Cry Battle! Pathfinder 2e Battlecry Playtest Reaction!

#paizo #pathfinder2e #pathfinderrpg #rpggames
The new Battlecry Playtest is out for Pathfinder 2e, with two new classes! I'm going to look over them right now!
Link to the Battlecry playtest (as well as information on giving feedback): paizo.com/path...
Link to the messageboards thread about the iconics: paizo.com/thre...
Link to the Roll for Combat Livestream (warning, it's 3 hours long!): • Commander & Guardian C...
Link to Drive Thru RPG where you can get my 3rd party book: www.drivethrur...
Link to Pathfinder infinite where you can get my 3rd party book: www.starfinder...

[@DokuroHeartvore]

I noticing growth in your channel, small but consistent. You're going to grow big if you keep working hard like this. That would be nice to see.

[@PsiPrimeProductions1]

That is so nice of you to say.

[@natanoj16]

I asked my Skeleton Fighter player if he wanted to do a Temp conversion of his character into a Guardian, so can't wait to try it :)

[@xylemicarious]

Good points here, I definitely think "weak chassis with crazy good feats" is the wrong path to take in PF2e since it will mean no one will want to play the class, but everyone will be taking the archetype for access to the feats. I am still very much hyped for Commander, I was hoping they could use CHA though personally. 😅

[@PsiPrimeProductions1]

I’ve seen suggestions that the commander get a subclass that lets them use int, Wis, or charisma, kinda like how the psychic can use int or charisma, or the rogue can use anything (except con) based on their racket.

[@Bloodfencer1990]

Something I saw in the discussions about the Guardian is how it's really good at staying unconscious. Sounds stupid at first, but it actually makes sense. The Guardian wants to eat a lot of damage, and obviously Paizo didn't want to give them the kind of damage mitigation that would trivialize most fights. So instead they gave them the ability to stay downed for longer without the rest of the party having to worry about getting them back up again. Basically the Guardians playstyle is: Taunt/Intercept, eat lots of damage so others don't have to, get downed, stay down while the party finishes the fight. The Guardian is more of a distraction who in the best case scenario will go down if the boss is already on its last legs.

[@valvadis2360]

That's a interesting take on how the Guardian works but, is it a FUN way to play the game?

[@xylemicarious]

I feel like if this is intended, then they should at least give them 12hp... Also, that is really not the play style I think of for a "Guardian" lol

[@Nastara]

This reads like a meme and doesn’t sound fun.

[@mattsullivan2458]

It is worth noting that, for many of the commanders tactics, giving away actions for "free" is not true, as most of not all of them require your squadmates to spend a reaction to benefit. Some class' reactions are likely on par with if not more valuable than certain tactics.

[@PsiPrimeProductions1]

Remember, 1/round a commander can give a person a reaction to spend on their tactic, so a tactic like strike hard is essentially free.

[@arturkushukov1815]

Commander is absolute 10/10 as an idea, some polish is required but overall it's really good. Guardian needs a full rework, unfortunately. It should not be a full martial with a caster proficiency progression and they absolutely should have more focus on AC for the Guardian. Hell, Commander's Defensive Swap feat already does Guardian's job better.

[@PsiPrimeProductions1]

Remember, the guardian can just take a hit for a friend, and if it’s a crit, can reduce the damage if they have chainmail on. That’s nothing to sneeze at. There are some other features I didn’t mention like bodyguard that give an ally DR so, yeah, they can get pretty tanky.

[@Hussar88]

@@PsiPrimeProductions1any good aligned champion can do the guardians job better

[@PsiPrimeProductions1]

I dunno, I’d have to actually playtest. Like I said, taking the damage for a friend is nothing to sneeze at. I’ve seen a champion do their thing and still have the character they are guarding go down. Doesn’t happen with the guardian. I’d have to see how it shakes out. You might be right, maybe not.

[@natanoj16]

I really love that they have done what I hoped. Just like Herbalist is an Archetype that takes part of Alchemist features, they do the opposite here. Taking some cool Archetype like Medic and Marchal and combining them into a Unique full class in the Commander

[@rileymcleran2895]

My current takes on these classes are as follows: I think they have good bones and fill meaningful gaps in the game, but both need refining. It feels like a commander will just use 2/3 of their turn letting their allies play more rather than being an active participant in the fight. I wish the commander had a feature that let them do something when they use a tactic. A basic feature that lets them stride/reload/raise a shield when they use a tactic would help a lot to make the class feel more interactive. At later levels it could upgrade to allow a strike. Other than that, I think I’d like to see more 1 action tactics. I also think some of the tactics need a balance pass. For the guardian, I find the class to be fairly weak. I think intercept just makes them a worse champion, since it will bring them towards going down quickly since it doesn’t use their AC. I also think taunt in its current iteration is too weak. Id love to see the guardian go to 12hp/lvl, buff taunt to give them temp hp on use and scale the amount of taunted targets over time. Make taunt only give boost your enemies’ accuracy against you if they crit or succeed. Add subclasses that augment taunt (top of my head, poorly thought through examples: gain resistance equal to half your level to damage from taunted creatures, deal half your level in damage to taunted creatures who hit you, make allies concealed to your taunted creatures). Change intercept to be a feat line and make the core identity of the class the aggro tank, protecting the champion’s identity as the damage mitigation tank.

[@PsiPrimeProductions1]

Re commander: some people like being support. I’ve seen similar complaints levied against bards, and I love playing them. Different strokes for different folks. That said, if you want to do something for your allies, and get a boost if you participate, look at the new envoy class from Starfinder, they are exactly that.

[@rileymcleran2895]

@@PsiPrimeProductions1I agree and am one of those players, but over 1/4 of the commander’s feats require a melee strike or that the commander is adjacent to an enemy or ally. Having the option to stride/step, or make use of a shield when you use a command is still supporting the party, provided you take the feats that let you support allies with your shield for the raise shield. My main concern for the commander is that the actions they use tactics doesn’t leave them many actions to use their other abilities from their class. I dont feel this issue with bards, since the compositions are mostly one action, leaving me 2 actions to cast a spell, reposition, or use skill actions.

[@PsiPrimeProductions1]

Remember, some tactics a commander can benefit from. And there are a lot of tactics that are great for melee, but still good for non-melee. Pincer attack as discussed in the video is still a free step.

[@rileymcleran2895]

I’ve read the commander several times and managed to completely miss that the commander can benefit from their own tactics. That probably makes life a lot easier then.

[@PsiPrimeProductions1]

@@rileymcleran2895 SOME of their tactics, not all. They don't count as their own squadmate (I don't think) but like, is specifically says they can benefit from like, getting a swim speed. That's just off the top of my head.

[@TheGreatSquark]

Note: Fighters, Armor Inventors, and Commanders do also get armor specialization when they become experts at level 11.

[@PsiPrimeProductions1]

Yeah, but inventors don’t get it blanket, just one subclass. Didn’t see commander get it. There was a LOT to digest in that playtest, and I spent ALL Tuesday video editing instead of pouring over the playtest some more. Still, thanks for the correction, I appreciate it.

[@Gristoufle2]

I really enjoy how you set up expectations for the video upfront

[@roboticjanitor3332]

I'm hoping the Commander Iconic is samurai inspired with a Sashimono for a banner, to tie in with the recent Tain Xia books. Plus the class has options that synergize with ranged party members alongside animal companion feats, and iirc samurai had a thing for horseback archery.

[@PsiPrimeProductions1]

It would be nice to see a Tien iconic. I THINK the iconic witch has Tien ancestry, though she is from Irasen IIRC. One the other hand. I’d like to see something OTHER than ANOTHER human iconic, especially since the last two iconics were human. It would tickle me pink if the guardian was a gnome or halfling. I have a soft spot for little guys who are tough defenders.

[@mjajst]

Looking over various breakdowns of the Commander, I had a thought in regards to one of your recent videos. In your Character Build video for Hilde, from Soul Caliber, you did a great job making a build to reflect her in-game capabilities. The Commander class could serve as a solid alternative for representing some of her background lore. She is royalty, and characterized as having a strong sense of duty. She takes on a central leadership role in her efforts to rebuild her homeland, both on and off the battlefield. Also, on an astetic level, several of her weapon sets include a banner attached to her spear. Just a thought that occured while rewatching your Hilde video.

[@PsiPrimeProductions1]

I thought of that too, lack of commander two weapon fighting thought. . .

[@mjajst]

Yeah. I had a similar thought, after posting my initial comment. If the Free Archetype rule is being used, then the Dual-Weapon Warrior Archetype could be mixed in. She wouldn't be as powerful a combatant as her Fighter version, but it could add a bit more variety to combat encounters. In your breakdown of the Commander Class, you brought up your concern about the class over-relying on the other players following the Commander's orders, and how that might run into issues, depending on the circumstances of the encounter. The addition of more options for direct combat, such as the Dual-Weapon Warrior or Archer Archetypes, could make it more useful for the Commander to personally go on the offensive, when circumstances make the use of Tactics less advisable. I'm unsure of the viability of this suggestion, as I haven't been able to playtest any of the new classes, but those were what I could come up with off the top of my head. Alternatively, adding in either the Marshal Archetype, or the eventual Commander Multi-Class Archetype, to your Fighter Build could capture much of the same feel, while still being a powerful combatant.

[@maddoxbellrose7679]

I think Paizo believes that intelligence is the strategy ability score, and I agree. When I think of a good chess player, for example, one might immediately say, "A good chess player is wisdom based because they can see when an important piece is in danger." But most people forget that good chess players don't really need that because they collect information on "gambits, openings, etc." The skill ceiling for a good chess player isn't perception. it's game knowledge and mastery. Furthermore, the investigator uses language like "stratagem" and what we could call a street based tactician (as opposed to a war based tactician). The mastermind also uses intelligence. Now, what does intelligence do for the commander? It mostly just lets you designate more allies to benefit from your commands; not very wisdom based.

[@PsiPrimeProductions1]

Totally get your arguement, and I agree with what you're saying. The issue I have is that we already have two int-based martial classes in the investigator and inventor, and so it seems like trippling down on one thing, when there's a wide open path to explore somewhere else. And I could see an argument for wisdom.

[@guillermoperez8882]

Great video! I'd love to hear about your play test experience with these classes. I want to test these classes but I don't think I'll have the time...

[@Dudeman715]

The commander ability where the party can just reload and fire should either be... A once per combat feature (10m cool down) or just target one ally at will otherwise it's just too strong.

[@BSGreyM]

It seems kinda strong, but also it's only basic strikes which are usually kind of weaker on ranged weapons anyways. Also if your party isn't built around strong ranged attacks I'm not sure that the math adds up to a lot more than something similar to a wizard casting a spell. This action is basically just a martial spell where the commander's dice are based on what the party has equipped which could swing high or low.

[@PsiPrimeProductions1]

It does essentially double the damage of all your casters if they are sticking to cantrips. Needle darts goes from 10d4 a round to 20d4 (or two iterations of 10d4). A party with two casters like, say, a wizard and a cleric? That’s a big increase.

[@Dudeman715]

Heh... I might make my awakened cat character a commander. A cool nonmagical support class.

[@saprone8885]

I feel like Ready Aim Fire is overrated as you need at least two allies with decent ranged options to get the actions you spend worth. Most groups I have played with are around four people. From my experience ranged builds are less powerful. I rather have two 2H reach Fighters in my team then two ranged Fighters. The do more dps and the best defense is often a good offense in pf2. Demoralising Charge on the other hand seems more powerful in a optimised/generic group. You can position your two Fighters in flanking position and let them attack for free. It is much higher level though.

[@PsiPrimeProductions1]

True, it really depends on your party makeup. My current party for Gatewalkers is a swashbuckler, champion, investigator (with wizard dedication), and cleric. Our champion has some solid ranged options, so replace our swashbuckler with commander and ‘Ready, Aim, Fire’ would be really good in their hands.

[@saprone8885]

​@@PsiPrimeProductions1 My concern is that if everyone is ranged how are you going to deal with enemies closing in (which will inevitably happen)? In my current party we have a Gunslinger, Magus and two Fighters. Every time an enemy gets close to the Gunslinger he is in big trouble. He needs to spend actions to get away or the melee guys need to draw the attention from the enemies. How are you utilizing the Champions reaction? Both an ally and the Champion need to be in melee for this. Even without looking at the drawbacks of being ranged versus melee Demoralizing Charge seems more powerful then Ready Aim Fire. With Ready Aim Fire you can instruct three people (in an average party) to attack, two of which are free with Drilled Reflexes. With Demoralizing Charge you can also reposition them. This is a large benefit. The fact you can do this with two allies at once means it will be easy to get them in flanking position. Furthermore it will help with setting up reactions like Champion's reaction, Reactive Strike and Opportune Backstab. What I am trying to explain is that Ready Aim Fire seems pretty lackluster compared to Demoralizing Charge. Not only that but it requires a party composition that is not ideal to get it to work properly. I have heard a lot of praise about Ready Aim Fire. I can imagine people getting disappointed when using it in practice. I can be fully wrong though. I have not tried in practice.

[@PsiPrimeProductions1]

@@saprone8885 To be clear, my friend's champion is a melee champion, but because she has high strength, her boomerang actually does considerable damage. And with weapon expertise, she can hit decently well even without much dex. My swashbuckler is mostly melee, but a free ranged attack is a free ranged attack. And classes like the investigator, rogue, and the magus can switch hit really well. Ranged attacks may do a bit less damage, but remember, this is a free shot from everyone in your party, including fully leveled cantrips from all of your spellcasters. There are options.

[@saprone8885]

@@PsiPrimeProductions1 I was theorizing a melee-oriented team with ranged as fallback where Ready Aim Fire could be useful. I took the Fighter with the following stats as example. Level 15: 21str, 19con, 18wis, 16dex, 10int, 14cha +3 Major Striking Halberd: +29 | 4d10+11 (33) +3 Major Striking Boomerang: +27 | 4d6+11 (25) I found the following feats that can help switching to a melee weapon: Lightning Swap (Fighter), Quickdraw (Rogue), Spirit Sheath (Magus) It seems possible to make it work. The main problem I see with this approach is that you need more runes on weapons. And there is a feat tax. In most teams I don’t see it happening that three allies can use range well. Two sounds more reasonable. It is comparable to Demoralizing Charge. I like Charge more because the two free Strides on their own can already be worth the two actions you spend. I disagree with the ranged attacks being free. At level 15 the first two attacks are free (Drilled Reflexes), the other attacks will cost a reaction each. I am not saying Ready Aim Fire is bad, but I don’t believe it is as good as people make it out to be. Especially when you compare it with Demoralizing Charge.

[@quban234]

I wonder if there is potential for some shenanigans with commander + sniper duo archetype.

[@Zixor_]

I'm curious how viable it would be to have a Commander that rides a mount that is one of their squamates.

[@PsiPrimeProductions1]

Huh . . . it depends on how liberally a GM interprets ally. I'm not . . . AWARE of any rule that says your animal companion can't count as an ally. Interesting . . .

[@KarterAurian]

Really like the commander

[@yikes3013]

I really like your videos, but could you change or at least tone down that weird squeezing sound when you move pictures around the video? it gets incredibly annoying after a while ngl

[@PsiPrimeProductions1]

So weird, I had someone else ask for it more because it keeps them engaged. Can’t please all of the people I suppose!

[@ObatongoSensei]

When I first read these two new classes, I had the dreadful impression that Pathfinder 2e is starting to look a bit too much like D&D 4e, a system Pathfinder 1e was specifically created to counter by going in the opposite direction. But then here they are mechanics such as "per encounter" preparation of martial techniques, as if once trained your fellows would just forget their training to switch to a new one, or a "mark", which could make sense only if all enemies would actually be offended by your taunts, which is hardly the case if they have even a little brain. These come straight out from 4e and the worst of the latest 3.5 products. That said, I agree with all the bad points about these two classes expressed in your video. The guardian in particular could just be an addition to the feat lists of the fighter and/or the champion, working a lot better in that case. The commander has the same basic problem both the 3.5 marshal and the 4e warlord had, which is that they worked as intended only in a military unit, with soldiers bent to blindly follow their orders, and they were mostly useless alone. A perfect example of overspecialization. I think teamwork feats in Pathfinder 1e worked a lot better than the latter. Yes, they costed resources from multiple characters, but that simulated fairly well a bunch of people training to act in unison in certain circumstances. Their problem was that their benefits were usually lame, not their acquisition method.

[@PsiPrimeProductions1]

I feel that 4e gets a really bad rap. I played it, my friends and I had fun! Yes, it was a radical departure from DnD and yes there were a few issues, but no more so than any other RPG. I feel modern players have just heard all these bad things about it and dump on it without having played it. If you don’t like it, that’s fine, you are free to have your opinion. I just think it’s better than people give it credit for. Certainly better balanced than modern DnD.

[@ObatongoSensei]

@@PsiPrimeProductions1 Well, if you see it as a tactical boardgame with some roleplaying game element, something like Heroquest, then it is actually a pretty good game. But as a roleplaying game with some tactical elements it is definetely not good at all. Each type of game needs some specific kinds of mechanics. If you use the wrong kind, you are in for some criticism.

[@PsiPrimeProductions1]

@@ObatongoSensei Like I said, my friends and I had fun with it and we did a bunch of role-playing. But if you didn't have fun with it, that's valid. I've actually had people blatently tell me that I COULD NOT have had fun with it though, which got a chuckle out of me. Role-play is role-play. The game focused on combat mechanics but it's not like it stopped you from role-playing.

[@ObatongoSensei]

@@PsiPrimeProductions1 It did, if you tried to roleplay combat... Or just roleplay the single use of most of your powers. To say it simply, the rules were mostly disconnected from roleplay. You could do storytelling, since you only need a brain and a vocal apparatus for that, but most of the times you couldn't use the rules to actually manage and support those stories in the actual game. It was probably the main flaw that players pointed out to the developers, whose answer was roughly "you do not need rules for roleplaying in a roleplaying game". That obviously only ended up adding fuel to the roaring fire going on on forums and social at the time. And made the fortune of Pathfinder.