So their Interpose Strike! Got changed as I saw, it is not more open on damage types but you lose your 2 + Level DR for lower DR of only 11 at level 20 but you get 12 hit points, was thsi change worth it? Discuss this because I am curious!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wasn't it changed because DR to all physical types is now baked in as a core function. The playtest you had your armours specialisation type and that was it asides from intercepting.
Now (from what I've seen of the posted previews) its clearer to understand and you don't have potentially two competing types of DR (which makes the lower one redundant).
For people who have the book, can you build a Guardian that works without taunting?
So their Interpose Strike! Got changed as I saw, it is not more open on damage types but you lose your 2 + Level DR for lower DR of only 11 at level 20 but you get 12 hit points, was thsi change worth it? Discuss this because I am curious!
Is this "Interpose Strike" that you are talking about the Intercept Attack, or it's another thing?
For people who have the book, can you build a Guardian that works without taunting?
Based in what I read, you can, but you need to sacrifice many feats once they depend on or are improved vs a taunted target. In practice, it's similar to a thaumaturge not using its implements or a magus not using its SpellStrike. It's possible, but it's very cap and the class will look weak. I don't recommend such a build.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For people who have the book, can you build a Guardian that works without taunting?
From what I saw, that would probably look like clobbering enemies over the head with a shield and forcing your allies to stick close to you so that you can intercept attacks until you can lock down enemy movement. (Taunting extends your intercept range from ten to fifteen feet.)
It definitely sounds like taunting is a lot more pleasant to use (no save, no self-debuff), and there are feats to, as a flourish, combine it with striking or with raising a shield. The best offensive options sound like punishments you can dish out to enemies ignoring a taunt.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm very excited about the guardian. I was wondering what it could offer to be different enough from the champion - a great tank and team protector on its own - apart from the agnosticism.
The playtest version was underwhelming, but I really like what I'm seeing here.
- Regular martial progression instead of previously stunted progression
- Fastest AC progression in the game, a couple levels before the champion
- Always on great DR.
- Huge HP pool
- Can be very effective both with a two-handed weapon or with a shield
- Very punishing when you ignore the taunt.
- Can have action compression for the taunt.
So now both the champion and the guardian have their advantages. The Champion reaction protects more than the champion DR (twice as much actually, 2+lvl instead of 1+1/2lvl) but the remaining damage still goes to the intended target while the guardian switches the focus to him. And taunt makes opponents flat-footed and less precise.
Meanwhile, the guardian is sturdier than the champion when focused, but the champion has heals, powers and auras to help him out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many ways are there for action compression with Taunt? I've heard about one where you can strike and taunt, but is there one where you raise your shield and taunt? more stride/step and taunt?
Sounded like the two big, early options were strike-and-taunt (successful hit is not required) and shield-and-taunt, both of them with the flourish trait.
I didn't catch if you could taunt more than one opponent, maybe with a higher level feat or ability ?
Because one is great but a bit limited IMO. Great against a boss, not so wonderful against minions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't catch if you could taunt more than one opponent, maybe with a higher level feat or ability ?
Because one is great but a bit limited IMO. Great against a boss, not so wonderful against minions.
Pretty sure there was a mid level feat to taunt three at once.
So their Interpose Strike! Got changed as I saw, it is not more open on damage types but you lose your 2 + Level DR for lower DR of only 11 at level 20 but you get 12 hit points, was thsi change worth it? Discuss this because I am curious!Is this "Interpose Strike" that you are talking about the Intercept Attack, or it's another thing?
Bingo and as far as I saw it is weaker then the old Interpose Strike, I forgot it had a different name but yeah it has less DR now at a max of 11 or 16 if level 20, which is less then 22, from the Playtest and i am not sure if this is a good thing seeing how it feels like the Champion still has a better defensive reaction, especially Justice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True but I am just saying the new reaction seems inferior to their old reaction, sure it lets you move but like the Champion's Reaction can happen within 15ft, which is the first reason I bought it up. Not only that but they give 2+Level for DR instead of the new version which is 1+Half level which seems a little silyl if you ask me. You trade out 22 DR for only 11 but you gain 12 hit points instead of 10 a level. So you trade 11 DR for +40 max hit points. Is this trade worth it?
Yes, it seems the whole kit matters more in this iteration because a lot of carrier effects have been added; and to Taunt as well. Looking at Intercept Attack alone would be like looking at Rage w/o Instincts.
And as mentioned, it comes with positioning so you don't have to remain locked to your squishies (who also may not be clustered) and can step away to attack w/o relinquishing your protective duties. With that, martial progress, and Revenge actions, it sounds like Paizo listened to some of our feedback.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
True but I am just saying the new reaction seems inferior to their old reaction, sure it lets you move but like the Champion's Reaction can happen within 15ft, which is the first reason I bought it up. Not only that but they give 2+Level for DR instead of the new version which is 1+Half level which seems a little silyl if you ask me. You trade out 22 DR for only 11 but you gain 12 hit points instead of 10 a level. So you trade 11 DR for +40 max hit points. Is this trade worth it?
Both have a different goal.
If your lvl 16 sorcerer has 60hp left and the boss crits him for 100 damage, reducing damage by 18 like the champion could won't cut it, even with an additional debuff attached. No matter what you do, the sorcerer will go down.
If you're playing a guardian, though, the boss will already have a -1 on his attack which might prevent the crit in the first place - and you can take the 100 damage (minus 9 from your resistance) instead of him.
Sure, you take 91 damage total instead of 82. But the sorcerer is alive, the opponent is flat-footed and you can now make him regret his decision.
As for the comparison to playtest, your DR is now always on. So an opponent who tries to tackle you in order to get around your taunt mechanism has to deal with the highest AC in the game, the highest HP pool in the game AND the highest static DR in the game.*
* A barbarian starting with 16 CON will have 1 more DR at lvl 10 against specific attacks.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For people who have the book, can you build a Guardian that works without taunting?
I am not a fan of having taunt be built in. The fantasy of it just doesn't work at all for me. However, since it no longer requires a save and no longer cripples your own AC, it seems MUCH easier to just reflavor as focusing on interfering with a target. Sort of like a hunt prey type ability.
Close up it's easy to imagine, but at a distance it could be a variety of things like faking lunges, reflecting light in their eyes, making loud noises when it looks like they're about to swing, or some kind of anime "killing intent" type thing.
Not perfect but I can work with it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't seen all of the class but I really like the changes I have seen to Guardian. I'm actually really excited to give it a shot, since I tend to enjoy support characters and, well, they chonk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For people who have the book, can you build a Guardian that works without taunting?I am not a fan of having taunt be built in. The fantasy of it just doesn't work at all for me. However, since it no longer requires a save and no longer cripples your own AC, it seems MUCH easier to just reflavor as focusing on interfering with a target. Sort of like a hunt prey type ability.
Close up it's easy to imagine, but at a distance it could be a variety of things like faking lunges, reflecting light in their eyes, making loud noises when it looks like they're about to swing, or some kind of anime "killing intent" type thing.
Not perfect but I can work with it.
Yeah, the name and flavor of taunting feels so utterly wrong for every sort of Guardian/bodyguard/protector that I'd want to play (or perhaps even interact with). Seems more in Rogue/Swashbuckler territory, and there are better names like Engage. But also yeah, if it can be reflavored w/ only slight dissonance, then yay, that is if the mechanics have been fixed as us playtesters suggested.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the name and flavor of taunting feels so utterly wrong for every sort of Guardian/bodyguard/protector that I'd want to play (or perhaps even interact with). Seems more in Rogue/Swashbuckler territory, and there are better names like Engage. But also yeah, if it can be reflavored w/ only slight dissonance, then yay, that is if the mechanics have been fixed as us playtesters suggested.
I always despised the concept of playing a bodyguard who, instead of jumping between their charge and a threat, tries to somehow influence the psychology of the threat to make it marginally less likely to attack their charge. It's like... if it were my bodyguard I would fire them immediately if they thought taunting was an option to rely on.
Since the new taunt mechanic applies automatically, and guarantees an attack penalty, AND makes the foe off-guard, it *feels* much more like a reliable combat mechanic. I can imagine it as something the guard is physically doing. I will absolutely be roleplaying it as such.
From the little I've seen, the main offensive capabilities of Guardians are against those who's ignore your Taunt.
So it seems counterproductive to try to build without it.
While I'm at it, if the GM (almost) never makes attacks that don't include the guardian, don't these punishing feats end up being a bit useless?
Because the punishment for attacking others without including the guardian is already quite high by default, and in roleplay terms, it probably means the enemy will hate the guardian a lot and will focus on it. Won't this mean that most of the punishing feats almost never have their requirements met?
Conceptually, it's a cool idea. But I can't really see it being used in practice except by GMs who attack randomly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Taunt doesn’t have the emotion or mental trait, so it’s not really a taunt at all. You’re not making the mindless zombie mad at you.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the little I've seen, the main offensive capabilities of Guardians are against those who's ignore your Taunt.
So it seems counterproductive to try to build without it.
While I'm at it, if the GM (almost) never makes attacks that don't include the guardian, don't these punishing feats end up being a bit useless?
Because the punishment for attacking others without including the guardian is already quite high by default, and in roleplay terms, it probably means the enemy will hate the guardian a lot and will focus on it. Won't this mean that most of the punishing feats almost never have their requirements met?
Conceptually, it's a cool idea. But I can't really see it being used in practice except by GMs who attack randomly.
Well the purpose of those punishing abilities is in part to encourage being targeted along with your taunt. I imagine your taunt alone might not be quite enough to keep enemies away from your allies when you're still at +2/4 AC compared to your allies with the penalty.
Classic rock and a hard place scenario, punishing enemies whichever choice they make.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Taunt doesn’t have the emotion or mental trait, so it’s not really a taunt at all. You’re not making the mindless zombie mad at you.
Maybe I'm just MMO brained but I don't see a problem with Taunt being named Taunt as "universal ability that draws aggro to you". Since that is ubiquitously what that kind of ability is called in games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Taunt doesn’t have the emotion or mental trait, so it’s not really a taunt at all. You’re not making the mindless zombie mad at you.Maybe I'm just MMO brained but I don't see a problem with Taunt being named Taunt as "universal ability that draws aggro to you". Since that is ubiquitously what that kind of ability is called in games.
Very easy to use it that way now that's not resisted by Will.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My approach is the opposite - because I'm taunting, I'm not playing a bodyguard. I'm playing a kholo laughing at enemies and picking unfair fights.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From the little I've seen, the main offensive capabilities of Guardians are against those who's ignore your Taunt.
So it seems counterproductive to try to build without it.
While I'm at it, if the GM (almost) never makes attacks that don't include the guardian, don't these punishing feats end up being a bit useless?
Because the punishment for attacking others without including the guardian is already quite high by default, and in roleplay terms, it probably means the enemy will hate the guardian a lot and will focus on it. Won't this mean that most of the punishing feats almost never have their requirements met?
Conceptually, it's a cool idea. But I can't really see it being used in practice except by GMs who attack randomly.
If the GM targets the guardian most of the time the party will do really well because more attacks will miss and weaker members will be able to get more aggressive. So win win.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Taunt doesn’t have the emotion or mental trait, so it’s not really a taunt at all. You’re not making the mindless zombie mad at you.
I just wish we had called it something else like "mark" instead. As in "you have decided to pay specific attention to that enemy." I hate, hate, hate the idea of "you can draw enemy aggro with an ability that controls them" in a game like this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What does the MCD for the guardian look like?
You get taunt and light/medium armor.
Then the usual feats access, the usual +3 hp/feat, and at higher level master fortitude.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Taunt doesn’t have the emotion or mental trait, so it’s not really a taunt at all. You’re not making the mindless zombie mad at you.I just wish we had called it something else like "mark" instead. As in "you have decided to pay specific attention to that enemy." I hate, hate, hate the idea of "you can draw enemy aggro with an ability that controls them" in a game like this.
Distract or distracting presence. Taunt is terrible because it is a videogame term, there's too much baggage there.
Can't wait to get a hold of it, the play test looked terrible but sounds like they went and buffed up every angle possible to make it into something worth using.
What's the difference in static damage reduction compared to what intercept does?
Ulfen Guard Guardian, for more guarding!
That and a few other new Archetypes gave me hope that Paizo would design an excellent Guardian. I suppose the only glitch is that one might (still) be able to build a better guardian w/o the Guardian class (a major flaw with the playtest design IMO).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Paizo did a great job improving the class. Lots of good changes and addressing one of the most problematic issues present in the playtest: lack of proactive actions.
Unfortunately, even with the positive changes, this class still isn't for me, even though I like playing tanks. It severely needed subclasses, IMO, to improve variety. As it currently is, the Guardian is comfortably sitting below Alchemists in the character-making tier I have for PF2e. It's probably going to be a one and done just to complete having at least one character for every class.
Good thing is that those already on board with The Guardian can be happy, since the changes were genuinely good, given the context.
I'm excited to make a two-handed guardian that can vicious swing whoever ignores me. For those that got the PDF, did any of the bruiser-like push-enemy-around feats make it to the final release?
It severely needed subclasses
What would you envision subclasses doing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
for people who want to have a summary
Ronald the rules lawyer has madde an analysis and talks about his thoughts
If the GM targets the guardian most of the time the party will do really well because more attacks will miss and weaker members will be able to get more aggressive. So win win.From the little I've seen, the main offensive capabilities of Guardians are against those who's ignore your Taunt.
So it seems counterproductive to try to build without it.
While I'm at it, if the GM (almost) never makes attacks that don't include the guardian, don't these punishing feats end up being a bit useless?
Because the punishment for attacking others without including the guardian is already quite high by default, and in roleplay terms, it probably means the enemy will hate the guardian a lot and will focus on it. Won't this mean that most of the punishing feats almost never have their requirements met?
Conceptually, it's a cool idea. But I can't really see it being used in practice except by GMs who attack randomly.
That's not the point, the point is, if the GM is very likely to follow the Taunt, is it worth spending feats on something that will probably (almost) never be triggered?
It's like this: having a one-action “Power Attack” against provoked enemies that try to ignore you is cool, but if the GM always Taunts (which will probably be the most common), you'll, in practice, never use the feat.
I can only see these feats as “threats” to the GM, as if to say, “Look, I have feats on my sheet that will make me hit the enemy hard if you focus this enemy on me, so don't you dare!”
Since I don't think this is the case in healthy games, it ends up feeling like a waste of feats or just a weird to punish the GM NPC/Monster that doesn't want to focus on the guardian for some reason beyond the fact that it is already unfocused due to Taunt.
I'm excited to make a two-handed guardian that can vicious swing whoever ignores me. For those that got the PDF, did any of the bruiser-like push-enemy-around feats make it to the final release?
So what happens to your two-handed guardian build if the GM chooses to never ignore your guardian?
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alternatively... you talk to the GM. Say hey, I was building my Guardian for this kind of playstyle with this expectation. Can we either adjust how enemies act or can I rebuild somewhat? Your GM is a PERSON not a CPU, and I would assume one you are friendly with and respect so you can talk to them about issues like that.
That's not my point. What I'm saying is that the GM tends to respect Taunt for both thematic and mechanical reasons.
With this in mind, is it really worth investing in feats that expect the GM to try to disrespect Taunt?
There's a high probability that feats like Proud Nail and Ring Their Bell will never be used because the GM can simply make the provoked creatures attack the guardian (what is the main intention of Taunt). Unless there are two guardians in the group, which would effectively make the creature negatively affected by both guardians, these feats would be the only thing preventing it from ignoring them and attacking other PCs, since it will suffer the effects of Taunt anyway.
So, with this in mind, is it really worth investing in feats that will never, or almost never, will have its requirements met?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean yeah, we're not talking about going all in on a niche strategy, but broadening your options to give you a wide toolkit useful in a variety of situations. The very thing you think is bad tbh sounds more like an extremely good shift in game design away from more rote classes.
... I also question the premise a bit. Even Champions don't get targeted 100% of the time. The idea that the GM would structure all their encounters so that every attack is aimed at the Guardian in order to keep them from using reactions is honestly a very weird premise to me. It doesn't really make sense mechanically, thematically, and requires some very weird design and gameplay choices by the GM to pull off.
It also sounds like an issue sort of beyond the scope of a mechanical discussion. The GM designing an entire campaign around denying the Guardian reactions is just so off the wall and clearly suggests some sort of player to player thing at play here it's not really worth addressing in mechanical terms.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not my point. What I'm saying is that the GM tends to respect Taunt for both thematic and mechanical reasons.
With this in mind, is it really worth investing in feats that expect the GM to try to disrespect Taunt?
There's a high probability that feats like Proud Nail and Ring Their Bell will never be used because the GM can simply make the provoked creatures attack the guardian (what is the main intention of Taunt). Unless there are two guardians in the group, which would effectively make the creature negatively affected by both guardians, these feats would be the only thing preventing it from ignoring them and attacking other PCs, since it will suffer the effects of Taunt anyway.
So, with this in mind, is it really worth investing in feats that will never, or almost never, will have its requirements met?
There are tons of feats like that, and the answer is always "It's useless until it isn't." Rogue for example has Nimble Dodge, which went 12 sessions without ever stopping a hit or crit, and then stopped that "crit by 1" strike from downing me. Likewise, Sly Striker is a very niche feat because you can always flank an enemy, and then we fought an enemy who we couldn't easily make off guard and Sly Striker paid its dues adding extra damage on my strikes.
If I am a GM and there is a sorcerer with low hp whose been hitting me with spells vs the guardian in front of me, I don't see why I wouldn't go after the sorcerer to prioritize threat.
If a rogue is flanking the guardian and pounding my butt, I'm going to kill the rogue first to cut off that high damage and then focus down the guardian afterwards.
Maybe GM's will focus on the Guardian most of the time. But there's going to be those cases where they don't, and that's why you take those feats.
You can argue about the GM not doing that, but I find that to be a unfair steelman tbh. Because a GM can be the source of all kinds of problems. It's like "Don't play a caster because the GM can only pick monsters with high saves and low AC's". Or "Don't build for melee because the GM can always use flying enemies or enemies who use ranged attacks and teleports."
Like, you're right. Fair point by the technical merit that it can happen. But that's not a fair position to start the discussion at, imo. After all, you can also just as easily make the case of the GM always ignoring your taunts, and suddenly those feats become goated.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the GM targets the guardian most of the time the party will do really well because more attacks will miss and weaker members will be able to get more aggressive. So win win.From the little I've seen, the main offensive capabilities of Guardians are against those who's ignore your Taunt.
So it seems counterproductive to try to build without it.
While I'm at it, if the GM (almost) never makes attacks that don't include the guardian, don't these punishing feats end up being a bit useless?
Because the punishment for attacking others without including the guardian is already quite high by default, and in roleplay terms, it probably means the enemy will hate the guardian a lot and will focus on it. Won't this mean that most of the punishing feats almost never have their requirements met?
Conceptually, it's a cool idea. But I can't really see it being used in practice except by GMs who attack randomly.
That's not the point, the point is, if the GM is very likely to follow the Taunt, is it worth spending feats on something that will probably (almost) never be triggered?
It's like this: having a one-action “Power Attack” against provoked enemies that try to ignore you is cool, but if the GM always Taunts (which will probably be the most common), you'll, in practice, never use the feat.
I can only see these feats as “threats” to the GM, as if to say, “Look, I have feats on my sheet that will make me hit the enemy hard if you focus this enemy on me, so don't you dare!”
Since I don't think this is the case in healthy games, it ends up feeling like a waste of feats or just a weird to punish the
GMNPC/Monster that doesn't want to focus on the guardian for some reason beyond the fact that it is already unfocused due to Taunt.
I'm excited to make a two-handed guardian that can vicious swing whoever ignores me. For those that got the PDF, did any of the bruiser-like...
Then I win the Tank Game.....there's no lose scenario here Yurip. Taking it as a zero sum game is purely a you thing. "Wasting" feats to ensure the GM plays by my tank rules means, again, that I "win" the Tank Game. Nuclear deterrents aren't wasted just bc they're never fired ....they're actively doing the thing by just existing.