| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Preface with acknowledging that both will need rebalanceed(Hampering Sweeps need a roll of some kind).
Thematically, I have a much easier time with a Guardian physically preventing enemies from moving past them, rather than shouting across the battlefield.
As such some kind of immobilize should be a core feature.
Also I can see several ways to do, each could be a subclass.
Grappler
When a creature attempts to leave your reach, you can Grab them as a free action. (Possibly auto-scale Athletics).
Quagmire
Enemies in your reach who move away from you spend 15' of extra movement (good for polearms).
Taunt can still be there as a feat, or possibly a subclass. But it shouldn't be core.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea of having a Hampering Sweeps style lockdown class path, as well as a "roam around the battlefield off-turn with a bunch of reactions to get in the way of strikes" style class path.
I'm not a fan of the "Hey, come get me!" shouty style class path, but I have heard enough people like it and would want to lean into it that I wouldn't straight up campaign against its inclusion. If it ended up being a feat or feat chain, I'd be happy, but it sounds like to get it to the level some are looking for that would close it off as feat-level ability which is an option for dipping.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I vote in favor of lockdown/difficult terrain moves.
Motion to have Taunt turned into a Feat, and published in an obscure sourcebook to mollify people think that needs to be a thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll just take both. Pass.
I'm not a fan of the "Hey, come get me!" shouty style class path, but I have heard enough people like it and would want to lean into it that I wouldn't straight up campaign against its inclusion. If it ended up being a feat or feat chain, I'd be happy, but it sounds like to get it to the level some are looking for that would close it off as feat-level ability which is an option for dipping.
I wonder how many of them like the idea of shouting at enemies to come get them, and how many just want a way to force attacks on the Guardian.
Either way, I wasn't suggesting completely removing Taunt. Just not making it the default.
I'll just take both. Pass.
you can still have both.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m in full favour of this. Locking enemies down so that they must deal with the Guardian is a fun playstyle for me. I’d rather have that than Taunt as the class feature. Plus no easy MC dipping…
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I continue to be in favor of zone-based guardians.
- You have a relatively small area around you. This is your zone.
- The zone is easy for enemies to get into, and hard for them to get out of
- Taunt is mostly useful for bringing additional enemies into the zone.
At the same time, the hulking figure in big clanking armor who goes hurtling across the battlefield handing out Nopes is also a pretty fun image.
It might almost....
Okay, so here's a crazy idea. We get three different subclasses of Guardian, depending on where you focus your attentions.
- A Control guardian is as above. They have a zone of stickiness, they have access to powers to pull enemies into it, it's hard to get out of, and they can use their various guardian reactions on enemies within that zone. They like taking a solid, central position an then not moving much. They generally like polearms.
- A Protect Guardian designates specific allies. They get their funky reactions whenever those allies are threatened, and have enough mobility built into the reactions to get to their friends in time, even if it means ricocheting back and forth across the battlefield a bit to cover multiple friends. They tend to like shields.
- A Thwart Guardian designates specific enemies, and can react to prevent those specific enemies from doing things that they shouldn't. This is the one that works well for ranged guardians, and the fact that you can use a ranged weapon to distribute some of your guardian reactions at range is a meaningful part of their awesomeness budget.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I would much rather play defensively by being sticky and being "in the way" than being loud. I think it's much more satisfying to force enemies to attack you because there's no one else within range they can attack than to yell at them until they attack you.
Hampering Sweeps is much more definitive of the kind of Guardian I want to play than either Taunt or Intercept Strike. For my money both of those are kind of "feels bad" mechanics, since one reduces your defense (i.e. the best thing you have) and the other treats you as a HP battery. I'd prefer every other way of protecting my allies to those two.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I really like the mechanical concepts behind hampering strikes and thinks it's a great foundation, I don't think it really works as well as a primary ability, because its use cases are more dictated by party composition and terrain.
In places with limited terrain (or sometimes the opposite, too much space), or parties with heavy melee skewed compositions, it can be hard to position yourself in such a way as to establish an effective zone.
One of our players recently swapped to Guardian in an Abomination Vaults game, and despite how absurdly powerful the playtest version of the ability is, he had to opt out of hampering strikes because it's just not credibly usable. Some rooms in AV are so tight that you might not even be able to get all your melee combatants adjacent to an enemy to hit them, which renders the ability to lock an enemy in a specific space almost meaningless. That's not where you want a core class feature to be.
Again, hampering strikes is a fantastic ability and zone-based control is a really fun design space, but it works better as an opt-in. Primary class features should be relatively straight forward and ubiquitous (like handing out attack penalties).
I also think taunt's more straightforward mechanics make it more modular and easier to upgrade or customize, which are good things for a core class feature to have.
We get three different subclasses of Guardian
I'd really rather not decimate the Guardian into subclasses. It's nice being able to mix and match tools. It'd be genuinely really disappointing if the final version of the class forced you to pick between the different pieces of its toolkit, even if they individual components were stronger as a result. IMO what makes the guardian interesting and workable is that it has a combination of options that come together.
In places with limited terrain (or sometimes the opposite, too much space), or parties with heavy melee skewed compositions, it can be hard to position yourself in such a way as to establish an effective zone.
Intercept Strike would still protect allies that are close.
I wasn't suggesting removing that.
In places with limited terrain (or sometimes the opposite, too much space), or parties with heavy melee skewed compositions, it can be hard to position yourself in such a way as to establish an effective zone.Also feats like..
Enemies within your reach take -2 to attack others.
Or
When your shield is raised, adjacent allies gain +2 AC.Where you are physically guarding your allies, not emotionally manipulating enemies.
Taunt makes more sense for a Rogue, Swashbuckler, or someone into trickery, IMO. Not big guy in heavy armor.
Subclasses are weird, it can be used to increases power of some features but locks you out from mix and matching feats which utility can be as powerful if not more powerful then focusing on a single subclass and a selection of feats which most will probably take and consider "Mandatory." ...
I.E Dragon Barbarian winds or breathe, I have never seen a single player not consider not taking both. They just feel more Mandatory because of your sub-class choice.
Preface with acknowledging that both will need rebalanceed(Hampering Sweeps need a roll of some kind).
It has an on going action cost. Yes it is very strong. But maybe it needs to be to encourage alternative play styles.
Thematically, I have a much easier time with a Guardian physically preventing enemies from moving past them, rather than shouting across the battlefield.
As such some kind of immobilize should be a core feature.
I'd definitely give some consideration to different core features. I would like to see the Guardian with Defensive Swap and Hampering Sweep as class features and Taunt and Intercept Strike as feats.
While I don't think that a 'petition' is going to be useful; anyway, I already said so in the other thread, so I clearly agree with the idea of making (a more balanced) Hampering Sweeps a class feature of the Guardian, and to turn Taunt into a feat.
The only thing I'm a little afraid of is that Taunt, as is, would be considered too strong for a low level feat.
I think causing difficult terrain for enemies around you is likely the best way to tackle this.
Too weak by a fair bit.
I think difficult terrain for a level 2 feat would be fine. The problem is that without a reactive strike it would only exist for fighter to poach it.
I'm not a fan of the "Hey, come get me!" shouty style class path, but I have heard enough people like it and would want to lean into it that I wouldn't straight up campaign against its inclusion. If it ended up being a feat or feat chain, I'd be happy, but it sounds like to get it to the level some are looking for that would close it off as feat-level ability which is an option for dipping.I wonder how many of them like the idea of shouting at enemies to come get them, and how many just want a way to force attacks on the Guardian.
Either way, I wasn't suggesting completely removing Taunt. Just not making it the default.
Intercept strike is a much better ability if you want to force your enemies to strike you, since that's pretty much exactly what it does. I have become an advocate for taunt almost despite myself, and it appeals to me as a way to yell across the battlefield, "Hey, don't worry about catching them, worry about outrunning ME!" That is, it makes your allies less attractive targets via debuffing the enemy, not the hard yoink that "force attacks on the guardian" implies.
And as someone who likes playing martial debuff specialists, I like it a lot more than I expected it to when I first read the class.
Edit: all that said, I am greatly in favor of additional options for those debuffs, and a movement penalty to break away from the guardian (while giving no penalty to move towards the guardian) seems very much the kind of ability I could get behind as a Threat Technique.
Champions already have the lvl 12 Divine Wall, which I don’t find that flavourful. I’d like to see something more ‘sticky’.
The playtest feedback is a petition!
=)
This is pretty true indeed.
However besides this what they need for Hampering Sweep is something which isn't free but all it really does is make you the primary target if they can't reach your allies by moving within your reach, using ranged attack or casting magic. Without Reactive Strikes all this feat does it one of two things.
1) Makes you prime target #1 for all effected enemies.
2) Become the Fighter and any level 6 class with the Reactive Strike Feat best friend. Which is cool but not that fun.
I say give the Guardian a Retributed strike mechanic that lets them reaction strike with a +2 circumstance bonus on attack rolls if they are the target of a strike instead of an ally..
I think causing difficult terrain for enemies around you is likely the best way to tackle this.Too weak by a fair bit.
It needs to have the full effect it has the first time its used consecutively but make it impose movement like the foe is in difficult terrain for subsequent consecutive uses. Its fine to get the full effect again if theres a turn in between where it didnt completely stop that enemy. That could be the middle ground so its never using rolls.
Wondering if it would be better as an everyother turn gets full effect or if there has to be a turn where that foe was not affected by hampering sweeps either full effect or difficult terrain effect to get the full effect again.
Moving IN TO difficult terrain is the penalty. There is no penalty for moving out of it.
So it would just make it harder to reach the guardian, not harder to get away.
Though it does help moving around them.
Moving IN TO difficult terrain is the penalty. There is no penalty for moving out of it.
So it would just make it harder to reach the guardian, not harder to get away.
Though it does help moving around them.
I thought about that actually, so I worded it differently than making the space difficult terrain. Instead I worded it as make it impose movement like the foe is in difficult terrain, I should have clarified it further, attempting to move while affected by hampering sweeps on a consecutive turn is treated as moving through difficult terrain.
The effect wouldnt do anything to a non effected enemy just comming into the guardians reach since they were not affected by hampering sweeps, but my intent was for a foe affected by the ability on the first turn to have the normal effect and if the ability is used on the same foe consecutively it makes any movement in any direction as if they were moving into difficult terrain for that move action.Meaning they cant step, They can stride but the entire stride is done at the difficult terrain penalty.
This makes the guardian a difficult obstacle to get around but not impassable on a second turn.
The Monk's Tangled Forest Stance also has a very interesting way of tackling this topic
Agreed. That would fit nicely.
Every enemy in your reach that tries to move away from you must succeed at a Reflex save, Acrobatics check, or Athletics check against your class DC or be immobilized for that action. If you prefer, you can allow the enemy to move.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This would make sense to me. Taunt didn't feel good to use most of the time, while Hampering Sweep is a great "you can't get away from me so you can't get to my wizard friend to hurt them" mechanic.
Forcing enemies to engage with you by making it hard to disengage makes more sense than taking a penalty to your own defenses to hopefully accomplish something (or doing it from 100' away which while effective mechanically, is just thematically ridiculous).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please no, I think Taunt should remain baseline and Hampering Sweeps should remain an option (but yes to the skill check on it)-- Hampering Sweeps is only useful if controlling their movement is useful, but taunt is useful even if your allies all stick into melee.
Taunt is also much more classic to the Guardian's class fantasy than Hampering Sweeps is, it's every bit as relevant as Sneak Attack is to the Rogue, and it makes the core loop go.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't like taunt and wish I could trade it away for something I want to use. Intercept strike is for your allies who insist on being in melee near you, not taunt.
I just don't really understand the fantasy of a defensive class that taunts. I understand that mechanically that sort of thing is suggested in MMORPGs, but I've never seen the point of it in a tactical, turn-based tabletop game. What I want, really, is for a version of the Champion without the baggage of "devoted to one god". It's weird that our first pass at that has resulted in someone more selfless than the holy knight guy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please no, I think Taunt should remain baseline and Hampering Sweeps should remain an option (but yes to the skill check on it)-- Hampering Sweeps is only useful if controlling their movement is useful, but taunt is useful even if your allies all stick into melee.
Taunt is also much more classic to the Guardian's class fantasy than Hampering Sweeps is, it's every bit as relevant as Sneak Attack is to the Rogue, and it makes the core loop go.
Taunt is useful for certain definitions of "useful". You need HP to use Intercepting Strike. Making yourself easier to hit with Taunt results in you losing HP faster than if the enemy attacks someone else and you take the hit via Intercepting Strike, since Taunt lowered your AC to equivalent (or worse!) than theirs, and you don't get the resistance that you would if your ally got attacked and you Intercept it.
Hampering Sweeps is a classic tank design: force the enemy to engage with you via battlefield control. It needs a nerf from its current incarnation, but the design is sound and actually lets you utilize your high AC, instead of weakening yourself the way Taunt does. If your goal is to protect the Wizard behind you, this is extremely effective since the enemy must go through you to get to them.
Grappler builds can also do this already and I've seen it used to great effect.
The other issue with Taunt is that it's fiddly and hard to track, especially if you have the group version as you could have 3 enemies all with different levels of Taunt on them, which gets worse if you have two Guardians in a party (which is easy to happen in PFS), and that its best use is at long range which thematically is completely absurd.
I just don't like taunt and wish I could trade it away for something I want to use. Intercept strike is for your allies who insist on being in melee near you, not taunt.
I just don't really understand the fantasy of a defensive class that taunts. I understand that mechanically that sort of thing is suggested in MMORPGs, but I've never seen the point of it in a tactical, turn-based tabletop game. What I want, really, is for a version of the Champion without the baggage of "devoted to one god". It's weird that our first pass at that has resulted in someone more selfless than the holy knight guy.
I am as Tank main as you can get, I Tank main in any game that offers it as an option (WoW, SWTOR, FFXIV, Overwatch, Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition, Lancer, etc.)
I'll play other stuff too for variety, but at the end of the day I always come back to tanks, so I guess I'm maybe a good person to explain? I do it in Pathfinder as well, with the caveat that we didn't have good taunt support until this playtest, though I do like my Wood/Fire Kineticist and their use of Timber Sentinel.
The Fantasy of being a defensive class that taunts, the one expressed by the way MMO taunts works, is a fantasy about squaring up and being the one to take on the enemy directly-- in fantasy games that can mean being the focused target of titanic, powerful creatures, or hordes of lesser foes.
It's the imagery of banging on a shield or calling out and defying an enemy and having them turn their full attention to you, and surviving things that would kill other people. In the same way that high damage burst abilities can consolidate a sense of power fantasy, drawing the enemy on yourself and "surviving things that could kill lesser men" is a power fantasy. It's ok if it isn't for you, but like, its clearly designed to do it-- so lets just do it, the champion thing sounds better suited to a class archetype, or kind of already exists in the Stalwart Defender Archetype appended to another class.
The way taunt works, issuing a penalty to the target's ability to hit other people, worked excellently in 4e-- its a way to avoid deterministic aggro tables but have a similar effect by encouraging the monsters to attack someone they don't have a penalty to, and when an attack misses because of the penalty you'll feel like you came in clutch.
Please no, I think Taunt should remain baseline and Hampering Sweeps should remain an option (but yes to the skill check on it)-- Hampering Sweeps is only useful if controlling their movement is useful, but taunt is useful even if your allies all stick into melee.
Taunt is also much more classic to the Guardian's class fantasy than Hampering Sweeps is, it's every bit as relevant as Sneak Attack is to the Rogue, and it makes the core loop go.
Taunt is useful for certain definitions of "useful". You need HP to use Intercepting Strike. Making yourself easier to hit with Taunt results in you losing HP faster than if the enemy attacks someone else and you take the hit via Intercepting Strike, since Taunt lowered your AC to equivalent (or worse!) than theirs, and you don't get the resistance that you would if your ally got attacked and you Intercept it.
Hampering Sweeps is a classic tank design: force the enemy to engage with you via battlefield control. It needs a nerf from its current incarnation, but the design is sound and actually lets you utilize your high AC, instead of weakening yourself the way Taunt does. If your goal is to protect the Wizard behind you, this is extremely effective since the enemy must go through you to get to them.
Grappler builds can also do this already and I've seen it used to great effect.
The other issue with Taunt is that it's fiddly and hard to track, especially if you have the group version as you could have 3 enemies all with different levels of Taunt on them, which gets worse if you have two Guardians in a party (which is easy to happen in PFS), and that its best use is at long range which thematically is completely absurd.
The feedback I gave was specifically just re-tuning it, the AC lower on yourself is unnecessary, and the game's TTK is too low for it to be viable, also that it needs to land the penalty on Success, Failure, and Crit Success, which should affect duration instead of scaling up the effect.
4e had a mark mechanic that was identical, it wasn't difficult to track.
I think Hampering Sweeps is nice as a feat, but I wouldn't want it core to the class-- I've never really played a tank that relied on hard CC and it's power would vary too much based on party composition-- like who cares about the enemies moving if everyone in the party needs to get up close to function, and if grapple builds do it well already, it sounds like you're already well taken care of, whereas support for taunt mechanics is rather lower.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't really understand the fantasy of a defensive class that taunts. I understand that mechanically that sort of thing is suggested in MMORPGs, but I've never seen the point of it in a tactical, turn-based tabletop game. What I want, really, is for a version of the Champion without the baggage of "devoted to one god". It's weird that our first pass at that has resulted in someone more selfless than the holy knight guy.
I feel there's multiple conflicting fantasies of what a "tank" or defensive/guardian class is. When you say "I'm making a tank", everyone that hears it knows what it means, but they aren't necessarily thinking of the same thing.
It feels like the threat technique is intended to let you lean more into one fantasy over the other, but they're so trivial that they don't really accomplish that, and the class itself can do some of these better than others except when the features actively work against each other. If these were cleaned, it could work better.
ie: perhaps Taunt should be a part of one of the Threat Techniques and Hampering Sweeps in another, and then you pick the fantasy you want to play and then feats can build on those things.
Champion just feels better because it picks a style and leans fully into it.
The feedback I gave was specifically just re-tuning it, the AC lower on yourself is unnecessary, and the game's TTK is too low for it to be viable, also that it needs to land the penalty on Success, Failure, and Crit Success, which should affect duration instead of scaling up the effect.
4e had a mark mechanic that was identical, it wasn't difficult to track.
I think Hampering Sweeps is nice as a feat, but I wouldn't want it core to the class-- I've never really played a tank that relied on hard CC and it's power would vary too much based on party composition-- like who cares about the enemies moving if everyone in the party needs to get up close to function, and if grapple builds do it well already, it sounds like you're already well taken care of, whereas support for taunt mechanics is rather lower.
I believe that Marked only had one level of effect though. Taunt has 3 levels of effect, which makes it a lot more tracking, especially if you get it up on multiple things at once and the outcomes are different. IIRC the most common way to get marked up was also to be in melee hitting the thing, not yelling at it from 100' away.
Yeah, if Taunt was just "I get in your face and you have -1 to attack anyone else with no roll required", that's way better than what we have now.
I just don't really understand the fantasy of a defensive class that taunts. I understand that mechanically that sort of thing is suggested in MMORPGs, but I've never seen the point of it in a tactical, turn-based tabletop game. What I want, really, is for a version of the Champion without the baggage of "devoted to one god". It's weird that our first pass at that has resulted in someone more selfless than the holy knight guy.I feel there's multiple conflicting fantasies of what a "tank" or defensive/guardian class is. When you say "I'm making a tank", everyone that hears it knows what it means, but they aren't necessarily thinking of the same thing.
It feels like the threat technique is intended to let you lean more into one fantasy over the other, but they're so trivial that they don't really accomplish that, and the class itself can do some of these better than others except when the features actively work against each other. If these were cleaned, it could work better.
ie: perhaps Taunt should be a part of one of the Threat Techniques and Hampering Sweeps in another, and then you pick the fantasy you want to play and then feats can build on those things.
Champion just feels better because it picks a style and leans fully into it.
I agree. Makes way more sense if the guardian's subclasses was based in the way as you tank/protect your allies than it is currently. This would allow players to choose how they would like to tank. If they like to protect taunting, this would be in a subclass, if they want o to protect punishing will be in another subclass, if they want to protect switch places will be another subclass and so on. But Hampering Sweeps I think that could a main class feature. I don't think that it compete with the way as you tank it justs add an extra layer of protection to backline preventing the enemies do pass through you.
I just don't like taunt and wish I could trade it away for something I want to use. Intercept strike is for your allies who insist on being in melee near you, not taunt.
I just don't really understand the fantasy of a defensive class that taunts. I understand that mechanically that sort of thing is suggested in MMORPGs, but I've never seen the point of it in a tactical, turn-based tabletop game. What I want, really, is for a version of the Champion without the baggage of "devoted to one god". It's weird that our first pass at that has resulted in someone more selfless than the holy knight guy.
Even this aspect of being "dedicated to one god" is being heavily changed with the Player Core 2. The removal of alignment made champions more palatable to those who were put off by it, now we have Champions that don't need to engage with the Holy/Unholy Axis.
On top of that, we have Faiths and Philosophy that can completely remove that aspect from your character, such as "Atheism", "Sangpotshi" or "Laws of Mortality", for example.
I just don't like taunt and wish I could trade it away for something I want to use. Intercept strike is for your allies who insist on being in melee near you, not taunt.
I just don't really understand the fantasy of a defensive class that taunts. I understand that mechanically that sort of thing is suggested in MMORPGs, but I've never seen the point of it in a tactical, turn-based tabletop game. What I want, really, is for a version of the Champion without the baggage of "devoted to one god". It's weird that our first pass at that has resulted in someone more selfless than the holy knight guy.
Even this aspect of being "dedicated to one god" is being heavily changed with the Player Core 2. The removal of alignment made champions more palatable to those who were put off by it, now we have Champions that don't need to engage with the Holy/Unholy Axis.
On top of that, we have Faiths and Philosophy that can completely remove that aspect from your character, such as "Atheism", "Sangpotshi" or "Laws of Mortality", for example.
No. Champions/Paladins are tied to their religion and deity. If you want something else cool. Go build it with another class. Don't butcher the flavour of the one we have.
No. Champions/Paladins are tied to their religion and deity. If you want something else cool. Go build it with another class. Don't butcher the flavour of the one we have.
Arguably this flavor is original to PF2 since there was nothing in PF1 that kept you from playing a Rivethun Paladin, a Sangpotshi Paladin, an ancestor worshiping Paladin, an Animist Paladin, a Pantheist Paladin, etc. The "exactly one god" thing is new to this edition, and some people resent it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Taunt is also much more classic to the Guardian's class fantasy than Hampering Sweeps is, it's every bit as relevant as Sneak Attack is to the Rogue, and it makes the core loop go.
Personally I find this odd. Given the “Guardian Playtest Class” has no “classic fantasy” that is older than a month or so, what a “Guardian” consists of is entirely what this particular thread is about.
Now a Tank, in CRPG (and boardgames/RPGs?) spaces might have a Taunt mechanic, so perhaps for you the *”classic Guardian class fantasy”* is informed by that, but a Guardian to me should have zero-interaction with a Taunt thematically or mechanically. Only time will tell what a “classic” Guardian will be, a la Rogue with Sneak Attack, Wizard casting spells, or Inventor being forgotten.
As for the core loop, I’m not seeing anything particular powered by Taunt except a major feeling of dissatisfaction. Furious Vengeance is counter-intuitive, Mitigate Harm mostly pointless. As I’ve said elsewhere I feel a huge tension with Taunt and Furious Vengeance. *Do* I want the Taunted foe to ignore me? *Do* I want them to hit me? Both options and their repercussions/effects or lack thereof feel absolutely terribad. If this is the core loop, then it is absolutely working as intended.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am as Tank main as you can get, I Tank main in any game that offers it as an option (WoW, SWTOR, FFXIV, Overwatch, Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition, Lancer, etc.)
Taunt in MMO's forced enemies to attack because that's the way the bots worked. You couldn't have "if the bot attacks an ally..." as a mechanism.
Note that Taunt doesn't work in PvP.There is no Taunt in Overwatch. Again, doesn't work in PvP.
All the 4e defenders, except the Swordmage, required you to be adjacent + some punishment if the enemy attacked an ally. Swordmage a bit like PF2 Champion with ranged damage reduction, which doesn't have a Taunt either.
To be clear. I wasn't suggesting removing Taunt. So you could still bang on your shield to attract attention you can take that feat (subclass?). But I don't see it's a core option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's one curious exception in MMORPGs that I remember. In L2 the Agression skill (Taunt) when used in PVP calls the enemy(s) target to you during PvP. It's an annoying mechanic of the game to make the tankers more useful vs human players.
But in general I agree. Taunt is an mechanic developed for computer games where's the target choice is automated based usually in what player is doing more damage (including healing as some kind of "indirect" damage in most MMORPGs' agro formulas) to make the monsters to focus into this player so Taunt exists to force the monster to take its attention to tanker without do a real damage in a game where the creatures are unable to emulate an real motivation.
But in TTRPGs its looks like an alien mechanic. It was how I felt as GM during my playtests up to now. It's strange to just ignore to make a rational character to ignore those who are causing more damage to it or it's helping preventing its actions to work efficiently (due heal its target or debuffing it or buffing its enemies) just because was taunted by a strange non-magical mechanic. Also lure the GM by numbers looks like a metagame. It's not to me make my target choices based only in numeric efficiency but more like in how that character would act instead I choose my targets based in personal motivations of each character and in its intelligence and knowledge so just make a "hey look this character now is 10% more easier to hit while all others are 10% more harder to hit so focus your attacks on it" just looks like the class was treating the GM like a donkey chasing a carrot dangling in front of it.
I understand the idea behind a character loosing its patience due a Taunt when fails a will check or taking the opportunity to use a weak point but this working for everyone in same way still looks a bit strange to me. There are better ways to call the enemies attention than force the things in this way.
I am as Tank main as you can get, I Tank main in any game that offers it as an option (WoW, SWTOR, FFXIV, Overwatch, Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition, Lancer, etc.)
Taunt in MMO's forced enemies to attack because that's the way the bots worked. You couldn't have "if the bot attacks an ally..." as a mechanism.
Note that Taunt doesn't work in PvP.There is no Taunt in Overwatch. Again, doesn't work in PvP.
All the 4e defenders, except the Swordmage, required you to be adjacent + some punishment if the enemy attacked an ally. Swordmage a bit like PF2 Champion with ranged damage reduction, which doesn't have a Taunt either.
To be clear. I wasn't suggesting removing Taunt. So you could still bang on your shield to attract attention you can take that feat (subclass?). But I don't see it's a core option.
There are actually quite a few MMOs that have taunt work in PVP, SWTOR had one that works like PF2e, EQ2 made other targets untargetable for a short duration. FFXIV has gone in this direction somewhat as well, though less uniformly.
Abilities that place a taunt effect on a foe forcing them to target someone, or penalizing them for targeting others are a staple in MOBA's as well.
Overwatch IS a bit diff, but its model isn't a good fit for a turn based game-- it relies on very high damage potential and not being able to shoot around fat hit boxes and damage absorbs, which is how they ended up restricting tanks to one per team-- in other words, Fighters and Barbarians are already a good proxy for most of what they do.
WOW tanks meanwhile are considered to not be a part of pvp because they can simply be ignored since Taunt has no effect on players, which sort of tells you it probably SHOULD do something in PVP.
4e Defenders could Mark from a distance (which is what carried the penalty PF2e uses), but had to be adjacent for the punishment, though the Swordmage (and as I recall, the Warden) could also use their reactions from a distance-- that was more like an intercept strike or furious veangeance type mechanic, with subclasses often having a Retributive Strike style option instead.
There's one curious exception in MMORPGs that I remember. In L2 the Agression skill (Taunt) when used in PVP calls the enemy(s) target to you during PvP. It's an annoying mechanic of the game to make the tankers more useful vs human players.
But in general I agree. Taunt is an mechanic developed for computer games where's the target choice is automated based usually in what player is doing more damage (including healing as some kind of "indirect" damage in most MMORPGs' agro formulas) to make the monsters to focus into this player so Taunt exists to force the monster to take its attention to tanker without do a real damage in a game where the creatures are unable to emulate an real motivation.
But in TTRPGs its looks like an alien mechanic. It was how I felt as GM during my playtests up to now. It's strange to just ignore to make a rational character to ignore those who are causing more damage to it or it's helping preventing its actions to work efficiently (due heal its target or debuffing it or buffing its enemies) just because was taunted by a strange non-magical mechanic. Also lure the GM by numbers looks like a metagame. It's not to me make my target choices based only in numeric efficiency but more like in how that character would act instead I choose my targets based in personal motivations of each character and in its intelligence and knowledge so just make a "hey look this character now is 10% more easier to hit while all others are 10% more harder to hit so focus your attacks on it" just looks like the class was treating the GM like a donkey chasing a carrot dangling in front of it.
I understand the idea behind a character loosing its patience due a Taunt when fails a will check or taking the opportunity to use a weak point but this working for everyone in same way still looks a bit strange to me. There are better ways to call the enemies attention than force the things in this way.
This is kinda just an already resolved problem, like with demoralize "shouldn't I just be able to decide my character isn't afraid? Because they're very rational and determined?"
4e Defenders could Mark from a distance (which is what carried the penalty PF2e uses), but had to be adjacent for the punishment,
Well I guess the fighter could, since they marked anyone they attacked. But punishment was still melee attack, and bow fighters didn't have as much support. You would basically multiple class into rogue or something.
Swordmage mark still needed to be close to the enemy, but not adjacent, but it was the only one that lasted more than a turn. Thus allowing using it as some distance.
Paladins mark an adjacent and delt unescapeable damage even if the enemy ran. But you needed to be adjacent to apply it again.
Warden marked all adjacent enemies, had a ranged pull enemies back towards you, as well as a melee attack punishment
Battlemind marked an adjacent and could Step when an marked enemy Step, keeping them adjacent, as well as a melee attack punishment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is kinda just an already resolved problem, like with demoralize "shouldn't I just be able to decide my character isn't afraid? Because they're very rational and determined?"
Demoralize doesn't affect the GM decisions. It's simply an afraid debuff. Yet may be a bit overforced to convince that the Bard makes the dragon has afraid of it yet doesn't affect the dragons decisions at all.
But taunt is different it tries to affect the GM choices by trying to lure with some numbers or to contextually try to convince him that due the target was Taunt the monster the most correct decision is to fall to the taunt and attack the guardian player. This also fall into the how GM will deal with the Taunt creating an unexpecting experience for each table. If the GM doesn't like to fall into Taunt it will become just an OP debuff unrelated to the main intention to call the aggro of the creature. If the GM want to follow the taunt it may end turning the creature like a MMORPG mob that ignores all his base construction and motivations to follow dumbly the creature that has Taunt it.