Battlecry! Playtest Debriefing

I really don't want to see all legendary tactics be once-per-day tactics. I get that they could be made stronger, but it removes the element of choice from the option. In the playtest you could choose between a 1/day save or consistent encounter offence. With this change all the legendary tactics would become something you try to save for as long as possible each day. Plus, I feel offensive tactics are easy to justify not using in a dire situation if you are planning to save it for the boss.

The trade off of high level Tactics being 1/day is that they don't make early tactics obsolete. Allowing them to do stuff that basic tactics can't, even if limited, has more design freedom than having to cook up stuff that won't make old stuff meaningless and the new one not too niche (nothing worse than picking something important for your class and not being able to use it at least 1 per session).

I would be down for limited use Master and Legendary Tactics, if they go balls to the wall with their possibilities. There are a lot of famous large scale tactics and strategies that Paizo can draw inspiration from to make some battlefield-altering stuff.

Generally good news!

I love the idea of the guardian and am excited to see what avenues they explore to breath life into it, and the extra scrutiny taunt is getting.

I am of the opinion that the guardian doesn't need more damage but then again, I think it should be stunning, sickening, and generally handing out conditions with its class DC as its way to apply offensive pressure. Something like a crushing grab feature where you disable opponents and deal Ability damage with it. But if Taunt gets brought up to a valuable level (ideally with a less polarizing name/theme) I could live with that.

Generally good news!

I love the idea of the guardian and am excited to see what avenues they explore to breath life into it, and the extra scrutiny taunt is getting.

I am of the opinion that the guardian doesn't need more damage but then again, I think it should be stunning, sickening, and generally handing out conditions with its class DC as its way to apply offensive pressure. Something like a crushing grab feature where you disable opponents and deal Ability damage with it. But if Taunt gets brought up to a valuable level (ideally with a less polarizing name/theme) I could live with that.

That's how I'm hoping to play my potential guardian, a lot like a monk, but swapping out a monk's mobility for sheer tankiness, but still focused on battlefield maneuvers that make it real hard to move past me to my allies.

Shinigami02 wrote:

Blake's Tiger wrote:

I didn't remember to get this into the survey, but hopefully other people mention it: free actions without triggers wait until the character's turn to activate under baseline rules; if the Commander granted free actions are meant to trigger on the Commander's action, then they need reference to the Commander's action being the trigger. And if not, that needs to be more clear in the class/feature description.

Given it's not their own thing giving them the Free Action, but someone else actively giving them the ability to take the Free Action, that probably innately counts as the Trigger. Which to be fair has Precedent going all the way back to the original PF2e CRB, with Liberator Champions' Liberating Step. Unless you'd argue that doesn't let the ally Step when it goes off, and instead they have to wait for their turn, in which case... I think you're the minority opinion on that one.

I assumed the Commander's action served as a trigger for the granted free actions until a GM during the playtest pointed out the rule on free actions. Player Core pg. 15

However, they're writing an entire book with the new class in it. We shouldn't have to rely on assumption and referring to pre-remaster class features that don't work well without ignoring a printed rule when they can just slip into the Tactics rules text a line to the effect of, "Free actions granted by a tactic can be used even when it's not your turn."

Under the Tactic class ability, and in "Preparing and Changing Tactics" the text said "These are combat techniques and coordinated maneuvers

Enabling them to respond looks like rules text that enables your squad-mates to take advantage of the granted reactions or free actions based on the specific tactic used. Is there something I am missing?

Under the Tactic class ability, and in "Preparing and Changing Tactics" the text said "These are combat techniques and coordinated maneuvers

you can instruct your allies in, enabling them to respond
to your signals in combat." And "When you drill, you can
instruct a total number of allies equal to 2 plus your
Intelligence modifier, enabling these allies to respond
to your tactics in combat; these allies are referred to as
your squadmates"

Enabling them to respond looks like rules text that enables your squad-mates to take advantage of the granted reactions or free actions based on the specific tactic used. Is there something I am missing?

First, there's no problem with the granted Reactions. The rules for Reactions explicitly state they happen immediately (and there's no text stating if they lack a trigger they occur during your turn like Free Actions have).

What you're doing is reading the text in a way that supports how you (and I) believe the feature should work.

What you're missing is that the text you quoted makes no mention of timing to override the rules text of Free Actions. "Enabling these allies to respond to your tactics in combat" does not grant "immediate" response or response "outside your turn."

And I have experienced at least one GM who reads it such that the Free Actions must wait. Where there is one, there are more, and they are technically correct. So, again, why not throw a few extra words in there to remove ambiguity?

I'm really looking forward to the revamped Guardian. The core theme is such a compelling one that I know a lot of players will likely enjoy, we just need to see it deliver on the theme a little better. And with the the way Paizo has historically generally nailed releases after the playtest feedback, I'm really looking forward to this release.

I recently ran a solo AP / playtest of a campaign I gm'd 2 years ago. The Guardian basically solo'd the final boss of Age of Ashes with the slight support of a caster keeping the boss on the ground. Obviously it was thanks to hampering sweeps that the boss never left the ground again, but guardian is imo on of the craziest classes you ever printed.

The class is overpowered but not with their core abilities. Taunt is a super hero already, but only if you use it on range. It's perfect for time where you tank the boss and then taunt everything running to the backline on 120ft. Just stop taunting the moment the enemy is around you. Intercept strike was in my testing completely useless besides 1 or 2 crits throughout the campaign, which is alright for a free ability.

The class chassis itself with the feats turns it into on of the best classes ever printed.

That's the whole problem: the class overperformed if you relied on a grossly overpowered feat and on something that is frankly silly in a 120' range taunt (effectively another overpowered feat).

Using taunt in melee was an awful idea in general as lowering your AC was a bad idea when things can hit you, vs hitting your friend and then getting resistence to eat that damage with Intercept Strike. Intercept Strike had its own issues in that it doesn't use your AC and while it took the damage it didn't take other effects, so your friend still gets grabbed somehow.

This stuff is all fixable, like having Intercept Strike make you the target of the attack outright instead of your ally (which would make your high AC matter), but if you just rely on the overpowered feats it gives a very distorted view of where the class is. The core chassis was in rough shape.

I found the playtest experience completely underwhelming.

Given I thought the “core chassis” of the Guardian both off-type and poorly implemented, and with the lack of real-time feedback from the devs to ameliorate or even address what *I* and clearly lots of others who took the time to post similar concerns; coupled with the glaring omissions in the underbaked survey (essentially, in the rather slim Guardian survey, focused on Taunt and little else) I don’t have any faith that the Guardian will actually get the work it deserved or needs.

I wondered about the relevance/usefulness of various opinions, for a bit of guidance on what the devs were looking for early on, and Michael replied that the devs didn’t want to affect *how* we playtested, or *what* kind of feedback they would get - “true” data as opposed to “forced” data. I don’t think that tension does actually prevent the devs from early “guidance” as to things they don’t think are a concern, or if they want us to stress test certain things - if leaving certain things out (or outlandish!) is the point, then at least make that clear so we don’t spend thousands of posts opining about things that aren’t really being considered.

How many posts did Michael or Jason make during the playtest period in the playtest forum? And if they were prevented from making more because of “reasons” (busy with other assignments/things, didn’t see anything particularly egregious to clear up, or given guidance *not to*) I’d personally like to know what those reasons are, much as that might be incredibly entitled.

I basically was left with the feeling that nothing I (and a whole passel of other posters) was/were saying was important, and that the survey was so hopelessly skewed (by the small number of things *actually* being asked about)that my concerns were likely equally unimportant.

None of which is, to me the most important thing: that, to me, the Guardian needed serious attention before the playtest period was over, so that we could then, you know, playtest the revision. My group was split on whether Threat Techniques were a choice each round, or chosen in stone at 1st level. We had no way to judge whether intercepting a Grab stopped whatever riders were attached, or the damage, or just the damage but not the Grab. I just felt…abandoned and bereft of agency, when what I really wanted to do (apart from endlessly opine and rail) was to provide useful feedback.

By the time I got to the Open Survey I just….stopped. I had no desire, after the survey, to go on. If the entire Guardian Forum hadn’t made a range of pain points abundantly clear, then I couldn’t see the point. And that is entirely on me.

None of which is, to me the most important thing: that, to me, the Guardian needed serious attention before the playtest period was over, so that we could then, you know, playtest the revision.

But the whole purpose of playtesting is to aid the designers/developers, and not the testers.

And the service is really useful! You are solving internal debates. You have no way of knowing what these look like, the context, the research, etc. that motivated them...

But [be]we have to assume that what is tested stems from these controversies.[/b] Otherwise, what's there to test? If the design was fully polished, we'd be doing editing/errata hunting instead.

I hope you get that your spontaneous gut feeling, unguided, is much more powerful to solve these dilemmas than any conversation you could have with Paizo's team. When the product is out on the shelves, that's mostly how it's going to feel.

I found the playtest experience completely underwhelming.

Given I thought the “core chassis” of the Guardian both off-type and poorly implemented, and with the lack of real-time feedback from the devs to ameliorate or even address what *I* and clearly lots of others who took the time to post similar concerns; coupled with the glaring omissions in the underbaked survey (essentially, in the rather slim Guardian survey, focused on Taunt and little else) I don’t have any faith that the Guardian will actually get the work it deserved or needs.

I wondered about the relevance/usefulness of various opinions, for a bit of guidance on what the devs were looking for early on, and Michael replied that the devs didn’t want to affect *how* we playtested, or *what* kind of feedback they would get - “true” data as opposed to “forced” data. I don’t think that tension does actually prevent the devs from early “guidance” as to things they don’t think are a concern, or if they want us to stress test certain things - if leaving certain things out (or outlandish!) is the point, then at least make that clear so we don’t spend thousands of posts opining about things that aren’t really being considered.

How many posts did Michael or Jason make during the playtest period in the playtest forum? And if they were prevented from making more because of “reasons” (busy with other assignments/things, didn’t see anything particularly egregious to clear up, or given guidance *not to*) I’d personally like to know what those reasons are, much as that might be incredibly entitled.

I basically was left with the feeling that nothing I (and a whole passel of other posters) was/were saying was important, and that the survey was so hopelessly skewed (by the small number of things *actually* being asked about)that my concerns were likely...

I'm not as worried about the process or outcome. i think they will do a fine job with the class.

I found the playtest experience completely underwhelming.

I mean, the Guardian was a class I expected to love since my #1 ask since the original PF2 CRB playtest was "let me play a Champion that isn't tied to deific worship". But expecting to love the Guardian probably set me up for a disappointment because I genuinely did not enjoy playing the class at all. Taunt specifically just doesn't do anything for me, and that seems to be the essential nature of the class. I liked Hampering Sweeps, but apparently that can't exist in the final release.

I guess my hope is for a class archetype to let me play a Rivethun Champion, or an Animist Champion, or a Sangpotshi Champion, or a Pantheist Champion instead.

But unlike other playtests, this one made me sad.

I found the playtest experience completely underwhelming.

Given I thought the “core chassis” of the Guardian both off-type and poorly implemented, and with the lack of real-time feedback from the devs to ameliorate or even address what *I* and clearly lots of others who took the time to post similar concerns; coupled with the glaring omissions in the underbaked survey (essentially, in the rather slim Guardian survey, focused on Taunt and little else) I don’t have any faith that the Guardian will actually get the work it deserved or needs.

I wondered about the relevance/usefulness of various opinions, for a bit of guidance on what the devs were looking for early on, and Michael replied that the devs didn’t want to affect *how* we playtested, or *what* kind of feedback they would get - “true” data as opposed to “forced” data. I don’t think that tension does actually prevent the devs from early “guidance” as to things they don’t think are a concern, or if they want us to stress test certain things - if leaving certain things out (or outlandish!) is the point, then at least make that clear so we don’t spend thousands of posts opining about things that aren’t really being considered.

How many posts did Michael or Jason make during the playtest period in the playtest forum? And if they were prevented from making more because of “reasons” (busy with other assignments/things, didn’t see anything particularly egregious to clear up, or given guidance *not to*) I’d personally like to know what those reasons are, much as that might be incredibly entitled.

I basically was left with the feeling that nothing I (and a whole passel of other posters) was/were saying was important, and that the survey was so hopelessly skewed (by the small number of things *actually* being asked about)that my concerns were likely...

TBH I believe what you describe is pretty much the usual MO for playtests.

I can't imagine Hampering Sweeps is totally going away--it's maybe the part of the class that most universally actually let them do what they're supposed to do--but it definitely needs a nerf. As much as I loved the idea of playing a guardian sprite and getting a no-save Immobilize by flying into their squares yelling "HEY!! LISTEN!!"

oh god i already made this joke on this exact thread throw me in a river

I did not get the chance to participate in the surveys due to… well, life issues.

I hated the Guardian’s slower weapon proficiency progression when compared to the other martial classes and it never quite felt right during play at 5th level. Come on, my battle-hardened Tanky Guy is only as good with his martial weapon as an Alchemist with the same weapon and a general feat; worse even than an investigator’s weapon progression? Bogus! Well, I guess he’s comparable to a Warpriest, at least… but, still! :)

Taunt was a little awkward, too.

But, what if Taunt was less about just giving a penalty to enemy attack rolls via a Will save and/or essentially negating the Guardian’s AC advantage and more about giving the Guardian a Status bonus to striking enemies that have not attacked or otherwise targeted the Guardian yet over the course of the previous round? Maybe even give the Guardian a movement bonus when approaching one of these enemies that dares to ignore the Guardian, but only if they can end that movement to be within weapon’s reach of the enemy? The Guardian can be about diverting enemy attention just as much as about protecting allies. I bet the enemy will pay more attention to him once they realize he’s coming for them with a bonus to hit, if they don’t.

Also, we need a “He’s Mine!” Feat for the Guardian that can make us think of scenes like the one in Highlander where the Kurgan stalks Connor MacLeod across the battlefield.

guardian really is the most boring class on paper

they really need something fancy like deflect catapult shot with shield

I really don't know if any developer will read or even respond to what I'm going to post, what I'm sure of is that obviously and as expected, there will be a lot of hate from the community here, normal, but screw it lol, anyway, regarding the Guardian specifically, I think reading the FFXIV TTRPG tank can help a lot, in it I feel the true tank intention, personally I found it infinitely better than Pathfinder.

I really don't know if any developer will read or even respond to what I'm going to post, what I'm sure of is that obviously and as expected, there will be a lot of hate from the community here, normal, but screw it lol, anyway, regarding the Guardian specifically, I think reading the FFXIV TTRPG tank can help a lot, in it I feel the true tank intention, personally I found it infinitely better than Pathfinder.

FFXIV tanks effortlessly get everything to attack them because their abilities generate so much threat that just hitting anything with an AoE sticks everything to you... and FFXIV Warriors in particular are tanking while also acting as the main healer in all the light party (4 player) content in the game, which is rather annoying if you're the healer in that group.

I really don't think they should be used as an example for TTRPGs.

Unfortunately from what I have gathered about the FFXIV tabletop rpg is that they are making the mmo into a tabletop rpg instead of the tttrpg being inspired by the mmo. Somethings don't translate well when you try to make the mechanics of a video game into a ttrpg since making an aggro system in a ttrpg can be tricky. See D&D 4th edition that took inspiration from video games at that time to try to reach a wider audience. So I would personally try to avoid that problem with the Guardian.

I have seen it else well suggested that Taunt could give a condition to the target. Maybe the target takes a penalty to their attacks and DCs if they don't target the Guardian. Something like that maybe?

The more a TTRPG is like an MMO the less I'm probably going to like it. Let each medium speak to its strengths. Like a tank in PF2 does not need a draw aggro mechanic because positioning is so important. Taunt would be unnecessary if hampering sweeps were available.

Incidentally, if y'all want to check out "Final Fantasy but a tabletop game", check out Beacon. It's a fantastic and incredibly unique ttrpg that embraces its role as 90% combat simulator. One of the core rules is, "If the rules say you can do it, make it make sense. If the rules say you can't, make that make sense." There's no effort at all towards simulation, and it's almost kind of freeing. It's a game that knows exactly what it wants to be.

It's a completely different kind of game from PF2, of course. Like, I might say that GURPS is more similar to PF2 than Beacon is to either of them. But it goes to show how versatile TTRPGs actually are!

The more a TTRPG is like an MMO the less I'm probably going to like it. Let each medium speak to its strengths. Like a tank in PF2 does not need a draw aggro mechanic because positioning is so important. Taunt would be unnecessary if hampering sweeps were available.

The roleplay part of TTRPG doesn't meet well the aggro mechanics of MMORPGs. That said the same couldn't said about outher JRPGs solution to same problem. FFIII, FFV knights have cover ability that allows a char to intercept enemy strikes using its own defensive power like commander's Defensive Swap does. This works pretty well in TTRPGs.