| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So here's how I'm seeing it: I really like the new angle the Guardian brings to tanking, but I also feel that in order for a concept to justify its existence as a fully-fledged class, it needs to have a certain critical mass of core features that are either too powerful or complex to properly encapsulate in just an archetype, or require a specialized chassis to put to full use. The Commander, for instance, had complex and powerful mechanics in the form of their banner and multiple tactics, which the current Marshal archetype doesn't approach, and all of those mechanics are well-served by a combination of sub-par HP, legendary DC, and Int key attribute that can't be perfectly replicated altogether on another class, not even Int martials like the Investigator. In my opinion, the Commander's existence as its own class is justified.
With the Guardian, however, I'm less sure: looking at the class's core features, their proficiency track is extremely similar to the Champion's, and past level 1, most of the class's unique features are free feats and number boosts, and not the kind of number boost like the Fighter's +2 to attacks. The two standout features are Intercept Attack and Taunt, which to me raises the question: what's stopping Paizo from just having those be feats on characters like the Champion, the Fighter, or even other martials like the Barbarian? Perhaps I'm wrong, but neither feature looks to me like it's complex or game-changing enough to define a whole class, and in the same vein a lot of the Guardian's feats look like they would be at home on other tough, brawny martial classes. A Fighter that intercepted damage and taunted enemies would be durable enough to survive, if not quite as tough as a Guardian, and in my opinion would still feel like a Fighter thematically. Similarly, a Barbarian with those abilities would still feel like a Barbarian, and a soak tank too, and a Champion would diverge even less from their existing theme given that feats like Devoted Guardian exist.
I guess all of this is to say that, based on a look at the playtest material at least, I don't feel like the Guardian currently stands out mechanically or thematically to justify its existence as a separate class. If its two unique actions and class feats were cannibalized by Strength-based martials that currently play with heavy armor, damage mitigation, or just tanking damage to varying degrees, I don't think that would really cause those classes to break from their current theme or niche.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention that I see other classes benefiting from these features much more since the delayed progression hurts the class a lot. I really don't see why someone would want to play a guardian over a champion.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It also has an accelerated armor progression, and features like taunt are currently power budgeted as class features rather than as feats, so I think they'd have to be weaker to do that, as well as necessitating a much higher level since you'd have to buy each part as a feat.
In terms of flavor, I ended up digging it's soldierly vibe, even though I was personally worried it would be too much "Generic MMO Tank" it ended up being really active and cool seeming, like, it has as much flavor as the fighter in that sense.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because they don't want to have any divine or magical thematic leanings, or be bound by anathema or anything else that comes with Champion? It's like the difference between a Protection Warrior and a Protection Paladin in World of Warcraft.
Their Threat Technique alone is really flavorful - you can play a more aggressive, 'I SAID HIT ME!' type or a more stolid wall of metal. And a lot of their feats build on either of those thematically.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because they don't want to have any divine or magical thematic leanings, or be bound by anathema or anything else that comes with Champion? It's like the difference between a Protection Warrior and a Protection Paladin in World of Warcraft.
But you wouldn't need those anyway? This may be a class with a taunt, but this ain't World of Warcraft, and feats in PF2e can be shared among classes. I mentioned the Champion certainly, but also the Barbarian and Fighter, neither of whom have divine or magical thematic leanings as a baseline. Even if you want to discard the Barbarian for their own specific theme of entering a rage, you're still left with the Fighter, who has the armor proficiencies, key attribute, and so on to be able to bodyguard just fine. In fact, you can already do this with feats like Devoted Guardian, Guardian's Deflection, and Shield Warden, almost as if being a guardian of one's allies was already an established part of the Fighter's thematic space.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because they don't want to have any divine or magical thematic leanings, or be bound by anathema or anything else that comes with Champion? It's like the difference between a Protection Warrior and a Protection Paladin in World of Warcraft.But you wouldn't need those anyway? This may be a class with a taunt, but this ain't World of Warcraft, and feats in PF2e can be shared among classes. I mentioned the Champion certainly, but also the Barbarian and Fighter, neither of whom have divine or magical thematic leanings as a baseline. Even if you want to discard the Barbarian for their own specific theme of entering a range, you're still left with the Fighter, who has the armor proficiencies, key attribute, and so on to be able to bodyguard just fine. In fact, you can already do this with feats like Devoted Guardian, Guardian's Deflection, and Shield Warden, almost as if being a guardian of one's allies was already an established part of the Fighter's thematic space.
Fighter doesn't really have the same defensive armor capabilities as Guardian, though. They start at 1 with the armor specialization effects and go to Legendary in armor.
I mentioned those two because they share the same name as a talent spec, but are very different thematically.
And Fighter is the offensive marital without magic or anything like that - their whole like, big 'thing' as a martial is being able to hit more accurately - Guardian is the defensive pure martial without magic or anything like that.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention that I see other classes benefiting from these features much more since the delayed progression hurts the class a lot.
For the same reason the Magus and Summoner get delayed spell proficiency. Their power budget is loaded, and a lot is upfront.
- Accelerated armor proficiency
- Armor specialization from lvl 1
- Taunt is a powerful feature
- Intercept Strike
- Threat Techniques
- Shield Block
Frankly these are very powerful frontloaded abilities. Not to mention, since this class is Strength based, you'll likely start with 18 Str. which means you'll still be ahead of classes like the Inventor and Thaumaturge on your "to-hit" for most levels.
Fighter doesn't really have the same defensive armor capabilities as Guardian, though. They start at 1 with the armor specialization effects and go to Legendary in armor.
I don't think that's all that meaningful in this context, though. With Intercept Strike, it makes no difference whether you're a master or legendary in armor, nor even whether or not you have greater armor specialization, because in all cases you'll be soaking that damage directly and reducing it by an amount far greater than your armor specialization. Taunt certainly makes enemies more likely to hit you, but putting aside how not even the Guardian is expected to Taunt all the time, that is itself not an unprecedented mechanic (look at how the Barbarian can reduce their own AC), and is something the Fighter can similarly mitigate with a shield. This isn't like the Commander, who needs a bespoke class chassis to support a complex system of tactics to the fullest extent.
I mentioned those two because they share the same name as a talent spec, but are very different thematically.
So... how does this relate to the discussion at hand, exactly? The point being made is that the Guardian is not all that thematically distinct from the Fighter or even the Champion, both of whom already spec into lots of guardian-themed feats, several of which even have the name "Guardian" pasted all over.
And Fighter is the offensive marital without magic or anything like that - their whole like, big 'thing' as a martial is being able to hit more accurately - Guardian is the defensive pure martial without magic or anything like that.
I'm still not seeing a major thematic difference. Ultimately, the Fighter is great at making use of armor and shields in addition to being an incredibly good user of weapons, which is why they are one of the very few classes proficient in heavy armor and with access to armor specialization. A Fighter being able to taunt enemies or intercept damage in an ally's stead I don't think turns into an entirely separate character for it, nor would they need to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those things do matter, absolutely, because of how their Feats let you do things that would be much more punishing to you if you didn't have those proficiencies or specializations to mitigate certain affects.
And there are many things a Guardian can do with a shield that neither Fighter nor a Champion can do without having to sacrifice class feats to pick up an Archetype - and that's a silly argument, imo, anyway because there's plenty of great feats you can take with Archetypes from other classes. It doesn't lessen the classes existing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... how does this relate to the discussion at hand, exactly? The point being made is that the Guardian is not all that thematically distinct from the Fighter or even the Champion, both of whom already spec into lots of guardian-themed feats, several of which even have the name "Guardian" pasted all over.
I don't really know how someone couldn't see the thematic differences - Champions are entirely consumed in their divine flavor, Guardians are not. Fighters are the weapon specialists who are entirely without magical inclinations; Guardians are the armor specialists who are entirely without magical inclinations.
I'm still not seeing a major thematic difference. Ultimately, the Fighter is great at making use of armor and shields in addition to being an incredibly good user of weapons, which is why they are one of the very few classes proficient in heavy armor and with access to armor specialization. A Fighter being able to taunt enemies or intercept damage in an ally's stead I don't think turns into an entirely separate character for it, nor would they need to.
Fighters will never be as good as Guardians with armor, just full stop. They won't ever reach their Legendary prof and will never get something like Greater Armor Specialization, which not even Champions can get.
Those things do matter, absolutely, because of how their Feats let you do things that would be much more punishing to you if you didn't have those proficiencies or specializations to mitigate certain affects.
Care to name any specific examples? Because as can be already seen, several feats the Fighter uses are also available to other classes, who still make great use of them despite having worse Strike accuracy than the Fighter. I'm not seeing a Guardian feat that wouldn't be perfectly usable on a Fighter despite their reduced armor proficiency, aside from the ones that specifically have Intercept Strike or Taunt as a prerequisite.
And there are many things a Guardian can do with a shield that neither Fighter nor a Champion can do without having to sacrifice class feats to pick up an Archetype - and that's a silly argument, imo, anyway because there's plenty of great feats you can take with Archetypes from other classes. It doesn't lessen the classes existing.
Forgive me, but this is baloney. The literal only feat on the Guardian that currently exists and isn't on the Fighter -- and at the same levels too, might I add -- is Shield Salvation, and that feat is mediocre. Meanwhile, the Fighter also gets Aggressive Block, a level 2 feat, whose closest analogue for the Guardian is Repositioning Block, a far less versatile 8th-level feat. Every shield feat introduced with the Guardian would easily find itself at home on the Fighter, if not also the Champion, and there's huge overlap between the Fighter and Guardian with shield feats (as a matter of fact, the Fighter has far more shield feats).
I don't really know how someone couldn't see the thematic differences - Champions are entirely consumed in their divine flavor, Guardians are not. Fighters are the weapon specialists who are entirely without magical inclinations; Guardians are the armor specialists who are entirely without magical inclinations.
As already pointed out, Fighters are weapons and armor specialists already, and half of all Champions are themselves heavily-armored guardians. Prior to this playtest, only the Fighter and Champion had native proficiency in heavy armor and access to armor specialization. A Fighter with somewhat worse attacks and somewhat better armor does not an entirely separate class make.
Fighters will never be as good as Guardians with armor, just full stop. They won't ever reach their Legendary prof and will never get something like Greater Armor Specialization, which not even Champions can get.
And they don't need that same armor proficiency to be able to make perfectly good use of what are currently the Guardian's defining class features, to say nothing of their feats. Champions don't need Greater Armor Specialization either to be among the game's current best tanks, not that the feature works terribly well on the Guardian while they're Intercepting Strikes anyway.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this discussion is mising the forest for the trees. If the only thing the guardian has going is that it has earlier expert armor and a taunt mechanic then I really can't say it has enough to be a class on its own. The taunt can easily be a feat for any archetype or class, and just having better proficiencies isn't enough to make a class IMO, more so when unlike a fighter which is always ahead on proficiency, the guardian is ahead for 2 levels, then becomes the same as a champion, and then becomes ahead again for 2 levels.
I think if the class is going to give enemies a +2 to hit you the class should at least start with expert proficiency, and remain ahead in proficiency like a fighter does with weapons for the rest of their career.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I often feel the same way about Fighter. The class has pretty much nothing unique other than a proficiency boost to their weapon attacks. They don't even get a taunt mechanic.
So... I'm not sure why this particular complaint about Guardian.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I often feel the same way about Fighter. The class has pretty much nothing unique other than a proficiency boost to their weapon attacks. They don't even get a taunt mechanic.
So... I'm not sure why this particular complaint about Guardian.
Because unless you can travel back in time and rewrite history, the Fighter is a class that has already existed since before even Pathfinder's 1st Edition, whereas the Guardian is an upcoming class in playtesting. The Fighter comes before the Guardian, so it is the Guardian who has to justify themselves to coexist alongside the Fighter and not the other way round.
I also don't particularly agree with the above critique either: the Fighter is a unique class, because their proficiency boost makes a massive difference that furthers their identity as a master of combat techniques. They're thematically distinct from other martial classes like the Barbarian or Rogue, and don't have the divine or magical bent of the Champion either, so they have their place. The Guardian, however, is not all that thematically distinct from the Fighter, particularly as right now the Fighter can do more things with shields and could very easily just poach the Guardian's mechanics as feats.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
.I also don't particularly agree with the above critique either: the Fighter is a unique class, because their proficiency boost makes a massive difference that furthers their identity as a master of combat techniques. They're thematically distinct from other martial classes like the Barbarian or Rogue, and don't have the divine or magical bent of the Champion either, so they have their place. The Guardian, however, is not all that thematically distinct from the Fighter, particularly as right now the Fighter can do more things with shields and could very easily just poach the Guardian's mechanics as feats.
so fighter proficiency boost is good enough to be a class...
But guardian armor specialization + proficiency boost + reaction + taunt isn't?| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so fighter proficiency boost is good enough to be a class...
But guardian armor specialization + proficiency boost + reaction + taunt isn't?
Yes, because you could port those actions to other classes without much apparent trouble, but wouldn't be able to port the Fighter's proficiency boost to other classes without breaking the game's balance over your knee. As mentioned above, the Guardian's Intercept Strike has zero synergy whatsoever with armor proficiency or greater armor specialization, due to the way it works, and classes like the Fighter, Champion, and Barbarian have equal or greater HP to soak the damage. Meanwhile, Taunt is a mechanic that could very well find its place on literally any class capable of tanking, particularly the aforementioned martial classes, one of which also has the Guardian's legendary armor proficiency.
Also important to note here is that the Fighter starts out with expert proficiency in attacks. Right from level 1, you get to experience exactly what makes the Fighter stand out from every other class. By contrast, the Guardian starts out trained in armor like everyone else, which means that every time they Taunt at that level range, they will make themselves even easier to hit than many casters, which is presumably why they have an option to mitigate damage from critical hits (which, once again, has no synergy with greater armor specialization). It is this poor apparent synergy between the Guardian's own features that to me suggests their abilities would be an even better fit on other classes than on its own chassis.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The question in the OP seems kind of pointless. It's a class and not a collection of feats because someone at Paizo had an idea for bundling it together as a single bespoke thing. Same as literally every other class in the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question in the OP seems kind of pointless. It's a class and not a collection of feats because someone at Paizo had an idea for bundling it together as a single bespoke thing. Same as literally every other class in the game.
This is a fairly silly way of looking at class design, given that the classes we've seen thus far generally go out of their way to have a distinctive enough feel and gameplay to stand out among the rest. Clearly, it is normally important to Paizo that each class feels thematically and mechanically distinct, which is why the game hasn't devolved into some D&D 3.5e-esque nightmare of dozens upon dozens of vaguely similar classes strewn across tons of splatbooks. If Paizo had gone for that approach, then the game's classes would feel crowded, and our appreciation of them would likely suffer as a result.
So to get back to the original point: not every idea gets turned into a full class, but the Guardian is a full class despite practically all of its distinctive features feeling right at home on other classes already. This strikes me as odd, and unlike the Commander, I don't think the Guardian's class chassis even suits their flagship features terribly well either.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Last week I mentioned in other thread how I feared guardian being too similar to the champion and that it could have been a class archetype instead, to which Michael Sayre answered that a class archetype can't step too much outside of what a class is supposed to be. With that said, would it be outrageous if instead of champion, guardian happened to be a fighter class archetype?
Expert weapon proficiencies → Guardian Armor
Reactive Strike → Intercept Strike
Guardian Dedication → It would give you Taunt.
Master weapon proficiences → Expert in armor
Legendary armor proficiencies → Master in armor
And I'm explicitly leaving the delayed progression behind, because if I incoporated it, I think its easy to justify having the chassis of the guardian as is in a fighter class archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Last week I mentioned in other thread how I feared guardian being too similar to the champion and that it could have been a class archetype instead, to which Michael Sayre answered that a class archetype can't step too much outside of what a class is supposed to be. With that said, would it be outrageous if instead of champion, guardian happened to be a fighter class archetype?
Expert weapon proficiencies → Guardian Armor
Reactive Strike → Intercept Strike
Guardian Dedication → It would give you Taunt.
Master weapon proficiences → Expert in armor
Legendary armor proficiencies → Master in armor
And I'm explicitly leaving the delayed progression behind, because if I incoporated it, I think its easy to justify having the chassis of the guardian as is in a fighter class archetype.
Funnily enough, I'd been thinking last week about what would constitute a valid Fighter class archetype, and this looks like it could be it (though legendary rather than master in armor, as the Fighter is already a master). Simply swapping Reactive Strike for Taunt and the special attack proficiency track for a better armor proficiency track (in fact, starting out an expert in all armor would significantly help mitigate the accuracy bonus Taunt gives to enemies) would effectively make the Fighter into a Guardian with a less awkward proficiency track. In fact, if we're going along with this method, you could just make Taunt a 6th-level class feat that you could get on a regular Fighter (+Barbarian or Champion), and Intercept Strike potentially a lower-level class feat too, and you'd have all of the key points of the Guardian covered without needing to create a brand-new class.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also don't particularly agree with the above critique either: the Fighter is a unique class, because their proficiency boost makes a massive difference that furthers their identity as a master of combat techniques. They're thematically distinct from other martial classes like the Barbarian or Rogue, and don't have the divine or magical bent of the Champion either, so they have their place. The Guardian, however, is not all that thematically distinct from the Fighter, particularly as right now the Fighter can do more things with shields and could very easily just poach the Guardian's mechanics as feats.
I don't particularly agree with the OP critique either: The Guardian is a unique class, because their proficiency boost makes a massive difference that furthers their identity as a master of defensive techniques. They're thematically distinct from other defensive classes like Champion, and don't have the nature or magical bent of Ranger or Thaumaturge, so they have their place. The Fighter, however, is not all that thematically distinct from the Ranger, particularly as right now the Ranger can do more things with weapons and could very easily just poach the Fighter's mechanics as feats.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a fairly silly way of looking at class design
Not as silly as arguing that a class that's already in the publishing pipeline shouldn't exist. It's also just how classes are made. They don't will themselves into existence because their concepts are somehow inevitable.
If Paizo had gone for that approach, then the game's classes would feel crowded, and our appreciation of them would likely suffer as a result.
Which is a complaint we get almost every playtest. This is the same ground we tread with "but you can just be a fighter with an archetype" when the magus was being talked about, along with many others.
Plus we've already seen what happens in reverse when something is released as just an archetype instead. It ends up inevitably underbaked and unfulfilling.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the salient observation here is that the Guardian probably needs a more noteworthy mid-level upgrade class feature. For the most part the Guardian has front-loaded defining features but its mid-level class features are mostly just proficiency increases.
Like the threat technique subclass feels vestigial, maybe they should expand on it in the class features.
I think the salient observation here is that the Guardian probably needs a more noteworthy mid-level upgrade class feature. For the most part the Guardian has front-loaded defining features but its mid-level class features are mostly just proficiency increases.
Like the threat technique subclass feels vestigial, maybe they should expand on it in the class features.
Could be something that gives you an extra rider on Taunt or something if an enemy Succeeds in their saving throw or some such thing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could be something that gives you an extra rider on Taunt or something if an enemy Succeeds in their saving throw or some such thing.I think the salient observation here is that the Guardian probably needs a more noteworthy mid-level upgrade class feature. For the most part the Guardian has front-loaded defining features but its mid-level class features are mostly just proficiency increases.
Like the threat technique subclass feels vestigial, maybe they should expand on it in the class features.
Another possibility is a feature upgrade to Taunt that turns it into an AoE by default, as the potential action cost for a 4v4 fight is just brutal.
Aside from that, I think the Quick Intercept Strike Feat ought to be a core class Feature, likely replacing the Reaction Time feature. Intercept Strike is basically half the class, and the Guardian honestly does not look like it's going to be good at doing much else...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a fairly silly way of looking at class designNot as silly as arguing that a class that's already in the publishing pipeline shouldn't exist. It's also just how classes are made. They don't will themselves into existence because their concepts are somehow inevitable.
If Paizo had gone for that approach, then the game's classes would feel crowded, and our appreciation of them would likely suffer as a result.Which is a complaint we get almost every playtest. This is the same ground we tread with "but you can just be a fighter with an archetype" when the magus was being talked about, along with many others.
Plus we've already seen what happens in reverse when something is released as just an archetype instead. It ends up inevitably underbaked and unfulfilling.
One of the most common complains of swashbuckler and investigator is that they are worse rogues, why wouldn't people be able to say guardian is a worse champion?
As mentioned above, the Guardian's Intercept Strike has zero synergy whatsoever with armor proficiency or greater armor specialization, due to the way it works
I agree that's not the best and would rather have.
"The attack targeted you", all that armor stuff would come into play.
Meanwhile, Taunt is a mechanic that could very well find its place on literally any class capable of tanking, particularly the aforementioned martial classes, one of which also has the Guardian's legendary armor proficiency.
Taunt on a champion would be a bit OP.
Also important to note here is that the Fighter starts out with expert proficiency in attacks.
I could see that changing as well.
It is this poor apparent synergy between the Guardian's own features that to me suggests their abilities would be an even better fit on other classes than on its own chassis.
Or, suggest that they fix the synergies.
IMO.
Or, suggest that they fix the synergies.
IMO.
Here's an easy fix: let the Barb, Champion, and Fighter access Taunt as a class feat. Problem solved. I don't believe the action would be OP on any of those classes, but Intercept Attack requiring the attack to go through your AC first I think would just further aggravate the GM, because the class is already designed to be a massive damage sponge and would become even spongier as a result. This is presumably why Shield Warden, arguably a better Intercept Attack, has you Shield Block to soak up damage, and why Guardian's Deflection has you boost the target's AC, instead of having the attack target your own.
Not as silly as arguing that a class that's already in the publishing pipeline shouldn't exist. It's also just how classes are made. They don't will themselves into existence because their concepts are somehow inevitable.
No, they're created with the intent of adding value to the game, which implies fulfilling a distinct thematic and gameplay niche that has yet to be properly explored. If you truly believe that everything's set in stone already and that feedback doesn't matter on the class's official feedback subforum, why are you even here?
Which is a complaint we get almost every playtest. This is the same ground we tread with "but you can just be a fighter with an archetype" when the magus was being talked about, along with many others.
What archetype would allow a Fighter to Spellstrike multiple times an encounter? Your made-up comparison makes little sense here, because the Magus has a distinct identity from the Fighter, plays completely differently from the Fighter, and has and requires an entirely different core class structure from the Fighter to accommodate said gameplay, which unless I'm mistaken, was obvious since the playtest. By contrast, it takes a serious amount of bad faith to pretend that the Fighter and Guardian don't tread very similar thematic territory, and as has now been pointed out extensively by many different users, the Guardian doesn't do a terribly good job of accommodating their handful of unique mechanics, none of which look like they really need to be beholden to just one class. I would go as far as to say that you could implement a version of Taunt as a skill action, and it would work better than a class-exclusive feature.
Plus we've already seen what happens in reverse when something is released as just an archetype instead. It ends up inevitably underbaked and unfulfilling.
Have you perhaps considered actually doing something about it? Rather than whine at other players for daring to engage critically with playtesting material the developers are openly inviting feedback upon, perhaps you could give feedback of your own if you really want some archetypes to get promoted to full classes? We're seeing this right now with the Marshal's core concept getting turned into the Commander, so it's not like you don't have a chance.
I don't particularly agree with the OP critique either: The Guardian is a unique class, because their proficiency boost makes a massive difference that furthers their identity as a master of defensive techniques.
Does it though? Putting aside how parroting my lines about the Fighter demonstrates that the Guardian, who once again is coming to a space that already has the Fighter, is bound to collide thematically with the Fighter, Taunt works against that proficiency by putting you at best on the level of other martial classes with a regular defensive proficiency track. In fact, as already pointed out, you will often have worse effective AC than other martials at level 1 and most other levels, because Taunt gives enemies a +2 to attack rolls against you, along with their DCs to your saves.
They're thematically distinct from other defensive classes like Champion, and don't have the nature or magical bent of Ranger or Thaumaturge, so they have their place.
But not from the Fighter, who is in fact also a defensive class, and has been a part of the game since its inception. Did you think the heavy armor proficiency and armor specialization were just for show?
The Fighter, however, is not all that thematically distinct from the Ranger, particularly as right now the Ranger can do more things with weapons and could very easily just poach the Fighter's mechanics as feats.
The most fatuous part of this reply is that many other classes do in fact poach some of the Fighter's iconic mechanics, like Reactive Strike, but not the Ranger, because contrary to the above inane claim, the two classes have distinct thematic and mechanical niches. The Fighter is not the crafty nature warrior, and the Ranger is not the martially-disciplined master of combat techniques (which, by the way, include use of shields and armor, a fact you appear to be deliberately ignoring). The Fighter is, however, also able to easily opt into the theme of the heavily-armored, durable guardian, as can the Champion, through feats such as Devoted Guardian or Guardian's Deflection. Notice a theme?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Intercept Attack requiring the attack to go through your AC first I think would just further aggravate the GM, because the class is already designed to be a massive damage sponge
So you agree the class has a design then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I went on demiplane and built a level 5 guardian, then compared it with pregen Valeros.
Valeros:
+4 to attack (!)
+5 speed (not sure why maybe a pregen error)
+2 Perception
Bravery
Reactive Strike
Double Slice
Guardian:
+2 AC
Armor spec (2 slashing resist)
Taunt
Threat Technique (7 crit resist)
Tough to Kill
1 extra expert skill (also not sure why)
Intercept Strike
Flying Tackle
These are all the differences, everything else is exactly or at least functionally the same - HP, saves, shield block effects.
In this state, it could have been a champion class archetype. With alignment gone and divine war looming it would make sense to give up edicts/anathema/focus spells for the taunt+threat technique and defensive feats.
I would like to see better survivability to survive Taunt, even more cool shield-based options, and also situational improved mobility to catch up to allies (for example, Intercept Foe granting a speed bonus or allowing to bypass difficult terrain).
Also Taunt being a will save that affects mindless creatures rubs me the wrong way. At least they should get some advantage against it, or maybe there could be a feat to make it a different save type.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think its important to note that I (and I assume Teridax too) don't want to remove the guardian from Battlecry and make it an archetype instead, but rather say that the class could be an archetype because we want the class to gain an unique flavor and mechanics that make it stand on its own.
Guardian fills a similar niche to fighters in that a fighter "fights, while the guardian "guards". if that's the case and what the devs intended when making the guardian, then I think taking the fighter's chassis but reversing it is IMO the first step here.
Fighters start being experts in weapons? Then guardians should with armor.
Fighters start being trained in advanced weapons? Well, there aren't advanced armors or anything like that, but receiving armor specialization benefits at 1st level can do the trick.
Fighters have Reactive Strike? Guardians have Intercept Strike.
Taunt and Threat Technique don't need an equivalent.
Bravery would roughly be the equivalent of Tough To Kill.
Fighter Weapon Mastery → Guardian's Armor Mastery
Weapon Legend → Legendary Armor
Otherwise, a guardian would still have an average martial progression (expert with weapons at 5th level, master with weapons at 13th level, weapon specialization at 7th level, greater weapon specialization at 15th level). I feel this is the most basic chassis from where start to build up stuff for the guardian to become more unique.
I think its important to note that I (and I assume Teridax too) don't want to remove the guardian from Battlecry and make it an archetype instead, but rather say that the class could be an archetype because we want the class to gain an unique flavor and mechanics that make it stand on its own.
Guardian fills a similar niche to fighters in that a fighter "fights, while the guardian "guards". if that's the case and what the devs intended when making the guardian, then I think taking the fighter's chassis but reversing it is IMO the first step here.
Agreed completely, I think you put it really well. In its current state, I don't think the Guardian distinguishes itself thematically or mechanically enough from existing classes to warrant inclusion as its own thing, and I do genuinely believe many of its existing mechanics could very well be feats on other classes (at this point I even feel Taunt would work fine as a skill action). Unless the class somehow plays radically differently in practice or receives significant changes that justify its separate existence, my fear is that the Guardian on release is just going to be left in the dust and considered a worse Fighter or Champion. The Investigator and Swashbuckler frequently get criticized this way despite having distinct flavor and mechanics, so what would happen to a class with even less going for it?
The flipside to all this is that within the Guardian, there's bits of character concepts that players have been wanting for a while, and I recall seeing homebrew that similarly aimed to create a heavy armor tank separate from the Champion. If there is an opportunity to make a truly unique class out of the Guardian, I'd like to see that, though I'm not really seeing that in the class's current mechanics. In particular, Taunt I think is really underdeveloped and not implemented as well as it could be, whereas Intercept Strike I think is just poorly-designed on a number of levels. I'd support pushing the Guardian towards being more of a damage- and attention-soaking quarterback type than what's currently mainly just a Fighter with worse attacks and a taunt, and that I think should mean putting more emphasis on aggressive mobility and their ability to move into harm's way from a greater distance. This looks like the perfect class for a "get down Mr President" meme build, and that I think can start to separate the class's identity from the Fighter or Champion.
So you agree the class has a design then.
Yes, the design is in fact made of design. Good job! Unfortunately, that design is still too similar to that of the Fighter or Champion, because as per the bit of the quote you truncated, both classes' existing protective feats explicitly avoid redirecting the attack to their own, higher AC, specifically to avoid the excessive sponginess you're pushing for.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the moment, it does sorta feel to me like the Guardian isn't quite doing enough to stand out, which is where I think a lot of the basis for the "Couldn't the Guardian just be a Champion or Fighter class archetype?" discussion is coming from.
Which I can get behind, as is.
I also think most people aren't trying to argue "The Guardian should be a class archetype" so much as they're saying, in a roundabout way: "I think the Guardian needs a bit more to stand out and further differentiate it from the other classes"
However I think it's important for us all to remember that this is a playtest. Both because things can, and likely will, change based on feedback. But also that this doesn't cover the breadth of options the Guardian will likely have available.
I, for one, am a little disappointed by the options for Threat Technique. Ferocious Vengeance is a very cool way to take the class chassis and twist the expectations and Mitigate Harm is what the class is trying to do, but it doesn't really do much to encourage a particular play style the way Ferocious Vengeance does. It feels like the Fury Instinct option for Barbarian; it's just kinda boring.
Plus I think Threat Technique could really benefit from 1-3 more options to really make the Guardian both stand out from the other classes, but to help differentiate different Guardian builds.
Taunt I think is really underdeveloped and not implemented as well as it could be, whereas Intercept Strike I think is just poorly-designed on a number of levels
I agree.
Taunt is litterally a trap against AoE's. You give an enemy +2 for nothing.
Threat Technique could really benefit from 1-3 more options to really make the Guardian both stand out from the other classes, but to help differentiate different Guardian builds.
I would be surprised if there wasn't more on release.
In practice the Guardian is the Neutral Champion that many of us (including myself) asked here for years. But we expect a Champion subclass but Paizo give us the Guardian.
Its chassis is basically the Champion chassis with Legendary Armor proficiency at level 15 instead of 17 and with pretty similar when not fully equal abilities and feats:
- Intercept Strike is like the Champion Reaction but without the 15 ft "aura" that also requires the the enemy is also inside of it to work. Intercept Strike works even if the source is not a creature and doesn't care about the origin point but by default only affect physical damage and different from good champion the excess damage is redirected to guardian not to target like champion does.
- Taunt is a mechanic that extends the Intercept Strike once that different from champion, the Intercept Strike doesn't provides a drawback to target instead you need to use an action (that get some goods action compression feats like add Rise a Shield to it) to make it.
The feats are different from champions (also because many champion's feats are divine in many ways) but almost all are defensive focused.
So Guardia is basically the response to the demands of a Neutral Champion maybe a bit too much that it's a new class but makes sense once that the designers wants to remove all the divine baggage from it.
I agree.
Taunt is litterally a trap against AoE's. You give an enemy +2 for nothing.
On that note, I feel Taunt ought to drop its circumstance bonus, but also feel at this point that a much weaker version of it could be made generally available as a skill action, e.g. with a 10-minute immunity period or the like. Though I think the Guardian needs more unique stuff going for them, in this respect I think that's more something they just just be really good at, rather than the only source of any kind of taunt in a game.
What I think the Guardian could be a lot better at, however, I think is moving around: Intercept Strike I feel would feel much better if the Guardian could Leap into range as part of the reaction, and being this mobile interceptor would already go a long way towards making them more distinct from Champions or Fighters, who are both fairly slow-moving characters. I also feel several aspects of the class's features would feel both less complicated and less anti-synergistic if the class just ditched most of its overlapping resistances and instead settled for a fat 12 HP per level, which I think would also allow effects like Intercept Strike to redirect attacks to the Guardian's own AC, instead of getting soaked with damage reduction (I definitely don't think you could have both).
I think another aspect that could be explored with this class is being really good at Reposition and Shoving allies: moving allies out of harm's way, or carrying willing allies into the fray, I think would have a number of potential applications that would further help differentiate the class, as well as further the guardian theme if they're incentivized to substitute themselves into the danger in their allies' place. Disrupting enemies seems to already be something the class is meant to be good at, and while currently that's also something both the Fighter and Champion can do, I think there are ways of being disruptive that haven't yet been delved into and could fit a certain version of the Guardian more than anyone else.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's really shocking to me that people are saying "why bother, the Champion exists" since a thing I have wanted since the original PF2 playtest is "the ability to play a Champion without being beholden to a God." Not just for atheist champions, but for like animist champions (but definitely also for those), or reincarnationist champions, or ancestor-worshipping champions, or "I don't even think about religion" champions. Not a reskinned oracle or something, an actual honest to goodness martial with good defensive abilities.
I figure the Guardian should be the class I have been wanting.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's really shocking to me that people are saying "why bother, the Champion exists" since a thing I have wanted since the original PF2 playtest is "the ability to play a Champion without being beholden to a God." Not just for atheist champions, but for like animist champions (but definitely also for those), or reincarnationist champions, or ancestor-worshipping champions, or "I don't even think about religion" champions. Not a reskinned oracle or something, an actual honest to goodness martial with good defensive abilities.
I figure the Guardian should be the class I have been wanting.
And hopefully now with Guardian they'll drop the "Champion is the Heavy Armor class" bent and let them focus on doing Champion stuff.
I think OP underestimates how much work it'd take to wrangle the Champion or Fighter into the Guardian chassis. Fighter progression has nothing in common with Guardian besides weapon/armour proficiency. A class archetype has to rewrite the entire progression for... what? To save space on a few shared shield feats? Oh and you need to add AoO back in, too.
A user just a few posts above demonstrated you could turn a Fighter into a Guardian with just a couple of lines to swap key proficiencies and abilities. Another statted out a Fighter and a Guardian and showed they had near-identical stats, especially to begin with. I suspect you declared the task impossible because you didn't actually put any thought into how one would go about it.
At the end of it, you're writing 20 levels of class features and feats but calling it an archetype because... why? If you think slapping Taunt onto a Fighter is a better tank that's what multiclass archetype are for, but the Guardian is, just by dint of its class features alone, distinct from both the Fighter and the Champion that you're going to need a class worth of ink to write it out anyway and making it a class has better compatibility with everything.
To be clear, I didn't call the Guardian a class archetype, I'm saying that in its current state, you could cannibalize its class feats, Intercept Strike, and Taunt, and all of those would fit a Fighter, a Champion, and in the case of several abilities even a Barbarian just as fine. There is already a large amount of feat overlap in addition to thematic overlap, and both the Fighter and Champion get to make better use of shields. As already noted, the Guardian's abilities synergize poorly with their own defenses, particularly Intercept Strike which ignores both the class's legendary armor proficiency and their greater armor specialization.
I think its important to note that hybrid classes in PF1e were treated as full classes for a reason. Taking the defensive bits from Fighter and Champion may sound like an archetypable job but it isn't.
I think it's important to note that Paizo has dropped hybrid classes from 2e precisely because of how they overlap with others. Either they make the effort to elevate the hybrid to the level of a fully-fledged class and give them properly unique gameplay, e.g. with the Investigator or Swashbuckler, or they fold that hybrid into another class, which is what we've got with the Warpriest and are soon to get with the Bloodrager too. Following this methodology, the Guardian could indeed be a class archetype, but my point is that you don't even need an archetype dedication feat here; just integrating those abilities and feats into the feats of other classes wouldn't even change their niche. If the Guardian is to stand on its own two feet, it's going to have to do a lot more in my opinion.
Or that I disagree that it's "just" a bunch of proficiency swaps? I made my case, ignoring it to pretend I didn't put thought into it is rude.
I would say that imputing ignorance on my part while deliberately ignoring evidence laid out for you that disproves your claim is pretty rude too, but that didn't seem to stop you. Visibly, you haven't bothered to check the posts I've referred to either, so let me just link to them for your reading convenience. As the latter post in particular demonstrates, swapping the Fighter to a Guardian at level 1 would be an extremely simple matter of swapping out a handful of proficiencies and features, and even by your own fastidious count that ignores the indicated lack of interaction between the Guardian's own features, that would still be a far less radical change than many other class archetypes, such as the Flexible Spellcaster. Given that we don't have Flexible Spellcaster: The Class, it stands to reason that if the Guardian's only reason for existing is that implementing them on the Fighter would require six whole changes (six! Can one even count that far?), then that's not a particularly strong defense for their existence.
Saying "you could cannibalise it's class feats" doesn't really mean anything in PF2e design - there's no floating pile of class feats, you assign them to either a class or a archetype (or multiple but w.e.). And of course there's the fact that the fighter comes with a whole pile of feats meant for it's offensive slant. Is the Guardian supposed to get Triple Shot, or Whirlwind Strike? Because if it's on a Fighter they will get that.
I don't know about you, but I don't think there's any ambiguity to how a class cannibalizing another class's feats here refers to simply assigning those feats to that class. Nobody is talking about floating piles of feats here, so I'm not sure if you understood what's being talked about.
And the Fighter being able to opt into further offense just as well as defense I think highlights another of the Guardian's problems, which is that the class just feels like a subset of other classes: the Fighter, but also the Champion and Barbarian all have the choice of going for more offense and defense, and in fact both the Fighter and the Champion (and also now the Commander) can build specifically to protect others in a way much like the Guardian, better even given how most protective abilities are better than Intercept Strike. A Fighter or Champion can already build to act like a Guardian, minus Taunt, while also being able to go instead in completely different directions. The Guardian, by contrast, doesn't diverge all that much with their feats in the playtest material, and mainly stay in the space of tanking lots of damage and protecting allies, with perhaps a side order of doing a bit more with your Strikes. All of this is a gameplay space those other classes tread thoroughly, so that in itself isn't unique either.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do kind of agree that the Guardian could use more sauce to make it stand out more. As is it kinda feels like a Fighter/Champion hybrid class like they used to do in 1e, which has been pointed out already in this thread.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of feel like Guardian is a class archetype. While we haven't seen Guardian dedication I suspect fighter + Guardian dedication might be flat out superior to Guardian.
Its a 'defensive focused fighter' in flavour. There is nothing that makes it stand out as having its own real identity. It has the same or maybe even less identity than a Rogue Racket or Cleric doctrine.
Taunt and intercepting strike are cool but not enough on their own to warrant a distinct class identity. Make it a fighter 'doctrine' equivalent and it works.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I often feel the same way about Fighter. The class has pretty much nothing unique other than a proficiency boost to their weapon attacks. They don't even get a taunt mechanic.
So... I'm not sure why this particular complaint about Guardian.
Except Bravery. And Battlefield Surveyor. And accelerated damage boosts from weapon spec. And action compression from extremely powerful and highly unique class feats. And the ability to swap those feats on-the-fly in "Flexibility" slots. But do go on about how the fighter doesn't offer anything unique.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to find discussions that certain classes are "unnecessary" and should be a subclass of another to be a slippery slope because you can make that argument with a lot of other classes, depending on how arbitrary the criteria is.
At the very extreme end you could theoretically argue the whole class list down to the classic four, with every other class being represented as subclasses, archetypes, or floating lists of feats. In which case why not go even further and reduce the class list down to just martial and caster, with everything else being a subcategory of those? And at that point, why not just go classless altogether and let people choose what they want for ultimate freedom?
Obviously that's not what I want, but that's what people saying certain classes shouldn't exist sound like to me. Like Guardian right now is clearly undertuned and needs improvement in both numbers and usability, but I think it's a worthy addition to the roster, if nothing else than to have a tank without the thematic baggage champions and monks have. And also to have another defender past the two that were released at the very start of PF2e.
We already have a lot of damage dealer martials, many of which have overlap with each other. So why not another tank?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think the Guardian is missing an Action/bonus that defines their turns radically.
Intercept and Taunt are cute but they are sometimes foods.
Barbarians Rage, Rangers Hunt, Monks Flurry... the Guardian cannot be entirely reactive, and if it is, it needs to be a little bit sexier, I think.