| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is regarding the Ferocious Vengeance Threat Technique.
Can someone clarify what this wording means for me:
You deal 2 additional damage on Strikes against creatures affected by your Taunt if they take a hostile action that doesn’t include you as a target. This bonus lasts until the end of your turn.
So:
“You deal 2 additional damage on Strikes against creatures affected by your Taunt…” - yep, I get that.
“ if they take a hostile action that doesn’t include you as a target.” Ok, but my question here is…when? Is this supposed to key into Reactions you might make, somehow, like possibly gifted by a Commander? I’m getting confused because *you* are doing more damage, but it’s because *they* are taking an action. So when does this possible extra damage happen? How long ago does the Taunt-affected foe have to not be targeting you?
“This bonus lasts until the end of your turn.” I’m not sure I understand this either. Is this meant to *not* then work with Reactions outside of your turn?
I get I’m probably being obtuse, but would like some clarification.
*****
I’m also a bit lost on the Threat Technique being a.. thing. Are Threats detailed elsewhere and upgraded/interacted with via feats? They just seem tacked on.
As an aside, mostly the class seems woefully undercooked in terms of what it might have achieved. There seems to be a lot missing here to give the Guardian agency. And the reliance on Taunts is disappointing. Not to mention that even if they critically fail against your taunt, they still get a bonus to hit you. I understand that is the “understood/accepted mechanic” of how Taunts work, but I just don’t like it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m also a bit lost on the Threat Technique being a.. thing. Are Threats detailed elsewhere and upgraded/interacted with via feats? They just seem tacked on.
They are basically just your flavor of tank - aggressive "I SAID HIT ME!" style or stolid wall of steel style.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The general idea, as I get it, is that you Taunt on your turn; then on the opponent's turn, if they attack someone else, you get the bonus until the end of your (next) turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The general idea, as I get it, is that you Taunt on your turn; then on the opponent's turn, if they attack someone else, you get the bonus until the end of your (next) turn.
I think that's the idea too, but then why would it say you get the damage "against creatures affected by your Taunt"? At the start of your turn after the creature has done their hostile action, they are no longer affected by your taunt.
I think it would be clarified if the wording was something like
"Whenever a creature affected by your taunt takes a hostile action that doesn't include you as a target, you deal an additional 2 damage on Strikes against it. This bonus lasts until the end of your next turn."
So you Taunt, Creature takes the relevant action -> Vengeance kicks in. Until the end of your next turn, you deal +X damage to it. Which is, I think, the intent, but the wording is unclear.
As I read it it will never come into play unless the enemy you Taunted makes a hostile action against someone, without including you in that action, on your turn after you Taunted them but before you are out of actions.
It would make more sense if it said Until the End of Your Next Turn. Though that still falls into the problem that they are no longer Taunted at the Start of Your Next Turn.
Mitigate Harm also seems pretty bad, the only thing that might make it merely mediocre is if Chain Specialization is actually not Resistance and stacks with it. But that would still not be nearly enough damage reduction on a Critical Hit to really seem good. Also as far as I can tell neither damage reduction comes into effect when you Critical Fail a save, which seems fairly likely if you Taunt someone and they use a Save feature/spell against you.
I think it just works, by RAW the sequence is:
1. You Taunt them, play continues.
2. They take hostile action that doesn't include you, doesn't matter what turn it is.
3. The bonus is applied, and lasts until of a turn of yours ends, regardless of when the taunt it procced off ends.
The only way it breaks is if someone else gets reactive struck on *your* turn so it ends immediately.
The awkward part is that Taunt lasts until the beginning of your turn so as written you have to re-taunt the enemy in order for the bonus to apply.
I think it just works, by RAW the sequence is:
1. You Taunt them, play continues.
2. They take hostile action that doesn't include you, doesn't matter what turn it is.
3. The bonus is applied, and lasts until of a turn of yours ends, regardless of when the taunt it procced off ends.
The only way it breaks is if someone else gets reactive struck on *your* turn so it ends immediately.
Ok. I get that. Except I don’t follow the last sentence. What does someone else being a target/victim of reactive strike have to do with it? An ally being a target? My reactive strike?
The awkward part is that Taunt lasts until the beginning of your turn so as written you have to re-taunt the enemy in order for the bonus to apply.
Hmm. I feel like maybe I should be confused all over again. Unless regardless of whether the initial Taunt (that created the Furious Vengeance bonus) “ends” you still get the bonus until the end of your following turn. Which admittedly, is quite weird.
We will playtest this soon, so we will either work it out for ourselves, or hope to have clarification on the interaction between Furious Vengeance and Taunt.
What about this feature reapplying taunt if the guardian does any additional damage to a foe from ferocious vengeance that round.
I think it just works, by RAW the sequence is:
1. You Taunt them, play continues.
2. They take hostile action that doesn't include you, doesn't matter what turn it is.
3. The bonus is applied, and lasts until of a turn of yours ends, regardless of when the taunt it procced off ends.
The only way it breaks is if someone else gets reactive struck on *your* turn so it ends immediately.
Ok. I get that. Except I don’t follow the last sentence. What does someone else being a target/victim of reactive strike have to do with it? An ally being a target? My reactive strike?
If the enemy somehow targets one of your allies and not you on your turn (pretend you granted them a stride or something, and the monster used its reaction attack, idk) it would trigger furious vengeance, then your turn would end shortly after (possibly with an attack in between, depends on how it happened) I'm just saying its possible to theoretically trigger it during your turn, and it would end at the end of the same turn.
Its not really important, I was clarifying an edge case of having a super short FV to demonstrate that the end of any of your turns is what ends it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why not make this simpler?
When you Taunt, allow you to make a melee strike for free, no MAP, if the Taunted enemy attacked someone who wasn't you last turn. This would be BAKED IN on the Taunt action
This way:
1. You deal more damage to enemies who don't focus you.
2. You have an incentive to be close to enemies, not far.
3. You kinda want to Taunt every turn and enemies start reconsidering not attacking you.
Why not make this simpler?
When you Taunt, allow you to make a melee strike for free, no MAP, if the Taunted enemy attacked someone who wasn't you last turn. This would be BAKED IN on the Taunt action
This way:
1. You deal more damage to enemies who don't focus you.
2. You have an incentive to be close to enemies, not far.
3. You kinda want to Taunt every turn and enemies start reconsidering not attacking you.
Thats a pretty good idea
Reminds me the paladins' reaction. Simple and effective!
Reminds me the paladins reaction. Simple and effective!
Oh your right, thats probably why I liked the idea. But that also makes me want taunt to do something differently than what paladins do, feel different.
I understand but currently Taunt + Intercept Strike is almost like redeemer's reaction but divided into 2 parts wasting way more actions with some extras.
Taunt is like enfeebled 2 + stupefied 2 from Glimpse of Redemption but also affects other rolls like DCs checks and is applied before the first enemy attack vs one of your allies.
Intercept Strike is like all good champions' reactions damage reduction but all the excess damage goes to guardian instead of ally.
Curiously this makes Guardian much more altruistic than champions.
I understand but currently Taunt + Intercept Strike is almost like redeemer's reaction but divided into 2 parts wasting way more actions with some extras.
Taunt is like enfeebled 2 + stupefied 2 from Glimpse of Redemption but also affects other rolls like DCs checks and is applied before the first enemy attack vs one of your allies.
Intercept Strike is like all good champions' reactions damage reduction but all the excess damage goes to guardian instead of ally.
Curiously this makes Guardian much more altruistic than champions.
Good point, they do self sacrifice.
This class is all about their armor too. i thought if they wanted to make paths for this class the threat technique was the place to expand into that. Furious vengeance being the offensive oriented of the choices could move into using armor spikes. The mitigate harm would be the standard defensive wall guardian experience. Lastly given some interest in a ranged guardian I thought the best set up would be throwing and shield for a harrier medium armor guardian concept.This would lend itself into the idea of having a basic taunt action that is gained when archtyping into guardian and improved by the path to suit each playstyle.
Ferocious Vengeance - double down on punishing foes for choosing anyone but them. I love the idea of incorporating armor spikes into thier fighting style instead of that armor break feat. let them build up some kind of damage buff instead that stacks everytime they are ignored by a taunted target or take damage by intercepting strike for an ally. Foes want to stop that damage from stacking they need to start hitting you.
Mitigate harm -make this applying the same resistance as intercept against taunted targets. when enemies pile on the guardian this is the path that takes it on the best. Let it stack with armor spec as a special exception to the rule. Armor spec improving existing resistance is a better feeling than it just being there when your other resistances dont apply.
Harrier - Trident and shield sounds kinda cool. Throwing keeps the guardian in close range and there are weapon options like trident that let you do melee or thrown. This path could lean more into mobility getting the most benefit from the existing taunt. The coolness factor of archtyping into dual weapon warrior and getting dual thrower with throwing weapon and shield with throwing attachment and returning.
Why not make this simpler?
When you Taunt, allow you to make a melee strike for free, no MAP, if the Taunted enemy attacked someone who wasn't you last turn. This would be BAKED IN on the Taunt action
This way:
1. You deal more damage to enemies who don't focus you.
2. You have an incentive to be close to enemies, not far.
3. You kinda want to Taunt every turn and enemies start reconsidering not attacking you.
Kind of reminds me of the level 12 feat Armored Counterattack but fixes my issues with that feat. I feel like Armored Counterattack should not come in at level 12, should not be limited to once per minute, and shouldn't even be a feat but instead baked into the base Intercept Strike/Foe.
And that is another thing, I feel Taunt shouldn't have a save and shouldn't lower the Guardian's AC. Instead it should make it harder for the enemy to harm the Guardian's AC and if the enemy still dares to attack the Guardian's ally then the Guardian gets the stride in and free action counterattack. And at the same time the Guardian should get resist all/hardness equal to what the current Intercept Strike provides when they Taunt an enemy, or perhaps even all the time to just be beefy no matter what. This provides a real Catch-22 to the enemy, they can try and hit the now harder to hit ally and take a retaliatory strike in the process or try and go for the high defenses Guardian and even if they hit deal less damage than they would like.