If you want a solution, give then 12 hit points.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It also suffers from the swashbuckler problem of being difficult to land on boss enemies, arguably the time when you need it most.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's worth noting that the Guardian will presumably not be using Taunt all the time, but I agree that when they do, they end up bringing themselves to the same effective AC as a Fighter, along with worse effective saves than a caster. That doesn't strike me as all that great for what is meant to be a hardcore tank.
My other issue with Taunt at this stage is that the mechanic is worth having, but no so much on just the Guardian as in general. If it were, say, a trained Performance skill action with a 10-minute temporary immunity period (and no circumstance bonus against the user), then you'd have a lot of different classes, including the Barbarian, the Champion, or the Fighter picking that up for a neat little panic button if a squishier ally gets themselves in trouble, and the action would fit them thematically. Even though I believe the Guardian needs many more unique things to stand out from other existing classes, Taunt I think is something that needn't be unique to them, so much as something they can do much better than everyone else, e.g. without a long immunity period, with stronger effects, and so on.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, the biggest issue with it is that you don't want the taunted enemy near you.
The best use is to taunt someone and run away. Your allies AC is going to be higher than yours.
Or best of all. Taunt someone on the other side of your ally, and Intercept when they get attacked.
A better version would be something like..
Taunt:
Will Save
Success: They are Fascinated by you. This last until the start of your next turn even if they are targeted by hostile actions.
Failure: As Success, but they must spend 1 action to move towards you if they can do so without provoking a reaction or entering hazardous terrain. If they are adjacent, they must spend the action to Strike you.
Critical Failure: as Failure but they spend 2 action and will go though difficult terrain.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other problem of Taunt is that it's pretty aggressive to the class action economy. OK, you can compress it with Shield Block using a feat but honestly I think it need more. Something like Taunt and Strike or Stride may solve this Action Economy penalty to play as Guardian.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really does seem like the best use of Taunt is to get the feat that increases the range and Taunt the enemy that has the smallest chance to actually attack you, either by running away, Hiding or something like that.
Not exactly what I'd call the most in-flavor for the Tough Guy class :x
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's worth noting that the Guardian will presumably not be using Taunt all the time
Wait, why not? Taunt is the whole class. Taunt is what you're getting instead of rage. I don't know why you're playing a Guardian if you don't expect to have Taunt up most of the time.
Yeah, it looks like you want to taunt so you get to do more damage to enemies that are likely to ignore you even when taunted, make allies harder to hit, and over all lower party damage taken through your damage resistances.
Hampering sweeps has no save or any other kind of limitation that isnt outside the guardians control. It can be used every round too. It describes itself as making it difficult for enemies to move away from you but actually it makes it impossible.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So far what I am seeing is, despite heavy armor and Strength as your KAS. The best way so far to play Guardian is to be the Bow Champion with Long range taunt feat at level 2. Then just shot enemies with your bow, make yourself the least likely to be hit so you ignore the +2 to attacks against you and keep the negatives on your enemies. Seems kinda backwards but how else do you "Taunt" in a TTRPG without it becoming magical?
Which this build supports the Commander's Ready, Set, Fire! Tactic and Executioner's Volley...It's like Paizo planned it this way! (If they actually did that'd be cool.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with Taunt is that it is a narrative straitjacket that constrains the GM’s agency. A successfully Taunted foe is required to choose between being penalised for attacking a possibly more intuitively “appropriate” target or pivoting to try to hit the Guardian. It beggars belief that almost *any* and *every* foe is going to be at risk of losing their “nerve” and making stupid decisions or being penalised mechanically on a meta-decision that a) isn’t stupid and b) makes no sense verisimilitudinously.
And this doesn’t even touch the narrative hoops made necessary. I get that some folks are not bothered by more “abstractionist” approaches to combat, but to me it is palpably problematic.
As a player of a Guardian or in a party in which the Guardian is a member I’m going to be frustrated by this meta-hijack of the narrative, and as the GM I’ll be fuming. I hate it.
And to top it all off, I’n not even on board with *every* Guardian being some sort of “taunt-jack” - it’s an extremely bespoke theming, that while it has roots in prior editions and/or CRPG’s is anathematic to me. I would definitely like more ideas for the Guardian to be a defender, but also definitely like to not have Taunt on every Guardian.
I feel though that Taunt is being considered integral to the class concept and central to the functioning of the chassis. Which is a great pity for those of us who like the Guardian otherwise.
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
If taunting an enemy for a simple stat debuff makes you fume, then so should demoralizing an enemy or affecting them with bon mot, and those are actions anyone can make.
It's not like taunt is a mind control. An enemy can straight up ignore it and target someone else, just with a minor penalty because the big guy in armor yelling expletives at them is distracting af.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, why not? Taunt is the whole class. Taunt is what you're getting instead of rage. I don't know why you're playing a Guardian if you don't expect to have Taunt up most of the time.
The point of Taunt is to get the enemy to focus you instead of an ally. If an enemy's already focusing you and you feel they're going to keep doing that, then you won't be needing to Taunt. Taunting all the time, even when you're already being focused, means you'll just be wasting actions and making yourself easier to hit. If you sense that an enemy is going to deploy AoE, you're really not going to want to Taunt, because you'd be making yourself much more vulnerable to that AoE without actually redirecting anything.
Wait, why not? Taunt is the whole class. Taunt is what you're getting instead of rage. I don't know why you're playing a Guardian if you don't expect to have Taunt up most of the time.The point of Taunt is to get the enemy to focus you instead of an ally. If an enemy's already focusing you and you feel they're going to keep doing that, then you won't be needing to Taunt. Taunting all the time, even when you're already being focused, means you'll just be wasting actions and making yourself easier to hit. If you sense that an enemy is going to deploy AoE, you're really not going to want to Taunt, because you'd be making yourself much more vulnerable to that AoE without actually redirecting anything.
I agree with Teridax, see in point of view of a player that want to make a full tanker, I have basically 2 choices, I can make Champion and grant the attention to me via reactions making attack my allies ineffective due damage reduction + attack/debuff/flee without need to spend an extra action or I can make a Guardian that will do a similar thing without the attack/debuff/flee from reaction and having to use an action to improve my enemy attacks when he chooses to attack me.
I think that Taunt really needs a full review both mechanically and contextually.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another big problem with Taunt that I'm seeing right now is that it looks like the best way to use it is actually to just take Long-Distance Taunt, get as far away from the enemy as possible, and spam Taunt from there. You'd get all of the benefits of Taunt (the enemy would suck against anyone but you), but none of the nasty business of getting hit. Of course, this strategy wouldn't work in most official AP encounters, because they tend to not let characters create all that much distance, but when you can get away with it, looks like the most effective way of playing a Guardian is to be a coward.
If taunting an enemy for a simple stat debuff makes you fume, then so should demoralizing an enemy or affecting them with bon mot, and those are actions anyone can make.
I have less reservations about things like Intimidating Glare, but do feel it is abused a little. Bon mot is...ridiculous. You are right. I hate Bon Mot.
It's not like taunt is a mind control. An enemy can straight up ignore it and target someone else, just with a minor penalty because the big guy in armor yelling expletives at them is distracting af.
I like the idea of the Guardian being a distraction. *That* makes sense. But probably not to the mechanical degree given. Still...it makes...narrative sense. Thanks.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The mechanical function of a Taunt is to make the enemy target selection uneven, give the foe a numerical reason to attack one target over another. This numerical incentive is extra important, as tanky PC defenses discourage foes to swing their way (and the power budget of a Taunt typically makes them less of a danger in other respects).
---------
Current Guardian Taunt:
With an attention-getting gesture, a cutting remark, or a threatening shout, you get an enemy to focus their ire on you. Even mindless creatures are drawn to your taunts. Choose a creature within 30 feet, who must attempts a Will save against your class DC. Regardless of the result, it is immune to your Taunt until the beginning of your next turn. If you gesture, this action gains the visual trait. If you speak or otherwise make noise, this action gains the auditory trait. Your Taunt must have one of those two traits.
----------------Critical Success: The creature is unaffected.
Success: Until the beginning of your next turn, the creature gains a +2 circumstance bonus to attack rolls it makes against you and to its DCs of effects that target you (for area effects, the DC increases only for you), but takes a -1 circumstance penalty to attack rolls and DCs when taking a hostile action that doesn’t include you as a target.
Failure: As success, but the penalty is -2.
Critical Failure: As success, but the penalty is -3.
As written, this form of a Taunt is that of an uncertain (savable), short range, powerful 1 turn effect. It has that glaring issue of Taunt only being a disadvantage vs foe AoEs.
If a super tiny tweak is desired, I would recommend rewording the ally penalty.
------------
In my opinion, Taunt being a 1 turn effect that is very strong and uncertain is "unfun design". It results in a "guess I'll spam Taunt" kind of problem, especially in fights with more than a single foe. It is the strongest (and only) standalone Action within the class, and lacks any dynamism or pizazz. In other words, it looks boring/not fun to use.
-------------
My idea to keep the core of Taunt as a "to hit" bonus/penalty done in a self-contained Action would be to add more interactivity by splitting the self vs foe effects and having their durations be dynamic.
IMO the ability also needs to be rather "complete at the start", and I would do that by giving it a variable targeting scheme (that also address the increased need to work against single boss targets, the absurd action demand of multiple foes, and give real reason to waffle between the two choices during combat.) Long-Range Taunt would change its name and also increase the AoE size of the Taunt.
-----------------
With a self-sabotaging and confident remark or gesture, you lower your guard to draw the violent attention of foes. You choose if the Taunt has either the visual or the auditory trait. When you perform this action, you gain a -2 circumstance penalty to all defenses and saves against each of your target(s). This persists until you perform a successful attack roll against that foe, they fail a save against your hostility, or until encounter mode ends.
You may direct your taunt to goad a single foe within 60 feet, or attempt to aggravate a group, invoking a Will save against all foes in a 5 ft burst within 30ft.
Repeated Taunts against the same target within the same turn have no effect. The single target version always results in the fail effect.
This effects lingers upon each foe until they perform as successful attack roll against you, you fail a hostile save from them, or until encounter mode ends.Critical Success: The creature is unaffected.
Success: For any hostile action or attack roll, the creature is considered to have a -1 circumstance penalty to the result against any of your allies.
Failure: As success, but the penalty is -2.
Critical Failure: As success, but the penalty is -3.
Main thing is that I don't know how else to word the penalty that functions with AoEs. I think the reason that AoE "oops" is in the current Guardian is because it's not normal in the system to have a penalty change per target like the way I've written it. The roll is singular, but Paizo wants the debuff to be foe-side, so it "can't" be variable.
Hence my wording that breaks that norm. I'm pretty sure the reason the Taunt is not already an ally-effect is because of buff stacking issues. If Paizo *really* does not want to do an untyped bonus, an ally-side option select of circ or status might be another "best of bad options"
An important bit of interaction with this wording is that Intercept Strike, even when the Guardian takes damage, will not cleanse the Taunt. This is rather critical, as it gives the AC value of the Guardian real defensive merit.
There's a big issue with shield Raised guardians having no real reason to be swung at by foes. Even if the goal is to hurt the Guardian, foes will swing for adjacent allies, bypassing both the G's high AC and the Block and simply dealing with the G's dmg resistance.
By tying the taunt duration into each hitting the other, this both adds a lot more of the fun kind of uncertain dynamism to the encounters, and puts numerical incentive for *both* parties to brawl it out.
I think the biggest design whiff with the current Taunt is actually that 1 turn duration. That design space has a whole lot of potential knobs and levers that Paizo just decided not to bother with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A better version would be something like..
Strongly disagree. A completely mundane class should never be able to compel an enemy to perform an action or not perform a different action. Even the Champion can't do this and they are magical.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A better version would be something like..Strongly disagree. A completely mundane class should never be able to compel an enemy to perform an action or not perform a different action. Even the Champion can't do this and they are magical.
That is why people say pf2e "has no real tanks" and they are kinda right.
A Tank, and not a tanky PC, is defined by the concept of a "taunt" a set of rules that punish foes for swinging at allies instead of the tank. It is "hit me or else" coercion. Sometimes it's a damage boost or mitigation, but altering the to hit chances is about a core of a Taunt as it gets.
Champions do have small taunts via having abilities that trigger for allies and not themselves. I don't know if the concept of a properly potent Taunt should be dismissed outright, but it is accurate to say that the current system doesn't really have them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We were talking about this in our discord, I think that the tuning on the Guardian's 'hit me presence' and tankiness might be off. We haven't tested yet but my first impression is that I would:
- Switch Key Stat to Constitution, but give them the same attack proficiency progression as the Barbarian and various other martials, this evens out their to-hit to make it more consistent but they're actually still the worst hitter of the martials since they'd have Inventor to-hit with no overdrive to make up for it, nerfing their strength slightly has a knock on benefit for the possibility of Dex Guardians, if someone really wants to do that, they'd still have a better attack bonus than the Warpriest across the board.
- +1 Extra HP per level from making Key Stat Constitution will help their survivability, which I can't stress enough, needs to be meaty if they're expected to perform their Intercept Strike against boss types at all and don't have a dedicated healer to bail them out.
- Make Success, Failure, and Critical Failure on the Save for Taunt all -2 to hit your allies, and each save result different durations for the Taunt, that way you only sometimes need to renew it every turn, you're never stuck with a -1 penalty to hitting your allies (which is too little), maybe the penalty to your own AC is ok? Maybe, One round/Two Rounds/Three Rounds.
- Consider making Furious Vengeance baseline to taunt (not sure what to do with Mitigate Harm, maybe make it baseline, but bump Armor Spec to a higher level? You could always just can it.) It's not a lot of damage, especially at high levels, but it would help make Taunt more impactful for the GM to consider whether to attack you or not.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like the whole idea behind Taunt: making yourself vulnerable to entice enemies to hit you instead of your allies. That's not a good or fun approach. A better approach would be to replaced Taunt with a mechanic that PUNISHES the enemy for attacking anyone other than you. That's the way to be an effective tank.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is why people say pf2e "has no real tanks" and they are kinda right.
The thing is, in a game like this, the only sorts of ability that should deny agency to a PC or NPC are things like "mind-control magic". Just like a player would prefer their PC not be forced to make tactically inadvisable decisions the NPCs piloted by the GM also should not be forced to do this.
Like the Champion doesn't get to do this, they get to make "don't attack my ally" inadvisable because the ally is going to get resistance and something else you don't like is going to happen if you attack my ally. A GM can still choose to attack the champion's ally, and indeed sometimes that's what the champion player wants (so they can use their ability.)
The long and short of it is that any ability a PC gets will someday be used against another PC. So we have to be careful when we give anybody abilities that deny agency.
If Taunt become long duration it needs a way to be dismissed.
I still need to playtest but I believe that sometime you may not want that an enemy have a +2 vs you all during all encounter or just remove this +2 mechanic and just penalize enemies from hit other players.
Currently until level 4 a Guardian using Taunt will end with a worse "AC" (due the enemy +2 bonus) than any other melee martial without geting anything good to compensate. Even a Giant Barbarian have a better situation due large HP + temp HP and a very good damage bonus.
Another thing-
What if I don't want to taunt? Like what if my character concept is stoic and chivalrous and doesn't really want to disrespect their enemies but is in every other way a guardian?
Like why is "you can annoy your enemies" a core thematic element of this class?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is why people say pf2e "has no real tanks" and they are kinda right.The thing is, in a game like this, the only sorts of ability that should deny agency to a PC or NPC are things like "mind-control magic". Just like a player would prefer their PC not be forced to make tactically inadvisable decisions the NPCs piloted by the GM also should not be forced to do this.
I mean, that's just not how pf2e is setup. Every successful Grapple, every wall spell, every AoE effect dramatically restrict agency.
A simple numerical minus on the odds of success is as basic as it gets. It's honestly a bit absurd to conflate a -2 as serious as "mind control."
TBH, if you applied that disapproval evenly across the gamesystem, you'd be here all day listing them out.
I agree that a Taunt with a form of Guardian-centered "or else" threat, such as a seriously dangerous +dmg/hit bonus when foes hit allies, is more generically acceptable from a player psychology perspective than putting not-magic mind debuffs upon foes.
Champions also reflect that "user-centered" approach by having powerful Reactions that only trigger when allies are struck, not themselves.
The "what if I don't want to Taunt":
That is like an Alchemist not wanting to use their items in combat. Technically possible, but realistically unfeasible and somewhat silly.
The fundamental idea of the Guardian is to make it harder to hurt your allies, and to take the hits yourself. If you don't want to goad foes into swinging at you, then it's not a stretch to say that you do not want to play a Guardian. Intercept Strike is literally jumping in the way to get hit on purpose. Taunt is just pushing them to swing at you to begin with.
-----------------
If Taunt become long duration it needs a way to be dismissed.
The way I did that with "Trip's Deluxe Taunt" was to split the bonus and penalty, and have each end when a successful blow is struck. However, I disagree that a Guardian should be able to "oh wait, I didn't mean that!" to a foe after they've already shaken their butt in disrespect or whatever it was.
With a self-sabotaging and confident remark or gesture, you lower your guard to draw the violent attention of foes. You choose if the Taunt has either the visual or the auditory trait. When you perform this action, you gain a -2 circumstance penalty to all defenses and saves against each of your target(s). This persists until you perform a successful attack roll against that foe, they fail a save against your hostility, or until encounter mode ends.
You may direct your taunt to goad a single foe within 60 feet, or attempt to aggravate a group, invoking a Will save against all foes in a 5 ft burst within 30ft.
Repeated Taunts against the same target within the same turn have no effect. The single target version always results in the fail effect.
This effects lingers upon each foe until they perform as successful attack roll against you, you fail a hostile save from them, or until encounter mode ends.Critical Success: The creature is unaffected.
Success: For any hostile action or attack roll, the creature is considered to have a -1 circumstance penalty to the result against any of your allies.
Failure: As success, but the penalty is -2.
Critical Failure: As success, but the penalty is -3.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing-
What if I don't want to taunt? Like what if my character concept is stoic and chivalrous and doesn't really want to disrespect their enemies but is in every other way a guardian?
Like why is "you can annoy your enemies" a core thematic element of this class?
Sounds like a different class then (like the Fighter!), but probably because 'demanding that enemies attack you' is sacred to the archetypal tank space-- FFXIV calls it 'Provoke' for point of comparison.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing-
What if I don't want to taunt? Like what if my character concept is stoic and chivalrous and doesn't really want to disrespect their enemies but is in every other way a guardian?
Like why is "you can annoy your enemies" a core thematic element of this class?
You could frame it as an Honorable Challenge right?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they make Con the KAS of the Guardian they need to use it for features. More HP IMO isn't enough. It can be something as simple as use your Con modifier instead of your Strength modifier to meet the Strength Rating of each armor and instead of Dexterity to fill up your armor's AC. This technically could allow for a character that drops all physicals stats but Con and makes an uber tank.
If they make Con the KAS of the Guardian they need to use it for features. More HP IMO isn't enough. It can be something as simple as use your Con modifier instead of your Strength modifier to meet the Strength Rating of each armor and instead of Dexterity to fill up your armor's AC. This technically could allow for a character that drops all physicals stats but Con and makes an uber tank.
I like that actually, and it makes the dex option work better too.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something to consider is that taunt increases the DC for all saves. And some saves have bonkers high DCs and don't do damage.
Let's consider a young mirage dragon, Hallucination breath, DC 27. Creature level 9, so let's assume our party is fighting it at level 7 . . . decent fight.
Our guardian has expert in will saves, let's assume a decent wisdom score of +2, and that we don't have a resistance rune yet.
That's 7(level)+4(master)+2(will)=13 vs. DC, 27, you need a 14 or better on the die to succeed. But then you taunt, and the dragon breaths on the whole party. You have done nothing to save the party, and have to roll a 16 or better on the die to not be confused. Also, if you roll a 6 or less on the die, you are confused for 1 minute so you are basically out of the fight while the dragon ignores you and eats your wizard because, remember, even if you roll and randomly end up attacking the dragon, you aren't able to use your taunt or intercept strike or anything. And your attacks are pretty bad because you don't have weapon specialization yet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems kinda backwards but how else do you "Taunt" in a TTRPG without it becoming magical?
I think a more core question would be.
How can Taunt make the enemy want to attack the Guardian, while also making the Guardian want to be attacked?
It does seem weird that a potentially viable way to use taunt is to stand a long way away from your enemy and nearby none of your allies and taunt people while peppering your enemy with a ranged weapon. This means that your target might get a penalty to hit the people who are actually in melee range, but that you will never get to use intercept strike since you want to be far away so that it's harder to include you as a target in a hostile action.
It's probably not ideal to have the two core class features be in direct conflict like this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, why not? Taunt is the whole class. Taunt is what you're getting instead of rage. I don't know why you're playing a Guardian if you don't expect to have Taunt up most of the time.The point of Taunt is to get the enemy to focus you instead of an ally. If an enemy's already focusing you and you feel they're going to keep doing that, then you won't be needing to Taunt. Taunting all the time, even when you're already being focused, means you'll just be wasting actions and making yourself easier to hit. If you sense that an enemy is going to deploy AoE, you're really not going to want to Taunt, because you'd be making yourself much more vulnerable to that AoE without actually redirecting anything.
Given that you have to be adjacent to your ally for most of your other stuff to work Taunt is the only thing stopping your enemies from ignoring you. The Guardian is a martial with zero class features that increase its damage capability. If you aren't making your allies tougher to hit your enemies do not care where you're standing or what you're doing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems kinda backwards but how else do you "Taunt" in a TTRPG without it becoming magical?I think a more core question would be.
How can Taunt make the enemy want to attack the Guardian, while also making the Guardian want to be attacked?
I think that breakdown makes me understand why I don't like the current taunt. It does make the enemy want to attack the guardian, but it also makes the guardian not want to be attacked.
Even flipping penalties around a little and just giving the guardian normal armor scaling but no +2 from taunt would 'feel' better to me. Despite being pretty much generically worse.
Taunt doesn't feel like an action I want to use.
Given that you have to be adjacent to your ally for most of your other stuff to work Taunt is the only thing stopping your enemies from ignoring you. The Guardian is a martial with zero class features that increase its damage capability. If you aren't making your allies tougher to hit your enemies do not care where you're standing or what you're doing.
Perhaps in a white room where everyone suddenly forgot Athletics maneuvers were a thing, you'd be right. However, from my limited experience with the Guardian thus far, there will be a lot of enemies who are just going to keep attacking you if they're in your immediate vicinity, particularly when switching targets requires more actions or can trigger a Reactive Strike. If you're using Athletics maneuvers, which you really should be as a Strength-based class with starting proficiency in Athletics, you'll also be able to make it even harder for enemies around you to move freely. I'd say that Hampering Sweeps also makes it literally impossible for enemies to move out of your surroundings unless they teleport or use forced movement against you, but that feat is so obviously broken I don't think it ought to be taken seriously right now.
Seems kinda backwards but how else do you "Taunt" in a TTRPG without it becoming magical?I think a more core question would be.
How can Taunt make the enemy want to attack the Guardian, while also making the Guardian want to be attacked?
The class needs a baseline "Revenge" feature to hit Taunted enemies.
Maybe a Flurry against Taunted enemies or a Reaction attack against Taunted enemies.
By giving the enemy +attack, and giving yourself some offensive boost from being attacked, you are getting your game plan in order: hit and be hit.
The missing piece is Furious Vengeance. You NEED a failsafe so that enemies can't go "lol I'd rather not hit you."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spitballing, but: I'm kinda thinking that the class doesn't even need a Taunt if it went all-in on an improved Intercept Strike and reactive gameplay.
Let's imagine an Intercept Strike that let you substitute in your armor against an attack instead of happening after the hit is resolved, and let you take a step along with it. Then a feature lets you trade in actions for more reactions. You could be interposing yourself left and right providing all kinds of Guardian themed mitigation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if the to-hit bonus/penalty were split, and only ended when each party landed a hit / inflicted a failed save upon the opposite party?
So the G could Taunt as a first action, and have 2 chances to hit the Taunted foe to end the their self-inflicted vulnerability? (which also adds nuance as to when they may decide to just suffer the penalty a round or two)
Meanwhile, the foe really wants to hit the Guardian, as they can no longer wait a turn for the ally hit penalty to end itself.
With a self-sabotaging and confident remark or gesture, you lower your guard to draw the violent attention of foes. You choose if the Taunt has either the visual or the auditory trait. When you perform this action, you gain a -2 circumstance penalty to all defenses and saves against each of your target(s). This persists until you perform a successful attack roll against that foe, they fail a save against your hostility, or until encounter mode ends.
You may direct your taunt to goad a single foe within 60 feet, or attempt to aggravate a group, invoking a Will save against all foes in a 5 ft burst within 30ft.
Repeated Taunts against the same target within the same turn have no effect. The single target version always results in the fail effect.
This effects lingers upon each foe until they perform as successful attack roll against you, you fail a hostile save from them, or until encounter mode ends.Critical Success: The creature is unaffected.
Success: For any hostile action or attack roll, the creature is considered to have a -1 circumstance penalty to the result against any of your allies.
Failure: As success, but the penalty is -2.
Critical Failure: As success, but the penalty is -3.