Are there going to be subclasses for the Commander or Guardian?
If feels like it should be possible especially for the Guardian who has multiple ways of working depending on feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guardian already have 2 subclasses but they just so meh that the people pretends that they doesn't exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can’t speak to the guardian really, I haven’t play tested it myself, but I really hope not with the commander. I’d much prefer class feats have requirements that keep them out of the hands of MC with onearchetypes than have classes with some levels that offer a class 2 feats, one of which is tied to their subclass but doesn’t actually have anything to do with their subclass features. It tends just to give dead levels to classes when there is no reason the feats need to be gated off.
Then, if the subclasses really change much about the class features, it almost always ends up with one or more subclass not a good fit for the core class chassis. I’d rather see class archetypes than subclasses personally, it feels like a better way to provide enough difference.
Archtyping is just not consistently conservative across all classes.
Ranger holds back the edge while champ gives out the reaction and rogue is middle ground giving sneak attack but in a limited way but you get skills.
Monk gives up flurry but makes you wait til level 10.
|
So I have an idea for subclasses for Commander
Bloody Banner: You can use intelligence for Intimidation, and some bonuses to the frightened effect, such as reducing movement speed for any frightened enemy within the banner's aura, or adding the interact trait to All actions taken by frightened enemies within the banner's aura.
Noble Banner: same as above, but for diplomacy, maybe giving the bon mot feat, and allowing you to select other saving throws at higher levels.
Spymaster's banner: Same as above to deception. This one giving benefits to recalling info and feinting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But these are just things that can be appropriate level feats. Calling them subclasses implies they are significant divergences that will shape the character from level 1 to 20.
I think maybe we have gotten into the habit of calling every level 1 choice within a class a “subclass” when I don’t think that is helpful for thinking about the effect subclasses have on a build. Wizards have Thesis and schools, but neither one constitutes a subclass. They don’t guide you towards specific feats or really limit any other choices you will make with your character. Rogues have one of the strongest subclass distinctions in rackets: they shape your KAS, what weapons you can use, what your debilitating strike options can be, and limit your feat selection at certain levels. Strong subclasses have a lot of balancing to do. Changing KAS can throw off expected saving throws and saving throw progression. Weapon selection and bonuses to damage can leave some subclasses (scoundrel) struggling to even fill the expected roll of the class (high-damage single target striker for Rogue).
I am not saying I don’t enjoy the options that subclasses open up, especially in early edition base classes, but they often require changing so much about the base class that a class archetype that can rebalance core mechanics of the class and offer the specific feats necessary to that build, without taking away options that are more universally applicable to the class would be the better option.
Subclasses are interesting but also bad on some level. I said this is a different post but when was the last time you saw a Dragon Instinct Barbarian not go for their Dragon Instinct related feats like Breath and Wings? It's what makes it better then fury hands down, fury gets 1 extra level 1 feat but what is better then sudden charge and worth it? That's the issue with sub-classes is many people feel like the feats related to their sub-class is non-negotiable unless they are horrible underpowered.
Take Paladin Champion, Oath of Vengeance is something that can increase your offensive of your entire team by giving a debuff of a -2 AC if they fail the save.
|
|
I would say that these would affect your playstyle as they outline the flavor your leadership takes. the Bloody Banner is a drill sergent, showing his commands. the Noble banner is a leader with glorious cause that the party might be rallied behind. The Spymaster Banner is, well exactly what is says on the tin: a spy. You favor subertfuge and not taking battles you can't win.
I think things that influence Playstyle, including outside of combat, do constitute a subclass. Otherwise, by your logic, an Alchemists field of study or a wizard's school aren't subclasses, when they clearly influence things that are important to the character.
And this is why I dislike the "subclasses" for the Guardian. One is (hopefully) useless since it depends on your enemies ignoring your main class feature, and the other is useless due to your poor weapon proficiency.
Spymasters don't wave banners in public.
And while the substitutions might make for nice feats (or one feat where you pick one skill), to be a subclass you'd need to build sets of feats or other class abilities around each track, and I'd rather have it more open as it now is unless we can think of distinct "command styles" (much like combat styles), but mix & matching Tactics already kinda covers that.
Why do we give Alchemists a field of study, mixing and matching items should be enough
Casters by that logic don't need subclasses beyond the four spell casting traditions.
I was thinking the subclasses could be mainly focused on Roleplay focused scenarios
Way to misrepresent. I did not write they weren't worth exploring at all, there's an "unless" in there. Which is to say they'd need more oomph, as in a stronger "command style" theme backed with feats & abilities particular to that type of Commander, but not the others. Those other subclasses you reference represent just that, a major upgrade from their base chassis, not merely a flavor, and none of them are "mainly focused on Roleplay focused scenarios", but strong, often PC-defining mechanics.
Same is true for the martial subclasses, with most martial subclasses making a difference in combat tactics, weapon load, feat selection, etc. So to sell me on Commander benefiting from having subclasses, you'd need more than Int-swap feats. And like a Fighter or Monk, I'm thinking Commander succeeds already without them, so doesn't need such a boost.
---
Separately, the thought of dipping one's Banner in the blood/ichor/whatnot of a deceased enemy strikes me as a visceral image worthy of a feat. As well as an effect in the moment, it might lead to other feats based on keeping it unwashed, like perhaps a morale boost vs. the same creatures until dipped again.
ETA: And I do think the Guardian needs subclasses, and the power boost they represent, to cover the different defense playstyles that Taunt & Intercept Strike fail to address.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like both the commander and guardian in their current states are at their best when they're mixing and matching tools to their liking. I think there's a real danger when creating more tightly defined subclasses that what you end up doing is stripping away versatility from the base chassis and narrowing down how people play.
In another thread I saw someone suggest that the Guardian should have a 'taunt' subclass, a 'hampering strikes' subclass and an 'intercept' subclass... but to me that sounds kind of horrible, in the sense that the class works best when all these tools are coming together. Putting walls between them would just leave you with three extremely simplified and stale packages.
Why do we give Alchemists a field of study, mixing and matching items should be enough
Alchemist field studies are an example of minimally intrusive subclasses though. They don't do all that much on their own, give you a little nudge but outside a few specific mechanics don't trap you in a specific style.
Maybe minimally intrusive is the way to go. This is just exploring that idea and not saying this is the way it should be.
If there was a taunt guardian. Medium armor focused better mobility and throwing weapon and shield.
A hampering sweeps guardian( after balancing it). Heavy armor focused on zone control reach weapons.
And an intercept strikes guardian. Heavy armor 1 hander and shield, focused on damage reduction for themselves and allies.
Each with a different threat technique but give the equivalent of druids order explorer to pick up a second kit that could allow the mix of two. Also by separating taunt and intercept strike the threat techniques would need to get a lot more impactful than they are.
After a single PFS scenario as a Commander, I feel like Commanders need a little guidance to help them out. They feel a little unfocused, and because they're a bit unorthodox (IMHO), players might not know what to do with them. Subclasses could guide them, but might also unnecessarily restrain them.
Someone on the boards suggested three subclasses. One uses the Combat Medic, one the Deceptive Tactics, and I forgot the last one (Combat Medic and Deceptive Tactics have feat trees anyways). I like this, but I might do them differently: one focusing on the banner (increasing range and effectiveness), one on the mount, and maybe one more on the skills (giving bonuses to feinting and Medicine, for instance) and running interference. Like the typical inspiring warlord, mounted warlord, and cunning warlord style. The cool thing with this is that they don't step on each other's toes. You can take the banner subclass and still pick up the other feats without feeling like you're missing out. A lot of other classes have subclasses that lock each other out of goodies (Barbarians require certain instincts and Bards require Muses, for example), but that does not need to be the case here. There are no feats locked to certain subclasses, it's just that some subclasses get a bonus from them, similar to how Alchemist subclasses focus on different alchemical items (Poisoners boost their poison DC, but others can still use them).
Maybe three subclasses are enough, maybe more are needed, but they also immediately invoke a certain feel in the class, but don't preclude each other.
Anyway, as I said, not sure if the Commander needs a subclass, but I do think a little more hand-holding is appreciated.
Maybe minimally intrusive is the way to go. This is just exploring that idea and not saying this is the way it should be.
If there was a taunt guardian. Medium armor focused better mobility and throwing weapon and shield.
A hampering sweeps guardian( after balancing it). Heavy armor focused on zone control reach weapons.
And an intercept strikes guardian. Heavy armor 1 hander and shield, focused on damage reduction for themselves and allies.
Each with a different threat technique but give the equivalent of druids order explorer to pick up a second kit that could allow the mix of two. Also by separating taunt and intercept strike the threat techniques would need to get a lot more impactful than they are.
I think the angle is to add rather than divide, and to empower overlooked Guardian tropes/tactics while doing so. Whether that's through increased feat options or a beefier class chassis or subclasses matters less IMO than making Taunt optional, shields optional, Threat Techniques valuable, and protection options more customizable (to suit one's party as well as PC's dynamic imagery).
Obviously I don't think the feats or class allow for that yet, which might be due to poor feats (which IMO don't measure up with comparable options in other classes!) or wasted budget on chassis abilities. But issues might be solved with subclasses (which might involve gating, yes, but hopefully because of valuable returns). I think Ranger's Edges would be a good example where it'd be too much to pass out more than one per Ranger, but each empowers a Ranger role. Having Intercept Strike & Taunt be locked in feels like being forced to play a Flurry Ranger. There are other (hopefully better) ways to guard with a heavy-armor theme.