As I said in the title. The guardian's Group Taunt is not only better than other lvl 8 feats but something that probably every guardian character will want to take once that the most common thing is to face more than one enemy in an encounter.
This makes me think that this feat is so mandatory that it should be a class feature instead of an optional feat.
Do you agree? If you made a guardian character, you would even drop Group Taunt in your build? Please don't consider that someone for some reason would do this but if you really would play as guardian you will drop this feat?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not think it should be a class feature. I like it as an option for a Guardian, but depending on your group and your character concept, multi-taunt might not work well. The way Taunt was changed is great, but, just like in playtest, you probably do not want to Taunt every round. It is a good tool in the toolbox, but the situation will determine if you want to use it.
I also would not say that Group Taunt is better than the other level 8 Guardian Feats. None of them are bad.
Juggernaut Charge allows you to literally pull an enemy away from an ally and gives action compression.
Mighty Bulwark gives the Guardian +4(!!!) to ALL Reflex saves when they are in any armor with the Bulwark trait, which most will be.
Repositioming Block allows you to totally change an enemy's turn, or put them into a position that helps your allies while doing something you already want to do (Shield Block)
Shield from Arrows gives an ally +4(!!!) AC against an already declared attack (and later gets an upgrade).
Shield Wallop might be the weakest, but is still an excellent anti-caster tool.
I would not say that Group Taunt is an absolute must pick by any means. I thinkl all of them are solid picks, and having choices that matter is something that is good.
If you make Group Taunt baseline, then you remove a choice, and that to me is not bad. I can see the argument for baseline as an anti-poaching tool, but a non Guardian gets it at 16, and that's pretty late game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also consider that focus fire is one of the best tactics to use for any group of combatants that wants to win the fight. You are effectively further incentivizing the enemy team to focus fire.
In some cases it is a good idea to use Group Taunt. If you are fighting a bunch of lower level enemies, or if you are fighting a group of intelligent enemies that are already trying to focus fire on a less defended ally.
In some cases it is not possible. If there is only one enemy in the battle, Group Taunt will be useless.
In some cases it is available, but may be a bad idea. If there are two equally dangerous enemies in the battle and you have another frontliner party member who has the aggro of one of the enemies, you don't want to draw the attention of both.
I think it is that third scenario that indicates that this is better as a class feat than a mandatory class feature. Group Taunt is better for some party compositions than others. If your Guardian character is the only front line defensive character in the party, yes the ability is fantastic and nearly mandatory. If you have a sword and shield Fighter or a Champion in the party, then your ideal tactics are not to draw all of the aggro onto yourself. Picking one of the other really nice level 8 feats would be a better choice.
But all of that is answering a different question. That answers the question of 'is there a reason that you would not want to take Group Taunt?'
-----
The answer to the question of 'why is this a class feat instead of a class feature?' is because of class feature budget.
Most of the class's abilities that they gain from class features are given at level 1. Most of the rest of the abilities that are given at higher levels are given from a subclass rather than the core class.
The vast majority of core class features at levels higher than 1 are math boosts, generally in the form of proficiency increases. There are also some math boosts that are not proficiency, such as Powerful Alchemy.
There are very few core class features that are new abilities. Opportune Riposte (Swashbuckler 3) and Extract Elements (Kineticist 3) are the two that I can think of. I'm sure there are others, but details aside, these are the exception not the standard design.
This is hardly the first class that someone has pointed to a particular feat at a particular level and considered that feat to be a 'must-pick'. Witch level 2 Basic Lesson and Summoner level 4 Tandem Movement come to mind.
I agree w/ much of the reasoning above, plus that it's not a must-have feat. (And kinda think Mighty Bulwark is.)
Some GMs avoid focus fire out of a sense of fair play unless there's a reason like a tactician among the enemies. Group Taunt provides enemies/GMs this reason; focus fire becomes a natural, self-inflicted byproduct. In your toughest battles, you either don't have three enemies or don't want those three strong enemies agreeing to attack you. After all they're only 30' away (unless we deem Long-distance Taunt a must-have that should go on the class chassis too). If it shines best in easier encounters, I'm not sure it's all that must-have alongside the other feats that can also turn a battle/save a PC's ass. Plus a lot of the Guardian's punishing responses are Flourish, so there are diminishing returns on the extra targets.
Note that I have included the feat in at least one Guardian build concept (yes, w/ Long-distance Taunt too). So I'm not dissing it, just not exalting it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I said in the title. The guardian's Group Taunt is not only better than other lvl 8 feats but something that probably every guardian character will want to take once that the most common thing is to face more than one enemy in an encounter.
This makes me think that this feat is so mandatory that it should be a class feature instead of an optional feat.
Do you agree? If you made a guardian character, you would even drop Group Taunt in your build? Please don't consider that someone for some reason would do this but if you really would play as guardian you will drop this feat?
Group Taunt, better than Mighty Bulwark? Yeah, I'm sorry, no.
One of them lets you Taunt 3 dudes, the other effectively gives you 3-4 attribute boosts in Dexterity for free (most Guardians I've seen are Dex 0 or +1) for what matters most.
There's no contest here on which Feat is getting taken at level 8.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can I get Double prey on my ranger for free while your at it?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would prefer it if Taunt was a class feat and not a class feature.
I would prefer it if Taunt was a class feat and not a class feature.
I was just considering MCD Guardian on a prospective build when I realized I don't want them taunting anybody, mechanically or thematically. Even when my allies were struggling and I could take the hits I'd typically have better actions. Compare to one-action/one-round Compositions for amount of targets or effect and Taunt isn't efficient enough. That's a bit unfair out of context since the Guardian feats which depend on Taunt are strong and they balance w/ the Guardian being a hit point sponge.
It seems my words could be used to argue either direction on this. Hmm. But since a Guardian must invest in feats to make Taunt effective enough to warrant the action (especially if they have to Raise Shield too), and is thus easily ignored in a build, maybe it should be a feat (perhaps starting off at long-distance as per the 1st level feat upgrade).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would prefer it if Taunt was a class feat and not a class feature.I was just considering MCD Guardian on a prospective build when I realized I don't want them taunting anybody, mechanically or thematically. Even when my allies were struggling and I could take the hits I'd typically have better actions. Compare to one-action/one-round Compositions for amount of targets or effect and Taunt isn't efficient enough. That's a bit unfair out of context since the Guardian feats which depend on Taunt are strong and they balance w/ the Guardian being a hit point sponge.
It seems my words could be used to argue either direction on this. Hmm. But since a Guardian must invest in feats to make Taunt effective enough to warrant the action (especially if they have to Raise Shield too), and is thus easily ignored in a build, maybe it should be a feat (perhaps starting off at long-distance as per the 1st level feat upgrade).
I very much disagree that baseline Taunt is not effective on its own. There is no save, there is no roll. It just works. It does one of two things:
It determines an enemy movement before they go, and that can be very useful for planning. Or, it debuffs the enemy with both a malus to hit and Off-Guard for every single PC.
Put it this way - if you were playing in a game, and an enemy used Guardian Taunt on you, and you were next, would you think it was weak? You would either have to attack that specific enemy - and maybe you don't want to - or you would be Off Guard to the entire monster team.
Is it broken? No. However, it is very well designed, IMO, soft taunt, and I think a hard taunt would not have been liked by many players, given how, in the play test, a number of regulars were saying they hated the very idea of a taunt.
I think the way Taunt is viewed by some people is a mindset of "a class feature should be 'useful' in every fight, and/or if it requires an action something that is the 'obvious choice' to spam every round (or nearly every round), or it's 'weak'."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing with taunt that people don't recognize is that it pretty much forces the target to pick between two bad options. If they still want to hit one of your allies they need to take the taunt's penalties, but if they decide to hit you instead then they need to beat your AC which is at least the same as your allies' effective AC due to your taunt or higher if you have a shield. If you take the Ulfen Guard Dedication you can easily stay behind your designated ally with a reach weapon too. If you have a shield then both you and your designated ally are at effectively +3 AC against that enemy. If the enemy wants to hit you, they need to step towards you, and if they want to hit your ally, you can still use Intercept Attack, Disarming Intercept, Armored Counterattack, etc.
It basically revolves around on how you want to play you guardian. You want to build around enemies targeting you or you want a more reactive style where you want enemies to hit your allies while you impose penalties? Both are possible and you can even mix a bit of both if you want. The class is IMO solid.
I think the way Taunt is viewed by some people is a mindset of "a class feature should be 'useful' in every fight, and/or if it requires an action something that is the 'obvious choice' to spam every round (or nearly every round), or it's 'weak'."
Yes, because it's the Guardian's main “aggro” tool, and it's also part of several other actions and activities (I'm not against these being feats, because how you use your Taunt can vary depending on your weapons and gameplay strategies).
From a purely mechanical perspective, Taunt is the Guardian's main way to secure enemy attention. It's not the game's main DPR, so it lacks a mechanical reason to justify the GM choosing to attack it. A character with a typically much higher AC than the other target options it has would be more interesting to attack, debuff, or disable.
Taunt is essentially an automatic trip against the enemy(ies) that try to attack the Guardian's allies instead of them. But with a slightly lower attack penalty (or the same if the target is protected by Bodyguard), without the movement penalty (although this can also be emulated by Hampering Stance/Lock Down/Not so Fast!, but with the enemy not being able to use an action to break free).
So, there's very little reason for a player not to want to Taunt every round.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. There will be many times when you won't want to taunt. I'm fooling around with a Guardian in Dawnsbury Days right now - and it doesn't even have all the options one would have in a PF2E game, and there are times when I do not Taunt.
Maybe the enemy is too far away. Maybe I'd rather make another Strike because there is one foe left, maybe I'm low on HP, and the enemy goes before the cleric, and I want it to go after the DPS that round.
Yes, Taunt is good. Yes, most rounds the Guardian wants to Taunt. But, like with every other ability in the game, you need to make decisions round-by-round and not get into a rotation.
Also, and this may be just me, and I am not trying to be critical, but I do not, as a GM, look for mechanical reasons to attack or not attack certain characters. I try to make the attacks make sense in the story of that fight, and not have the monsters say 'Oh, that wizard has less AC than the fighter, so let me attack the wizard.'.
I find it interesting that some GMs seem to metagame with monster attacks and be mad when players do it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the main thing we're overlooking here is, we now have a Taunt mechanic that is at least balanced-ish.
And while Group Taunt isn't bad, I would definitely take Mighty Bulwark or Juggernaut charge ahead of it.
Being able to cause a -1 to attack (against attack that doesn't include you) and off-guard with no roll of any sort is great. And doing so against more targets is even better.
But basically getting to ignore dex by using bulwark (and increasing it's bonus) on all dex saves is practically mandatory.
And juggernaut charge is just so generally useful for getting a strong enemy off of an ally....I can imagine myself spending higher level feat slots to get both of those.
And then having to make a choice later on whether to take group taunt or some of the other great higher level feats.
My real unrelated question at this point, is there a way to use a two-handed weapon a shield? Specifically I vaguely recall a way to use a polearm/spear with a shield but can't recall for sure.
The idea of the heavy armor master with spear and shield is calling to me, from some vague imagery that I can't even define but the idea is clear in my head and now I want to build it.
Edit: If anything Mighty Bulwark probably should be a class feature instead of a feat...because I honestly can't imagine not choosing that.
Maybe the enemy is too far away. Maybe I'd rather make another Strike because there is one foe left, maybe I'm low on HP, and the enemy goes before the cleric, and I want it to go after the DPS that round.
Breaking into separate sections to respond to your thoughts. I personally think the enemy being "too far away" is actually great for Taunt. Because now the enemy has to waste actions to move to you and attack, or suffer penalties. Unless by too far away, you mean more than 30ft. Which on second thought, is probably what you mean.
Also, and this may be just me, and I am not trying to be critical, but I do not, as a GM, look for mechanical reasons to attack or not attack certain characters. I try to make the attacks make sense in the story of that fight, and not have the monsters say 'Oh, that wizard has less AC than the fighter, so let me attack the wizard.'.I find it interesting that some GMs seem to metagame with monster attacks and be mad when players do it.
I think looking at mechanical reasons is valid. The fact that the wizard probably has a worse AC than other enemies and also potentially has encounter changing magic that could really make combat more difficult for the NPC are both good reasons for an intelligent enemy to target them.
Although, at the same time I expect players to think the same tactical kind of thoughts about the enemies they're fighting. Recognizing a high threat enemy and trying to remove them first. And as the GM playing those NPCs, I'm going to make it difficult and costly (hopefully) to get past the other NPCs in the fight to reach that high value target.
Edit: However there are obviously a lot of factors, action cost to get to other targets, buffs and debuffs, etc should all factor into the decision of any intelligent character on the battlefield.
I disagree. There will be many times when you won't want to taunt. I'm fooling around with a Guardian in Dawnsbury Days right now - and it doesn't even have all the options one would have in a PF2E game, and there are times when I do not Taunt.
Maybe the enemy is too far away. Maybe I'd rather make another Strike because there is one foe left, maybe I'm low on HP, and the enemy goes before the cleric, and I want it to go after the DPS that round.
Yes, Taunt is good. Yes, most rounds the Guardian wants to Taunt. But, like with every other ability in the game, you need to make decisions round-by-round and not get into a rotation.
Also, and this may be just me, and I am not trying to be critical, but I do not, as a GM, look for mechanical reasons to attack or not attack certain characters. I try to make the attacks make sense in the story of that fight, and not have the monsters say 'Oh, that wizard has less AC than the fighter, so let me attack the wizard.'.
I find it interesting that some GMs seem to metagame with monster attacks and be mad when players do it.
Yeah, even if I use damage to determine a target, it's based on who did the most damage to that creature that turn, so if the guardian already has them separated from the group and is fighting them solo, they will just keep fighting the guardian, not change course and go for the wizard. There are also many other reasons to target the high AC character, for instance I once had the party shrunk down and fighting a bird. The bird went after the heavily armored character because they were shiny. If the players employ good tactics they may also be able to get the guardian into a doorway where the enemy can't get past them to attack the rest of the party. Taunt is good, but there are plenty of scenarios where you don't need to do it every round. Like every other class in this game, power comes from knowing when to use your abilities, not just relying on the strength of your build.
My real unrelated question at this point, is there a way to use a two-handed weapon a shield? Specifically I vaguely recall a way to use a polearm/spear with a shield but can't recall for sure.
The idea of the heavy armor master with spear and shield is calling to me, from some vague imagery that I can't even define but the idea is clear in my head and now I want to build it.
I'm not sure if PF2e allows using a shield and a two-handed weapon (I know PF1e did), but:
1) You can take a multiclassed dedication in psychic (Tangible Dream) for the shield cantrip and the amp (which works nicely with a guardian). Other multiclassed caster dedications (Wis-based) can give access to non-amped shield and another cantrip if the guardian doesn't have the Int or Cha for the Psychic Dedication feat.
2) You can gain access to the breaching pike with the hobgoblin ancestry for a one-handed reach weapon. Or you can use the Unconventional Weaponry ancestry feat for the breaching pike, gnome flickmace, or even thorn whip (less damage, but with the Trip trait). If the character is affiliated with the Aspis Consortium, they should have access to the asp coil.
Also, and this may be just me, and I am not trying to be critical, but I do not, as a GM, look for mechanical reasons to attack or not attack certain characters. I try to make the attacks make sense in the story of that fight, and not have the monsters say 'Oh, that wizard has less AC than the fighter, so let me attack the wizard.'.
I find it interesting that some GMs seem to metagame with monster attacks and be mad when players do it.
Then again, sometimes it isn't always obvious which PC is 'the wizard'. Even before the war mage class archetype, the sentinel archetype (and using a general feat on Weapon Proficiency, such as with a human with the Versatile heritage or taking General Training as their 1st level ancestry feat) allowed 'the wizard' (or sorcerer, or psychic, etc.) to wear medium (or heavy with additional feat investment) armor and wield a martial weapon (like a dancer's spear) with very little investment...
Str +1, Dex +3, Int or Cha +4, Weapon Proficiency at 1st; Sentinel Dedication at 2nd; use one of the four +1s at 5th on Str; Armor Specialist at 6th to wear scale mail (probably studded leather before 5th) and gain the resistance against piercing damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then again, sometimes it isn't always obvious which PC is 'the wizard'. Even before the war mage class archetype, the sentinel archetype (and using a general feat on Weapon Proficiency, such as with a human with the Versatile heritage or taking General Training as their 1st level ancestry feat) allowed 'the wizard' (or sorcerer, or psychic, etc.) to wear medium (or heavy with additional feat investment) armor and wield a martial weapon (like a dancer's spear) with very little investment...
If historically robed wizards got killed because of their ability to effect change, what intelligent wizard would still wear robes and not try to appear as something else. That's just survival.
The moment you drop a fireball or eclipse burst though, you invite trouble.
Then again, sometimes it isn't always obvious which PC is 'the wizard'. Even before the war mage class archetype, the sentinel archetype (and using a general feat on Weapon Proficiency, such as with a human with the Versatile heritage or taking General Training as their 1st level ancestry feat) allowed 'the wizard' (or sorcerer, or psychic, etc.) to wear medium (or heavy with additional feat investment) armor and wield a martial weapon (like a dancer's spear) with very little investment...
If historically robed wizards got killed because of their ability to effect change, what intelligent wizard would still wear robes and not try to appear as something else. That's just survival.
The moment you drop a fireball or eclipse burst though, you invite trouble.
Well, sure... casting damaging spells draws attention. But if an enemy/group of enemies encounter a storm order druid, polymath/enigma muse bard, flame oracle (or warpriest cleric of Sarenrae), and a 'wizard'/sentinel, all wearing armor, all wielding weapons, and all casting damaging spells, which one should be the primary target without metagaming from GM knowledge "this class has the least hit points?" Or substitute a starlit span magus in place of one of the other casters. Or a vindicator ranger, or a bloodrager barbarian, etc.
"Kill the wizard first" is a trope from earlier editions, really, and is not as relevant in PF2e.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Usually if you want to interpret enemies in battle there are many ways to do this for example.
Intelligent enemies could focus into healers and AoE casters. Not because they know that they have less HP, but because they know that these characters are doing too much damage (the sum of AoE damage) or preventing the enemies' victory (healing).
Instinctive enemies like animals could focus into their hunt instinct focusing on those who looks small, slower and weaker (typically unarmored casters) like many predators does when they hunt.
Mindless enemies probably won't focus at all. Attacking the first thing that moves, is closer and/or is hurting them.
But mechanics like Taunt and Antagonize breaks these interpretative logics. They are made basically saying “attack me, not the others. Forget your logic and focus into me” at the same time that they do mechanical penalties to those that ignores their effects.
These things make some interpretive target decisions more difficult for some GMs. In the troll example:
A troll is being hurt by an alchemist that is doing fire damage to it, disabling its regen. But this troll is under effect of Taunt/Antagonize. Should this troll ignore the Taunt/Antagonize effect because the fire damage it's the real danger here and sustaining the Taunt/Antagonize debuffs (and Taunt “triggering” actions like Proud Nail/Ring their Bell) but diminishing these frontliners high defense relevance or should this troll to compulsively focus into the source of Taunt/Antagonize effects first even risking it life for this?
Many people dislike the concept of compulsion because for they consider that the lore part of these abilities is not a rule and should not be followed or as some then point “if you rule in this way so every enemy that is frightened should run or fight irrationally the source of its fear” something that most of us disagree and just considers frightened more like a distractive debuff.
For other side “metagaming” GMs that prefers to choose their target based on numbers (like most players do too) (some GMs tries do diminish this metagame impression using RK and information that they already know vs players) will choose the option that looks like tactically more effective. Other people may dislike the compulsion interpretation too because it makes some options like Proud Nail/Ring their Bell way less useful.
But in this case the GM frequently will use breaches in this system like in case that the players are flanking/Ganging Up a creature and one of them is heavily armored and fortress shielded guardian and the other is a light-armored rogue, in this situation, for the GM, between get Taunt “debuff” that also do off-guard and focus that attack into that have a way higher AC than a rogue even with a -1 to your attacks against it will easily decide to ignore the tank that will be way harder to defeat and focus into this rogue because the worse that I will get is a -1 to attack (and maybe attacked by a Proud Nail/Ring their Bell) just treating Taunt has a debuff that depend on choice and not a compulsion that attracts the attention of the creature to the guardian.
There's algo GMs that rolls a die and attack at random and well... Taunt will work like a random debuff too, and that's it.
So Taunt system is a bit problematic because it won't work consistently depending on from how each GM rules the game. So expect many different experiences from different tables and due to the lack of guidelines none of they would really doing this wrong.
My real unrelated question at this point, is there a way to use a two-handed weapon a shield? Specifically I vaguely recall a way to use a polearm/spear with a shield but can't recall for sure.
The idea of the heavy armor master with spear and shield is calling to me, from some vague imagery that I can't even define but the idea is clear in my head and now I want to build it.
I'm not sure if PF2e allows using a shield and a two-handed weapon (I know PF1e did), but:
1) You can take a multiclassed dedication in psychic (Tangible Dream) for the shield cantrip and the amp (which works nicely with a guardian). Other multiclassed caster dedications (Wis-based) can give access to non-amped shield and another cantrip if the guardian doesn't have the Int or Cha for the Psychic Dedication feat.
2) You can gain access to the breaching pike with the hobgoblin ancestry for a one-handed reach weapon. Or you can use the Unconventional Weaponry ancestry feat for the breaching pike, gnome flickmace, or even thorn whip (less damage, but with the Trip trait). If the character is affiliated with the Aspis Consortium, they should have access to the asp coil.
Yeah, the breaching pike is likely the closest I'm going to get. The image I have in my head is a using a reach spear/polearm behind a shield, in my mind the use is two handed but doesn't really need to be.
Which enemies even understand the effects of a Taunt? Would PCs recognize they've been Taunted? Since it can target Mindless enemies, what exactly is it? Yes, there's a description in the ability, but that matches ordinary aggressive behavior. Okay, person X is distracting me more than usual and...? I don't think the ramifications really sink in until after they attack someone else and/or get a Proud Nail smacking.
--
My early comment was in regards to it being mediocre was for one specific character (and an MCD Guardian at that) who'd simply have better actions most rounds. Sure, Taunt's a fine 3rd action, but it's among many, so hardly class-defining IMO, hence better represented by a feat (or sub-class!).
And also mediocre for higher levels where AoE, spells, and non-h.p. damaging effects/Conditions become common and which the Guardian isn't significantly better at tanking. Plus I'd expect veteran PCs to make enemies Off-Guard every round anyway (unless evasive, in which case, yes, one does need the longer range upgrade as asserted).
Again, not dissing, simply not exalting.
How many people are taking MCD Guardian for its Taunt ability?
Again, not dissing, simply not exalting.
How many people are taking MCD Guardian for its Taunt ability?
Funnily enough, the summoner on my table took it a few days ago. He does Act Together to taunt with the summoner and attack or reposition with the eidolon. The dedication also gives him medium armor proficiency which is desirable for summoners since they are kinda lacking in that department.
I can see ranged martials taking it to. Since its very likely most creatures will likely prefer to stay melee of your allies rather than waste actions to get to you, this is the perfect way to get off-guard at range. Its probably good for casters too if they want to use spell attacks plus get access to some good armor.
Again, not dissing, simply not exalting.
How many people are taking MCD Guardian for its Taunt ability?Funnily enough, the summoner on my table took it a few days ago. He does Act Together to taunt with the summoner and attack or reposition with the eidolon. The dedication also gives him medium armor proficiency which is desirable for summoners since they are kinda lacking in that department.
I can see ranged martials taking it to. Since its very likely most creatures will likely prefer to stay melee of your allies rather than waste actions to get to you, this is the perfect way to get off-guard at range. Its probably good for casters too if they want to use spell attacks plus get access to some good armor.
That's funny because he'd have the Charisma for Champion, so I guess he did take it for Taunt, not just the armor. But at 30', it seems he'd be taking more aggro than he's built to handle. And maybe (?) attacking his Eidelon does "include" the Summoner since it's hurting him. Hmm. If their health being linked is obvious (and I suspect it's meant to be), then I'd count it if the enemy knew that it'd hurt the Taunter too.
That does get me thinking that a Guardian works well with allies that can lock down the target so they can't attack the Guardian.
As for ranged martials, they aren't usually going to be built to take the aggro either, not from 30' (and why are they that close?). And they'll get less out of the armor and Guardian feats, w/ an exception for thrown/one-handed who can Raise a Shield (and wanted the Str anyway). I guess if the party's composition places them among the soft targets so they Taunt when the enemy's bypassed the tanks. I still don't see it, what with the all the other options, even if buying the long-range version.
My Guardian concept that leans into Taunt would operate at long-range, so there's that, but IMO that does require the upgrades and is playing against the class's main strengths (which I like to do).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I usually find that for most dungeons and APs 30 feet is usually enough to cover most of, if not all, the space where combat is taking place. Also, they can take Long-Distance Taunt at 4th to increase that range to 120 ft. That's even more range than most bows. You should be fine from that point onwards.
I agree the rest of the archetype doesn't really help either summoners or ranged martials, but the same happens with the exemplar and yet people seem to insist its one of the strongest archetypes just for the dedication alone. I don't think the guardian is comparable because its requires set-up and a bit of luck, but I find its an interesting combination. I also think taunt is weird in the sense that it seems designed for the guardian (or multiclass character that has it) to search ways to avoid getting targeted so the penalties can proc, plus Intercept Attack in the case of guardians, so a ranged character kinda feels perfect for it since they have the best way to avoid getting aggro'ed, being far away (at least from 4th level onwards when they can take Long-Distance Taunt).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which enemies even understand the effects of a Taunt? Would PCs recognize they've been Taunted? Since it can target Mindless enemies, what exactly is it? Yes, there's a description in the ability, but that matches ordinary aggressive behavior. Okay, person X is distracting me more than usual and...? I don't think the ramifications really sink in until after they attack someone else and/or get a Proud Nail smacking.
IMO they have to understand that taunt does something for it to work as intended. The point is to draw attention. If they don't know they're under an effect, it's not going to do that.
The fact that it has Auditory/Visual traits means its not a subtle thing. It's pretty clear something is happening. Now do they know the exact mechanical effect beyond "that guy wants me to attack him and bad things might happen if I don't"? That seems like a recall knowledge of some kind to understand the details, which is how a lot of things work.
They'll know pretty quickly once it happens the first time, anyway. But this can get pretty tedious in a long campaign where every creature is supposed to play dumb every time Taunt gets used, which is probably most fights. The nice thing about how its designed is that knowing how it works doesn't really make it worse: they still have to either act on the taunt or take a penalty. So I expect after a while most groups will just wind up at not worrying about it a ton and assuming things under the effect of Taunt know what that means and if they're smart enough to reason, can act accordingly.
(Now a random creature likely won't know that you have a specific Guardian feat, of course.)
How many people are taking MCD Guardian for its Taunt ability?
IMO most of the people that considers taking MC with Guardian archetype probably do this to take the heavy armor proficiency progression for non-heavy armored martial.
Currently, with 3 archetype options to do this (we have Stalwart Defender too but I will ignore it because it requires 2 feats to take the heavy armor proficiency).
So I don't believe that most players would take the archetype to take Taunt instead they probably take for the heavy armor and because it's a multiclass archetype, and it isn't the champion that requires cha and have many anathemas. Probably for most of them, Taunt will be more like a bonus than a reason to take the archetype.
Yet as pointed by exequiel759 some players could take it to use as a powerful ranged off-guard specially if they take Long-distance Taunt and are the adventures are focused on very large battle maps or that have some kind of terrain advantage that prevent the enemies to get closer.
i don't know, maybe a champion with devoted guardian and a tower shield and getting Bodyguard to swing one allies AC by 4 could be cool.
Could giving a caster that much of a boost while also intercepting strikes or champion reaction them let them comfortably use touch spells and cones from melee?
i don't know, maybe a champion with devoted guardian and a tower shield and getting Bodyguard to swing one allies AC by 4 could be cool.
Could giving a caster that much of a boost while also intercepting strikes or champion reaction them let them comfortably use touch spells and cones from melee?
Do touch spells and cones make up the power difference? At low levels, no. Before Armored Counterattack at 12th+? Paragon's Guard Stance (also 12th) or Quickened so they can get a Strike in?
Also if the champ is justice there is more synergy there if intercept level safety isn't needed that round. The creature attacking your ally becomes offguard for the attempt and retributive strike gets to attack the offguard creature right?
Had you meant MCD/Multiclass Dedication/"dedicated" Guardian (for the Champion) instead of "devoted"? I'd regarded them as separate concepts so my reply might not make sense as it addresses just a Guardian.
I think blending those two classes is a bit overkill though an interesting thought experiment. As a martial I'd at least want to contribute if engulfed, swallowed, or simply alone. I think a Guardian struggles with that more than a Champion.
Had you meant MCD/Multiclass Dedication/"dedicated" Guardian (for the Champion) instead of "devoted"? I'd regarded them as separate concepts so my reply might not make sense as it addresses just a Guardian.
I think blending those two classes is a bit overkill though an interesting thought experiment. As a martial I'd at least want to contribute if engulfed, swallowed, or simply alone. I think a Guardian struggles with that more than a Champion.
Lol yeah looking back at my post I wasnt clear.
I was thinking champion with guardian dedication.I was thinking that much AC for a single ally might let almost any other class step into melee next to the champion.
Had you meant MCD/Multiclass Dedication/"dedicated" Guardian (for the Champion) instead of "devoted"? I'd regarded them as separate concepts so my reply might not make sense as it addresses just a Guardian.
I think blending those two classes is a bit overkill though an interesting thought experiment. As a martial I'd at least want to contribute if engulfed, swallowed, or simply alone. I think a Guardian struggles with that more than a Champion.
Lol yeah looking back at my post I wasnt clear.
I was thinking champion with guardian dedication.
I was thinking that much AC for a single ally might let almost any other class step into melee next to the champion.
Yes, but when the tank covers so the other PC can get into melee, does that add enough value to justify those actions? (As compared to a more aggressive tank w/ the other PC standing back)
I don't think the touch spells and cones warrant such party tactics.BUT, that would be a good option should a fragile get enmeshed in melee. I just wouldn't want the fragile to intentionally put themselves in such danger as it'd cut into my own contributions to offense. And as a Champion, there's already Lay on Hands for emergencies. I do like the access to more hit points, though I'm not sure I like enough Guardian abilities to go that direction (not that Barbarian has more, since I'd be looking mostly at non-Rage feats).
I think it'd be funnier to get MCD Magus so you can Spellstrike which (if you hit) would give enemies the completely wrong impression that you're some offensive beast that needs their focus (and might appear higher level than your allies once enemies meet your defense/resilience).
Unrelated to the MC Guardian Dedication discussion or the Taunt ability, I've been messing around with a guardian taking the Bastion Dedication. The character doesn't really give up much (other than getting Reactive Shield at 2nd level instead of taking a guardian class feat) and the entire reason for the archetype is for the Quick Shield Block feat at 10th level.
Three available reactions per round, LOL. Granted one of them has to be a Shield Block; however, the other two can be used for Intercept Attack, Reactive Strike (taken at 6th), or another Shield Block.
I feel its kinda weird (and sad I guess?) that a guardian has to wait 10 levels to use shield block efficiently. It's not like I miss it because the guardian luckly has other stuff to do with its reactions instead, but I find funny that the two archetypes that most people will associate with guardians in FA games (bastion and sentinel) don't really work with the guardian or rather take a while to work. Even the ulfen guard archetype I suggested earlier was mostly for the dedication, because the rest of the archetype is pretty much full of reactions that you aren't going to use as a guardian.
I mean, monk also has overlap with martial artist but its still desirable for monks to take for a "vanilla" monk experience in a FA game. That doesn't happen with bastion for multiple reasons like Reactive Shield being a reaction, the guardian not having the means to truly exploit the benefits of something like Agile Shield Grip, Disarming Block requiring shield block, the guardian having arguably better stances than Everstand Stance, Nimble Shield Hand not working with tower shields which is arguably the shield that guardians want to use the most, Shielded Stride not really mattering much when most guardians won't have a movement speed higher than 15 ft, etc. If you could take Bastion Dedication at 6th, Reflexive Shield at 8th, then Quick Shield Block at 10th and dip out it would probably be a bit too good, but since you can't do this because you need to take feats from archetypes at 2nd and 4th level with FA it kinda makes taking this archetype not that good of an option really. The same happens with sentinel since the only thing you really want is Mighty Bulwark at 10th too.
I can't really compare that to Martial Artist letting Monks open up more valuable class feat slots for Qi-spells as they can pick up Stances from the archetype instead, and then keep picking non-monk options such as Follow Up Strike, Grevious blow and Adamantine body.
That's kind of the issue I have here. Reflexive Shield competes with Disarming Intercept, Lock Down, and Ring their Bell for the 6th level feat slot, and Mighty Bulwark competes with Group Taunt and Juggernaut Charge for the 8th level feat slot. Mighty Bulwark is pretty much mandatory for guardians, while Reflexive Shield feels mandatory for shield guardians. Your only way to get Mighty Bulwark outside of the guardian is either sentinel or stalwart defender, but neither really works for the guardian. I agree bastion at least does something for the guardian, but what exists for non-shield guardians?
This isn't something I'm saying for Paizo to fix though. I feel Paizo did this on purpose to kinda force guardian players to think if they really want to take these feats or rather take something that could be potentially more useful or fun at the cost of not having these "patch" feats to shore their weaknesses. In a sense I kinda like this because I feel most classes tend to have a clear line of feats they want to take from the beggining, while even guardians of the same playstyle can potentially choose to forgo some feats in favor of others just because they probably favor certain benefits over others. If anything I would like for this to be the case for all classes.
Even though I didn't really care about the guardian before release and the commander was probably my most hyped class since the thaumaturge, I found myself way more interested in making builds for the guardian because the class feels really versatile and fun to theorycraft around, while the commander feels like it has two good builds and that's it. And I really how the commander ended up! But it doesn't feel like someone could make more than 2 or 3 commanders without them feeling same-y.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
T If you take the Ulfen Guard Dedication you can easily stay behind your designated ally with a reach weapon too.
I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but I'm perplexed why people talk about this archetype so much. It's VERY strong, but it has a backstory hook for its prequisites, not just its access. And that hook is extremely specific-- you have to be a member of the elite bodyguards of one of the Grand Princess of Taldor, one of the most significant rulers in the world. You're "loyal to the Primogen Crown only" and pretty much have to be always on a mission from said crown. Outside of PFS, it seems like it will almost never make sense in adventures, certainly not for a low level character you begin the story as.
Even if your GM is ok with the narrative angle, the archetype is power creepy enough to give them pause. GMs who are that lax about consistency of both flavor and crunch seem rare.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That doesn't happen with bastion for multiple reasons like Reactive Shield being a reaction, the guardian not having the means to truly exploit the benefits of something like Agile Shield Grip, Disarming Block requiring shield block, the guardian having arguably better stances than Everstand Stance, Nimble Shield Hand not working with tower shields which is arguably the shield that guardians want to use the most, Shielded Stride not really mattering much when most guardians won't have a movement speed higher than 15 ft, etc. If you could take Bastion Dedication at 6th, Reflexive Shield at 8th, then Quick Shield Block at 10th and dip out it would probably be a bit too good, but since you can't do this because you need to take feats from archetypes at 2nd and 4th level with FA it kinda makes taking this archetype not that good of an option really. The same happens with sentinel since the only thing you really want is Mighty Bulwark at 10th too.
Um... What?
First off, "most guardians" are probably not using a tower shield, because it requires both Raise a Shield and Take Cover for the added AC bonus.
Second, if they do they are probably increasing their speed with Fleet, the nephilim versatile heritage for Nimble Hooves, the elf ancestry for 30 ft base speed and Nimble Elf, etc.
Third, Reactive Shield is a 1st level guardian feat. The reason I mentioned it with the bastion archetype is the Bastion Dedication feat also gives Reactive Shield; so the only drawback is getting Reactive Shield in place of a 2nd level guardian feat.
Fourth, the guardian gets an extra reaction at 7th level with the Reaction Time feature: "At the start of each of your turns, you gain an additional reaction that you can use only for reactions from guardian feats or class features (including Shield Block). If you have the ever ready class feature, you also gain this additional reaction when you roll initiative for combat." Quick Shield via the bastion archetype just gives a third reaction that can only be used for Shield Block.
Fifth, you're overvaluing Reflexive Shield. Reactive Strike at 6th and Mighty Bulwark at 8th are likely more valuable.
Sixth, Defense Advance at 1st is less about combining Raise a Shield and Stride than it is about Raise a Shield, Stride, and then Strike at the end of the movement when in melee reach of an enemy. At least until Paragon's Guard becomes available at 12th level.
T If you take the Ulfen Guard Dedication you can easily stay behind your designated ally with a reach weapon too.I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but I'm perplexed why people talk about this archetype so much. It's VERY strong, but it has a backstory hook for its prequisites, not just its access. And that hook is extremely specific-- you have to be a member of the elite bodyguards of one of the Grand Princess of Taldor, one of the most significant rulers in the world. You're "loyal to the Primogen Crown only" and pretty much have to be always on a mission from said crown. Outside of PFS, it seems like it will almost never make sense in adventures, certainly not for a low level character you begin the story as.
Even if your GM is ok with the narrative angle, the archetype is power creepy enough to give them pause. GMs who are that lax about consistency of both flavor and crunch seem rare.
Eh, I guess I didn't bother looking into it because my table ignores these kind of prerequisites most of the time. I'm the only one that GMs in Golarion and I feel those prerequisites are really dumb because they don't exist for balance but rather flavor, so if a player wants to, for example, play a mercenary character and take blackjacket I think its kinda a$$hole-ish to say "Um, actually your character isn't from Druma". The other GMs I usually play with have their own homebrew worlds so you pretty much have to ignore these kind of prerequisites unless you want to ignore more than half of the archetypes.
We also ignore rarity traits for the same reasons.
First off, "most guardians" are probably not using a tower shield, because it requires both Raise a Shield and Take Cover for the added AC bonus.
A shield guardian wants a tower shield because a few feats like Shield Wallop are stronger if you use a tower shield. Also, if you are in a high level campaign, feats like Paragon's Guard allow you to pretty much Take Cover every round with ease. Its not like they are 100% mandatory for all guardians that want to use a shield, but unless you know the campaign is going to be short I feel most shield guardians are going to switch to tower shields at some point.
I don't disagree with the rest of what you said. I guess its a matter of preference overall. If I play a guardian I'm likely to favor tower shields because the feel of the class kinda leans towards that direction. Like, "I'm playing the big tanky dude so I want to use the big tanky shield with them. If I want to use a regular shield I could be playing something else". I also kinda went over Reactive Strike (which I agree is probably better than Reflexive Shield) because I'm honestly kinda tired of taking Reactive Strike with every character lol. A few months ago I finished an Abomination Vaults + Stolen Fate campaign that went from 1st to 20th level and I was playing a fighter with Tactical Reflexes + Disruptive Stance + the Paladin harrow card so I think I had enough reactive strikes for the rest of the edition pretty much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
T If you take the Ulfen Guard Dedication you can easily stay behind your designated ally with a reach weapon too.I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but I'm perplexed why people talk about this archetype so much. It's VERY strong, but it has a backstory hook for its prequisites, not just its access. And that hook is extremely specific-- you have to be a member of the elite bodyguards of one of the Grand Princess of Taldor, one of the most significant rulers in the world. You're "loyal to the Primogen Crown only" and pretty much have to be always on a mission from said crown. Outside of PFS, it seems like it will almost never make sense in adventures, certainly not for a low level character you begin the story as.
Even if your GM is ok with the narrative angle, the archetype is power creepy enough to give them pause. GMs who are that lax about consistency of both flavor and crunch seem rare.
Eh, I guess I didn't bother looking into it because my table ignores these kind of prerequisites most of the time. I'm the only one that GMs in Golarion and I feel those prerequisites are really dumb because they don't exist for balance but rather flavor, so if a player wants to, for example, play a mercenary character and take blackjacket I think its kinda a$$hole-ish to say "Um, actually your character isn't from Druma". The other GMs I usually play with have their own homebrew worlds so you pretty much have to ignore these kind of prerequisites unless you want to ignore more than half of the archetypes.
We also ignore rarity traits for the same reasons.
I think the problem is rarity is, sometimes, used for balance. It's not supposed to be, and usually it occurs for narrative breakers rather than combat balance. But some of the Lost Omens content feels like they made it uncommon because its balance is sus. Like, several GMs I know will pretty much reject anything out of the Firebrands book.
And while lots of uncommon options have an Access entry, those just create opportunities for characters to take it. It's really rare to see an uncommon option that has a prerequisite like this, which makes it feel like the perfect storm to be rejected.
I think the problem is rarity is, sometimes, used for balance. It's not supposed to be, and usually it occurs for narrative breakers rather than combat balance. But some of the Lost Omens content feels like they made it uncommon because its balance is sus. Like, several GMs I know will pretty much reject anything out of the Firebrands book.
And while lots of uncommon options have an Access entry, those just create opportunities for characters to take it. It's really rare to see an uncommon option that has a prerequisite like this, which makes it feel like the perfect storm to be rejected.
100%, and it's unfortunate that rarity is used both for things that should be narratively rare, and things that are potentially less balanced than ideal.
Ulfen Guard archetype should probably be both, and has the issue that people playing outside of Golarion might completely ignore the "why" is this made rare because they view it as only being story based, like the person you're responding to.
I mean, its Ulfen Guard that good? I agree the dedication is, but the rest of the archetype is pretty much okay. If you want to compare Ulfen Guard with the archetypes that aren't really that good, which sadly happens to be a sizeable amount of them, then I guess Ulfen Guard is OP. If you compare it with the actually strong archetypes? I think its fine. I wouldn't even consider it an auto-pick for guardians either because certain guardian builds are kinda action-heavy so you won't be able to designate allies that efficiently. Again, if the point of comparission here are archetypes like animal trainer or horizon walker then, yeah, Ulfen Guard is busted. Otherwise? I feel Ulfen Guard is solid but not overpowered.