Secrets of Magic Final Week

OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:

As for vitriol, I think the designers/devs are well versed in identifying and ignoring shrillness, snark all the way up to downright abuse..

You don’t build an immunity to abuse, you can build better ways to deal with it, but you’re never immune to it.

And no matter how small, little things can build up and tear down, especially if there’s a plethora of them.

Risky is right here... We interact regularly with them, and they ARE affected by it. Playtest time is very stressful for them.

Personally, I really do dislike the idea of being given version of a playtest that is just full of experimental stuff they know its probably going to get complaints.

I always felt that type of playtest is no better than a bait and switch. While also just making everything more toxic.

But thats just a personal opinion.

Main problem with that, is that the Sorcerer multiple choices of spell lists was one of those, and the entire Swashbuckler design was too. They would have never known people liked them if they didn't release it, and both were amongst some of the most universally loved changes in their respective playtests. You win some, you lose some, but nothing ventured, nothing gained.

After the uneccissarily large amount of vitriol on these forums in response to the playtest, I'd honestly be surprised if we get to do any more playtests.

They will continue. At worst, we won't see a forum for that anymore, but I even doubt this.

I don't understand how actual play of current released swashbuckler is loved unless those playtesters loved failing to do their shtick because they need multiple rolls and resulting in an inconsistent experience.

I failed to intimidate and tumble and my entire turn has been wasted and I have to do the same thing next round and hope it works that time.

I guess I don't get a dopamine high when I roll high repeatedly. It's more like a relief of stress and worry knowing my odds of success.

I don't understand how actual play of current released swashbuckler is loved unless those playtesters loved failing to do their shtick because they need multiple rolls and resulting in an inconsistent experience.

I failed to intimidate and tumble and my entire turn has been wasted and I have to do the same thing next round and hope it works that time.

I guess I don't get a dopamine high when I roll high repeatedly. It's more like a relief of stress and worry knowing my odds of success.

Maybe the Swaschbuckler got less attention because the Witch and Oracle got so heated.

The Investigator also had a clear lack of Int, so that was easy to see.

Meanwhile, the Swashbuckler didn't have anything that looked bad. While the abilities did make sense in the context of the "Swashbuckler". You go tumble in, finisher, tumble out. Or you tumble in and keep panache for the constant benefit.

But yeah, I agree the Swashbuckler needs a little something extra. But not much.

First what time exactly will the surveys actually close? I'm asking as I am hoping to get some last minute playing in, but don't know for sure if it will fly or not? But would like to at least get some feedback in if I have to before then.

Martialmasters wrote:

I don't understand how actual play of current released swashbuckler is loved unless those playtesters loved failing to do their shtick because they need multiple rolls and resulting in an inconsistent experience.

I failed to intimidate and tumble and my entire turn has been wasted and I have to do the same thing next round and hope it works that time.

I guess I don't get a dopamine high when I roll high repeatedly. It's more like a relief of stress and worry knowing my odds of success.

Maybe the Swaschbuckler got less attention because the Witch and Oracle got so heated.

The Investigator also had a clear lack of Int, so that was easy to see.

Meanwhile, the Swashbuckler didn't have anything that looked bad. While the abilities did make sense in the context of the "Swashbuckler". You go tumble in, finisher, tumble out. Or you tumble in and keep panache for the constant benefit.

But yeah, I agree the Swashbuckler needs a little something extra. But not much.

Otherwise, I think that part of being a Swashbuckler expects a certain degree of chance an risk and potentially falling on your face and bouncing back up (hopefully). So the fact sometimes they burn a round is a risk I feel like I might have signed up for as part of the concept. I felt worse watching the player playing the playtest investigator invariably fail, either the check to use their studied strike, or fail the actual hit. I think the only time they got a benefit from it the whole game was when they failed to hit, but got a good enough successes on the study strike and the knowledge check to give their companions a bonus to hit the creature. Which I think it actually got used.

That was why I actually loved what they did with the Investigators ability. It gave them a really noticeable boost in combat ability, without it being a raw boost. They can invest an action into insuring an action they take is more likely to work (or get it for free if it is related to their case). But if they do poorly, they can choose to redirect their actions to something more productive, or that would give them a second chance. It made them much more reliable hitters, if they wait for best opportunities to hit, which frankly sounded so in line with the concept!

I'm very interested to see what they come out with for these.

I think if you design a class to fail, you have designed either a joke class, or a bad class.

All I can say about that.

I failed to intimidate and tumble and my entire turn has been wasted and I have to do the same thing next round and hope it works that time.

I don't see how this is demonstrably different than failing an attack roll as any other martial or having a spell fail as a caster.

Martialmasters wrote:

I failed to intimidate and tumble and my entire turn has been wasted and I have to do the same thing next round and hope it works that time.

I don't see how this is demonstrably different than failing an attack roll as any other martial or having a spell fail as a caster.

Because the swashbuckler receives a damage penalty in effect when they fail at their panache generation. A fighter just missed it's hit.

My son loved the first swashbucker he made for the playtest, and chose to make one for the Extinction Curse campaign we've started. He actually has succeeded frequently in getting Panache, and chooses to use it up in key moments, frequently keeping to the extra damage in the meantime.

He's young enough that predominately failing might have been a real issue with him enjoying it, but he's at least so far been happy with his success rate, and I don't think he's super optimized, either.

So I would challenge that the Swashbuckler class is not designed to fail. The class is designed to have the swashbuckler push their abilities, and to reap rewards for trying and succeeding at doing their thing.

Swashbucklers actually have an edge on Boss + Mook encounters over the solo boss encounters. They can actually gain panache against the weaker foe and use their panache to inflict extra hurt on the boss, and have the mobility to help make that work.

I'll admit, maybe that should tell me I shouldn't be as worried about the Magus then if others felt the same way about the swashbuckler. But I still do worry about the extra rolls, and chances of losing their more limited spells, could feel really frustrating. [the Investigator's multiple rolls abilities were, for instance all pretty much a free resource (or just a single action sink) not a limited daily resource.

Wish I'd really had more time to get a good feel for how often you feel like you are just losing your spells to the dice and a misfortune-like effect, with the multiple die rolls.

Guess I'm more demanding of my classes performance and have higher expectations than strictly worse than core classes Wich every new class has been. Different yes. But in terms of combat, worse. This wouldn't be the end all be all except it's been every single one thus far, and I'm gonna be pretty sad if that's the design decision of paizo as it means I'll either never play new classes after playtesting them or be forced to home brew fixes. Wich is easily done in 2e, just feels bad to need to do it.

I do honestly believe, investigator, witch, oracle, and swashbuckler are all worse than the core classes. From theory Craft to first and third person witness to actual play.

The problem I think with comparing the Swashbuckler and the Magus is the two checks are much more interlinked for the Magus. The Magus must succeed on the Strike to even attempt their Spell and, if that spell is an attack spell, it has serious accuracy issues unless that Strike crits and on top of that the Spells are a very finite resource and the action economy is much tighter for the Magus.

A Swashbuckler who fails their check still has two other actions they can do whatever with, while a Magus is spending their entire turn getting Striking Spells off (though they have a grace period to try again next round at least).
A Swashbuckler who fails their check can try again as long as they have actions, while a Magus who fails their Spell Attack loses a quarter of their daily resources (unless they're using cantrips, which are kinda meh right now for Striking Spells).
Finally, if you decide not to spam finishers, Panache is fire and forget, while the Magus needs to succeed over and over again on these two intertwined checks just for their basic combat routine.

It's not an apt comparison, IMO, because the Magus' hinges so much more on getting two successive checks right in a row and basically falls apart if any point in that chain breaks.

The problem I think with comparing the Swashbuckler and the Magus is the two checks are much more interlinked for the Magus. The Magus must succeed on the Strike to even attempt their Spell and, if that spell is an attack spell, it has serious accuracy issues unless that Strike crits and on top of that the Spells are a very finite resource and the action economy is much tighter for the Magus.

A Swashbuckler who fails their check still has two other actions they can do whatever with, while a Magus is spending their entire turn getting Striking Spells off (though they have a grace period to try again next round at least).
A Swashbuckler who fails their check can try again as long as they have actions, while a Magus who fails their Spell Attack loses a quarter of their daily resources (unless they're using cantrips, which are kinda meh right now for Striking Spells).
Finally, if you decide not to spam finishers, Panache is fire and forget, while the Magus needs to succeed over and over again on these two intertwined checks just for their basic combat routine.

It's not an apt comparison, IMO, because the Magus' hinges so much more on getting two successive checks right in a row and basically falls apart if any point in that chain breaks.

That actually fits perfectly as to why it's an apt comparison. Swashbuckler doesn't have it as bad as magus and I still see it as bad, magus is in a fairly bad place due to this.

The problem I think with comparing the Swashbuckler and the Magus is the two checks are much more interlinked for the Magus. The Magus must succeed on the Strike to even attempt their Spell and, if that spell is an attack spell, it has serious accuracy issues unless that Strike crits and on top of that the Spells are a very finite resource and the action economy is much tighter for the Magus.

A Swashbuckler who fails their check still has two other actions they can do whatever with, while a Magus is spending their entire turn getting Striking Spells off (though they have a grace period to try again next round at least).
A Swashbuckler who fails their check can try again as long as they have actions, while a Magus who fails their Spell Attack loses a quarter of their daily resources (unless they're using cantrips, which are kinda meh right now for Striking Spells).
Finally, if you decide not to spam finishers, Panache is fire and forget, while the Magus needs to succeed over and over again on these two intertwined checks just for their basic combat routine.

It's not an apt comparison, IMO, because the Magus' hinges so much more on getting two successive checks right in a row and basically falls apart if any point in that chain breaks.

I think the most apt comparison would be with the playtest Investigator. It had you first succeeding at the Lore check to then attempt to succeed at the attack.

My son loved the first swashbucker he made for the playtest, and chose to make one for the Extinction Curse campaign we've started. He actually has succeeded frequently in getting Panache, and chooses to use it up in key moments, frequently keeping to the extra damage in the meantime.

He's young enough that predominately failing might have been a real issue with him enjoying it, but he's at least so far been happy with his success rate, and I don't think he's super optimized, either.

So I would challenge that the Swashbuckler class is not designed to fail. The class is designed to have the swashbuckler push their abilities, and to reap rewards for trying and succeeding at doing their thing.

Swashbucklers actually have an edge on Boss + Mook encounters over the solo boss encounters. They can actually gain panache against the weaker foe and use their panache to inflict extra hurt on the boss, and have the mobility to help make that work.

I'll admit, maybe that should tell me I shouldn't be as worried about the Magus then if others felt the same way about the swashbuckler. But I still do worry about the extra rolls, and chances of losing their more limited spells, could feel really frustrating. [the Investigator's multiple rolls abilities were, for instance all pretty much a free resource (or just a single action sink) not a limited daily resource.

Wish I'd really had more time to get a good feel for how often you feel like you are just losing your spells to the dice and a misfortune-like effect, with the multiple die rolls.

The swashbuckler isn't terrible. I slightly modified it to start a combat with Panache as spending an action to move and having to do a panache move before knowing a creature is weak was a little frustrating. I also felt the can't attack after finisher mechanic was unnecessary.

The swashbuckler does have some very frustrating rounds compared to a barbarian or fighter. But the swashbuckler also has some great rounds and nifty abilities. Wit is very good for defense.

The swashbuckler is not terrible. It is more streaky than core classes. It as a fun and interesting play-style though that fits what you might imagine a swashbuckler to be like. Most classes are very simple in operation. You attack and that's it. A swashbuckler is constantly moving around and doing some other action every round, which can break up the monotony of the simple swing and roll fighting style.

Removed a post.

Personal attacks and name calling are not acceptable.

Comparing martial classes to the fighter is going to be rough because the fighter is really, really good at fighting in PF2. Their core mechanic is simple accuracy and feats that boost combat action economy.

The swash buckler is cool because the point of the swash buckler is to spend actions every round doing flamboyant flashy moves, but also getting some benefit when those moves work, beyond the usual benefits of those moves. If you are playing the swashbuckler assuming that you do the moves to do awesome attacks, instead of playing a swashbuckler to do awesome moves, and then, when it works, to make a decent attack, I think it is inevitable you are going to be disappointed.

The magus is in a bit of different boat. People don't play a magus to hit powerfully with a weapon and occasionally also do some damage with a spell. They want the two weapon attack and spell attack blended together. The design of spells in PF2 just makes that tricky.

I really like how the playtest magus works, but it requires teamwork, patience and a pretty deep understanding of spell casting complexity and game tactics to make succeed. I don't want the solution to be to lift the floor too much higher than what the playtest magus can already do, because it will make the system mastery Magus an overpowered train wreck, and that is why I recognize that they are looking at other options for the striking spell mechanic. I still think the equivalent of item bonuses to spell attack roll spells with the striking spell mechanic will get the accuracy about right without making the class too overpowered, plus some focus cantrips that only take one action so that all the players wanting the magus to have a sensible "bread and butter" attack round can do so without feeling too limited.

We already know that paizo doesn't think it is too much to have 13th level characters have access to a power boosted produce flame, so a magus only, melee ranged cantrip that did attribute bonus damage and a minor interesting effect on a crit might be possible. If there were options that did some different kinds of damage, then even just getting 1 extra point of damage if the monster made it's save would be alright for one action, since it could trigger weaknesses and such.

Alternatively, a magical martial with feats that do different kinds of elemental damage like spells but didn't require an extra roll could be a lot of fun too. It just wouldn't fit my vision of the magus personally. Then again, my opinion on the class doesn't seem to match much of what people post on the boards.

The swashbuckler isn't terrible. I slightly modified it to start a combat with Panache as spending an action to move and having to do a panache move before knowing a creature is weak was a little frustrating.

Since Swashbucklers already have the "start with Panache if you roll the appropriate thing for initiative" mechanic, I just made a deal with my swashbuckler player: He could choose to start any combat with Panache by tumbling dramatically into the battle (Acrobatics for initiative)... and in exchange I would place his character somewhere randomly in the middle of the room before revealing what was in the room.

So far he's loved it.

Swashbuckler definitely doesn't feel weak to me, but my group is not highly optimized overall.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

The swashbuckler isn't terrible. I slightly modified it to start a combat with Panache as spending an action to move and having to do a panache move before knowing a creature is weak was a little frustrating.

Since Swashbucklers already have the "start with Panache if you roll the appropriate thing for initiative" mechanic, I just made a deal with my swashbuckler player: He could choose to start any combat with Panache by tumbling dramatically into the battle (Acrobatics for initiative)... and in exchange I would place his character somewhere randomly in the middle of the room before revealing what was in the room.

So far he's loved it.

Swashbuckler definitely doesn't feel weak to me, but my group is not highly optimized overall.

I think the problem with initiative is that aside from the defined exploration activities it's kinda random and GM dependant on what you roll for initiative.