| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just wanted to say I'm very, very happy Paizo abstained from features that have reduced effect if wearing Medium armor.
I'd love for more excuses to use Medium armor as a Guardian too! Hopefully fun archetypes in the future?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Medium armor was always a slight problem if you want to be honest. It promotes you to either grab Sentinel for heavy armor, Guardian for taunt and heavy armor or you build DEX. Which in it's self is a minor problem, the game defensive stats I think over shadow the none defensive stats personally. Why I doubt we will see many ranged Guardians since the kit screams MELEE FRONT LINER.
The problem here is that, well, I can't use a greatsword because it isn't Desna's favored weaponActually, you very much can, starting at lvl 3 (and dropping off at lvl 19-20).
You will lose:
- a +1 status bonus on restorative strike (that is basically useless since you should have bless, heroism or a bard song running).
- Divine rebuttal (nobody ever takes this feat)
- Replenishment of war (this one actually really hurts)And well, that's about it.
So yeah, from level 10+, you lose replenishment of war which is an amazing feat for a warpriest, but that might be an acceptable price to pay in order to fulfill your fantasy and deal d12 damage.
Except I won't ever reach master proficiency with it. Yeah, its at 19th level so it doesn't matter for most of the campaigns or most campaigns at all, but the idea that I would potentially need to switch my weapon at the end of my career for something as arbritary as favored weapons feels bad and is bad design.
I'm also gonna be totally honest and say that I'm the type of person that's likely to magnify the problems of religious classes because IRL I'm not religious and most types of devotion, either to a god or to a person, are contradictory to my views of the world. However, I'm still interested in religion from a sociological perspective, so when it so happens that I want to play a religious character I hate that there's always going to be some kind of problem along the way to make the whole experience worse. And I don't say this because I don't want to the character to be challenged about their beliefs (I think that's kind of the appeal of religious characters in fiction actually, either if its to debunk their beliefs because they are wrong or because your faith is big enough for the character to overcome the worst) but I think the mechanics implemented to "game-fy" that experience are more to the detriment of the whole concept rather than something that adds to it.
Also, in regards to clerics in particular, I really don't understand why the base class doesn't have armor proficiencies and the warpriest only goes up to medium armor without a (horrible) feat. The cleric was the armored caster of D&D 3.5 and PF1e so I find really strange that now it doesn't begin with at least light armor, with the warpriest going up to heavy armor. I also won't ever be convinced that Warpriest's Armor isn't a bad feat. It's literally a general feat for the price a class feat. The animist, bard, druid, and oracle have at least light armor proficiency, so why doesn't the cleric?
|
Also, in regards to clerics in particular, I really don't understand why the base class doesn't have armor proficiencies and the warpriest only goes up to medium armor without a (horrible) feat. The cleric was the armored caster of D&D 3.5 and PF1e so I find really strange that now it doesn't begin with at least light armor, with the warpriest going up to heavy armor. I also won't ever be convinced that Warpriest's Armor isn't a bad feat. It's literally a general feat for the price a class feat. The animist, bard, druid, and oracle have at least light armor proficiency, so why doesn't the cleric?Beyond the fact that this is still the Guardian thread, the PF1e cleric is, in fact, the warpriest doctrine, not the cloistered cleric, and they got medium armor in PF1e as well, so everything works out. The Oracle actually lost medium armour, too.
Oracle never had Medium Armor. Only Battle did, but they also had Heavy because using its Curse benefits left you -2/-1 to your AC, effectively making you the same as Light/Medium armor wearers on first contact in an encounter.
|
|
Ah, gotcha.
Didn’t catch you were referring to the PF1e->PF2e comparison.
Going back to Guardian, I guess it’s a good they kept the Medium/Heavy armor focus and changed Taunt’s operation.
I remember during the Playtest discussions folks were finding Taunt was more effective on a Bow Guardian…which wasn’t very “guardian-y”, lol.
I did suggest that there could’ve been a “Parade Armor” feat that let you tweak any Unarmored/Light armor equipment into Medium armor (with stat adjustment, similar to how Armored Skirt works). And while wearing your Parade Armor, you should get a bonus to Intimidation and Society checks.
Coz I think the part I wanted the Guardian to do more was rely on armor traits and selections, but honestly, the armor system is one of the least interesting parts of the game and hopefully can be spruced up in PF3e.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From the class descriptions I've seen, it seems like guardian has shaped up to be a nice bruiser tank. I'm excited for a character that can actually ride large, strength-based animal companions and not have their teeny AC values be a liability (bc they can tank the hits for them)! My caveman and trex PC idea based on Fang and Spear from Primal can finally be realized!!!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope we can make a lightly armored (or even unarmored) PC who Taunts and then deftly avoids attacks, a la Spiderman.
Maybe with the Guardian archetype.
Swashbuckler with antagonize/enjoy the show and guardian archetype ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Swashbuckler already can function in a Guardian's role. Defensive 1st level feat, Antagonize, Guardian's Deflection (w/ whip perhaps), and you have a strong base by 4th with a similar playstyle which any build that can afford +2 Charisma can pick up by 8th. The ability to build a better Guardian w/ other classes/MCDs was obvious in the playtest and will be the final version's litmus test IMO.
Yeah, the only class that rivals the guardian for taunting and tanking is the champion. The swashbuckler isn't even close.
I just wish they kept the 2+Level DR alone for their Reaction.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just wish they kept the 2+Level DR alone for their Reaction.
The sheer number of resistances a 1st level guardian could have confused the hell out of people. I'm not surprised they unified things.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel with the passive resistance you get all the time, you'll be able to tank more damage over time regardless of that particular nerf to intercept but it does leave it feeling a bit weak in a vacuum
It's more of a situational tool which I think is reasonably balanced with the rest of the kit. It becomes a lot more reliable at lvl 7 when you can shield block the damage from intercept
|
|
Agreed.
Playtest was kind of fiddly because you had to choose between which damage type you WEREN’T resistant to (and didn’t stack with other resistances), pick something funny like Wooden armor (that only works if you get crit…which you’re not great at), or a combo like Mitigate Harm + Chain spec armor…which meant you were actually safer getting crit by someone…which wasn’t easy because you had better defenses. And Mitigate Harm + Chain spec being stackable meant it was really the only viable option.
Additionally, there’s the Malleable rune that an change an armor’s specialization type with 1-action…at lvl. 9. That’s way too late in the game. Additionally, Armors are heavily LACKING in terms of diversity and even depth.
I tried a Shield+Mitigate Harm Guardian and a 2H+Ferocious Vengeance Guardian, and weirdly, the weapons would’ve been better on the opposite version. 2H Guardian would’ve done better with Mitigate Harm while Shield Gurdian would’ve done better with Ferocious Vengeance.
Overall, Guardian was just not intuitive, did not provide the tools to do the fantasy, and the fantasy was mechanically undercooked because PF2e lacks an interesting/interactive structure for the PT Guardian to actually operate.
Flat resistance tied to the class (when in Medium/Heavy) and dropping the subclasses into feats was probably the more elegant way to get it done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Almost all of the guardian art are big chonky heroes.
I'm loving the idea of a Small guardian absolutely being able to tank for allies and control the immediate battlefield.
It's fun to subvert expectations like that.
Almost all of the guardian art are big chonky heroes.
I'm loving the idea of a Small guardian absolutely being able to tank for allies and control the immediate battlefield.
It's fun to subvert expectations like that.
Tiny Poppet FTW!
Talk about underestimating it, at least until it's always in your face.
Almost all of the guardian art are big chonky heroes.
I'm loving the idea of a Small guardian absolutely being able to tank for allies and control the immediate battlefield.
It's fun to subvert expectations like that.
Tiny Poppet FTW!
Talk about underestimating it, at least until it's always in your face.
I considered Tiny as well. I equally like the idea of a sprite buzzing around enemies distracting them and drawing aggro.
However, the lack of reach doesn’t jive well with many guardian abilities, which are often based on your reach. This pretty much limits you to using a pole arm or similar reach weapon, which often means losing out on the guardian's cool shield abilities.
It can be done, but there are certainly more limitations you have to work around.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Almost all of the guardian art are big chonky heroes.
I'm loving the idea of a Small guardian absolutely being able to tank for allies and control the immediate battlefield.
It's fun to subvert expectations like that.
I think there's an Ant Kholo guardian for the shield master build suggestion, actually.
I think there's an Ant Kholo guardian for the shield master build suggestion, actually.
I did say "almost all." ;)
I do love that there is one included in the art.
Almost all of the guardian art are big chonky heroes.
I'm loving the idea of a Small guardian absolutely being able to tank for allies and control the immediate battlefield.
It's fun to subvert expectations like that.
100% on board with this. For many their idea of a class power fantasy is "I am very big and very kind and I stop people from hurting my little friends" but for some the ideal is more "I have the physicality of a particularly doughty rabbit, and I will make you regret overlooking me"
In real life, I am already extraordinarily tall, but when I started playing Final Fantasy XIV, I chose a lalafell (shaped like a potato-y halfling) to be my paladin character (a tank class) and set the character customization sliders to minimum.
... As a plus, in PF2e it is entirely possible to play a Guardian who is a literal rabbit or squirrel decked out in a full plate suit... albeit with the above mentioned restrictions on building with your reach in mind
Haven't dug into the feats, and haven't reviewed this thread yet, but first impression: thank pickles they changed it to a standard martial chassis. Not sure they lost much in the way of proficiencies either (have to double check), which is interesting.
And I really like the free reactions. Gives the feel of rolling first on initiative even if you rolled last. Going to see how deeply they leaned into that once I'm off work tonight and can pick it all apart.
... As a plus, in PF2e it is entirely possible to play a Guardian who is a literal rabbit or squirrel decked out in a full plate suit... albeit with the above mentioned restrictions on building with your reach in mind
Love this mental image.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also just starting to go through my copy of Battlecry!
So far the guardian looks amazing. Even the dedication looks great.
I also want to have some time to really look at those skirmish warfare subsystem. It seems like a great way to keep the focus on the PC characters while bringing in the sense of a larger scale conflict.
I'm also just starting to go through my copy of Battlecry!
So far the guardian looks amazing. Even the dedication looks great.I also want to have some time to really look at those skirmish warfare subsystem. It seems like a great way to keep the focus on the PC characters while bringing in the sense of a larger scale conflict.
i am a bit dissapointed in the skirmish system not having anything for the rules that KM uses for battles though.
Unless there's a way to convert the "armies" to troops, the two systems cannot be combined.
---
Overall it feels very "weird" that they decided to have 2 completely different systems for warfare.
The skirmish rules look like you are still taking actions on a personal PC level as part of the 5 action turn with a troop.
I havn't ran Kingmaker or used those war rules but don't they represent battle at a larger scale?
I'm also just starting to go through my copy of Battlecry!
So far the guardian looks amazing. Even the dedication looks great.I also want to have some time to really look at those skirmish warfare subsystem. It seems like a great way to keep the focus on the PC characters while bringing in the sense of a larger scale conflict.
i am a bit dissapointed in the skirmish system not having anything for the rules that KM uses for battles though.
Unless there's a way to convert the "armies" to troops, the two systems cannot be combined.
---
Overall it feels very "weird" that they decided to have 2 completely different systems for warfare.
The skirmish rules look like you are still taking actions on a personal PC level as part of the 5 action turn with a troop.
I havn't ran Kingmaker or used those war rules but don't they represent battle at a larger scale?yes and no.
the skirmish rules are suppossed to represent things that characters can perform alongside an "army" fighting against other "armies".
to help with that, the skirmish rules introduce a plethora of different troops that act as armies.
the idea, as desribed in the book, is to facilitate army warfare that your character isn't irrelevant but fights alongside their troops.
on the flipside, KM has the same army vs army fights, but the statblocks of said armies are completely different than those of a Troop, or of any other regular "creature" to speak of.
While in KM army battles are army vs army, there are times that your characters may be nearby, but albeit, there's no way for the character to directly interact with the fight since it uses completely different rules. (outside of obvious GM houseruling stuff on the fly that is)
---
So, while the Skirmish rules offer neat tools that allow a character to bond and train with an army, and gives them unique edge in said warfare, those same actions cannot be translated into the KM...
Oh i see.
I think as a player I would like the skirmish rules better. Getting to have your PC as you build it interact with the combat of a larger scale battle is kind of neat. I still need to sit down and read more into those rules though to see how I would run them.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also just starting to go through my copy of Battlecry!
So far the guardian looks amazing. Even the dedication looks great.I also want to have some time to really look at those skirmish warfare subsystem. It seems like a great way to keep the focus on the PC characters while bringing in the sense of a larger scale conflict.
i am a bit dissapointed in the skirmish system not having anything for the rules that KM uses for battles though.
Unless there's a way to convert the "armies" to troops, the two systems cannot be combined.
---
Overall it feels very "weird" that they decided to have 2 completely different systems for warfare.
Keep in mind that one of the goals of the Kingmaker subsystem rules is that they needed to work in the 5e release as well. So they tend to really abstract your character away. Your characters aren't involved in KM army stuff at all. Even when you need to make a check, it's kingdom skill checks (which your characters also have no influence on whatsoever).
The skirmish system is aimed much more at "we want large scale battles but we want the PCs to still be involved".
They can't really be combined because they're just trying to do fundamentally incompatible things.
TBH I think skirmishes hold a lot more promise. PF2 isn't a high level strategy game and that isn't something a lot of players actually want to be doing on game night. That stuff can be abstracted away fairly quickly with simple rolls, GM fiat, or hell: playing an actual strategy board game. It is kind of odd to have two systems for similar things, but the KM subsystems are generally speaking not very fun so getting a do-over here is a plus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was very happy with skirmish rules; a party of PCs surrounded by troop blobs opposing a similar force is a daunting encounter, both time wise and mechanic wise. It's just large enough to simulate armies clashing without completely removing the players and inserting them in a different game format for 40 mins to an hour and a half. I think they knocked it out of the park
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was very happy with skirmish rules; a party of PCs surrounded by troop blobs opposing a similar force is a daunting encounter, both time wise and mechanic wise. It's just large enough to simulate armies clashing without completely removing the players and inserting them in a different game format for 40 mins to an hour and a half. I think they knocked it out of the parkDon't get me wrong, I like the skirmish rules as well.
What i don't like is that they did absolutely nothing for their main campaign that has army vs army.
They could have a sidebar for conversion as an example from army to troop, and that would allow their "war campaign" to work with the new "war rules".
Instead, they ignored it.
The KM rules are third party material. So in all likelihood, as far as warfare rules are concerned for Paizo, THIS is the whole deal. The benefit of KM remake dropping first could have been seeing the response to those warfare rules and going "yeaaaa, let's not do that"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK Ive started reading the section and I noticed a few things that popped out.
Page 159 has a sidebar that explains what they were going for with this subsystem. They talk about the scale of these battles.
So it does seem like there is a new lever for encounter budgeting in how we pair troop level and leader level. giving the party higher level troops would add even more experience to budget than giving them on level troops for example, leaving more to work with for the enemies.
I also like that you can throw in some big creatures like a Dragon or something and they can be a threat on their own without a troop.
Another interesting angle is a troop having two leaders taking turns leading the troop and making so that troop can completely switch up the leader side of the actions mid fight.
The KM rules are third party material. So in all likelihood, as far as warfare rules are concerned for Paizo, THIS is the whole deal. The benefit of KM remake dropping first could have been seeing the response to those warfare rules and going "yeaaaa, let's not do that"I was very happy with skirmish rules; a party of PCs surrounded by troop blobs opposing a similar force is a daunting encounter, both time wise and mechanic wise. It's just large enough to simulate armies clashing without completely removing the players and inserting them in a different game format for 40 mins to an hour and a half. I think they knocked it out of the parkDon't get me wrong, I like the skirmish rules as well.
What i don't like is that they did absolutely nothing for their main campaign that has army vs army.
They could have a sidebar for conversion as an example from army to troop, and that would allow their "war campaign" to work with the new "war rules".
Instead, they ignored it.
KM is not 3rd party material?
It is made and published by Paizo.
The converting KM from 1e to 2e was done by an outside contractor
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
KM is not 3rd party material?
It is made and published by Paizo.
Yes and no. The kingdom rules were not made by Paizo. They were contracted out (IIRC to Legendary Games) and then put into Kingmaker without any playtesting.
Paizo published them and ultimately owns responsibility for them, but they're not an in-house creation.
Frankly there's really no reason for them to worry about it here. Battlecry is meant to be AP agonostic, so putting a bunch of Kingmaker specific considerations in it isn't really necessary. Army rules are only relevant in one section of Kingmaker anyway (AFAIK) and a GM can pretty easily modify that chapter to use skirmish rules instead if they want to, or use skirmish rules for key encounters while using army rules for the rest. Or just ditch the army rules entirely and do most of it via Warfare checks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Surprised bodyguard hasn't been mentioned as a particularly potent ability for level 1. It's essentially a one action heightened forbidding ward that also makes things off-guard and gives everyone else some protection too. Grab some status bonuses for yourself and allies and you've got a lot of protective power before needing to intercept For just one action.
Rallying anthem or heightened protection/benediction with a bodyguard(ian) would make for some really tough parties
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
neat multi-class synergy.
Main classing ranger you get natures edge at level 9 with dedication in guardian and hampering stance means any enemy in 5 feet of you while the stance is up is off guard to you.
Ulfen Guard's feats raised my hopes re: the Guardian since I thought it was borrowing some Guardian feats and there would be similar ones to come. Not so much. Paizo did alleviate the most serious issues I'd had, but if I were to fill that role I doubt I'd play Guardian. (Though I am fiddling with some eccentric Guardian builds.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
KM is not 3rd party material?
It is made and published by Paizo.
Yes and no. The kingdom rules were not made by Paizo. They were contracted out (IIRC to Legendary Games) and then put into Kingmaker without any playtesting.
Paizo published them and ultimately owns responsibility for them, but they're not an in-house creation.
Frankly there's really no reason for them to worry about it here. Battlecry is meant to be AP agonostic, so putting a bunch of Kingmaker specific considerations in it isn't really necessary. Army rules are only relevant in one section of Kingmaker anyway (AFAIK) and a GM can pretty easily modify that chapter to use skirmish rules instead if they want to, or use skirmish rules for key encounters while using army rules for the rest. Or just ditch the army rules entirely and do most of it via Warfare checks.
IF I buy a product with kingdom and army rules as its differentiation from other similar products, I expect them to be functional. They are not.
This is very much a problem for Paizo to fix.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
KM is not 3rd party material?
It is made and published by Paizo.
Yes and no. The kingdom rules were not made by Paizo. They were contracted out (IIRC to Legendary Games) and then put into Kingmaker without any playtesting.
Paizo published them and ultimately owns responsibility for them, but they're not an in-house creation.
Frankly there's really no reason for them to worry about it here. Battlecry is meant to be AP agonostic, so putting a bunch of Kingmaker specific considerations in it isn't really necessary. Army rules are only relevant in one section of Kingmaker anyway (AFAIK) and a GM can pretty easily modify that chapter to use skirmish rules instead if they want to, or use skirmish rules for key encounters while using army rules for the rest. Or just ditch the army rules entirely and do most of it via Warfare checks.
IF I buy a product with kingdom and army rules as its differentiation from other similar products, I expect them to be functional. They are not.
This is very much a problem for Paizo to fix.
It is, but its a Kingmaker problem for them to fix. It's not a Battlecry problem. Course, considering we can't even get them to fix basic stuff like "how many spells do Oracles know", there's no chance this happens. Product support is not a thing Paizo does well. Kingmaker as a product suffers massively from having all these dreadful subsystems that are held up as a feature.
The additional problem with the army rules is that as soon as you start doing army combat, you're not playing Pathfinder anymore, though. You're playing some other game where your character basically isn't involved at all and you have to learn a whole new set of rules. I know even before we abandoned Kingmaker, most of the players in my group weren't at all interested in learning the army combat rules and basically wanted nothing to do with it. (That differs from the Kingdom rules where folks did try to learn it and then most of them just wanted to stop doing it not long after.)
The skirmish rules big upside is that you're actually still playing your character in Pathfinder. (IIRC Battlecry has a side bar that mentions this as one of the design considerations.)
So it's perfectly valid in this book to do another take on larger scale combat that doesn't suffer from the "this is effectively a different game" problem that army combat does.
That doesn't get them off the hook for Kingmaker, but Kingmaker being bad doesn't mean they should be forced to redo army combat here given that fundamental problem.
Course, considering we can't even get them to fix basic stuff like "how many spells do Oracles know", there's no chance this happens.
Insofar as I'm aware that was errata'd pretty early on and has been a resolved issue for a long while now.
Course, considering we can't even get them to fix basic stuff like "how many spells do Oracles know", there's no chance this happens.Insofar as I'm aware that was errata'd pretty early on and has been a resolved issue for a long while now.
The number of spell slots was errata'd and is no longer an issue. The number of spells in the repertoire was not and remains an issue.
