Guardian Class Feedback

[revenge_kobold]

I haven't seen a lot of talk about this yet, but I think Intercept Foe is a strong enough feat to feel required, and that it largely replaces Intercept Strike until level 8 where you get Quick Intercept. It has great synergy with Taunt, gives the Guardian the movement it needs to function well, and it's just a unique and fun play style that hasn't been present in the game to this point. Adding ally movement to it with Get Behind Me! at 10 just makes it that much more effective - If you're not hopping to and shuffling your friends around the battlefield every round, then it just seems like you're missing out, no matter how else you build the class.

Frankly I think Intercept Foe fits the class identity more than Intercept Strike does, and I will die on this hill - I'd prefer it as a base class feature. Intercept Strike is great in niche situations, but I can't help but feel it works better as a supplement to Intercept Foe than it does as the second root feature of the class (with Taunt being the first).

It also feels like Intercept Foe, along with a number of other low level feats (like Hampering Sweeps), make the class more attractive as a class archetype than as a base class. The class *does* have a clear niche though, it just seems to require certain feats to get there.

[Powers128]

I feel like a lot of guardians will end up as elves for the people who want to use a fortress shield and not have 15 speed. I'd really like to see a core feature or a first level feat to remove the speed penalty on armor.

[Perpdepog]

Powers128 wrote:

I feel like a lot of guardians will end up as elves for the people who want to use a fortress shield and not have 15 speed. I'd really like to see a core feature or a first level feat to remove the speed penalty on armor.

There's also a dwarf with Unburdened Iron.

[Trip.H]

I have said similar about Int Foe.

I don't think pf2e devs, (both Paizo and homebrew tbh) put enough value into specific vs generic applicability. When a Feat/Feature is too specific and cannot be used, it has 0 value in that circumstance/turn. The idea that "Never!" (Spend a Class Feat to possibly avoid hitting friends against your will) is a L 16 is a case-in-point for the problem. That Feat *might* make a difference once per campaign. Every other moment, it provides 0 value to the PC.

---

For Intercept Strike, you have to be adjacent an ally. You will not have the *option* to use that for a whole lot of turns. But being within Stride distance of a foe-->ally melee hit? That will be usable almost every round.

That's why I've not really been complaining about the idea of an Action-based Taunt (as opposed to a passive mark) as a core class feature. That is genuinely generic, something the G initiates.

Core features really ought to be usable as often as possible as the base foundation that is then modified by sub-classes, Feats, ect.

I think Int Strike could work fine if it was reach-based at start, then got a +5 boost as an early core class Feature. The issue with swapping Int Foe/Strike is that dmg reduction is guaranteed impact that really does affect the outcome.

Giving allies +2 AC for a single hit is NOT a good idea for a core class feature, IMO. Not only will its impact be very swingy and RNG, but I don't think that will feel as satisfying as Int Strike's reduction. Psychologically speaking, it will feel "useless" most of the time, and only feel significantly impactful only when a roll's outcome is changed.

-----------

The speed issue is not unique to the G, but the class does bring it to the forefront, that's for sure.

That is the perfect place for the devs to know their game, and at least have a Class Feat to address the problem in a neat way, such as a speed loss buffer. As a General Feat is a forever +5, I could see a Class Feat that enables the G to ignore 10 or 15 ft total penalty to all speeds.

Meaning a 5ft armor speed penalty would leave the G able to ignore 5 more ft of spd minus passively. If the Feat's a bit higher Lvl, then letting them spend a Class Feat to both ignore a 5ft armor minus, and have the buffer to ignore 10 ft of spd minus before being slowed seems perfect for the class that is all about trucking through a foe's attacks to stay at their ally's side.

The way that's worded makes the buffer independent of armor, so that a G can still potentially benefit no matter what / if they are suffering an armor spd minus.

[revenge_kobold]

Trip.H wrote:

...

I think Int Strike could work fine if it was reach-based at start, then got a +5 boost as an early core class Feature. The issue with swapping Int Foe/Strike is that dmg reduction is guaranteed impact that really does affect the outcome.

Giving allies +2 AC for a single hit is NOT a good idea for a core class feature, IMO. Not only will its impact be very swingy and RNG, but I don't think that will feel as satisfying as Int Strike's reduction. Psychologically speaking, it will feel "useless" most of the time, and only feel significantly impactful only when a roll's outcome is changed.

I don't entirely disagree, but consider the following:

If the enemy is Taunted, the effective AC bonus you are granting is increased to somewhere between +3 and +5, making your -2 effective AC much more enticing (is the enemy going to attack the Barbarian with 22AC AC or the heavy tank with 19?). Additionally, even early on, if you hop to your ally's side, you will be in a better position to use Hampering Sweeps to lock the enemy down, or you'll be in position to use Intercept Strike if the ally wants to stick around. Heck, by level 8 with the current build options, you could do Intercept Strike after using your reaction to Intercept Foe. It's awesome, and that's kind of the issue.

The class already has so many feats built around combining Intercept Foe and Intercept Strike - I don't really feel like either should be feat options, honestly. Swapping Intercept Foe and Intercept Strike was my initial thought, but the more I think about it, the more it feels like they should both be part of the same class feature.

[WatersLethe]

My first impression, prior to playtesting.

I am not ideologically opposed to a taunt mechanic that encourages one creature to focus their attacks on another, however I don't think it's a necessary thing and I believe we've outgrown the need for it in modern game design.

The problem taunt addresses is: "The enemy is attacking an ally of mine, but I want it to be focusing on me, and I am too durable to justify also having the damage or control abilities that would me an un-ignorable threat."

Taunt attempts to solve this in ALMOST the most simplistic manner possible: "I can't mind control the enemy into attacking me, so I will make it significantly easier to hit me rather than my ally through numerical buffs and debuffs, and hopefully it will decide to attack me on its own." (Let's leave aside whether it achieves this, since that's debatable in its current iteration)

My question is: Why go through the hoops of trying to influence who the enemy is targeting when you could take the initiative to interpose yourself between the enemy and your ally in a million interesting ways that play out naturally on the battle map?

Give the guardian more and better reactions to intercept attacks as they are made, and attempting to force decisions on the enemy becomes completely unnecessary.

[Trip.H]

WatersLethe wrote:

I completely agree.

To play advocate for the current version of Taunt:
Imposing a numerical to hit difference is perhaps the single most generic and "always helpful" way to influence the "who do I want to hit?" decision making of a foe.

It is the rawest form of "an ability that can make the foe choose to swing at me instead of my allies" that one could make (AoE issue aside).

There are a million ways for the Guardian to coerce foes into hitting them, but they all change the base fantasy.

As far as I can tell, there are 2 foundational tenets of the Guardian as a concept.

1: - Takes hits better than others, must suffer less from being hit than allies.

2: - Compel foes to swing at them instead of allies.

---------

Like all Tanks, this is contradictory. Meaning the compel / taunt half needs to be quite potent to overcome the "takes hits better" half.

Anything besides the 2 base abilities of Guardian we have now (take a hit with resistance, change the to hit numbers) would be an alteration to that fantasy, or a best a more specific one.

--------------------------

One possible Feat/Feature could be the "Slow-Start Steam Tank" fantasy. Every time you end your turn, you gain a cumulative +2 status bonus to damage. Every hit you take (or failed save), -1 to that bonus. Later Feats/Features would revolve around building that bonus quicker, cashing it out yourself in explosive moments, ect.

That looks cool and fun, and while I'd love it as a subclass or Feat line, it's not the "most generic Tank" possible.

When you start trying to hash out the design of "what's the most basic / generic way to coerce a foe to swing at the G instead of their allies?"

it's a very short road until you reach the "change the to hit equation" idea.

[Powers128]

An option for intercept to target the guardians AC instead their ally's would be good and allow the guardian to use their crazy high AC more proactively.

[Squiggit]

WatersLethe wrote:

My question is: Why go through the hoops of trying to influence who the enemy is targeting when you could take the initiative to interpose yourself between the enemy and your ally in a million interesting ways that play out naturally on the battle map?

One obvious one is that there are already a lot of ways to do the latter, while there's no mechanic in the game that works specifically like Taunt does. That's not a problem, that's an incentive.

Using reach weapons, positioning, athletics, terrain, and special reactions are all fairly well-tread ground in the game, with plenty of options to enable them right now.

While it's not tuned correctly, the core mechanics of Taunt are different, which contrary to your conclusion I think is a good thing.

If the answer is just "why not use this thing that already exists" then we're kind of moving away from the design space of a new class to begin with.

My feedback here is in the opposite direction. The problem is that Taunt doesn't do enough. There should be more emphasis on it, it should be more reliable, and there should be more ways to enhance it.

I'd like to even see taunt get the debilitation or finisher treatment where there are feats and options that enable specific unique riders that allow you to customize and expand taunt's mechanics.

[Powers128]

Some riders would be great. Maybe have some specific striking abilities that can only be made against taunted foes too. There's some potential there

[OceanshieldwolPF 2.5]

To be honest, I’m really looking forward to starting a playtest on Monday. I’d like to start yesterday, but…real life.

But I’m really concerned that the sheer number of threads about almost every aspect of the Guardian’s perceived…issues are getting lost in the…sheer number of threads.

I see issues being raised with

Taunt: thematically, narratively, and of course mechanically - my group is still trying to work out how it works and how it interacts with furious vengeance

Guardian Armor: speed and armor check issues; resistances

Mobility: How does the Guardian defend if it needs actions to get to allies and is also slow? In some instances folk have talked about Taunt not being an action (though there is that 2nd level shield-conversant feat)…

Key Ability Stat: CON instead of STR?

”Tank” A little philosophical, but still pertinent. What is a a tank? Is Guardian a Tank? Is it performing like a tank? Does anyone want it to? What kind of tank? CRPG or RPG? Are there RPG tanks….etc etc

Threat Technique: how and when does furious vengeance work when Taunt mentions “the beginning of your next turn” and furious vengeance mentions “the end of your turn”? I made a thread and it didn’t seem to resolve my understanding…

Intercept Strike: honestly I haven’t understood/followed this as much as I would have like but it keeps turning up

Subclasses via Threat Technique: Is this a viable design space? Unicore seems to think super focused is great, while I would be saddened if there wasn’t space to diversify

Combat Ability/Damage Output: Is the Guardian only able to defend, or can they have a great defense by having a superlative Offense? I guess this is mainly about levels of Weapon UTEML?

”Play Rotation”: Or threads about what the Guardian actually does and whether there is enough to choose from - do they have enough agency? Can subclasses impact this?

Shieldless Guardians Ok, this is just a pet peeve of mine. ;)

There are probably a few more. At least.

Someone with more time might be able to link the examples I’ve given to the relevant threads, but I’d really like to see some input from Jason on whether any of these “aren’t being considered as removable, but are changeable”, “are something we are looking at” or “are a complete waste of our time”. In better, more kinder politic words obviously. Now I have read Michael Sayre’s reply to my earlier musings regarding data points and “pristine un-biased fields of research/feedback” but I do want some guidance.

Or maybe we need to be more organised. Personally I put “Guardian: [insert ability/feat/issue]” on my threads (I think I did…) to make them…focused.

I really like the Guardian as a class. I love support and defence minded concepts. But as of now, I don’t even know how to use Taunt and furious vengeance. And I see a lot of really useful feedback, some from actual play, that are pointing out some rather glaring issues.

And I’d like to playtest the best version of the Guardian I can - to move the process that one extra step forward.

So I guess I’d like for any changes that might be appearing to appear sooner rather than later. I guess if nothing changes between now and the end of the playtest, then none of these issues really are that glaring?

[OceanshieldwolPF 2.5]

@Squiggit and Waters Lethe:

I really like where you are both coming from and by turns agree with both of you. Maybe a new thread (not titled “Taunt is Bad”) could help…something like “Guardian: Taunt - More or Less?”.

Not that the Taunt is Bad thread has been bad, far from it…

[Teridax]

So, after trying out the Guardian a fair bit, I feel more comfortable giving some feedback here. I'll split my post into sections, spoiler them, and add a TL;DR just so it's all a bit easier to navigate.

Methods:

The hero of this playtest is Gork, the guardian orc. I went for the Hold-Scarred Orc heritage for maximum survivability, prioritized Strength then Constitution, and then boosted my Wisdom whenever I could. As my fourth score, I sometimes went for Dexterity or Charisma, depending on what I was testing. I picked Orc Ferocity, and picked another general feat at 3rd level when tough to kill made the Diehard feat from my heritage redundant (I went for Fleet alongside Toughness at that level). At higher levels, I picked Defy Death, and just continued along the Orc Ferocity feats for maximum survivability. I changed class feats and weapons frequently in-between encounters, but otherwise used splint mail at 1st level, full plate at higher levels, and Automatic Bonus Progression to not have to worry too hard about magic items.

Supporting Gork was a generic trifecta of cleric, fighter, and wizard. I could've gone for a rogue instead of a fighter, but settled on a fighter specifically because I felt the class had some interesting synergies with the guardian, and wanted to try those out.

Using a few generic maps with a few features (forest clearing, underground dungeon, that sort of thing), I ran some quick encounters at levels 1, 6, 10, 14, and 20. I picked levels 6 and 14 mainly because I saw the guardian's delayed attack progression, and wanted to see how the class felt to play at those levels where they were behind other martial classes. I ran a few "generic" monsters for those levels with a light mix of different abilities, including a pack of wolves, a mix of goblins, individual dragons from Monster Core (chiefly, the mirage and conspirator dragons), and finally Treerazer, all to see how the class would deal with a mix of damage types, single-target attacks versus AoE, groups of enemies versus bosses, and intelligent versus unintelligent opponents.

TL;DR: I built a guardian for maximum Strength and survivability, paired them with a generic party of cleric, fighter, and wizard, ran the class in some relatively sparse (but not empty) maps, and picked a mix of different enemies. I went for a party I thought would synergize well with the guardian, as well as levels and enemies that I felt would stress-test some aspects of the guardian that stood out for me.

Intercept Strike:

I tried a few builds around Intercept Strike, one with Bodyguard, and another without (I picked Unkind Shove instead).

For starters, I made the ruling that Intercept Strike blocked only the physical damage component to an attack that dealt a mix of damage types. The rules seemed ambiguous to me over whether or not Intercept Strike (which intercepted more than just Strikes) would block all the damage, though I did rule that Intercept Energy intercepted all damage types in the list, even though that feat was also ambiguously written and looked like it would've only allowed blocking one energy damage type at a time.

In both cases, the playstyles felt extremely passive and limiting, and so on a class that generally felt passive all around (more on that later). When I was trying to make the most out of Intercept Strike, most of my turns boiled down to moving to get next to whoever I wanted to protect, then doing whatever I could from there, which was usually Athletics maneuvers, ranged Strikes (with Dex as a fourth attribute), or Demoralize (with Charisma as a fourth attribute). Most of the time, it felt like I was just waiting for that one ally to take a hit and killing time in-between, and when they didn't, it felt like I'd wasted most of my previous turn. I therefore don't think this is an effect that can be really over-committed on.

Mobile Protection made a big difference by letting me hang around some distance from my Bodyguard charge, instead of staying mostly near them... except at that point, Intercept Foe let me Stride at full Speed to any ally, and potentially negate damage for everyone involved instead of taking damage. It didn't cover quite as many cases (it didn't do anything against ranged attackers or spellcasters), but it nonetheless felt generally much better to use.

Intercept Energy made a big difference once energy damage types started becoming more common (though ironically not against the conspirator or mirage dragons, whose poison and mental breaths weren't on the list). I can't say that it will always be mandatory on an Intercept build, given that many damage types bypass it still, but I can definitely see it being a must-pick for some adventures.

With smarter enemies, like the dragons and Treerazer, it generally felt really easy to counter a playstyle that committed fully to Intercepting Strikes. AoE in general is the bane of a guardian's existence, but simply using ranged actions against other party members invalidated most of my guardian's turn and forced them to start Taunting, which then made them extremely vulnerable to AoE (more so given that they were either adjacent or very close to whoever they were trying to protect).

On a more technical note, I really disliked how Intercept Strike worked, or rather didn't, with the rest of my kit. When I was committing to Intercepting Strikes, I didn't feel like the act of actually intercepting damage had anything to do with my armor or even my armor specialization, despite both being central to the class. The latter two benefits did come online when I was getting attacked, which was still happening fairly often, but Intercepting Strikes in particular felt like it wasn't synergizing well with the rest of my kit. Committing to staying near my squishy allies for this also prevented me from picking other juicy feats that would've let me interact more with enemies, like Flying Tackle or Clang!.

The closest thing that felt like a happy medium to me with Intercept Strike was when pairing it up with my fighter. At that point, I could get into the frontline and Intercept Strikes at the same time, which also let my fighter make bolder plays and extend more than they would've normally. When not committing to Intercept Strike, I used it fairly little for my back line unless they were getting swarmed, so my feeling is that the best use for Intercept Strike is to stay next to another frontliner.

TL;DR: As implemented, Intercept Strike didn't feel to me like it worked very well with the rest of the guardian's kit, and I much preferred using Intercept Foe due to the latter feat's mobility. Because of the ability's ambigously-written rules on what damage gets blocked, I really don't think this effect is fit for purpose as written, and would like to see it changed.

Taunt:

Although Taunt had comparatively little feat support relative to Intercept Strike, I ended up trying it out in a variety of different ways. Initially I spammed it, and Gork went down very quickly, so after that I ended up using it far more sparingly. I tried both Ferocious Vengeance and Mitigate Harm.

Taunt felt almost like a death sentence at level 1. I took far more crits while using it, which at that level meant Gork often went down even when he wasn't spamming the ability, and so even with added survivability from ancestry feats.

AoE was the bane of Gork's existence. I cannot stress how bad it felt to successfully Taunt a dragon out of attacking one of my allies, only for the dragon to use a breath weapon, invalidate my play, and hurt me more than if I'd just done nothing.

Similarly, boss-style encounters felt abysmal to Taunt against, because more often than not the enemy would succeed on the save. Although the -1 penalty did carry some impact, it often wasn't enough for the monster to avoid just powering through, and at those points it felt like there wasn't much Gork could do to avoid getting ignored. Thankfully, feats like Shielded Attrition and Blanket Defense let me still help out, so I wasn't completely out of options.

Because there are so many ways around Taunt, including just attacking the guardian for a meaty hit, it didn't feel bad at all to GM against in most circumstances, as it felt like I had more options than if it were just a blanket debuff. The one exception was Long-Distance Taunt, which felt incredibly cheesy and did in practice turn Taunt into a straight debuff. Even though I was playing and GMing those same encounters, I could feel the steam coming out of my ears when I took my player hat off and put my GM hat on after Gork had run to the other end of the clearing and spammed Taunt against several of my wolves, with a fighter blocking the way.

Ferocious Vengeance was the more interesting of the two subclasses to use, and under different circumstances I feel it could've helped alleviate the pain of getting ignored while Taunting. However, the guardian's attacks felt so generally weak and unreliable that the damage boost did not feel enough to justify Striking as opposed to making Charisma checks or using Athletics maneuvers.

Mitigate Harm not only felt boring due to its passive nature, it also felt almost entirely useless at level 1, where I felt it was most needed to cover for Taunt bringing Gork's effective defenses down to those of a wizard. In particular, I ate a nasty crit from a goblin commando's shortbow, only for Mitigate Harm's damage reduction to be exactly the same as for my splint mail's armor specialization. It did however help against the wolves and the goblins' melee attacks, so I can appreciate that it's a bit more reliable than armor specialization.

TL;DR: While I like the idea behind Taunt, it often didn't feel very good to use, and I sometimes felt like I'd made a situation actively worse just by Taunting, even on a crit. Running enemies against Taunt didn't feel too bad, and in fact it sometimes felt too easy to ignore the penalty on a successful save, but Long-Distance Taunt was extremely annoying to deal with even though it wasn't terribly impactful in practice.

Core Class:

I'll be splitting my thoughts on the class's core chassis and those on its feats for readability:

Overall, my guardian did generally feel very tanky, and when things went well, Gork did feel very tough to kill.

With that said, level 1 felt genuinely awful to play as a guardian. At that stage I didn't feel all that durable, and in fact felt straight-up squishy whenever I Taunted, which made me reluctant to use that ability. I didn't have that many options to make tremendously good use out of Intercept Strike, so that felt situational as well, and it didn't really feel like any of the defining aspects of the guardian class came online at that point for me. Because my Strikes and skill actions were bog-standard, playing a guardian at that point just felt extremely passive, and as if I were playing some generic character in heavy armor.

While Gork did end up feeling much tankier once his armor progression came into play, the feeling of passivity did not go away. Even with feats, it did not feel like I had that many options for moving a fight forward so much as just stalling, which was also somewhat annoying to deal with as a GM. The class's delayed attack progression I think is a major factor here, because it often didn't feel like Striking was worth it at all. I'm fine with the class not dealing good damage, as that works fine for the theme, but I would've liked more ways to participate baked into the core class that didn't involve just waiting for an enemy to do something.

On a similar note, while playing Gork at higher levels did have me feeling he was getting stronger, that strength itself felt mostly passive, as features like tough to kill, greater weapon specialization, or guardian master just made me more durable without necessarily letting me do more things. I don't think the class needs a whole lot of buttons to press, and I'd be fine with the class remaining quite simple, but right now the class felt like its core progression involved a lot of power but not much gameplay.

Alongside the above, however, all of the self-debuffs in the guardian's kit made me sometimes feel like my big stats were mainly just for show. I get that it feeds into the class's theme of self-sacrifice, but the end result was still that there were many situations where I felt like actually doing things made Gork's defenses less good than they seemed, chiefly with Taunt but also feats like Area Cover. This was particularly bad against single-enemy encounters, where incurring those self-debuffs meant I was weakening myself against the entire encounter.

TL;DR: The core class, while not necessarily weak, feels extremely passive and ineffective at moving encounters forward, so much as just stalling through tanking. Delayed attack proficiency and a near-complete lack of inbuilt Strike boosters made attacking feel mediocre outside of certain feats, and at level 1 especially the class felt particularly weak and unable to use their core features well. At higher levels, the guardian does feel tanky, but still largely passive.

Feats:

While I tried to use a variety of feats, I didn't playtest every one listed. Beyond Intercept Strike and Taunt-based builds, I also tried going for a shield-based build, and tried out some of the new feats around protecting others. Some feats, like Averting Shield or Never!, I found too situational for this particular playtest to try out, though both could've had some use in some of the encounters.

For starters, new feats I really liked: Shoulder Check felt fun to use, and was one of the things that made Striking feel more worthwhile when my proficiency wasn't behind. Unkind Shove also felt like a good way of getting a bit of damage in while Shoving enemies around. Other offensive feats, like Stomp Ground and Clang!, let me be a bit more disruptive, which I appreciated, and Raise Haft helped me wield weapons with larger damage dice while still protecting myself a bit better. Shielding Taunt's action compression was very much appreciated on a shield build, and Flying Tackle was probably my favorite new feat to use, as the flavor felt spot-on for the guardian and the combination of mobility and crowd control (often with a bit of extra damage, too!) felt really effective.

Larger Than Life felt largely unremarkable to me, save for a particularly nasty interaction with Hampering Sweeps, which I'll talk about in more detail below. Its interaction with Titan Wrestler also felt ambiguous, and I ruled that both stacked in my playtests.

Long-Distance Taunt and the gameplay it encourages I think just felt really irritating to GM against, and not particularly appropriate for the Guardian when they were hanging back and spamming Taunts from far away.

I wanted to like Armor Break, but after breaking my armor to punch a fallen champion, the rush of dealing above-normal damage once quickly waned once I started getting crit to near-death after that. The low Hit Point restriction felt pointless for what this feat aimed to do, and while I can understand that the feat is meant to act more as an execution button, it still felt far too weak for its tradeoff, especially as the guardian is more likely than most other martial classes to miss that Strike.

It should come as no surprise that Hampering Sweeps is a broken feat. I tried it in another encounter against that same fallen champion, parked myself next to them, and that was basically the whole encounter. There was absolutely nothing the fallen champion could do to move away from me except to try to critically succeed on an attempt to Shove me... except I decided to be especially annoying, picked Larger than Life, and had the wizard cast enlarge on me, making it literally impossible for the creature to reposition me at all. If I'd picked one of the upcoming Large ancestries, I wouldn't even have needed a spell for this. The feat I think really needs a rewrite, or at least some kind of check so enemies have a chance of moving out. Because this feat warped gameplay so much, I very quickly chose not to include it in further playtesting.

Area Cover as a feat felt good when covering for my fighter, but I would've liked it even more if I could control when it came online, such as by making it a reaction.

By itself, Blanket Defense is a great feat, and I think could really benefit a party that's comfortable huddling up (and risking AoE) to benefit from more defense, especially if tower shields get involved. On a class that also has Paragon Guard, though, I'm baffled by the lack of synergy between the two feats, and I don't understand why it wasn't made a two-action economy that required having your shield raised.

Beyond the feats that existed, I'm surprised there wasn't more feat support for Taunt. I also felt like there was a large skew towards defensive feats rather than feats that would let the guardian be more proactive, which I think contributed to the class's feeling of passivity.

TL;DR: Several of the new feats are really fun to use, particularly Shoulder Check and Flying Tackle. A few other feats, however, suffered from a degree of anti-synergy with other options or overall weakness. As written, Hampering Sweeps is a broken feat that can single-handedly shut down some encounters, and Long-Distance Taunt I think was an especially poor thematic and mechanical fit for the guardian, not to mention an irritating feat to deal with even if the resulting gameplay wasn't too strong. Generally, I felt the guardian could've used some more offensively-oriented feats, not necessarily to deal more damage, but to disrupt enemies and feel less like they're often just waiting for something to happen.

The big TL;DR to all this is that my experience with the guardian, while not purely negative, was overall not terribly positive. Perhaps this class isn't my style, and I did deliberately run them under conditions that would stress-test what I anticipated would be issues with their design, but the guardian did feel like they had several design problems nonetheless. Though the guardian didn't necessarily feel weak (except at level 1, where they felt really weak), they felt largely quite passive and dependent on other creatures doing things, with their core abilities not being the kind you'd go out of your way to use in the same way as other classes' core features either. I'll reserve more concrete suggestions for another post, but I think it would help a lot if Taunt were made less punishing and the class's attack progression were normalized, even at the cost of their early armor progression. On a lesser note, reading through each ability made me feel like the guardian was a bit too close to the fighter in terms of using techniques, and I think overemphasizing armor at the expense of the person behind it contributed to the feeling that this class didn't reach the same heights as others as they got more powerful, nor did it feel to me like the fantasy of the "ultimate guardian" was as fleshed out as, say, that of the commander.

[Tunu40]

Test Philosophy: I focused specifically on Lvl. 1 Guardian as I know it’s the entry for many players wanting to try the class. Their first impression will be their greatest impression and ensuring the core gameplay feels tight before they build with feats is important.

Week 1 Thoughts:

Initial Reactions: Oh, that’s cool, but Commander seems more interesting with Tactics. Intercept Strike sounds fantastic. Taunt sounds interesting. The focus on defenses, but specifically Medium/Heavy Armor and Sword/Board focus also felt a but disappointing. Being able to be an Unarmored/Light Armored 2H “stand your ground and take a beating for others” remains elusive. The Monk thematically is a martial artist with DBZ magic, which isn’t the same theme. But…I guess **another** restricted-to-armor knight is exactly what’s wanted?

Initial Math-Theorizing: The class is very confusing in terms of Taunt and Armor Proficiency progression tied to the goal of the Playtest(PT)-Guardian. The Armor proficiency progression outpaces the incentive to attack the PT-Guardian meaning casters are ALWAYS a better target over the Heavy Armor/Shield Raised Guardian. The Armor Proficiency is also meaningless when focusing on Intercept Strike as it bypasses the Guardian’s main defensive benefit. It also means a players will need to rely on Chain armor and Mitigate Harm Threat Technique - which makes the PT-Guardian just a heavily restrictive, unimaginative, and boring class. The math of AC vs. Taunt means that Taunting is just not worth it unless I’m certain it’s a Crit Success. And Raising my Shield mathematically dooms the caster.

Actual Encounter #1: A severe encounter of a Lv. 1 Shield/Mitigate Harm Guardian + a Starless Shadow Witch vs. an Orc Warrior and Mitflit. I went Mitigate Harm with a Wood Breastplate so I could use Wood’s Armor Specialization to deal damage back if I got crit. The Guardian was an Orc with Irc Ferocity (just in case).

Was actually fun! Intercept Strike felt great to use and Taunt was a great debuff on the Mitflit as the Mitflit was on a hill providing ranged support for the Orc Warrior. The Witch was comfy and safe near me, though Maneuvers were our weak spot. The turns felt hard figuring out what to do as there are Move, Maneuvers, Taunts, Raise Shield, and Strikes to do. I felt like I never had enough actions to do what I needed and each turn felt less like I was trying to accomplish something, but more like looking at a check list of things I need to do and which one will get me in trouble for not doing. But other than that, defending felt great! For a Severe Encounter, it was beaten comfortably.

Actual Encounter #2: An extreme encounter of 2x Orc Warriors against a 2H Guardian that used Greatsword/Ferocious Vengeance and wore Chainmail. I picked Azarketi for Hydraulic Deflection to have a “shield” without a shield/parry. Partner was a Faith’s Flamekeeper Witch with a Restorative Familiar and the Runic Weapon/Heal spell prepared.

Initially, the fight felt very controlled. The Guardian protected the Witch, the Witch boosted the Guardian’s damage and also gave tempHP to the Guardian. The Orc Warriors eventually tried using flanking tactics on the Guardian, but the taunted Orc tried attacking the Witch. I just assumed the intent of Ferocious Vengeance is to last through the Guardian’s turn. The Guardian got a Nat20 Crit with their Runic Weapon and the high STR, Witch’s hex, and Ferocious Vengeance nearly one-shot the Orc. We cleaned it up fast before the Orc’s could try splitting us apart (with repositions).

This is where the fight went downhill. The last Orc tried running away and the Guardian chased. At 2/3rd HP, they got Crit by the Orc, only surviving due to temp HP and Chain armor spec. The 2nd strike at 1st MAP downed the Guardian. The Faith Witch was promptly bullied and deleted

Feedback: Threat Tactics and Builds - Initial builds are a bit deceptive. Going full offense or full defense doesn’t seem like a good idea. It seems better to do Ferocious Vengeance + Shield as Raising Shield offsets the enemy’s bonus attack against the Guardian. Targeting ally’s means your 1H weapon can try to compare to a 2H (I think the damage should scale at the same levels you get Weapon Potency runes and so it matches the same progression as a Thaumaturge).

Mitigate Harm is a mandatory choice for a 2H Guardian. Without the Shield and Freehand the 2H Guardian is extremely limited in what it can do. The 2nd encounter would’ve been better as either an Orc Ferocity or as a Shield/Ferocious Vengeance Guardian.

I can see why the Guardian doesn’t have Unarmored/Light armor scaling for “thematic reasons” and to avoid player traps…but 2H weapon is a player trap for those imagining themselves as the tank like the FF14 Warrior/Dark Knight or WoW’s Death Knight.

Intercept Strike - I LOVE IT! I don’t know why, but it feels great being the body-double that takes the hit for your ally’s. It feels fun. It feels thematic. And I feel heroic like I’m doing something for the party. The adjacency requirement does feel restrictive and hampering. I haven’t tried the feats (since I’m focusing on lvl. 1 play), but they look nice…yet slightly mandatory. #I would recommend that Intercept Strike be the Guardian’s class defining ability and the improvements for Intercept Strike be built-in as class features.

However…the survivability absolutely needs tuning. Mitigate Harm feels like it should be baseline, otherwise the Guardian being a 12HP class or their Taunt granting tempt HP feels like a way to help the Guardian being a meat sack for the party.

Taunt - Mathematically I understand how to use it, but it felt very fire-and-forget. In melee, it’s a bit weird because it depends heavily on the GM to roleplay as the bonuses/penalties feel a bit too metagamey. As a ranged debuff? FANTASTIC! The ability to weaken ranged enemies from sniping weaker allies is a strong niche.

Taunt Idea - What I love about Taunt is how tactical and situational it is. It adds an element of how the Guardian wants to control the field. My feedback? DIG INTO THAT MORE. I think instead, Taunts should be various abilities that can be picked up, like “martial repertoire”, kinda like Thaumaturge Implement abilities/Kineticist impulses/Witch hexes. There are a lot of “tanking spells” that could inspire some of these. Like using weapon to reflect light, irritating the enemy, but lowering their attack in ranged attacks. Or making Long Distance Taunt a baseline Taunt. Or a Taunt that makes it difficult terrain in any direction not approaching you. Making Taunts niche and situational…but strategic.

Armor - Armor is an extremely important customization for the Guardian like weapons are to the Fighter. However, I *feel* like it is extremely boring because of how passive it is. I think the Malleable Rune is going to be mandatory for Guardians so that Guardians can shift their armor strategy based on the situation. Fighting ranged archers or beasts - swap to Composite/Plate/Skeletal armor spec. High HP and willing to Taunt/leave defenses open? Use Wood armor spec. Dangerous boss? Swap to Chain. I feel like if armor had a something…else to it, it could be better. Not just more resistance, but maybe some “armor maneuvers” or something. Honestly, this is the hard part as it targets a specific gameplay element and not the Guardian directly.

Strategy vs. Tactics: The Commander feels to me like a tactician, picking the right types of shifting decisions to leverage the situation. The Guardian feels more strategic, figuring out what general approach and preparations the party will be sticking to per the Guardian’s position and loadout/build. I think digging into the Guardian as a “strategic play” vs. the Commander’s “tactical play” could be interesting.

Concern: Maneuvers and the Guardian’s “Ward”. While I didn’t get to actually do the tactic (because I was using minimal enemies of equal level), maneuvers will be a nightmare for the Guardian and a hard counter to them, similarly to how Wisps counter the Kineticist. The Reposition ability can be used to reposition a character (like a caster) away from the Guardian and further away than 10ft…rendering the Guardian’s (what I consider their CLASS DEFINING ability, Intercept worthless). I feel like something is needed to thematically help the Guardian be sticky, not to enemies, but to their allies.

Thematic Wishlist: The Sword and Board/Armored Knight seems well-supported. However, I think the class should still be opened to Unarmored/Light armor play, making the Guardian the best at ALL defensive fighting styles and not solely armor. This also means addressing the meaning of Armor Specialization for things that don’t have one, like Cloth. This might be addressed in the Battlecry book, but it’s a concern right now. The 2H Guardian needs some support as the Playtest Guardian relies too much on a Sentinel/Bastion focus for the available feats and the 2H Guardian needs some SOME mitigation, though not as much. It’s probably better just playing a 2H Fighter.

I’m still surprised how much I enjoyed Guardian though. I’m normally a controller/caster person, so I thought Commander would be my default and I would dislike the Guardian. I also don’t like playing Tank as there’s too much “leadership” expectation, when I instead want to focus on the whole battlefield and strengthen the weakest point. But I really REALLY love the bodyguard aspect of being an enabler, letting whoever is near me feel safe that I’ll take the damage for them. If Taunts were a selection of smaller abilities (alongside more support for 2H and Light/Unarmored), then I think the class would feel very solid! I do understand it makes it difficult to work out how to be both STR and Unarmored at the same time.

Great work with what we got so far!

[simpetar]

Hampering Sweeps is utterly broken:

1. It is automatic, no check or DC is involved, let alone Incapacitation trait.

2. There is no limit on number of affected enemies, as long as they are within reach. There is no size restriction.

3. It is a level 2 feat: it can be easily and cheaply picked by multiclassing into guardian once that option is available.

Hampering Sweeps is in many scenarios better taunt than Taunt, the class feature. As long as guardian's allies can keep their distance (either with using ranged attacks / abilities, or reach weapons), the hampered enemy or enemies have virtually no other option but to attack the guardian or use ranged abilities themselves (which is rare). Unlike Taunt, enemies don't get any bonus to do so and they are physically unable to attack allies, instead of getting penalty.

[LT_Jasall]

Replaced my character with the Guardian at last night's game night to engage in the playtest. Here are my thoughts/ feedback notes so far:

# Taunt
- GM asks if this works even against mindless targets? As it's written yes, but maybe it shouldn't.
- Recommend adding: If the opponent can't target the Guardian, the Taunt ends.

# Intercept Strike
- Intercept strike -- should this work while the guardian is immobilized?
- Intercept strike -- should this only soak the physical damage, and any other types go through to the ally unless you take Intercept Energy? More clarification should be written in.

# Hampering Sweeps
- I'm not even selecting this feat because it seems totally broken/automatic/unfair to GM to lock down enemies without a save attempt. There needs to be a save, or make it a mass trip attempt instead.

# Other thoughts
- More Hit points seem useful, after a few interceptions the Guardian is near death (I actually did go unconscious a few times).
- I like the mechanics of using my HP to save allies.
- Break Armor seems like it would almost never be taken, unless it was like 1D4/1D6/1D8 damage per 10 of your missing HP that scales with level or something to that effect. Then you are building up this penultimate strike that scales as you take hits for your allies.
- It's hard to mentally track where the highest damage reduction source comes from (Armor Specialization vs Intercept Strike vs Mitigate Harm -- I feel like this could be streamlined into just one flat physical damage reduction that scales with level.)

Feedback aside, I really like the class and want it to do well, and see improvements.

[TheWayofPie]

I will hop in and say if Taunt says in it should work against mindless target.

Nothing worse than being a Braggart Swashbuckler fighting mindless enemies with precision immunity. Rather the Guardian didn’t have to deal with that.

[Bluemagetim]

Guardian with Medium Armor vs Heavy Armor. Since they are proficient in both and not in light or unarmed I thought a comparison would be relevant.

The argument for Medium Armor
- better move speed. Increasing intercept Foe radius. Able to keep more
distance to taunt and run.
- Intercept strike doesnt care about AC or armor spec since you are
taking the damage and the resistance is always better than armor
spec.
- Ranged guardian concepts will have dex secondary and can take better
advantage of medium armor. probably best with thrown to utilize
str as key stat.
-Less ac means taunt -2 ac is more effective at getting aggro.

The argument for Heavy Armor
- better AC - very important to reduce extra hits to the Guardian since
this class is looking to take damage for at least one ally guaranteed
each round.
- More resistance out of armor spec. Important outside of intercept
strike unless crit and has damage mitigation.
- Can ignore dex and focus on Con as a secondary stat.
- As the class is currently themed in its description and feat
descriptions heavy armor seems like the only way to guardian right
to stay on theme.

Anything to add?

[PossibleCabbage]

Is it possible that Hampering Sweeps and Taunt should be an either/or, like subclass alternatives? Since Hampering Sweeps is exactly what I want from this class (prevent the enemies from moving to positions where they can hurt my allies) and taunt is a mechanic I have no interest in using.

I agree that Hampering Sweeps offering no recourse is too strong, you could add an escape check against your class DC to move, since then it will at least eat an action from your enemy, which is a very useful tactic already.

[Megistone]

An idea: what if Hampering Strikes costed two, or even three actions?

[Agonarchy]

My ideal guardian baseline would be the "bad penny" that somehow keeps ending up between the enemy and their target to disastrous consequences. A guardian should interpose themselves, getting in the path of harm and punishing the offending attack harshly. They should be characters who can honestly say "Crash upon me and be broken!" or "You try hurt friend, me not let!" They should end many combats covered in axes and arrows meant for the wizard, with a bloody and grateful grin on their face when they see their friend is unharmed, even though they themselves are barely conscious.

A lightly-armored trickster guardian who uses taunts to actively draw fire would ALSO be great, and is a classic roguish hero archetype, but it at least needs to be its own guardian path instead of crammed into the guardian core.

[Perpdepog]

One thing that I've realized after getting to look over the feats a bit more, I really like some of the interactions guardians have with combat maneuvers, especially Shove. They feel like the ideal kind of class to be pushing enemies away from allies, or moving them out of position/moving their ally into position behind them.

[TheWayofPie]

Agonarchy wrote:

My ideal guardian baseline would be the "bad penny" that somehow keeps ending up between the enemy and their target to disastrous consequences. A guardian should interpose themselves, getting in the path of harm and punishing the offending attack harshly. They should be characters who can honestly say "Crash upon me and be broken!" or "You try hurt friend, me not let!" They should end many combats covered in axes and arrows meant for the wizard, with a bloody and grateful grin on their face when they see their friend is unharmed, even though they themselves are barely conscious.

A lightly-armored trickster guardian who uses taunts to actively draw fire would ALSO be great, and is a classic roguish hero archetype, but it at least needs to be its own guardian path instead of crammed into the guardian core.

You know what yeah. Taunt totally fits a lightly armored a*+!#%! using throwing weapons or other weapons to piss of their foes. But also I can see a reworked Braggart Swashbuckler focusing on that.

[Mellored]

How about they get some THP each round?

Guardians Toughness
At the start of your turn you gain temporary hit points equal to 2+your level.

Intercept Strike
Trigger A adjacent willing ally is the target of an attack roll. You and the ally immediately swap positions with each other, becomes the target instead.

[Trip.H]

Mellored wrote:

How about they get some THP each round?

Well, now you got me thinking about Bloodborne's Rally mechanic.

Rallying Aggression: When your Hit Points are not full, you gain Temporary Hit Points the first time you succeed at an attack action or a foe fails a save against you each round. This THP is equal to 2 + your level and fades at the end of your next turn or it is replaced by another Rallying Aggression.

[HeHateMe]

Mellored wrote:

How about they get some THP each round?

Guardians Toughness
At the start of your turn you gain temporary hit points equal to 2+your level.

Intercept Strike
Trigger A adjacent willing ally is the target of an attack roll. You and the ally immediately swap positions with each other, becomes the target instead.

THP that replenishes each round would go a long way towards addressing the issues with Guardian being so fragile.

[roquepo]

Been thinking for a while about what could change to make the class feel a bit better and this is what I came with thus far.

> Taunt gives the defensive benefits it gives now to allies, just a +1 to hit to the taunted enemy and a +1 bonus for you to hit taunted enemies. It's benefits disappear if you move away from the enemy (in case there are several taunted enemies, it breaks if you are getting away from one without getting closer to another). I imagine the Taunt ability as enemies getting unnerved by you focusing on them, an additional +1 to hit makes you more of a threat, makes it so you are encouraged to attack the enemy that you are trying to draw attention to and somewhat helps with the delayed scaling. As for the type of bonus, status would be weaker than circumstance, and I think the latter would make more sense, but Status would keep it in check if needed (it would also cause no weapon compability ). Moving away breaking the effect solves the issue some people have raised earlier about the coward Guardian.

> Intercept Strike looks like it is meant to be the Guardian's bread and butter. In order for that to work well, it needs some movement attached to it, no feats required. A Step at level 1 would be enough probably, but it needs to scale with level, be it with feats or automatically. Once enemies start being larger than medium on a regular basis and flyers start showing up, a step does not cut it. The rest of it looks more than fine, though.

> Threat Technique needs an aditional defensive benefit on top. Some people have mentioned Temp HP ad a possible solution, but I am against it. First, Temp HP cannot be made to work only against taunted enemies. Temp HP is also a mostly magical effect that does, in my opinion, not fit the flavor of the class. I think an earlier and improved Armor Specialization like ability would be enough. I also think that it should stack specifically with Intercept's strike DR just to dodge the feels bad moment.

I think those 3 are a good place to start. Later today I have a session with my group and I will ask then if they want to give the playtest a try.

[YuriP]

roquepo wrote:

> Intercept Strike looks like it is meant to be the Guardian's bread and butter. In order for that to work well, it needs some movement attached to it, no feats required. A Step at level 1 would be enough probably, but it needs to scale with level, be it with feats or automatically. Once enemies start being larger than medium on a regular basis and flyers start showing up, a step does not cut it. The rest of it looks more than fine, though.

Not only. Intercept Strike needs to have it trigger changed from damage to attack. Currently it completely ignores all AC that a guardian can get turning it into an easiest way to indirectly damage the guardian. If it triggers before the attack roll forcing the target change to guardian this problem is solved.

Why do you will attack the guardian with its high AC and probably a Shield Block DR if you can target its ally that you know the it will block and take the damage in same way probably with a lower DR?

Including if changed this way even the 2+lvl resistance looses its reason to exists allowing the guardian to focus in its own defenses instead.

[RootOfAllThings]

Thoughts from a casual read.

>Armor specialization is in my opinion mathematically poor. Resistance is great at strongest when you're taking lots of small hits, like persistent damage. Unfortunately, you need blanket physical resistance for Bleed. The bulk of most enemies damage is going to be BPS (barring elementals and other "magical" enemies), which means that resistance is weaker than say, a permanent +1 to AC or an accelerated AC track, by which I mean Fighter weapon proficiency, armor edition.

>Intercept Strike reads like a poor man's Retributive Strike. It's also immediate antisynergy with your own armor specialization resistance. You're a melee, so you're most likely standing next to another melee combatant, who probably has comparable HP to you, so who is taking the damage feels less consequential than reducing the total damage. So I'd rather have Retributive Strike for the increased range and the possibility of a free strike, even from an amp-less martial.

>Taunt has been discussed to death in this thread. I'll echo the others in saying that turning off one class feature (accelerated AC track) to turn on another feels bad. I think there's a pick two here: debuffs enemies, debuffs myself, or doesn't require a roll. I'm in general not fond of post-APG "70% chance to have a core class feature on any given turn", and this is more of that trend. A non-[Mental] Will save is unusual for the system, but nice to see. Lead those zombies around like a conductor.

>Threat Technique doesn't inspire me. Ferocious Vengeance is an attempt at making a damage amp that the class doesn't need, and the math on Mitigate Harm is confusingly written. I'd rather have just one feature here, and I'd suggest the Fortification rune "turn crits into regular hits".

>Tough to Kill actively made me scowl. There are few enough good General Feats; handing one out for free is an incredibly bland "feature." Fighter's Battlefield Surveyor doesn't just hand out Incredible Initiative!

>Delayed offensive proficiency is lame. Lacking a real amp is good enough to mark them as a "defensive" martial, they don't need have their accuracy kneecapped at the levels where everyone else is popping off (weapon expertise, reactive strike, 3rd tier spells, etc.) Just put them on the standard martial track and don't give them an amp, and they'll be just as offensively scary as Champions (i.e. not terribly).

>Greater Armor Specialization is cool to read but I still have doubts about its math.

>Larger than Life is a cool feat.

>I have mixed feelings about Shoulder Check. It's a neat feat, but feels oddly selfish for the Guardian. It compares poorly with Snagging Strike, which has both better utility for the team and is on a class that more actively wants to be making strikes because it actually has an amp.

>Unkind Shove is more support for one of the two bad maneuvers, which is... well, its something.

>Armor Break explains how the Broken condition interacts with Bulwark... is that a general rule, or specific to armor broken in this way? In either case, 2d6 damage is not worth -2/-3 AC for the rest of combat, unless you're facing one of the rare monsters that is already attempting to break your armor.

>Intercept Foe is a compelling choice against Intercept Strike, although I'd like it if it didn't require a melee Strike to trigger.

>I was about to lambast Disarming Intercept for being support for the worst maneuver, but at least its a free action. Comes at a competitive level, though, which means it is doomed to obscurity once more.

>Energetic Specialization would be more compelling if it came either earlier (like 2nd or 4th) or you got to pick two elements, or you could change the element without fully retraining the feat. As is, it comes too late, shares a competitive feat level, and offers too little relative to a 6th level magical item.

>Stomp Ground is fun, but a non-discriminating emanation feels antisynergistic for a class that actively wants to stand next to allies.

>Mobile Protection/Group Taunt/et al. start to make me feel like I'm rebuying things that should just be part of my class progression, Alchemist style. Not a fan.

>Quick Intercept should work with Intercept Foe.

>Shield Salvation implies that repairing my gear is part of my daily preparations, and that I can repair my shield to full HP and it won't be "thoroughly" repaired. This feels strange to me.

>Sure-footed uses the rules-bearing word "off-balance" in its flavor text and then doesn't actually involve the condition "Off-balance." While the combo with Enlarge is fun, I think this would be more fun if it actually helped against Off-balance; maybe "The circumstance penalty to your AC from being clumsy or off-balance is reduced by 1."

>Armored Counterattack needs to come faaaar earlier and really not be an encounter power; see my earlier comments about Retributive Strike. Also has weird endless duration issues waiting for "the next strike made against them."

>Right Where You Want is... more shove support. This could be a skill feat.

>Blanket Defense wants me to have multiple reactions for Shield Block that the class has no way of accessing.

>Bloody Denial is a poor man's reenactment of Laughing Fit, subject to your usually terrible class DC against the most common best save (and an attack roll, so its doubly dice'd).

>I'd Never! strike an ally while being confused, but I will trip them continuously with Stomp Ground. By accident, I swear.

>Oh hey I was prescient with Perfect Protection here. 50% to nullify critical hits feels juicy.

>Boundless Reprisals gives me the reactions I need for Blanket Defense to sort of work... at 20th level. It's a fun capstone, but hard to evaluate their usefulness because they come so very very late.

My overall opinion is "interesting, but probably not very compelling in play." The perceived pattern of drawing "aggro" is highly passive and usually only serves to redistribute damage from my allies to myself. But other classes advance defensive play by reducing total incoming damage, usually by wasting actions and applying penalties to enemies. Oh, and killing them, because death is the best crowd control. The Guardian seems like it spends a lot of actions faffing about and taking damage and not actually ending encounters, actually increasing the damage taken overall. They desperately need to build a Catch-22 into their routine before Armored Counterattack; the Paladin-Champion or the Champion Dedication Fighter is doing this at 6th level, every round, forever (attack me, get Shield Blocked. walk away, get Reactive Strike'd. hit an ally, get Retributive Strike'd.)

[kwodo]

Finally got to playtest the Guardian with a level 10 (Warpriest, Guardian, Barbarian, Commander) combat against a pair of Stone Giants and a Great Cyclops

For most of the combat, the Guardian was planted in a choke-point between two large rock formations adjacent to the Warpriest, soaking damage and effectively being a wall the enemies had to deal with. This forced the Great Cyclops to burn actions climbing over the rock formation the PCs were hiding behind (as it was Huge and couldn't squeeze through elsewhere) and one of the Stone Giants wasted theirs going around, forcing it into a 1v1 with the Wrestler Barbarian, which ended poorly for it. The Commander hung back and mostly just spammed Set-Up Strike (shortbow) and Strike Hard!. By the time the Great Cyclops got over and engaged the party in melee, both of its Stone Giant lackeys were effectively dead already, resulting in the Warpriest, Guardian and Barbarian ganging up on it while the Commander shouted commands from just outside its range.

My main takeaway for the Guardian is that it felt way better in practice than i thought it would (Quick Intercept resulting in Intercept Strike + Shield Block, meant a potent reduction in damage which felt really cool to pull off). However the big issue is that the Guardian doesn't really have much to do on its own turn (most turns were just Raise a Shield, Strike, Step/Strike again) and these dry turns were very contrasted by the Warpriest the Guardian was adjacent to the whole combat. The Warpriest out-damaged the Guardian for most of the combat (even when the Guardian swapped to 2handing his bastard sword after his shield broke halfway through the combat) and on top of that was throwing out 5th Rank Heals, Blesses, 3rd Rank Fears, Heroisms etc.. It really made the Guardian feel anemic in comparison despite the amount of damage he was soaking.

Taunt came up twice the entire entire combat, both times it was used to debuff an enemy that was already engaged with the Barbarian, which made it feel less like a proper taunt and more like a variation of demoralize. Though it did feel good when the Stone Giant rolled a 1 and got a -3 to its Escape checks (they were unarmed melee strikes, so I'm assuming they were supposed to apply) against the Barbarian's astronomical Athletics DC to escape grapples.

In conclusion, I do think the Guardian solidly has its place in the roster of classes of PF2e and it does feel cool to protect your allies and eat all their damage, allowing them to finish the fight virtually unscathed. However, I feel like the Guardian simply needs more sauce. As is, it's a very reactive playstyle that lacks ways to meaningfully contribute on its own turns. I'd love if it had more mobility options to allow them to protect more than just one ally at a time and maybe more enemy debuffs could help to draw aggro to the Guardian as a consistent annoyance that the enemies actually WANT to get rid of.

EDIT 1: spelling
EDIT 2: Threat Technique, Guardian Armor and Tough to Kill were such non-features that didn't come into play at all that I forgot to even mention them. Oops, lol.

[Gortle]

Playtest Feedback: We tested a party consisting of a Commander (Glaive), a Guardian (Shield and Sword), a draconic Barbarian (Kopesh) and an arcane Sorcerer in severe encounters at level 4 and level 12.

Both playtest classes were effective and generally worked well. So I'm a lot more positive about the Guardian than I was before testing.
Using Taunt and Intercept Strike excessively the Guardian was able to take most of the damage for the party and mitigate a reasonable portion of it. In fact he deliberately went a bit far, just to see how much he could push it.

My main concern would be that both classes are perhaps a bit passive.

The Commander gives too many actions away and it would be nice if there were more actions to do himself. But he certainly was organising the team.

The Guardian could do with some more active abilities. Is it possible to flip Taunt so it is a check from the Guardian player and not the GM rolling a Will save for the monsters?

I'll fill out the official feedback forms tomorrow.

[The Raven Black]

Just read the class. I love it, especially the feats. We have here a real defender who can use shield and armor exceptionnally well to protect his fellow party members. Even though some of the feats might be a bit niche or need some fine-tuning.

It has a completely different feel from the Champion too.

I think it all flows really well.

Except for the Taunt.

I know the taunting tank is something in video games. But here I feel the class stands completely on its own without it. And the Taunt feels awkwardly glued on the rest of the chassis.

Please divorce Taunt from the class and put it in an archetype open to all classes. Which will also enable it to cover the agile dodging taunter trope a la spiderman.

[Mellored]

Another idea

Taunt, 1 action
The first time the target takes a hostile action before the start of your next turn, and it does not include you, you gain 2+your level temporary hit points and can Stride as a free action toward the target of the hostile action.
You can then use Intercept Strike or other Guadian reaction with the same trigger.

More toughness, more range for Intercept Strike, no "mind control", and you would just waste the THP if you Taunt and run.

[Mellored]

Feat suggestion

Premeditated Reaction, 1 action
You take a look at the dangers that might threaten your allies, and get into position to react. You gain an additional Reaction that you can only use on Guardian feats or features.

[WWHsmackdown]

It's hard to say exactly what I want from the class bc idk the final shape the champion will take in PC2. As it stands currently, the champion feels like a much more survivable reactionary tank compared to the guardian. What I can say is that I like the portions of the class that make it feel like a mobile freight train. Dashing to intercept strikes, disarming with armor, hefty shoves and the other crowd control feats make the class feel like a juggernaut thematically; whatever tuneups or shakeups fallow the playtest, I hope that FEELING for the class remains. I just want the class to get a bit beefier so that thematic through line can also mechanically survive a boss fight

[Broken Khree]

I really feel like the Guardian leans too far on the carrot, and doesn't have enough stick.

There is nothing the Guardian can do to punish the taunted enemy for ignoring the taunt. Just the fact that you have a core class ability that the enemies can just ignore is bad. And why does Guardian does not get legendary class DC? They are one of few classes that need their class DC to do anything.

Having played a fighter in DnD4e, this class looks like Wish.com 4e fighter. Let me compare

Fighter's mark (taunt) took no actions. You marked anyone you attacked, didn't matter if you hit or missed. You only had to roll d20 to hit them. And the mark only gave -2 penalty to hit anyone other than you. Not a huge penalty.

Big thing was that if the marked/taunted enemy attacked someone other than you, you could take a reactive strike against that enemy. If the enemy ignored your mark/taunt, you were the most damaging character in the party. But that was GMs choice to make. It felt good to look GM in the eye and say "I dare you, attack the wizard." Oh, and the fighter also got a bonus to hit with reactive strike.

[Mellored]

New Threat Technique

When you Taunt, you can also Demoralize as part of the same action. You can use your class DC if it is higher. If the target of your Taunt does not include you as a target, they are no longer immune to your Demoralize.

[Tunu40]

I think that is the line of following they need to do for taunts.

Either you have one Taunt that can be customized via feats/actions that help with action compression.

Or you have the [Taunt] trait and multiple actions that have that trait and can also be “meta-magic” by feats.

Like Shielding Taunt: You Raise your Shield and perform a 1A ability with the Taunt trait.

[Mellored]

New feat

Escort 1 action
Select an adjacent creature. The first time it moves before the start of your next turn, you Stride up to your speed with it, saying adjacent to the target as it moves. You gain a +5' bonus to speed for this movement.
At level 7, increase to a +10' bonus. At level 14, increase to a +15' bonus.

[Bluemagetim]

Level 6 is for most classes a choice of strong abilities.
Guardian's level 6 doesnt give that same feeling.
Reactive strike is fine but not as amazing with delayed martial proficiency of the class.

Let guardians do some damage when the enemy steps into their element.

Aggressive intercept - free action once per round when using intercept strike or intercept foe you slam into the enemy with the full weight of your armor. Deal an amount of damage equal to your strength modifier to the foe that attacked your ally.

This is effectively a thorns effect when intercepting which fits the theme and gives the guardian a way to contribute to damage when they protect allies.

[Castilliano]

I think the heart of the issue is the Guardian's strengths lie in defense, a role that's too often situational. It'd be like a Cleric that memorized only Heal spells...except such a Cleric would counter for far more damage than the Guardian prevents. Make that Cleric a Warpriest with a defensive archetype, perhaps even MC Guardian (or Commander for Defensive Swap), and it'll surpass a Guardian w/o even tapping into its spell utility (et al).

Given the player preference imbalance for offense and the variable usefulness of defense, why does the Guardian's offense require being worse than a generic warrior chassis? (And Threat Technique does not cover the difference, especially vs. bosses who might be unaffected by Taunt.)

The Guardian's sub-par martial skills feel like a cost that's not buying commensurate skill in defense. Fighter's the go-to example w/ its +2 proficiency over the offense of the generic warrior chassis, a fruitful swap as it leads to higher damage than a direct damage bonus. Yet that didn't cost a Fighter defense; they have a better defense than a generic warrior chassis (with feats to improve).

---
As mentioned by others, the multiple sources of damage resistance overlap in non-useful ways, yet seem to subtract from a Guardian's budget as if independent.

---
The name, Guardian, implies fulfilling one's roll as a bodyguard, yet if building an archetypal bodyguard, one would require an ability to suss out danger, to plan for contingencies, to move one's ward, to defuse aggression, to communicate so as to coordinate, to actively engage with threats w/o most of their abilities centered on the presence of their ward. As it is a Guardian is just "the taunting armor guy who can toss himself in front of others like a wanna-be martyr". Yuk. That sounds more like a cult goon.
I'm thinking Kevin Costner's The Bodyguard, Denzel or Statham when protecting children, maybe even Liam Neeson in Taken, where one's engagement as a guardian/bodyguard entails forethought, threat assessment, as well as the ability to rescue one's ward.

---
Lastly, nearly all if not all classes can function well (even if not optimally) in a party consisting of only that one class. It takes planning and savvy, but it's workable. I don't see Guardian having that breadth or utility. It's at about the level of two archetypes smushed together, three if I'm generous though also maybe just one class archetype & select skill feats. I'd like to see at least more defensive styles, much like a Fighter has many paths (as made clear w/ all the combat style archetypes).

[Bluemagetim]

Armor Break needs to have a bonus to hit if it stays as it is.

Its nice having a damage spike ability as an option but it is a once a fight ability (or longer if there's no way to repair it) if its banking on the guardians normal chance to hit it will likely miss on those levels when the Guardian is behind on proficiency.

[RJGrady]

"No Department of Defense ever won a war." - Robert A. Heinlein

The Guardian needs to offer something more than being sticky, tough, and "taunting." It should have legitimate protection and control abilities, and be a threat in its own right.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

Guardian looks solid, but personally, I find things like Armor break do not hit the spot with such a slow attack progression.

Hampering Sweeps in it's current iteration really bothers me, and I hope that it gets changed significantly, as without a saving throw it feels very forced.

Right now the class has a lot of reprinted feats that support shields, I hope that the class gets more options that support a playstyle that does not use a shield and more interesting new feats like Stomp Ground.

Taunt is fine, but I would personally want taunt to end if the guardian is no longer in line if sight to the enemy - I really want to avoid a meta where guardians taunt and hide, just to debuff.

Edit: I personally think the Guardian should be able to be plenty annoying and dangerous, particularly to fighting more than one enemy (and AOE abilities are rather scarce), but the offense is not quite there.

I played tanks in a lot of RPGs and MMOs like WoW and FF14 and while the Guardian feels like it replicates some of those approaches, right now I would be hard-pressed to choose the class over a champion (though I do prefer some magical abilities on my characters).

[Mellored]

Disrupt Foe, Reaction
Trigger A creature within your reach performs a hostile action that does not include you, or attempts a move action.

Make an attack roll against the target.

Crucial Success: the target is unaffected.
Success: the target takes a -1 penalty to it's attack rolls and DC, and -5' speed penalty for the triggering action.
Failure, like Success but the penalty is -3 and -15'
Critical Failure: you disrupt the action.

[HeHateMe]

Taunt needs a significant boost and some feat support in the final version. Right now, Taunt is only useful as a ranged debuff, because it's far too risky and punitive for the Guardian to Taunt an enemy that's in melee range. Frankly, it's barely useful as a ranged debuff anyway, considering how high most monsters attack bonuses are, -2 to hit makes very little difference.

I'd add a damage debuff as well as an attack roll debuff on Taunt, and get rid of that ridiculous buff for attacking the Guardian. Instead of buffing the enemy when it attacks the Guardian, just have the debuff not apply as long as the enemy continues targeting the Guardian. That would actually justify using an action to Taunt. Also, the name really needs to change, call it Challenge or something.

[WatersLethe]

HeHateMe wrote:

Frankly, it's barely useful as a ranged debuff anyway, considering how high most monsters attack bonuses are, -2 to hit makes very little difference.

I wouldn't go that far. A one action, spammable ability that reduces one target's attack modified by 2 is quite valuable. It's also a better fit for a Witch hex.

[Bluemagetim]

Threat technique changes.
This ability needs two things. As I am getting more familiar with the Guardian class I see they need contingencies for different situations rather than level 1 choices they are stuck with.

Furious Vengeance
Damage Mitigation

These are good IF they are both given with threat technique. Guardian needs to be prepared for both the situation where they are ignored and the situation where they get a foes attention. Also they need to have a scope expansion at a later level.

Furious vengeance at level 13 needs to help close the accuracy and damage gap for Guardians against other martials but only do so in the Guardians Niche, punishing those that attack their allies. The accuracy boost would put attacks made against a taunted target ignoring the guardian at the same accuracy as other martial of their level, existing damage from the threat technique is sufficient if the guardian accuracy has parity when striking in their niche.

Damage mitigation is the other contingency and is just as important that it is there to keep the guardian from suffering an unlucky strike when they are getting all the attention. When the guardian is under direct attacks from those they taunt they are most vulnerable. Maybe most will have a shield to help lower the damage but lets not make that the hard and fast requirement of the class. Damage mitigation might start as crit damage reduction not resistance (that takes place after shields and stacks with armor spec, dont negate this already conditional class benefit). The scope expansion should come at level 5. This is when most martials are getting better at hitting and already have striking runes. This ability should make armor spec resistance work against all physical damage types instead of just one type (if wearing armor like chain this ability gives a base amount of physical resistance that is less then what armor spec normally gives).

With this change the hp of the class might not even need to be bumped to d12. I will copy this post over to the threat technique thread for discussion.

[Mellored]

Taunt isn't good.

It kind of works to get an enemy close.

But once they are next to you, you either spend an as action to give them +2 to hit you, or they can just walk way. Neither is a good option.

[Broken Khree]

Problem with the guardian is that it is not threatening. Even if you taunted, there is nothing you can do to make yourself a better option to attack than anything else.

Sure, you can intercept the damage. But that's a good way to eat a crit, without any of your crit mitigation triggering because you were not attacked, you are just absorbing damage.

Even if the enemy critically fails against your taunt, the that's the only reason to attack the guardian. That barbarian or inventor or whatever is still probably easier to hit, and is actually hurting you.

Above level enemies have no problems hitting anyways, and that's where the guardian would be really needed.

All the damage reduction they get is minimal, and doesn't stack. This creates an issue where every time you get hit you need to figure out what is working and what is not. How much or the classes budget went into giving them resist 8 to slashing damage at level 20? Like, is that some kind of a joke?