Going into the front lines without at least a breastplate (or a glowing magical ward) sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.Swashbucklers ARE supposed to be some of the best at hitting people. So yeah, full BAB.QFT. We are talking about a FIGHTER, not a thief. We want a front-liner that relies on skill over big chunks of metal, not a 2nd-rate backstabber.
Tell that to Conan.
I do not want such an option.
Rest assured I shall not force you to play one. However, your dislike is no reason for me not to have MY idea of fun available. I don't like guns in fantasy, so I ignore the gunslinger, and presumably you ban monks from your games ...
Also I love how you assert that swashbucklers are as good at hitting people as fighters without even suggesting an example to back up the statement but rather simply assert truth. Reminds me a bit of theology. :)
I thought everyone had heard of such legendary warriors as the three musketeers, Cyrano de Bergerac, Zorro and such to the extent it never occurred to me to mention them as examples. If you want in-game backing for the full BAB swashbuckler, I can cite the duelist prestige class which follows this vein and has full BAB.
Forgive me for not having read the PrC in a while, but is the Duelist not exactly the swashbuckler/fencer that everyone is talking about? I mean they get riposte and parry as class features for god's sake, wouldn't adding a fencer archetype to the fighter be redundant?
The eldritch knight got expanded into the magus (which has 3/4 BAB as it combines pure casting's half BAB and melee combat's full BAB), we seek the same for the duelist. As this will be a full melee class, full BAB is very appropriate.
Forgive me for not having read the PrC in a while, but is the Duelist not exactly the swashbuckler/fencer that everyone is talking about?
In theory, yes. In practice?
Reflex saves as your one good save is not a good thing. Canny defense means you MAD yourself with high Int to make up for not having armor. Precise Strike just lets you keep pace with a two-handed fighter's damage, and you're not able to use your second hand for anything anyway. Parry doesn't work very well as a mechanic.
And I'd still like a character reminiscent of the Doctor - a true skillmonkey, with no casting or combat abilities but has clever uses for skills others don't think of and always seems to have the materials at hand to solve any problem.A Rogue archetype, perhaps? With a lower Sneak Attack dice or maybe a slowed Sneak Attack progression? Some kind of skill tricks that he can choose... What name would you give that 'Doctor' archyetype? I'm thinking something like Skillmaster.
Exactly so - maybe even no sneak attack. OTOH, while I like skill tricks, it strikes me as unfair to give the option to learn to "do more" with a skill to just one class. Maybe if there was a skill trick type system in place that everyone could take, and this class simply focused on that. As for the name, personally, Skillmaster seems too... obvious. As much so as a Fighter, I suppose, but there is more history for Fighter. I think I'd call it... Expert? No, that's an NPC class. How about Operating Thetan? (Kidding!) Perhaps Virtuoso, though that usually applies only to art and music.
I'd love to see some sort of fleshwarp/craft archtype for the alchemist, maybe even a mutant inspire archtype that gives you options and new discoveries as the result of attempt to further progress in evolution of the alchemical arts. Either way I would be happy to have something for drow alchemist.
Other ideas would be a archtype for druids that makes them a avatar of natures wrath, that focuses on full or partial wildshaping. Possibly a sorcerer archype for those of fey blood that provokes the nature of the first world. A archtype for summoner that allows his eidolon to be a true 'tank' of sorts or even new evolutions and options to have a mechanical theme.
As for the witch, a few ideas I have are a Bokor archtype that deals with poisons and hexes. Another option is a witch doctor style archype offering small craft feats here and there as needed. Maybe even a archtype that makes their familiar more combat ready like a druids animal companion.
Exactly so - maybe even no sneak attack. OTOH, while I like skill tricks, it strikes me as unfair to give the option to learn to "do more" with a skill to just one class. Maybe if there was a skill trick type system in place that everyone could take, and this class simply focused on that. As for the name, personally, Skillmaster seems too... obvious. As much so as a Fighter, I suppose, but there is more history for Fighter. I think I'd call it... Expert? No, that's an NPC class. How about Operating Thetan? (Kidding!) Perhaps Virtuoso, though that usually applies only to art and music.And I'd still like a character reminiscent of the Doctor - a true skillmonkey, with no casting or combat abilities but has clever uses for skills others don't think of and always seems to have the materials at hand to solve any problem.A Rogue archetype, perhaps? With a lower Sneak Attack dice or maybe a slowed Sneak Attack progression? Some kind of skill tricks that he can choose... What name would you give that 'Doctor' archyetype? I'm thinking something like Skillmaster.
Virtoso, Expert... How about Prodigy? Maybe with a feat that lets other classes learn one or two tricks, similar to Learn Ranger Trap.
I think a rogue archetype would work very well for a swashbuckler, something like this :
Weapons & Armor : The swashbuckler rogue is proficient with all simple and one-handed martial melee weapons, as well as all finessable one-handed melee weapons. Swashbucklers are proficient with light armor, and bucklers, but no other shields nor heavy or medium armor. This replaces the rogues normal weapon and armor proficiencies.
BAB & Hit Dice : Swashbuckler's use the same BAB progression as fighters, and also have the same hit dice as a fighter (d10). This replaces Sneak Attack.
Canny Defense : A swashbuckler adds his INT bonus to his AC when he is wearing no or light armor. In addition, he gains the same bonus to AC progression that a Monk does. This replaces Trapfinding and Trap Sense.
Rogue Talents : A swashbuckler cannot take any rogue talent that modifies or requires sneak attack.
Give them cripling critical, from the duelist, as a capstone. If you want to incorporate the duelist abilities, simply swap them out for Rogue Talents at appropriate levels, cutting down on how many rogue talents they get. It's not overly MAD (since most rogues go with above average int anyway), and they're still getting bonuses to AC as they level up (ala monk).
Nah, that's not how Archetypes work. They use the BAB/Saves/HD from their actual class, there's no mixing like that.
I don't see why it can't. There are archetypes that change armor and weapon knowledge. Archetypes that take out major class features (such as trapfinding, armor training, etc). There are archetypes that change fundamental class features (such as making sorcerers use WIS or INT to cast). There are archetypes that change out just about every class ability (Qingong Monk).
However, if it makes you feel 'better', take a fighter, replace every class feature he gets with the rogue/duelist points I put in above, and call it a 'fighter' archetype, even though it's really a rogue archetype.
My feeling on archetypes is you make it so it requires the minimum amount of changes. Making it a fighter type requires the most changes. Making it a rogue archetype fits the concept better.
And honestly, Paizo can do archetypes however they choose.
EDIT : Or, if it really bothers you that much, allow them to use their class levels as BAB when using a one-handed weapon in one hand and no weapon in the other hand.
|
From fighter: remove medium and heavy armor proficiency, increase skill point count.
Replace armor training with a dodge bonus while wearing light or no armor.
Allow feats to be used for rogue talents from a limited list.
Additional changes as needed to keep or enhance flavor. Weapon training might provide additional bonuses, but only applies to fencing weapons group (additional shield bonus for rapier/dagger combat?).
From Ranger: remove spells and replace with sneak attack (up to 4 or 5 dice total), remove wilderness skills and replace with urban skills such as trapfinding (this one creates much more of a hybrid between the warrior and rogue) Basically a souped up urban ranger.
Capstones and near-capstone abilities for both could be taken from the duelist prestige class.
I am in the process of consolidating a list with exchange values for class abilities, similar to old Skills&Powers system, where you exchange one ability - Heavy armor proficiency, let's say - for another one - 4 skill points per level. I'm doing that only for the classes that my players will take in the next game I run (Fighter, Cleric(crusader), Sorcerer), but it still is time consuming. I have introduced a variant that allows the crusader to exchange channeling for full BaB, but the player decided not to take that.
EDIT : Or, if it really bothers you that much, allow them to use their class levels as BAB when using a one-handed weapon in one hand and no weapon in the other hand.
That wouldn't really help because you would have problems picking feats with high BAB prerequisites.
mdt, I don't think there are any archetypes that modify base attack and hit die, so while it is a good idea, it probably won't happen. However, one can easily create a swashbuckler archetype from the other direction, using a fighter or a ranger as the base template.
From fighter: remove medium and heavy armor proficiency, increase skill point count.
Replace armor training with a dodge bonus while wearing light or no armor.
Allow feats to be used for rogue talents from a limited list.
Additional changes as needed to keep or enhance flavor. Weapon training might provide additional bonuses, but only applies to fencing weapons group (additional shield bonus for rapier/dagger combat?).
This is the kind of thing we were talking about. The finesse-fighter is not a rogue. He is a fighter, that's the point we are trying to make. Was d'Artagnon a thief? Did Cyrano de Bergerac pick pockets? No, they were supposed to be the premier warriors of their day.
There is, incidentally a rogue archetype called the swashbuckler. Anything more I could say about it would not be printable on a PG13 bulletin board.
This is the kind of thing we were talking about. The finesse-fighter is not a rogue. He is a fighter, that's the point we are trying to make. Was d'Artagnon a thief? Did Cyrano de Bergerac pick pockets? No, they were supposed to be the premier warriors of their day.There is, incidentally a rogue archetype called the swashbuckler. Anything more I could say about it would not be printable on a PG13 bulletin board.
Uhm,
Yes, d'Artagnonn was a rogue. He started out his career as a spy for Mazarin. I'm pretty sure a spy is a rogue.Cyrano De Bergerac was actually a writer. So he's more of a Bard than a fighter.
Neither man is a fighter foremost. D'Artangon was made part of the Musketeers as a reward for his service, but his formative years and primary career was espionage. Cyrano De Bergerac was a satyrist and writer, who happened to be a duelist on the side.
|
This is the kind of thing we were talking about. The finesse-fighter is not a rogue. He is a fighter, that's the point we are trying to make. Was d'Artagnon a thief? Did Cyrano de Bergerac pick pockets? No, they were supposed to be the premier warriors of their day.There is, incidentally a rogue archetype called the swashbuckler. Anything more I could say about it would not be printable on a PG13 bulletin board.
Uhm,
Yes, d'Artagnonn was a rogue. He started out his career as a spy for Mazarin. I'm pretty sure a spy is a rogue.Cyrano De Bergerac was actually a writer. So he's more of a Bard than a fighter.
Neither man is a fighter foremost. D'Artangon was made part of the Musketeers as a reward for his service, but his formative years and primary career was espionage. Cyrano De Bergerac was a satyrist and writer, who happened to be a duelist on the side.
Charles de Batz-Castelmore d'Artagnan might have spied, but boy was a fighter through and through. He sucked as a spy. He kicked ass with a sword.
There is, incidentally a rogue archetype called the swashbuckler. Anything more I could say about it would not be printable on a PG13 bulletin board.Personally, the only problem I have with the swashbuckler rogue archetype is that there isn't a corresponding fighter version. The genre does blur the lines between the two (which is partly the reason so many people think that a rogue variant alone handles the issue) to a considerable degree.
They did the singleton fighter, but sadly he sucked almost as badly, even after errata. There is also the Tactician as the skilled fighter, but he just doesn't hit the spot either.
Quite possible. However, I can't swallow the concept that nowhere in those stories is a single person that is a warrior rather than a rogue.Yes, d'Artagnonn was a rogue. He started out his career as a spy for Mazarin. I'm pretty sure a spy is a rogue.
Cyrano De Bergerac was actually a writer. So he's more of a Bard than a fighter.
Neither man is a fighter foremost. D'Artangon was made part of the Musketeers as a reward for his service, but his formative years and primary career was espionage. Cyrano De Bergerac was a satyrist and writer, who happened to be a duelist on the side.
Didn't say they were. What I said was, the specified people weren't Fighters (capital F). D'Artagnon comes closest (probably a multiclass fighter/rogue), but that was later in his career, once he became a musketeer. He started out a rogue.
Didn't say they were. What I said was, the specified people weren't Fighters (capital F). D'Artagnon comes closest (probably a multiclass fighter/rogue), but that was later in his career, once he became a musketeer. He started out a rogue.Quite possible. However, I can't swallow the concept that nowhere in those stories is a single person that is a warrior rather than a rogue.Yes, d'Artagnonn was a rogue. He started out his career as a spy for Mazarin. I'm pretty sure a spy is a rogue.
Cyrano De Bergerac was actually a writer. So he's more of a Bard than a fighter.
Neither man is a fighter foremost. D'Artangon was made part of the Musketeers as a reward for his service, but his formative years and primary career was espionage. Cyrano De Bergerac was a satyrist and writer, who happened to be a duelist on the side.
Look, the D'Atagnan I know is the three muskeeteers guy, and that guy was a fighter. Or forget D'Artagnan, look at Arthos, Porthos and Aramis. Also, to add more examples: Inigo Montoya and the Dread Pirate Roberts, from Princess Bride. You could make a case about Roberts having some Rogue in him, but Inigo is 100% fighter.
I don't even know why I'm in this discussion, I would rather have a Swashbucler class than an archetype, anyway.
Obviously, they're all monks that can flurry the rapier. Raid the Weapon Master and the Martial Artist archetypes, use the rogue talents list to replace the supernatural stuff, give 'em an appropriate bonus feat list, and call it an alternate class.
Look, the D'Atagnan I know is the three muskeeteers guy, and that guy was a fighter. Or forget D'Artagnan, look at Arthos, Porthos and Aramis. Also, to add more examples: Inigo Montoya and the Dread Pirate Roberts, from Princess Bride. You could make a case about Roberts having some Rogue in him, but Inigo is 100% fighter.
I don't even know why I'm in this discussion, I would rather have a Swashbucler class than an archetype, anyway.
Yep, and the D'Artagnan guy you know is based on a real person. This real person was a spy before he was a musketeer.
You can trot out as many examples of Fighters who were dextrous. That doesn't mean anything. Why? Because I never said a fighter couldn't be dextrous. What I said was, you can do a swashbuckler as a rogue very easily and naturally. Then a bunch of people nerdraged and said 'nuh huh! D'Artagnan and De Bergerac were Fighters, not Rogues!'.
I pointed out that they were wrong. The fact that Arthos and Porthos were indeed fighters in no way negates my statement that you can build a swashbuckler as a rogue archetype in the slightest. Nor does it negate my pincushion into the previously mentioned nerd rage. :)
As it happens, I think there should be a 'swashbuckler' archtype for Bard, Fighter, and Rogue. There are very good examples of all three. De Bergerac is a great example of a Bard-Swashbuckler. Arthos and Porthos are great examples of a Fighter-Swashbuckler. For rogue, D'Artagnon, Captain Jack Sparrow, and Dread Pirate Roberts are all great examples (granted the last two are purely fictional) of the Rogue-Swashbuckler.
The insistence that a swashbuckler can, and should, only be a fighter is bizarre to me. It's like saying all primitive clan warriors should be Barbarians only. Bizarre.
The insistence that a swashbuckler can, and should, only be a fighter is bizarre to me. It's like saying all primitive clan warriors should be Barbarians only. Bizarre.
I never said he should only be a fighter, I said I wanted one that was a fighter - there is a very big difference between those two statements, mdt. I have no problem with swashbuckling rogues and bards as well, but I want a finesse-based lightly armoured front-liner.
Other than the swashbuckler archetype, I feel strongly that the finesse-style, grace-based combat style needs some love generally in Pathfinder.
I'd personally love to see the Shifter/Master of Many Forms druid.
It would give up the Animal Companion/Domain and some of the tree hugging abilities and in return get Shapeshift, which would start out as Alter Self, but eventually become like Polymorph, then later Greater Polymorph and lastly Shapechange.
I absolutely 100% hope that Paizo never does this. The main thing that makes the 3.5e druid a juggernaut at high levels is the ability to turn into virtually anything.
Such a power is obscenely powerful, giving the character virtually any power at will, and then throwing in obnoxious little tidbits like "oh, and I'm immune to all transmutation effects and effects that change my form, too."
|
I'd personally love to see the Shifter/Master of Many Forms druid.
It would give up the Animal Companion/Domain and some of the tree hugging abilities and in return get Shapeshift, which would start out as Alter Self, but eventually become like Polymorph, then later Greater Polymorph and lastly Shapechange.
I absolutely 100% hope that Paizo never does this. The main thing that makes the 3.5e druid a juggernaut at high levels is the ability to turn into virtually anything.
Such a power is obscenely powerful, giving the character virtually any power at will, and then throwing in obnoxious little tidbits like "oh, and I'm immune to all transmutation effects and effects that change my form, too."
The changes made to the Polymorph subschool in Pathfinder mean that your fears are very much unfounded. The problem with the 3.5 shapeshifting rules was that they made physical stats irrelevant. In Pathfinder shape-shifting only provides a minor boost to your stats. Essentially a shape-shifter can't be the one-man party the 3.5 druid could be.
I'd rather the Druid lose the companion and focus more on the shape-shifting especially in a group of 6 players, that companion just makes for longer turns for the druid.
:)
Gun Kata Monk/Gunslinger PRC or archetype from Equilibrium. can't believe that it didn't make it.
I'd personally love to see the Shifter/Master of Many Forms druid.
It would give up the Animal Companion/Domain and some of the tree hugging abilities and in return get Shapeshift, which would start out as Alter Self, but eventually become like Polymorph, then later Greater Polymorph and lastly Shapechange.
I absolutely 100% hope that Paizo never does this. The main thing that makes the 3.5e druid a juggernaut at high levels is the ability to turn into virtually anything.
Such a power is obscenely powerful, giving the character virtually any power at will, and then throwing in obnoxious little tidbits like "oh, and I'm immune to all transmutation effects and effects that change my form, too."
The changes made to the Polymorph subschool in Pathfinder mean that your fears are very much unfounded. The problem with the 3.5 shapeshifting rules was that they made physical stats irrelevant. In Pathfinder shape-shifting only provides a minor boost to your stats. Essentially a shape-shifter can't be the one-man party the 3.5 druid could be.
I'd rather the Druid lose the companion and focus more on the shape-shifting especially in a group of 6 players, that companion just makes for longer turns for the druid.
:)
Take a domain! :D
Gun Kata Monk/Gunslinger PRC or archetype from Equilibrium. can't believe that it didn't make it.
I personally think that they're saving Prestige Classes for an 'Ultimate Prestige' book; or something similar. Considering that Prestige Classes are something that should be constantly added to, maybe it would be called the Advanced Prestige Guide or Player's Guide to Prestige or something like that.
But given that Ultimate Magic had no Prestige Classes, it would have felt wrong for Ultimate Combat to have them.
Would love to see more witch archetypes or prestige classes
The insistence that a swashbuckler can, and should, only be a fighter is bizarre to me. It's like saying all primitive clan warriors should be Barbarians only. Bizarre.I never said he should only be a fighter, I said I wanted one that was a fighter - there is a very big difference between those two statements, mdt. I have no problem with swashbuckling rogues and bards as well, but I want a finesse-based lightly armoured front-liner.
Other than the swashbuckler archetype, I feel strongly that the finesse-style, grace-based combat style needs some love generally in Pathfinder.
Has someone already done this in the Homerules/Conversions section?
|
|
I still don't get what's so bad about the Duelist. I just started fencing and decided to look into a fencer-style fighter in Pathfinder, and the Duelist has certainly sated my swashbucklin' hunger. It seems to have everything everyone's asking for: Canny Defense rewards a high-intelligence character, it's got 4+int mod skills and wider selection than the fighter, they've got Precise Strike to scale up their damage, abilities to crank up their unarmored AC, and Parry and Riposte, two iconic fencing maneuvers. Granted I haven't crunched numbers or anything, but this looks like it would play really well, especially in conjunction with the Free-Hand Fighter archetype (which mostly sucks, but the abilities you get before level 6 aren't bad).
What, exactly, does everyone find the PrC to be so lacking in that it would need to be re-worked into a full base-class archetype, as per the Eldritch Knight/Magus?
I still don't get what's so bad about the Duelist. I just started fencing and decided to look into a fencer-style fighter in Pathfinder, and the Duelist has certainly sated my swashbucklin' hunger. It seems to have everything everyone's asking for: Canny Defense rewards a high-intelligence character, it's got 4+int mod skills and wider selection than the fighter, they've got Precise Strike to scale up their damage, abilities to crank up their unarmored AC, and Parry and Riposte, two iconic fencing maneuvers. Granted I haven't crunched numbers or anything, but this looks like it would play really well, especially in conjunction with the Free-Hand Fighter archetype (which mostly sucks, but the abilities you get before level 6 aren't bad).
What, exactly, does everyone find the PrC to be so lacking in that it would need to be re-worked into a full base-class archetype, as per the Eldritch Knight/Magus?
Mostly the idea that a character must "wait" for six (if Fighter) or eight (if bard/rogue) levels before they can play the class they wanted to play.
|
|
Mostly the idea that a character must "wait" for six (if Fighter) or eight (if bard/rogue) levels before they can play the class they wanted to play.
Right, that's always a bummer about PrC's, but until you actually reach PrC levels you've still got weapon focus and weapon specialization to boost your rapier damage, dodge, combat expertise, disarm, feint - a lot of very basic duelist abilities come in the form of low-level feats. Free Hand Fighter gives you a dodge bonus to AC for one-handing a weapon. It looks to me like most of the iconic duelist/fencer/swashbuckler stuff already exists for low-level characters. I can see it being more of a problem for rogue/duelists though, considering their lack of feat selection. I'm looking at this from a fighter standpoint, as that's what I'd spec duelist with myself.
Right, that's always a bummer about PrC's, but until you actually reach PrC levels you've still got weapon focus and weapon specialization to boost your rapier damage, dodge, combat expertise, disarm, feint - a lot of very basic duelist abilities come in the form of low-level feats. Free Hand Fighter gives you a dodge bonus to AC for one-handing a weapon. It looks to me like most of the iconic duelist/fencer/swashbuckler stuff already exists for low-level characters. I can see it being more of a problem for rogue/duelists though, considering their lack of feat selection. I'm looking at this from a fighter standpoint, as that's what I'd spec duelist with myself.Mostly the idea that a character must "wait" for six (if Fighter) or eight (if bard/rogue) levels before they can play the class they wanted to play.
You know, going with that logic, one could very easily go with the "Mobile Fighter" archetype (APG p. 105) and then Duelist. This produces the "Finesse fighter" that people are asking about in this thread most adequately.
I still don't get what's so bad about the Duelist. I just started fencing and decided to look into a fencer-style fighter in Pathfinder, and the Duelist has certainly sated my swashbucklin' hunger. It seems to have everything everyone's asking for: Canny Defense rewards a high-intelligence character, it's got 4+int mod skills and wider selection than the fighter, they've got Precise Strike to scale up their damage, abilities to crank up their unarmored AC, and Parry and Riposte, two iconic fencing maneuvers. Granted I haven't crunched numbers or anything, but this looks like it would play really well, especially in conjunction with the Free-Hand Fighter archetype (which mostly sucks, but the abilities you get before level 6 aren't bad).
What, exactly, does everyone find the PrC to be so lacking in that it would need to be re-worked into a full base-class archetype, as per the Eldritch Knight/Magus?
For exactly the same reasons as the Eldritch Knight got made into the magus: You can start from level one playing the character concept that you want without having to wait until you are well behind the curve before even starting.
Take a level 6 rapier-wielding fighter, and compare him to a level 6 greatsword wielding fighter. See the difference? Yet logically you are as dead when run through the heart with a rapier as you are with your head split in two with greatsword. THAT's what we're talking about here.
|
|
Take a level 6 rapier-wielding fighter, and compare him to a level 6 greatsword wielding fighter. See the difference? Yet logically you are as dead when run through the heart with a rapier as you are with your head split in two with greatsword. THAT's what we're talking about here.
But can't you do that with almost EVERY fighting style in Pathfinder? Two-hand fighters are DPR kings. Bow fighters too, and they use the "run through the heart logic" really well. Maybe if this archetype were to come into existence some sort of "rapid attack" ability could bring up the damage. Since bow-fighters use the same ability scores as a finesse fighter (except with less emphasis on Con), the fencer archetype could use the bow-fighter as a guideline for its class features. E.g., fencers deal damage by unleashing an absurd number of attacks, and you could implement some immediate action movement abilities to keep them mobile and making full attacks. "Advance-lunge" or something like that...
On the other hand, I think it's worth noting that matching two-hand fighters in damage isn't the only way to build a good, playable character. Not everyone can, will, or needs to top the DPR charts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But can't you do that with almost EVERY fighting style in Pathfinder?
Yep, that was said about the Eldritch Knight/magus as well.
The point is, going for a prestige class to make your concept happens means that your character is a suboptimal version of half a concept for several levels with all the disadvantages of your concept and none of the advantages. The odds of your character living long enough to become what you wanted them to be at the outset are slim, to say the least.
On the other hand, if they can start at level 1, at least you get to play them the way you want to before they die, and dying itself becomes much less likely. It's not that doing it the PrC way can't work, it's that it's a ball-ache.
Has someone already done this in the Homerules/Conversions section?The insistence that a swashbuckler can, and should, only be a fighter is bizarre to me. It's like saying all primitive clan warriors should be Barbarians only. Bizarre.I never said he should only be a fighter, I said I wanted one that was a fighter - there is a very big difference between those two statements, mdt. I have no problem with swashbuckling rogues and bards as well, but I want a finesse-based lightly armoured front-liner.
Other than the swashbuckler archetype, I feel strongly that the finesse-style, grace-based combat style needs some love generally in Pathfinder.
There's a couple Swashbuckler full classes (including mine) and at least one archetype that I can remember.
The point is, going for a prestige class to make your concept happens means that your character is a suboptimal version of half a concept for several levels with all the disadvantages of your concept and none of the advantages. The odds of your character living long enough to become what you wanted them to be at the outset are slim, to say the least.
Yeah. I love PrCs, but I agree that some concepts should be made available from the 1st level. Besides, almost all of the fighter archetypes are about being a master of fighting style 'X', why isn't there a fencer archetype?
I still don't get what's so bad about the Duelist
Weird, because I told you up above.
"Reflex saves as your one good save is not a good thing. Canny defense means you MAD yourself with high Int to make up for not having armor. Precise Strike just lets you keep pace with a two-handed fighter's damage, and you're not able to use your second hand for anything anyway. Parry doesn't work very well as a mechanic."
In more detail:
1) Reflex saves are what a Duelist gets, and reflex saves are the least important in the game. Trading Fort save progression for Ref progression is an unmitigated loss.
2) MAD: To make up for the lack of good armor, the class requires both high Dex and high Int, on top of the high Strength the class already needs in order to do damage and the Con you need for hps as a melee combatant. And as a prestige class, you fall behind on hit points since prestige classes can't be favored classes, which means you need a higher Con than even the average melee build. And since your max Con and Wis have been reduced by MAD-induced allocations, your Fort and Will saves suffer.
3) Perfect strike, again, just lets you keep up with the 50% extra damage a 2HF is picking up from Strength increases and the 3-for-1 on Power Attack. Since you're already behind on damage (rapier vs. falchion, fact that he can concentrate more on Str than your MAD butt), this is not a good thing.
4) Parry as a mechanic sucks. Offense is already better than defense in general combat (dead things don't hit back), and the parry chance is not great against level-appropriate attacks. Since attack bonuses go up faster than AC, you're trading ever-more-certain damage for a fairly steady chance of blocking a hit. And the penalty you take against larger creatures means this does less and less good at higher levels. All Riposte does is let you get back the attack you dropped . . . if you still have any available AoOs.
(Now, there is a case where this actually works; a single character against a horde of mooks. Then your one foresworn attack can blossom into your Combat Reflexes number of parries and attacks of opportunity against the mooks. But the 2HF is already going to Cleave the mooks to death from behind his plate armor anyway.)
Isn't it great? You get all this pointlessness at the low, low price of fighter bonus feats, higher level weapon training, and qualifying for feats that have fighter levels as a prereq.
Personally, I have no issue with the swashbuckler-type needing Intelligence - I think intelligence has a place in combat; I just wish it counted for more than just a little AC bump (that is why in the old 'should he have a feat that adds dex bonus to damage' thread we ended up plumping for Intelligence to damage instead). Combat Expertise could use a boost in effectiveness from an iterative feat (Improved Combat Expertise?) at higher level to offset the inevitability of getting hit no matter what you do with your AC.
you know what im tired of every figther archtype being compared to a two handed figther. we get it the 2 handed is dpr god got it check. they give up their ac for it. A finesse figther is easy with feats and with the deulist its not mad if you priotirtize dex instead of str and int so the stats you need are dex int con no biggie there you don't do as much damage as a two hand but you have higher mobility and ac as well as some nifty tricks.
oh and rogue duelists are awesome to
is the totallity of what is wanted just dex to damage? i don't see it. heck why not dex for hit points to and skill points and will saves why have any other stat at all.....
the other thing i saw i didn't like oh my dex based figther concept has to have reflex as its main save that sucks... You want a dex based figther as in reflex based but not with reflex as their high save. just design your own class already pick and choose every ability you want that sounds like where your going anyways.
you know what im tired of every figther archtype being compared to a two handed figther. we get it the 2 handed is dpr god got it check. they give up their ac for it. A finesse figther is easy with feats and with the deulist its not mad if you priotirtize dex instead of str and int so the stats you need are dex int con no biggie there you don't do as much damage as a two hand but you have higher mobility and ac as well as some nifty tricks.
You have lower damage output than the 2HF, lower AC as you are only in light armour, lower hit points because your build is MAD ... and there are no tricks you can pull that the 2HF fighter cannot pull as well.
oh and rogue duelists are awesome to
Yes, as rogues. Not as fighters, though.
is the totallity of what is wanted just dex to damage? i don't see it. heck why not dex for hit points to and skill points and will saves why have any other stat at all.....
No. I think you just got a '1' on your perception - Dex-to-damage has long since been debunked as unbalanced, thank you. However, Int to damage has not been, and could help equalise up the swashbuckler types to the grunts quite nicely, especially if you tack on a minimum BAB requirement to hold off those pesky wizards.
the other thing i saw i didn't like oh my dex based figther concept has to have reflex as its main save that sucks... You want a dex based figther as in reflex based but not with reflex as their high save. just design your own class already pick and choose every ability you want that sounds like where your going anyways.
I think that was somebody pointing out that for the duelist, Reflex only is a bit weak, given the classes other problems.
we get it the 2 handed is dpr god got it check. they give up their ac for it.
Compared to other fighters, yes. But not compared to the duelist. The duelist's abilities are conditioned on having a free hand and not wearing anything heavier than light armor. The result is the core fighter using a two-handed weapon* starts with three more points of AC (full plate vs. mithral breastplate) than the duelist, which have to be made up with either high Int, or a Dex substantially higher than the fighter. The duelist can mitigate this MAD by taking the Free Hand Fighter archetype instead of using a core fighter . . . but at the price of being slower than the guy in full plate due to the lack of core fighter 7th level armor training.
Seriously, you can outperform a fighter/duelist build by building a core fighter/ex-paladin using a two-handed weapon. The ex-paladin's saves are better than the duelist, and the inherent advantages of heavy armor and two-handed weaponry overcome the duelist's class features.
Obviously, the rogue-duelist is a different creature. He's a better combatant than the raw rogue, less dependent on sneak attacks. The rogue/duelist can make a reasonably good "fighter/rogue" hybrid. But the fighter/duelist does not make a good fighter/rogue or a good fighter.
*
A sorcerer archetype that features lots of nice things that no wizard can have, ever.
You mean like the Wildblooded archetype? And before anyone says "Eldritch Heritage," the alternate bloodline abilities are from the archetype and not a separate bloodline, which means RAW you cannot take a wildblooded "bloodline" with the Eldritch Heritige feats.
Re: Swashbuckler Fighters
The Cad, Free Hand Fighter, Mobile Fighter, Two-Weapon Warrior, and Weapon Master archetypes can all work for a fencer/swashbuckler. The Cad is a town bravo, the Free Hand Fighter is the classic single weapon fencer, the Mobile Fighter is the chandelier-swinging swashbuckler, the Two-Weapon Warrior is the rapier/main-gauche wielder, and the Weapon Master is the deadly duelist. The Gladiator archetype can also work (and can be taken with Two-Weapon Warrior) for a more "flashy, show-off" type of character.
Re: Spontaneous Blaster/Melee Combatant
Inquisitor can do OK, although it's more melee than blaster. Oracle with the Flame, Heavens, Stone, or Wind mystery can also do OK. For those who want an arcane version, a Magician bard who uses Expanded Repertoire for blast spells (and, at 10th+ level, invests in blast spell wands for use with Wand Mastery) does very well. A sorcerer can work, with more emphasis on blasting than melee, as well (especially a half-orc Draconic bloodline sorcerer who switches to dragon disciple; multiclassing/eldritch knight optional). A synthesist summoner doesn't do too badly, either (although it's more controller/melee than blaster/melee).
Archetypes/options I'd like to see:
Gun-wielding alchemist who shoots bombs intead of (or as well as) bullets
Celestial-themed barbarian
A dragon shaman druid actually focused on dragons
One or more vehicle-focused fighter archetypes (charioteer, sailor/ship captain, etc.)
A more bow-/crossbow-/firearm-focused magus than the myrmidarch