| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just not sure there's a way to make taunt work that's satisfying for both GMs and players.
If player A taunts a monster that is attacking player B and the GM decides "nah, they're going to keep attacking player B, since that's what makes sense for that creature" then that's not satisfying for player A.
If player A taunts a monster that is attacking player B and the GM has to make the monster pick up shop and move over to player A even though it's tactically a bad idea and doesn't make sense for the creature, that's not satisfying for the GM. Like, as a GM, I would never want to have a mindless ooze actually respond to a taunt.
The better way of doing something like this is the way the Champion has done it- if you attack my friend, things you don't want to happen will happen.
I am as Tank main as you can get, I Tank main in any game that offers it as an option (WoW, SWTOR, FFXIV, Overwatch, Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition, Lancer, etc.)
Taunt in MMO's forced enemies to attack because that's the way the bots worked. You couldn't have "if the bot attacks an ally..." as a mechanism.
Note that Taunt doesn't work in PvP.There is no Taunt in Overwatch. Again, doesn't work in PvP.
All the 4e defenders, except the Swordmage, required you to be adjacent + some punishment if the enemy attacked an ally. Swordmage a bit like PF2 Champion with ranged damage reduction, which doesn't have a Taunt either.
To be clear. I wasn't suggesting removing Taunt. So you could still bang on your shield to attract attention you can take that feat (subclass?). But I don't see it's a core option.
I think the concept of a huge armored pc doing something physically imposing can be distracting, its just odd to have it be a ranged thing so long distance taunt doesn't make much sense. Changing the name is part fo the solution but also reworking the benefits for taunt being on a target with threat techniques is key.
I mean even if taunt itself stayed a debuff like it is but the threat techniques greatly reworked and were benefits that expanded in scope as a guardian leveled to meet the needs of higher level play then its ok if taunt itself is bad because a guardian will still want it on something to get the benefit of the much improved threat techniques.But I also think the action economy of the guardian shouldnt get consumed so much by a basic taunt that only applies to one target for 1 round. If it is a longer duration effect then the guardian can apply it each round but to different targets and keep the reworked threat techniques going on multiple targets.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the solution is quite obvious. Guardians need subclasses in order to satisfy a myriad of concepts of "Defenders" the class should be delivering but isn't in its current state.
Thus, it stands to reason that if Taunt must remain as a mechanic, instead of fiddling with the balance of an incredibly difficult mechanic to make it satisfying and not strain verisimilitude, the mechanic should be designed as a choice. A choice that relies on a bit of magic to work, this way, the mechanic design isn't constrained by "realism" and also sidesteps all the issues presented here in terms of GM adjudication of the ability.
If it's a mental effect that compels the target, then it opens space for concise rules and justifies any kind of buffs/debuffs that it might have.
Thus, we can get each subclass covering a style of defender with a main ability that supports it.
The Meat Shield gets the magical/supernatural Taunt plus mitigation. The Wall gets the balanced Hampering Sweeps. The "Nuisance" gets an ability that applies Stun or other similar hard CC along with Athletics focus. The Juggernaut gets to be big and imposing (Granting cover, being treated as larger sizes) and with the ability to plow through enemies. The Bodyguard gets supercharged perception (good against stealth, deception, etc), battle-readiness and Defensive Swap. The Martyr, sacrifices HP for their allies but gets stronger below HP thresholds (or if they lost HP in the round).
All of the above sound really good to me. Aside from the Meat Shield, I would play every single Tank/Defender above.
I'm just not sure there's a way to make taunt work that's satisfying for both GMs and players.
To be somewhat fair to Taunt.
Sanctuary is a level 1 spell that can make mindless creatures (not) attack someone. So following the same line...
Taunt, 2 action
Targets 1 creature
If the target attempts to make a hostile action that doesn't include you must attempt a Will save each time. If an ally uses a hostile action the target the Taunt ends. If you use this feature again, the Taunt ends. Once the Taunt ends, the target is immune for 10 minutes.
Critical Success Taunt ends.
Success The creature can attempt its action and any other action this turn.
Failure The creature can't attack the target and wastes the action. It can't attempt further attacks against the target this turn.
Critical Failure The creature wastes the action and can't attempt to attack the target for the rest of Taunts duration.
Still don't want it as a core ability. But something like that would work.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't suggesting removing Taunt.
I am.
I really hate it as the primary mechanism for a Guardian/bodyguard character from a roleplaying point of view.
I'd be happy for some form of Taunt to be in the game just not on this class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't suggesting removing Taunt.I am.
I really hate it as the primary mechanism for a Guardian/bodyguard character from a roleplaying point of view.
I'd be happy for some form of Taunt to be in the game just not on this class.
Yeah, I could see Taunt being tied to some kind of archetype that's available to everybody. Like Swashbucklers seem like an appropriate alternative class to have access to it.
Really though. If its a thing your tagging on enemies for a duration longer than 1 round and while its up getting good benefits from reworked threat techniques that improve in scope as you level to stay relevant to higher level challenges taunt will become a worthwhile ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The mechanics are a separate issue. That needs work as well.
Gortle I thought your attempt to flip the ability on its head wasnt a bad approach. The name taunt also needs to be renamed but I do like the name threat technique for the real base of what makes the class a guardian.
Taunt could be renamed imposing stance. Allies in the area are harder to hit. The guardian being easier to hit is weird so leave that out. they already dont get expert armor at at level 1 but are expected to operate as if canceling out the +2 from trained early on.
Then intercept strike could work in the area the stance sets rather than just adjacent. Expand later to either intercept strike or intercept foe.
Chassis upgrade to intercept elements.
Threat techniques change up weather the guardian focuses on punishing enemies that act as they please in thier stance effect or locking down enemies that enter their stance effect. Gotta have at least three paths and include an equivalent to order explorer to allow for mixing two paths.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the solution is quite obvious. Guardians need subclasses in order to satisfy a myriad of concepts of "Defenders" the class should be delivering but isn't in its current state.
...
The Meat Shield gets the magical/supernatural Taunt plus mitigation. The Wall gets the balanced Hampering Sweeps. The "Nuisance" gets an ability that applies Stun or other similar hard CC along with Athletics focus. The Juggernaut gets to be big and imposing (Granting cover, being treated as larger sizes) and with the ability to plow through enemies. The Bodyguard gets supercharged perception (good against stealth, deception, etc), battle-readiness and Defensive Swap. The Martyr, sacrifices HP for their allies but gets stronger below HP thresholds (or if they lost HP in the round).
+1
I think this suggestion really blows the creative space open wide.
I wasn't suggesting removing Taunt.I am.
I really hate it as the primary mechanism for a Guardian/bodyguard character from a roleplaying point of view.
I'd be happy for some form of Taunt to be in the game just not on this class.
Right.
Remove it as a core feature, put it somewhere else.Personal I'm leaning towards archetype, as Swashbuckler, Rogue, Fighter, and Bard all seem like they should be able to Taunt as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the solution is quite obvious. Guardians need subclasses in order to satisfy a myriad of concepts of "Defenders" the class should be delivering but isn't in its current state.
...
The Meat Shield gets the magical/supernatural Taunt plus mitigation. The Wall gets the balanced Hampering Sweeps. The "Nuisance" gets an ability that applies Stun or other similar hard CC along with Athletics focus. The Juggernaut gets to be big and imposing (Granting cover, being treated as larger sizes) and with the ability to plow through enemies. The Bodyguard gets supercharged perception (good against stealth, deception, etc), battle-readiness and Defensive Swap. The Martyr, sacrifices HP for their allies but gets stronger below HP thresholds (or if they lost HP in the round).
+1
I think this suggestion really blows the creative space open wide.
Well maybe that is the point of the playtest after all. To try the option that the designers are less sure about.
This is kinda just an already resolved problem, like with demoralize "shouldn't I just be able to decide my character isn't afraid? Because they're very rational and determined?"Demoralize doesn't affect the GM decisions. It's simply an afraid debuff. Yet may be a bit overforced to convince that the Bard makes the dragon has afraid of it yet doesn't affect the dragons decisions at all.
But taunt is different it tries to affect the GM choices by trying to lure with some numbers or to contextually try to convince him that due the target was Taunt the monster the most correct decision is to fall to the taunt and attack the guardian player. This also fall into the how GM will deal with the Taunt creating an unexpecting experience for each table. If the GM doesn't like to fall into Taunt it will become just an OP debuff unrelated to the main intention to call the aggro of the creature. If the GM want to follow the taunt it may end turning the creature like a MMORPG mob that ignores all his base construction and motivations to follow dumbly the creature that has Taunt it.
I think the debuff makes sense in the context of applying emotional pressure, you're rousing the creature's instincts so that it sees you as a bigger threat than you are. It can choose to ignore you in terms of not attacking you, but it can't choose to forget the way you're menacing it-- its always glancing at you out of the corner of it's eye to keep a handle on where you are and what you're doing.
We’re also closely examining the numbers of the guardian’s Taunt ability, with the hopes of creating something that will really sing.
That does not sound like they're going to make it optional. It implies that enough people are fine with it in the surveys so far that it's not going anywhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Taunt not being a subclass choice or a choice for multiple classes is just a bad play.
There are so many different thematic and mechanical flavors of a Guardian that it is begging for a subclass. I agree with Lightning Raven on everything except making Taunt magical, because currently it doesn’t do anything that couldn’t be described as non-magic. It doesn’t force the enemy to do anything.
But it does suck to use.
Also the points of Barbarian, Bard, Fighter, Swashbuckler, Rogue all seem like classes that would want to use it. Especially Swashbuckler who has it’s own (mechanically and thematically superior) version of Taunt in Antagonize.
My angle about making Taunt magical is not to remain as it is or similar. But simply unlock the possibilities for the feature to compel enemies if necessary. So instead of fiddling around with bonuses that reliant on metagaming and finding a sweet spot for that, we just get something that is mandatory out of the enemy by magically compelling them to do so.
There really is no reason whatsoever that the Guardian, or the Commander, to be a class without any hint of magic. Golarion is a high fantasy world and magic is a part of warfare, it stands to reason that there are pure practitioners (Wizards and spellcasters in general), hybrids (Magus and similar) and dabbles (just a few magic limited tools).