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.
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. Thank you, I was curious about that.
I don't like the whole idea behind Taunt: making yourself vulnerable to entice enemies to hit you instead of your allies. That's not a good or fun approach. A better approach would be to replaced Taunt with a mechanic that PUNISHES the enemy for attacking anyone other than you. That's the way to be an effective tank.
Personally, I hope not. I really dislike the vast majority of archetypes I've seen to this point. They seem to be created mostly for flavor text and are pretty weak mechanically. Taking an archetype is like being penalized for wanting a certain flavor for your character. There are some exceptions of course (I like Sentinel, Bastion, Dual Weapon Warrior) but they're mostly bad. Also, Barbarian is one of the most restrictive and limited classes in 2E. A martial shapeshifter needs to be it's own class and not dragged down by archetype or Barbarian baggage.
If this taunting mechanic forces us to invest in Charisma and roll to beat a target number then that's a hard pass for me. I hate Charisma-based characters, just a matter of personal taste. Rather I'm hoping that it works more like Marking did in 4E; no roll required.
Yeah, what people want (at least what I want) from the Shifter is a class that shapeshifts without all the Druid baggage. No edicts/anathema, no spell slots, just someone who is very good at turning into animals. Yes exactly. However, Battle Forms would need to be considerably buffed as well to make a Shifter useful. Right now, they're pretty underpowered, slightly better than an Animal Companion. The reason they're so weak is cuz they're balanced to be used by full casters. Take away the spellcasting and Battle Forms will really underperform.
Will have to let the like dozen plus wild druids I've played with know this. They had no idea and spent most of their campaigns being extremely competent and effective characters Sure, but Untamed Form is not the only thing Druids have going for them. I was talking about a martial shapeshifter, they won't have any spells. Try playing a Druid without casting any spells other than Untamed Form, ever, then tell me how great UF is.
It really will be nice to see a support character option that isn't a caster and doesn't have to sing and dance to buff his or her comrades.
Personally I dislike classes like Oracle that are built around class abilities that feature benefit/drawback tradeoffs. Unlike 1E, where the benefits outweighed the drawbacks, in 2E the drawbacks nearly always outweigh the benefits. I want class abilities that make my character better, not worse. In my opinion, Oracle needs to go back to it's 1E roots. Separate curses and mysteries, and class feats need to be more like the Revelations from 1E instead of the generic caster feats. Just my own personal preferences.
Those big bad guys sure do love their gluten free diets
If we have to jump through so many loops to solve the -1 to AC, why don't remove it? As we already discussed the -1 AC goes against the basic idea of barbarians being tanks that shrug off blows as they get hit and crit more often.Yup, I think another solution could be that enemies now have to beat your lowered AC by +11 instead of +10 to crit, but that might be tricky to remember... Ummm...Conan is THE ORIGINAL Barbarian, and in the Robert Howard stories he was described as having the reflexes of a cobra, or a panther, when he went berserk. He hardly ever took a hit, bad guys would end up hitting each other cuz he was so fast. I wasn't as big a fan of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, tho I read a couple of their stories and I recall Fafhrd being fast and an excellent swordsman, not someone who stood around and got stabbed alot. The whole "face tanking" thing has nothing to do with Barbarians in literature. As far as I know, it was a D&D invention that Barbarians were too stupid to duck a hit.
As you mentioned, that shrugging off attacks fantasy no longer works cuz lowering AC opens Barbarians up to eating more crits. When I played a Barbarian I didn't feel tough at all, I felt extremely fragile. Not at all the experience I was expecting. Hopefully they dump the AC penalty in the Remaster, or if they want to keep it then Barbs need damage resistance from lvl 1. Temp HPs don't even come close to making up for the AC penalty.
Hopefully there will be some goodies in this book for Kineticists
Metal Carapace is hideously bad, no doubt about that. I was so excited to play a Metal Kineticist until I saw how bad alot of their abilities are.
Personally I'd be very surprised if there's a new class to playtest considering they're currently busy revamping the entire system. I enjoy playtests, but that seems like alot to ask right now. Then again, maybe I'm wrong?
I predict no more easy dipping into Champion for heavy armor and the champion's reaction. "I'm born again, time to strap on my Jesus Armor and smite some heathens!"
This is an excellent explanation. I think traps/snares have their place, mostly for a prepared ambush or if the party is resting in a location where ingress is restricted and can easily be trapped. As an in-combat tool tho, it's too difficult to pull off.
I'd like to see Uncommon and Rare take a hike, personally.
Personally, I dislike the fact that to get from 18 to 20 in an ability, I need to invest two ability boosts into it, but the first one provides me no benefit at all. I would prefer if the rules just said you can't reach 20 in an ability until 10th lvl, and allow us to use that 5th level ability boost somewhere else rather than being forced to waste it. It's also the only time an odd ability score is used in 2E, which is strange.
Personally, I'd like to see better options for gaining armor and weapon proficiency. One Feat should get you Trained proficiency, and depending on your class, get you Expert proficiency later on. It's very difficult in the current system to gain proficiency with armor and weapons that you don't start out proficient with. Just my .02.
I'm interested to see what changes Paizo has in mind for Cleric and Oracle. As someone who loved playing divine casters in 1E, I was very disappointed with both Cleric and Oracle in 2E, and the divine spell list in general.I'm hoping that spirit damage goes a long way to fixing that. That was my main issue when trying to build a divine caster. I'm not super big on always healing and enjoy being divine blasty, but that was hard to pull off in a satisfactory way until now. Yep, what I really liked about Clerics/Oracles in 1E was their versatility. You can heal\buff, you can blast with an attack spell, or you can crack skulls with a mace. In 2E, that versatility is gone. Cloistered Cleric walks around in robes, has no weapon skills and doesn't even have a decent attack cantrip, while the Warpriest unfortunately has accuracy issues with spells AND with weapons. I'm cautiously optimistic that at least a few of those issues will be addressed.
I'm interested to see what changes Paizo has in mind for Cleric and Oracle. As someone who loved playing divine casters in 1E, I was very disappointed with both Cleric and Oracle in 2E, and the divine spell list in general.
For me personally, 2E Barbarian Instincts feel like a poorly-conceived attempt to recreate the bloodlines of Bloodragers. There are so few Instinct-specific feats that the different instincts don't really feel much different from each other. Bloodrager bloodlines had much bigger differences between them. As a fan of the Bloodrager, I was bitterly disappointed with how samey all the Instincts felt. Unfortunately, the result is that we'll never see a 2E Bloodrager, since that concept has already been implemented, albeit in a very superficial way, in the 2E Barbarian.
Meh, at this point everything is speculation. I wouldn't get too excited or disappointed by anything right now. Wait until the final product and then make up your mind when you have all the information.
A few other changes I'd like to see: I mentioned this in a different discussion, but I'd like to see Barbarians lose Anathema. For me personally, imposing a code of conduct on a class known for violence and chaos is a bit jarring, I don't feel it fits. Also, I'd like to see the Linguistics skill make a comeback. I love having characters that speak multiple languages, probably because I only speak one. Maybe I've missed something but I haven't found any way to learn new languages as you level up in 2E.
This is just me, but I'd like to see Monks start off with Expert proficiency in Unarmed Attacks. Personally, I find it bizarre that Fighters make better unarmed combatants than Monks in some ways.
For my part, I find Thaumaturge too complex and fiddly, like most of the non-core classes. I feel like Paizo went too far nerfing anything non-core to avoid a certain crowd screaming about power creep. The result is that players need a great deal of system mastery to make non-core classes anywhere near competitive with core. Thaumaturge, Inventor, Swashbuckler, they just seem meh to me. I'm hoping they avoid continuing this trend with the release of Kineticist. I hope Kineticist can actually be competitive with the core classes. Just my own perspective.
I love that with all their implements, the Thaumaturge is basically a "Murderhoarder".
Personally, I'd love to see an Undead Instinct for Barbarian. I was hoping that would be included in Book of the Dead, but I suspect I'll be disappointed.
It's a feat tax, everyone has to have it or you fall behind, especially if someone else in the party has it. Yep, understood. I personally am of the belief that Power Attack should be a combat option like Fight Defensively, rather than a feat. Also, I think combat maneuvers like Trip and Bull Rush shouldn't require a feat to use without provoking an Attack of Opportunity. I certainly don't think Combat Expertise should be a pre-requisite for anything either. I hate feat taxes in general.
Power Attack. Not sure I understand. Are you saying Power Attack is a bad feat because everyone should be able to do that without spending a feat on it, or are you saying that trading accuracy for extra damage is bad in general?
How does a Liberator Champion deal with slavers? With extreme prejudice.
Also, in addition to the action failure ( you lose an action because you tried ) "Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes you're on fire."
I think the biggest flaw with Inventor is that Intelligence really doesn't do much for them. There's Overdrive, and that's basically it. To me, Overdrive isn't nearly as good as a maxed out Strength would be. Of course, that's another issue with Inventor: why do they need to be so strong? They're basically using machines to fight for them, whether it's power armor, an uber weapon, or a robot buddy. I really think they should've used Int for attack and damage, and linked Overdrive to some other skill/ability, or even dumped Overdrive altogether. I still think Inventor is very cool, but I do question some of these decisions.
No way, Inventor is designed far better than Alchemist.
I think a major part of the problem is Psychics just use the Occult spell list, which doesn't make them much different than certain Sorcerer bloodlines. There's no list of "psionic powers" or anything like that. Bards were never hyped up as being "different", like Psionics have traditionally been. They were always spellcasters. Psionics have had a very different system in the past, which is what people seem to want, based on the hate that Occult spellcasting received in 1e.
In all fairness, I've heard that the more recent APs like Abomination Vaults and Ruby Phoenix don't have the plethora of brutally lethal encounters the early APs are known for (especially Age of Ashes and Agents of Edgewatch). That alone makes me more likely to give 2e another try.
I think a major part of the problem is Psychics just use the Occult spell list, which doesn't make them much different than certain Sorcerer bloodlines. There's no list of "psionic powers" or anything like that. The Thaumaturge suffers from a similar problem: I don't see much difference between that class and the Investigator with the exception of the odd choice of Charisma for the key ability. It certainly bears no resemblance to a 1e Occultist, which is what I thought it would be.
My experience with PF2 is limited, my old group started an Age of Ashes campaign but everyone ragequit at 6th lvl because of exactly what's being said in this thread: the default game difficulty is just tuned up too high to be enjoyable (at least for that group). I was willing to keep going but I wasn't having fun either. We all went back to 1e. Issues I saw: 1. Monsters never miss, at least on a first attack. In 6 levels I don't think I ever saw a monster miss it's first attack. They didn't miss too many second attacks either. 2. With the exception of healing, which is invaluable, I found casters to be a total liability. Monsters seem to make the vast majority of their saves, so attack spells are generally worthless. 3. Monsters almost never miss, but PCs sure do! The "whiff factor" is pretty high in 2e and I never did notice much improvement in that. Maybe at higher levels. 2e definitely wasn't for me, though I'm willing to give it another shot. Between getting hit every single time and missing at least half (if not more) of our attacks, combat became a long, boring slog. We depended way too much on our Cleric to keep us alive. I think really challenging combats should be rare and memorable, not the default setting. 1e is definitely more my cup of tea at this point.
Inventor is starting to sound pretty cool!
What is the Inventor's niche? They must be good at something, but from what I'm reading, it just seems like they're worse than every other martial. I'm sure they must have a strength though, what are they good at?They offer a unique class fantasy. That’s enough for most players, who are not terribly plugged into optimization. I don't see how that's relevant. Just because a class is "unique" doesn't mean it can't be balanced with other classes.
Color me curious. PF 1e is still my favorite fantasy rpg. I've played 2e and D&D 5e, and they're both fine, but 1e is my first love. Still, I'm quite happy to try out a 5.5/6e, just like I was happy to try out PF 2e and D&D 5e.
Personally I like Warpriest, Inquisitor, and Occultist. I also love Druids once they get Wild Shape. Prior to Wild Shape, Druids are really dull (I hate hiding behind an Animal Companion). After 4th lvl though, they are alot of fun. Hunter with the Feral Hunter archetype is quite fun too, for the same reason (I love Wild Shape).
It's extremely easy to get hit in this edition, at least from what I've seen. I don't even think armor serves a purpose beyond maybe avoiding a crit. I think there are 2 core issues contributing to this: first, monster stats are too high. They're hard to hit, they hit PCs the vast majority of the time, and they make most of their saves. The other issue is encounter balance in the early 2e APs seems to be way out of whack. Too many high difficulty encounters too close together. Just my own observations.
You also need to look at the Aspects themselves. For the most part, they give you less than you would get if you had regular Wild Shape or cast the appropriate spell. Take Deinonychus. A 4th lvl Druid wild shaping into that form gets 5 attacks. A Shifter has to wait until 8th lvl to get all 5 attacks. Giant Scorpion is another example. Someone casting Vermin Shape to turn into a Giant Scorpion gets 3 primary attacks. A Shifter turning into a Giant Scorpion gets 2 primary and 1 secondary attacks. By RAW, a Shifter turning into a Giant Wasp doesn't even get an attack! They have to wait until 8th lvl to get the Sting attack, which is ludicrous and was probably an oversight. There are alot of similar examples. They really went out of their way to nerf the class into submission for some reason.
I think that house rule is the only thing keeping my character competitive. Remember you can only wild shape into a form provided by one of your Aspects, and you only get 1 Aspect every 5 levels (unless they changed this in errata). Compare that with a Druid, who can turn into any Animal, Elemental or Plant form, has full spellcasting, AND an Animal Companion on top of all that. Yes, Shifters are absolutely putrid. To answer your questions, my party is 8th level. My main land combat form is Deinonychus, my aerial combat form is Giant Dragonfly, and my water combat form is Crocodile. Like I mentioned, due to my GM's generous house rule, I have 8 aspects/major forms. If we were using the rules as written, I'd have all of 2 forms/aspects. For a class named Shifter, that's really pathetic. If I had known about the Legendary Shifter, I would've recommended that from the beginning, but we were already well into the AP by the time I discovered it.
I play this one Legendary Shifters but it's 3rd party I highly recommend that as well. My next Shifter character will use that product.
|
