Today The Rules Lawyer released a new video analyzing the final version of guardian class. But despite many class improvements over playtest the designers insisted on keeping the Intercept Strike Attack as it is.
It is a pretty bad decision IMO because it relatively bad reaction that will probably be misunderstood by many players that it works like champion's reactions. They will try to use it unnecessarily over damaging the guardian due to the lowest AC of allies.
The reaction by itself it isn't fully bad but have to be dealt more carefully using only if the damage that the allied would take would make it fall unconscious. Otherwise, it would be used as a way to exploit the guardian AC like happened in many playtests.
But probably the main point is that it's worse than champions' and even commanders' reaction to protect allies that worth be used almost always as possible. Including the strangeness that a commander can naturally to use its armor class benefit to protect an ally where the own guardian, a class made to protect, can't.
What do you think about it (please see the linked video before comment).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The ability to prevent enemies from focusing fire on a single target, unless they choose to target you, is extremely powerful. Combine that with the natural resistances to damage that the Guardian is getting in its final release, I don't think it will be a bad idea to regularly use Intercept Attack. Certainly I think it's worthwhile using even if the attack wouldn't knock the ally unconscious - much better for 2 party members to be 3 hits from going down than 1 party member be 1 hit from going down. The guardian is also using it's own AC to protect allies by its taunt mechanic (as well as feats like that 1-action power attack so long as your enemy is flat-footed from your taunt) - if they don't attack the guardian, they're taking a penalty to-hit and becoming flatfooted. The enemy either has to hit the guardians substantial AC + resistances, or open themselves up to more incoming damage.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All this already (except 12HP/lvl) existed into playtest and in practice this almost killed the guardian sometimes until my friends and I noticed that the guardian shouldn't use Intercept Attack in the same way that a champion uses its reaction. This was to a point that in order to “fix” this we decided to invest into a champion reaction and the character survivability and allies protection increases were huge.
The new Intercept Attack is weaker in resistance than the old Intercept Strike because we have half of the damage reduction now (the old resistance was 2+lvl the new one is 1+half-lvl).
The GM can easily start to use the Intercept Attack as an indirect way to damage guardians that frequently tries to protect its allies, workarounding its higher AC using a weaker allied AC. It's easily to justify that the enemy hostile action predicting that the guardian will try to Intercept Attack was against the guardian because it damaged it, basically disabling the Taunt effects.
So to thrust into use Intercept Attack like a champion reaction is a suicide easily noticeable in earlier levels for anyone in practice. This isn't even a white room because it just made the situation worse than it was during playtest.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
All this already (except 12HP/lvl) existed into playtest and in practice this almost killed the guardian sometimes until my friends and I noticed that the guardian shouldn't use Intercept Attack in the same way that a champion uses its reaction. This was to a point that in order to “fix” this we decided to invest into a champion reaction and the character survivability and allies protection increases were huge.
The new Intercept Attack is weaker in resistance than the old Intercept Strike because we have half of the damage reduction now (the old resistance was 2+lvl the new one is 1+half-lvl).
The GM can easily start to use the Intercept Attack as an indirect way to damage guardians that frequently tries to protect its allies, workarounding its higher AC using a weaker allied AC. It's easily to justify that the enemy hostile action predicting that the guardian will try to Intercept Attack was against the guardian because it damaged it, basically disabling the Taunt effects.
So to thrust into use Intercept Attack like a champion reaction is a suicide easily noticeable in earlier levels for anyone in practice. This isn't even a white room because it just made the situation worse than it was during playtest.
That's correct, intercept attack is not the core of the guardian strategy as the champion's reaction is. The equivalent to the champion reaction would be the guardian taunt.
Intercept attack is more useful against:
- Small attacks that won't penetrate the Guardian DR much.
- Attacks with a nasty rider that the guardian thinks he can tank better than the intended target (read: poison)
- Attacks that would drop the intended target down.
When an enemy is faced with a champion and a rogue, he has a choice to make.
1) Go against the squishy rogue and eat the champion's reaction, thus dealing reduced damage and getting probably debuffed or hit in the process.
2) Go against the tankier champion, who cannot protect himself with his reaction but has higher AC and can shield block.
Now, when a taunted enemy is faced with a guardian and a rogue, he also has a choice to make.
1) Go against the squishy rogue
a) at a -1 circumstance penalty that stacks with almost everything
b) exposing himself to some of the most brutal guardian reactions, like huge damage spike or stun even on a success (incapacitation so more for henchmen)
c) maybe get his hit redirected to the guardian if it's worth it.
2) Go against the tankier guardian, who has higher AC, higher HP, DR and maybe shield block.
It's a different way of tanking, but just as effective. But you're right that intercept attack is not as mandatory.
I'm going to say this as somebody who is planning on ignoring the feature as much as possible, for character thematic reasons. (And yeah, you're definitely right that you shouldn't be using this all the time.)
Intercepting now lets you step- and more importantly, if you're taunting, stride. Whenever that can save you an action by using your reaction to move up to an enemy, that's some great value. The damage is already going to be dealt to "the party"; there's no avoiding that by the time the reaction comes into play. If you intercept, the party takes a little less damage thanks to your resistance. You seem worried about "damage is getting to cheat its way past your excellent AC- that's HP that would normally be well protected." However, as a Guardian, you aren't actually a great pick for "last one standing"- you're probably easily kited, you often do less damage (especially without your ally-dependent revenge feats), and you can't get anyone else back on their feet. You've got a big pool of health to contribute to the party, and part of that contribution is keeping other people further from death. If you wait to the last minute, only sparing somebody from death, then you're in a position where you have to dive around saving people.
As far as enemies targeting a Guardian's allies to bypass the Guardian's AC, taunt is giving them a penalty to doing that, making them off-guard, and turning on Guardian's revenge feats for extra damage, debuffs, etc. Or, if the Guardian is building to lock enemies down instead, they shouldn't be able to get to those squishy allies.
Now, why is Guardian's reaction worse than the other two? Well, I think it's because it's cheaper. At level seven, you've got two reactions with no feats spent, and earlier than most classes can get something like that. It also has some value as a small source of movement. And, finally, it is more reliable. The original target takes no damage, unlike Champion's reaction, and it can be used from further away than Commander. Grabbing Champion or Commander multiclass to get an excellent protective reaction isn't a bad idea, though, especially since you can choose which one fits the situation best and you'll still have a Guardian reaction left to use as needed.
In my case, even on a character that is more in it for the flavor of challenging an enemy to a lopsided duel, I'll still be using the reaction to occasionally close the distance and leave more actions open for attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll have to play the post-release Guardian to see how the class plays, but I think the class has changed enough that the mechanic's design may in fact be justified. Whereas Intercept Attack was purely detrimental to the playtest Guardian and thus flat-out worse than that Commander feat, on the post-release Guardian it means the attacker becomes off-guard, so not only do you get to protect your ally (and have the extra HP along with your resistance to take the hit), you get to punish your attacker as well afterwards. Although I'll reserve full judgment until after some play experience, it feels like the class got a massive glow-up from its playtest version, and I really look forward to trying them out.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
So it's a tool that can be powerful, but that you need to use your judgement about when to apply it? Sounds great. How is that a bad thing?
Now, why is Guardian's reaction worse than the other two? Well, I think it's because it's cheaper. At level seven, you've got two reactions with no feats spent, and earlier than most classes can get something like that. It also has some value as a small source of movement. And, finally, it is more reliable. The original target takes no damage, unlike Champion's reaction, and it can be used from further away than Commander. Grabbing Champion or Commander multiclass to get an excellent protective reaction isn't a bad idea, though, especially since you can choose which one fits the situation best and you'll still have a Guardian reaction left to use as needed.
Makes sense yet is weird.
I agree that you get extra guardian's reactions as part of your chassis instead of need to get them via feats like champions and fighters does. But as we pointed, I can´t imagine it being used by Intercept Attack too frequently outside very dangerous situations where the guardians need to take the damage too frequently and the enemy is not your taunted enemy. These extra reactions probably are more useful for Shield Blocks instead, and you cannot use both at the same time because they come from the same trigger (an ally takes physical damage).
So it's not so rare to have to deal with many enemies and only one is taunted, and the rest will attack an ally instead of guardian. If you choose to intercept them all, your guardian easily can become too much damaged or even fall.
So I can't see this as a big advantage over not have a trustable reaction to protect your allies. It still fall in the situation that a guardian if you really want to protect your allies with a guardian you still need to take an champion or now a commander dedication to take a more effective reaction even only able to use this reaction once per turn (in this case you can save the Intercept Attack as backup reaction if you need to protect someone again).
So it's a tool that can be powerful, but that you need to use your judgement about when to apply it? Sounds great. How is that a bad thing?
It ends up being “bad” because there are better alternatives with a very similar cost, and one of them (the commander) isn't even a “tanker” class. It's not that I think the idea itself is bad, but it's already outdated by at least two other classes.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bummer that defensive swap on commander isn't also a guardian option. It would allow you to more proactively use your AC to defend your allies. I see that being a popular multiclass since when applicable, it's just better than intercept.
Edit: technically it would turn off your taunt benefits like off guard since they're now targeting you
Bummer that defensive swap on commander isn't also a guardian option. It would allow you to more proactively use your AC to defend your allies. I see that being a popular multiclass since when applicable, it's just better than intercept.
Edit: technically it would turn off your taunt benefits like off guard since they're now targeting you
I think that anti-synergy is precisely why defensive swap isn't on the guardian. There's also an issue of range. If they weren't comfortable with striding and/or stepping before defensive swap, it's a lot harder for the guardian to make use of it to maximum effect, while a Commander with a bow can easily sit next to a cloth caster and contribute.
Although there is some delightful synergy with a Guardian and a Commander who has defensive swap.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Makes sense yet is weird.
I agree that you get extra guardian's reactions as part of your chassis instead of need to get them via feats like champions and fighters does. But as we pointed, I can´t imagine it being used by Intercept Attack too frequently outside very dangerous situations where the guardians need to take the damage too frequently and the enemy is not your taunted enemy. These extra reactions probably are more useful for Shield Blocks instead, and you cannot use both at the same time because they come from the same trigger (an ally takes physical damage).
So it's not so rare to have to deal with many enemies and only one is taunted, and the rest will attack an ally instead of guardian. If you choose to intercept them all, your guardian easily can become too much damaged or even fall.
So I can't see this as a big advantage over not have a trustable reaction to protect your allies. It still fall in the situation that a guardian if you really want to protect your allies with a guardian you still need to take an champion or now a commander dedication to take a more effective reaction even only able to use this reaction once per turn (in this case you can save the Intercept Attack as backup reaction if you need to protect someone again).
Why wouldn't you be able to use Shield Block after Intercept Attack? Intercept Attack is a reaction to a nearby ally taking physical damage, and as we know, "ally" doesn't include yourself. Shield Block is a reaction triggered when you would take physical damage. Those are two separate triggers, so using your shield should be fine if you have it raised.
EDIT: I went and reviewed the rules since I was a little hazy on them. Limitations on Triggers. Looks like we were both half-right. "If two triggers are similar, but not identical, the GM determines whether you can use one action in response to each or whether they're effectively the same thing. Usually, this decision will be based on what's happening in the narrative."
In my case, I'd interpret the narrative as "My ally is getting hit, so I need to get myself in the way" followed by "I'm getting hit, so I need to get my shield in the way"- or more naturally, getting in the way, and the shield in the way as well in the process.
But, it's very solidly something that the GM decides, so it's good to ask first.