So, in PF2, handing out attacks to your squadmates is expensive, particularly at early levels. This comes, in part, from the fact that it's relatively straightforward to play a hybrid-lord. You carry around a bow, you take a shot, and you hand an attack to someone else. Bam - an easy, straightforward way to get two MAPless attacks... and if you want to play a pure lazylord, then every direct damage-dealing tool that you have has to be balanced with that combo in mind, in spite of the fact that you'll never use it.
...but what if it wasn't so?
Making this work right would be a *bit* twisty, but there are a few different ways to do it.
- You could make it a feature of the tactics themselves. Say that you can't use the tactic unless you have no MAP, and your MAP increases for every attack that mas made via the tactic. It would work. I admit that I don't like it much, though. The true hybrid commander is going to have situations where they want to do things like "I use my feat-granted attack-and-debuff action, and then give my allies attacks to take advantage of the debuff with" and this would interfere with that fairly badly.
- You could make it a feat. Call it Armchair Tactician or something. Gives you a significant penalty to all attacks (have fun escaping that grapple!) but some sort of associated bonus to using certain kinds of tactics.
I'm sure you could come up with others. Regardless, worth a thought, right?
Side note: I think that in general it might be cool if different commanders could be better or worse at different kinds of tactics. Like, sprinkle a few appropriate tags around, and then feats that give you benefits when you use tactics with those tags. It's a bit throwback, but....
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think there's any issue playing a lazylord. Replace your bow attack by Command Animal and you should be fine. I don't understand why there'd be any need for more incentive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think adding MAP to your tactics would push all commanders to be lazylords, which a ton of people aren't going to like.
I think the easiest solution here would be to make the lazylord and warlord the two subclasses of the commander, though I also seen some people suggesting building the subclasses around certain skill actions that the commander can use replacing their Warfare Lore modifier with the respective modifier (like the current Combat Medic and Deceptive Tactics feats) which I do like as well. It not like it wouldn't be the first class to have two or more sets of subclasses (wizards have schools and arcane thesis, psychic has conscious mind and subconcious mind, thaumaturges eventually have multiple implements, kineticist can have multiple elements too if they want, etc). In an ideal world, I think the best would be something like having a subconcious mind-like subclass that determines your KAS (which would also determine which stat you use for Warfare Lore) and an effect that allows you to use your Warfare Lore modifier for X skill action, and then have a conscious mind-like subclass which determines if you are more of a lazylord or a warlord.
I feel there's enough action support out there, especially once we have a full suite of tactics, for lazylord to be effective. Maybe not optimal, but it's pretty hard to balance around someone choosing not to use a feature.
|
I don't understand what your point is. Are you saying it's too weak or too strong? I don't really agree either way.
That you can shoot a bow and tell the Fighter to Strike (or for someone to Shove/Reposition and then the Fighter to Strike) is the point of the class. There's absolutely no need for that to have MAP. Why would you even suggest that.
Also why are people calling it "Lazylord"? Is that just based on the 4e Warlord?
I playtested a Lazylord yesterday and had a blast. I had Commander's Steed and had my raptor fight for me, using Pincer Attack to debuff the enemies and shuffle everyone around, and then when it was low on health I used Form Up! to recall it without using it's own actions and used Combat Medic to heal it, then Commanded it to cause some trouble. I think it's an extremely fun play style so far, and look forward to playtesting it more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also why are people calling it "Lazylord"? Is that just based on the 4e Warlord?
The term "lazylord" specifically referred to a 4e warlord (or similar classes in other systems, though I think the term originated with 4e) that does no actual attacking themselves and instead focuses entirely on having their allies do the fighting on their behalf. In the case of PF2e commander, this would be accomplished by avoiding the Strike action in favor of tactics that allow allies to Strike (like Strike Hard! and Ready, Aim, Fire!).
I haven't tested the class myself in an actual game, but looking at the playtest itself, it seems like it wouldn't be the worst idea to do this (the main advantage being that you can near-entirely dump STR/DEX in favor of other attributes). It's like playing a warpriest that dumps WIS; you're limiting your offensive options, but you're still effective at supporting your allies. That being said, I do think that it's probably *better* to be mixing in your own Strikes, since all of the "allow an ally to Strike" tactics seem to be two-action activities and that means that on turns where you want to use two actions for something else you won't be doing any damage at all. But I appreciate that the option is there to play a character that focuses on battlefield tactics without necessarily being a combatant themselves.
As a side note, comparing a single Shortbow attack (16 Dex, 10 Str, fully runed with Elemental Runes at level 8+) and an Animal Companion making 2 attacks, the Animal Companion wins during most of your carreer. Even if the AC makes only a single attack, you need to wait for level 10 to beat the AC. And I don't count the common lesser cover you face when shooting from behind the party.
So, really, the "bow" argument is a wrong one. Lazylord works as much as bow warlord.
As a side note, comparing a single Shortbow attack (16 Dex, 10 Str, fully runed with Elemental Runes at level 8+) and an Animal Companion making 2 attacks, the Animal Companion wins during most of your carreer. Even if the AC makes only a single attack, you need to wait for level 10 to beat the AC. And I don't count the common lesser cover you face when shooting from behind the party.
So, really, the "bow" argument is a wrong one. Lazylord works as much as bow warlord.
Once you hit level 10, though, it's not "animal companion making two attacks" - if you have an animal companion on the field, and you're already investing as necessary to keep it alive, and you have it positioned such that giving an order is enough to make the animal companion attack twice, then the animal could attack once all by itself. At that point, really all the order is gaining you is the second attack. The animal's second attack is going to be a *lot* worse than your first.
Once you hit level 10, though, it's not "animal companion making two attacks" - if you have an animal companion on the field, and you're already investing as necessary to keep it alive, and you have it positioned such that giving an order is enough to make the animal companion attack twice, then the animal could attack once all by itself. At that point, really all the order is gaining you is the second attack. The animal's second attack is going to be a *lot* worse than your first.
You're right. So it's a first attack if your Companion has to move or a second one if it hasn't (and you want to spend the action which you may not).
Overall, what I want to point out is that the Shortbow attack is not crazy good and that it costs a significant investment (high Dex, Runed Shortbow). So if the Shortbow warlord is a thing then the lazylord is definitely a thing. Helping the lazylord somehow would, in my opinion, invalidate the Shortbow warlord more than enable the lazylord.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're right. So it's a first attack if your Companion has to move or a second one if it hasn't (and you want to spend the action which you may not).
Overall, what I want to point out is that the Shortbow attack is not crazy good and that it costs a significant investment (high Dex, Runed Shortbow). So if the Shortbow warlord is a thing then the lazylord is definitely a thing. Helping the lazylord somehow would, in my opinion, invalidate the Shortbow warlord more than enable the lazylord.
It's not as much investment as you seem to think it is.
- You're going to have to make that investment in either Dex or Str regardless, assuming you like AC.
- The animal companion, if anything, takes more of an investment. That thing is costing you a series of feats over the course of your career, plus the effort necessary to keep it alive (and get it through doors, up and down stairs, and so forth). Admittedly, being able to give it a climb speed helps with that last bit. I'm not saying that it's a bad investment, but saying "you can just get an animal companion" handwaves a lot of stuff.
- A commander doesn't have but so many ways they want to spend money. Like, yeah. It's true. A full lazylord can take the cash that they'd normally invest in a weapon and put it into something else. So... consumables? I guess? That kind of stuff will burn through the stash pretty quickly, though.
Oh, and a Commander isn't limited to just basic bow strikes. Things like Guiding Shot, Targeting Strike, and Fortunate Blow do exist.
/************/
Now, I want to be clear about some things. I'm not saying that the bowlord is crazy good. I'm certainly not calling for it to be nerfed. I mean, I thought I made that pretty clear in my initial post, when I said "hey, there's this option here, but I don't like it because I think it nerfs the hybrid commander". If anything, I think that the warlord overall is a bit on the weak side and could do with some nudging up. (I admit that I haven't really done deep analysis on it, though. That's just an initial gut reaction.)
What I *am* saying is that the combo of "get a 0-MAP strike off a martial chassis, plus a MAPless two-action special maneuver" is at this point one of the standard paths to power in this game. For the inventor, it was their whole schtick. It's similarly a big part of the value proposition for Summoner, Kineticist, and wand-Thaum. Magus does it with extra steps. A variety of martials try to get the same thing going by poaching cantrips... with varying degrees of success. It gives you a lot of tactical flexibility (you can efficiently use anything from 1 to 3 actions) and it's a solid setup... for a hybrid.
...and that's what Commander that we see before us now is. It's basically a martial/tactician hybrid. I'm just trying to figure out if there's a way to make space for a pure tactician version of the class as well - not because I want a gimmick build, but because the tactician part of the Commander is more interesting to me than the martial part, and I'd like to open up as much space as I can to lean into it - to see how far we can go with the tactics side of things if we're not also trying to be a martial at the same time.
Now, I want to be clear. I'm not trying to break the hybrid Commander. I think we should have a hybrid Commander. As far as "health of the game" is concerned, if we only get one, I think the hybrid is the better choice... but that doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't try to make space for both, right?
- You're going to have to make that investment in either Dex or Str regardless, assuming you like AC.
10 Dex, 10 Str, Full Plate. We are speaking of a lazylord, it's not like if you have to move all around. My lazylord has 10 in both Str and Dex and I don't expect to have any issue with that (he's mounted, though, because he's supremely lazy).
- A commander doesn't have but so many ways they want to spend money. Like, yeah. It's true. A full lazylord can take the cash that they'd normally invest in a weapon and put it into something else. So... consumables? I guess? That kind of stuff will burn through the stash pretty quickly, though.
That vastly depends on your gaming environment. Getting basic runes is in general quite easy. But getting Elemental Runes is not, especially if there are other martials in your party who have way more reasons to get them. Without Elemental Runes, the bow deals less damage than the Animal Companion during your whole carreer.
What I *am* saying is that the combo of "get a 0-MAP strike off a martial chassis, plus a MAPless two-action special maneuver" is at this point one of the standard paths to power in this game.
And I'm telling you that you're wrong. You can replace your 0-MAP Strike with, for example, an Animal Companion or an Eidolon and end up with the same damage output. So your path to power is not the only one for the Commander.
Now, I agree that if you don't replace the 0-MAP Strike by anything you end up worse. But that's on you, right? There are ways to build lazylords that compete with warlords, so if you buff the lazylord you just invalidates the warlord.
Now, I agree that if you don't replace the 0-MAP Strike by anything you end up worse. But that's on you, right? There are ways to build lazylords that compete with warlords, so if you buff the lazylord you just invalidates the warlord.
It's closer to MAP -1. Since Int is your key ability score.
But I agree it's still somewhat difficult for Banner Twirl to make up the difference.
Perhaps something like...
Chose a target, the next time an squadmate damages it it takes additional damage equal to your Intelligence + half your level. You can use this if you haven't used an action with the attack or open trait yet this turn, and counts as a MAP.
|
|
I haven't tested the class myself in an actual game, but looking at the playtest itself, it seems like it wouldn't be the worst idea to do this (the main advantage being that you can near-entirely dump STR/DEX in favor of other attributes).
This is actually what I've been doing, using Commander's Steed. I like it when it works, but there's so much against it. Animal Companions just aren't strong, and while getting it to Pincer Attack or letting it Form Up! is really useful at helping it with mobility. The Off-guard from Pincer Attack can help, but I'm just not sure it works out well. But I've been testing it in Pathfinder Society, so there's the inherent thrown together nature of the groups, which means I've stumbled into several scenarios where everyone is ranged, which really cuts down on how useful many of the Tactics even are. Coordinating Maneuvers or Team Up matter a whole lot less when there's no one to actually do a Shove or Reposition and someone to Strike. You being the one to do the Strike can help, but I don't think it does it by much.
I don't actually think two action tactics is what the class needs. I think what it needs is more variety in tactics and more tactics that you can prepare. I think there's a consideration that the Commander shouldn't have the ability to throw a Strike at someone, but considering it takes your own action and someone else's reaction (or using your Drilled Reactions for the turn), and you can only Command each person once a turn, I think that instead of "you get another attack" the mechanics and balance should more treat the Commander like a caster, just using other people's Strikes instead of your own Spell Attack.
It's a little surprising that Tactics don't let people trip or anything, it's all just shoves and repositions. Actually, it might be worthwhile to allow you to have your squadmates Trip, Reposition, Shove, or whatever with your Class DC instead of their Athletics. As-is, there are very few things with your Class DC, and all of them are Will based.
To me at least the Lazylord feels like the thing the class wants to be, since you don't benefit from your own tactics except for a handful, but it's poorly supported, even with the Commander's Steed. Even Combat Medic feels like it wants you to hang back and play support, but you're bad at it because as a Class Feat, Battlefield Medic feels pretty bad. Once per day is pretty brutal for a class feat.
But at this point I'm just typing up things that I should really be putting down in my playtest notes.