Hellknight

HeHateMe's page

Organized Play Member. 1,144 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Squiggit wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
It's pathetic imo that 2E is so inflexible and restrictive that it can't support as common and popular a concept as "shapeshifter". I mean, almost every genre of fiction, not to mention RPGs, has shapeshifters. Everything from fantasy to superheroes to sci-fi has shapeshifters.

Why do you think it's a 2e limitation? It's not like PF2e lacking this kind of class is somehow missing something essential to the fiction, D&D lineage games have never cared much for dedicated shapeshifting.

Like, shapeshifters are really cool and I wish there was more mechanical support in PF2e, but it's bizarre to talk about the failures of PF2 and "common and popular" concepts when the thing people in this thread are asking for has literally never existed in any edition of Pathfinder or D&D.

Quote:
It's sad that 2E limits that concept to those awful battle form spells.

This is an especially weird take, imo, since battle form spells are probably one of the best implementations of the mechanic we have in d20. It solves the SRD problem of relying on innate physical statistics for shapeshifting, which undermined both the mechanics and the fantasy of the concept, without running into the overhead and jank that something like 5e's shapeshifting does.

The numbers on battle forms are generally tuned to only be pretty good rather than full martial, but that's a mechanical concession to the nature of the spells, not some fundamental systemic failing.

I'm not entirely sure why you would say no edition of D&D has ever had a shapeshifter when 1E had the Shifter, as well as Wild Shape options for several other classes, not to mention Strength-based Druids who actually benefitted from Wild Shape, unlike 2E Druids who can't use Strength. And Wild Shape in 1E was really flexible and actually worth using, unlike the 2E Battle Forms which are underpowered, restrictive and limiting.

Thing is, I can understand why they'd make battle forms so bad, since they're being used by full casters with many other abilities. What I don't understand is why there isn't a viable non-caster shapeshifter class option when so many people have been asking for one for years. Instead they're developing the Guardian, which almost nobody asked for and most people hate *sigh*.


exequiel759 wrote:
2e has shapeshifter. Untamed druids and any caster with a polymorph spell does that. You don't like them, and most people don't, but that's far from "PF2e is so inflexible and restrictive that it can have a shapeshifter".

Those are just spells that most casters have access to. That's not the same as a character whose main ability is shapeshifting, in the same way that a character doesn't have the ability to "control fire" just cause they know the Fireball spell.


Ryangwy wrote:

I mean, the 'problem' with shifter is that there's three concepts people want that can't really be the same class:

1. The 'wild shifter', drawing heavily on the untamed druid and animal barbarian, that shifts into forms with strong unarmed attacks and widespread mobility options, at the cost of no hands. Most of the power budget is going towards the attack options and mobility, and feats largely enhance these. At later levels, might unlock elemental damage or breath attacks, but still firmly in the realms of being a single kind of physical attacker at a time.

2. The 'aberrant shifter', focusing on flexibility and bizarreness. Wants to be able to mix-and-match features from forms, and early access to 'weird' things like resistances, ooze immunities, 15ft reach tentacles and the like. Ability to pull defensive and utility tricks out of a hat means anemic base attacks.

3. The 'doppelganger', focused on being to imitate anybody. Heavy skill focus, retains ability to use weapons and spells, likely have extremely weak combat morphing ability to make up for that (possibly an expanded untamed form that includes more form spells)

Needless to say, they can't all be the same class, power budget wise. And no, class archetypes aren't the solution either, each one wants to chop up forms in a different way. Probably the issue with commiting to a shifter is that although the combined voice calling for one is large, it's split across mutually incompatible concepts, so the actual audience is about half that size.

The Doppelganger was never part of the 1E Shifter's skill set, so I have no idea why that would need to be included in a Shifter class. The first two options you mentioned are more than feasible in one class, they would just be considered subclasses. That said, it really doesn't matter cuz we're never getting an actual shapeshifter class.

It's pathetic imo that 2E is so inflexible and restrictive that it can't support as common and popular a concept as "shapeshifter". I mean, almost every genre of fiction, not to mention RPGs, has shapeshifters. Everything from fantasy to superheroes to sci-fi has shapeshifters.

It's sad that 2E limits that concept to those awful battle form spells.


Angwa wrote:

Shifter and Synthesist Summoner could be combined into a single Summoner Class Archetype, perhaps?

Lose Act Together, Share Senses and Manifest Eidolon. Give it martial progression and a 1 action focus cantrip 'Shift into Eidolon Form', gaining its armor, attacks, evolutions, etc. Gear would be absorbed into the form, but it wouldn't count as a battle form.

In return for losing Act Together and the Eidolon as a separate entity lets reduce the action cost of Evolution Surge to 1 while shifted and give it the additional option to grant an evolution feat of a level up to spellrank.

And because it might still need something to not be a downgrade from a regular summoner perhaps something like the fighter's Combat Flexibility class feature, but for evolution feats.

That wouldn't work. The Synthesist Summoner merges with his/her Eidolon to become one being. That has nothing to do with shapeshifting. Entirely different concepts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As much as I'd love to see a Shifter class in 2E, I've given up on ever getting that. If Paizo didn't introduce it in Howl of the Wild, then we're never getting it. Too bad, because I think Kineticist provides the perfect template for a Shifter class. Obviously they'd have to replace the elemental powers with body morphing type abilities, but it's very feasible.

Since Shifter obviously ain't gonna happen, the other thing I'd love to see is a Synthesist Summoner. I'm more optimistic we'll get this one than the Shifter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Every time someone says "I want this class" and someone else replies "That should just be an archetype" I laugh. It's like "What about the current archetypes gives you hope that future ones won't suck?". I mean, they're mostly terrible. Not sidegrades, but straight downgrades for the most part. Not all, there are a few good ones, but those are few and far between. Every time I get excited about an upcoming archetype I always end up disappointed by the final product. It's inevitable.

The latest archetype to break my heart is Swarmkeeper. What a waste of space. Why even bother creating that thing when the only purpose it seems to have is making your character worse?

No, I'll continue asking for full classes, thank you. They're mostly far better than archetypes with a few exceptions (Alchemist, Oracle).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The only issue I see with Rangers is Hunt Prey burns up so many actions in fights against multiple enemies. That said, if you're a Flurry Ranger with Twin Takedown, you can make up those actions. Precision is good too, especially with an Animal Companion. Poor Outwit is really weak tho.

I dunno what OP is talking about with the Focus spells are weak comment. Imo, Rangers have some of the best Focus spells of any martial (Gravity Weapon, Animal Feature, Soothing Mist).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Shifter! I want a martial class with shapeshifting that's much more flexible and impactful than those underpowered, restrictive polymorph spells. I get why current battle forms are so weak; because they're balanced for use by a full caster. Well I don't want spellcasting, I just want to turn into a bear or shark or giant spider or whatever and be awesome in that form. Also, I want forms to last longer.

Unfortunately I doubt this will ever happen. There seems to be a real hesitation to create a martial class that can do something besides hit things with a sharp stick. I hope I'm wrong tho.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Exocist wrote:
Bluemagetim wrote:
You gave me some new ideas for threat techniques. These ideas make taunt more worth wile and create some interaction between guardian abilities but don't address the accuracy issues with the class.

Strike accuracy issues don't need to be addressed if hitting things for damage isn't the point of the class.

I would still prefer that they are addressed and the Guardian has the same weapon progression as a Champion, but it's not strictly necessary.

Guardian is a martial weapon and heavy armor wearing martial class, with no magic. No way should it be stuck with the same weapon proficiency advancement as an Alchemist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm loving this errata cycle news!!


Kobold Catgirl wrote:

This is incredibly petty, and a little off-topic, but I'd feel stupid making a whole other thread for it. I don't like Taunt's name. It's driving me nuts, actually.

To be clear, I'm normally all for embracing a more "video gamey" feel. Video games are fun and flow smoothly, so they're often great to emulate. I'm not mad specifically because it's an MMO-linked word. Heck, my associations are probably more with kender than Warcraft. which isn't helping

My problem is that I think it is better that players--especially new players--always be given clear prompts on their sheet for how to flavor their actions. Strike is easy. Feint is easy. Demoralize is easy. Exploit Vulnerability is easy. Reactive Strike is easy. Bon Mot is... well, it's a feat, so it's at least opt-in. But Taunt? Sure, Taunt makes sense to the seasoned gamers familiar with the terminology. Its mechanical meaning is immediately apparent to those gamers. But even for them, its flavor meaning remains unintuitive.

"I Taunt the enemy warrior." Okay, so it's Charisma-based? Well, no.

"I Taunt the snake." Okay, so you're... insulting it?

"I Taunt the ooze." Look, when Thaumaturges pull off weird crap, at least they're explicitly magic.

Of course I can easily reskin the ability! I can read the description and be like, "oh, okay, so it's like, I'm presenting a threat they have to address first. I'm drawing their focus. I'm provoking them. I'm luring them. I'm forcing an engagement." But that just makes me wonder why it's not called Present Threat, or Draw Focus, or Provoke, or Lure, or Force Engagement.

Spare a thought to the player who's been handed a pregen, told what the abilities do mechanically, and expected to reflavor their Skeleton Taunt on the fly. Spare a thought to the GM whose serious tone gets derailed by players adlibbing what snake mockery should sound like.

Again, it's petty. In fact, I'm being a little silly here. But this is the playtest, and that seems like the best time to air issues...

I'm with ya, it should be called "Challenge" or something like that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I play both games but I enjoy 1E more. 2E definitely has better, cleaner, more streamlined rules, no doubt. But for me it's not alot of fun, mostly because the classes are very one-dimensional and really "samey". Martial classes have a template they mostly follow, and Casters have a template they mostly follow. I just don't see much difference between classes.

Customization wise, there's not much I feel I can do with a 2E character either. Once Ancestry, Background and Class have been selected, the character is basically on rails. Class feats are mostly underwhelming, Skill Feats are easily the worst thing about the system, and archetypes in general are very weak and in many cases make your character worse, not better.

It's really too bad, because the 2E rules set is vastly superior, but the actual fun of the game took a big step back imo.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Megistone wrote:

I've got an objection. If a class with 10 HP/level, the best AC of the game, extra damage reduction from armor and Shield Block goes down with two hits, every other character would have faced the same fate or worse.

PF2e isn't really a game where a single character can tank alone for long, Guardian or not.

Good critique about Hampering Sweeps.

The reason the Guardian keeps going down so fast is because the class mechanics make you give up that high AC and HP. Taunt wipes out that high AC and makes you very vulnerable to a competent enemy. Intercept Strike gives up your HP because your taking a hit for someone else.

Guardian isn't really a tank so much as a "Designated Loser", designed to go down instead of another (more capable and important) party member.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:

The battle forms need some work in PF2 or they need a shapechange spell for infiltration. By the rules, you can't even talk in dragon form or any battle form which is just egregiously bad design, especially for druids who can stay in form long enough to convince something they are a dragon or elemental or what not.

I believe they have a ritual for a persistent servant that doesn't require sustain. But rituals are a pain to use for casters requiring groups to execute.

For me, the constant growing in size is the biggest issue with battle forms. Large size isn't hard to accommodate, but there are alot of places where Huge size is impossible. Form Control is a very poor solution. Personally, I feel like Large should be the biggest size for alot of battle forms, Huge can be a real pain.

In 1E, the difference in stats between a Large and Huge size form wasn't very big, so I never felt like I NEEDED to be Huge, it was there if I wanted it. In 2E, the Stat differences are significant and I feel like being as big as you can be is the only way to keep up. I was hoping they would address battle forms in the Remaster but they never did.

Yep. The battle forms could use some work to make them more playable and sensible. The stats aren't as bad as I initially thought, but the size and talking issues are a pain. Why would a dragon or a righteous might cleric not be able to talk in a battle form? That is just ridiculous.

But at least they are usable all the way to 20 unlike summons, which are unusable combat for most levels.

Another issue I have with Untamed Form specifically is this business with using your own unarmed attack modifier and getting +2 to hit, but apparently only if your unarmed attack modifier is already higher than the battle form's. Ummm...What?? If someone wants to play a Strength Druid and really lean hard into battle forms, I don't see why they shouldn't have that option. After all, they're likely giving up some Wisdom and some spell attack power to maximize their battle forms. Why isn't that allowed? And if the devs don't want Strength Druids, why mention it at all? Currently I think that unarmed modifier rule only applies in like 3 or 4 levels during a Druid's career.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

The battle forms need some work in PF2 or they need a shapechange spell for infiltration. By the rules, you can't even talk in dragon form or any battle form which is just egregiously bad design, especially for druids who can stay in form long enough to convince something they are a dragon or elemental or what not.

I believe they have a ritual for a persistent servant that doesn't require sustain. But rituals are a pain to use for casters requiring groups to execute.

For me, the constant growing in size is the biggest issue with battle forms. Large size isn't hard to accommodate, but there are alot of places where Huge size is impossible. Form Control is a very poor solution. Personally, I feel like Large should be the biggest size for alot of battle forms, Huge can be a real pain.

In 1E, the difference in stats between a Large and Huge size form wasn't very big, so I never felt like I NEEDED to be Huge, it was there if I wanted it. In 2E, the Stat differences are significant and I feel like being as big as you can be is the only way to keep up. I was hoping they would address battle forms in the Remaster but they never did.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thing is, I've never heard a single person complain that they can't "trivialize encounters" with magic in 2E. What I keep hearing, which also matches my experience playing casters, is that spells mostly miss or get saved/critically saved against by their targets.

Wanting to be successful at least half the time isn't the same thing as wanting to "trivialize encounters". That's the problem with magic in 2E in a nutshell: it very rarely works, at least against competent opponents.

That's something that needs to be addressed in any next edition, however many years in the future that is. Paizo might be losing out on alot of players based on the number of ppl I've seen give up on this game after trying to play casters and getting frustrated.


AestheticDialectic wrote:

I thought we were done with the objectively and demonstrably incorrect take that magic sucks in this game, and that we were done with this notion years ago

I'll also say, I don't see how you can get away with using whatever spells you wanted in PF1 even in adventure paths unless you had a DM who purposefully nerfed encounters around you

The "something sucks/no it doesn't" debates are never over. Whether the topic is magic, Alchemists, or Archetypes. If something is underperforming based on someone's expectations and/or previous experiences, they're going to say "it sucks". Meanwhile, the people whose expectations are largely being met will respond with "no it doesn't".

Bottom line, this is all personal perspective. As someone who loved Wild Shape and Alchemists in 1E, I consider the 2E versions of these things abominations and hate them. Alchemist and battle forms do have their supporters in 2E though. Now let's say someone deeply loved magic in 1E, then they might consider the 2E magic system an abomination as well.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I do miss all the customization available in 1E. In 2E I feel like characters are "on rails". Like once I choose Ancestry, Background and Class, it feels like there isn't much I can really do to customize that character. Most class feats aren't very interesting or impactful (though some are), and skill feats are one of the worst things in the game in my view. I dread having to choose those.

I guess archetypes are supposed to help with that, but in practice the vast majority of archetypes are really weak and just don't offer much.

I don't really see much difference between floor and ceiling for most builds, which I guess is either a feature or bug, depending on your point of view.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would be very surprised if Champion got nerfed in PC2. Also, I'd be very surprised if Guardian didn't get buffed some in the final release version of that class.


Deriven Firelion wrote:

And the PF1 martials hit easier, did more damage, and had better magic weapons and feats. Yet apparently you feel ok playing PF2 martials.

PF2 casters magic was reduced to make a more balanced and playable game. Same as martials were reduced in power.

PF2 casters are still extremely powerful and capable of doing more damage than martials. I do it all the time. There are huge shifts as you level in terms of what martials can do and what casters can do same as in PF1. It's not as big a shift as PF1, but it's still there.

Casters have always had a slower power build than martials with a higher ceiling. That hasn't changed in PF2 save for the power gap not being as wide.

Regarding 1E Martials, no argument here. Every time I played a martial in 1E my character tore every enemy in half. I was never one of those ppl who complained about martials in 1E. I never understood those complaints myself. A 2E martial is still quite good however, even if they don't hit quite as often.

Here's the thing, I don't doubt you at all when you say higher level casters are powerful. I personally have never played games that high level so I don't have that experience. Problem is, it's hard to get that experience when the people who play casters keep rage quitting cuz "casters suck".


Mellored wrote:

Taunt isn't good.

It kind of works to get an enemy close.

But once they are next to you, you either spend an as action to give them +2 to hit you, or they can just walk way. Neither is a good option.

That +2 to save DCs is really harsh too. Makes it far easier to take down a Guardian with poison, disease, fear or some other Fort or Will effect.

Taunt is just a mess altogether.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
In 1E, the spells themselves were much better (even at low level), casters could cast more spells per day, and monster AC and save modifiers were generally lower. Add that all together and casters in 1E were far more powerful. I played alot of divine casters in 1E and really enjoyed them. I won't touch a caster in 2E tho, they're really weak at the levels I've played at.
We're talking about the same low levels? In PF1 a Caster with an 18 could cast their first level spell 2 times and then they were more or less useless for the remainder of the day. Sure, some of those level 1 spells worked really well sometimes, but you often wanted to have more than 2 fights in a day. Just cantrips being useful is an incredible buff to low level casters.

Sure, Sleep and Confusion were very powerful for low level spells. And spell slots were much more plentiful. That said, attack cantrips are much, MUCH better in 2E.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
People say PF2 casters are worse than PF1 casters at low levels? Did they ever play a PF1 sorcerer? Are they just talking about like 2 witch builds that were playable at low levels? Goal posts move so fast in “fix caster” conversations it can be hard to keep up. I think the one complaint I can identify consistently in those conversations is “why can’t my caster super specialize in casting a handful of spells and always have those work?” And I think the answer is “because that was identified as a problem, not a feature of PF1’s casting mechanic for the developers who wanted choosing spells to be an encounter by encounter decision, not a character build restriction.

In 1E, the spells themselves were much better (even at low level), casters could cast more spells per day, and monster AC and save modifiers were generally lower. Add that all together and casters in 1E were far more powerful. I played alot of divine casters in 1E and really enjoyed them. I won't touch a caster in 2E tho, they're really weak at the levels I've played at.


Deriven Firelion wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Every single caster I've played to high level is literally the strongest group member able to crush encounters like no other character in the group can do other than another high level caster.
That's the issue right there, "high level". Only a very small percentage of campaigns get to high level, so most people are playing casters at levels where they SUCK. Martials work just fine right out of the box but casters have to be "aged" like 8 or 9 levels before they start working right. Not many people have that kind of patience, at least in my experience.

I've advised people on how to manage the low levels, which many don't seem to want to do for some reason.

The class chassis show the progression:

A caster starts out trained in weapons, usually simple with the ability to take feats to obtain a better weapon. For early levels casters should be combining cantrip casting with weapon attacks to maintain damage parity with martials.

They should have a fully built out striking weapon, preferably ranged, and using 1 action ranged attack with a ranged cantrip save.

This allows round to round parity with damage. It may not be exactly equal, but you should do good damage combining the two options.

Early on and really throughout all your levels, casters are 2 points behind martials on weapon proficiency with most martials advancing to master weapon proficiency versus casters maximizing to expert.

So maintaining a decent 1 attack built out weapon option prior to obtaining higher level slots, more spells slots, and enough wealth to build scrolls or use casting items to extend casting should carry you in early levels to do decent damage.

I believe this is intended by design. Early casters are supposed to rely on weapons to maintain damage parity.

Why do I think they built it this way?

Because if they had made cantrips as strong as weapon attacks, then min-max casters would have taken a weapon anyway and cast their equivalent to...

I think you misunderstood me, I'm not the one frustrated with playing casters, I prefer martials anyway. I'm talking about the many players I've seen coming from 5E or PF 1E who get frustrated with 2E casters and quit.

I avoid casters because I have no patience for them, but all the disgruntled players leaving games cause the 2E casters aren't meeting their expectations is disruptive and frustrating to me as someone who wants to keep a regular game going.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Every single caster I've played to high level is literally the strongest group member able to crush encounters like no other character in the group can do other than another high level caster.

That's the issue right there, "high level". Only a very small percentage of campaigns get to high level, so most people are playing casters at levels where they SUCK. Martials work just fine right out of the box but casters have to be "aged" like 8 or 9 levels before they start working right. Not many people have that kind of patience, at least in my experience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Taunt needs a significant boost and some feat support in the final version. Right now, Taunt is only useful as a ranged debuff, because it's far too risky and punitive for the Guardian to Taunt an enemy that's in melee range. Frankly, it's barely useful as a ranged debuff anyway, considering how high most monsters attack bonuses are, -2 to hit makes very little difference.

I'd add a damage debuff as well as an attack roll debuff on Taunt, and get rid of that ridiculous buff for attacking the Guardian. Instead of buffing the enemy when it attacks the Guardian, just have the debuff not apply as long as the enemy continues targeting the Guardian. That would actually justify using an action to Taunt. Also, the name really needs to change, call it Challenge or something.


RPG-Geek wrote:
I don't see what the Guardian is actively doing to stand out and take their share of the spotlight in battle.

That's what I've been saying as well. To be a priority target, you have to be some sort of threat, like a fireball-tossing Sorcerer or a giant raging Barbarian. Taunt isn't mind control, and any intelligent enemy can immediately dismiss the Guardian as a threat once that enemy has seen how poorly they swing their sword. An intelligent enemy would save the Guardian for last, after killing the rest of the party.

To really do their job as a Defender, the Guardian needs more OFFENSE.


Thank you for writing this summary, very helpful!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluemagetim wrote:
I would just change the name remove the ac/dc penalty and leave it as a debuff effect at range. Guardain does needs something they can do from a distance since intercept strike incentivizes them to position themselves a certain way and they dont have great mobility in heavy armor.

This is an excellent idea, particularly if they provide some feat support for this version of Taunt.


Bluemagetim wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
In my view, if Champion can have normal martial attack progression AND legendary armor proficiency, I don't see why Guardian can't have it also. There are other differences between these two classes, there's no need to make one strictly worse than the other.
Maybe Guardian is not a tanky martial like a champion. Im thinking its a front line support like a warpriest. even in that role it has a lot to overcome but if weapon proficiency stays where its at warpriest support capacity is a better standard to compare to than a champion.

I don't think Guardian to Warpriest is a legit comparison because the Warpriest is a full caster and also a superb healer. Because the Warpriest is so much more versatile, Guardian should leave it in the dust when it comes to melee combat. Otherwise, why play a Guardian when Warpriest is so much better?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In my view, if Champion can have normal martial attack progression AND legendary armor proficiency, I don't see why Guardian can't have it also. There are other differences between these two classes, there's no need to make one strictly worse than the other.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:

One thing I can see happening in the next edition is the elimination of character classes. That trend has already begun, since in 2E, almost every class conforms to a generic martial or caster template, with only minor differences between classes from the same template.

This does not bead very much in common with the game as I have been playing it. Class vs classless design is a very different kind of choice than you might be implying, perhaps you're conflating the chassis (very similar because it mostly describes attack and save progression) with the actual class abilities? Because that would be like saying 1e Barbarian and Fighter are basically the same class because they both get full BAB, martial weapons, and good Fort. That the Rogue gets 3/4 BAB doesn't make it a distinct class, it makes it barely functional in the game's major gameplay loop, combat. All other class abilities appear in the form of class feats because one of the most popular things from 1e was the ability to take the same class and give it two different sets of abilities to match your character concept while having the same core chassis.

Not gonna tell you not to love 1e (I did for many years!) but this idea that class protection would go away the moment the designers thought they could get away doesn't feel terribly supported by the evidence we have currently at our disposal.

I mean, alot of this boils down to perception and feel. To me, 1E classes had alot more variations and differences between them than 2E classes. In 2E, I feel like martial classes are all really similar, and caster classes are all really similar. I struggle to even notice the differences between classes in 2E sometimes. That's why I feel classless design is the next step in this evolution. That said, I doubt we'd see a new edition any earlier than 8-10 years from now.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm a Pathfinder 1E fan and to this point I have not enjoyed 2E. That said, I'm not sure why any 1E fan would look forward to the next edition thinking it's going to be more like 1E. If anything, it's going to be an evolution of 2E.

One thing I can see happening in the next edition is the elimination of character classes. That trend has already begun, since in 2E, almost every class conforms to a generic martial or caster template, with only minor differences between classes from the same template. It would be easier and far more transparent to just get rid of classes altogether, and have players choose between a martial template or a caster template, and then just build their own "class" by picking from a list of available martial/caster class abilities and feats as they level up.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Broken Khree wrote:
Why does Guardian needs a normal proficiency progression? Because missing is not fun. In combat they do only two things, protect allies and hit things. They don't have the spellcasting versatility of the Warpriest, or the alchemy of the Alchemist. All they have is "I take damage, I am tough, and I hit things" And they are mediocre at being tough and hitting things. That does not sound like fun to play.

Couldn't agree more. In the end, this class is part of a game, which is meant to be fun. All the actual playtest posts I've seen have agreed on one thing: Guardian isn't fun to play.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm a much bigger fan of Pathfinder 1E than 2E myself. I personally find 2E quite dull, especially when it comes to character classes, which all look pretty much the same to me.

All that said, I think it's way too early for Paizo to be thinking about 3E. While I may not be a fan of 2E, I know that alot of people are, and announcing 3E would really annoy the 2E fanbase. Personally, I think Paizo needs to give 2E another 3-5 years at least before beginning the 3E Playtest.

Just my perspective as someone who's not a 2E fan.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
I mean what you're fundamentally describing is that the utility the guardian brings doesn't compensate for its offensive deficiencies. Giving the class damage steroids is one way to solve that but not necessarily the only one.

But give it so much defensive utility and you either (a) trivialize encounters, or (b) risk becoming unidimensional and useless in any situation that doesn't adapt to your specific niche (AC tanking).

Offensive power IS versatility.

But the Guardian has offensive power. Compared to a Champion, you deal precisely 12.7% less damage averaged on your whole career. That's way less than the Champion/Fighter difference and I've never seen anyone complaining about the Champion because of that.

A Guardian is a martial, and there's no way they should have attack proficiency equal to a Warpriest. Especially since the Warpriest is also a tremendous healer and has the versatility of being a full caster. The Guardian meanwhile, has no such versatility. It's my opinion that Guardian should have the same attack proficiency as Champion. Also, Weapon Specialization needs to be a class ability at 7th level rather than 11.

That's basically just making them equal to other martials, right now they're behind, without any out of combat versatility to make up for that gap.


SuperBidi wrote:
Red Griffyn wrote:
General Solution: A proper tank needs to be offensively decisive so as to avoid actions to kill or time to kill becoming prolonged for the party.

So you mean that a proper tank must be a proper offensive martial and as such either no more a tank or just an overpowered character.

I see a lot of people who likes Clerics and Champions in their party, so it seems that combat length is not so much of an issue.

Champions have no issue with their attacking power though. Clerics are casters and healers, they can fight with weapons but they don't really do what a Guardian is supposed to do.


I agree, a tank with caster-equivalent weapon attacks is very easy to ignore. The Guardian is basically a non-entity on offense and enemies can easily choose to kill everyone else and save them for last. Guardian should have Expert at 5 and Master at 13 with weapons like most other martial classes.


Mellored wrote:

How about they get some THP each round?

Guardians Toughness
At the start of your turn you gain temporary hit points equal to 2+your level.

Intercept Strike
Trigger A adjacent willing ally is the target of an attack roll. You and the ally immediately swap positions with each other, becomes the target instead.

THP that replenishes each round would go a long way towards addressing the issues with Guardian being so fragile.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Taunt is pretty bad imo, but I think there's a bigger issue with Guardian that Taunt is attempting to cover for: the Guardian is a complete non-entity offensively. It poses basically no threat so it can be safely ignored by the enemy. If the Guardian could hit hard and do damage, I don't think a gimmick like Taunt would even be needed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Teridax wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
When I read the Playtest document my immediate reaction to Taunt was "There must be some mistake here", it just seems like a really bad class feature. With that said, has anyone tried playtesting the Guardian without using Taunt at all? Call me crazy, but I feel like frequently using Taunt makes the Guardian worse, not better. I was wondering if anyone put that theory to the test.

I briefly tried a Bodyguard-centric Guardian who did nothing but Intercept Strikes and almost never Taunted. It was sort of okay, but also was just about one of the most boring and reductive playstyles I've experienced. Most of my actions boiled down to Striding towards whichever ally was taking the most heat, and spending the rest of my actions making Athletics maneuvers or Striking with a ranged weapon, depending on the enemy. At higher levels, you do get some feats that help with this, like Intercept Energy, but the whole way through I just felt like little more than a health battery, attaching myself to other people without doing all that much myself. My Strikes were mediocre, and Unkind Shove didn't feel like enough, not so much because the feat is weak (it's actually fairly decent), but because at that point it felt like I was Shoving only because I had nothing better to do, and sometimes it backfired by making enemies attack someone else instead.

A lot of this was also done also with enemies who weren't assumed to be too smart, and who were mostly melee, which I think was the best-case scenario for the Guardian. Against the few ranged enemies I used, the Guardian couldn't really do much except make ranged Strikes or Taunt if they wanted to stay in Intercept Strike range, and I imagine a smart enemy would be able to observe what's going on and just target someone else in the party. I did attempt a "Diver Down" kind of situation where the party all gathered around the Guardian so that the latter could Intercept Strikes for everyone, but that...

Thank you, I was curious about that.

1 to 50 of 1,144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>