| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Secondly, run it where the enemies have the access to taunt and see how your players feel after encountering. Once more, I feel like taking away player autonomy is going to feel, at the end of the day, not fun. It introduces a challenge, yes, but overcoming it doesn't feel like a victory so much as it does, "Oh, good, that annoying obstacle is gone."
Unless you're suggesting that we also get rid of spells, such as Command, fear, sleep, confusion, or most spells of the Enchantment school then I don't think "player agency" is really that much of an problem. Heck at least with a taunt you're not losing your actions at all unlike many spells where's it's you stand there babbling like an idiot or drop everything and walk stupidity towards the guy commanding you.
I dislike very much the free pass magic always gets simply because it's magic yet Martials have an ability that's not as reliable, usually has caveats, and functions in a limited factor but its considered "broken".
I like Compel Hostility type of a deal but rather than having it a spell just make it a higher level feat usable once or twice a day max. The number of actions to use or whatever is best left in the hands of the professionals at Paizo. Or you could do something like In Harms Way, you could make it a Reaction, "...you intercept a successful attack against that ally as an immediate action, taking full damage from that attack and any associated effects" this is of course different from taunting but there countless ways to implement these things into the game and eventually they probably will be.
Secondly, run it where the enemies have the access to taunt and see how your players feel after encountering. Once more, I feel like taking away player autonomy is going to feel, at the end of the day, not fun. It introduces a challenge, yes, but overcoming it doesn't feel like a victory so much as it does, "Oh, good, that annoying obstacle is gone."Unless you're suggesting that we also get rid of spells, such as Command, fear, sleep, confusion, or most spells of the Enchantment school then I don't think "player agency" is really that much of an problem. Heck at least with a taunt you're not losing your actions at all unlike many spells where's it's you stand there babbling like an idiot or drop everything and walk stupidity towards the guy commanding you.
I dislike very much the free pass magic always gets simply because it's magic yet Martials have an ability that's not as reliable, usually has caveats, and functions in a limited factor but its considered "broken".
Yes, once again I have never played a martial nor do I like martial characters, I just feel as if they should get these types of things. It would make the class more enjoyable as an option for some, and if you don't like it then you don't need to go that route. Pathfinder has always been about options.
We should take a look at some of these and see why they aren't well known or brought up more often.
Goad from 3.5 had a Charisma pre-req which necessitates a certain build of a tanking character. There are big and obvious trade offs for building a character in this way. This is a time where each ability point is a lot more important than it is in the playtest right now (where we're seeing a lot higher stats thanks to the ability boosts). If a player showed me a "tanking fighter" that focused on Charisma (of which the DC was based on), then it's an interesting choice and build. But, not optimal. Sub-par for sure.· Goad (complete adventurer)
I dont see why a specific Charisma score is required to get the feat but I dont have objections to using Charisma in this fashion.
I don't think it's fair to include 4e content in this list as the game was much more focused around grid movement and battle mechanics. I know that I don't speak for everyone, but this isn't any direction I would like the game to go in. The end result is that Pathfinder and 4e are apples and oranges and comparing their mechanics doesn't really apply here.· Test of Mettle (knight 4th level, PH2)
· Glowering Threat (fighter 2 exploit, Heroes of the fallen lands)
· Come and Get It (fighter 7 exploit, PHB)
1. The knight is from 3.5 with the use of his Knightly Challenge feature (test of Mettle at 4th level). It requires a caveat to CR, language, and specific Int scores of the target. It's one of the classes better features.
2. I added in 4e exploits because its important to show the concept isn't alien to TTRPGs or D&D specifically. The fact that 4e uses squares (as opposed to feet) is a non-sequitur as is the notion that somehow 4e is more combat focused than PF (it isn't at all, BTW). The ability to draw fire is certainly a tactic many class-based RPGs use in some capacity.
This is actually what I thought more people would bring up. PF1e had an easily accessible "taunt" mechanic that no one ever used. Why? The action economy for it was terrible. You use your singular standard action to get one enemy to attack you on your next turn. It's a trap feat in PF1e. To make that equivalent, would you accept a 3 action use taunt in the playtest? I feel like I most would decry that as a trap feat.· Antagonize (PFsrd)
We can't simply fix that? Make it require less actions to use? I dont see that as a problem per-se.
· Boasting Taunt (barbarian 6th level, APG)
This is a good example of a "taunt" mechanic that I would love to see. It debuffs the opponent with the shaken mechanic until they succeed at an attack on the barbarian. It's not forcing any action and it's making your choices impactful for your team. Yes, this 100% all the way.
It certainly a step in the right direction, I'll grant you that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That boasting taunt looks a lot like the example skill feat I made up on the fly earlier in the thread and I didn’t even know about it off the top of my head. If this kind of thing were to exist in PF2 I wouldn’t particularly like it but in the form I put out I would accept it. Making it a charisma skill check (deceit seems most appropriate) and have it gated at master at the very least.
Unless you're suggesting that we also get rid of spells, such as Command, fear, sleep, confusion, or most spells of the Enchantment school then I don't think "player agency" is really that much of an problem. Heck at least with a taunt you're not losing your actions at all unlike many spells where's it's you stand there babbling like an idiot or drop everything and walk stupidity towards the guy commanding you.
I dislike very much the free pass magic always gets simply because it's magic yet Martials have an ability that's not as reliable, usually has caveats, and functions in a limited factor but its considered "broken".
As many people have brought up before, spells are much more limited in how often they can be cast as well as who is casting them. A wizard with a low health pool casting spells to slow down the party is very different from the high hp fighter with armor and weapons.
But, rather than argue over and over at what should be appropriate for the game, let's look at something else, because as I mentioned previously, you gave a really good example earlier and that's a much more interesting design space!
Boasting Taunt from PF1e penalizes that enemy for not attacking you. As a player or as a DM, I now have the choice of what sort of action I would like to make. Do I want to remove the condition from myself and attack the barbarian, or would I like to ignore him and focus on his more vulnerable cleric? That's an interesting choice and fun design.
So, what if fighters had something akin to...
Cruel Challenge (level 2 fighter feat)
1 action
You issue a verbal challenge to an enemy within 30 feet that can hear you. They must make a Will save versus your Class DC or become enfeebled 1 (really not a great example, but a quick condition to make this work). This effect lasts until they successfully attack you or until you are no longer within line of sight.
It's a great taunt mechanic, but it isn't taking away any choices from anyone. If I wanted to make a fighter who wanted to draw in enemies, this would be wonderful.
How about starting here for a base of what people are looking for?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about starting here for a base of what people are looking for?
Well when theres nothing really there to begin with, I think its a good base lol. Id honestly take anything that helps facilitates that sort of Character concept better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well when theres nothing really there to begin with, I think its a good base lol. Id honestly take anything that helps facilitates that sort of Character concept better.
Great! Sounds like we're all on the same page here with this, in that regard. I don't think anyone is advocating for there to not be a "defender role," but rather different ways of approaching it. I would be very interested in seeing that concept explored more fully.
I like the idea of a fighter giving up some of his combat prowess in favor of crippling his opponents and protecting his allies. Shield slams that hamper opponents, interposing themselves between attacks as reaction, and purposely making themselves a more appealing target so they have more control over the fight.
I'm looking forward to what we'll see with the launch of the core book and, more importantly, what's to come going forward. I don't know if this is something we'll see in the core book, but I think it's very possible to roll out ideas like these with future supplements.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, I see exactly what you mean. At my games, I tend to have the fighter feel important in his role when he gets swarmed with enemies, but also enjoy testing the group with more intelligent, strategic foes who bypass him. "Taunting" or the lack thereof has never been an issue at my table, but I recognize that other people may want this.
The problem I have is that I already greatly enjoy the current Attack of Opportunity for that. I threw together some ideas of more "battlefield control" type things, but they always ended up in melee range, which already has you set up perfectly for AoO.
For people who want to see more "tanking options," what about a Press attack that works something like...
Resounding Blow
1 action, Press
Your relentless onslaught punishes enemies who don't take you seriously.
Make a melee Strike. It gains the following enhancement.
Enhancement: Until the start of your next turn, your target is enfeebled 1 unless it Strikes you. Ignore the -2 penalty to Attack of Opportunity caused by any triggering actions the target makes until the start of your next turn.
(The wording for it is really not great, but you can see where I'm going with this.)
For people who want to see more "tanking options," what about a Press attack that works something like...
Resounding Blow
1 action, Press
Your relentless onslaught punishes enemies who don't take you seriously.
Make a melee Strike. It gains the following enhancement.
Enhancement: Until the start of your next turn, your target is enfeebled 1 unless it Strikes you. Ignore the -2 penalty to Attack of Opportunity caused by any triggering actions the target makes until the start of your next turn.(The wording for it is really not great, but you can see where I'm going with this.)
Yeah, that's something I could get behind. 3.5 also had a feat that lowered your own AC, but let you take an AoO for every attack an enemy made in your threatened area that was at someone other than you. So while the bad guy could ignore you to attack the squishy next to you three times, you get to attack him three times for it. With some reach shenagians, enlarge, and a spiked chain, you were bringing a whole lot of pain to someone who ignored you without needing a taunt.
The same character would probably want Thicket of Blades and Stand Still to have a shot at outright stopping stuff from getting past you. This is all much more interesting than a taunt, as creating situations and tactical disadvantages still leaves option the option to eat the pain and aim at the squishy anyway or not, whereas a taunt really doesn't.
It also works better against players, because maybe it's worth it to the PC Rogue to risk it to take out that Wizard, figuring his healer will get to him in time if it goes poorly or not. You give the PC a decision to make and maybe a memorable moment.
Taunts against PCs suck just as much as constantly using compulsion magic against PCs sucks. It gives you none of that.
I dont see why a specific Charisma score is required to get the feat but I dont have objections to using Charisma in this fashion.
That's because Goad wasn't skill based. It was just level based. The prereq was just so you couldn't dump CHA and still take it. It wasn't terribly well designed that way.
2. I added in 4e exploits because its important to show the concept isn't alien to TTRPGs or D&D specifically. The fact that 4e uses squares (as opposed to feet) is a non-sequitur as is the notion that somehow 4e is more combat focused than PF (it isn't at all, BTW). The ability to draw fire is certainly a tactic many class-based RPGs use in some capacity.
Given how popular 4e was, I'm not sure using it as an example makes the point you want it to. Especially with how many people took to Pathfinder originally because it was not 4e.
We can't simply fix that? Make it require less actions to use? I dont see that as a problem per-se.
The Fighter in my current PF game has Antagonize. Aside from the action cost, it doesn't work that reliably except when my Cleric has hit her with Touch of Glory first (which since it lasts and hour and I have tons of them per day is done before any combat we can prep for). Maybe she just doesn't have the skill ranks needed to make it work frequently, I don't know why that's a problem. But it is one.
I mean, as it is, that makes it a once a combat thing, which at least isn't overpowered. If she could actually reliably spam it every round against some of the stuff we're fighting, the action economy trade would be a pretty good deal as it effectively neutralizes a much more powerful foe.
It certainly a step in the right direction, I'll grant you that.
Yeah, boasting taunt is pretty neat. It's also not a "taunt" in the common terminology. It's a debuff with a removal condition that encourages the opponent to act the way you want but doesn't remove agency from the player. That's a good thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
spells are much more limited in how often they can be cast as well as who is casting them.
While Daily Uses is still arguable, though there are ways around that (not the least of which would be a martial alternative to spell points) in the playtest Spells are arguably more widely available than many martial abilities. Every spell list is usable by two full casters (Whatever the list's normal caster is and the Sorcerer), and across the spell lists a massive number of spells are not unique to a single list. So that means a lot of spells are cast-able by at least 3 classes inherently. In contrast, most martial class feats (there are exceptions but they're more the exception than the rule) are unique to a single class. Heck, even as far as Multiclassing a multiclassed caster can get up to 8th level spells, while a multiclassed martial is completely unable to access roughly half the multiclass's feats (everything above level 10).