| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is about the whole idea of Guardians getting Taunt, not about its mechanics. Even if the mechanics were neat, I would still hate Guardians getting Taunt, and that's because it is an ability that is about the Guardian's meta role in the game of being somekind of WoW inspired 'Tank' who should have an 'agro' ability, and not about a power that everyone who was a specialized body would learn to do. Bodyguards don't taunt people. It feels both silly, and meta-gamey in same way that D&D 4e sometimes, when it was at its worst, felt meta-gamey (I actually liked 4e fine. There were some had some cool ideas.)
Also, how it could possibly work within the game world doesn't make sense. Its not magic, but it somehow draws even mindless being into attacking the bodyguard, including, say, a golem who was programmed to attack mages, or a revenant bent on vengeance. What is the body guard doing when they spend this action?
Instead of Taunt, why not have some ability that let the Guardian designate a ward to protect, and then if the ward is attacked, the Guardian can use their reaction to stride adjacent to their ward, and take the attack instead of the ward. This could be augmented as they level, or via class feats so that they can also strike the attacker, or push the ward to a different space.
Finally, do we really need another excuse for even more Mounty Python and the Holy Grail quotes while gaming?
| 22 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nah Taunt is a neat mechanic, it just needs some mechanical touch ups.
And it's about as "meta-gamey" as demoralize or feint. So just... not really.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the direction its taking as well. Circumstance penalties are not as common as status penalties right?
My thought on it is that the ability doesnt always need to get enemies to attack the guardian. I dont think the guardain can take that kind of attention anyway. What it does is gives one more stacking penalty to an existing list of options players are going to use like sicken and fear that probably will be used to increase offense but also help with surviveability
Also I think its silly that feint doesnt work on many mindless creatures. really things like zombies move even more predictably that people and so it would be increadibly easy to fake them out with a juke.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Taunt sucks, but that's because its mechanics are deeply underwhelming, not because it "doesn't make sense". It makes plenty of sense as an attempt to distract the attention of a given creature from one's allies (no mind control or "pbbbt neener neener" needed), and you check out literally any high-skill basketball or hockey game for obvious examples. Don't get hung up on the name and think it can only be your extremely specific conception of what characters are actually doing.
Instead of Taunt, why not have some ability that let the Guardian designate a ward to protect, and then if the ward is attacked, the Guardian can use their reaction to stride adjacent to their ward, and take the attack instead of the ward. This could be augmented as they level, or via class feats so that they can also strike the attacker, or push the ward to a different space.
So, Intercept Foe and Intercept Strike, and the combination of both if you take Quick Intercept? It's also mechanically underwhelming (too much feat investment, too small of a range, you don't have enough damage mitigation to make it really useful), but the base mechanics literally already exist in there.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, how it could possibly work within the game world doesn't make sense. Its not magic, but it somehow draws even mindless being into attacking the bodyguard, including, say, a golem who was programmed to attack mages, or a revenant bent on vengeance. What is the body guard doing when they spend this action?
a 1st level feat, Cat Fall, allows you to not fall from orbit and not take damage from the fall. In a non-magic way... Legendary Survivalist, in a non-magical way, allows you to survive indefinitely without food or water and can endure severe, extreme, and incredible cold and heat without taking damage from doing so.
You'll have a hard time convincing me taunt on a skeleton make less sense than those.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to play a non-divine version of the Champion, but I do not really want to taunt or really understand the need for this mechanic. For my experience the Champion is already good at "being a protector" without any actual taunt-like mechanic, so why can't the Guardian be like that.
Like let me protect my allies by "enemies can't get past me or away from me" and "I'm hard to hurt" and I don't taunt.
So perhaps it should be an option for the class and not the basic thing? Maybe a subclass for taunt guardians, and a different subclass for other types? Like Hampering Sweeps is an option that I love and it's something I would prefer to do 100% of the time rather than taunting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, how it could possibly work within the game world doesn't make sense. Its not magic, but it somehow draws even mindless being into attacking the bodyguard, including, say, a golem who was programmed to attack mages, or a revenant bent on vengeance. What is the body guard doing when they spend this action?a 1st level feat, Cat Fall, allows you to not fall from orbit and not take damage from the fall. In a non-magic way... Legendary Survivalist, in a non-magical way, allows you to survive indefinitely without food or water and can endure severe, extreme, and incredible cold and heat without taking damage from doing so.
You'll have a hard time convincing me taunt on a skeleton make less sense than those.
IMO even the thread title is contradictory "make sense" and "fantasy world" usually doesn't go well together.
"Sense" is setting specific IMO. You can have an non-magical, non-fantastical medieval setting following our reality rule as more closer as possible while you can have an fantasy setting where the gravity simply doesn't works like our own. Each setting is able to define what's "make sense" or not.
As well pointed by graystone. The default setting used for PF2E allows even non-magical characters to make fantastical and impossible things without even been called as supernatural or magical in middle of this Taunt is nothing so absurd at all.
I want to play a non-divine version of the Champion, but I do not really want to taunt or really understand the need for this mechanic. For my experience the Champion is already good at "being a protector" without any actual taunt-like mechanic, so why can't the Guardian be like that.
Like let me protect my allies by "enemies can't get past me or away from me" and "I'm hard to hurt" and I don't taunt.
So perhaps it should be an option for the class and not the basic thing? Maybe a subclass for taunt guardians, and a different subclass for other types? Like Hampering Sweeps is an option that I love and it's something I would prefer to do 100% of the time rather than taunting.
This point I agree completely with PossibleCabbage. It's no about the fantastical setting but about the class concept.
Once that we are getting a new martial class completely unrelated to Champion and not-magical and divine that takes the same niche instead of just a new Champion subclass. I understand that the class needs its own unique mechanics but appeal to things like almost magical/supernatural Taunt for this class that already needs to be different not only mechanically but contextually is far from being the best choice IMO.
I'm not really against the class to have a good Taunt with way better mechanics (you can see more info in the Taunt is Bad thread. There's a lot of mechanical complains and suggestions there) but honestly I prefer WAY MORE a more mundane mechanic like "pay your focus to me or suffer the consequences" like a counter attack reaction similar to paladin, and/or forcing the target to become off-guard vs you or giving some precision damage when you attack an target that take a hostile action/activity against your ally in its last round and so on. There are many downsides and punishements to impose over those are attacking your allies instead of the guardian that can "convince" an enemy that its best choice is try to kill you first to a point that I don't think that the class needs to appeal to something like Taunt.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have always been opposed to a "taunt mechanic" since what was often being asked for (and is some places, still is) feels very video game-y. An aspect of video games, I should note, that exists to fill a mechanical niche that TTRPGs don't have, which is threat generation and management.
When I heard about the Guardian playtest, I internally cringed, expecting the worst. On my first read, however, it isn't stripping autonomy from players (GM included) and isn't breaking the fantasy of the game. I personally like where the Taunt numbers are, but I don't have any playtest experience to back up that feeling. I think the expectation of an MMO Taunt and playstyle is what is getting a lot of flak from some (not all, I should stress).
I don't think this version of Taunt really breaks verisimilitude. It's on par with Bon Mot weakening an opponent's resolve or Demoralize lowering an opponent's guard.
If Taunt actually did as is suggested here, and forced enemies by some sort of non-magic mind control to attack the guardian, I would despise it. However, this image is not remotely true, and indeed the opposite seems to hold the focus of a lot of complaints about Taunt being too weak.
I like the alternative name "Challenge," because all Taunt does is make yourself a big enough target to present a choice to the foe: ignore the guardian at a penalty or attack the guardian at a bonus? We already accept that it's possible to rattle a foe by shouts or jeers to take a penalty to their attacks. All Taunt asks us to imagine is that the Guardian presents them self as a convenient target. Collected enemies have will saves to ignore the threat same as with intimidate, and even a creature that critical fails the save has none of their tactics rewritten if they are truly determined to strike the gnome wizard... They're just not as focused, owing to their failure of will, and might flub the attack.
Now, I'm not terribly fond of the fact that these taunts are capable of affecting mindless targets, but on the other hand one must imagine whatever simple target finding algorithm operates in these creatures' skulls must have some metrics that can be exploited one way or another. If the golem has orders to kill the mage, the guardian can't stop it, but they can interfere with its efforts to do so,
I have no love lost for MMO mechanics, but if we have to have a "tank" with a "taunt" mechanic, there are far worse possibilities than the version of Guardian we've seen so far. Champion has already been taunting foes by discouraging attacks against their allies. It's not entirely disbelief breaking to have someone else do the same proactively.
I have zero issues with the “sense” of Taunt within a fantasy framework. Wizards in elfgames and all that, as graystone pointed out so eloquently.
My main problem with Taunt is with agency in gameplay, particularly for the GM.
@Ruzza - reading your post from six years ago seems so align with my thoughts, but you are saying this current Taunt doesn’t affect agency enough to perturb you?
I have to disagree, it feels a lot more problematic than Bon Mot or Demoralize.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Ruzza - reading your post from six years ago seems so align with my thoughts, but you are saying this current Taunt doesn’t affect agency enough to perturb you?
I have to disagree, it feels a lot more problematic than Bon Mot or Demoralize.
The current Taunt isn't saying to the GM or their NPCs, "you must now act the way I want," (non-magically) but rather "here's an easier target for you." An enemy about to finish off the spellcaster is suddenly shouted at by the dwarf in full plate saying "Oh, come on! Run that one through? I'm wide open for you!" I've had these scenarios play out in games and had no mechanical incentive to play along. Now, however, my enemy is shaken and might miss that finishing blow, but that guardian presents an appealing target.
I like the choices put in front of both the player and the GM. It's something I enjoyed a lot when playing with a Redeemer Champion with AoO and Shield Block. Do I swing on the Champ for less damage? Their ally for a lot less potential damage? Or do I retreat and suffer the consequences? Each NPC and encounter dealt with "his deal" differently and his play made it so that I, as a GM, had to deal with one of his three reactions at all times.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have zero issues with the “sense” of Taunt within a fantasy framework. Wizards in elfgames and all that, as graystone pointed out so eloquently.
My main problem with Taunt is with agency in gameplay, particularly for the GM.
@Ruzza - reading your post from six years ago seems so align with my thoughts, but you are saying this current Taunt doesn’t affect agency enough to perturb you?
I have to disagree, it feels a lot more problematic than Bon Mot or Demoralize.
I like Taunt, both as a concept, and in how is it implemented here. If anything, Taunt may be to weak, and it certainly does not impact agency.
Let's compare two level 3 characters - a Guarding using Taunt, and a Bard using Laughing Fit. Both have maxed their key attribute, and have DC 19, and both abilities target Will. A moderate will save is +9 at level 3, so the baddie needs a 10 to save.
If the target Crit Succeeds on the save, neither has any effect. This would be a Nat 20.
If the target saves vs the Guardian, it either gets a decent buff to hit the Guardian, or it takes a minor debuff to hit someone else. If it saves vs the bard it cannot use reactions, no matter how many it has.
If the target fails the save, vs the Guardian he gets a bigger debuff, while against the Bard, he cannot use reactions and is Slowed 1.
If the target gets a crit fail vs the Guardian, it gets a nasty debuff, while against the Bard, he cannot use reactions, is Slowed 1, and is also Prone!!!
Also, note that to reapply the conditions, the Guardian needs to spend a new action with a new save. The Bard spends an action to Sustain, with no new save and no max duration.
In other words, the bard's debuffs, which are much more agency-impactful, last for the entire fight. The Guardians, which do not take anything away from the enemy, lasts for 1 round.
It is quite easy for a rank 2 spell to take away the major schtick of a monster (a hydra's multiple reactions, say, or the 3-action ability of some monsters) for the whole fight. That has much more of an impact on GM agency.
And that's fine! The players are the stars of the story. If they have abilities that hinder monsters and use them well, then let them shape the story.
But, on top of that, here is where the agency argument makes no sense: most GMs do soft taunts anyway. Here is what I mean: You have your four players Zappy the Mage, Sneaky the Rogue, Healy the Priest, and Tanky the Fighter. They all have things they want to do in the game, and as the GM you are not sending all the monsters to pile on Zappy round 1 every fight, then jumping Healy right after.
If you do, you likely don't have a group for long! Rather, some of the monsters stick to Tanky so that everyone has fun. You toss aside your agency for a better experience for everyone, including you.
The downside is that everyone *except Tanky* gets to roll dice to do what they want to do. He has no mechanic, and has to hope his GM allows his concept to work. If anything, a Taunt mechanic *adds* agency to the GM. It gives a narrative reason to do what you are likely doing anyway, and, if Tanky rolls poorly, you can have some baddies go after Healy or Zappy, adding tension in an organic way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to respond to a post from Squiggit in the Guardian Feedback thread because I think the discussion fits here.
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.
So, I disagree that there are a lot of ways to intercept attacks in the manner that I meant and hope to see with the Guardian. Specifically, there's no juiced up defensive reactions that let you go "Hey, that attack? It's targeting me now." Which, to me, is a WAY more satisfying and proactive version of taunt and what I would want Guardian to be built around.
This could take the form, at its most basic, of a beefed up version of Intercept Strike where an adjacent ally is about to take an attack and you can redirect the attack to target you instead by spending a reaction, no saves.
I would then argue for this to be expanded (potentially at level one) to include things like a stride, step, a swap place with an ally or enemy, and/or a combat maneuver. Then let the guardian trade in actions to get more reactions to use this juiced up defensive ability, perhaps in conjunction with raising a shield. This would make them a really impressive defensive action compression class, and would bring the wow-factor that it's currently missing.
What does this have to do with Taunt? If you can roam around the battlefield off of your turn, physically getting between enemies and allies to intercept attacks, then Taunt becomes unnecessary. This is why I don't think the base chassis of Guardian needs a taunt if they get the juiced defensive reactions I would like to see, not because a taunt is bad narratively. In fact, in this scenario, I would love to see Taunt as-is come in as a class feat.
Now, to make Taunt better so that it actually fulfills its goals and means the Guardian can't get those powerful defensive reactions I worry that it would get too big for its britches. Putting so much power behind what is narratively simply a "Come get me bro" makes it start to feel off.
Lastly, I want to reiterate that I think Taunt is an out-moded bit of game design. To me, arguing that we should include it because nothing quite like it currently exists falls into the same category as asking for the return of percentile Spell Resistance because that's not in the game. We don't have it for a reason, because it's not actually fun in play as required thing. Aggro mechanics are built for computer controlled enemies with predictable behavior, and taunt is a crutch for that specific paradigm. Making Taunt the Guardian's thing would be like making an Auto-attack focused character in modern WoW, or adding a Dodge stat to a game with dodge-roll mechanics.
Taunt as-is has a minor enough effect that is still useful that it could sit comfortably as a feat, but as the Guardian's main thing it would make the class feel like it was written 10+ years ago.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I find your arguments as persuasive as always Waters, I think I ultimately disagree. It is useful for the guardian to have both tools in their kit; something that directly protects like intercept strike, but then also something that penalizes your target for attacking anyone else. I think that is the mechanical niche Taunt is meant to fill. Whether or not it succeeds, I think we can reasonably debate, but I do think it needs both tools to pull off its class fantasy.
Not sure if it would be a good idea or not, but I sort of want to see that be the two "class paths" you could select as a guardian, picking which of these tools you want to see emphasized. There's a number of interesting feats (well, I think they're interesting, won't speak for the rest of y'all) to improve intercept strike and let you zip across the battlefield defending your allies, but I'd love to see taunt get similar improvements. Not just range or group taunts, but taunts that rob your enemy of reactions/actions, like folding bloody denial into taunt at a lower level, or denying them movement like hampering sweeps, seem like interesting things a taunt could reasonably be upgraded to do. Especially if the feats or features which allowed you to do this required no additional actions beyond taunt.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Count me in the 'taunt should be optional and not a class defining feature' camp. I do see the value of taunt (still think it's not amazing) but it is, imo, not a tool that makes the class stand out as it should.
My reasons for making taunt an optional feature (most of these have been said in this thread, just summarized):
- It's not something that should be used often. Guardian really doesn't have that many base class features that make it stand out especially at early levels.
- Taunt being a base feature is going to raise the skill floor of the class by a lot. Many veteran players may like that and consider non core classes should be harder to play, but I think it's unnecessary. It will likely end up with players playing the class 'wrong' and getting frustrated.
- The class is already pretty one dimensional with not too many build variations; one main option to have an extra effect from taunt (threat technique), when taunt is already seldom used, feels bad.
- I have yet to see anyone say that intercept strike feels against the class fantasy. On the other hand there are definitely some (not a huge amount but some) that dislike the flavour of taunt.
- Personally I don't see a reason other classes shouldn't be able to get their hands on taunt through feats. It's really not that good of an ability that it can't be a feat, imo.
- Lastly I would want something else. The class feels like it's missing a lot. I feel there's not enough choice or build variation on this class compared to others. Not every class needs a subclass but there has to be variation between builds. A class feature, that comes up often, that fundamentally changes playstyle would be very welcome in my eyes. The class also needs more survivability in my opinion.
I actually like taunt but think it needs something. If taunt is a level 1 feat I would pick it up. It would also allow other classes to get it by archtyping. And if that means theres more room in the chassis to improve threat technique then I am all for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'm of the opinion that Taunt is an ability worth having in the game, though while I do think it has a place on the Guardian, I think it's also a bit strange for it to exist only on the Guardian. Taunting a creature I think is an action that would be just as good a thematic and mechanical fit on a Guardian as on a Champion, a Fighter, a Swashbuckler, or even a Bard, though a Bard wouldn't necessarily want to take more heat. For this reason, I'd be inclined to make it a skill action that the Guardian would be especially good at using, rather than a class-exclusive feature.
I've written a more detailed post on the "Taunt is Bad" thread, but here's the broad lines of what I'd propose:
Effectively, Taunt as a skill action could work as a fairly reliable panic button you'd press if an ally's in trouble to incentivize an enemy to attack you instead, and succeeding at it wouldn't tank your defenses. On every other class, it'd be a limited-use action for any one encounter that could complement an existing tanking-oriented toolkit (plus it'd make Performance a viable skill to pick for combat), but on the Guardian, it'd be a far more accessible tool to apply sticky debuffs on enemies who are trying to ignore you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'm of the opinion that Taunt is an ability worth having in the game, though while I do think it has a place on the Guardian, I think it's also a bit strange for it to exist only on the Guardian. Taunting a creature I think is an action that would be just as good a thematic and mechanical fit on a Guardian as on a Champion, a Fighter, a Swashbuckler, or even a Bard, though a Bard wouldn't necessarily want to take more heat. For this reason, I'd be inclined to make it a skill action that the Guardian would be especially good at using, rather than a class-exclusive feature.
I've written a more detailed post on the "Taunt is Bad" thread, but here's the broad lines of what I'd propose:
Make Taunt a trained Performance skill action where you make a Performance check against a creature's Will DC. On a success, the target takes a circumstance penalty to hostile actions (doubled on a critical success), and on a crit fail, the target gains a circumstance bonus to hostile actions against you. On a failure, you can choose to either leave the target unaffected or incur the effect of a crit fail. The effect lasts until the target takes a hostile action against you, can't perceive you for 1 round, or starts its turn more than 30 feet away from you (so you can't just Taunt and run away). As a skill action, Taunt would incur a 10-minute temporary immunity.
Supporting Performance skill feats could let you redirect your Taunts to allies other than yourself (this could work well for Bards and other casters), Taunt as a reaction to a single attack against an ally and let an enemy redirect their attack to you, or do a group Taunt, among other things. One 1st-level class feat that could build off of Taunt and accommodate multiple classes would let you punch/slap someone and Taunt them as part of the same action (this would likely be appropriate on Champions, Fighters, Guardians, and Swashbucklers).
As a Guardian, you'd be able...
For some reason that evokes the image of the guardian as a heavy armored Ginyu force type posing before battle. Something about tying the class to performance i think.
Tying taunt to a skill is so that the bonus to the roll is more reliable right? Performance makes some sense. It would give performance something to do outside bard abilities and fascinate. It would also get me to imagine it differently thematically or at least expand my conception.
You made me thing of this so im adding it here.
For the Guardian they seem to be the armor specialist. They jump in and take hits for others because they know they can take a hit better. But what I think they really are as is is the heavy armor specialist and medium armor inst really given much of its own incentive and theming in the class. I would be for doing something like you suggest with taunt to make room to expand the ways in which the guardian specializes in armor abilities, both defensively(better resistance) and offensively (I like adding in armor spikes) and mobility(medium armors focus).
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, since we're talking class fantasy I think Taunt is a pretty distinct dividing line between (let's call them) "Strong Silent Guardian" and "Loud Boisterous Guardian" archetypes.
For example:
Strong Silent Guardian
* Serious-type defender who stares you down over the edge of their shield
* Black suit and sunglasses bodyguard who never speaks but competently intercepts any threat to their charge
* Badass who waits for the enemy to make the first move, confident they can react to anything
* Person holding a chokepoint so the timer can finish or their charge can escape, not necessarily interested in harming the foes
Loud Boisterous Guardian
* Crazy sunovagun who doesn't care if they take damage, and grabs blades and mocks their opponents
* Action hero who says something like "pick on someone your own size" and for some reason the enemy does
* King's champion who challenges foes in front of a crowd, relying on social pressure to keep their attention
* Animal expert who catches the attention of the dangerous animals so the park patrons can escape
* Desperate protagonist trying to sacrifice themselves by appealing to the enemy to kill them instead
Anyone else seeing these as two separate types? One I can easily see trying to influence their foes into changing targets while the other feels much more likely to assume that influencing their foes' decision making is too unreliable. Also interesting to note how much Charisma is involved in fantasy scenarios where a Taunt is appropriate and effective.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nah Taunt is a neat mechanic, it just needs some mechanical touch ups.
And it's about as "meta-gamey" as demoralize or feint. So just... not really.
Taunt is quite a bit more 'meta-gamey' than demoralize or feint, because demoralize and feint make sense within the world. Those are things the character can actually do, and their limitations make in world sense. For example, they are both mental, they are charisma based, and by default demoralize requires that you share a language with the target.
I could see a skill action to taunt, perhaps unlocked via an intimidate based skill feat.
There are much cooler, more thematic ways to let a guardian agro than a taunt.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
How does someone going "stop trying to hit me, and hit me!" and banging on their shield or chest plate - which is a perfectly fine way to flavor your Taunt - make any less sense in a world where as someone said before you can just survive forever non-magically with Legendary Survivalist? You haven't responded to that.
Also the Guardian is actually 'doing' the Taunt - like it's something they are actually doing.
Strong Silent Guardian
Loud Boisterous Guardian
Well said, and I especially like these as names. I think that may be where my mind was at when I mentioned wanting the guardian class path to be divided between those had good taunts, probably good enough that you'd want to do it every round, and those that tried hard to intercept every attack. Boisterous would of course be your taunt guardian, while strong and silent would be the intercept expert.
Edit: just so I’m clearer, on a mechanical level, I see our boisterous guardian applying a bunch of status penalties to their target if they target anyone but the guardian, while the mobile guardian getting a ton of benefits uses any time they successfully intercept. Both tools are needed and useful, but which you emphasize might make different guardians feel and play different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How does someone going "stop trying to hit me, and hit me!" and banging on their shield or chest plate - which is a perfectly fine way to flavor your Taunt - make any less sense in a world where as someone said before you can just survive forever non-magically with Legendary Survivalist? You haven't responded to that.
Also the Guardian is actually 'doing' the Taunt - like it's something they are actually doing.
It makes less sense because its an ability that affects the targets mental state, but does not have the mental trait. And its just silly that this one class, which is not particularly charismatic, can manipulate even mindless creatures at 1st level, because they are some kind of body guard. And the ability is not even some sort of psychic magic. It makes sense meta game wise, and it makes sense for if people want a world of warcraft tank, but its silly within the game world.
The point I was trying to make was not that the guardian doesn't actually do something, but that within the game world, these dedicated bodyguards would probably not all be taunting things. It's not something bodyguards would do. They would be more physical, interposing themselves and forcing enemies to go through them to get to their wards.
As a higher level body guard feat, or more appropriately, a feat chain, I could see it. Or even better would be a skill feat chain for either Performance, Deception, or Intimidation (I like Performance best, Intimidation least.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the idea behind the lack of mental trait is that even though constructs/ect have mental immunity, they still make decisions on what to attack based on their perception of the present context. If a mindless foe can "see AC" then their perception of the battlefield can be affected by the Guardian's behavior.
A skilled Guardian whose whole deal is to bait foes into hitting them and taking hits for allies, can still make themselves look like a better target to attack. If an ooze or some such has text saying that they attack the closest foe, the Guardian's taunt is not going to override that.
Because Taunt is not tied down to something like deceiving the foe's judgment, intimidating them into fearing and prioritizing the Guardian, or doing a performance so obnoxious as to draw the foe's ire, the Taunt ability is keyed to the Guardian's Class DC.
- - - - - -
It allows for the "base Guardian" to be as flavor friendly as possible by being flavor-neutral.
You want your PC to be the boisterous type hurling insults? That's great, it works.
Want them to be more of a trickster that Taunts: "oh I'm jus a small widdle gnome, I might break wiwf a singul hit! Pwease don't attack me!" that also works.
- - - - - - -
But as soon as the Guardian Class were to prescribe the Taunt into a more specific skill, you dramatically narrow the possibility space.
Even something like tying it to a specific attribute, like Charisma, would similarly narrow how players can conceptualize Guardian characters.
|
Also, since we're talking class fantasy I think Taunt is a pretty distinct dividing line between (let's call them) "Strong Silent Guardian" and "Loud Boisterous Guardian" archetypes.
For example:
Strong Silent Guardian
* Serious-type defender who stares you down over the edge of their shield
* Black suit and sunglasses bodyguard who never speaks but competently intercepts any threat to their charge
* Badass who waits for the enemy to make the first move, confident they can react to anything
* Person holding a chokepoint so the timer can finish or their charge can escape, not necessarily interested in harming the foes
Loud Boisterous Guardian
* Crazy sunovagun who doesn't care if they take damage, and grabs blades and mocks their opponents
* Action hero who says something like "pick on someone your own size" and for some reason the enemy does
* King's champion who challenges foes in front of a crowd, relying on social pressure to keep their attention
* Animal expert who catches the attention of the dangerous animals so the park patrons can escape
* Desperate protagonist trying to sacrifice themselves by appealing to the enemy to kill them instead
Anyone else seeing these as two separate types? One I can easily see trying to influence their foes into changing targets while the other feels much more likely to assume that influencing their foes' decision making is too unreliable. Also interesting to note how much Charisma is involved in fantasy scenarios where a Taunt is appropriate and effective.
I think divorcing the Taunt from the class and putting it on an archetype open to all classes would elegantly enable this as well as other tropes too.
How does someone going "stop trying to hit me, and hit me!" and banging on their shield or chest plate - which is a perfectly fine way to flavor your Taunt - make any less sense in a world where as someone said before you can just survive forever non-magically with Legendary Survivalist? You haven't responded to that.
Also the Guardian is actually 'doing' the Taunt - like it's something they are actually doing.
It makes less sense because its an ability that affects the targets mental state, but does not have the mental trait. And its just silly that this one class, which is not particularly charismatic, can manipulate even mindless creatures at 1st level, because they are some kind of body guard. And the ability is not even some sort of psychic magic. It makes sense meta game wise, and it makes sense for if people want a world of warcraft tank, but its silly within the game world.
The point I was trying to make was not that the guardian doesn't actually do something, but that within the game world, these dedicated bodyguards would probably not all be taunting things. It's not something bodyguards would do. They would be more physical, interposing themselves and forcing enemies to go through them to get to their wards.
As a higher level body guard feat, or more appropriately, a feat chain, I could see it. Or even better would be a skill feat chain for either Performance, Deception, or Intimidation (I like Performance best, Intimidation least.)
I mean, that's one way to read it, but the concepts I've come up with for Guardian are not just 'body guards' - they are active combatants on their own and would absolutely be taunting things.
IMO, that's a very shallow read of the class and its potential flavor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How does someone going "stop trying to hit me, and hit me!" and banging on their shield or chest plate - which is a perfectly fine way to flavor your Taunt - make any less sense in a world where as someone said before you can just survive forever non-magically with Legendary Survivalist? You haven't responded to that.
Also the Guardian is actually 'doing' the Taunt - like it's something they are actually doing.
It makes less sense because its an ability that affects the targets mental state, but does not have the mental trait. And its just silly that this one class, which is not particularly charismatic, can manipulate even mindless creatures at 1st level, because they are some kind of body guard. And the ability is not even some sort of psychic magic. It makes sense meta game wise, and it makes sense for if people want a world of warcraft tank, but its silly within the game world.
The point I was trying to make was not that the guardian doesn't actually do something, but that within the game world, these dedicated bodyguards would probably not all be taunting things. It's not something bodyguards would do. They would be more physical, interposing themselves and forcing enemies to go through them to get to their wards.
As a higher level body guard feat, or more appropriately, a feat chain, I could see it. Or even better would be a skill feat chain for either Performance, Deception, or Intimidation (I like Performance best, Intimidation least.)
I mean, that's one way to read it, but the concepts I've come up with for Guardian are not just 'body guards' - they are active combatants on their own and would absolutely be taunting things.
IMO, that's a very shallow read of the class and its potential flavor.
If they are taunters, and not body guards, why call them guardians. Why not call them Harriers or Hecklers or something? I can dig a class that is a body guard. But it's silly to have them taunt, just because there is a taunt WoW ability. Being able to jump in front of attacks though, that is cool and actually more effective because it repositions the Guardian to be adjacent to the enemy and actually intercepts the attack. Or an ability that lets them jump to the origin of a burst and smother it. There are so many cooler things that could be done other than immitating WoW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think what's developing from this thread, and what's also developed in at least one other, is that the criticism of Taunt is less that it's a poor fit for the game, and more that it's a poor fit for what some people consider the Guardian to be -- for some players, their idea of the Guardian is something like a zombie Mountain, a stoic and silent hulk in plate armor who you really don't want to mess with, and for those players, having an ability that implies you're shouting insults or making obscene gestures really breaks the "stoic bodyguard" fantasy.
On the flipside, some players really do think Taunt is appropriate on the Guardian (I certainly do), and would be sad to lose it entirely. There's likely different ways to approach this, but one could be to redo the Guardian's subclasses so that the Taunt guardian is one such subclass -- the other could perhaps be much more of a "get down Mr President" Guardian with emphasis on Intercept Strike (and some hefty buffs to go with that), and I feel there's perhaps room for even a third subclass that's all about getting in the enemy's face, and preventing them from escaping with some version of Hampering Sweeps that isn't totally broken. Given that the Guardian's current "subclasses" are extremely underdeveloped and could easily be removed entirely, it likely wouldn't be too much of a leap to try to enable this, particularly as all three of those directions have some degree of feat support already and could easily pull a bit from each other through feats as well.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've suggested that Taunt should be a Stance, much like those of the Monk class, and last until the foe is dropped, much like the Ranger's Hunt Prey ability. I dislike that it is an action tax every round, considering it is arguably the main class feature of the Guardian.
I also think raising the HP to 12 would help make this feel more like a "tank" class, since it risks getting critically hit more often due to the Taunt ability.
The rest of my comments can be found HERE.
|
|
I think what's developing from this thread, and what's also developed in at least one other, is that the criticism of Taunt is less that it's a poor fit for the game, and more that it's a poor fit for what some people consider the Guardian to be -- for some players, their idea of the Guardian is something like a zombie Mountain, a stoic and silent hulk in plate armor who you really don't want to mess with, and for those players, having an ability that implies you're shouting insults or making obscene gestures really breaks the "stoic bodyguard" fantasy.
On the flipside, some players really do think Taunt is appropriate on the Guardian (I certainly do), and would be sad to lose it entirely. There's likely different ways to approach this, but one could be to redo the Guardian's subclasses so that the Taunt guardian is one such subclass -- the other could perhaps be much more of a "get down Mr President" Guardian with emphasis on Intercept Strike (and some hefty buffs to go with that), and I feel there's perhaps room for even a third subclass that's all about getting in the enemy's face, and preventing them from escaping with some version of Hampering Sweeps that isn't totally broken. Given that the Guardian's current "subclasses" are extremely underdeveloped and could easily be removed entirely, it likely wouldn't be too much of a leap to try to enable this, particularly as all three of those directions have some degree of feat support already and could easily pull a bit from each other through feats as well.
There are also people who want an agile dodging character who can Taunt.
Which is definitely not the armored Guardian.
The thing is we dont know what is given at dedication and what is available as a direct choice when archtyping into guardian.
Taunt can be just like the rogues sneak attack a chassis feature that can be picked up.
I would guess intercept strike would be like champions reaction gainable at level 6.
There are also people who want an agile dodging character who can Taunt.
Which is definitely not the armored Guardian.
That sounds very much like a Swashbuckler to me, which is also why I'd support making Taunt a skill action rather than a class-exclusive action (though the Guardian, or whichever Guardian subclass uses Taunt a lot, should still be able to use Taunt way better than anyone with access to the skill action).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That sounds very much like a Swashbuckler to me, which is also why I'd support making Taunt a skill action rather than a class-exclusive action (though the Guardian, or whichever Guardian subclass uses Taunt a lot, should still be able to use Taunt way better than anyone with access to the skill action).There are also people who want an agile dodging character who can Taunt.
Which is definitely not the armored Guardian.
I'd like taunt to be an active action like a skill check - just so the Guardian player is rolling it. It helps make them feel more proactive.
The Bon Mot based Swashbuckler already exists, mostly works OK, and is story wise similar to Taunt. Though this Taunt mechanic is very different. The defensive Swashbuckler is the one with Goading Feint
I'd like taunt to be an active action like a skill check - just so the Guardian player is rolling it. It helps make them feel more proactive.
The Bon Mot based Swashbuckler already exists, mostly works OK, and is story wise similar to Taunt. Though this Taunt mechanic is very different. The defensive Swashbuckler is the one with Goading Feint
Passive mark-style taunts are good and easy to implement. They are nice bits of spice that can interact with multiple things a PC may already be doing.
However, I do think I more like the idea of an active, full action commitment form of a Taunt for the Guardian. It enables the action to be a lot more potent in terms of battlefield impact, and emphasizes that this is an active tactical choice to do, not an always there thing that just happens.
My reasoning for preferring a Class DC over skill check is due to skill checks needing double investment of limited build budget in both attribute and skill advancement. They are also buffable, further obligating the player to work for that expected maximal investment.
To narrow into one point of detail on what I'm talking about, a certain level, the game's scaling expects PCs to have item bonuses to their primary skill. That's not the case for a Class DC check. Furthermore, even with a written auto-advancement in a specific skill a la the Inventor, you are still allocating some class power budget to that skill advancement.
Moreover, no matter what skill you pick, that's seriously affecting the flavor. How are they doing it? Deception, fooling the foe? Intimidation? Putting on a Performance? Well, now every guardian is auto-mastering that skill, and *all* it's associated actions/effects.
And if there's no mechanism for attribute substitution, then the Guardian's skill action will never be on par with the expected maximal PC that does match the attribute.
The Thaum had a clever out due to how Lore skills work and wrote itself a blank check, but a similar full skill sublimation into some Guardian pseudo-skill is possible. And if it is locked down like that, and not buffable as a normal skill is, then Paizo can keep the expected number scaling free of such expected buffs.
However, as I don't know of any reason to think Paizo wants to add a universal Taunt skill action, twisting the design of Guardian into knots for the sake of it really is somewhat of a distraction from the actual Guardian / Taunt discussion.
While a Class DC is lower than a skill check, if that number is the expected value Paizo can plan for, then the ability will still balanced around that value.
In the example of the Kin, they had a problem with the class making pseudo-attacks, and needed the blast to match the higher number of weapon attacks. So that is why Kins got gate attenuators.
If the Guardian is in need of a higher flat number, that is still easier to design around while inside the controlled foundation of a Class DC.
- - - - -
As for the thread topic, I can say that when I first started, I thought the effect of Bon Mot was similarly "well, that's a bit much for talking at someone" and I had to just get used to it.
Especially if Taunt is kept away from the "how?" narrowing of a specific skill like Intimidation or Performance, the supremely generic effect of altering the to-hit chances seems well enough in line with what precedent is already there.
I think a fair amount of the aversion comes from how new the concept is, and when I try to put on a comparative lens to what else is there, Taunt honestly seems to fit right in.
My reasoning for preferring a Class DC over skill check is due to skill checks needing double investment of limited build budget in both attribute and skill advancement. They are also buffable, further obligating the player to work for that expected maximal investment.
As demonstrated mathematically in a post you've read, making Taunt from a DC-based save into a skill-based check would incur a significant buff to its success chance, and this is before factoring in circumstance and status bonuses. Such a change would therefore be a significant buff, and would not require any more investment than you'd be forced to commit anyway by boosting four separate attributes at a time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My reasoning for preferring a Class DC over skill check is due to skill checks needing double investment of limited build budget in both attribute and skill advancement. They are also buffable, further obligating the player to work for that expected maximal investment.As demonstrated mathematically in a post you've read, making Taunt from a DC-based save into a skill-based check would incur a significant buff to its success chance, and this is before factoring in circumstance and status bonuses. Such a change would therefore be a significant buff, and would not require any more investment than you'd be forced to commit anyway by boosting four separate attributes at a time.
The only way you can claim that is if you have somehow missed what I have now said repeatedly.
* Increasing the expected Taunt number would decrease the power of the ability. The devs look at the % chance of success and balance accordingly. Even with a Class DC, there are many options to increase that flat number when it is desired. In the case of Kin that needed to use Class DC in a way that matched the numbers for Strikes, they used Gate Attenuators for those +_.
* An off-KAS skill action would mandate that other on-KAS classes could Taunt w/ a better % of success than the Guardian.
* The game balances around the maximal investment. This obligates the PC to spend their limited budget on skill advancement, attribute boosts, and even permanent magic items. The *less* a number is able to be buffed, the less the Guardian will have to follow that specific script to keep their Taunt in-line with expectations. Tying the class to another attribute when it's not needed dramatically limits the potential variety of Guardians to those that align with the expected attribute allocation.
* A skill action carries flavor and character implications that a Class DC does not. When one thinks Intimidation is the most appropriate for their "Guardian", another will say Deception. And another, Performance.