|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I have now run 8 playtest games.
3 of them had Paladins. Data only comes from those.
Paladin builds:
Sword and board
Longbow only
Shield only
Here are the statistics:
Number of encounters: 8
Encounter 1:
Game 1: 4 PCs against 1 Goblin Dog. Retributive strike triggers: 0
Game 2: 5 PCs against 1 Goblin Dog. Retributive Strike Triggers: 0
Game 3: 5 PCs against 1 Goblin Dog. Retributive Strike Triggers: 0
Encounter 2:
Game 1: 4 PCs against 3 Goblin Dogs. Retributive strike triggers: 0
Game 2: 5 PCs against 3 Goblin Dogs. Retributive strike triggers: 0
Game 3: 5 PCs against 3 Goblin Dogs. Retributive strike triggers: 1
Encounter 3:
Game 1: 4 PCs against 2 Goblin Warriors and 2 Goblin Dogs. Retributive strike triggers: 0
Game 2: 5 PCs against 2 Goblin Warriors and 2 Goblin Dogs. Retributive strike triggers: 0
Game 3: 5 PCs against 2 Goblin Warriors and 2 Goblin Dogs. PCs turned back after disasterous encounter 2. This encounter did not happen.
-----
Retributive Strike needs to go.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote: I have now run 8 playtest games.
3 of them had Paladins. Data only comes from those.
Paladin builds:
Sword and board
Longbow only
Shield only
Here are the statistics:
Number of encounters: 8
Encounter 1:
Game 1: 4 PCs against 1 Goblin Dog. Retributive strike triggers: 0
Game 2: 5 PCs against 1 Goblin Dog. Retributive Strike Triggers: 0
Game 3: 5 PCs against 1 Goblin Dog. Retributive Strike Triggers: 0
Encounter 2:
Game 1: 4 PCs against 3 Goblin Dogs. Retributive strike triggers: 0
Game 2: 5 PCs against 3 Goblin Dogs. Retributive strike triggers: 0
Game 3: 5 PCs against 3 Goblin Dogs. Retributive strike triggers: 1
Encounter 3:
Game 1: 4 PCs against 2 Goblin Warriors and 2 Goblin Dogs. Retributive strike triggers: 0
Game 2: 5 PCs against 2 Goblin Warriors and 2 Goblin Dogs. Retributive strike triggers: 0
Game 3: 5 PCs against 2 Goblin Warriors and 2 Goblin Dogs. PCs turned back after disasterous encounter 2. This encounter did not happen.
-----
Retributive Strike needs to go.
You do realize that you are the DM and you are the one who makes the decision about what players the goblin dogs are attacking?
Thus you control ENTIRELY when Retributive strike will trigger, and it is part of your role as a DM to make every player feel special.
If you feel that Retributive strikes don't trigger enough, just make it trigger more!
Was the paladin ever in a position where it even could have gone off? Either adjacent to an ally or one hex away?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote: I have now run 8 playtest games.
3 of them had Paladins. Data only comes from those.
Paladin builds:
Sword and board
Longbow only
Shield only
Here are the statistics:
Number of encounters: 8
Encounter 1:
Game 1: 4 PCs against 1 Goblin Dog. Retributive strike triggers: 0
Game 2: 5 PCs against 1 Goblin Dog. Retributive Strike Triggers: 0
Game 3: 5 PCs against 1 Goblin Dog. Retributive Strike Triggers: 0
Encounter 2:
Game 1: 4 PCs against 3 Goblin Dogs. Retributive strike triggers: 0
Game 2: 5 PCs against 3 Goblin Dogs. Retributive strike triggers: 0
Game 3: 5 PCs against 3 Goblin Dogs. Retributive strike triggers: 1
Encounter 3:
Game 1: 4 PCs against 2 Goblin Warriors and 2 Goblin Dogs. Retributive strike triggers: 0
Game 2: 5 PCs against 2 Goblin Warriors and 2 Goblin Dogs. Retributive strike triggers: 0
Game 3: 5 PCs against 2 Goblin Warriors and 2 Goblin Dogs. PCs turned back after disasterous encounter 2. This encounter did not happen.
-----
Retributive Strike needs to go.
That is evidence that Retributive Strike needs to be buffed. Saying it needs to go from that evidence it like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Also a sample size of 3 is not the most viable of tests, especially as one of them was never going to get RS anyway (doesn't work with ranged weapons)
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Listing encounters with a"Longbow only" paladin build when retributive strike is melee only is a bad joke and shows your bias.
Beside that you can't take anything from that. Maybe you only attacked the paladin. If that's the case please nerf retributive strike. It's definitely overpowered and makes the paladin the best tank in the history of roleplay.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
When you've admitted you had a -4 Intelligence Goblin Dog switch targets because somehow it realized the paladin wasn't a threat anymore...
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I'm just wondering how something like "Longbow only" and "Shield only" paladins can even happen.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Asuet wrote: I'm just wondering how something like "Longbow only" and "Shield only" paladins can even happen. The Shield-only paladin was the result of the player spending their money on a healer's kit and a shortbow, relying on a shield boss for melee. As documented here.
No idea on the bow-only one
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Darkorin wrote:
You do realize that you are the DM and you are the one who makes the decision about what players the goblin dogs are attacking?
Thus you control ENTIRELY when Retributive strike will trigger, and it is part of your role as a DM to make every player feel special.
If you feel that Retributive strikes don't trigger enough, just make it trigger more! An ability shouldn't have to rely on a DM running encounters with intentionally stupid enemy tactics to be useful.
CommanderCoyler wrote: Asuet wrote: I'm just wondering how something like "Longbow only" and "Shield only" paladins can even happen. The Shield-only paladin was the result of the player spending their money on a healer's kit and a shortbow, relying on a shield boss for melee. As documented here.
No idea on the bow-only one Paladin of Erastil, probably.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
SwordOfTheLaw wrote:
An ability shouldn't have to rely on a DM running encounters with intentionally stupid enemy tactics to be useful.
Except when your ennemies ARE stupid, like... goblin dogs?
If you DM your ennemies that should know nothing about the PCs as if they knew all of their abilities and you prevent them to use said abilities, I don't think the issue is with the abilities.
If the enemies never saw said abilities, they shouldn't assume the PC has it, and thus they shouldn't use enemy tactics to prevent such usage.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Darkorin wrote: SwordOfTheLaw wrote:
An ability shouldn't have to rely on a DM running encounters with intentionally stupid enemy tactics to be useful.
Except when your ennemies ARE stupid, like... goblin dogs?
If you DM your ennemies that should know nothing about the PCs as if they knew all of their abilities and you prevent them to use said abilities, I don't think the issue is with the abilities.
If the enemies never saw said abilities, they shouldn't assume the PC has it, and thus they shouldn't use enemy tactics to prevent such usage. Except every other class' core abilities work regardless of enemy tactics. Retributive Strike doesn't. That's why the ability is a dumpster fire, along with the class that was misguidedly built around it.
Long John wrote: Was the paladin ever in a position where it even could have gone off? Either adjacent to an ally or one hex away? That would be a trigger.
Yes, it happened in the 2nd Encounter of the third relevant game. You can see the game it happened in actually on these very boards. One of my players posted here after the game detailing that they didn't like Retributive strike either.
Dragonborn3 wrote: When you've admitted you had a -4 Intelligence Goblin Dog switch targets because somehow it realized the paladin wasn't a threat anymore... Which is the only reason Retributive Strike could be used...
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Darkorin wrote: SwordOfTheLaw wrote:
An ability shouldn't have to rely on a DM running encounters with intentionally stupid enemy tactics to be useful.
Except when your ennemies ARE stupid, like... goblin dogs?
If you DM your ennemies that should know nothing about the PCs as if they knew all of their abilities and you prevent them to use said abilities, I don't think the issue is with the abilities.
If the enemies never saw said abilities, they shouldn't assume the PC has it, and thus they shouldn't use enemy tactics to prevent such usage. What makes this funny to me is that people complained on these forums (not in the game at all) when the Goblin Dog turned away from the Paladin to attack another PC which is THE ONLY REASON the Retributive Strike COULD BE USED.
I could either let the enemy keep attacking the defenseless and nearly dead PC and Retributive Strike could not be used. Or I could have it turn and attack someone else so Retributive Strike could be used.
It seems from the people on these boards who are trying to defend this to the death (for no reason mind you) that no matter what choice I would have made would be wrong. It is actually amusing at this point.
SwordOfTheLaw wrote: CommanderCoyler wrote: Asuet wrote: I'm just wondering how something like "Longbow only" and "Shield only" paladins can even happen. The Shield-only paladin was the result of the player spending their money on a healer's kit and a shortbow, relying on a shield boss for melee. As documented here.
No idea on the bow-only one Paladin of Erastil, probably. Bingo.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
SwordOfTheLaw wrote:
Except every other class' core abilities work regardless of enemy tactics. Retributive Strike doesn't. That's why the ability is a dumpster fire, along with the class that was misguidedly built around it.
This is not true at all.
Let's take for example Attack of opportunity. You currently have no clue if your adversary has it or doesn't. In most cases, you don't have to care about the manipulate trait or to move carefully out of someone's reach.
That means that Attack of opportunity depends solely on enemy tactics. same as Combat Grab which requires enemies to stay close to the fighter, and lots of other feats/abilities.
You could also say that Sneak attack depends on enemy tactics, since enemies could do what is necessary in order to not be vulnerable to flanking, in fact it's even worse for sneak attack since multiple enemies will be naturally immune to sneak attack.
I don't see enemies naturally immune to Retributive Strike.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The big misconception here is that you think retributive strike is a damage tool. It's not. It's a tanking tool. Once enemies realize that they get hit in the face when they try to hit the paladins companion they will switch their focus to the paladin. That's what it is for.
Beside that your "statistics" are highly biased and most likely your players had no clue how to play the class considering their weapon choices. Something you as a DM should bring up before a game by the way. If a player comes up to me and tells me he wants to play a wizard without spells then I would not just say: Go for it!
Also paladins of erastil are not restricted to just using bows. You need to make that absolutely clear to every player who comes up to you with such a gimped concept.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Darkorin wrote: SwordOfTheLaw wrote:
Except every other class' core abilities work regardless of enemy tactics. Retributive Strike doesn't. That's why the ability is a dumpster fire, along with the class that was misguidedly built around it.
This is not true at all.
Let's take for example Attack of opportunity. You currently have no clue if your adversary has it or doesn't. In most cases, you don't have to care about the manipulate trait or to move carefully out of someone's reach.
That means that Attack of opportunity depends solely on enemy tactics. same as Combat Grab which requires enemies to stay close to the fighter, and lots of other feats/abilities.
You could also say that Sneak attack depends on enemy tactics, since enemies could do what is necessary in order to not be vulnerable to flanking, in fact it's even worse for sneak attack since multiple enemies will be naturally immune to sneak attack.
I don't see enemies naturally immune to Retributive Strike. Hold on here:
Attack of Opportunity is far more usable than Retributive Strike. Let us get this right out there. It is triggered when anyone moves away (aside from using Step), uses anything with the manipulate trait, and can be triggered (for Fighters) by anyone who uses a concentrate action.
There are 2 feats in the Fighter tree that interact with attack of opportunity. One gives them a free reaction that can only be used with AoO. The other widens the AoO to include concentration actions.
It is not their primary mechanic.
-----
There are seven (7) (yes SEVEN) feats for Paladin that reference Retributive Strike. Seven. Seeeeeven. That is a HUGE number of feats. That makes Retributive Strike the primary mechanic for Paladins.
-----
Sneak Attack - I can name a number of ways, right now, to render an enemy vulnerable to Sneak Attack. From positioning, to combat maneuvers, to animal companions, to environmental conditions. Over half of these do not need any allies and can be done by the Rogue.
If a Rogue in PF2 isn't sneak attacking, it is likely that the enemy is immune, because it is so easy to set up.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I think Retributive Strike is mostly fine as is. It could use some kind of Step Up mechanic so an enemy can't just move out of your reach and attack the ally you were guarding. But even without Step Up, you're forcing them to spend an action to move away, forcing them to risk an extra attack, or forcing them to attack the heavily armored self-healing tank. That's a lose-lose-lose. Retributive Strike is a tanking ability that makes the enemy make hard decisions, not a "I get reliable extra damage this way" tool.
You also force yourself into a babysitter role.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
master_marshmallow wrote: You also force yourself into a babysitter role. If you don't want to play a defender, don't play the defender class? Paizo has made it pretty clear that that's the Paladin's design space in this edition.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Which is something ANY class should be capable of, not one of the coolest classes from earlier in the game. This paladin is not so much a striker against evil as he is a goalie in a hockey game, sitting in place until a shot is aimed at his goal(the ally in the Ret. Strike scenario).
Pandora's wrote: I think Retributive Strike is mostly fine as is. It could use some kind of Step Up mechanic so an enemy can't just move out of your reach and attack the ally you were guarding. But even without Step Up, you're forcing them to spend an action to move away, forcing them to risk an extra attack, or forcing them to attack the heavily armored self-healing tank. That's a lose-lose-lose. Retributive Strike is a tanking ability that makes the enemy make hard decisions, not a "I get reliable extra damage this way" tool. Doesn't that mostly boil down to the choice of the enemy trying to find ways to not let you use Retributive Strike, though (as shown by the playtest data above)? That might not be underpowered per se but it's boring to play so relatively, and doesn't feel like a Paladin to me.
Dragonborn3 wrote: Which is something ANY class should be capable of, not one of the coolest classes from earlier in the game. This paladin is not so much a striker against evil as he is a goalie in a hockey game, sitting in place until a shot is aimed at his goal(the ally in the Ret. Strike scenario). Good point and excellent analogy.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I feel like I would be really interested to see how much this shows up on a Paladin with a reach weapon (say a Shelynite with a Glaive). Of course, if Retributive Strike is vastly more useful with a reach weapon, we're basically encouraging Paladins to eschew the iconic "sword and board" imagery to pick up long sticks instead.
CBAnaesthesia wrote: Pandora's wrote: I think Retributive Strike is mostly fine as is. It could use some kind of Step Up mechanic so an enemy can't just move out of your reach and attack the ally you were guarding. But even without Step Up, you're forcing them to spend an action to move away, forcing them to risk an extra attack, or forcing them to attack the heavily armored self-healing tank. That's a lose-lose-lose. Retributive Strike is a tanking ability that makes the enemy make hard decisions, not a "I get reliable extra damage this way" tool. Doesn't that mostly boil down to the choice of the enemy trying to find ways to not let you use Retributive Strike, though (as shown by the playtest data above)? That might not be underpowered per se but it's boring to play so relatively, and doesn't feel like a Paladin to me.
Dragonborn3 wrote: Which is something ANY class should be capable of, not one of the coolest classes from earlier in the game. This paladin is not so much a striker against evil as he is a goalie in a hockey game, sitting in place until a shot is aimed at his goal(the ally in the Ret. Strike scenario). Good point and excellent analogy. To point out - I did not manipulate the situation in the above example to stop Retributive Strike from being used.
I did the exact opposite.
I manipulated the situation so that Retributive Strike *could* be used.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Alright, I'm going to forego quoting replies and talk more generally. Let's have some real talk about agency and tanking. If ya'll have been on the boards long enough, you remember some mighty big stinks about the Antagonize feat. Some liked that it allowed you to actually tank, to draw enemy focus, which is both a classic gaming niche and thematic fantasy role. Others disliked it strongly because it was effectively mind control. It told you how you had to react, and that robbed players of agency. Their dislike was very reasonable.
The problem is that if you can't actually force an enemy to attack you, then the remaining design space for drawing attention is to give the enemy a penalty for attacking anyone else. In Pathfinder, I've seen that done two ways. The first is to give the enemy an accuracy or damage penalty when attacking anyone else. The problem with that way is that all the enemy does is make a guess at who is the easiest to damage post-penalty and goes back to work. If that happens to still be your friend, you haven't accomplished much. The second way is to let the defending character attack a foe who attacks an ally. That tends to be better because it's a stronger deterrent; you usually don't want to take that extra damage, even if it means going after the more difficult target instead.
So essentially, the devs picked the stronger deterrent and gave it to the Paladin. They even put Retributive in the name, so its purpose was more clear. It's not meant to be a source of reliable damage. It's a tanking ability. If that needs to be spelled out more clearly so people know what they're getting into, so be it. You use it by walking up to an ally and saying to the enemies "I dare you," not by actually taking the attack.
Do you complain that Mirror Image from PF1 has no agency because, once cast, the enemy decides you're not worth it and ignores you? No! You chose to take an action which created a deterrent for an enemy and changed their behavior. Of course there's agency in that. This is the same thing. If it isn't strong enough, that can be looked into, but just because its activated with a Reaction does not mean there is not agency in its use.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Mirror Image is not a core ability of the class, though, and you can build a perfectly fine caster without it.
Retributive Strike is put forward as a core Paladin ability that is tied to a ton of other mechanics, optional or not - including Smite, which is an iconic Paladin ability that you can now only use with Retributive Strike (which is a massive nerf).
It's not that there aren't tactical uses for RS, but I disagree that there is really agency in how it's used, since you can't choose NOT to say "I dare you" as you put it. You can choose not to take the reaction, but you can't not take Retributive Strike, and it's also out of your hands what the enemy does, given that "dare."
It just isn't fun to go "ha! I made you walk out of my range or attack me, so now I can't do anything!" as a main gimmick of the class.
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pandora's wrote: Alright, I'm going to forego quoting replies and talk more generally. Let's have some real talk about agency and tanking. If ya'll have been on the boards long enough, you remember some mighty big stinks about the Antagonize feat. Some liked that it allowed you to actually tank, to draw enemy focus, which is both a classic gaming niche and thematic fantasy role. Others disliked it strongly because it was effectively mind control. It told you how you had to react, and that robbed players of agency. Their dislike was very reasonable.
The problem is that if you can't actually force an enemy to attack you, then the remaining design space for drawing attention is to give the enemy a penalty for attacking anyone else. In Pathfinder, I've seen that done two ways. The first is to give the enemy an accuracy or damage penalty when attacking anyone else. The problem with that way is that all the enemy does is make a guess at who is the easiest to damage post-penalty and goes back to work. If that happens to still be your friend, you haven't accomplished much. The second way is to let the defending character attack a foe who attacks an ally. That tends to be better because it's a stronger deterrent; you usually don't want to take that extra damage, even if it means going after the more difficult target instead.
So essentially, the devs picked the stronger deterrent and gave it to the Paladin. They even put Retributive in the name, so its purpose was more clear. It's not meant to be a source of reliable damage. It's a tanking ability. If that needs to be spelled out more clearly so people know what they're getting into, so be it. You use it by walking up to an ally and saying to the enemies "I dare you," not by actually taking the attack.
Do you complain that Mirror Image from PF1 has no agency because, once cast, the enemy decides you're not worth it and ignores you? No! You chose to take an action which created a deterrent for an enemy and changed their behavior. Of course there's agency in that. This is the...
Well, look if we *have* to have Retributive Strike, then let us at least have the ability to use it.
Get rid of the requirement of, "You must be within reach of the enemy when they make the attack."
Go with, "If an enemy within your movement range attacks an ally then if you are unarmed or wielding one or more melee weapons, as a reaction, you can take a stride action and attack that enemy with your weapon at a -2 penalty, this movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity. If you are instead wielding a ranged weapon that is either loaded, or has a reload speed of 0, you may as a reaction, make a ranged attack against that enemy with a -2 penalty."
Suddenly, right there, you have fixed it so that Paladins of the 2 Paladin Deities who use ranged weapons can use Retributive Strike, you have not given a grossly unfair advantage to Reach Weapon Paladins, and you have given all Paladins a much greater chance to use their Retributive Strike.
master_marshmallow wrote: If only it worked. You should consider supporting why you don't think it works rather than just stating such. Others may find your opinion has more weight that way.
CBAnaesthesia wrote: Mirror Image is not a core ability of the class, though, and you can build a perfectly fine caster without it. My point about Mirror Image was arguing against the notion that Retributive Strike gives the player no agency. You seem to be saying you don't like the defensive focus of the Paladin, which is another matter entirely.
CBAnaesthesia wrote: You can choose not to take the reaction, but you can't not take Retributive Strike Because Paizo has decided to make the Paladin into the defensive class. When you pick the defensive class, you get non-optional defense abilities, much like how when you pick the rogue, you get non-optional skill abilities.
CBAnaesthesia wrote: I disagree that there is really agency in how it's used, since you can't choose NOT to say "I dare you" I mean, you can promise not to attack them? Paladins can't lie and all. Less facetiously, the agency is in where you use it; what enemies you provide disincentives for. Like most martial abilities, for better or for worse, it's a passive always-on ability. You could modify it to let them decide to use it or not by making it a bit stronger but then requiring an action to set it up on your turn. Given how popular Raise a Shield has been, that's probably not a good idea.
CBAnaesthesia wrote: it's also out of your hands what the enemy does, given that "dare." It's out of your hands in PF1 how enemies respond to a Wall of Stone. That doesn't make the ability bad, unfun, and without agency, and it doesn't keep battlefield control from usually being the most powerful thing a character can do.
CBAnaesthesia wrote: It just isn't fun to go "ha! I made you walk out of my range or attack me, so now I can't do anything!" as a main gimmick of the class. Not for you, maybe. I enjoy force multipliers/battlefield control a great deal. I played a Paladin this way once, in fact. Took that archetype that replaces Smite with bardic performances. It was an all-Paladin one-off adventure. I had the Bodyguard line of feats and a sinful bonus to aid another for AC. The party stayed adjacent to me so I could give out those sweet sweet bonuses. The combined offensive and defensive buffs were so powerful that we were laughing our way through encounters with multiple CR 17 enemies with an APL of 11. I was laughing maniacally as the much higher enemies missed virtually every attack. I enjoyed the heck out of that character. You might not enjoy the Paladin's new playstyle, and I feel for you, but that doesn't make it bad or keep others from enjoying it.
HWalsh wrote: Well, look if we *have* to have Retributive Strike, then let us at least have the ability to use it. I just explained at length why getting the attack is not the point of the ability. You are using it, any time you stand next to an ally. You not understanding the ability or not liking it doesn't make it bad.
Your suggestion throws ranged Paladins a bone, which needs to happen somehow as long as there's encouragement to use Favored Weapons and Paladin gods with ranged weapons. It also makes a tanking ability into a DPR ability that is almost certainly grossly overpowered. There is virtually no chance this is a change they will make.
Pandora's wrote: master_marshmallow wrote: If only it worked. You should consider supporting why you don't think it works rather than just stating such. Others may find your opinion has more weight that way. You men like the OPs playtest results where they had to force it to activate just to see how it played?
Pandora's wrote: HWalsh wrote: Well, look if we *have* to have Retributive Strike, then let us at least have the ability to use it. I just explained at length why getting the attack is not the point of the ability. You are using it, any time you stand next to an ally. You not understanding the ability or not liking it doesn't make it bad.
Your suggestion throws ranged Paladins a bone, which needs to happen somehow as long as there's encouragement to use Favored Weapons and Paladin gods with ranged weapons. It also makes a tanking ability into a DPR ability that is almost certainly grossly overpowered. There is virtually no chance this is a change they will make. It would only be DPR if the enemy chose not to attack you. Also with most Paladins only having 10-15 base speed due to heavy armor they certainly wouldn't be that mobile.
As it stands, the enemy just has to take a step action, or move action, to negate your protection. That's pretty poor for you.
As it stands to make it *really* work you need to be very high level.
First you need Shield Ally at 3rd or second Ally at 8th for Shield Ally.
Second you need to take AoO at 6th level, so if they use a stride action to away from you, you smack them.
Third you need to take Holy Wall at level 12, so they can't use the Step Action while adjacent to you.
That is a LOT of investment to use Retributive Strike reliably.
Amusingly - It is much easier, and faster, to get higher burst damage using your reaction. My Smiteadin Build does that. It also heals itself for beating down enemies. Costs your reaction too so you don't need to worry about Retributive strike!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
master_marshmallow wrote: Pandora's wrote: master_marshmallow wrote: If only it worked. You should consider supporting why you don't think it works rather than just stating such. Others may find your opinion has more weight that way. You men like the OPs playtest results where they had to force it to activate just to see how it played? Now we're just going in circles. Back to the Mirror Image example. If your defensive ability causes the defended person to never be attacked, it doesn't matter if the ability's mechanical benefit (in the case of Mirror Image, a miss chance; in the case of Retributive Strike, an avenging attack) is ever realized. The ability was successful! The defended character was not attacked, because of your actions. That is only a disappointment if you chose a defensive ability (in this case, by picking the defensive class) expecting to use it as an offensive ability. Abilities tend to work best when you use them for their designed purpose.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pandora's wrote: master_marshmallow wrote: Pandora's wrote: master_marshmallow wrote: If only it worked. You should consider supporting why you don't think it works rather than just stating such. Others may find your opinion has more weight that way. You men like the OPs playtest results where they had to force it to activate just to see how it played? Now we're just going in circles. Back to the Mirror Image example. If your defensive ability causes the defended person to never be attacked, it doesn't matter if the ability's mechanical benefit (in the case of Mirror Image, a miss chance; in the case of Retributive Strike, an avenging attack) is ever realized. The ability was successful! The defended character was not attacked, because of your actions. That is only a disappointment if you chose a defensive ability (in this case, by picking the defensive class) expecting to use it as an offensive ability. Abilities tend to work best when you use them for their designed purpose. Ok, this is hyperbole.
So here, Pandora, I'll call you on it.
I'll set my test table, I'll put you in a meatgrinder. You make a level 2 Paladin without a reach weapon. A sword and board defender.
You will be protecting an exhausted caster from a swarm of Goblins (10 of them) they will attack one at a time to give you maximum advantage. Your job is to fight the goblins and protect your ally.
I'll let you control the caster and his movement and positioning.
I will *never* swing at you. Not only will you not stop me from attacking the caster, but they won't attack you at all. Their target is the caster.
See if you think it is working.
HWalsh wrote: Ok, this is hyperbole.
So here, Pandora, I'll call you on it.
Allow me to quote myself:
I wrote: If it isn't strong enough, that can be looked into, but just because its activated with a Reaction does not mean there is not agency in its use. I wrote: I think Retributive Strike is mostly fine as is. It could use some kind of Step Up mechanic so an enemy can't just move out of your reach and attack the ally you were guarding. So yeah, you got me. They can just Step away! Oh, look at that, I got me first.
Right now, Retributive Strike works when your ally is in a corner and you're diagonal from them, when the enemy doesn't have room to maneuver, when you have a reach weapon, when your enemy doesn't know you have the ability, and when the enemy isn't smart enough to move or pick its targets wisely. It doesn't work well against a semi-smart opponent who has room to maneuver and it doesn't work against ranged attacks. Step Up would fix the former, and I think the shield block feat can be used against ranged? I don't remember.
If, instead, you're pointing out that the enemy can ignore the Paladin and just take the Retributive Strike, you're absolutely right. This isn't meant to be a Perfect Defense™ from an anime. It's a deterrent. When you choose to ignore it, you open yourself to more attacks. If that's worth it to a creature, they can go right on ahead. A Paladin can also have a shield block and can heal an ally three times in a single turn if necessary, so they have other options. They shouldn't be so good at defending that no one they're protecting can possibly take damage.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Not being able to use Retributive Strike is not a bad thing if it still forces your enemies to act in a non-optimal way.
Like an enemy taking a Step to not get hit by a Retributive Strike. Steps aren't free anymore, they cost an action. Every Step taken is one less potential hit to your ally.
We probably just need a low level paladin feat that allows you to Step towards an enemy as part of your reaction before making the Strike. That would increase the usability of Retributive Strike immensely.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pandora's wrote: HWalsh wrote: Ok, this is hyperbole.
So here, Pandora, I'll call you on it.
Allow me to quote myself:
I wrote: If it isn't strong enough, that can be looked into, but just because its activated with a Reaction does not mean there is not agency in its use. I wrote: I think Retributive Strike is mostly fine as is. It could use some kind of Step Up mechanic so an enemy can't just move out of your reach and attack the ally you were guarding. So yeah, you got me. They can just Step away! Oh, look at that, I got me first.
Right now, Retributive Strike works when your ally is in a corner and you're diagonal from them, when the enemy doesn't have room to maneuver, when you have a reach weapon, when your enemy doesn't know you have the ability, and when the enemy isn't smart enough to move or pick its targets wisely. It doesn't work well against a semi-smart opponent who has room to maneuver and it doesn't work against ranged attacks. Step Up would fix the former, and I think the shield block feat can be used against ranged? I don't remember.
If, instead, you're pointing out that the enemy can ignore the Paladin and just take the Retributive Strike, you're absolutely right. This isn't meant to be a Perfect Defense™ from an anime. It's a deterrent. When you choose to ignore it, you open yourself to more attacks. If that's worth it to a creature, they can go right on ahead. A Paladin can also have a shield block and can heal an ally three times in a single turn if necessary, so they have other options. They shouldn't be so good at defending that no one they're protecting can possibly take damage.
See nobody is saying that Retributive Strike makes the enemy not take damage.
Retributive Strike is supposed to be a power that basically equates to: "Attack me, not my ally, if I am close to you and my ally, or I will attack you and potentially harm you, weaken you, and negate the attack."
It is supposed to give the enemy an incentive to do one of the three following things:
1. Attack the Paladin.
2. Realistically hinder those who want to attack the person the Paladin is protecting.
3. Allow the Paladin to attack the enemy.
Now, in Pathfinder 1 this mechanic would have been... Semi-good. It would work a lot better because the Paladin in question could Attack of Opportunity and could have gotten Step Up. In PF2? Not so much.
Here are the PF2 problems.
Problem 1:
The Paladin cannot AoO until minimum level 6. This means that the enemy can not only step, but could just move, without consequence. This is made doubly bad, why? Well in PF1 moving meant they couldn't full attack. In PF2 the third attack is almost always going to miss. In the case of even low level enemies, like Goblins, this -10 results in a 1d20-4. Thus losing 1 of their 3 actions isn't really a hindrance.
So, as you stated, against any even remotely sapient, not even smart, creature you might get one attack before they know what is going on.
Problem 2:
They have no incentive to attack the Paladin. I mean, certainly, the Paladin might be a threat, but 9 out of 10 times they aren't the biggest threat. The actual threat is the wisest target. They can move away from the Paladin. There is nothing the Paladin can do to stop it. There is no reason to attack him unless he is their target, and at which point Retributive Strike isn't the thing causing them to attack the Paladin. This means it isn't performing its main function.
Problem 3:
This is so easy to avoid, especially at low levels, it doesn't allow the Paladin to attack most enemies.
So...
-----
It doesn't actually give an incentive to attack the Paladin in almost any circumstance.
It doesn't actually cause enemies to lose attacks to avoid the Retributive Strike.
It doesn't allow the Paladin to punish enemies who attack the person they are protecting.
-----
Meaning it fails at all three things it is supposed to do.
Heck, you can't even spend 2 actions to ready an action to move into position when the enemy moves into position so you can Retributive Strike them because using the Readied Action costs a Reaction after it is set so you don't have a Reaction to use Retributive Strike.
-----
At the moment, I cannot, in any realistic way, call Retributive Strike a functional ability. It is so super situational that it literally requires the GM to specifically set up encounters, and environments, so that it can be used.
No ability should be that difficult to use and still be the defining class ability.
Again, I love Paladins, I have no problem playing a defensive role. I did not set out to prove Retributive Strike doesn't work initially. It just happened to prove itself. Currently it is only viable with a reach weapon.
Interestingly with a Reach Weapon it works quite well. That is the ONLY situation where it works.
That is a design issue.
Great for Paladins of Shelyn I guess.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pandora's wrote: master_marshmallow wrote: Pandora's wrote: master_marshmallow wrote: If only it worked. You should consider supporting why you don't think it works rather than just stating such. Others may find your opinion has more weight that way. You men like the OPs playtest results where they had to force it to activate just to see how it played? Now we're just going in circles. Back to the Mirror Image example. If your defensive ability causes the defended person to never be attacked, it doesn't matter if the ability's mechanical benefit (in the case of Mirror Image, a miss chance; in the case of Retributive Strike, an avenging attack) is ever realized. The ability was successful! The defended character was not attacked, because of your actions. That is only a disappointment if you chose a defensive ability (in this case, by picking the defensive class) expecting to use it as an offensive ability. Abilities tend to work best when you use them for their designed purpose. So literally by choosing to play this class it's my own fault that I'm not having fun? Those are literally your words.
I get that you like Retributive Strike, but man come on, you have me and Hwalsh on the same side of an argument about paladins.
Retributive Strike doesn't seem to be functioning as intended, and it shoehorns most builds into a specific combat style (admittedly most of the classes do this).
This is artificial variety, it's forced upon you by gating the ability to do other things behind class features, and if you want an offensive paladin build like one from your memories of the last 20 years of the game, tough titties.
I don;t think it's a bad ability per se, but it definitely should be a feat and not the classes defining feature. If they want to get away from smiting evil as their main gimmick, then Divine Grace works wonders for the 'defensive tank' class. Divine Grace should be opened up more and I personally like having it scale with CHA, seeing that it'll only ever start at +3 and scale to +6 max with an item at 15th level.
Still, this was a compilation of multiple play sessions where the ability didn't function as it was sold to us. We need more from the classes first level class feature. Rogues get DEX to damage with their selected weapon group, barbarians get rage, wizards get their specialization school and arcane focus, clerics get channel energy and a domain.
Paladins, get to babysit, and only if they have the speed to keep up with whomever they're babysitting.
This is a legitimate play test, and this is a legitimate opinion OP has about the ability.
Blave wrote: Not being able to use Retributive Strike is not a bad thing if it still forces your enemies to act in a non-optimal way.
Like an enemy taking a Step to not get hit by a Retributive Strike. Steps aren't free anymore, they cost an action. Every Step taken is one less potential hit to your ally.
We probably just need a low level paladin feat that allows you to Step towards an enemy as part of your reaction before making the Strike. That would increase the usability of Retributive Strike immensely.
That doesn't actually work.
I checked it.
Using a level 0 enemy, for example, a Goblin, with a +6 to hit.
Assuming a lightly armored opponent - An AC of 15 - A level 1 character, with a chain shirt (+2), who is trained in light armor, and a +2 dexterity. This is a very low AC.
the Goblin Warrior has a +6 Attack Bonus with their Dogslicer. Assuming it is using it as an Agile Weapon it suffers the following penalties to attack: -0/-4/-8
To hit a 15 it needs to roll a 9, an 13, and a 17
In math terms a 60% chance to hit, 40% chance to hit, and a 20% chance to hit.
It isn't likely to actually hit with the third attack. It isn't losing much by moving.
Though Goblins are actually a really bad example because of one of their special reactions they can move when another goblin is near them which well... Yeah... I am ignoring that for now because it really hurts the Paladin here.
Then, if the enemy is moving in to get to the target the Paladin is protecting it is likely they can avoid the Paladin without using any extra movement. At which point the Paladin has 0 effect. So the Paladin only has an effect if the enemy doesn't have to move and thus can throw out 3 attacks. That is... Poor.
master_marshmallow wrote: I get that you like Retributive Strike, but man come on, you have me and Hwalsh on the same side of an argument about paladins. I sort of thought the same thing...
Note: I couldn't quote your whole post as you used a bad word, which is a forum no-no so I recommend you fix that.
Anyway, but yes, I mean... Look...
Marshmellow and I aren't friends here usually, I mean, I won't say bitter enemies, but we're almost always like... Opponents?
This should be the litmus test for Paladin mechanics. If Master Marshmellow and HWalsh ever agree that something is bad for Paladins then, like, it is bad for Paladins and should instantly be removed and/or heavily altered.
This is like... I mean... How do I put it...
This is a Cobra and a Mongoose putting aside their differences to take on a bigger threat. Like, this is rare. Seriously rare. I'm pretty sure Marshmellow and I both ate (or almost ate) a forum suspension over Paladin Alignment threads.
Having an enemy not take a 20% attack doesn't seem bad to me. And that's not even mentioning creatures with special effects on hit (like a ghoul) or the various creatures that would probably use their 3rd action for some kind of nasty special ability.
Note that I'm not saying Retribution Strike is fine as is. I don't have enough data to come to any conclusion. But being able to take a Step before the Strike (either baseline or as a low level feat for tankadins) seems like a workable and easy solution, as it both increases the range and mostly avoids the "Step out of range" problem.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Blave wrote: Having an enemy not take a 20% attack doesn't seem bad to me. And that's not even mentioning creatures with special effects on hit (like a ghoul) or the various creatures that would probably use their 3rd action for some kind of nasty special ability.
Note that I'm not saying Retribution Strike is fine as is. I don't have enough data to come to any conclusion. But being able to take a Step before the Strike (either baseline or as a low level feat for tankadins) seems like a workable and easy solution, as it both increases the range and mostly avoids the "Step out of range" problem.
The problem with that is, under most circumstances, since a move and a step are the same action, unless the Paladin has a way to stop (or hinder) a move that doesn't work. A Paladin doesn't get that until 6th level minimum.
Here is my Tankadin Build so you can see it:
Note: This build also increase my move speed by a whopping 15 by level 10 just so I can keep up in heavy Armor. This only lists what levels I get Class Feats through one method or another. This also uses the Shield Spirit at first.
Level 1: Warded Touch (LoH with shields and no provoke!)
Level 2: Hospice Knight (More healing to protect allies!)
Level 3: Ancestral Heritage -> Natural Ambition -> Deity's Domain (more SP for LoH)
Level 4: Mercy (More LoH!)
Level 6: Attack of Opportunity (Ha! You can step, but not move, away)
Level 8: Advanced Domain (MORE SP for Loh!)
Level 10: Second Spirit (Blade Spirit!)
Level 12: Holy Wall (Now you finally *CAN* stop them from stepping!)
Level 14: Radiant Blade Spirit (Now you have a Holy Weapon, useful for enemies vulnerable to Good and just +1d6 more damage with self-healing)
Level 16: Instrument of Zeal (Again - Useful for Retributive Strike)
Level 18: Ultimate Mercy (Man I really wanted Angel Form here, but more SP and raising allies that died is useful..)
Level 20: Shield Champion (As much as I want Angel Form, this build uses the shield too much. This makes me a sad panda.)
Biggest advantage of this one? It maximizes Retributive strike *and* Defending and Protecting your allies. It also is a Paladin of Iomedae and has a boatload of SP.
(assuming you're at 20 Charisma at level 20 you have 11 Spell Points! That is a pretty good bit!)
I don't feel I should be following an exact build, take a specific spirit, and take specific feats at 2 specific levels, in order to make a class defining feature reliable.
Remember Holy is a reaction now and cannot be used with AOO or Retributive Strike.
master_marshmallow wrote: Remember Holy is a reaction now and cannot be used with AOO or Retributive Strike. Actually, that is what I thought too...
We were incorrect:
Holy reads: (Playtest Book page 374)
Quote: A weapon with this rune deals 1d6 additional good damage against evil targets. If you are evil, you become enfeebled 2 while wielding or carrying this weapon.
When you activate the weapon, you regain Hit Points equal to
twice the level of the evil creature.
It does the first power always, not just when you "activate" it. The healing is the only part that costs you a reaction.
If you are adjacent to an ally at one side of his squares, there's no way an enemy can position himself in a way so he can hit said ally* and not be within Step distance of you. Doesn't matter if he Steps 5 feet or moves 100 feat. That is the difference between being able to Step before the Retributive Strike or not.
What exactly would you suggest, if I may ask? Taking a whole Stride before the Strike? That seems a bit excessive, especially for a typically low mobility class like the Paladin. I could see the Step and Strike being baseline with a feat to increase it to a "10-foot Step".
*For simplicity's sake, I'm ignoring attacks with reach and larger than medium allies here.
Blave wrote: If you are adjacent to an ally at one side of his squares, there's no way an enemy can position himself in a way so he can hit said ally* and not be within Step distance of you. Doesn't matter if he Steps 5 feet or moves 100 feat. That is the difference between being able to Step before the Retributive Strike or not.
What exactly would you suggest, if I may ask? Taking a whole Stride before the Strike? That seems a bit excessive, especially for a typically low mobility class like the Paladin. I could see the Step and Strike being baseline with a feat to increase it to a "10-foot Step".
*For simplicity's sake, I'm ignoring attacks with reach and larger than medium allies here.
There are cases where you can't step to an enemy - Though yes, the step would help:
Example Grid:
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
You are at 3, ally is at 5, enemy is at 2.
1 E Y
4 A 6
7 8 9
Enemy takes a Stride, moving from 2, to 1, 4, and 7.
1 2 Y
4 A 6
E 8 9
You can step to 2 or 6, neither of which put you in reach.
Now, granted, this works if you are at 4, 2, 6, or 8, but that means you can never place yourself at the corner of an ally. And while that is *much* better (no lie there) moving 10 feet would eliminate that issue almost completely.
Well, that's a "corner case" (I'm almost sorry for that. Almost.)
I'm aware of this situation. That's why I said you have to be adjacent on the side of the square.
I don't know, Steping (or even Striding) 10 feet seems a bit much, at least without feat investment.
How about an "Intercept" feat, allowing you to move up to 10 feet when an ally is attacked, but you must use either Shield Warden or Retributive Strike against this attack(er). Or both if you have Shield of Reckoning, of course.
|
