| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is a name-test for the playtest. Are the names working or misleading? Etc.
And then perhaps to suggest alternatives that suit better.
Add and comment as desired of course (on names, not mechanics). :-)
COMMANDER: Few notes here.
-Tactics: In general, I hope Paizo's using the names of historical tactics (as at least some are). That would tickle me to no end.
-"Strike Hard!"...doesn't actually make someone strike any harder than normal.
Perhaps "Strike now!" or "Well-timed Strike".
---
GUARDIAN: Quite a bit more.
"Guardian" itself: This has misled me (and others I've read in the forums) into thinking in terms of bodyguards or security personnel which involves a spectrum of abilities, i.e. situational awareness and escorting, that the class foregoes for the sake of armor-stuff making it the armor guy who trades upon/discards their AC defense for the sake of others. So yeah, they are guardian, it's just "Guardian" embodies so much more w/o even implying heavy armor (imagery that deeply influences/embodies this class).
Unfortunately "Martyr" carries too much spirituality and "Bulwark" is kinda taken, but maybe "Defender" (if not too reminiscent of Dwarven Defenders?) or even "Knight". It gets kinda hard to keep the name as neutral like other class names.
---
"Intercept Strike": This bugs me since it doesn't intercept only Strikes nor does it intercept all Strikes. With Strike being a mechanical term that is not even referenced in the ability, most any other word for an attack would work.
"Intercept Blow", "Guard Ally" (being a Guardian and all), though I reckon there are plenty more options.
---
"Taunt": No taunting required to Taunt, plus ill-fitting for many fantasy-guardian concepts. Plus it's improved by muscle-power?
"Aggravate"? Not my favorite, but "drawing aggro" is a known RPG term.
"Engage"/"Engage Enemy", which is what the Guardian's doing, right? I like that it doesn't imply using one's charisma, but rather prowess.
"Draw Attention", lacks oomph, but so does taunt.
---
"Threat Technique", half of which is "Mitigate Harm" which is no kind of threat!
Maybe "Engagement Technique" (especially if Engage used!)
---
"Shoulder Check", does not reference shoulders!
This could be fixed simply by saying one's fist/gauntlet/spiked gauntlet represents or augments the attack with the shoulder.
---
"Flying Tackle", I was so excited to see the inclusion of flying tackles in PF2! Envision a flying tackle, then envision whatever this feat does, and I'd think those images would seldom match.
"Toss Down", "Leaping Toss", or maybe language re: bringing down an aerial enemy/pilot?
(And yes, I still want an actual flying tackle too!)
---
"Intercept Foe", It isn't so much wrong as it is that this is "Intercept Strike"! It's triggered by a Strike (any one, and nothing else) and the Guardian goes and tries to intercept it.
So yeah, "Intercept Strike".
---
"Perfect Protection", works less than half the time. Maybe another superlative would work, as it's at the pinnacle of protection as available, but it's not even reliable protection!
No ideas, maybe someone else can think of something.
---
Thanks for reading, y'all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guardian to me called out to themes like guardians of the (insert whatever place or relic or city ir whatever here)
The bodyguard idea never crossed my mind until I saw the level 1 feat that takes the guardian in that direction explicitly.
It was odd to me for anyone in a fantasy setting to think of the guardian as a sunglasses suit wearing dex character.
So for me at least the name invoked the imagery they seemed to be going for,
Guardian to me called out to themes like guardians of the (insert whatever place or relic or city ir whatever here)
The bodyguard idea never crossed my mind until I saw the level 1 feat that takes the guardian in that direction explicitly.
It was odd to me for anyone in a fantasy setting to think of the guardian as a sunglasses suit wearing dex character.
So for me at least the name invoked the imagery they seemed to be going for,
In the Rules Lawyer’s Playtest, one of the players specifically called for a “secret service style, no armor Dex based Guardian”. I commented on it here so you can find the link and timestamp.
I remember that from watching their video. The whole Idea though a fine concept on its own is completely counter to the class. They spell out the class theme in many of the descriptions, the last of its feats saying how this class is known more for their armor than the person inside.
Its like saying you want to be able to make a fighter that just uses spells instead of weapons (you can do it but they the chassis is not supportive of it.) Fighters are as much the weapon class as much as guardians are the armor class.
I do agree the Guardian should be more perceptive to watch out for threats. probably not get to legendary but they should start at expert.
i thought there was some merit to avoiding a d12 and going with more damage resistance, IMO at least make the guardians armor spec less conditional damage resistance than the normal version.
My naming issue is with the Commander, since they don't issue commands, but use tactics, and having a character with a class name that suggests others have to listen to them feels like it invites arguments into play. Hence why I suggested the Tactician name instead of Commander.
I think, in a fantasy roleplaying game, having the Guardian class be an obviously heavy armored class that probably should also assume using a shield would make perfect sense, and that any attempt to build against that probably should result in a more challenging character to play.
My naming issue is with the Commander, since they don't issue commands, but use tactics, and having a character with a class name that suggests others have to listen to them feels like it invites arguments into play. Hence why I suggested the Tactician name instead of Commander.
I think, in a fantasy roleplaying game, having the Guardian class be an obviously heavy armored class that probably should also assume using a shield would make perfect sense, and that any attempt to build against that probably should result in a more challenging character to play.
I like the Tactician better too.
|
I don't know about "Strike Hard!" being weird, I've seen and experienced firsthand situations where I or someone else I work with or know was actually and earnestly trying their very hardest to do a thing and struggling mightily but once some direct, assertive, or kind encouragement/guidance was offered by a trusted peer/loved one the task actually seemed to become way easier.
You might say that someone would always do their best even without being told/encouraged acting alone but in reality, the difference that even simple encouragement or leadership can make can be astounding.
Yeah I also think Commander is the name that's potentially much more problematic.
'Commander' sounds like the class is all about taking total control of the group and giving orders to underlings, when the actual class functions more like a 'Strategist' or 'Tactician' who is part of a team and offers advice and options.
Another thing that struck me about the Commander after my OP is how Commanders typically lead armies, while in play it's more squad level where Tactician would work better (and the thesaurus isn't offering much else!). I'd save Strategist for either larger or more long term planning, something more useful for an archetype in an army-level campaign (with its own mini-game re: units, morale, etc. much like Skull & Shackles had for fleet combat).
I don't know about "Strike Hard!" being weird, I've seen and experienced firsthand situations where I or someone else I work with or know was actually and earnestly trying their very hardest to do a thing and struggling mightily but once some direct, assertive, or kind encouragement/guidance was offered by a trusted peer/loved one the task actually seemed to become way easier.
You might say that someone would always do their best even without being told/encouraged acting alone but in reality, the difference that even simple encouragement or leadership can make can be astounding.
That sounds like more a comment on what the ability does, which I have zero problem with as both IRL and in game that sort of leadership boost makes sense. It's more that the name suggests an especially ferocious Strike when it's just a run-of-the-mill Strike, albeit extra. I'd expect "Strike Hard!" to be more along the lines of giving a +Int bonus to damage on a person's next Strike. (And I think being able to combo the two in a three-action Tactic would be swell.)