
siegfriedliner |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you look at the core class features of the guardian intercept strike and taunt they are not going to be useful at least half the time.
Intercept attack is only really useful when you have more hit points than your ally and taunt mitigates your high defences and could easily get your character killed.
Wheras if you compare lay on hands (allways useful when an enemies hurt) and all the champion reactions (always helpful when they trigger) or even attack of opportunity (a free attack is almost always useful).
This means that guardians are likely going to require more experience to play well than a champion and will likely provide poorer results for new players than champions filling a similar niche.

Unicore |

This is an interesting perspective to look at the new classes.
I don't remember where I read it over the years, but I think it is intentional that the classes in the Player Core 1 (especially) and Player Core 2 are intended to be the more approachable, easier classes to run, and that other classes in other books are where the more complicated mechanics can be explored, but I think having to divide the Core 1 and Core 2 classes based upon "ready to print now" vs "needs more time to make ORC changes" has complicated the question of where to find the most direct, easiest to jump into classes.
I really like that the Guardian doesn't have an infinitely repeatable combat routine, and that the class has features that don't necessarily work together at the same time. I think it is a class that pretty much necessitates a shield though, so the intercept strike reaction is actually pit against the shield block reaction that pairs really powerfully with taunt, while pushing an enemy around so they have to waste an action to move, and then intercepting their first strike against an ally is the alternate action plan to implement.
SO I think you may be right that Champion will be easier on new players than the Guardian, but I think that is by design, and I am ok with it because there already is an easier tank to play, so the new tank can be more tactically engaged.

Teridax |

I agree with the OP's criticism, and had this exact experience in my playtest. I do agree that it's best to avoid giving any class a "rotation" of actions that are so essential that other actions struggle to compete at any given point, but right now I think the Guardian swings too hard in the other direction, where their action and reaction are so costly and sometimes awkward to set up that they really don't want to use them all the time, certainly not at level 1. Coupled with a lack of other attractive actions, this I think is a major reason why the class feels so passive.

Finoan |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

If you look at the core class features of the guardian intercept strike and taunt they are not going to be useful at least half the time.
I feel like that is true of most of the classes in the game. Why should Guardian be different?
The only classes that have core class features that are useful all of the time (and only when limiting our analysis to combat rather than anything else that the characters might be doing in the campaign) are classes that are very simple and straightforward. Fighter, and Barbarian.
Fighter: +2 accuracy is always useful when you only want to swing a weapon and hit someone with it.
Barbarian: Rage is always useful when you only want to swing a weapon and deal a lot of damage.
But how about any of the others?
Champion (Tenets of Good varieties): Champion Reaction is only useful if your allies stay within 15 feet of you.
Rogue: Sneak Attack requires you to be in flanking position, or or an ally to do something to make an enemy off-guard.
Swashbuckler: Panache requires a skill check that only has approximately a 50% success rate.
Ranger & Thaumaturge: Requires an action per target in order to have their class abilities available.
Gunslinger: It takes two actions to load and fire the firearm. So you are only able to make about half as many attacks as other characters.
Magus: It takes an action to recharge Spellstrike. So again, it is only available about half of the time.
Inventor: Overdrive requires an action and a skill check - just like Swashbuckler (though at least Overdrive lasts longer). And Unstable actions like Explode are locked behind a fairly high DC flat check so they are generally only available once or maybe twice per fight.
...
And so on and on and on.

Eoran |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Wheras if you compare lay on hands (allways useful when an enemies hurt) and all the champion reactions (always helpful when they trigger) or even attack of opportunity (a free attack is almost always useful).
I find it fascinating that all of your examples you are using to attempt to prove your point are, in fact, situational.
Lay On Hands. Not necessarily a core class feature. Also only useful when you or an ally within reach is injured.
Champion Reactions rely on an enemy triggering them and both the triggering enemy and ally being within range.
Attack of Opportunity also relies on an enemy triggering it. Which if they are aware of the ability, they may be able to avoid triggering it.

WatersLethe |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

siegfriedliner wrote:If you look at the core class features of the guardian intercept strike and taunt they are not going to be useful at least half the time.I feel like that is true of most of the classes in the game. Why should Guardian be different?
The only classes that have core class features that are useful all of the time (and only when limiting our analysis to combat rather than anything else that the characters might be doing in the campaign) are classes that are very simple and straightforward. Fighter, and Barbarian.
Fighter: +2 accuracy is always useful when you only want to swing a weapon and hit someone with it.
Barbarian: Rage is always useful when you only want to swing a weapon and deal a lot of damage.But how about any of the others?
Champion (Tenets of Good varieties): Champion Reaction is only useful if your allies stay within 15 feet of you.
Rogue: Sneak Attack requires you to be in flanking position, or or an ally to do something to make an enemy off-guard.
Swashbuckler: Panache requires a skill check that only has approximately a 50% success rate.
Ranger & Thaumaturge: Requires an action per target in order to have their class abilities available.
Gunslinger: It takes two actions to load and fire the firearm. So you are only able to make about half as many attacks as other characters.
Magus: It takes an action to recharge Spellstrike. So again, it is only available about half of the time.
Inventor: Overdrive requires an action and a skill check - just like Swashbuckler (though at least Overdrive lasts longer). And Unstable actions like Explode are locked behind a fairly high DC flat check so they are generally only available once or maybe twice per fight.
...
And so on and on and on.
I think Guardian takes the situationality a step beyond all of your examples, though perhaps not an unresolvable amount. Guardians get Taunt and Intercept Strike. Taunt can potentially be wholly inappropriate for every single encounter in a day, and Intercept Strike could absorb a crit and keep the guardian from using it again throughout a fight making it a 1/encounter ability (which also depends on adjacency to trigger, worse than the Champion's 15 foot range)

Finoan |

I think Guardian takes the situationality a step beyond all of your examples, though perhaps not an unresolvable amount. Guardians get Taunt and Intercept Strike. Taunt can potentially be wholly inappropriate for every single encounter in a day, and Intercept Strike could absorb a crit and keep the guardian from using it again throughout a fight making it a 1/encounter ability (which also depends on adjacency to trigger, worse than the Champion's 15 foot range)
That still isn't worse than several of the other examples.
Taunt not being useful in any encounter in an entire adventuring day sounds like hyperbole or cherry picking. In practical play I would expect it to be useful about as often as Lay on Hands (though obviously for different reasons).
And 1/encounter is literally the complaint about Inventor's Unstable abilities. Unstable you get a flat check to see if you can use it again - if the dice gods hoze you, you're hozed. Guardian can both be healed, or have the dice gods decide not to hoze the ability for the rest of the encounter.

siegfriedliner |
siegfriedliner wrote:Wheras if you compare lay on hands (allways useful when an enemies hurt) and all the champion reactions (always helpful when they trigger) or even attack of opportunity (a free attack is almost always useful).I find it fascinating that all of your examples you are using to attempt to prove your point are, in fact, situational.
Lay On Hands. Not necessarily a core class feature. Also only useful when you or an ally within reach is injured.
Champion Reactions rely on an enemy triggering them and both the triggering enemy and ally being within range.
Attack of Opportunity also relies on an enemy triggering it. Which if they are aware of the ability, they may be able to avoid triggering it.
Your correct but these are different types of situational though. Both can't be used in every situation but one of them isn't good to use in all the situations it can be.
If I could use retributive strike I will 9/10 times use it because it does only good things.
But I would only use intercept strike if I was near full health or my ally was in danger of going down and I wasn't going to go down if I took their hit. That in my opinion is far more situational because a lot of times you could use it you don't want to.

WatersLethe |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |

Taunt not being useful in any encounter in an entire adventuring day sounds like hyperbole or cherry picking. In practical play I would expect it to be useful about as often as Lay on Hands (though obviously for different reasons).
Based on what I'm reading in people's playtesting, you could easily wind up in a set of encounters where:
1. Enemies are already targeting you
2. The environment restricts the enemies' targets sufficiently
3. You're too hurt to justify encouraging the enemies to hit you
4. A single boss enemy makes Taunting inadvisable
Or a combination of those. I don't think it's at all impossible, and it likely is probable, that you could go several encounters in a row (~an adventuring day) without having a need to use Taunt.
In my experience, Champions are using their reactions at least two times a fight, and Lay on Hands around 1/encounter. So Guardian is looking at a potential worst case ~1.3 uses of their class features per encounter, and Champion is around 3.
And 1/encounter is literally the complaint about Inventor's Unstable abilities. Unstable you get a flat check to see if you can use it again - if the dice gods hoze you, you're hozed. Guardian can both be healed, or have the dice gods decide not to hoze the ability for the rest of the encounter.
Inventors have other class features, though. Their innovation they can get use out of all day long.
EDIT:
I forgot to mention that we shouldn't get bogged down in class-to-class comparison anyway because it doesn't matter if another class has overly situational class features, because they can both simultaneously have an issue with that. I think, as-is, the Guardian's class features are more situational than I would like. To fix that, all it would take it to make Intercept Strike use the Guardian's AC to potentially negate a hit into a miss with their better armor and it would be much less situational.

shroudb |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I would only use intercept strike if I was near full health or my ally was in danger of going down and I wasn't going to go down if I took their hit. That in my opinion is far more situational because a lot of times you could use it you don't want to.
Why?
You universally reduce the party damage when used, and you are one of the most tanky classes, meaning that on average you survive a lot more hits than the ally you just shielded.
If your mentality, with a class built for defending others, is "i only defend others when i'm near full health", then the Guardian is simply not the right class for you. But that has nothing to do with the class' actual strength.

Bluemagetim |

siegfriedliner wrote:
But I would only use intercept strike if I was near full health or my ally was in danger of going down and I wasn't going to go down if I took their hit. That in my opinion is far more situational because a lot of times you could use it you don't want to.Why?
You universally reduce the party damage when used, and you are one of the most tanky classes, meaning that on average you survive a lot more hits than the ally you just shielded.
If your mentality, with a class built for defending others, is "i only defend others when i'm near full health", then the Guardian is simply not the right class for you. But that has nothing to do with the class' actual strength.
Party comp comes into play alot in deciding how much to use it.
i would say you want to intercept strike as long as you dont expect to go down that round because of it especially if you have enough healing support to recover and keep going.
Unicore |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Healing one character is a lot easier in PF2 than healing multiple characters at once. You can direct fast healing at 1 person, you don't have to worry about healing enemies, and most single target healing options are much stronger than group healing options.
Not to mention a character with die hard and mostly defensive actions anyway isn't hurting the party as much getting dropped to the ground and getting back up again as if it is happening to a caster who might not have the actions to spare to stand up, or a striker martial who can potentially end the fight.
It might not be a feels good moment, but the Guardian is going to be popcorning a lot, especially as responsibility for healing them is going to fall on someone else in the party.
Edit: Also, Eating a high damage hit with low HP can save tons of healing resources compared to letting another ally take that hit, potentially taking them out of the fight and leaving you nearly ready to drop as well.

Bluemagetim |

Healing one character is a lot easier in PF2 than healing multiple characters at once. You can direct fast healing at 1 person, you don't have to worry about healing enemies, and most single target healing options are much stronger than group healing options.
Not to mention a character with die hard and mostly defensive actions anyway isn't hurting the party as much getting dropped to the ground and getting back up again as if it is happening to a caster who might not have the actions to spare to stand up, or a striker martial who can potentially end the fight.
It might not be a feels good moment, but the Guardian is going to be popcorning a lot, especially as responsibility for healing them is going to fall on someone else in the party.
Might be the best class to take advantage of Orc racial feats too like the one increasing damage when wounded.

siegfriedliner |
siegfriedliner wrote:
But I would only use intercept strike if I was near full health or my ally was in danger of going down and I wasn't going to go down if I took their hit. That in my opinion is far more situational because a lot of times you could use it you don't want to.Why?
You universally reduce the party damage when used, and you are one of the most tanky classes, meaning that on average you survive a lot more hits than the ally you just shielded.
If your mentality, with a class built for defending others, is "i only defend others when i'm near full health", then the Guardian is simply not the right class for you. But that has nothing to do with the class' actual strength.
It's not a hard and fast rule but focus firing on any enemy to deny them their actions economy is often a good strategy. It's also often a good strategy for the enemy too and so using all of your resources to help them enemies focus fire damage on a single target isn't necessarily a good strategy.

Bluemagetim |

shroudb wrote:siegfriedliner wrote:
But I would only use intercept strike if I was near full health or my ally was in danger of going down and I wasn't going to go down if I took their hit. That in my opinion is far more situational because a lot of times you could use it you don't want to.Why?
You universally reduce the party damage when used, and you are one of the most tanky classes, meaning that on average you survive a lot more hits than the ally you just shielded.
If your mentality, with a class built for defending others, is "i only defend others when i'm near full health", then the Guardian is simply not the right class for you. But that has nothing to do with the class' actual strength.
It's not a hard and fast rule but focus firing on any enemy to deny them their actions economy is often a good strategy. It's also often a good strategy for the enemy too and so using all of your resources to help them enemies focus fire damage on a single target isn't necessarily a good strategy.
Wouldn't you also say the Guardian disrupts that tactic when foes use it on another party member?

shroudb |
shroudb wrote:siegfriedliner wrote:
But I would only use intercept strike if I was near full health or my ally was in danger of going down and I wasn't going to go down if I took their hit. That in my opinion is far more situational because a lot of times you could use it you don't want to.Why?
You universally reduce the party damage when used, and you are one of the most tanky classes, meaning that on average you survive a lot more hits than the ally you just shielded.
If your mentality, with a class built for defending others, is "i only defend others when i'm near full health", then the Guardian is simply not the right class for you. But that has nothing to do with the class' actual strength.
It's not a hard and fast rule but focus firing on any enemy to deny them their actions economy is often a good strategy. It's also often a good strategy for the enemy too and so using all of your resources to help them enemies focus fire damage on a single target isn't necessarily a good strategy.
Maybe, but you focus fire the easier to drop targets, or the targets doing the most damage. Guardian is the opposite of that:
He does low damage and he's amongst the hardest to drop.So he's by far the worst target for the enemy to pile on damage, which makes it all that much better when you basically force them to funnel all that damage to the Guardian instead of their actual target.

Squiggit |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

Squiggit wrote:None of those examples are really comparable to what the OP is talking about though.Then explain better.
Your examples are abilities that you cannot always use. The OP's complaint seems to be that certain Guardian abilities are actively bad to use even when they do work (at least sometimes).
You can't always activate the Champion's reaction, but when you can it provides a purely beneficial effect. There's no downside to using it (other than the opportunity cost). Taunt, because it debuffs the user, can lead to serious injury or death for the Guardian even when used normally.
Whether or not that's even a problem at all is up for debate, but that seems to be the point of concern and notably different than how many other class features tend to work.

Finoan |

Finoan wrote:Squiggit wrote:None of those examples are really comparable to what the OP is talking about though.Then explain better.Your examples are abilities that you cannot always use. The OP's complaint seems to be that certain Guardian abilities are actively bad to use even when they do work (at least sometimes).
You can't always activate the Champion's reaction, but when you can it provides a purely beneficial effect. There's no downside to using it (other than the opportunity cost). Taunt, because it debuffs the user, can lead to serious injury or death for the Guardian even when used normally.
Whether or not that's even a problem at all is up for debate, but that seems to be the point of concern and notably different than how many other class features tend to work.
OK. Reassessing...
One thing I still note is that the detriment of Taunt puts the Guardian at the AC level of an equivalent-stat non-Champion, non-Monk, non-Guardian martial character. Which should be fine. It isn't like having an AC at that level is going to cause the Guardian to be at a higher risk of death than the Rogue, Ranger, Fighter, Swashbuckler, Thaumaturge, ... that they could be playing instead.
Yes, there may be a time during a battle where you don't want to use Intercept Strike or even Taunt. Likely because you are needing to back off the front line and/or get healed. But that isn't something that other classes don't have to deal with as well. If the Rogue is low on HP they also may not want to be getting into flanking position to set up Sneak Attack.
So this still doesn't feel like something that is a unique detriment to Guardian. Other classes have to make tactical decisions on when to use their abilities too. Notably, ones taking a front-line role have to decide when they need to pull back or get healed. That is just the nature of the combat role.

Gortle |

If you look at the core class features of the guardian intercept strike and taunt they are not going to be useful at least half the time.
Which is Ok. It is nice to have choices. For me the problem is when the Guardian gets down on HP because he is doing his job then neither are useful. Shield Block becomes mandatory.

Perpdepog |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no issue with abilities that both increase the risk as well as the reward.
If your at 1 HP, then don't Intercept Stike. That's ok.
My main complaint is that the best way for a guardian to use Taunt is to run away.
Actually, wouldn't Intercept Strike be just the thing if you're at 1 HP? I mean, it'll depend on how the battlefield looks, and just how viable heavily armored guy running away really is, and how much healing you have available, but if you Intercept Strike an attack at someone else when you've only got 1 HP left then that strike you just chumped did all of 1 damage, not however much it would have done to the party member you blocked. That sounds like a good trade to me.

PossibleCabbage |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |

Like I think the big difference is that the only reason the Champion would not want to use their Champion's reaction, if applicable, is if they expected to have a better use for their sole reaction.
The Intercept Strike has the exact same problem, and also the problem that you're going to lose hit points when you use it. So while it's still useful (you take less damage than your buddy would) it's also sometimes a "feels-bad" thing, since being a HP battery for the party is only really fun when you have incredible healing (like PF1s Oradin or Double-Life Shaman).
When you consider that Taunt is similar in that it hurts your defense (which is supposed to be the best thing you have) then the basic problem with the Guardian is that most of their class features feel bad to use.
Like it's weird to me that the goody-goody defender class is less selfless than one that doesn't care at all about ethics.