I’ve seen a division creeping along between those that want a Commander that will “lead from the front” or “wade into melee” (“Warlord”)?and those that want a Commander who “calls from the back” and “is a support class from safety” (“Lazylord”)
Is it intended that these are both…functional in the one class?
Personally I have an interest in both styles. And I accept that some folks see the “lazylord” as, ironically, “anathematic” to “team play”. I’ve also been in parties where wizards and rogues *immediately* use the Take Cover action when combat begins and then plink away with needle spells and crossbows, which I admit, annoys the heck out of me. But, those characters aren’t built for melee. So…is the Commander only for melee, or can they be better served hanging back?
Is this integral division on “approach” going to endlessly generate arguments about how well suited for combat the Warlord is if they have Int as KAS? Will those who want the Lazylord always argue for things the Warlord-proponents really don’t want hampering their Warlord?
Could subclasses eradicate this damn’d miasma?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think both playstyles are possible and should be supported on release.
The current iteration of the class kinda does this but not in a polished way. Most of the tactics don't include the commander itself, which points towards a more lazylord approach, but most of the feats like Combat Assesment, Combat Medic, Defensive Swap, Set-Up Strike, among others, require you to either make melee strikes or be adjacent to your allies, which point towards a more warlord approach. I feel this is mostly fine for a playtest, but I hope on release this is addressed because you can't fully play a lazylord or warlord with the current commander, but the basics to enable both playstyles are already there in the class itself.
This is probably where subclasses could be introduced. Have one subclass for each playstyle. "Warlord" allowing you to target yourself with tactics, among other benefits such as regular martial progression and access to heavy armor, and a "lazylord" that can probably allow you to have a "cohort" (a nod to the Leadership feat from earlier editions) in which one of your allies counts as yourself for the purpose of feats, probably allowing you to use feats such as Combat Assestment as if they were tactics on them (something like when using Form Up! you can replace the effects of the Strike with Combat Assestment or something like that), but in contrast you have delayed martial progression (like the current guardian) and you only have access to medium and light armor.
I think that it isn't even necesary to have two different class progression for each subclass, as the regular martial progression could already represent both playstyles if Paizo irons out the few problems the class currently has. There's people that want one playstyle or the other, so I think restricting it to just one of them would be a mistake.
I think this is a bit of a false division because ranged commanders are possible too, who want to use their own actions for striking as well as help Allie’s strike more often.
I think a big issue with people interpreting this class as the 4e warlord is that the commander is both more narrowly focused and capable of doing more different things than a 4e warlord could do, because its role is not as pigeonholed into “support” as the warlord was.
For example, a combat medic, shield carrying commander might never use attack actions, but might still be up front, using actions to raise a shield, battle medicine, reposition allies, etc. while a ranged commander may want to issue tactics that debuff enemies, before taking a shot of their own, that will really set up a later ally’s attack. While a third commander might be trying mostly to reposition enemies and debuff them to help casters artillery the battle field more effectively.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is a bit of a false division because ranged commanders are possible too
This is just another subtype which should be an option.
There should be Str, Dex, and Int based builds for Commanders
I think this is a bit of a false division because ranged commanders are possible tooThis is just another subtype which should be an option.
There should be Str, Dex, and Int based builds for Commanders
I took Unicore’s point to be that the Lazylord/Warlord distinction is false because you can still be a warlord at range.
Which is fine, I’m just trying to see if there is really a tension between the non-combatant and combatant Commanders or if the class is designed to accommodate both *equally/successfully*
Generally I find both playtest classes to be missing obvious subclass definition.
And mostly I wonder about a post rainzax made that points out that we don’t know what data points the devs might be looking for; I wonder how “damaging” to those data points we might be if we knew what they were and the likelihood or lack thereof of diminishing returns of hearing more on this or getting guidance toward “useful data” from the devs. I mean, there must be things that are circuitous, extraneous and all around useless.
This thread might be one of them.
I guess I just don’t see what is missing?
Like maybe a better 1st level feat option for a commander that wants to attack on their own at least 1x a round?
Design Manager
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And mostly I wonder about a post rainzax made that points out that we don’t know what data points the devs might be looking for; I wonder how “damaging” to those data points we might be if we knew what they were and the likelihood or lack thereof of diminishing returns of hearing more on this or getting guidance toward “useful data” from the devs.
Some of the tricks to data collection involve navigating unconscious biases, avoiding standard psychological pitfalls common to human beings, and letting the environment kind of do what the environment is going to do so that you get true data rather than forced data. Where there's genuine confusion that could harm the data (like, there's two ways this could be read and one of them is obviously wrong in a way that is going to create a running inaccuracy in the feedback), that's usually where we step in to clarify things, but otherwise we don't want to get too in the mix telling folks to focus on specific things since doing so creates new biases in the data we're collecting.
As always, the best way to give us feedback is to play with the material, log your findings, and then report them to us through the playtest survey!
Does it? Like pincer move and then strike hard! With a 2 hander martial against an offguard enemy, who will remain offguard until the start of your next round is plenty of damage boosting without any focus spells or attack actions.
Edit: I guess not, because the 2 hander can’t respond to the pincer attack if they are going to strike hard. So I guess you need to have one of the squad mates move into flanking with the 2 hander who will strike hard, and ideally, that is the person going next in the turn order, so it’s a little more tactically complex to set up. I guess that’s why it can’t be the lazylord? It requires using your tactics tactically and not just spending all three actions attacking with the most powerful martial possible?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's just not very great when a decent part of the classes power budget goes to something you never want to use (the same weapon accuracy as an inventor or thaumaturge,dedicated striker classes).
A subclass choice that lets the commander get caster style weapon proficiency progression and no shield block in exchange for an auto scaling skill and 1 more prepared tactic would do a lot to let me feel like I'm not playing against the system by going when I play a commander as s pure nonmagical support.
It reminds me of the players asking for a Fighter Archetype removing Shield Block because they don't want to pay for it with their 2-handed Fighter.
Shield Block and martial proficiency don't necessarily cost budget, they are there to enable the warlord. If they weren't there the lazylord would be the sole way to play a Commander. So removing them won't necessarily be refunded with features that help the lazylord.
Also, as of now, both warlords and lazylords are perfectly playable and roughly balanced. I'll play a lazylord this Friday and I don't expect to be less efficient than a warlord.
Also, Inventors and Thaumaturges get far more than just martial weapon proficiency. Martial weapon proficiency alone doesn't make a martial, it makes a hybrid. And many hybrids are not balanced between both of their domain, as many Eidolon-focused Summoners show.
Do you never attack as inventor or thaumaturge? I would be really surprised by that
and even if one plays a armchair commander
I think there will be always situations/opportunities to just strike
I personally think 'pure nonmagical support' is still someone who participates in battle
trying to avoid making strikes sounds to me as if you are taking the concept a step to far
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you never attack as inventor or thaumaturge? I would be really surprised by that
and even if one plays a armchair commander
I think there will be always situations/opportunities to just strikeI personally think 'pure nonmagical support' is still someone who participates in battle
trying to avoid making strikes sounds to me as if you are taking the concept a step to far
I think the concept of the lazylord goes with the assumption that your allies are your weapons, so if you make them attack, that's how you are attacking and contributing to the overall damage of the party. This is IMO fills the niche of "support martial" perfectly because martials are usually assumed to be damage dealers, so a "support martial" would be a martial that supports other party members do damage.
Note that even if your "role" would be to support others, by virtue of being a martial the commander should still be able to be decent at combat too. I want a lazylord, but there's people that want a warlord too, so the class should be able to fullfil both fantasies, which the current class kinda does.
Taking away martial weapon proficiency from the commander raises a big risk of it being relatively useless or going unused in PFS games where the team isn't set up to cooperate/benefit or resents a player who doesn't directly contribute anything.
Even narratively it would be strange for the commander of a military unit to have no training in using the weapons of that unit. And while martial weapons offer much better options, the long spear is good enough that taking martial weapons away is hardly going to be "this character can't effectively attack anymore" in any way that is worth a trade of allowing a second strike a turn from your allies.
There are so many ways for characters to spend an action not attacking already in the class and in the game that making it so that one version of the commander can spend 3 actions a turn making 2 strikes with other characters is just kind of boring and way too exploitable to be worth trying to accommodate when, 2 actions for 1 attack and a third action that can potentially rearrange the whole battlefield, debuff multiple enemies, heal an ally, aid an ally, etc.
Taking away martial weapon proficiency from the commander raises a big risk of it being relatively useless or going unused in PFS games where the team isn't set up to cooperate/benefit or resents a player who doesn't directly contribute anything.I don't understand how "cannot strike" somehow equates to "doesn't contribute at all"
Do you not understand the concept of support?
In Everquest 1, enchanters were an ESSENTIAL part of the group set up.
You did NOT want them using any damaging spells on the enemies. They were control and pure support classes. ALL they did was support.
The idea of support is still CONTRIBUTING.
If I spend 1 action using the bards song, is that a wasted action? Are bards basically just "two action classes" which aren't as useful as any other class? Of course not. That would be silly.
The idea of a pure support class "not contributing" when they are literally utilizing support capabilities is wild to me.
I want my commander to be a support commander. Not just, "This is another DPS class, but now called commander!"
Well good news then, because the commander is not a DPS class and it takes much more active character building to be even decent as a martial damage dealer with this class than it does to be a good support character. Even casters in PF2 are often better off having some kind of one action damage option available to them, even if they rarely use it, than they are trying to build around "incapable of ever doing damage ever." Which again, the best Commander builds I have seen so far still spend more than 2/3rds of their actions supporting allies, but PF2 requires every character to be able to do more than one thing over and over again.
if the bard can be trained in martial weapons, a commander should too. Period. I don't think this needs much discussion.
If a bunch of randos of innapropiate classes show up at the table and that makes the commander a worse class than maybe the commander should be tweaked to avoid that? That argument makes it sound as if this wasn't a playtest explicitly to find this kind of problems in a class.
A support contributes to the party. The problem that people have with the commander is that is being markerted as martial, so people expect it to play like a martial (I.E deal damage with weapons) when in this system support and specially in the way the commander does it contributes to the overall damage the party deals per round.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lazylord was never supposed to mean lazy player.
The idea is that you don't have the Strength to battle directly, so you use your wits to battle indirect.
Like if you are in a wheelchair from polio. Or Tyrion Lannister.
"I have a realistic grasp of my own strengths and weaknesses. My mind is my weapon. My brother has his sword, King Robert has his warhammer, and I have my mind… "
if the bard can be trained in martial weapons, a commander should too. Period. I don't think this needs much discussion.
Also, giving martial weapons to a character that doesn't use them does not hurt anything.
The problem that people have with the commander is that is being markerted as martial, so people expect it to play like a martial (I.E deal damage with weapons) when in this system support and specially in the way the commander does it contributes to the overall damage the party deals per round.
Add a "Cantrip Hard!" would fix that issue.
Maybe 3 actions and you can RK first, so you can tell the wizard what save to target.
If ya'll had it your way, ya'll would want each class to do DPS. Just different flavors of DPS.Well good news then, because the commander is not a DPS class and it takes much more active character building to be even decent as a martial damage dealer with this class than it does to be a good support character. Even casters in PF2 are often better off having some kind of one action damage option available to them, even if they rarely use it, than they are trying to build around "incapable of ever doing damage ever." Which again, the best Commander builds I have seen so far still spend more than 2/3rds of their actions supporting allies, but PF2 requires every character to be able to do more than one thing over and over again.Taking away martial weapon proficiency from the commander raises a big risk of it being relatively useless or going unused in PFS games where the team isn't set up to cooperate/benefit or resents a player who doesn't directly contribute anything.I don't understand how "cannot strike" somehow equates to "doesn't contribute at all"
Do you not understand the concept of support?
In Everquest 1, enchanters were an ESSENTIAL part of the group set up.
You did NOT want them using any damaging spells on the enemies. They were control and pure support classes. ALL they did was support.
The idea of support is still CONTRIBUTING.
If I spend 1 action using the bards song, is that a wasted action? Are bards basically just "two action classes" which aren't as useful as any other class? Of course not. That would be silly.
The idea of a pure support class "not contributing" when they are literally utilizing support capabilities is wild to me.
I want my commander to be a support commander. Not just, "This is another DPS class, but now called commander!"
I am confused because my comment was explicitly "The commander is not a DPS class, but paizo doesn't like encouraging options completely incapable of participating in an encounter when combat is necessary." Wanting a Commander that command other characters to attack with all of their actions is making a commander that is essentially a DPS engine.
Most of the time, a commander will not need to attack and can have a STR of 10 and DEX of 10 and be a huge boost to the party. There is even a first level feat to help commanders deal with the weight restrictions of heavy armor that they probably don't have the STR to wear without penalty. Very occasionally, they might find themselves in situations where the ability to attack with their own weapons would have been better that other actions they usually take, because a -4/5 weapon strike compared to another martial is not a completely useless use of an action; other characters take those attacks all the time.
even if one plays a armchair commanderNew concept:
Commander whose Commanders Steed is a Legchair.
Literal armchair Commander.
I did play a lazylord as a really old, nearly blind, hard of hearing guy in wheelchair for a one shot once.
I dumped wisdom and he constantly miss-hear things too. Just Int and Cha, talking about the good old days, that just happened to be perfect advice for the combat his allies where in.
Why did I picture Abe Simpson just now loleven if one plays a armchair commanderNew concept:
Commander whose Commanders Steed is a Legchair.
Literal armchair Commander.
I did play a lazylord as a really old, nearly blind, hard of hearing guy in wheelchair for a one shot once.
I dumped wisdom and he constantly miss-hear things too. Just Int and Cha, talking about the good old days, that just happened to be perfect advice for the combat his allies where in.
pretty much.
Except people liked him.
I agree that both should be supported. It would be good territory for a minor class archetype to support "pacifist" lazylord builds, for when you want the cheerleading mascot, rather than a Princess Leia type who isn't as directly combat focused but still directly takes part in attacking things.