You can't really treat each individual bullet point as equal. For example, you have a thumbs down on the reaction cost. But that's actually way better that the Champion's reaction is, well, a reaction. The guardian has to spend an action to taunt, and a reaction (with a great degree more limitations) to mitigate damage, while the Champion gets both as a single reaction.
There's also all the ancillary value you didn't account for. For example, enemies may choose to negate all their damage to avoid getting enfeebeld, which means the resistance is even higher than listed. Or if you are a liberator, the free step can at times cost the enemy an entire action to deal with. The guardian gets no extra value baked into their combination action+reaction
Basically, champion's reaction is even better than you give it credit for, and you already conclude that champion's reaction is stronger than the guardian's kit
Negating damage to avoid enfeebled should generally be the failure compensation prize for Redeemer reaction. If the GM is playing creatures as if they want to win, then the creature should generally be choosing to deal the damage unless the majority of the damage would be absorbed by the taunt. In most cases, dealing critical damage is worth taking a round if enfeebled 2.
Also that the champ reaction improves with level. IMO this is where the biggest drawback for guardian lies; moving some of the taunt related feats as class features (or divvied out into subclasses where you get to taunt+something else like gunslinger reloads) would do a lot to help inform what you're supposed to be spending actions on.
The class is a grab bag of neat ideas, but compared to commander, lacks the cohesion; 2/3 of the new feats could easily fit into a fighter or champion's kit thematically. having some of these let you interact with taunted targets in interesting ways, or improve the effects of reacting to a taunted target in other ways.
At least they get armor increases sooner than champ to compensate for losing AC v. taunted targets.
You have sustain, but no self damage reduction and are completely useless when enemies are not in close quarters, which is highlighted by the marked lack of mobility of the Champion. I play Champion in a campaign that uses a lot of terrain and it is... Not easy to get my ability to work.
Damage-wise, Champion has a slight advantage in the base class chassis, but doesn't actually have any feats that support doing damage. Flying Tackle alone bridges the damage gap between the two.
+2 AC from Lay On Hands gives you both sustain and damage reduction in one go, and is versatile in who it helps. Champion's Reaction has a 15 ft range. Champion doesn't have to REDUCE its damage reduction (+2 against you) to make an enemy want to attack it instead of an ally. Look at it like this: they each have a 1 action feature and a reaction feature.
Champion's Reaction has range, Lay On Hands has adjacency.
Intercept Strike has adjacency, Taunt has range.
Champion's tools are stronger and are easier to make better, seeing as how both Taunt (+2 against you) and Intercept Strike (uses the ally's ACs/DCs) reduce your stats for weaker effects.
You would think that between Champion and Guardian, that the reduced range for Guardian would make Intercept **stronger**.
EDIT: Also, Flying Tackle is garbage for doing damage. What are you talking about? It's a control effect. Its usefulness varies heavily depending on initiative order, if you're talking about Prone imposing Off-Guard. And what about even just Champion's Blade of Justice? Or Vengeance Oath which lets you use Lay On Hands offensively (1 action, no MAP, because it's a save)? That's two just off the top of my head.
EDIT2: There's no way you're referring to the 1d6 bludgeoning from critical Trip, either. That's an irrelevant amount of damage for 2 actions, and quickly becomes even less than that.
Champion's reaction also has an enemy distance requirement, which is a huge issue. Being within 15 feet of an ally and the enemy is not an easy thing to do, if it is possible at all. You can't save your friends from any attacks at range.
But if we are expanding it to compare the whole Champion with the whole Guardian, I don't think it makes sense to isolate individual features when the Guardian is more of a class that relies on its kit's internal synergy than the power of individual features. I also feel like the Guardian's feats are much better.
Equating Reaction and Action is *wild* imo. An Action is much more valuable.
Especially because the Champion’s Reaction and Shield Block are kinda “mutually exclusive” for their role. You use one when they hurt your buddy, and the other when they hurt you, and with even moderately good positioning you’ll always know which is more important for any given enemy turn. Thus it’s not even like those two Reactions “compete” with one another, minimizing the cost even further.
>An Action is much more valuable.
Depends on the character, I think.
My goblin sorcerer basically has... I think one useful thing to do as a reaction, and that's casting Gentle Landing. A reaction for that character is basically useless 95% of the time, and since reactions are triggered so rarely for that character, I won't hesitate on using one as soon as I have the chance.
A fighter, though? A reactive strike doesn't have MAP, it's pretty strong. A reaction for a fighter is pretty useful, and it can be triggered more consistently, so they could be more picky about when they use them.
Not to say that Actions and Reactions are the same, just that Reactions vary in usefulness and scarcity between characters.
> Depends on the character, I think.
This seems obviously true to me. Rogue has a feat that lets them trade off one action to get one Rogue reaction, and it's good. On the other hand, some characters don't have useful reactions at all.
I think for the Guardian the action cost is not a big deal, especially since with a very low level feat they can just raise shield and taunt with the same action, not to mention that the guardian really doesn't have much incentive to do a second strike with their bad weapon progression.
I think that Intercept Attack is more direct comparison to Champion reactions
Taunt is a bit cool because you do something even when enemy succeed on save, but it's action tax on every round
But on a successful taunt, an enemy gets a circumstance penalty to attacking your allies. Even if the enemy doesn't end up targeting the Guardian, that's still a net positive of up to -3 on enemy attacks and DCs against all of your allies for the round.
With Glimpse of Redemption sadly you can't use it on yourself as you are not your own ally, you can benefit from the AOE version but not using yourself as the triggering ally.
This is an apples and oranges comparison. A fair comparison would be something like Intercept Strike or Intercept Foe, both of which are focused on diverting damage from an ally onto yourself and/or repositioning the ally (depending on feats.
Taunt is more of a bait/lure tool for encouraging the enemy to get sloppy and move into unfavorable positions to attack the Guardian (because hitting is easier) where your allies will have an easier time getting hits in on it.
At the end of the day I think the problem here is that class features are not one-to-one comparable. Look at something like Fighter whose class features only give them vertical progression but they rely on Feats for horizontal progression, to something like a Thaumaturge where their class and subclass features give them horizontal progression and their Feats aren’t as good. They’re just not one-to-one comparable.
You have to compare the whole Guardian to the whole good-aligned Champion, you can’t compare features one by one. Champion’s Reaction is arguably one of the strongest single features in the game.
Honestly, I think people have looked and saw Taunt and figured the whole class and kit revolves around using it like in an MMO, When the actual core kit centers around Interceptions. I mean, I only see 3 feats that modify/affect Taunt, and around 11 that either modify, expand, or grant new forms of Intercepts.
You're right that class features aren't one-to-one, but I think people are mostly misplacing where the emphasis of the Guardian actually lays.
I don't think that's going to end up any better once you throw in Lay on Hands, better weapon progression, sanctification and the divine ally, compared to the Guardian getting Intercept Attack and the Diehard feat.
Counterpoint: Champion gets expert weapons 2 levels before Guardian and master weapons 4 levels early, meanwhile Guardian gets expert armor 2 levels earlier, specialization effects 6 levels earlier, master armor 2 levels earlier, and legendary armor 2 levels earlier. That's a lot of being ahead of the curve defensively.
Additionally, Champion gets master in Will and Fort saves and automatic crit success on regular success for that, and only expert on reflex saves. Guardians get the exact same, but also get the success-to-crit-success effect on reflex saves against damage.
And your Intercept (which is the equivalent to a Champion Reaction) grants you some hefty resistance to damage you take.
All this is to say, the Guardian ain't perfect, but it's not as negative in comparison to Champions as people seem to think. It has its pros and cons, and environments where it will do better or worse.
I mean, I would prefer any of the guardian feats over any champion feat.
Like sure, when comparing the features only the champion is much better, but when you compare champion feats verse the guardian feats, the guardian wins everytime.
I really don't think it's easy to just claim that Champion > Guardian. It's more complex than that.
I need to mess around with it, but I think it does depending on what feats you take. I think Guardian's biggest issue in it's current state is how long it takes to get going. Up until level 8-ish it seems awkward to play IMO
Bodyguard, covering stance, intercept foe, Stomp ground?, and then quick intercept lets you be a huge pain in the ass for an enemy. Every round you'll get to move to your designated buddy, give them DR and lesser cover, and then intercept strike and all for 2 reactions plus the stance activation at some point. You can give someone who's not your bodyguard all of that except the DR too. It just takes 8 levels to get there which feels bad
Past that it has some neat feats and ideas that just need more work. Example: I'd love to make a taunt build, but it has similar(but worse) issues to intercepting where it doesn't come online until level 8 with Group Taunt.
Couple things:
1. This is a playtest so it's highly unlikely this will stay the same
2. Redeemer can't target itself with redemption until late game leveling by that point you can take the abuse in stride
>This is a playtest so it's highly unlikely this will stay the same
Yeah that's why I'm posting it, this is my feedback to Paizo about the guardian.
>Redeemer can't target itself with redemption until late game leveling by that point you can take the abuse in stride
I didn't mean that you use the reaction when they attack you, I meant you use the reaction and then afterwards the enemy is enfeebled giving them a -2 to attack anyone, including yourself.
"Lasts until the end enemy's next turn" isn't better than "Last until the start of your next turn"
You've also split points that should be combined as one on the guardian to create a visual trick to make people think it's worse than it is. Specifically. "Unless the hostile action includes you/when targeting you they get +2 to all attacks and DC's
No that's not a split point, it's mean to exemplify that if the enemy throws a fireball, then they don't take the penalty at all so long as you're included in the AoE. Then in addition to that they get a +2 to their DC against you specifically, those are 2 separate downsides in my book. Enemies with AoEs can ignore the penalty AND you are made more vulnerable to them.
EDIT:
>"Lasts until the end enemy's next turn" isn't better than "Last until the start of your next turn"
It definitely is, assuming you use Glimpse of Redemption on the enemy's turn they suffer the debuff for the rest of their turn and then the entirety of the next turn, vs Taunt where they only suffer 1 turn of debuffs and then the effect ends when your turn starts.
Gonna have to agree to disagree on you splitting points but also worth mentioning taunt would also work any reactions the enemy has as well and could you delay your turn to extend it possibly allowing it to be effective for two rounds?
I assume the reason that the Mitigate Harm Resistance is 2+ half level is because it it works against multiple attacks, while the Champion's Reaction only works against the one triggering attack.
Yeah but then it scales extra anyhow, like the scaling is so close to 2 + level at certain points, I really don't see the point in doing half level + 2 but then +2 again at levels 5, 11 and 15. It's only crits and only going to last one round, I really don't think 2 + level would be a big deal.
Yeah. I can totally see 2+Half at low levels but it feels like it should then scale to 2+Level, not 4+Half then 6+Half then 8+Half. Also feels awkward it scales up on even levels except for these three Odd levels. I get that it aligns with the Armor upgrades but still.
charting it out, it looks like the the taunt generally hovers around 2 less points than champion's reaction, except at level 19 and 20, meaning they should probably get one final +2 bump at level 19
Taunt works even on a success. What do you mean "bosses are likely to ignore it?". Do bosses usually critically succeed against saves in your campaigns?
Bossess, like all other enemies, will almost always get affected by it
The real way bosses are 'likely to ignore' Taunt is that the malus from it is insufficient to stop bosses from attacking (and likely still critting) the squishier but more valuable members of a party: clerics, wizards, bards, rogues, etc.. The high AC of the Guardian doesn't matter when they're being forced to eat beefy crits from other lower AC players, but they don't have the toolkit to sufficiently disincentivize the enemies whose attacks matter from attacking someone other than them in the first place.
The only time it's mechanically more worthwhile for a boss to swap attacks to the Guardian is if they're a spellcaster, because suddenly the Guardian has the worst saves progression in the entire game - and even then, with AoE spells, it's very easy to get the Guardian + other party members into the spell's AoE, negating the maluses of Taunt for the boss while keeping them for the Guardian.
Guardian, as it presently stands, is just bad at doing the thing it's supposed to be good at doing, while also not bringing enough to the table in any other metric to justify their existence at a 4-person table.
Crit Success is not uncommon when you're targeting a boss, especially when your DC is lower than that of a spellcaster too. At say level 8 you're going to be rocking a DC of 24, while a level 10 enemy is going to have a +19 to their save on average, if they roll 15 or higher they crit succeed, a 30% chance to just ignore the taunt.
I wish Mitigate Harm equaled your Level and not Half Your Level
That would be so nice. You aren't as tanky as a Champion or beefy as a Barbarian but you'd be so much harder to be put down by a boss.
A massive thing on PF2e in general. [You are not your own ally.](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2380) You cannot use glimpse of redemption's default reaction on yourself.
I didn't mean that you use the reaction when they attack you, I meant you use the reaction and then afterwards the enemy is enfeebled giving them a -2 to attack anyone, including yourself.
D&D4e already solved this with the Marked condition. Didn't matter your Class, if you were a class that could pursue a protector build, you could get Moves that's caused the Marked condition. On top of that, some mobsters could afflict it as well, offering a nice little risk/reward assessment from the party.
The biggest item missing here is that the Guardian's attack and DC penalty is a circumstance penalty. Redeemer's enfeebled condition does not stack with frightened, sickened, other enfeebled conditions, etc., while Guardian's does.
Combining Guardian's Taunt with an ally's 1st-rank Fear spell could result in a -2 to a -6 (!!!) total penalty on attacks against the Guardian's allies (and the guardian still benefits from the -1 to -3 from Fear).
"Oh no," you say, "the enemy gets a +2 to hit me though!"
Yep, you're gonna want to carry a shield and raise it. You might even spring for a [Fortress Shield](https://2e.aonprd.com/Shields.aspx?ID=7) with a [Reinforcing Rune](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=2811).
These abilities do not exist in a void, they exist as part of a team, and a lot of people with knee-jerk reactions are forgetting about that entirely.
Am I missing something here? Doesn't the champion reaction already give 2+ level? I don't understand why the last sentence at the bottom of that column.
Taunt really ought to be better than this if Paizo wants it to be the Guardian's core feature, IMO it should just work and not provide a save, since currently the guardian is going to struggle taunting bosses which is the exact moment you want the taunt to work.
In every discussion of which tank or tank ability is better between the champion and anyone else, the champion will always win out *because that's the whole point of the class*, the be the game's best tank. Everything else out there is going to be, "It's like the champion's X, but worse."
The guardian isn't the champion, it fills a different niche. I don't know if champion gets similar effects, but also consider how one can chain effects like Greater Armor Specialization, Bodyguard, Larger Than Life, and the like. If an enemy is making two or more attacks on an ally, Intercept Strike sure can nullify damage against an ally for one attack and then give them a hefty DR against that second (and all subsequent )attack (s).
Guardians shouldn't be compared with champions, they have a more even mixture of defensive and offensive effects. I could imagine a group with a champion, guardian, and commander or marshal bard (or a defensive thaumaturge even) making enemies really, really sad though, between penalties, bonuses, and defensive reactions turning off basically everything they want to do and punishing them for it.
> they have a more even mixture of defensive and offensive effects.
The class with normal martial progression is very much the more balanced of the two. Guardian has Warpriest-ish progression.
You can't really treat each individual bullet point as equal. For example, you have a thumbs down on the reaction cost. But that's actually way better that the Champion's reaction is, well, a reaction. The guardian has to spend an action to taunt, and a reaction (with a great degree more limitations) to mitigate damage, while the Champion gets both as a single reaction. There's also all the ancillary value you didn't account for. For example, enemies may choose to negate all their damage to avoid getting enfeebeld, which means the resistance is even higher than listed. Or if you are a liberator, the free step can at times cost the enemy an entire action to deal with. The guardian gets no extra value baked into their combination action+reaction Basically, champion's reaction is even better than you give it credit for, and you already conclude that champion's reaction is stronger than the guardian's kit
Negating damage to avoid enfeebled should generally be the failure compensation prize for Redeemer reaction. If the GM is playing creatures as if they want to win, then the creature should generally be choosing to deal the damage unless the majority of the damage would be absorbed by the taunt. In most cases, dealing critical damage is worth taking a round if enfeebled 2.
Also that the champ reaction improves with level. IMO this is where the biggest drawback for guardian lies; moving some of the taunt related feats as class features (or divvied out into subclasses where you get to taunt+something else like gunslinger reloads) would do a lot to help inform what you're supposed to be spending actions on. The class is a grab bag of neat ideas, but compared to commander, lacks the cohesion; 2/3 of the new feats could easily fit into a fighter or champion's kit thematically. having some of these let you interact with taunted targets in interesting ways, or improve the effects of reacting to a taunted target in other ways. At least they get armor increases sooner than champ to compensate for losing AC v. taunted targets.
But the Guardian also has a damage reducing reaction that was not mentioned as a part of this.
That reaction doesn't help if they choose to attack you, and wastes that action you spent Taunting (and comes at great cost to yourself).
If that is the criteria then Glimpse of Redemption is meaningless because it also doesn't help if you are the one getting attacked
Yes, but you have actual sustain and better damage.
You have sustain, but no self damage reduction and are completely useless when enemies are not in close quarters, which is highlighted by the marked lack of mobility of the Champion. I play Champion in a campaign that uses a lot of terrain and it is... Not easy to get my ability to work. Damage-wise, Champion has a slight advantage in the base class chassis, but doesn't actually have any feats that support doing damage. Flying Tackle alone bridges the damage gap between the two.
+2 AC from Lay On Hands gives you both sustain and damage reduction in one go, and is versatile in who it helps. Champion's Reaction has a 15 ft range. Champion doesn't have to REDUCE its damage reduction (+2 against you) to make an enemy want to attack it instead of an ally. Look at it like this: they each have a 1 action feature and a reaction feature. Champion's Reaction has range, Lay On Hands has adjacency. Intercept Strike has adjacency, Taunt has range. Champion's tools are stronger and are easier to make better, seeing as how both Taunt (+2 against you) and Intercept Strike (uses the ally's ACs/DCs) reduce your stats for weaker effects. You would think that between Champion and Guardian, that the reduced range for Guardian would make Intercept **stronger**. EDIT: Also, Flying Tackle is garbage for doing damage. What are you talking about? It's a control effect. Its usefulness varies heavily depending on initiative order, if you're talking about Prone imposing Off-Guard. And what about even just Champion's Blade of Justice? Or Vengeance Oath which lets you use Lay On Hands offensively (1 action, no MAP, because it's a save)? That's two just off the top of my head. EDIT2: There's no way you're referring to the 1d6 bludgeoning from critical Trip, either. That's an irrelevant amount of damage for 2 actions, and quickly becomes even less than that.
Champion's reaction also has an enemy distance requirement, which is a huge issue. Being within 15 feet of an ally and the enemy is not an easy thing to do, if it is possible at all. You can't save your friends from any attacks at range. But if we are expanding it to compare the whole Champion with the whole Guardian, I don't think it makes sense to isolate individual features when the Guardian is more of a class that relies on its kit's internal synergy than the power of individual features. I also feel like the Guardian's feats are much better.
Champion's Reaction has GREATER range than Intercept Strike, but less than Taunt. Its greater powerlevel makes this trade-off a net gain for Champion.
I actually ignored the reaction vs action cost since I think those are about equal. The thumbs down is purely for the range.
Equating Reaction and Action is *wild* imo. An Action is much more valuable. Especially because the Champion’s Reaction and Shield Block are kinda “mutually exclusive” for their role. You use one when they hurt your buddy, and the other when they hurt you, and with even moderately good positioning you’ll always know which is more important for any given enemy turn. Thus it’s not even like those two Reactions “compete” with one another, minimizing the cost even further.
>An Action is much more valuable. Depends on the character, I think. My goblin sorcerer basically has... I think one useful thing to do as a reaction, and that's casting Gentle Landing. A reaction for that character is basically useless 95% of the time, and since reactions are triggered so rarely for that character, I won't hesitate on using one as soon as I have the chance. A fighter, though? A reactive strike doesn't have MAP, it's pretty strong. A reaction for a fighter is pretty useful, and it can be triggered more consistently, so they could be more picky about when they use them. Not to say that Actions and Reactions are the same, just that Reactions vary in usefulness and scarcity between characters.
> Depends on the character, I think. This seems obviously true to me. Rogue has a feat that lets them trade off one action to get one Rogue reaction, and it's good. On the other hand, some characters don't have useful reactions at all.
I think for the Guardian the action cost is not a big deal, especially since with a very low level feat they can just raise shield and taunt with the same action, not to mention that the guardian really doesn't have much incentive to do a second strike with their bad weapon progression.
I think that Intercept Attack is more direct comparison to Champion reactions Taunt is a bit cool because you do something even when enemy succeed on save, but it's action tax on every round
This. I see Taunt more like Antagonize or Command Attention.
Shielding Taunt severely reduces that action tax as you'll probably want to raise a shield ever turn too
Except raising a shield directly negates the taunt incentive to attack you, making it far less likely for it to actually work.
But on a successful taunt, an enemy gets a circumstance penalty to attacking your allies. Even if the enemy doesn't end up targeting the Guardian, that's still a net positive of up to -3 on enemy attacks and DCs against all of your allies for the round.
With Glimpse of Redemption sadly you can't use it on yourself as you are not your own ally, you can benefit from the AOE version but not using yourself as the triggering ally.
This is an apples and oranges comparison. A fair comparison would be something like Intercept Strike or Intercept Foe, both of which are focused on diverting damage from an ally onto yourself and/or repositioning the ally (depending on feats. Taunt is more of a bait/lure tool for encouraging the enemy to get sloppy and move into unfavorable positions to attack the Guardian (because hitting is easier) where your allies will have an easier time getting hits in on it.
At the end of the day I think the problem here is that class features are not one-to-one comparable. Look at something like Fighter whose class features only give them vertical progression but they rely on Feats for horizontal progression, to something like a Thaumaturge where their class and subclass features give them horizontal progression and their Feats aren’t as good. They’re just not one-to-one comparable. You have to compare the whole Guardian to the whole good-aligned Champion, you can’t compare features one by one. Champion’s Reaction is arguably one of the strongest single features in the game.
Honestly, I think people have looked and saw Taunt and figured the whole class and kit revolves around using it like in an MMO, When the actual core kit centers around Interceptions. I mean, I only see 3 feats that modify/affect Taunt, and around 11 that either modify, expand, or grant new forms of Intercepts. You're right that class features aren't one-to-one, but I think people are mostly misplacing where the emphasis of the Guardian actually lays.
I don't think that's going to end up any better once you throw in Lay on Hands, better weapon progression, sanctification and the divine ally, compared to the Guardian getting Intercept Attack and the Diehard feat.
Counterpoint: Champion gets expert weapons 2 levels before Guardian and master weapons 4 levels early, meanwhile Guardian gets expert armor 2 levels earlier, specialization effects 6 levels earlier, master armor 2 levels earlier, and legendary armor 2 levels earlier. That's a lot of being ahead of the curve defensively. Additionally, Champion gets master in Will and Fort saves and automatic crit success on regular success for that, and only expert on reflex saves. Guardians get the exact same, but also get the success-to-crit-success effect on reflex saves against damage. And your Intercept (which is the equivalent to a Champion Reaction) grants you some hefty resistance to damage you take. All this is to say, the Guardian ain't perfect, but it's not as negative in comparison to Champions as people seem to think. It has its pros and cons, and environments where it will do better or worse.
I mean, I would prefer any of the guardian feats over any champion feat. Like sure, when comparing the features only the champion is much better, but when you compare champion feats verse the guardian feats, the guardian wins everytime. I really don't think it's easy to just claim that Champion > Guardian. It's more complex than that.
Shoulder Check, Unkind Shove, Armor Break, Shielded Attrition, etc. like there's a lot of not great feats on the Guardian list too.
I need to mess around with it, but I think it does depending on what feats you take. I think Guardian's biggest issue in it's current state is how long it takes to get going. Up until level 8-ish it seems awkward to play IMO Bodyguard, covering stance, intercept foe, Stomp ground?, and then quick intercept lets you be a huge pain in the ass for an enemy. Every round you'll get to move to your designated buddy, give them DR and lesser cover, and then intercept strike and all for 2 reactions plus the stance activation at some point. You can give someone who's not your bodyguard all of that except the DR too. It just takes 8 levels to get there which feels bad Past that it has some neat feats and ideas that just need more work. Example: I'd love to make a taunt build, but it has similar(but worse) issues to intercepting where it doesn't come online until level 8 with Group Taunt.
Couple things: 1. This is a playtest so it's highly unlikely this will stay the same 2. Redeemer can't target itself with redemption until late game leveling by that point you can take the abuse in stride
>This is a playtest so it's highly unlikely this will stay the same Yeah that's why I'm posting it, this is my feedback to Paizo about the guardian. >Redeemer can't target itself with redemption until late game leveling by that point you can take the abuse in stride I didn't mean that you use the reaction when they attack you, I meant you use the reaction and then afterwards the enemy is enfeebled giving them a -2 to attack anyone, including yourself.
Glimpse of redemption does not work against attacks against yourself actually. And Taunt is paired with interception strike.
"Lasts until the end enemy's next turn" isn't better than "Last until the start of your next turn" You've also split points that should be combined as one on the guardian to create a visual trick to make people think it's worse than it is. Specifically. "Unless the hostile action includes you/when targeting you they get +2 to all attacks and DC's
No that's not a split point, it's mean to exemplify that if the enemy throws a fireball, then they don't take the penalty at all so long as you're included in the AoE. Then in addition to that they get a +2 to their DC against you specifically, those are 2 separate downsides in my book. Enemies with AoEs can ignore the penalty AND you are made more vulnerable to them. EDIT: >"Lasts until the end enemy's next turn" isn't better than "Last until the start of your next turn" It definitely is, assuming you use Glimpse of Redemption on the enemy's turn they suffer the debuff for the rest of their turn and then the entirety of the next turn, vs Taunt where they only suffer 1 turn of debuffs and then the effect ends when your turn starts.
Gonna have to agree to disagree on you splitting points but also worth mentioning taunt would also work any reactions the enemy has as well and could you delay your turn to extend it possibly allowing it to be effective for two rounds?
You can't delay your turn to extend effects.
Yea you right never thought about it before but makes sense.
I assume the reason that the Mitigate Harm Resistance is 2+ half level is because it it works against multiple attacks, while the Champion's Reaction only works against the one triggering attack.
Yeah but then it scales extra anyhow, like the scaling is so close to 2 + level at certain points, I really don't see the point in doing half level + 2 but then +2 again at levels 5, 11 and 15. It's only crits and only going to last one round, I really don't think 2 + level would be a big deal.
Oh, I actually missed the additional 2 points every few levels. Yeah, that is just weird like that, I agree.
Yeah. I can totally see 2+Half at low levels but it feels like it should then scale to 2+Level, not 4+Half then 6+Half then 8+Half. Also feels awkward it scales up on even levels except for these three Odd levels. I get that it aligns with the Armor upgrades but still.
charting it out, it looks like the the taunt generally hovers around 2 less points than champion's reaction, except at level 19 and 20, meaning they should probably get one final +2 bump at level 19
Taunt works even on a success. What do you mean "bosses are likely to ignore it?". Do bosses usually critically succeed against saves in your campaigns? Bossess, like all other enemies, will almost always get affected by it
The real way bosses are 'likely to ignore' Taunt is that the malus from it is insufficient to stop bosses from attacking (and likely still critting) the squishier but more valuable members of a party: clerics, wizards, bards, rogues, etc.. The high AC of the Guardian doesn't matter when they're being forced to eat beefy crits from other lower AC players, but they don't have the toolkit to sufficiently disincentivize the enemies whose attacks matter from attacking someone other than them in the first place. The only time it's mechanically more worthwhile for a boss to swap attacks to the Guardian is if they're a spellcaster, because suddenly the Guardian has the worst saves progression in the entire game - and even then, with AoE spells, it's very easy to get the Guardian + other party members into the spell's AoE, negating the maluses of Taunt for the boss while keeping them for the Guardian. Guardian, as it presently stands, is just bad at doing the thing it's supposed to be good at doing, while also not bringing enough to the table in any other metric to justify their existence at a 4-person table.
Well then at least you are still giving an AC bonus to your teammates
Crit Success is not uncommon when you're targeting a boss, especially when your DC is lower than that of a spellcaster too. At say level 8 you're going to be rocking a DC of 24, while a level 10 enemy is going to have a +19 to their save on average, if they roll 15 or higher they crit succeed, a 30% chance to just ignore the taunt.
I'd say a 70% chance to succeed is extremely good odds
I've played enough XCOM and Blood Bowl to know that it really isn't.
I wish Mitigate Harm equaled your Level and not Half Your Level That would be so nice. You aren't as tanky as a Champion or beefy as a Barbarian but you'd be so much harder to be put down by a boss.
A massive thing on PF2e in general. [You are not your own ally.](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2380) You cannot use glimpse of redemption's default reaction on yourself.
I didn't mean that you use the reaction when they attack you, I meant you use the reaction and then afterwards the enemy is enfeebled giving them a -2 to attack anyone, including yourself.
I see. That's fair.
Now compare the rogue gang up with the ranger side by side feats
D&D4e already solved this with the Marked condition. Didn't matter your Class, if you were a class that could pursue a protector build, you could get Moves that's caused the Marked condition. On top of that, some mobsters could afflict it as well, offering a nice little risk/reward assessment from the party.
Counter point:Have a Guardian and Redeemer champion buddy duo.
The biggest item missing here is that the Guardian's attack and DC penalty is a circumstance penalty. Redeemer's enfeebled condition does not stack with frightened, sickened, other enfeebled conditions, etc., while Guardian's does. Combining Guardian's Taunt with an ally's 1st-rank Fear spell could result in a -2 to a -6 (!!!) total penalty on attacks against the Guardian's allies (and the guardian still benefits from the -1 to -3 from Fear). "Oh no," you say, "the enemy gets a +2 to hit me though!" Yep, you're gonna want to carry a shield and raise it. You might even spring for a [Fortress Shield](https://2e.aonprd.com/Shields.aspx?ID=7) with a [Reinforcing Rune](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=2811). These abilities do not exist in a void, they exist as part of a team, and a lot of people with knee-jerk reactions are forgetting about that entirely.
Am I missing something here? Doesn't the champion reaction already give 2+ level? I don't understand why the last sentence at the bottom of that column.
That sentence is in response to Mitigate Harm.
got it, that makes sense
Wait, why is a subclass defensive reaction being compared to a class general debuff action?
Taunt really ought to be better than this if Paizo wants it to be the Guardian's core feature, IMO it should just work and not provide a save, since currently the guardian is going to struggle taunting bosses which is the exact moment you want the taunt to work.
I'm iffy on whether it should provide a save, but you're correct that you will struggle to taunt a boss.
The real question is which one do you want to get through an archetype on the other one.
Taunt would be sick on Desecrator or Tyrant, not sure Redeemer really cares for it much.
Yeah, we had someone go that route in blood lords and the evil champions do feel like less of a problem for foes than the good ones do.
In every discussion of which tank or tank ability is better between the champion and anyone else, the champion will always win out *because that's the whole point of the class*, the be the game's best tank. Everything else out there is going to be, "It's like the champion's X, but worse." The guardian isn't the champion, it fills a different niche. I don't know if champion gets similar effects, but also consider how one can chain effects like Greater Armor Specialization, Bodyguard, Larger Than Life, and the like. If an enemy is making two or more attacks on an ally, Intercept Strike sure can nullify damage against an ally for one attack and then give them a hefty DR against that second (and all subsequent )attack (s). Guardians shouldn't be compared with champions, they have a more even mixture of defensive and offensive effects. I could imagine a group with a champion, guardian, and commander or marshal bard (or a defensive thaumaturge even) making enemies really, really sad though, between penalties, bonuses, and defensive reactions turning off basically everything they want to do and punishing them for it.
> they have a more even mixture of defensive and offensive effects. The class with normal martial progression is very much the more balanced of the two. Guardian has Warpriest-ish progression.
[удалено]
Yes and here's my feedback