| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Careful comparing against the Warpriest! It might come to light how good their chassis is, even more so after the Remaster.
Careful comparing against the Warpriest! It might come to light how good their chassis is, even more so after the Remaster.
Lol it seemed the only other class that is front line support with about the same weapon proficiency. And I dont think anyone complains they dont hit enough to be effective. Or maybe they do since some want an even more weapon focused doctrine.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lol it seemed the only other class that is front line support with about the same weapon proficiency. And I dont think anyone complains they dont hit enough to be effective. Or maybe they do since some want an even more weapon focused doctrine.
The problem is that what Warpriest lacks in proficiencies, they make up with the versatility of full spellcasing. Guardian cannot do that. At best they can reduce one type oh physical damage by 8 per hit. That's just not very exciting when enemies hit you for 40-50 damage. Its not nothing, but also nothing to write home about.
The whole concept of "tanking" relies on enemies attacking you when they shouldn't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my view, if Champion can have normal martial attack progression AND legendary armor proficiency, I don't see why Guardian can't have it also. There are other differences between these two classes, there's no need to make one strictly worse than the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole concept of "tanking" relies on enemies attacking you when they shouldn't.
I think this is where the problem is. The guardian description never uses the word tank. It is a front line character that supports allies by taking hits for allies and has good defenses.
There is no exact parallel to a WOW tank in Pathfinder and theres good reason for it. Tanking in games like wow used a limited conception of aggro and taunts because the game doesn't have people who make decisions it has prescripted foes that need to be told what to do ahead of time based on a series of "meters" and "switches". Those games couldn't reproduce human decision making so they made their own attempt at simulating it with aggro and moves that forced changing targets.
Nothing exactly like that belongs in a TTRPG.
What this class could be is a front line character with abilities to support the party. The qeustion is are these support abilities fun to play. (already support classes are a specific type of character than not everyone likes to play so if support is not fun for you thats ok but keep that in mind when judging the abilities, could they be fun for those who like to play support)
It handles being in the front line objectively better than a warpriest since it starts with heavy armor and progresses armor proficiency better has a higher hp die and can more heavily invest in Con because after Str Con is its next needed stat whereas the warpriest needs both Str and Wis to function.
Full spell casting though is such a high standard to meet given all it offers.
The extra reactions of the Guardian is interesting because playing this class you will be paying more attention to the game when its not your turn.
In my view, if Champion can have normal martial attack progression AND legendary armor proficiency, I don't see why Guardian can't have it also. There are other differences between these two classes, there's no need to make one strictly worse than the other.
Maybe Guardian is not a tanky martial like a champion. Im thinking its a front line support like a warpriest. even in that role it has a lot to overcome but if weapon proficiency stays where its at warpriest support capacity is a better standard to compare to than a champion.
In my view, if Champion can have normal martial attack progression AND legendary armor proficiency, I don't see why Guardian can't have it also. There are other differences between these two classes, there's no need to make one strictly worse than the other.
I just disagree because I liked the faster armor progression of guardian it fells me more thematic and interesting (my only problems are with Taunt, Intercept Strike, subclasses and some feats as normal). This progression just makes me feel that guardian is really defensive focused with a lazy hit rate but stronger defensive power in some levels.
The whole concept of "tanking" relies on enemies attacking you when they shouldn't.
Sorry RJGrady. That was more or less things i wanted to say in general that came to mind when you mentioned tank but not directed actually at you.
In my view, if Champion can have normal martial attack progression AND legendary armor proficiency, I don't see why Guardian can't have it also. There are other differences between these two classes, there's no need to make one strictly worse than the other.Maybe Guardian is not a tanky martial like a champion. Im thinking its a front line support like a warpriest. even in that role it has a lot to overcome but if weapon proficiency stays where its at warpriest support capacity is a better standard to compare to than a champion.
I don't think Guardian to Warpriest is a legit comparison because the Warpriest is a full caster and also a superb healer. Because the Warpriest is so much more versatile, Guardian should leave it in the dust when it comes to melee combat. Otherwise, why play a Guardian when Warpriest is so much better?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's fine. I was just going to add that, for me, there is a high bar for Taunt-like mechanics. It's hard to figure out something that will make someone target an opponent when they shouldn't, doesn't soften the guardian's defenses, and isn't mind control. So the position I have come to at this moment is that Taunt probably just needs to go.
The Guardian needs to be re-envisioned as a front line support/combatant hybdrid that does not need a Taunt mechanic. Enemies should target them because it makes sense.
I don't think Guardian to Warpriest is a legit comparison because the Warpriest is a full caster and also a superb healer. Because the Warpriest is so much more versatile, Guardian should leave it in the dust when it comes to melee combat. Otherwise, why play a Guardian when Warpriest is so much better?In my view, if Champion can have normal martial attack progression AND legendary armor proficiency, I don't see why Guardian can't have it also. There are other differences between these two classes, there's no need to make one strictly worse than the other.Maybe Guardian is not a tanky martial like a champion. Im thinking its a front line support like a warpriest. even in that role it has a lot to overcome but if weapon proficiency stays where its at warpriest support capacity is a better standard to compare to than a champion.
I think they are occupying a similar role but the guardian is not supporting the party as much as a warpriest.
They are both attempting to prevent allies from dying and doing so from the front line.The warpriest with full spell casting also occupies more roles and that is why it seems like an off comparison.
Warpriest can doing things before things go down to help and they can do things after things went down to help.
Guardian is niche in that they do things while they go down.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why does Guardian needs a normal proficiency progression? Because missing is not fun. In combat they do only two things, protect allies and hit things. They don't have the spellcasting versatility of the Warpriest, or the alchemy of the Alchemist. All they have is "I take damage, I am tough, and I hit things" And they are mediocre at being tough and hitting things. That does not sound like fun to play.Couldn't agree more. In the end, this class is part of a game, which is meant to be fun. All the actual playtest posts I've seen have agreed on one thing: Guardian isn't fun to play.
I going to go the opposite on this. Most of the complaints seem to be from people who haven't playtested yet. My own opinion improved with testing. The player who ran the Guardian in my test sessions said he would take the class again for real.
Paizo will get reasonable numbers from the Playtest feedback so we don't need to be too concerned about it. Links to the survey is from this page if you are looking. they will also sort out the general negativity bias of forums.
I do agree I would like to see a minor increase in the Guardians abilities. It is perhaps slightly undertuned.
They do get heroism so theoretically for a lot of the campaign they are more accurate than the guardian even if we exclude the massive ultility of 35 spells per day over 20 levels.Careful comparing against the Warpriest! It might come to light how good their chassis is, even more so after the Remaster.Lol it seemed the only other class that is front line support with about the same weapon proficiency. And I dont think anyone complains they dont hit enough to be effective. Or maybe they do since some want an even more weapon focused doctrine.
Dont they usually cast in on a fighter or other martial in the party?
I say that cause doing that actually increases damage even more right than on themselves? Their support function is both protecting allies and increasing damage of allies. And in holy/unholy situations they can blast although not with the same proficiency as cloistered cleric.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Careful comparing against the Warpriest! It might come to light how good their chassis is, even more so after the Remaster.Lol it seemed the only other class that is front line support with about the same weapon proficiency. And I dont think anyone complains they dont hit enough to be effective. Or maybe they do since some want an even more weapon focused doctrine.
Warpriests can tank longer AND smite like a 5e paladin. The only thing guardian has right now to differentiate it is a one stop shop for a lot of physical cc feats (which I think is a great angle for the class). It just needs to be a bit beefier to bring down; I'd also appreciate a normal martial track but it's not the most pressing of the issues
Why does Guardian needs a normal proficiency progression? Because missing is not fun. In combat they do only two things, protect allies and hit things. They don't have the spellcasting versatility of the Warpriest, or the alchemy of the Alchemist. All they have is "I take damage, I am tough, and I hit things" And they are mediocre at being tough and hitting things. That does not sound like fun to play.Couldn't agree more. In the end, this class is part of a game, which is meant to be fun. All the actual playtest posts I've seen have agreed on one thing: Guardian isn't fun to play.I going to go the opposite on this. Most of the complaints seem to be from people who haven't playtested yet. My own opinion improved with testing. The player who ran the Guardian in my test sessions said he would take the class again for real.
Paizo will get reasonable numbers from the Playtest feedback so we don't need to be too concerned about it. Links to the survey is from this page if you are looking. they will also sort out the general negativity bias of forums.
I do agree I would like to see a minor increase in the Guardians abilities. It is perhaps slightly undertuned.
im really only going to get to know them as a GM using them for encounters. Not going to have the chance to play them as a player.
I added the playtest mod to foundry though and am incorporating guardian in some encounters where it makes sense. Im kind of partial to the two handed weapon, armor break using bugbear with a retribution axe i put in one of the fights. Armor break feels like it is going to be a really interesting ability to describe for an impactful moment when players bring him down to half health. The fact that a guardian is actively working to get to half health makes having an offensive action thats limited to once an encounter like this feel better than when I first looked at it before planning this encounter out.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the Guardian has offensive power. Compared to a Champion, you deal precisely 12.7% less damage averaged on your whole career
I think this, right here, is perhaps the main issue. "12.7% averaged on your whole career" isn't something that really... exists, in practice. You're not playing a quantum superposition of every level between 1 and 20. You're playing your character a specific level at a time. And on those levels where your to-hit is suddenly behind other martials, it feels really bad. It's as simple as that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're a low mobility, low offense character, they can probably just save you for last most of the time.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the Guardian has offensive power. Compared to a Champion, you deal precisely 12.7% less damage averaged on your whole careerI think this, right here, is perhaps the main issue. "12.7% averaged on your whole career" isn't something that really... exists, in practice. You're not playing a quantum superposition of every level between 1 and 20. You're playing your character a specific level at a time. And on those levels where your to-hit is suddenly behind other martials, it feels really bad. It's as simple as that.
This is the crux of it. You're not playing a level 1-20 Guardian, you're playing a character at a certain level, which makes the wildly inconsistent progression just not an effective balancing tool.
This is the crux of it. You're not playing a level 1-20 Guardian, you're playing a character at a certain level, which makes the wildly inconsistent progression just not an effective balancing tool.But the Guardian has offensive power. Compared to a Champion, you deal precisely 12.7% less damage averaged on your whole careerI think this, right here, is perhaps the main issue. "12.7% averaged on your whole career" isn't something that really... exists, in practice. You're not playing a quantum superposition of every level between 1 and 20. You're playing your character a specific level at a time. And on those levels where your to-hit is suddenly behind other martials, it feels really bad. It's as simple as that.
In that case balance would have to be assessed at every level.
Are the proficiencies, class abilities, and with expected gear balanced for that level?Then its well is this balanced for a martial?
Is it balanced for a caster?
is it balanced for a front or back row support?
what other classes are we considering baseline to establish this idea of balance?
Or is it balanced with respect to its niche against other classes in theirs?
Are they balanced in a dynamic group vs group battle?
Are they balanced in a boss fight?
Theres a lot of considerations. here is a niche to niche comparison.
Like a two handed fighter vs a 1h and shield guardian both in full plate with +1 potency runes at level 5 while guardian has used raise shield have the same accuracy when striking each other. Still it takes an action to even it out, if taunt was used on that fighter its back to +2 advantage for the fighter. Damage is much higher for the fighter both using a two handed weapon and level improvements to damage while guardian might have a reinforced shield to soak up some of the damage. Let the fighter have a greataxe so the slashing damage reduction from full plate kicks in just to give the guardian a better chance.
If balanced means guardian is as defensive as the fighter is offensive then in this comparison nope its not balanced. Fighter still has the advantage if taunt is being used, and this is not including feat support that may change things up. mainly fighter doesnt need to use any additional actions to remove the numbers advantage guardian does need to raise shield and use a reaction to get closer to the same defensive effectiveness as the fighters offensiveness.
...This is the crux of it. You're not playing a level 1-20 Guardian, you're playing a character at a certain level, which makes the wildly inconsistent progression just not an effective balancing tool.But the Guardian has offensive power. Compared to a Champion, you deal precisely 12.7% less damage averaged on your whole careerI think this, right here, is perhaps the main issue. "12.7% averaged on your whole career" isn't something that really... exists, in practice. You're not playing a quantum superposition of every level between 1 and 20. You're playing your character a specific level at a time. And on those levels where your to-hit is suddenly behind other martials, it feels really bad. It's as simple as that.In that case balance would have to be assessed at every level.
Are the proficiencies, class abilities, and with expected gear balanced for that level?
Then its well is this balanced for a martial?
Is it balanced for a caster?
is it balanced for a front or back row support?
what other classes are we considering baseline to establish this idea of balance?
Or is it balanced with respect to its niche against other classes in theirs?
Are they balanced in a dynamic group vs group battle?
Are they balanced in a boss fight?Theres a lot of considerations. here is a niche to niche comparison.
Like a two handed fighter vs a 1h and shield guardian both in full plate with +1 potency runes at level 5 while guardian has used raise shield have the same accuracy when striking each other. Still it takes an action to even it out, if taunt was used on that fighter its back to +2 advantage for the fighter. Damage is much higher for the fighter both using a two handed weapon and level improvements to damage while guardian might have a reinforced shield to soak up some of the damage. Let the fighter have a greataxe so the slashing damage reduction from full plate kicks in just to give
Because I just wanted to show this core feature is not helping in this situation. I understand the theme of the class is Guardian and not Impenetrable Wall so Perhaps your right including it was not fair in comparing that situation, since its power is really on the affect it has for reducing crits to allies and nudging third hits maybe second hits further away from success. Combined with an intercept strike and you probably just saved a weaker ally from being killed when a fighter is set up to go all out on them.
I don't see what the Guardian is actively doing to stand out and take their share of the spotlight in battle.
That's what I've been saying as well. To be a priority target, you have to be some sort of threat, like a fireball-tossing Sorcerer or a giant raging Barbarian. Taunt isn't mind control, and any intelligent enemy can immediately dismiss the Guardian as a threat once that enemy has seen how poorly they swing their sword. An intelligent enemy would save the Guardian for last, after killing the rest of the party.
To really do their job as a Defender, the Guardian needs more OFFENSE.
I don't see what the Guardian is actively doing to stand out and take their share of the spotlight in battle.That's what I've been saying as well. To be a priority target, you have to be some sort of threat, like a fireball-tossing Sorcerer or a giant raging Barbarian. Taunt isn't mind control, and any intelligent enemy can immediately dismiss the Guardian as a threat once that enemy has seen how poorly they swing their sword. An intelligent enemy would save the Guardian for last, after killing the rest of the party.
To really do their job as a Defender, the Guardian needs more OFFENSE.
What about stopping other threats from being able to do what they do to your party's fireball-tossing Sorcerer or a giant raging Barbarian?
I think there is room for a class that does that by reacting to enemies and shutting them down. It just would be nice to also get to punish them abit while you do it.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why taunt an enemy if they are already attacking you? To make sure they continue attacking you. The benefit that Champion has, their ally protection mechanic is a reaction. They just need to be near allies.
Guardian has to plan ahead who to protect, and their positioning is more restrictive than that of the Champion. And the Champ does not have to cripple themselves to protect allies.
I firmly believe that G needs same weapon proficiency as a champion, and a way to punish enemies that ignore the taunt. I think it would be ok for G to out damage the fighter if the enemy ignores them. And if the enemy focuses on G, then you have your high AC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A guardian with an 18 STR, a shield, and ferocious vengeance, has a D8+6 attack to make against anyone that ignores you to attack your allies. That is not far off the bonus to damage from a fury barbarian. With your Shield raised your AC is the same as it was before you taunted and you have an effective damage mitigator with the shield block reaction. If they ignore you, you can certainly make them pay for it. There will be a couple of levels where your attack bonus slips behind (although the devs love playtesting those alternatives and then 'giving the players what they want' with proficiency scaling boost, so I don't know if that will last) but you also have level 1 feats to either do damage with an Athetics skill action or to take an attack that makes an enemy off guard to you as well, so I don't think the offensive weaknesses of the class are as bad as say a Dex-based Liberator Champion or many other martials in the game.If you're taunting and raising a shield every round then you only have one action left, so the enemy can ignore you by just not ending their turn next to you, can't they?
Yes and no. Depends on how badly Taunt makes you suck by not swatting that particular fly.
I did playtest, as a GM at least, and that was my final assessment. If Taunting was somehow annoying enough, then the guardian "won" even if they never made a single attack roll. His strikes were often anemic by design, so I wasn't particularly worried by taking even multiple strikes from the guardian. But with Taunt to make striking anyone else annoying, and Intercept to force my strikes to resolve against him even if I did target someone else, I found myself naturally wanting to rid myself of that nuisance so I could more properly concentrate on higher damage targets. Which is of course the point of those class features.
With some number tuning, and maybe juicier options in Threat Technique like forcing you to only take reactions against the guardian, or a movement penalty when you move away from the guardian if they landed a taunt on you (but no movement penalty to go towards the guardian if you're not already there), I think the current chassis could work. I'd not weep if more traditional martial proficiencies got implemented, But I'm not as certain it is needed as others.
Edit: forgot to add, but I DO think Threat Technique is...a little weird. Either are fine, in fact being able to choose between them would be ideal, but I'd prefer that Mitigate Harm be spun off into its own feature (perhaps in addition to or replacing Tough to Kill), and more Threat Techniques that debuff be added instead.