Quick post, something i've Always thought but never have written down:
So, what's the deal with Champions? They're a tank, so if you hit em you waste time, but if you try to hit anyone else you're wasting time because they'll protect them, but what happens when the First proposition Isn't true? Prior to level Seven the champion doesn't have anything that truly makes him a tank, sturdy as for sure but It's basically a fighter and if you don't take lay on hands as a devotion spell it's literally a fighter, so, in that case the question would be, why wouldn't the enemy Just hit the champ? Sure it's not great but since the champion doesn't have great defenses It's not really a problem Isn't It? Both monks and barbari and are MUCH tankier than him at lower levels.
And that'e It, did everyone ever had a similar thought
PS: in case Sorry for any writing error and any tone error, i don't Wish to sound anything but chill in this case, been thinking about this because i May play a champion
I mean, Blessed Shield gives Champions one of the most reliable and cost-effective Shield Blocks in the game - it really stretches out the HP pool of Champion and makes it more tanky than you'd think at first glance. Doubly so if you can make a Tower Shield work - you aren't as hard-pressed as other melee martials to Strike your targets since almost all of your chassis' power is in your reaction and your Blessing at that point, so if you need to take an extra Step and skip out on Striking so you can Raise your Shield, that's completely fine. If the enemy goes for your flanking buddy you can (usually) react to them and almost nullify their damage, and if the enemy goes for you they either miss or hit an HP pool that isn't as threatening to them as, say, a Fighter's.
If you have a different Blessing, you likely aren't as focused on being as tanky as Shield Champs are, though there's plenty of argument to be made that a Swiftness Champ could potentially be tanky by virtue of removing enemy actions with their kiting movement speed.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One, the same thing can be said of pretty much every class. They all have some options that don't come online at level 1.
Two, there are two concepts that are being combined into one here. The concept of a Champion character and the concept of a Tank character. Technically Pathfinder2e only supports the character concept. The idea of a Tank is a combat role but it is not one that is exclusive to any particular class or mandatory for a particular class.
A Champion is a very good choice for a Tank style combatant. But it isn't the only choice.
And a Champion character can fill a different role in the combat than just Tank, though it is challenging to pull it off effectively .
So that merging is causing statements like these:
the champion doesn't do a good job at being a champion
Prior to level Seven the champion doesn't have anything that truly makes him a tank
The second statement is true by the game mechanics. You are right that before level 7 many other classes can get just as high of an AC as a Champion does. And even after level 7 there are one or maybe two that still can.
It is easy to argue that Champion isn't the only Tank class in the game. It is harder to argue that Champion isn't the best Tank class in the game, but it may still be possible.
But even if both of the above two statements are argued successfully and proven true, that doesn't mean that a Champion class isn't a good class to represent a character that is a champion of a cause. A Champion is still good at being a champion even if they are not the ultimate Tank in the game.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
One, the same thing can be said of pretty much every class. They all have some options that don't come online at level 1.
Eh, not exactly. Janky scaling is mostly an issue that only applies in a few places, and it's an absolute mystery why Paizo designed the game that way. It serves no benefit to anyone.
Imagine if the fighter didn't get their enhanced weapon proficiency until level 5 for no real reason.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Champion's Reaction is what makes a champion a champion.
The Champion does low damage with heavy armor and a shield usually. Other classes do more damage and you likely want to swing at them. Heavy armors starts off 1 armor class point better than everyone else. It's between that next proficiency level. Fighters and Champions start with heavy armor, barbarian doesn't. Monk gets expert unarmored, but starts with a +4 dex and no ability to wear armor.
Monk Starting AC: 19
Champion Starting AC: 19
Barb Starting AC if Dex maxed: 18
Fighter Starting AC: 19
If you build a defensive monk, then you're probably doing very well to start with. The monk makes a great champion.
Fighter may be defensive and can be good at it.
Champion starts off with good AC, modest damage, and good hit points with Champion's Reaction. That is a good enough reason to not swing at them as other classes are hitting you harder that you may want to take out first. The champion may block part of the damage with the shield further causing you to waste your time hitting them. Then once you swing at someone else, then the champion makes them pay.
Seems working fine to me. Then it just better at level 7.
|
One, the same thing can be said of pretty much every class. They all have some options that don't come online at level 1.Eh, not exactly. Janky scaling is mostly an issue that only applies in a few places, and it's an absolute mystery why Paizo designed the game that way. It serves no benefit to anyone.
Imagine if the fighter didn't get their enhanced weapon proficiency until level 5 for no real reason.
I think they intentionally put in "jumps" so that some levels feel important.
Casters when they get their first fireball like spell for example, or their advanced focus spell. Champions when they start getting really higher AC than everyone else. Giant barbarians when they actually become bigger. Rogues when Gang Up means flanking is almost always on.
But the champion starts level 1 with shield block, heavy armor, a strong champion reaction, and a focus spell. Along with feats like Defensive Advance, champions start the game really good in defense.
PF classes certainly do have some role-based design, but they are still quite loose and easily built against. Champions lean toward support and tank roles, but you still need to build into those roles instead of having them handed to you at level 1.
That said, at level 1 you get:
* Good at weapons
* All the armor and shields - tank stuff
* Cause + Aura with a bunch of options for protecting your allies - tank stuff
* Spells with a bunch of heal and defend options - tank/support stuff
* Class feats with defensive options - tank stuff
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One, the same thing can be said of pretty much every class. They all have some options that don't come online at level 1.Eh, not exactly. Janky scaling is mostly an issue that only applies in a few places, and it's an absolute mystery why Paizo designed the game that way. It serves no benefit to anyone.
Imagine if the fighter didn't get their enhanced weapon proficiency until level 5 for no real reason.
The logic here feels like it is trying to say that Champion doesn't get anything worthwhile at level 1 or that their Armor Proficiency is the most notable mechanic of the class.
Because that is what the Weapon Proficiency is for Fighter. That is the main draw of playing a Fighter over other martial classes - that +2 proficiency bonus boost. ... and maybe getting Reactive Strike at level 1, I'll mention that as well.
Champion gets plenty of things at level 1 that make them feel, and mechanically play, like a Champion. No, they don't get a +2 proficiency boost to their AC until level 7. That doesn't really equate to Fighter not getting their +2 proficiency boost to their weapons. That armor proficiency boost isn't the primary draw of the class.
Fighter is one of the few that it is difficult to point to some important class feature that they only get at level > 1. But that makes Fighter the exception to the game design standard, not the go-to example to use for comparison.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
During levels 1-6 basically every non-naked class are numerically too close both defensively because everyone except monks can have same AC (including classes with heavy armor proficiency at level 1 because they don't have money to start with a heavy armor the only exception is earth kineticists that can start with heavy armor AC due Armor in Earth) and even naked ones (like wizards and sorceres) aren't way more fragile in terms of AC because all then (except monks but even they haven't so much more AC they basically starts with same AC of a heavy armored class) are trained in AC proficiency and the HP diference is not so big in lower levels where the ancestry HP still maters.
The game was developed in a way where each class is not way more fragile than other (like happen with unarmored 1d4 HP casters in 3.x) during initial levels but they will changing to a more specialized situation as they progress.
That said I agree with Firelion. What makes a champion a champion (protect the others or theirselves) are their reactions not their AC. Having a better AC is a thing that they are becoming better over the time similarly to what happen to casters for example that starts only with a few cantrips, questionable in terms of efficiency and very low number of spellslots and prepared/in repertoire spells.
The real point behind champions is basically concentrate enemy fire in a single char. Altruist champions protects allies and punishes enemies who attack them in order to concentrate enemy fire on it. This creates tactical opportunities vs enemy and helps healers to focus their heals in a single target. Selfish champions protects theirselves punishing enemies who tries to attack them instead of their allies allowing these champions to attack/debuff safer. As long their progress their defensive power improves helping them in this mater.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quick post, something i've Always thought but never have written down:
So, what's the deal with Champions? They're a tank, so if you hit em you waste time, but if you try to hit anyone else you're wasting time because they'll protect them, but what happens when the First proposition Isn't true? Prior to level Seven the champion doesn't have anything that truly makes him a tank, sturdy as for sure but It's basically a fighter and if you don't take lay on hands as a devotion spell it's literally a fighter, so, in that case the question would be, why wouldn't the enemy Just hit the champ? Sure it's not great but since the champion doesn't have great defenses It's not really a problem Isn't It? Both monks and barbari and are MUCH tankier than him at lower levels.
And that'e It, did everyone ever had a similar thought
PS: in case Sorry for any writing error and any tone error, i don't Wish to sound anything but chill in this case, been thinking about this because i May play a champion
My experience with a shield using champion player in my game was mostly positive, likely cause they kept their shield up most of the time.
More attacks just miss, shield block is mitigating damage as well, lay on hands is erasing some of it too. So attacking his character though I wouldn't call a waste I will say it gets less damage to stick.The next character that gets up front to take heat is the barbarian. If he didnt have the champ reaction protecting him there would have been times where he would have gone down in our game especially at lower levels.
The rogue has a bow but gets into melee opportunistically and one time got crit almost killing him. Champ reaction saved him there too and gave time to get healed by the warpriest.
I would say at lower levels the champion has fewer tools to do their thing but still has key tools that make a difference.
Shield and shield block - plenty of classes can do this but it really does make a difference in staying power, got keep that shield up.
Champion's Reaction - this is kind of like a shield block you apply to allies because of the damage reduction.
lay on hands - built in one action heal for a focus point.
Blessed Swiftness! - this one gave my player extra movement which helped since they wear heavy armor but also that +2 to reactions based on movement for allies is great.
I would say the kit works. The rest of the players expect the champ to stay up and if he is getting pummeled thats when they start to worry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both monks and barbari and are MUCH tankier than him at lower levels.
How so? The barbarian has more HP, but they start without heavy armor, shield block, lay on hands, shield the spirit, or blessed shield. The champion also has lots of shield feats, including Defensive Advance. Even the evil champion has reactions which punish people for attacking it. If you build a champion that doesn't use a shield or heavy armor, or take any of those options... Well, it sounds like you weren't ever building a tank.
Monks just have equal AC, and have to max their dex to do it which means neglecting Con if they want enough strength to not hit like a wet noodle or do jumps and athletics maneuvers. The monk can stay alive longer, but usually by hit and running, not holding the line.
Also, I think you're neglecting how important the champ reaction drawing agro is for tanking. Regardless of whether the champion weathers hits better than other martials, they take hits better than rogues and casters. And unlike other martials the champion has ways to make discourage enemies from attacking the squishies. Hell, even paired with a barbarian, the champion helps keep the biggest damage dealer up for longer.v
To BigHatMarisa;
-blessed shield has been nerfed into the ground for no particular reason, now It only gives you a reinforcing rune appropriate for your level, therefore the champion Isn't really Better at using a shield than anyone until shield of reckoning comes in play at level 10.
I also highly disagree that as a champion you can forgo strokes as they're are your main tool of pressure, your defenses aren't nearly as strong to the point that they can genuinely stall an enemy, as a martial you HAVE to contribute to damage otherwise you're doing an enormous disservice to your Party by drowing out the fight.
to Firelion.
-i disagree, a champion's reaction Is a mean to an end, to tank.
It Is made to discourage enemies from targetting your High value Friends and target the low value champion and force a lose/lose situation, you can notice that there Isn't really a lose/lose situation in lower levels: if the enemy chooses to target you then since you're Just as tanky as any good frontline (less than a barbarian that has 33% more hps and a monk with Drakeheart), sure you can argue that they're losing by not targetting an High value damage dealer, but at that point you could've just played an High value character and contribute much more (champion Is an insanely good class but doesn't really get to work until midgame when they get their feats and their reaction catches up to the damage scaling).
It's "working fine" because martials are overtuned until level five, but conceptually It doesn't really work.
To captain Morgan
-the reason that barbarians are much tankier than champions at lower levels Is understood by talking about how AC doesn't have Linear scaling while hps do.
Barbarians have 35% or so more hps than Champions and that contributes a lot in lower levels, where their AC only differs by 1 point and where most attacks Two/three shot you, +1 AC Is about -10% damage taken overall, but that -10% damage taken Is only appliable if you get hit thousands and thousands of times (also, for every enemy that hits on Eleven+ that +1 Is only a -5% damage taken) and that Simply Isn't going to happen, that +1 could mean everything or nothing and it's all down to an enormous level of luck.
Barbarians? Oh yeah they can get hit One more time before they go down, it's a fixed value that's highly preferrable to a mere -10% damage taken that May or May not exist.
Monks, meanwhile, can Just cheese with drakeheart mutageni lol
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like you're ignoring everything the champion has except AC and HP. The champion isn't more durable because of any one feature; it's an aggregate of a bunch of different things I listed. The fact that you're then using a monk with a consumable item that isn't native to their class is kinda wild. I mean, even just one champ things things, Lay on Hands, potentially gives the champion 3 more HP per level for every action used on it. One casting more than makes up for the difference in a barbarian's base HP, and it will out scale the temp HP too at certain levels, and all levels with two castings.
Even better, it is 3 HP Per level the champion can reallocate to an ally who needs the HP more. A barbarian's HP pool is great if the enemy targets the barbarian, but it does nothing if another party member gets focus fired. The champion can not only restore health to that ally but then draw focus onto themselves, which splits up the enemies damage in later rounds and decreases the odds of any one character going down.
And while lots of things the champ has can be obtained through spending feats, that's an opportunity cost the champion doesn't have to pay. If the monk is taking the alchemist archetype for drakehearts, the champion can take the barbarian resiliency for extra HP.
Shield being ignored is also wild when the champion has two ways to hack the action economy on Raise a Shield at level 1.
Also, while baseline champion damage is low, let's not forget that their strikes trigger weakness against the second most common category of enemies in the game.
To Captain Morgan (i feel cool, it'e like a debate on a journal or something, i get to put a title).
-i am ignoring everything the champion has because i am looking at lower levels and that's kinda the whole thing we're talking about y'know? Shieldblock Isn't that great because your shield breaks easily and it's your only line of defense, lay on hands Is also pretty risky as It usually triggers reaction, while i agree It's godly i also don't think that It's worth as much as the barbarians hps out of being tied to a punishable action. While yes i'd Absolutely agree than you can have two focus points and in that case It Is a very strong, basically a top spellslot self heal every fight.
I'd Say that the biggest problem i've seen Is that champions practically lack strong level 2/4 feats as oaths are situational and mercy Isn't all of that.
Also, i'm not ignoring shields, but everyone can use One equally as well until level 8, and now that blessed shield has been Uber nerfed Champions aren't really THE shield masters anymore
TheNobleDrake.
I disagree that only disincentivizing enemies from attacking your allies makes a tank, cause otherwise you could take a glass cannon and enemies would be naturally drawn to attacking them. A tank not only has to attract blows, but also resist them
|
I think the Champion can hold its own on lower levels as well, and don't follow the "low value" proposition at all.
Especially the new Defensive Advance makes it quite efficient to play a classic redeemer with a shield.
The +2 AC makes quite a difference, and shield block is about 25% of total hp at first level, every turn.
The damage reduction quickly stacks up as well, and enfeebled 2 on a boss is something that makes casters envious for quite some time.
With Lay on Hands being a really strong focus spell, and deities domain giving you a second focus point and other options (ranged spell attack, or athletic rush or...) the package is quite good.
Of course sword+board is not the only viable playstyle.
Its a bit sad that the "evil" edicts are mostly bad, but that's kind of another discussion.
I think the Champion can hold its own on lower levels as well, and don't follow the "low value" proposition at all.
Especially the new Defensive Advance makes it quite efficient to play a classic redeemer with a shield.The +2 AC makes quite a difference, and shield block is about 25% of total hp at first level, every turn.
The damage reduction quickly stacks up as well, and enfeebled 2 on a boss is something that makes casters envious for quite some time.With Lay on Hands being a really strong focus spell, and deities domain giving you a second focus point and other options (ranged spell attack, or athletic rush or...) the package is quite good.
Of course sword+board is not the only viable playstyle.
Its a bit sad that the "evil" edicts are mostly bad, but that's kind of another discussion.
Imo the sword and board has been nerfed when they Uber nerfed the shield divine blessing/ally
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really disagree that blessed shield is a nerf. I think it's a buff, because it frees up a lot of capital to spend on other items.
Instead of wringing your hands at level 4 wondering how you're gonna afford both that sturdy shield and a striking weapon, you get the sturdy effect for free at level 3. Later on, you can spend the extra gold you're not spending upgrading the shield to buy energy resistance items.
I also don't agree shields break quickly. You can choose if you wanna use shield block, so you use it to mostly block the smaller hits, so that you can take a lot of them. You shave some damage off every round.
Even with the level 1 steel shield, suppose you're fighting a level 3 creature with moderate damage (average 10), you can block at least two times, maybe even three if some of the hits are slightly below average. Three rounds is a fair amount in a combat, and if you use that to prevent 15 damage to yourself then that's a lot more than the barbarian's HP/temp HP. And because your AC is 2-3 higher due to heavy armor and raised shield, you'll also be hit less.
If you think Lay on Hands is often punished by reactive strike, then maybe you're dealing with an unusual selection of enemies. while it's not completely rare, most creatures don't have it. And it should be pretty easy to guess "is this the kind of enemy that could have it?" (Red flags: looks like a professional soldier, wields a polearm, or has a really long leg/tail/tentacle.)
I've played a champion from level 1 to 8 recently and never felt an issue with the class whatsoever. We got into some really nasty fights and in a few of those I had absolute certainty we would win, because I could mitigate so much damage and dish out quite a lot in return.
Unfortunately, I ended up losing my character after my group faced a PL+1 enemy with the elite template (making it have the raw stats of a 11th level dragon) and our group was rolling badly, while our GM was rolling high (25 critical successes during the session, among strikes, saving throws and skill checks). But, even then, my character was the only one killed and mainly because it landed a critical hit when I was wounded 2.
To BigHatMarisa;
-blessed shield has been nerfed into the ground for no particular reason, now It only gives you a reinforcing rune appropriate for your level, therefore the champion Isn't really Better at using a shield than anyone until shield of reckoning comes in play at level 10.
I also highly disagree that as a champion you can forgo strokes as they're are your main tool of pressure, your defenses aren't nearly as strong to the point that they can genuinely stall an enemy, as a martial you HAVE to contribute to damage otherwise you're doing an enormous disservice to your Party by drowing out the fight.to Firelion.
-i disagree, a champion's reaction Is a mean to an end, to tank.
It Is made to discourage enemies from targetting your High value Friends and target the low value champion and force a lose/lose situation, you can notice that there Isn't really a lose/lose situation in lower levels: if the enemy chooses to target you then since you're Just as tanky as any good frontline (less than a barbarian that has 33% more hps and a monk with Drakeheart), sure you can argue that they're losing by not targetting an High value damage dealer, but at that point you could've just played an High value character and contribute much more (champion Is an insanely good class but doesn't really get to work until midgame when they get their feats and their reaction catches up to the damage scaling).
It's "working fine" because martials are overtuned until level five, but conceptually It doesn't really work.To captain Morgan
-the reason that barbarians are much tankier than champions at lower levels Is understood by talking about how AC doesn't have Linear scaling while hps do.
Barbarians have 35% or so more hps than Champions and that contributes a lot in lower levels, where their AC only differs by 1 point and where most attacks Two/three shot you, +1 AC Is about -10% damage taken overall, but that -10% damage taken Is only appliable if you get hit thousands and thousands of times (also, for every...
I am not sure why you think this. I have run multiple champions to 16 plus and one to 20. They are always one of the toughest classes from 1 to 20 and Champion's Reaction causes choices to be made from level 1 on.
They are a low to moderate threat martial that if you don't attack them, they make you pay for not doing it.
What part of that equation isn't working for you? What are the other martials and casters in your group doing while the champion is getting beat down?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Disincentive to attack anyone else is all it takes to be an effective tank.
My familiarity with the Tank role is from 12-person trials in Elder Scrolls Online. I play very few trials, but when I do I take the Healer role and support the Tank. My wife often plays Tank characters. The Tank role is to keep the big boss's attention on the Tank and away from other player characters, especially the low-defense DPS characters. The Tank needs good defenses, lots of health and stamina, a taunt ability, and strong battlefield awareness. Typically, the Tank does not have enough health and stamina to manage alone, so one of the Healer's jobs is to constantly restore those with their magic.
Pathfinder 2nd Edition has no full tanks because it lacks a taunt mechanic. Pathfinder enemies are not as easily manipulated as computer-game enemies. Instead, Pathfinder characters can merely disincentivize the enemy from attacking anyone else, and champions are good at that with their champion's reaction.
The champions matches the fighter in its defenses: heavy armor, shield block, and 10+CON hit points per level. The champion could also get Lay on Hands. Why should a champion have better defenses than a fighter? The only reason mentioned is to fill the Tank role, which is a role from OTHER games. In Pathfinder the champion is a defender rather than a tank.
If the enemies deduce the champion's class (How? Prominent holy symbol? Or after the champion proved their worth with an effective reaction?) and targets the champion instead of allies, then the enemy is still attacking a character with maximum defense instead of a squishy ally. Pathfinder is a game of tight math in which the characters and creatures fall within the bounds of their level. Defenses equal to the fighter's defenses is all the class needs to be the defender. Outstanding defenses above the maximum for other classes would come at a heavy class-balancing cost of reducing their effectiveness in defending allies or in hurting enemies.
I have had two champions in my Pathfinder 2nd Edition campaigns, the goblin Tikti in Pr2-converted Ironfang Invasion and the dromaar (half-orc) Wilfred in Strength of Thousands. Both wore the most effective armor for their Dexterity, which in Tikti's case was light armor for her Dex +4, and used a sturdy shield. Their defenses were not perfect, but they lasted through the battles and they could heal up between encounters.
The term used by OP that I think is a miss in terms of table top expectations was “wasted”.
That a tank in this game can waste creatures actions.
A defending character actually just mitigates rather than wastes a creatures actions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the main problem is that the OP thinks of 'Tanks' in mmo turns and not in tabletop terms
being able to get hit by all the enemies in an encounter standing upright, mitigating damage and forcing them to 'waste' their action on the character while the healer pumps lifepoints into them
I think the main problem is that the OP thinks of 'Tanks' in mmo turns and not in tabletop terms
being able to get hit by all the enemies in an encounter standing upright, mitigating damage and forcing them to 'waste' their action on the character while the healer pumps lifepoints into them
I'd disagree that there Is any fundamental difference in concept inbetween a mmo tank and a ttrpg tank.
A tank has to do Two things:
-take aggro
-being able to resist damage After taking up aggro.
How would you define a tank otherwise? Cause every glass cannon can take aggro quite easily
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the main problem is that the OP thinks of 'Tanks' in mmo turns and not in tabletop terms
being able to get hit by all the enemies in an encounter standing upright, mitigating damage and forcing them to 'waste' their action on the character while the healer pumps lifepoints into them
I'd disagree that there Is any fundamental difference in concept inbetween a mmo tank and a ttrpg tank.
A tank has to do Two things:
-take aggro
-being able to resist damage After taking up aggro.How would you define a tank otherwise? Cause every glass cannon can take aggro quite easily
Active Defense, like the assorted champion reactions that give resistance to a struck ally or the amped shield for Tangible Dream Psychic, or penalties like taunt on guardian which might be used for the penalty, rather than to get them to hit you, or even intercept which can be more useful than actually getting hit.
A Tank doesn't actually have to take aggro, a tank has to reduce the incoming damage.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I played a Barbarian in PF2 and the healer indeed had to pump HPs in my character to keep him and his awesome damage from going down.
I also played a Champion and I did not need that much healing, to the point of being almost self-sufficient. While dealing damage to my opponents and protecting my allies from it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I played a Barbarian in PF2 and the healer indeed had to pump HPs in my character to keep him and his awesome damage from going down.
I also played a Champion and I did not need that much healing, to the point of being almost self-sufficient. While dealing damage to my opponents and protecting my allies from it.
This has been what Ive seen with my group too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd disagree that there Is any fundamental difference in concept inbetween a mmo tank and a ttrpg tank.A tank has to do Two things:
-take aggro
-being able to resist damage After taking up aggro.How would you define a tank otherwise? Cause every glass cannon can take aggro quite easily
An MMO tank takes aggro because you're fighting AI enemies that follow programming about who to attack, that doesn't work in a TTRPG so they're inherently very different. Any GM might run creatures very differently to another GM in how they react to seeing a heavily armored Champion, a Barb lugging around a sword twice their size, and a Wizard throwing fireballs at them.
So the Champion went the most likely route to being a "tank" for a TTRPG, and can actively mitigate and prevent damage for the party, potentially drawing attention to themselves who can endure the hits but aren't necessarily taking them all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree but the OP point is that a fighter/barbarian with a shield can mimic the champion AC and Shield Block (barbarian needs to also use a general feat for this) between the levels 1-6 where their AC and HP are basically equals or better.
Technically with exception of Lay on Hands to self-heal low level fighters are so tanky as champions.
That's why I defend that what really makes a champion a tank like character is their Reactions as well said by thenobledrake disincentive enemies to attack others something vary natural when someone is facing an enemy with a board that usually is less dangerous than that one that's holding a two-handed weapon or casting magic or dealing extra damage.
Champions are that chars that pass the message "I know that you prefer to focus in others that is doing more damage than me and are more easier to damage but if you don't focus on me I will make then harder to damage (due their reaction resistance) and will harm you (due the reaction attack/debuffing)".
So what's really makes a harder to kill character in PF2e is the shield + Shield Block reaction but what "calls the aggro" is the champions' reaction. So a low-level fighter usually cannot act as a full tank role because specially intelligent enemies will prefer to focus in to the most dangerous enemies that are easier to kill.
A two-handed fighter could qualify into dangerous enemy but that wizard is also too dangerous and look like easier to kill or that cleric that heals are more annoying in to your objective to win the encounter. But when we have a champion in the fray this char that is protecting the others and punishing you every time that you try to damage any other enemy are way more annoying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do personally feel like the design of "class that has high AC, but has a really good reaction that requires them to not be targeted" is a bit scuffed and has antisynergy.
That being said, the class features are strong enough on their individual merits that it doesn't really matter if there's antisynergy. It's just a good class.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do personally feel like the design of "class that has high AC, but has a really good reaction that requires them to not be targeted" is a bit scuffed and has antisynergy.
That being said, the class features are strong enough on their individual merits that it doesn't really matter if there's antisynergy. It's just a good class.
I've always understood it as the high AC means the champion won't be targeted, so it needs something to punish that and say "Hey! Look at me, not them", and that's where the synergy comes on. You either try and hit the harder target, or go for the squishy and trigger the reaction.
I've always understood it as the high AC means the champion won't be targeted, so it needs something to punish that and say "Hey! Look at me, not them", and that's where the synergy comes on. You either try and hit the harder target, or go for the squishy and trigger the reaction.I do personally feel like the design of "class that has high AC, but has a really good reaction that requires them to not be targeted" is a bit scuffed and has antisynergy.
That being said, the class features are strong enough on their individual merits that it doesn't really matter if there's antisynergy. It's just a good class.
At bottom, high AC is only a benefit if you're being targeted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder 2nd Edition has no full tanks because it lacks a taunt mechanic.This, to me, is backwards conclusion.
There is no "taunt mechanic" because there's no actual need of one - at least not when the GM is a cooperative element in the game play experience rather than behaving as an antagonist or the equivalent of an AI script that is set to be the most brutally efficiency PC-killing machine and must be hard-blocked from making the choices that would otherwise be made.
Video games use aggro mechanics and taunts as a fill-in for what a GM is capable of doing naturally in terms of having enemies attack whoever it actually makes sense to be attacking because without a programmed order of priority and the mechanics that interact with it there would be no other options besides random determination, whoever attacked first, or whoever attacked most recently.
None of that is necessary when a GM is in the mix.
My sentence after the one thenobledrake quoted was, "Pathfinder enemies are not as easily manipulated as computer-game enemies." But let's talk about GM making enemies focus on particular PCs. I agree more with Karys who said.
Any GM might run creatures very differently to another GM in how they react to seeing a heavily armored Champion, a Barb lugging around a sword twice their size, and a Wizard throwing fireballs at them.
An enemy capable of making tactical assessment (this excludes most animals and oozes) will typically go for the high-damage low-defense opponents, such as a blaster wizard. Especially tactical enemies would also go for support roles, such as healer, defender (including the champion), or battlefield controller. But tactics really depend on the enemy's personality.
I roleplay my enemies to tell a story. Are they mindless oozes? Are they zany chaotic goblins? Are they disciplined soldiers? Is an evil mastermind in the back sacrificing his minions to tire out the party? Is a dedicated enemy leader in the back leading his minions in effective tactics that will help them survive? Whatever they are, they should act like it.
I searched my old posts for my chronicle of a battle between the champion Tikti and the final boss Scarvinious in Trail of the Hunted, and I found an entire September 2020 thread about enemies acting out of character in combat: Do your wizards get attacks? My comment #64 began with quotes from Lemeres and thenobledrake.
I had that kind of GM. In the one campaign we played that lasted about 5-6 months, I ended up having 7 different characters, every last one of which died. And every death followed the same basic structure: Encounter starts, party is doing their thing (tanks tanking, strikers in position to do damage, etc.), my character does anything and I don't roll terribly to mess it up, then every monster in the encounter is doing one of two things: 1) making sure no one can come help my character, or 2) ignoring literally everything except making their best effort at killing my character.
And he just didn't get it when I told him how not entertaining that was. Only reason that nightmare lasted so long is because it was the first time the guy had GMed and I was trying to help him learn how to do it well, but no matter how much advice he asked me for and I gave, the next session would just be more of the same. He just had some kind of "I must win!" spark explode inside his brain every time he was running an encounter and I used my character's abilities well.
Back to the boss Scarvinious. He could tactically assess the party and realize he needed to take out the champion first. But that would have been out of character.
Scarvinious had been assigned the duty of hunting down the escaped refugees in Trail of the Hunted, and he had failed. At the end, the PCs ambushed his patrol rather than the other way around. The scoundrel rogue Sam was sitting out as bait, so the patrol spotted him early. Scarvinious, who was modeled after a rogue, disappeared into the forest to sneak behind Sam so he could not escape, while the main patrol approached from the front. He ran into the elf archer ranger Zinfandel, who was hanging in the far back where he would be safe, heh heh. Almost everyone else in the party was busy ambushing the patrol as they waded across the Uneven Ground of a stream, but the champion Tikti ran back to defend Zinfandel. Thus, the battle in the back was the 7th-level NPC bugbear rogue Scarvinious versus the 4th-level elf ranger Zinfandel and the 4th-level goblin champion Tikti.
As the battle progressed, Scarvinious could see his patrol dying. He had time to kill at most one enemy and then run. Logically, Scarvinious should have taken out Tikti, especially because Tikti's Liberating Step champion reaction seriously weakened Scarvinious's Twin Feint because Zinfandel could Step out of range of Scarvinious's second Strike. However, Scarvinious was not following logic. He was motivated by injured pride.
Scarvinious's tactics were not to go after the most vulnerable target. No, he wanted the head of the elf ranger as a trophy. He had been removed from his command because of failure to capture the party, and the elf was the most recognizable member of the party. He thought that he would have to flee; however, returning with the head of the elf would have restored his honor. He figured that he could kill the elf quickly. The champion foiled that with her Liberating Step keeping the elf ranger alive. And the elf had a good AC, too.
In contrast, taking back the head of the goblin Tikti would have looked bad to the Ironfang Legion composed mostly of goblinoid creatures.
I chose storytelling over optimal tactics for Scarvinious. His angry attacks against Zinfandel, explained in his swearing at his target, were more believable than cold logic. The champion could not keep Scarvinious's attention away from Zinfandel due to pride and anger. Nevertheless, for Tikti that was a moment of awesomeness, repeatedly defending Zinfandel against a tougher opponent until the rest of the party could re-unite with them.
And that is the difference between a defender and a tank.
As GMS we are both taking into consideration the mechanics of the creature (what thier abilites/weapons/spell set them up to be good at) and the narrative situation (motivations/predispositions/temperament, level of intelligence/awareness/knowledge) as we understand it to decide how creatures behave in combat.
So in that situation the best at defending allies and staving off damage to ones self is going to be a class that has multiple options they can use depending on how the GM has decided a creature should act.
I look at the champion and see a class that has a robust set of options from early level just getting more as they get stronger.
Other classes have options but not as many different ones.
The core of what you are getting at here is a contrivance coming from the game-play idea of victory conditions rather than the story of the situation.
The story does have its conventions that work with gameplay. For example, Pathfinder's hobgoblin lore says that they hate wizards (and seldom study wizardry themselves) due to generations of battles against elven wizards. At 7th level with the same Ironfang Invasion party, the party faced hobgoblin captain Dargg and his army (the module had him a Sergeant with a smaller army, but I promoted him). The gnome druid Stormdancer threw a lightning bolt through Dargg and several army troop units, so Captain Dargg gave the order, "Kill the wizard!" Part of his prejudice was mistaking a stormborn druid for a wizard. The archers killed Dargg and the rogue/sorcerer Sam confused the army by throwing Produce Flame and bluffing, "Fools, I am the wizard." The disciplined hobgoblin army tried to follow orders, but the party used that to manipulate them.
Meanwhile the story of the situation is, in effect, a claim that an opponent very intelligently and with great tactical acumen ignored a highly trained, heavily armored, and currently armed combatant that was actively engaging in an attempt to end their life. It's an absolutely stupid idea that makes no sense at all, but through post hoc rationalization we can make it appear to make sense by pretending that the in-game reality was more akin to avoiding an untrained non-threat that is only pretending to be a threat in order to deal with an actual threat.
I am sorry, but I have lost track of which situation you are using as an example.
If it was the battle with Scarvinious, the champion Tikti was in light armor due to her high-Dexterity build and had STR +0 added to her single shortsword Strike each turn. She was also defending herself with Raise a Shield. The ranger Zinfandel was dealing more damage due to STR +1 and wielding two weapons via Twin Takedown ranger feat. Neither appeared untrained.
The parties in my campaigns tend to appear haphazard and unsophisticated, so they would be hard for opponents to judge at a glance. Attacking the nearest is reasonable policy on the first turn. One round later, the opponents have observed the PCs' tactical roles. The bards sang, the wizard cast a spell, the kineticist threw fire, the magus shot a spellstrike arrow, the rogue tripped and punched someone, and the champion stabbed someone and prevented some damage (that's my current Strength of Thousands party). The wizard is the most vulnerable, but the rogue typically takes the most damage because of adjacency to the enemy.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something to keep in mind also is that it's *fine* that champions don't have a monopoly on "tanking" or "defending", that other classes can also do it to some degree. Because if champions had a monopoly, would every party have to have a champion?
I'd say at low level fighters and champions do have the best obvious cards to play here, but in a somewhat different way. Champions need to be close to their friends, so that both friend and enemy are in the aura. Fighters need to be in between enemy and friend, so that enemies have to walk through a reactive strike to get to friends.
A front row composed of a fighter and a champion is probably the best at stopping enemies from getting to the back row PCs. The fighter will punish any enemy trying to get past them, and the champion makes the front row hardier.
That the best combination is to have not two champions, or two fighters, but one of each, shows that the feature set of the classes is pretty good.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having the defensive staying power can be an advantage in some situations - whittle the enemy down while taking their attacks in (shielded) stride.
In other situations it might be more beneficial to attack recklessly.
I played a redeemer champion in Malevolence, the whole group was not really high damage: A pistol slinging investigator, a lantern thaumaturge and a witch with ambitions of a fist fighter.
Some combats took long, but usually we were at least able to withdraw, and we had quite some standing power.
In the homebrew group i play on this fine sunday, we have a giant barbarian, my ruffian rogue, an unholy champion and a fire/earth/wood kineticist - its a bit of a race to finish enemies before they get us to the floor (the kineticist just added timber sentinel to get us some more staying power). Also a lot of fun to play, but completely different!
I mean, in the end, the (holy) Champion is a tank (quite possibly the only usable tank) at 1st level because it is the only class which can ensure that regardless of whether the enemy hits them or an ally, it's a bad choice (through decently high AC and HP backed up by Lay on Hands for the first and their reaction for the second). Forget all the talk of 'reasonable' actions, this is all that's needed.
That's just not possible for even other martial characters like the barbarian and monk at 1st level. Grapple is the closest thing to that at 1st level and it's unreliable and has a much smaller functional area.
Think it's worth noting that it's a mistake to hit them or an ally when both the ally and your enemy are in your 15 ft emanation aura, which is much more restrictive than I think a lot of people give it credit for—especially if your flanking buddy doesn't have AoO to punish the enemy moving away.
Most enemies won't charge your backline, sure. But champions are only getting champion reaction on casters if both the caster and the champion position close to one another, and the enemy can still avoid taking the reaction if the caster is positioned in such a way that the enemy can be outside the aura and hit them.
It's also a problem if you picked retributive strike and the enemy isn't in melee range. DR/2+level alone is not sufficient incentive to target the champion over the caster. The other reactions don't have as strong an upside as "strike," but they are more consistent at punishing enemies for attacking someone else.
This isn't to say I think this stuff is bad at all. It's still good. I just think people oversell champion's ability to influence enemy targeting with their reaction, given the restrictions on its use.
I forgot about that feat. That's my bad, 100%. That does let you cover the base emanation with a reach weapon. You have to choose between higher damage dice on your retributive strike and a shield to take reach, but that's fine. Not like that's a tradeoff unique to champion, and champion can hit people from further away than a fighter with reactive strike. I do still maintain it can remain a bit awkward to stay within the champion aura as a ranged character, though.
I would disagree that champion fulfills a "tank role" at level 1. But I don't feel like it ever fulfills a "tank role," nor do I feel like a game without any actual mechanic to taunt enemies or force them to stay within your range can really have a tank role. I agree champion is tanky and helps mitigate party damage, but it can't make enemies attack them. The reaction isn't sufficient incentive for an intelligent enemy to avoid ganking your mage.
The primary incentive for a tactical enemy—and not all enemies are tactically inclined, to be clear!—to attack the champion over the backline is just action economy: they'll attack the champion when they'd rather attack a high AC target than spend actions moving to a low AC target. That's something controlled more by party positioning (best if you're at least two move actions away) than the champion themselves.
The champion reaction, in my eyes, is mostly for enemies attacking the champion's flanking buddy with lower AC. It also makes it so a shield champion, in principle, can spend a reaction whether they're targeted (shield block) or their flanking buddy is (champion reaction). I don't really see it as a tanking ability. I still think it's really good, though. Champion has a pretty reliable reaction economy from level 1.
DR all/2+level isn't that much early on, particularly against higher level enemies. "Doing 0 damage" is a serious exaggeration. I think on balance, especially early in the game, many intelligent enemies would rather stride to hit a mage than smack a champion, particularly if the champion's shield is raised. That can be a 5 point difference in AC. It might even be worth striding twice, depending on the battlefield state and the enemy's to-hit.
Some of this might be a bit semantic, as you say. I'm used to thinking of a tank (noun) as someone who can prevent someone else from being hit, though I don't see that as an important part of being tanky (adj), and can go either way on tank (verb) depending on context. And I do feel that tripping and grappling are generally more effective at preventing target switches, so I agree with the spirit of that. I guess I more think there's no real "tank" role in the game. Champion is a defensive class focused on damage mitigation, but I have a hard time calling it a tank.
===
I think part of this is just a frustration with how people talk about the "attack the champion with higher AC or take the champion reaction" choice. People tend to act like it's more guaranteed than it is, and also kind of try to have it both ways with the high AC. They'll say the high AC makes enemies want to attack other players (which makes a high value irrelevant, if not actively detrimental to the party, since it incentivizes attacking squishier targets). But they'll also say the reaction will make them want to attack you instead, which makes the AC a benefit. People sort of leave it as this... uncollapsed superposition of an interaction, and gloss over all the details (often ignoring, for example, the size of the aura) as if it always falls out favorably for the champion's party. It find that especially annoying.
There are a lot of hypotheticals. PF2E requires a certain amount of tactical positioning and a given battlefield could be a 5' wide hallway or an open field. Reactions to defend others tend to be within weapon reach, especially early levels.
Tanks don't really need to compell a specific action so long as they're making the action suboptimal. If it was intended for the enemy to only ever target the tank they wouldn't need a specific action, just a mechanic to force retargeting.
I say it's a superposition (loosely, ofc) because people talk like both the AC and reaction are good at the same time, but getting value from them against a given action is mutually exclusive—and in the situation one is useful, the other is useless. That goes extra if you're using shield block if you do actually get hit, at least until you can pick up the extra shield block.
It's also a bit of a false equivalence, because there are far more opportunities to get attacked than to use a reaction. There are plenty of cases where one enemy can blow your reaction and then another can target a squishy without consequence, and then you're not really doing much tanking at all.
I'm especially bothered by the assertion that a high AC makes other people get targeted. That means having a high AC is self-defeating—it's a stat that's only useful if you're being targeted yourself, but it causes other people with lower AC to get attacked instead? Huh? By that logic, once you've used your champion reaction, you're the opposite of a tank—your existence makes squishier party members more likely to get targeted, and now you can't do anything about it. You can't apply this whole "AC makes people switch targets" line of thought only when convenient; a champion won't have their reaction all the time, after all. But the arguments about how champion can tank and the supposed catch-22 the champion inflicts just ignore what happens after the champion uses their reaction for the round.
It's admittedly a bit of a personal annoyance. I'm happy to say the champion has good options for multiple situations, and benefits the party with their reactions once per turn as long as whoever is attacked is inside their aura. I'm also happy to say the champion brings more damage prevention than other martials. But the way people talk about champion is this whole WIFOM-ish circular deal (I could attack the paladin, but their AC is so high. But that's a bad idea, so I should attack the other guy! But then the paladin will get their reaction... so I just strike the paladin. But their AC is so high!) that ignores almost everything about how it works out in practice, especially what happens when the reaction is down. It always strikes me as bad reasoning.