| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yesterday I finished a Level 1 to 3 playtest with my small TT group. The party is a Commander, a Guardian, and a fire/metal kineticist. The adventure was a converted 4E adventure from Goodman Games, and had the group on some tropical islands, limiting the Guardian to medium armor as there was no place on the islands to upgrade to heavy at levels 2 and 3.
The party faced hostile human tribesmen, humanoid pirates, some jungle animals, a fairly unique undead as well as various hazards.
On the Commander side, the goal was to test a number of tactics. We didn't test them all, but here is what we thought of the ones that we did.
Defensive Retreat: This was rarely used. Mostly because of the group size, and not because of any lack in the tactic itself. They just rarely wanted to back away from foes given that there were only three party members. This was swapped out for Strike Hard for the final part of the adventure.
Form Up: This was only used 2 or 3 times, but every time it was used it was a massive mobility benefit. Letting everyone take a Stride in the Commanders turn (while giving the free reaction for that to the Guardian) helped the party close the distance when encounters started at range. It was not an every-fight move, but when it was used it had an oversized impact on the encounter.
End It: This was very hard to use given the size of the group. However, every single time it was used, it had a significant impact on the fight. In a large group (like my 6-person PbP team), this could be used early in many fights to disrupt enemy activity. If I was playing a commander in a normal-sized group, this would be the first tactic that I took. I was very impressed with it, even given the trigger and small group size.
Pincer Movement: This was the MVP power. It was used often and benefited the Kinetcist most of all. Allowing 2 action Elemental Blasts at melee range, especially, to land more often and shine. I think this is group-dependent, and it may fall off at higher levels as some people have said, but at low level, with a melee-heavy group, it is a very solid power.
Strike Hard: This was used in the last part of the adventure. It is a solid power, but the two action cost (which is balanced and should not be changed) limits what else that a Commander can do. I don't mean this in just a 'rotation; way, but in what might feel fun for a player. It also was not as impactful for us as it would be in other groups with a stronger melee striker.
I am concerned that a Commander player might be pressured into taking the power and spend most of a game session being a Strike dispenser for other players. I would not mind a rider on this power along the lines of: After this tactic has been used on a person, they are temp immune for 1d4 (or maybe even 1d6) rounds.
Overall, I think Commander is in a very good place. I'd like to see them start with three prepared tactics, and then get an additional one each time they currently do.
Guardian.
The Guardian felt, at least at low-level, like a capable martial character. The player focused on testing Taunt as that is an ability that the player wanted in the system already and is very appealing to the player. However, the Intercept package was also tested.
Also, as stated above, the Guardian was not able to upgrade to heavy armor, so AC was two lower than might be expected at these levels. It did not seem to hinder survivability. The only time the Guardian went down was when my dice got crazy hot and we almost had a TPK.
On the GM side, I still feel that Taunt needs work. I love the idea of a Taunt power, but I think the current implementation is somewhat lacking. My first concern is that, like RK, it is going to be very GM dependent. Unlike RK, except on Thamuaturge, it is a core element of a class. If the GM does not allow it to shine (ie it's not optimal to attack the Guardian), it will lead to a very negative play experience for the Guardian.
I do not think it should be a hard Taunt at level 1, but I do think there should be feats that both reduce or eliminate the penalty against the Guardian and make it more of a hard Taunt. I do know what some players would be against a hard Taunt, but is a 'you must attack the Guardian' at mid to high level any worse than the myriad of CC effects that force monster actions, especially given that Taunt, like CC effects, has a save.
My biggest thought on Guardian is that it lacks an identity. What is its core function? I would like to see it lean into mitigation via damage resistance. It has some of that, but it needs to be more emphasized, IMO. When you have a sidebar that says 'Hey, this class feature does not stack with this other level one class feature', that should be a warning sign that something is off.
I'm still pondering what I'd like to see in that regard, but I think it needs to be ramped up. I do think Guardian has a lot of potential, but it doesn't seem as polished, at this point, as Commander does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you have a sidebar that says 'Hey, this class feature does not stack with this other level one class feature', that should be a warning sign that something is off.
This is a good insight. If they have to warn us class features don't work together then they need to go back to the drawing board and design abilities for the class that do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
* @Easl - do you mean that to attack anyone other than the Guardian, the successfully Taunted foe must spend an extra action to do so? I like that idea.
* @LiaWynn - totally agree with the “Resistance Reminder” sidebar comment. The moment I comprehended what it was ”reminding” me of, I had a negative reaction. Further reading of the class, and now playtesting it (admittedly not very far) makes me feel like it is completely unnecessary. Unless the Guardian gets more HP or more out of the armor they *are* wearing it feels bad and Intercept Strike could look at having a different, “stacking” effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So far, at my low-level playtest, I haven’t really felt that Taunt makes a lot of difference, and definitely don’t see Threat Techniques doing anything much at all. Ferocious Vengeance only works if they *didn’t* attack me, when they are incentivised *to* attack me, and I wouldn’t choose Mitigate Harm if you paid me.
I'm still musing over my thoughts on the GM side, and will make some suggestions in the both class suggestion thread after the weekend, once I've had more time to mull everything over and read the notes I was making during the sessions.
However, Taunt can make a lot of difference, depending on how it's played. It gives the same debuff as Fear if they do not come after the Guardian, and it can lead into interesting RP. But, as I said above, I think it's one of those very GM dependent abilities, and, YMMV.
I'm not saying it's perfect by any means, mind you. I think it needs more work, but I don't think it is a terrible ability.
Just adding this here as the low level playtest thread. Threat techniques as usual never came up in the fight.
Extreme encounter
Room 1
3 Goblin Warriors lvl -1
1 Goblin Warchanter lvl 1
Room 2
1 Goblin Warrior lvl -1 (warns room 3 when fighting starts)
Room 3
2 Goblin Pyro lvl 1 -most dangerous in fight to guardians
1 Goblin Warrior lvl -1
I ran a lvl 1 party with 3 guardians and a commander.
G1 - Warhamer and shield -Ending with Dying 2 0hp
Unkind Shove -Not used once
G2 - Greatsword -Ending with 13 HP
Shoulder check -Not used once
G3 - Trident and shield -Ending with 7HP
Long Distance Taunt -Not used once
C1 - Shortbow -Ending with full HP
Plant Banner -Crucial temp 14HP taken
Form up -6 total extra strides
Pincer attack -4 off guards and 6 steps
taunt was used a in rounds 1 and 2 while closing in. After melee broke out it was too costly to give up a chance at doing damage. At this level accuracy is just like anyone else(cept fighter) and enemy hp is low so no reason to use maneuvers.
Trident guardian didnt use taunt because they were able to get in range to throw a trident in the first round. After that no more reason to taunt.