|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Currently we have 2 classes able to hit legendary defense, which are champion and monk.
Monk are tied to stances and unarmored, while champions can use anything they want, but are tied to edicts, tennets, anathema and alignments.
The fighter class is the only one who can hit legendary but, in addition, it's the more versatile because it could go with any weapon and fighting style, from 2h to sword and board, or from ranged/throwing to brawling ( he could even go with druid shapes or some caster battleform), and it is not tied to anything, which leaves for the player way more possibilities than the champion or monk class ( including dedications, obviously), without any worry.
Anyway, what about a class with legendary defense ( from unarmored to heavily armored) but not tied to any code?
Eventually, with the possibility to take feats to match the heavy armor AC even while unarmored or in light/medium armor.
The class could share some of the champion ( no magic or divine involved feats), fighter, bastion, sentinel and eventually monk feats ( defensive stances only), leaving for the players plenty of possibilities ( some sort of enhancing shield too, to have better performance like the divine ally shield, in order to withstand some extra hits).
Anyway, examples provided apart in the last 2 paragraphs, would you like the concept of a generic defender not tied to anything but what you decide?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Monk isn't really tied to any stances. You need Montain Stance if you want to max your AC (or Crane if you don't use a shield), but any other stance with high Dex and legendary proficiency will still bring you to one more AC than the fighter. Same goes for a Champion who doesn't wear heavy armor.
Also, you shouldn't be able to match heavy armor AC with any other type of armor since it comes with a (nearly) unavoidable Speed Pennalty to balance the extra AC. Same goes for Mountain Stance. If you can match the AC without the penalty, why use heavy armor at all?
So I don't really see how such a class would work or what it would bring to the table that Champion or Monk don't have already.
I made my point clear about what would bring on the table.
A legendary defense class not tied to oaths or to unarmored/stances.
...
Speed penalty doesn't matter at all since armors can be made out of mithril. Not to say that every heavy armored character would suffer a simple -5 foot speed from the armor.
And because of feats like fleet, or spells which might be exploited by simply taking trick magic item, like longstrider, though the difference in speed still exists until you get your mithril armor, it's not a big deal as you said.
In addition to this, wearing full plates already provide advantages at no cost, since it allows you to entirely drop dex and also get +3 against aoe effects ( like having +3 dex on "many", for example your trip DC wouldn't benefit from that bonus, saves), and finally an extra point reduction from armor specialization, compared to medium armor.
Trading feats and attributes to match what you already have wearing a full plate is balanced.
To be honest, it's only for flavor, since anybody would probably go for the plate and nobody would switch attributes and a class feat to get less than the plate benefits ( what I am trying to say is that a +5 speed is not worth what you trade for it).
Ps: eventually, even a choice for the fighter to specialize in either defense or offense would work. Trading legendary for legendary with the fighter feats pool alone would be enough and easier.
I don't think that's a strong case.
A shield Fighter build has excellent defensive capabilities, even without legendary proficiency in defense. Add on a Dedication (or two) and it can pick up many of you suggestions anyway. Building a "Fighter, but shifting its top proficiency to defense" sounds like something a GM could rubber stamp if asked.
Hopefully the neutral Champions will satisfy you. Maybe they'll be less zealous, especially if there's a True Neutral option.
---
Oh, and I think you're underestimating the cost of Mithril Full Plate!
(And that over half one's career passes before affording it.)
That puts quite a dent in one's budget, a.k.a. swapping out other abilities & bonuses gained by wealth.
And yes, the -5 speed penalty (w/ high Str) of heavy armor can be overcome this way, but losing speed's still a basic component of the trade for better AC in PF2.
The Monk w/ Mountain Stance remains a Monk, very fast, but they still pay that cost. It doesn't seem as meaningless to the game designers as it does to you. Arguably, overcoming that's about the only thing that makes mithril special IMO.
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Just choose a deity whose anathema fits your character's personality and make a Champion. It is not forced if it is what you want to do.
Castilliano wrote: I don't think that's a strong case.
A shield Fighter build has excellent defensive capabilities, even without legendary proficiency in defense. Add on a Dedication (or two) and it can pick up many of you suggestions anyway. Building a "Fighter, but shifting its top proficiency to defense" sounds like something a GM could rubber stamp if asked.
Hopefully the neutral Champions will satisfy you. Maybe they'll be less zealous, especially if there's a True Neutral option.
I share your points when it comes to the versatility provided by the fighter class ( excellent choice of feats and the combat flexibility perk which drastically enhances its possibilities ), and I also agree that Neutral champions would be definitely a thing ( evil ones hardly fit on APs, and good groups, because of their tennets, causes and deities ), but I still think that being able to properly excel in armored defense shouldn't be tied to being a deity servant.
Castilliano wrote: Oh, and I think you're underestimating the cost of Mithril Full Plate!
(And that over half one's career passes before affording it.)
That puts quite a dent in one's budget, a.k.a. swapping out other abilities & bonuses gained by wealth.
And yes, the -5 speed penalty (w/ high Str) of heavy armor can be overcome this way, but losing speed's still a basic component of the trade for better AC in PF2.
The Monk w/ Mountain Stance remains a Monk, very fast, but they still pay that cost. It doesn't seem as meaningless to the game designers as it does to you. Arguably, overcoming that's about the only thing that makes mithril special IMO.
It's true that mithril comes after over half journey, but what I meant to say it's that the speed penalty is not a big deal as other choices you might have to face during an adventure ( for example, using your last action to raise a shield, using demoralize, or performing a feint ).
Most of the ancestries have 25 feet speed ( a speed a plated one could achieve by expending 1 general feat ).
I know that having 20% less speed compared to other character has its weight, but compared to other action management is something tied to the specific battlefield ( for example, you'd probably find yourself ok with your 20 feet speed in a dungeon or indoor map, while you could have to expend 1 action in an outdoor one ).
Also it has not to be considered alone.
The comparison has to be done between
1) Full plate character pro
Quote: - It's able to entirely dump dex,
- It receives a +3 against aoe effects
- Its armor specialization ( which unarmored and light armor don't have ) would be 1 point higher than the armor ones
-It benefits from the highest AC provided by an armor.
-
and cons
Quote: -5 feet speed
- Requires you to also build STR, if you plan to play with a finesse or ranged weapon as your main weapon
vs
2) Unarmored/light/medium armored characters pro
Quote: - No speed penalty
- If light and not metallic, it would be suited for stealth runes
- If medium, it would be suited for fortification runes
and cons
Quote: - Lower AC
- Lower or even no Armor specialization
- Both str and dex are required ( depends the armor, it would be more dex or more str )
- Tied to medium armor to benefit from fortification runes
- Have to expend a class feat ( this one is referring to my suggestion, just to point out it wouldn't have been for free ) to raise the provided AC to the plate ones
That's why while 5 feet speed matters, I think the full plate advantages outweigh its disadvantages ( especially the full plate one, or eventually the splint mail, if you want to invest 1 point in dex to get piercing DR instead of slashing, because piercing damage is more common from monsters, also renouncing to your +3 against aoe effects ).
The Raven Black wrote: Just choose a deity whose anathema fits your character's personality and make a Champion. It is not forced if it is what you want to do. I don't get how can you say that being tied to
- Alignment
- Tennets
- Causes
- Edicts
- Anathema
is something which doesn't affect your gameplay, while what I am referring to is some sort of a "bastion" without any specific bond.
ps: I'd obviously go with a champion since it's the only possibility.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Mithral Heavy Armor costs about half a character's wealth when it becomes available. I seriously doubt many characters will ever try to get something like that.
The speed penalty is not a huge deal, but it's there. It's the only real balancing factor Heavy Armor has. Yes, there are ways around it, even at level 1, but those still cost you resouces of some sort.
Not sure a Legendary Armor class not tied to an oath is something I'd consider useful, personally. The Champion Oaths are an RP-thing and the Proficiency is a rules-thing. Bringing RP into rules discussions usually dosn't end well.
I also don't think giving the fighter the weapon and armor proficiency of the Champion would work out all that well. Fighters need their attack bonus because they don't have any other source of damage and their Press feats are much less impressive on Master Proficiency.
As a new class, you'd end up with a guy in heavy armor, swinging a weapon. We got those already. It would need something special to make it stand out in any way.
EDIT: Semi-ninja'd on some points because I forgot to actually hit the Submit button. Oh well...
Champion is a complete mess. It's OP, comes with unenforceable requirements, and overall just hurts the game.
They should've given Fighters an option to pick whether to go Legendary in armour or weapons (other stays Master).
And simply make Champions a variant of Barbarians that get Heavy Armour proficiency, do alignment Rage damage, and Rage against chosen faith enemies. Much more appropriate, too.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Blave wrote:
Not sure a Legendary Armor class not tied to an oath is something I'd consider useful, personally. The Champion oaths are an RP-thing and the Proficiency is a rules-thing. Bringing RP into rules discussions usually dosn't end well.
I also don't think giving the fighter the weapon and armor proficiency of the Champion would work out all that well. Fighters need their attack bonus because they don't have any other source of damage and their Press feats are much less impressive on Master Proficiency.
As a new class, you'd end up with a guy in heavy armor, swinging a weapon. We got those already. It would need something special to make it stand out in any way.
EDIT: Semi-ninja'd on some points because I forgot to actually hit the Submit button. Oh well... I am saying quite the opposite, and not mixing rp and mechanics ( though I am pro mechanics).
Currently champions are the only one specilized in armors, and if you want to do a legendary armor character you are forced to stick with a champion.
This is the situation.
Press attacks would be inferior, but still ok ( failure on a second strike for a combatant would be always granted).
As for making it special, I see your point and agree ( that's why I also mentioned the fighter in contrast to a new class ), but have no idea about it.
The first part of this reply of mine is what I wanted to be discussed ( probably I shouldn't have add suggestions to begin with).
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I would like to see another defender class besides the champion, not tied to a moral code.
But I would want it to function differenly from the champion. There are lot of different ways to be a brick wall something akin to the 4e warden or fight brain would be cool.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
I think a Fighter Class Archetype that goes after Legendary in Heavy Armor could easily be made to fill that particular gap. In fact, I sincerely hope they make one like that because I thought it was bizarre that you couldn't do that already.
|
8 people marked this as a favorite.
|
How exactly do you want the defender to play, though? Like, are we talking like a "tank", where you take and prevent for your team, or just something with a high AC?
If you're wanting the former, legendary AC isn't actually required, and unless you have champion-esque aggro abilities, can actually be detrimental. What really makes champions so good at defending is their abilities to lower damage on their teammates and/or punish people who attack them instead of the champion. If you just have the super high AC without the aggro pulling or warding abilities, you'll actually find enemies will just ignore you in favor of softer targets. The swashbuckler/blessed one in my home group is a shining example of how max AC isn't all there is to tanking; he uses antagonize, guardian's deflection, and lay on hands to keep damage off the team, and it works really well, and he takes advantage of his mobility to get good positioning to mitigate his opponent's ability to harm him.
Like, I'm not opposed to more legendary AC classes, but if were are talking from a defending the party kind of standpoint, I'd rather see archetypes with different aggro pulling abilities than "fighter, but with better armor and worse weapons"
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
A neutral champion could do the protection abilities without having good or evil tenets.
But other legendary defense classes even without defensive abilities to protect allies are welcome too.
We currently have many offensive and versatile options for martials. But I agree we have little options for those focused in defense. Not even the monk can be classified as tanker class because he naturally lacks of shield defense (it's is a versatile martial class that's can be legendary in AC becouse it's lacks of armor not really becouse he a focus on it). So it's currently basically the champions only.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Alchemic_Genius wrote: How exactly do you want the defender to play, though? Like, are we talking like a "tank", where you take and prevent for your team, or just something with a high AC?
If you're wanting the former, legendary AC isn't actually required, and unless you have champion-esque aggro abilities, can actually be detrimental. What really makes champions so good at defending is their abilities to lower damage on their teammates and/or punish people who attack them instead of the champion. If you just have the super high AC without the aggro pulling or warding abilities, you'll actually find enemies will just ignore you in favor of softer targets. The swashbuckler/blessed one in my home group is a shining example of how max AC isn't all there is to tanking; he uses antagonize, guardian's deflection, and lay on hands to keep damage off the team, and it works really well, and he takes advantage of his mobility to get good positioning to mitigate his opponent's ability to harm him.
Like, I'm not opposed to more legendary AC classes, but if were are talking from a defending the party kind of standpoint, I'd rather see archetypes with different aggro pulling abilities than "fighter, but with better armor and worse weapons"
Personally 4e influence much like the champion reaction is the way to go:
Attack of opportunity adjustments (one or both)
Adjusting the trigger to include hitting an ally
Making it disrupt move actions to lock enemies in melee with your brick
Auras
Granting cover to allies in range (15ft)
Doing a small amount of automatic damage to enemies who hit an allies (vengeance aura)
Grant ally temporary hit points when attacked (preserving aura)
Just provide a small amount of DR to anyone in the aura. (shielding aura)
I'm not much of a fan of champion either, mostly because I don't like anathemas and stuff, it's just not for me. I hope there comes a class archetype that isn't tied to one. But most of the ideas in this thread easily could be champion or even fighter feats; a class has to be pretty unique to be its own class
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
YuriP wrote: A neutral champion could do the protection abilities without having good or evil tenets.
But other legendary defense classes even without defensive abilities to protect allies are welcome too.
We currently have many offensive and versatile options for martials. But I agree we have little options for those focused in defense. Not even the monk can be classified as tanker class because he naturally lacks of shield defense (it's is a versatile martial class that's can be legendary in AC becouse it's lacks of armor not really becouse he a focus on it). So it's currently basically the champions only.
Mostly agree. Just to point out that monks can use and raise shields. Even block if they take a feat.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Eventually, if a player were to play a lampsed ( is this the right term?) Champion, renouncing to either it's focus spells and divine ally, the character would then be able to maintain anything from the class ( as well as gain new levels), wouldn't he?
Armor proficiency, shield block, reaction, etc... And might get other stuff from dedications or archetypes.
“Lapsed” but close enough
Here is a home-brewed class that I made that focuses on defense. It gains armor proficiency at the same rate that a fighter gains weapon proficiency:
Brute
I would love some feedback on it.
I don't see what we'd need from a defender class that we couldn't get from archetypes or fighter feats. It just doesn't feel distinct enough to warrant a class.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Albatoonoe wrote: I don't see what we'd need from a defender class that we couldn't get from archetypes or fighter feats. It just doesn't feel distinct enough to warrant a class. People say that about literally everything, including CRB classes.
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
AnimatedPaper wrote: Albatoonoe wrote: I don't see what we'd need from a defender class that we couldn't get from archetypes or fighter feats. It just doesn't feel distinct enough to warrant a class. People say that about literally everything, including CRB classes. Each class so far has a few distinct traits and themes that separate them out. I can see that for a lot of PF1 classes and even some potential new classes. Each class so far is a pretty distinct base to add on other class features.
Defender inspires nothing in me.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I guess the question I have is that there has to be something that motivates the class other than "legendary proficiency in armor". Champions get it because their role is to stand up for causes (and sometimes people). It probably makes more sense to expand the set of causes that you can, well, champion to accommodate a wider range of characters (you fight for your ancestors, you fight for your community, you fight for your philosophy, etc.)
Since like "you're hard to hit" isn't a very compelling pitch for a class.
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
People get way too hung up on the difference between Master and Legendary proficiency; the Fighter already does the generic sword n' board fightin' dude as well as you could ask for.
You'd have to come up with an actually unique mechanic the way the Swashbuckler did. Maybe a similar on/off resource thing where you get it if an ally gets hit? Idea being that the Defender (Avenger?) is significantly more dangerous if you aren't attacking her.
PossibleCabbage wrote: I guess the question I have is that there has to be something that motivates the class other than "legendary proficiency in armor". Champions get it because their role is to stand up for causes (and sometimes people). It probably makes more sense to expand the set of causes that you can, well, champion to accommodate a wider range of characters (you fight for your ancestors, you fight for your community, you fight for your philosophy, etc.)
Since like "you're hard to hit" isn't a very compelling pitch for a class.
Those oaths and causes would be fine for roleplay ( and I do really hope we'll get more causes apart from the 3 missing neutral champions), but imagine to have to be tied to stuff like this with any of the existing classes in this 2e ( rogues, alchemists, wizards, and so on).
Mechanically speaking, classes provides different approach to the game.
Talking about dps, even if a fighter has legendary weapon proficiency, other classes which just hit master can deal high damage because of other class perks.
- a rogue has sneak attacks
- barbarian has rage
- ranger has flurry and precision damage
- swashbuckler has finishers and precision flat damage
And so on.
Leaving apart the fact that none of these classes is tied to codes ( apart from the barbarian, which has a some anathema), alternatives exists and are viable.
In terms of AC there's no real alternative, though you could build a class in a more defensive way.
For example, a barbarian might use renewed vigor once it's temporary hp are gone, or use that action to raise a shield. By lvl 9 he'll also get DR depends its spec ( but, IMO, apart from the animal instinct which has piercing and slashing damage, they are not so reliable).
A swashbuckler might use bravado to get extra hp, and by lvl 10 it would be able to combine it with the buckler or parry stance, but then would be even more tied to a standard rotation ( panache, finisher, bravado) over and over. But it's a fact he could do that.
Anyway, even given class possibilities, nothing comes close to have the champion armor progression.
I do understand on the one hand when people says that a defender had to offer something special to be a class itself, but on the other hand not being able to play a character specialized in defense unless you tie it with a deity, tennets, causes and oaths, is pretty restrictive.
To answer to arachnofiend:
The fighter is indeed good at everything when it comes to attack and defense ( it also has the same AC as a champion 8 lvls out of 20 ), but it's far from being balanced as, for example, are all the dps classes.
- 2 less AC and no way to add instead some DR
- shield which can't be improved ( like divine shield ally)
- no reaction to either help allies ( tennets of good) or himself ( tennets of evil). The extra shield block will bring the shield to its broken threshold.
An alternative which rely on high DR instead of AC might be interesting.
I was looking into the war priest, with advanced might domain and The lvl 14 deity's protection. Something like this could work, but it only starts by lvl 14 and lasts 2 rounds ( but since it's a war priest ehich casts spells like a normal cleric, is way more than enough). I just mentioned this to show how could DR even work good as an alternative ( whether they wanted to go on a DR frontliner instead of a legendary AC one).
The Defender's theme seems to be a Champion but not have to respect any anathema. Since it is a negative theme, I think most people will not identify it with a Class theme.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The Raven Black wrote: The Defender's theme seems to be a Champion but not have to respect any anathema. Since it is a negative theme, I think most people will not identify it with a Class theme. It's only a negative theme if you start with the Champion as it is currently. It's in fact a complete mismatch of class and mechanics.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Isn't the very idea of a "Defender" class directly counter to how Pathfinder makes classes? They have always gone for theme and "Defender" isn't so much a theme as just something you do.
Time would be better spent trying to come up with a concept that is more than just "has high AC and can taunt".
1 quick solution is to simply port in the Stalwart Defender PRC. That PRC was all about maximizing defense and and crowd control, at the cost of nearly all mobility.
A more complex solution specially now that Inventor is a thing is an "Item Master" class. A class whose purpose to to synergize with items and get benefits from them. "Yes that armor is good, however I have learned how to make it even more protective". Basically a class that revolves around the PF1 Item Mastery feats, and the Equipment/Armor/Weapon tricks.
Temperans wrote: 1 quick solution is to simply port in the Stalwart Defender PRC. That PRC was all about maximizing defense and and crowd control, at the cost of nearly all mobility I would actually much prefer this to a defender class, since it lets you mix and match, and make any martial a defender. All you'd really need is to make it grant abilities that allow you to redirect attacks to you, let you punish foes for not attacking you, and some defense boosts, and you're good to go.
An inventor with electrify armor interposing hits and giving attackers a shock for their troubles sounds really cool, ngl
Albatoonoe wrote: AnimatedPaper wrote: Albatoonoe wrote: I don't see what we'd need from a defender class that we couldn't get from archetypes or fighter feats. It just doesn't feel distinct enough to warrant a class. People say that about literally everything, including CRB classes. Each class so far has a few distinct traits and themes that separate them out. I can see that for a lot of PF1 classes and even some potential new classes. Each class so far is a pretty distinct base to add on other class features.
Defender inspires nothing in me. And "Gunslinger" inspires nothing in me. I even playtested and enjoyed the GG class, and still think the concept would be better as an archetype.
My point is that feedback like "-concept- inspires nothing in me" is not particularly useful. Or even uncommon, as quite literally every concept for any class is going to have someone that thinks that. Given that "better" is relative to a person, they may well even be correct (for their personal taste, anyways). And while I agree that Defender seems like something a Fighter should be able to do, I would have said the same about the Swashbuckler and Gunslinger. Possibly did in fact. And if I didn't, someone sure did.
So the important question for me is, what WOULD a defender concept need to get off the ground for you? I thought the Warden mentioned upthread was a pretty good seed for a class concept (clearly, since it was already a class), but what of the 4e psychic warrior or 3.5 Ardent? Temperans's suggestion of the prestige class Stalwart Defender might prove useful, if spun out into a base ability and rebalanced that way. Given how strong mobility is in 2e, how even a Step can rob an enemy of a full attack, a class that plays counter to that and reduces their personal mobility to almost nothing might be worth taking a look at.
My personal preference for a new defensive class would be a kind of area denial ability. I think the summoner is going to give a good start in that direction, but the ability to apply difficult terrain around you, aoe damage, fascinating enemies to force them to attack you all seem like mechanics to be explored, provided a story can be found to tie them all together.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
