So you're a Tyrant Champion, so you're primarily a frontline melee person and you're going to get hit. That's good because the reaction you get *at level one* is absurd.
As a reaction, when someone within 15' hits you you force your opponent to either:
- Fall prone
- Take between 1d6 and 6d6 damage depending on level, which can be made persistent with a single level 1 feat.
No other champion gets a reaction this strong, do they?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't feel any stronger than Retributive strike or Liberating Step to me. Those both prevent a ton of damage and one deals damage and the other provides positioning advantages.
Iron Command doesn't prevent damage. And using that level 1 feat, while more damage over time, does delay the damage to the target potentially giving it an extra turn to cause problems.
Of the 6 champion reactions so far, Selfish Shield is the only one I think might be a touch underpowered, but I'm not always sure how to value evil/negative aligned damage.
The Paladin one is a strike, that at max level can do around 4d8 + 3d6 + 15 (can miss though) and give an ally 22 resistance to all damage.
But Tyrant reaction is indeed really strong, and to be honest I was surprised that the damage didn't lower when transformed into persistent damage like most persistent damage is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a big trade off - you're not using Shield Block in order to use this.
For Retributive strike you can potentially do more damage than Iron Command (at least the non-persistent version) but you have to actually:
- Have the target attack an ally (not you)
- Have the target remain within your reach.
- Actually succeed at hitting them when you roll.
Sure, 2+level generally prevents more damage than Iron Command does, but doing damage is generally more effective than preventing it.
I mean, this ability is never going to see play at my tables except in the hands of an antagonist, but "take 4d6 persistent mental damage if you hit the BBEG" is going to scare players.
Iron Command doesn't prevent damage. And using that level 1 feat, while more damage over time, does delay the damage to the target potentially giving it an extra turn to cause problems.
It's not really delaying it.
Since it's a reaction very likely on the enemy's turn when they deal damage. And persistent is the end of turn.
But still, by itself, it seems fine. Though it makes the anti-paladin look pretty weak.
Problem with Iron Command is weak againist enemies immune to mental damage. But that generally normal thing evil champions are bit screwed against undead but you could probally always go Aasmir or take smite evil(no requirement to be good).
Funny thing- they aren't helpless against undead. While their bread and butter reactions are not as effective, they still have option. When paizo originally designed the champion with only good causes, they accidentally made the feat Sun Blade suuuuper agnostic.
The feat doesn't have a 'good cause' requirement (note- even if they later errata the feat, i hope this is maintained for neutral champions). The spell from that feat has fire, light, and positive tags, but no alignment tags that might pose a problem for an evil religious class. The only thing holding you back seems to be the uncommon tag (and you already got permission to play a tyrant in this scenario, so your GM might be forgiving). So this leaves the tyrant with a ranged attack that does triple damage against most undead. Sure, everything is d4 based, but it is still good just with the number of dice you throw out.
And I don't think that it is necessarily a narrative problem for this to be the case for tyrants. Evil gods can get positive energy fonts now. Light, while typically good, can also be bent, especially by a fallen "morning star" like Asmodeus. And honestly? I am sure Cheliax is troubled by random undead just as much as the next nation.
Anyway, about the tyrant in general- like paladin, it seems like a great cause to pair with Attacks of Opportunity and a reach weapon. This way, you can punish enemies whether they choose to fight, or they choose to run. (...and I am unsure if kneeling in obedience is a move action that draws AoO...)
I am unsure if kneeling in obedience is a move action that draws AoO
Standing up from prone sure does!
Also speaking of anyone found good ideas to incentives enemy to go after you, since good champs can trigger their reaction easily, evil ones on other hand have to get them to strike us.
Hitting them in the back of the head as they try to walk away seems like a good reason for them to engage you.
Also, hitting them in the back while they are trying to attack your squishy characters. Champions don't have the best martial damage, but they can certainly get something heavy and use their good attack bonus to cause trouble for enemies that ignore them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
“Oh no, they refuse to hit me as I cut them up!” does not seem a serious problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Ahah, I have figured out their weakess. Now, my minions, whatever you do, ignore the big scary man in armor that is hitting you with a halberd. No matter how many of you he kills"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's more strong on an antagonist whose job is to fight 1 or 2 combats and then lose, than on a PC sure. But that's how I fundamentally view evil champions, FWIW.
But I think PCs, having read the APG, and seeing a Champion of Asmodeus or something are going to be legitimately interested in hitting that guy from outside of the range of Iron Command.
"Ahah, I have figured out their weakess. Now, my minions, whatever you do, ignore the big scary man in armor that is hitting you with a halberd. No matter how many of you he kills"A champion's damage output without reactions is equal to a martial with no class bonus - a barbarian without rage, a rogue without sneak attack, a fighter without higher proficiency.
Considering the other three party members are also making strike actions of their own, reordering the target priority to have the Tyrant be last has no tactical downside.
However, they are a valid reach user, giving them an alternative reaction and source of damage when the enemy decides to not engage them. If you walk up to an enemy, they are not getting out of there without taking a few damage dice in some fashion.
While the GM might choose not to engage them, your build can be designed to remove that choice, or at least render it moot.
You have to remember- a GM's monsters are, inherently, expendable. At some point, the damage to that monster is worth less than the time wasted tip toeing around the tyrant. If every single enemy has to spend a step action to get away from the tyrant, that is practically the same as an AoE slow effect as far as enemy action economy goes.
if the GM wants to have the monsters do nothing the whole fight, and instead have them running around like chickens with their heads cut off? Fine. That gives the party plenty of time to ACTUALLY cut their heads off in a leisurely and safe manner.
"Ahah, I have figured out their weakess. Now, my minions, whatever you do, ignore the big scary man in armor that is hitting you with a halberd. No matter how many of you he kills"A champion's damage output without reactions is equal to a martial with no class bonus - a barbarian without rage, a rogue without sneak attack, a fighter without higher proficiency.
Considering the other three party members are also making strike actions of their own, reordering the target priority to have the Tyrant be last has no tactical downside.
(Laughs in Touch of Corruption + two Strikes + minion focus firing the ToC target routine)
