Advanced Class Guide Preview: Swashbuckler

Well yeah, but I don't see why the lance needs to be differentiated from every other two-hander that can be wielded in one hand. The exception doesn't make any sense; wielding a lance one-handed should make you treat it like a one-handed weapon, with all that entails (such as being a valid Swash weapon and getting only 1x Power Attack).

*shrug* The Lance has always been a specialized work of exceptions. Charging, One Handed while mounted and other stuff.

So... Uh, good job with the new combo class!

Here are several versions of swashbucklers that I created back in May:

Korsairs of Kortos

Am I missing something? I'm looking over the pregen for level 3 Jirelle and I'm not seeing Swashbuckler Finesse, Weapon Finesse, or a dex to damage feat/ability on her sheet. She's still mwk rapier +7 (1d6+1/18–20) or light mace +6 (1d6+1) with 13 Strength and 17 Dex though.

It does look like they just overlooked the Swashbuckler Finesse ability from the playtest, which would account for it. It also explains why she is able to pick up the Combat Expertise feat (Int 10, but a Cha of 16).

It does look like they just overlooked the Swashbuckler Finesse ability from the playtest, which would account for it. It also explains why she is able to pick up the Combat Expertise feat (Int 10, but a Cha of 16).

They've included all elements from it in her stats, it just didn't get listed. Seems a minor mistake.

Frankly, I'm more annoyed by her lack of Power Attack. She has Str 13 and doesn't need Combat Expertise for anything at the moment...and her damage is mediocre at best.

Still, that's a build problem, not a problem with the Class per se.

Yea, at level 3, Oloch and the Bloodrager Crowe have her beat in the damage department. Poor Quinn is pretty much stuck as a skill monkey without Studied Combat or Strike. I would really like to see this party on an adventure with the LG Quinn around a CG Swashbuckler and the two CN bash brothers.

Yea, at level 3, Oloch and the Bloodrager Crowe have her beat in the damage department. Poor Quinn is pretty much stuck as a skill monkey without Studied Combat or Strike. I would really like to see this party on an adventure with the LG Quinn around a CG Swashbuckler and the two CN bash brothers.

Quinn's really got the same problem she does...he's not the best built character ever. He's a Finesse Build without a damage enhancer of any sort, and a lower Dex than is a really good idea on a finesse build to boot.

At the same level, you could do a Strength build Investigator with Full Plate and Power Attack (as well as Int 16), and be real close to Oloch and Crowe in damage. Heck, even as a finesse build you could do a lot better. Especially if that general Dex-to-damage Feat becomes a reality (though I do understand not including new Feats in this kind of thing).

All that would probably come at the expense of being a somewhat worse skill character...but not by a lot, and Investigators are such excellent skill characters anyway it's unlikely to be an issue to do so.

In fairness, Crowe isn't the best-built character ever either (a melee character with Str 14)...Rage just makes up for a lot in that regard.

I get the feeling that Crowe want's a piece of that Thunder and Fang hotmessness. Would take forever for him to get it online, but it would be somewhat thematic as an Air Elemental Bloodrager.

I get the feeling that Crowe want's a piece of that Thunder and Fang hotmessness. Would take forever for him to get it online, but it would be somewhat thematic as an Air Elemental Bloodrager.

Even then...he's got Charisma 16. That's higher than a starting Bloodrager needs by quite a bit. He doesn't even have spells yet. Or a single rank in a Charisma based skill. Frankly, Str 16, Con 14, Cha 13 makes him flat out better in every way (well, his untrained Charisma skills go down a bit...but you know what I mean).

Seriously though, Oloch's pretty much the only one considered to have min/maxish stats at Str18, Dex10, Con14, Int10, Wis15, Cha8. He has a decent spell loadout and remembered pack along his wand of cure light and a pearl of power. Pretty much the only major flaw is that he has a masterwork heavy crossbow and no masterwork melee weapons. Some may argue against him having Combat Casting, but I can see how he would want to always rely on his 3 uses of Fervor's to cast in combat. Having Knowledge (engineering) is a bit odd I suppose.

Yeah, Oloch's solid. The others...not so much. They're not absolutely awful or anything...but they could be a lot better with a few very small changes.

As has been stated by Paizo countless times, they do not design the Iconics to meet some standard of power. They make choices for the Iconics that make sense for the character.

As has been stated by Paizo countless times, they do not design the Iconics to meet some standard of power. They make choices for the Iconics that make sense for the character.

This is true, and I even agree to a large extent. Swapping Str and Cha doesn't seem particularly anti-thematic for the Bloodrager, though...nor do several other minor things.

As has been stated by Paizo countless times, they do not design the Iconics to meet some standard of power. They make choices for the Iconics that make sense for the character.

Just because they're built for flavor over power doesn't mean we can't critique them and discuss ways they could of been better. :P

Remember, Valeros never took power attack. Never. Poor guy.

Remember, Valeros never took power attack. Never. Poor guy.

That's actually a solid mechanical choice for someone using TWF. Now his use of a long sword and a short sword instead of a pair of short swords is another matter entirely...

But that one's actually hard to alter for thematic reasons, and I understand why they didn't. The stuff I was talking about above? Not so much.

Just because they're built for flavor over power doesn't mean we can't critique them and discuss ways they could of been better. :P

By "better," of course, you are referring to some thoroughly neutral, objective criteria upon which all parties would equally agree.

Rawrsong wrote:

Just because they're built for flavor over power doesn't mean we can't critique them and discuss ways they could of been better. :P

By "better," of course, you are referring to some thoroughly neutral, objective criteria upon which all parties would equally agree.

Harsk uses a crossbow, and crossbows are objectively bad.

Edit: I understand that Iconics should use Core Rulebook only, it's the way it should be. But I went back and rechecked Harsk, and he uses a Heavy Crossbow without access to Crossbow Mastery. Any neutral, objective party would agree that's awful.

Rawrsong wrote:

Just because they're built for flavor over power doesn't mean we can't critique them and discuss ways they could of been better. :P

By "better," of course, you are referring to some thoroughly neutral, objective criteria upon which all parties would equally agree.

In the context of character builds 'better' usually translates as 'more effective' so...yes, that's potentially a fairly objective measure, since effectiveness in various areas can be measured.

And to be clear, I'm not asking for perfectly optimized characters or anything. I consider most of the Iconics as statted in the NPC Codex to be more-or-less acceptable, for example (Harsk lacking Crossbow Mastery is one of the notable exceptions). Quinn and Crowe simply don't match up to those standards and Jirelle's pretty shaky by them, too. Oloch's pretty solid, though.

Crossbows are straight garbage even without Crossbow Mastery. There is literally no good reason for Harsk or any Ranger to use one.

Harsk actually has pretty good stats for a bow switch hitter with 16 dexterity and 14 strength. The crossbow makes him look badass though.

No good reason. He can switch-hit more effectively with a longbow, picking up Power Attack with the feat he didn't have to spend on Rapid Reload. And he could actually apply that Strength score to his ranged attacks as well. And he could actually make full attacks with his bow.

There's a perfectly good reason for Harsk to use a Crossbow. Dwarfs look flat out silly wielding a Longbow and a certain darkskinned elf hipster ruined dual wielding for all rangers.

Crossbows are straight garbage even without Crossbow Mastery. There is literally no good reason for Harsk or any Ranger to use one.

There are thematic reasons. That's actually a good enough explanation for me in regards to things like weapon choice. What I feel is that, having made such a thematic choice, some effort should be put into making it effective.

I dunno, given the state of crossbows in Pathfinder as being analogous in power to water balloons that are purposefully not a viable option, I think the only thematic thing about them is if you're going for the "Helpless noncombatant" theme.

I dunno, given the state of crossbows in Pathfinder as being analogous in power to water balloons that are purposefully not a viable option, I think the only thematic thing about them is if you're going for the "Helpless noncombatant" theme.

So.... Harsk is secretly Princess Peach?

Most of the above ought to be in the thread about the specific iconics, rather than discussing the actual class.

Harsk uses a crossbow for the same reason Valeros went TWF: because that's how WAR drew them. The Paizo folks pretty much write around the art, and sometimes that means you're stuck trying to figure out how to make a crossbow ranger work.

None of which justifies Jirelle not having Power Attack, mind.

So I was able to pick up the Free RPG day module and take a look at our iconic swashbuckler's sheet. Everything looks good, except parry. Now you have to declare before the incoming attack roll, use an aoo, and a point of panache. So if you beat an attack roll that would hit you awesome you made it miss and can riposte if you still have panache. If you beat an attack roll that would have missed you and have panache left you can riposte. If you lose to an attack roll that missed you, no riposte but no hit.

I dislike having to declare a parry before the enemy rolls to attack me, mechanically why would I waste my precious resources like panache to attempt and parry an attack that is missing me. If they miss me I just wasted Panache which while I can get it back is still a finite resource. That's my only beef with this one I dislike seeing Parry mechanics becoming a declarative action prior to someone hitting you. It only makes sense to me that you would attempt to parry/block an attack that will actually hit you.

It's the same problem the Duelist's parry has (needing to pre-declare a parry). Paizo managed to publish quality parry mechanics (albeit a bit feat-heavy) for 3.5 but continues to screw parry-users in PF.

And like how they gimped Crane Wing. I prefer my parry mechanics to be reactionary, so I feel rewarded when I actually go that route. Without the pitfall of "I just blew my parry attempt on my opponent just missing me.. great"

Shaper wit! The bestest wit of all!!!!

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Mathwei ap Niall wrote:

Actually according to this parts of it are proficient with firearms but that's not the issue.

That's a reason to dislike the Archetype, not the Class as a whole.

Mathwei ap Niall wrote:

While Firearms mechanics are terrible the gunslinger class was so front loaded with the best class aspects it made for too good of a dip class for everything else.

As a hybrid fighter/Gunslinger with easy access to non-light weapon Dex to Damage I fully expect every monk, rogue, magus, etc. to use this as a dip class.
Just by what's been talked about so far it seems rife for abuse by itself or as a dip.

Actually, that seems at least as likely to be in the form of a Feat as a Class Feature (more so, IMO). And, in the playtest, the Class's signature powers don't really kick in until 3rd level, and the best one at that level only scales with Swashbuckler level, making dipping less than a great idea.

So...I think your assumptions of of what 'Gunslinger based' means are profoundly incorrect. what it appears to mean is "Primarily uses a Grit-like mechanic." But...not a single Deed is the same, nor are almost any other Class Features.

I honestly haven't liked ANY of the classes offered through the playtest so far this archetype simply adds another reason to dislike them on top of all the rest.

Really, all of this is just the Gestalt option from 3.5 re-done with a bit more rules thrown on top of them and we all know how well that went back then. Anyway that is irrelevant to the point here.

More to the point we have no idea how any of the classes will actually be until launch and we're just guessing at this point based on the little bit we know from the drips and dribbles of info from the playtest they've confirmed.
So far I'm more wary then excited, ESPECIALLY when the Gunslinger design is thrown around. Every instance (literally EVERY instance) where it's brought into contact with another class it's pretty much broken or ruined...

if you didn't like ANY class during the playtest... whya re you commenting here...

Cthulhudrew wrote:

Rawrsong wrote:

Just because they're built for flavor over power doesn't mean we can't critique them and discuss ways they could of been better. :P

By "better," of course, you are referring to some thoroughly neutral, objective criteria upon which all parties would equally agree.

Harsk uses a crossbow, and crossbows are objectively bad.

Edit: I understand that Iconics should use Core Rulebook only, it's the way it should be. But I went back and rechecked Harsk, and he uses a Heavy Crossbow without access to Crossbow Mastery. Any neutral, objective party would agree that's awful.

why would a dwarf use something so slily and so undwarfish as a bow(short or long)

Athaleon wrote:

Cthulhudrew wrote:

Rawrsong wrote:

Just because they're built for flavor over power doesn't mean we can't critique them and discuss ways they could of been better. :P

By "better," of course, you are referring to some thoroughly neutral, objective criteria upon which all parties would equally agree.

Harsk uses a crossbow, and crossbows are objectively bad.

Edit: I understand that Iconics should use Core Rulebook only, it's the way it should be. But I went back and rechecked Harsk, and he uses a Heavy Crossbow without access to Crossbow Mastery. Any neutral, objective party would agree that's awful.

why would a dwarf use something so slily and so undwarfish as a bow(short or long)

You're not too familiar with Harsk are you? He uses a crossbow, he doesn't live underground (his preferred prey are surface creatures, and he's used to living in forests), and he drinks only tea, never alcohol (because he doesn't want to dull his senses). The only way in which Harsk is "traditionally dwarfish" is his surliness.

I dunno, given the state of crossbows in Pathfinder as being analogous in power to water balloons that are purposefully not a viable option, I think the only thematic thing about them is if you're going for the "Helpless noncombatant" theme.

The only thematic ranged option is magic and bows, how people could think otherwise?

Rynjin wrote:

I dunno, given the state of crossbows in Pathfinder as being analogous in power to water balloons that are purposefully not a viable option, I think the only thematic thing about them is if you're going for the "Helpless noncombatant" theme.

The only thematic ranged option is magic and bows, how people could think otherwise?

Throwing things. Even (especially) throwing cards. Plus there was that build floating around for throwing massive rocks. I've seen viable builds for them all. And it was hinted at that there would be a Swashbuckler archetype for throwing things. Its very thematic.

So, I was just looking over the Swashbuckler playtest again, and one thing I didn't notice before was that Swashbuckler Finesse applies to all light and one-handed weapons. Does this mean that Swashbuckers can Finesse a Morningstar?

'Cause that seems kinda neat, actually. A swashbuckling, graceful undead hunter.

Yup! I have a shortspear wielding SB concept I am itching to try out.

Yup! I have a shortspear wielding SB concept I am itching to try out.

Beware of half giants with improved grab :)

He looks like quite the dandy! Very fancy indeed :-)

This guy has more knives on him than the winter soldier. Yikes!

but does he have more knives than the mythic iconic rogue? (he answer is no: her entire outfit is literally knives and straps for more knives)

JohnLocke wrote:

He looks like quite the dandy! Very fancy indeed :-)

This guy has more knives on him than the winter soldier. Yikes!

but does he have more knives than the mythic iconic rogue? (he answer is no: her entire outfit is literally knives and straps for more knives)

and 2 leather plates and some string for modesty's sake

AndIMustMask wrote:

JohnLocke wrote:

He looks like quite the dandy! Very fancy indeed :-)

This guy has more knives on him than the winter soldier. Yikes!

but does he have more knives than the mythic iconic rogue? (he answer is no: her entire outfit is literally knives and straps for more knives)

and 2 leather plates and some string for modesty's sake

Which also have places where you can hide knives in them. Because you can never have enough knives.

I am anxiously awaiting the Picaroon archetype to see how it is implemented!