make the commander very unique in that it can alter its playstyle and adapt to the situation.. you know.. what a true commander can do.
Adapting to the situation means not doing the same thing over and over again. With your example, the Commander would just command the Fighter or Barbarian with all 3 actions every round.
Also, boring...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff like this would make the commander very unique in that it can alter its playstyle and adapt to the situation.. you know.. what a true commander can do.Adapting to the situation means not doing the same thing over and over again. With your example, the Commander would just command the Fighter or Barbarian with all 3 actions every round.
Also, boring...
It would also probably annoy the Fighter and Barbarian a whole lot and make them feel like they are just minions to the Commander - the existing Tactics at least are thematically interesting and do different things than "Hey, guy who is going to Strike anyway - make a Strike."
No strikes Commander, but only for solo PC campaigns.
It’s already literally the worst martial (Guardian aside) on offense - no KAS to attack and no accuracy or damage boosters.
It would also probably annoy the Fighter and Barbarian a whole lot and make them feel like they are just minions to the Commander - the existing Tactics at least are thematically interesting and do different things than "Hey, guy who is going to Strike anyway - make a Strike."Stuff like this would make the commander very unique in that it can alter its playstyle and adapt to the situation.. you know.. what a true commander can do.Adapting to the situation means not doing the same thing over and over again. With your example, the Commander would just command the Fighter or Barbarian with all 3 actions every round.
Also, boring...
Does a battle muse bard make you feel like a minion? Because I played in a table with a battle muse bard and a character that had amped message from Psychic Dedication and I was happy every time they allowed me to have more actions in combat. If the commander does that but better then people will feel they effectively have extra turns, which means you get to roll more dice, which is usually were most of the fun factor of TTRPGs comes from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does a battle muse bard make you feel like a minion? Because I played in a table with a battle muse bard and a character that had amped message from Psychic Dedication and I was happy every time they allowed me to have more actions in combat. If the commander does that but better then people will feel they effectively have extra turns, which means you get to roll more dice, which is usually were most of the fun factor of TTRPGs comes from.It would also probably annoy the Fighter and Barbarian a whole lot and make them feel like they are just minions to the Commander - the existing Tactics at least are thematically interesting and do different things than "Hey, guy who is going to Strike anyway - make a Strike."Stuff like this would make the commander very unique in that it can alter its playstyle and adapt to the situation.. you know.. what a true commander can do.Adapting to the situation means not doing the same thing over and over again. With your example, the Commander would just command the Fighter or Barbarian with all 3 actions every round.
Also, boring...
That particular poster's parlance does not engender good feelings about the type of flavor they are envisioning with their ideas - and those other classes still are putting themselves in danger, not "I stand back and don't draw my weapon" - like, no, get up here and put yourself in the thick of it and then you can do your stuff on me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They also don't usually have battles against fiends, horrors from beyond the stars and undead hordes, and yet here we are!
Strategists and tacticians usually didn't wade into battle themselves.
Yeah, this isn't really a great argument in a game like Pathfinder where a lot of things aren't adherent to that sort of thing - you usually can't take more than one direct critical hit from a giant axe - in real life, since I assume that's what you're equivalating - and still stand but you can here, so I fail to see how that's really relevant.
If I'm playing a team game, I would expect all of my teammates to actually wade into the battle alongside me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its a bad faith argument to argue "this is fantasy so you should go into battle" when the whole idea of a commander doens't require that. IRL a fighter doesn't fight demons, but does fight other people, so why would a commander need to become just a fighter that gives orders? That's not a commander.
Also, the whole purpose of the commander is to give support. I don't need to be next to you because I'm more usueful shouting things at the back. That's how I pinpoint weakpoints in your target, how I inform you and the rest of the party how the enemy team is advancing, how to move appropiately in the battlefield to exploit those weaknesses, etc. That's the kind of commander I and many people want to play.
Not to mention that the whole "its fantasy" argument falls down in the moment you take into account there's a ton of fantasy strategist that never raise a single weapon in their whole story. It's just a bad faith argument.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Strategists and tacticians usually didn't wade into battle themselves.
Don't fall for the propaganda. You're a team/squad leader kicking in doors with the privates.
I haven't had as much fun reading playtest reactions since HWalsh proclaimed anathema on Paizo and ritually burned all his books when the Champion was announced and the Paladin became a subclass.
Edit: One reason the commander isn't going to fall into certain niches is to make it generally useable with randos who show up at a PFS table. "I just sit in the back and send good vibes or order you around" isn't going to fly socially and in many cases mechanically in that environment.
One reason the commander isn't going to fall into certain niches is to make it generally useable with randos who show up at a PFS table. "I just sit in the back and send good vibes or order you around" isn't going to fly socially and in many cases mechanically in that environment.
How is playing a lazylord different than what most casters already do in the system? The full support role exists in PF2e and has existed in TTRPGs for I don't know how much time. The most optimal bard playstyle is to be a buff bot, casters in general using buffs or debuffs is commonplace, and the very inspiration of the commander is the 4e warlord which enables the lazylord playstyle. This whole argument of "it would be boring" literally ignores that the playstyle already exists in the system, but not in the way the commander does it. If you think being a support is boring then probably you don't like the commander and what it represents.
The very fantasy of a commander is effectively to play as Sun Tzu.
Though, as I said many times, both playstyles can co-exist.
You can play Leonidas if you want.
But allow those that want Sun Tzu to have the option too.
|
Not even Fire Emblem could decide which version it preferred.Don't fall for the propaganda. You're a team/squad leader kicking in doors with the privates.
Strategists and tacticians usually didn't wade into battle themselves.
Soren and Micaiah waded into battle.
Behind the melee, sure, but they were in there.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One reason the commander isn't going to fall into certain niches is to make it generally useable with randos who show up at a PFS table. "I just sit in the back and send good vibes or order you around" isn't going to fly socially and in many cases mechanically in that environment.How is playing a lazylord different than what most casters already do in the system? The full support role exists in PF2e and has existed in TTRPGs for I don't know how much time. The most optimal bard playstyle is to be a buff bot, casters in general using buffs or debuffs is commonplace, and the very inspiration of the commander is the 4e warlord which enables the lazylord playstyle. This whole argument of "it would be boring" literally ignores that the playstyle already exists in the system, but not in the way the commander does it. If you think being a support is boring then probably you don't like the commander and what it represents.
The very fantasy of a commander is effectively to play as Sun Tzu.
Most decent caster builds will have a mix of direct support buffs, debuffs, utility, and damage. Totally removing the debuffs and damage will almost result in a strictly worse caster, just the same as removing the buffs and/or utility would.
Acting like a typical bard or cleric functions just fine never casting spells that affect the enemy is hyperbole at best and deceptive at worst.If a cleric or Bard could get by without casting spells that affect the enemy, they'd have no reason to maximize their caster stat, since it has minimal ROI besides bumping save DCs and spell attacks, which are inherently enemy-focused stats.
But ain't no guide recommending your bard dumps Charisma because buffs are stat independent.
Sun Tzu had legions. Typical Pathfinder table has 4-6 total individuals. You are not the same.
You're the guy in the bomb squad giving orders, but you're still charging past the kicked-in door with the rest of the squad.
|
One reason the commander isn't going to fall into certain niches is to make it generally useable with randos who show up at a PFS table. "I just sit in the back and send good vibes or order you around" isn't going to fly socially and in many cases mechanically in that environment.
I think the Commander is going to be solid for PFS -- the INT focus should allow it to be much better at the skill challenges than martials often are.
But yeah, they'll need to be able to pivot to being the main martial in the party if need be, but I think they've got the tools to do that, if the other party members are competent at whatever they do in combat. (A big if, sometimes.)
But PFS is exactly why I wish they got a few more tactics to work with at a time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One reason the commander isn't going to fall into certain niches is to make it generally useable with randos who show up at a PFS table. "I just sit in the back and send good vibes or order you around" isn't going to fly socially and in many cases mechanically in that environment.How is playing a lazylord different than what most casters already do in the system?
This is just self-certification of incompetence to discuss the matter.
Sun Tzu had legions. Typical Pathfinder table has 4-6 total individuals. You are not the same.
You're the guy in the bomb squad giving orders, but you're still charging past the kicked-in door with the rest of the squad.
So the whole fantasy argument goes in one way but not the other, huh? It seems for some people its imposible to abstract someone commanding a group than commanding an army.
A fighter is able to fight a demon, but since real life Sun Tzu commanded armies and not individuals then the commander shouldn't either?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sun Tzu had legions. Typical Pathfinder table has 4-6 total individuals. You are not the same.
You're the guy in the bomb squad giving orders, but you're still charging past the kicked-in door with the rest of the squad.So the whole fantasy argument goes in one way but not the other, huh? It seems for some people its imposible to abstract someone commanding a group than commanding an army.
A fighter is able to fight a demon, but since real life Sun Tzu commanded armies and not individuals then the commander shouldn't either?
False equivalence, you're not commanding armies you're supporting your party, and Commander isn't going to be made to be a lazy dude who orders armies about, this is a team game so the class has to be more than a benchwarmer who only interacts by puppeting allies and thats it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I literally don't know why people claim things such as "the class isn't going to be a lazy dude who orders armies about" when the class' main gimmick leans more towards that direction than the "I engage in combat with my allies" part. Also, isn't giving more actions to your teammates supporting them? When you guys have the casters in the backlines throwing buffs at the party then for you those people aren't in combat or what? This literally sounds like the complains of someone that doesn't like a support playstyle and wants the class to just be another martial.
I'm also going to say to repeat this for the eleventh time, I just want to be able to play a lazylord that can help from afar without feeling like I'm nerfing myself by doing so. If the class allows you to play warlord too then thats fine to me too, in fact, that would be expected since I don't think Paizo want to create a class with a single playstyle and I too would want to try a move involved commander too if I have the chance, but I want to be able to play the lazylord too because that's the fantasy that appeals to me the most and a lot of people because I'm far from being the only one asking for this.
I also think that people are arguing against my argument with stuff that could be easily thrown against them too, I.E the whole "its fantasy" argument because there's a ton of games in which strategist control a few units and not a whole army. This is literally the appeal of a ton of RTS games or tactical games such as XCOM or Final Fantasy Tactics. I can also argue that why would Paizo make a class named commander when commanders didn't command a few allies but rather armies. Nobody here is dumb enough to ask for the class to be able to command an army, I and other people are asking to have that fantasy replicated by commanding your allies because if I wanted to play a game with mass combat I would change systems. The fact that I even have to explain this just shows how some people are willing to make bad faith arguments just to prove their point. I don't want to take away the warlord from you guys, I just want to have the option of a lazylord too.
My question, are there any examples of lazy lords in media? not generals of large armies (because just having large army seems like a very difficult thing to add to the class), but in a group of 3-5 adventures, a guy whos only job is to stand there and give orders? I can't think of any, but if they exist maybe we can draw some inspiration on how they were still cool.
All the strategist from the Suikoden series, Lelouch from Code Geass (though he has a more supernatural flavor than the commander), a ton of the protagonists from the Fire Emblem series, some moffs and Admiral Thrawn from Star Wars, the protagonist from the new Unicorn Overlord game, and I'm sure that I must be missing some obvious ones. Also, the very concept of "lazylord" was created in 4e when the wardlord was released, which has been mentioned as an inspiration for the commander.
I have built two commanders so far, and it feels like the commander that uses actions to reposition and encourage allies is the much easier commander to build than the commander who tries to wade into battle and attack often. Combat assessment only working with melee, battle medicine requiring you to be adj, and all deception skill actions being about your own strikes and melee makes the level 1 class feat selection a little bare I guess, and the 30ft banner range means you probably want to be fairly close, but it is incredibly easy to spend 3 actions directing Allie’s through tactics.
|
|
My question, are there any examples of lazy lords in media? not generals of large armies (because just having large army seems like a very difficult thing to add to the class), but in a group of 3-5 adventures, a guy whos only job is to stand there and give orders? I can't think of any, but if they exist maybe we can draw some inspiration on how they were still cool.All the strategist from the Suikoden series, Lelouch from Code Geass (though he has a more supernatural flavor than the commander), a ton of the protagonists from the Fire Emblem series, some moffs and Admiral Thrawn from Star Wars, the protagonist from the new Unicorn Overlord game, and I'm sure that I must be missing some obvious ones. Also, the very concept of "lazylord" was created in 4e when the wardlord was released, which has been mentioned as an inspiration for the commander.
Lelouch does a TON of hands on stuff in Code Geass. Yeah, he is the one giving orders, but he pilots mechs frequently and physically involves himself in many of his plots. In fact, him doing stuff himself is frequently used to keep the opponents guessing about his activities and if a particular Zero is really him or not.
Most of the Fire Emblem strategists characters are also playable fighters. Again, think Soren and Micaiaih.I'm less familiar with your other specific examples, but at least those two don't feel like they really hold water.
To your earlier examples of XCOM and Final Fantasy Tactics, you're drawing a false equivalency. In XCOM you don't play as a soldier who sits on the battlefield telling people what to do, you're barely even a character. I suppose that's the closest example to what you're claiming you want, but it doesn't feel like a good playstyle for a TTRPG. That really only works for a single player game, where you're not controlling other humans.
And for FFT, Ramza is a participant in every story fight. He distinctly fights. Unless you're talking about the human controlling everything. In which case again: single player game.
My question, are there any examples of lazy lords in media? not generals of large armies (because just having large army seems like a very difficult thing to add to the class), but in a group of 3-5 adventures, a guy whos only job is to stand there and give orders? I can't think of any, but if they exist maybe we can draw some inspiration on how they were still cool.All the strategist from the Suikoden series, Lelouch from Code Geass (though he has a more supernatural flavor than the commander), a ton of the protagonists from the Fire Emblem series, some moffs and Admiral Thrawn from Star Wars, the protagonist from the new Unicorn Overlord game, and I'm sure that I must be missing some obvious ones. Also, the very concept of "lazylord" was created in 4e when the wardlord was released, which has been mentioned as an inspiration for the commander.Lelouch does a TON of hands on stuff in Code Geass. Yeah, he is the one giving orders, but he pilots mechs frequently and physically involves himself in many of his plots. In fact, him doing stuff himself is frequently used to keep the opponents guessing about his activities and if a particular Zero is really him or not.
Most of the Fire Emblem strategists characters are also playable fighters. Again, think Soren and Micaiaih.I'm less familiar with your other specific examples, but at least those two don't feel like they really hold water.
To your earlier examples of XCOM and Final Fantasy Tactics, you're drawing a false equivalency. In XCOM you don't play as a soldier who sits on the battlefield telling people what to do, you're barely even a character. I suppose that's the closest example to what you're claiming you want, but it doesn't feel like a good playstyle for a TTRPG. That really only works for a single player game, where you're not controlling other humans.
And for FFT, Ramza is a participant in every story fight. He distinctly fights. Unless you're talking about the human...
I honestly didn't remember Lelouch actually piloted mechs too. It's been a hot minute since I last saw Code Geass lol.
In the case of XCOM and Final Fantasy Tactics I wasn't refering to a character in particular but rather how the player is effectively the one that inputs the commands of the troops. I thought the comparission was valid because a ton of tactical games usually sell themselves "you are the leader of this army" so it kinda fulfills that same fantasy of being a commander, even if you really aren't a character in the world per se.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that just isn't something that a TTRPG can really replicate, as the other characters are controlled by other people.
Look up Rogue Trader. In that game my coop partner had an officer playing maximum lazylord, we both had a blast.
Sure the playstyle isn't for everyone, but the idea that it can't be done when multiple people are involved is demonstrably false.
"I just sit in the back and send good vibes or order you around" isn't going to fly socially and in many cases mechanically in that environment.
That's litterally what the Bard does. Sit back and cheer you on with song and dance.
Sure. You can also play a Bard that hits things on occasion. But that's not what makes a Bard a Bard.