Player Core 2 Preview: The Swashbuckler, Remastered

X-Men's Gambit?

Zero the Nothing wrote:

Can Fighter do what it is known for without skill checks? What about Barb or Ranger?

And yet the Thaumaturge has auto-advancing Esoteric Lore because it kinda needs it to be good at Thaumaturging.

I partially agree with that.

The disagreement is that this isn't accounting for the differences in which skills are being granted auto-scaling. There is a difference between getting auto-scaling in crafting (Inventor) or recall knowledge (Thaumaturge) and getting auto-scaling in acrobatics, athletics, diplomacy, or deception.

I'd argue Esoteric Lore is a way stronger skill than Acrobatics, Athletics, Crafting, Diplomacy, or Deception (and if we include Diverse Lore into the mix, its even stronger). Not to mention that Esoteric Lore is a unique skill that only thaumaturges have, not even multiclassed thaums, while every swashbuckler or inventor can be good at those skills, though while the inventor does get Crafting for free, the swashbuckler doesn't get skill increases to invest into those skills for free.

Fun fact: since the class always makes sure you are trained in Acrobatics at 1st level, if you have a +7 Dex at 20th level and make no other effort to increase your Acrobatics score in any way, you will still only crit fail - and thus, fail to acquire panache - an Acrobatics check against a level 20 DC (that is, DC 40) on a natural 1.

No, you really don't need auto-scaling Acrobatics on this class.

EDIT: to be clear, I would love to see auto-scaling, I just disagree that it's necessary for builds that want to do something else with their skill-ups.

This is... good to know!

Does this math hold for 1-19 tho?

I'd argue Esoteric Lore is a way stronger skill than Acrobatics, Athletics, Crafting, Diplomacy, or Deception (and if we include Diverse Lore into the mix, its even stronger).

That would be an interesting argument to hear.

To be clear, I only stated that they were different. Which, true, does imply that I feel that getting one of acrobatics, athletics, diplomacy, or deception is a bit more powerful. I haven't presented that argument though.

Similarly, stating that auto-scaling Esoteric Lore is stronger than auto-scaling of other skills is also just a statement of belief, not an argument presented.

I think that line of discussion depends pretty heavily on the "how strong are Lore skills" question, which... seems to be at least somewhat party/GM-dependent? Some folks find them really underwhelming, other folks think they're critical and/or awesome.

I really like panache on failure, even if you are looking to hold on to panache. It will let you add bonuses to your panache skills, this increasing the chances of extending it's duration, and the way I read it, all your skill abilities which currently give panache will get the bravado trait when used by the swashbuckler.

But I could be misreading!

Fun fact: since the class always makes sure you are trained in Acrobatics at 1st level, if you have a +7 Dex at 20th level and make no other effort to increase your Acrobatics score in any way, you will still only crit fail - and thus, fail to acquire panache - an Acrobatics check against a level 20 DC (that is, DC 40) on a natural 1.

No, you really don't need auto-scaling Acrobatics on this class.

EDIT: to be clear, I would love to see auto-scaling, I just disagree that it's necessary for builds that want to do something else with their skill-ups.

You do realize that the problem isn't on-level DCs, right? It's for situations when you're facing stronger threats... You know, the entire reason why we have Bravado in the first place?

Critically failing in this situations isn't that unlikely.

Personally, I think the class could use at least auto-scaling on its Style skill, and acrobatics stays as an optional choice for the player. More out of build variety than as a question of power. No player will ever, ever, risk keeping their main avenues to gain panache at minimum in favor of some character flavor.

I think it makes sense to auto-scale their style skill given how often they train to make use of it given it is part of their fighting style. Acrobatics they can scale up themselves as that is a valuable skill even for non-swashbucklers. The style skill is a key component of their fighting style in constant training. Auto-scaling would help immensely.

Excited to see Swashbucklers become a little more consistent. Sounds good.

... Not a huge fan of the last 8 words of Twirling Throw though. Almost complete replacing the need for a returning rune but adding in a small chance to lose your weapon on any given attack feels like it could be very frustrating in actual play in non-ABP Games.

I'm thinking that a Thrower's Bandolier effectively makes that problem go away. Every once in a while your weapon won't come back and you'll just have to draw another one. Spending one feat to free up the space that a returning tube would take up, seems like a reasonable deal to me.

Captain Morgan wrote:

I've never really gotten the locked in skill increases complaint. I'm more receptive to arguing the Swashbuckler should get automatic increases to compensate for their lack of raw power in combat. And it's a little awkward only being able to increase one of your two skills at a time.

But conceptually, I don't understand why you'd play the class if you weren't interested in being as acrobatic as possible. If you just want a fencer, free hand fights are hella good. You can use archetypes like Aldori Duelist to round out the flair. Finishers are unique to the swashbuckler, but most people found them underwhelming, and fighters have plenty of two action strikes which can cover a similar niche of devoting your whole turn to one big melee strike.

Is it that hard to imagine that a Wit or a Fencer Swashbuckler might want to invest in Diplomacy and Deception before they would want to invest in Acrobatics? Or that any Swashbuckler might want to be better at anything that isn’t combat related than they are at Acrobatics?

I can certainly see someone wanting to boost Diplomacy or Deception before Acrobatics, but that's a credible build choice. You would just pick the corresponding style. If you want to prioritize something that isn't acrobatics or a style skill, I'd seriously question why you want to play a class whose identity is rooted in those skills. So you can can have a chance to fail turning on your damage enhancer, which will still deal less damage than a barbarian with a great sword? So you can use finesse weapons which are worse than monk unarmed attacks, and being slower than a monk until you've already moved up to the enemy?

Shisumo wrote:

Fun fact: since the class always makes sure you are trained in Acrobatics at 1st level, if you have a +7 Dex at 20th level and make no other effort to increase your Acrobatics score in any way, you will still only crit fail - and thus, fail to acquire panache - an Acrobatics check against a level 20 DC (that is, DC 40) on a natural 1.

No, you really don't need auto-scaling Acrobatics on this class.

EDIT: to be clear, I would love to see auto-scaling, I just disagree that it's necessary for builds that want to do something else with their skill-ups.

You do realize that the problem isn't on-level DCs, right? It's for situations when you're facing stronger threats... You know, the entire reason why we have Bravado in the first place?

Critically failing in this situations isn't that unlikely.

Personally, I think the class could use at least auto-scaling on its Style skill, and acrobatics stays as an optional choice for the player. More out of build variety than as a question of power. No player will ever, ever, risk keeping their main avenues to gain panache at minimum in favor of some character flavor.

The average Reflex DC of the non-unique (just avoiding spoilers for myself) level 22 creatures on Archives of Nethys is 45.6666, so you'd be needing a 6 or 7 on the dice to avoid a crit fail with your modifier of +29 (20 level + 7 dex + 2 trained). Interestingly by those levels, chucking on some Daredevil Boots will get you right back to only crit failing on a 1 or 2 (rounding up or down). This is all dependent on Bravado being on Acrobatics checks to tumble through, which I don't think is clear from the blog.

exequiel759 wrote:

I'd argue Esoteric Lore is a way stronger skill than Acrobatics, Athletics, Crafting, Diplomacy, or Deception (and if we include Diverse Lore into the mix, its even stronger).

That would be an interesting argument to hear.

To be clear, I only stated that they were different. Which, true, does imply that I feel that getting one of acrobatics, athletics, diplomacy, or deception is a bit more powerful. I haven't presented that argument though.

Similarly, stating that auto-scaling Esoteric Lore is stronger than auto-scaling of other skills is also just a statement of belief, not an argument presented.

Well, I know in practice this isn't the case, but more or less skills are supposedly balanced against each other (so in terms of design budget, a skill like Stealth is power-wise equal against Thievery for example). The only exception to this are Lore skills, which function more like half-skills in a sense. Now, Esoteric Lore is an all-encompassing RK skill in regards to monsters, or just an all-encompassing RK skill with Diverse Lore. The RK skills are fairly barebones in regards to actual uses for each of them (or at least widely applicable uses) so if out of the 5 RK skills (Arcana, Nature, Occultism, Religion, and Society) and Esoteric / Diverse Lore covers (most) its uses it could be said that it roughly covers the uses of 3-4 skills (probably down to 1-2 without Diverse Lore). On top of this, the class that gets it (thaumaturges) get auto-scaling on it like a regular skill (unless other all-encompassing RK skills which require you to increase other skills to upgrade other skills and always stay behind proficiency-wise) and uses the class' KAS. Also, the class feature that uses it still grants a lesser benefit on a failure (and technically not even a lesser failure against targets that don't have weaknesses).

Meanwhile, Acrobatics, Athletics, Diplomacy, or Deception only real benefit is that they have uses that have an impact in combat (well, RK does impact combat too, but it doesn't grant numerical bonuses or penalties) and that there's skill feats for them (there's skill feats for Lores too, but they are very forgettable. Though to be honest, most Crafting feats and some feats from these skills are also very forgettable too). Until now, the swashbucler could actualy fail to receive panache from them and thus be left without class features. On top of this, since these skills have actual effects in combat, it means that enemies can be immune to their effects, and even if the swash gets panache with them, the foe can also be immune to precision damage too.

Esoteric Lore doesn't replace these skills, though it arguably replaces all other RK skills in the game, which IMO puts it power and budget-wise above Acrobatics, Athletics, Diplomacy, or Deception. Also, another proof to prove this point, is that any class with the Swashbuckler Dedication has access to everything (up to 10th level) that a swashbuckler can do with their style's skill, and even without it, any character can be as good as a swashbuckler with those skills. Meanwhile, only a thaumaturge has access to Esoteric Lore and Diverse Lore. Even if you don't like RK or Esoteric Lore for whatever reason, it's clear that Paizo treats Esoteric Lore as something that's stronger than an average skill since not-thaums cannot even get a lesser version of it (which IMO would be totally fair and balanced, since things like Loremaster Lore already exist). Though weirdly enough, its Esoteric Lore the skill that gets auto-scaling and that doesn't have enemies immune to it, while these other skills (for swashbucklers) don't have these luxuries.

Ferious Thune wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

I've never really gotten the locked in skill increases complaint. I'm more receptive to arguing the Swashbuckler should get automatic increases to compensate for their lack of raw power in combat. And it's a little awkward only being able to increase one of your two skills at a time.

But conceptually, I don't understand why you'd play the class if you weren't interested in being as acrobatic as possible. If you just want a fencer, free hand fights are hella good. You can use archetypes like Aldori Duelist to round out the flair. Finishers are unique to the swashbuckler, but most people found them underwhelming, and fighters have plenty of two action strikes which can cover a similar niche of devoting your whole turn to one big melee strike.

Is it that hard to imagine that a Wit or a Fencer Swashbuckler might want to invest in Diplomacy and Deception before they would want to invest in Acrobatics? Or that any Swashbuckler might want to be better at anything that isn’t combat related than they are at Acrobatics?

I can certainly see someone wanting to boost Diplomacy or Deception before Acrobatics, but that's a credible build choice. You would just pick the corresponding style. If you want to prioritize something that isn't acrobatics or a style skill, I'd seriously question why you want to play a class whose identity is rooted in those skills. So you can can have a chance to fail turning on your damage enhancer, which will still deal less damage than a barbarian with a great sword? So you can use finesse weapons which are worse than monk unarmed attacks, and being slower than a monk until you've already moved up to the enemy?

Do all Strength-based martials take increases in Athletics? Do all Dexterity-based classes take Acrobatics, Stealth, and Thievery? Do all Charisma-based classes take Deception, Diplomacy, and Intimidation? Luckily the system isn't as narrow and allows for diversity of characters that can actually take what they want in their level ups. A rogue does rely on skills for combat, but they get twice as much skill increases. Inventor relies heavily on Crafting so that's why they get it for free, much like thaumaturges that get Diverse Lore for free. Meanwhile, a swashbuckler that relies on skills as much as these classes if not more doesn't get auto-scaling and out of the three skills they can bring to legendary they have two of those locked down. This literally doesn't make sense because swashbuckler is the only class that does, which feels bad and restrictive. Even with bravado, I can use thaumaturges as an example again because they also gain benefits on failed checks too, so why thaums have these luxury while swashs don't?

I do not think all strength based martials take maxed athletics unless they use it as part of their attack routine.

Something I haven't seen anyone pick up yet:

Our primary aim with the swashbuckler’s remaster was therefore to increase the consistency of the class to allow for more stylish moments. One way we’ve done this is through the new bravado trait...

(Emphasis added)

I am looking forward to seeing what other ways they will do this!

Obviously this could be via auto-scaling the style skill, but there are lots of other possibilities. eg. I've long thought that After You should become a free class feature.

Separately, I really hope swashbucklers get access to the new rogue disarm-with-thievery feat, or better yet, get their own version using acrobatics. Because if anything is core to the class fantasy of a swashbuckler, it is disarming your opponent!

A Swashbuckler who does not max Acrobatics and the key skill for the fighting style they chose sounds odd to me.

If the player does not want to play a PC that maxes those, why play a Swashbuckler ?

Currently playing a Battledancer Swashbuckler/Shadowdancer who will never take Acrobatics above Trained, because the ones to max are Performance, Stealth, and Athletics. Those let me do all the cool swashbuckler things I want to do.

Ferious Thune wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

I've never really gotten the locked in skill increases complaint. I'm more receptive to arguing the Swashbuckler should get automatic increases to compensate for their lack of raw power in combat. And it's a little awkward only being able to increase one of your two skills at a time.

But conceptually, I don't understand why you'd play the class if you weren't interested in being as acrobatic as possible. If you just want a fencer, free hand fights are hella good. You can use archetypes like Aldori Duelist to round out the flair. Finishers are unique to the swashbuckler, but most people found them underwhelming, and fighters have plenty of two action strikes which can cover a similar niche of devoting your whole turn to one big melee strike.

Is it that hard to imagine that a Wit or a Fencer Swashbuckler might want to invest in Diplomacy and Deception before they would want to invest in Acrobatics? Or that any Swashbuckler might want to be better at anything that isn’t combat related than they are at Acrobatics?

I can certainly see someone wanting to boost Diplomacy or Deception before Acrobatics, but that's a credible build choice. You would just pick the corresponding style. If you want to prioritize something that isn't acrobatics or a style skill, I'd seriously question why you want to play a class whose identity is rooted in those skills. So you can can have a chance to fail turning on your damage enhancer, which will still deal less damage than a barbarian with a great sword? So you can use finesse weapons which are worse than monk unarmed attacks, and being slower than a monk until you've already moved up to the enemy?

This is, again, missing the point and a bit circular. Yes, a Swashbuckler needs Acrobatics, and it would be weird to want to play a Swashbuckler and not take Acrobatics… but that is only because the class is designed around needing Acrobatics. Swashbuckler the concept could be the character who maxes Acrobatics, or it could be the charismatic cad who is great at more than one social skill and maybe only good at Acrobatics. Being only Trained in Acrobatics shouldn’t make you worse at fighting. That’s not the case of any other class. I did not say boosting Diplomacy or Deception above Acrobatics. I said boosting Diplomacy AND Deception over Acrobatics. I would certainly like to be able to do that without hurting my combat effectiveness.

Bravado might solve this, but it sounds like it’s going to do so in a way that is also counter to my concept of a Swashbuckler. Gaining Panache on a failure is a large buff to the class, and the class needed a large buff. As presented here, it would let a Braggart potentially rely only on Intimidation, which would help what I’ve been talking about. But it also means that you are gaining Panache for trying to intimidate creatures who are immune to it. That’s not a situation I like conceptually, even if I recognize the benefit mechanically. I give you my best threat and you laugh it off, but somehow I’m still impressive and heroic? That’s never going to feel right to me.

But it also means that you are gaining Panache for trying to intimidate creatures who are immune to it. That’s not a situation I like conceptually, even if I recognize the benefit mechanically. I give you my best threat and you laugh it off, but somehow I’m still impressive and heroic? That’s never going to feel right to me.

I don't think failing at a check giving you panache is conceptually weird for the class tbh. As I said in an earlier comment, the concept of the swashbuckler is that of a goofball too. A perfect example of this is Jack Sparrow, who everybody knows is full of bullsh1t and that is very clumsy at times, but is still full of style and suave. Even the word panache itself means (as per Google) "flamboyant confidence of style or manner". What matters is not that you actually feint, intimidate, or trip a foe, what matters is that regardless of what you do, succesful or not, is likely very theatrical and full of style. In a sense its like a thaumaturge, a character that forces its way by literally molding reality with the strength of their personality, except swashbucklers do something and immediately think "that's the coolest thing ever".

This is, again, missing the point and a bit circular. Yes, a Swashbuckler needs Acrobatics, and it would be weird to want to play a Swashbuckler and not take Acrobatics… but that is only because the class is designed around needing Acrobatics. Swashbuckler the concept could be the character who maxes Acrobatics, or it could be the charismatic cad who is great at more than one social skill and maybe only good at Acrobatics. Being only Trained in Acrobatics shouldn’t make you worse at fighting.

It could have been that concept, but it isn't and was never going to be. If you want to be a not particularly acrobatic charismatic cad who is supreme at fighting, then play a fighter. The swashbuckler class that Paizo designed doesn't just rely on acrobatics for mobility. "You stay nimble, moving into the best position to perform your maneuvers while dodging enemy blows and responding with swift ripostes." The purpose of the class isn't just to be a flashy and charismatic. It is to incentivize actions which keep you mobile and aren't always optimal on their own. The class basically runs on "do stupid stunts." It isn't entirely successful at enabling it because it is weak. But that's a better reason to throw in buffs like auto skill increases than trying to fit a square peg character concept into a round hole class.

What I'm going to discuss in this comment is likely something that isn't going to happen because it would be a HUGE change for the class and a great buff on top of bravado which is also huge, but what if a swashbuckler could generate panache with all the actions it currently can, regardless of your style?

Let's look into what actions can generate panache (ignoring each individual swashbuckler feat that also grants panache).
* whenever you succesfully a Tumble Through against a foe.
* when the result of your Performance check to Perform exceeds the Will DC of an observing foe, even if the foe isn't fascinated.
* whenever you successfully Demoralize a foe.
* whenever you successfully Feint or Create a Diversion against a foe.
* whenever you successfully Grapple, Shove, or Trip a foe.
* whenever you succeed at a Bon Mot against a foe.

This means a swashbuckler a total of 9 actions which they can use to generate panache. If all of these became baseline the main problem I see is that some would feel a little arbritary, and I feel it would be a little weird if the class listed like 20 or so actions you can use to gain panache. It also would also make styles literally useless until 9th level, in which case it would likely mean exemplary finishers would instead become 1st level features (which I don't think would be that bad tbh).

Do these actions share something in common? Yes, they share being actions that have to made against a foe, which means that hypthoetically a swashbuckler could also gain panache from using RK, Reposition, Disarm, Hide, Sneak, Palm and Object, and Steal (these last two likely are the actions that the rascal has to generate panache). This would increase the possible number of actions you have to generate panache to 16 (ignoring actions that come from skill feats), which would allow for a very open-ended (and likely too complex for Paizo's design goals) class. I could see this class not having auto-scaling in a skill because which skill do you choose here?

Do people think this would be too much of a departure?

Ferious Thune wrote:

This is, again, missing the point and a bit circular. Yes, a Swashbuckler needs Acrobatics, and it would be weird to want to play a Swashbuckler and not take Acrobatics… but that is only because the class is designed around needing Acrobatics. Swashbuckler the concept could be the character who maxes Acrobatics, or it could be the charismatic cad who is great at more than one social skill and maybe only good at Acrobatics. Being only Trained in Acrobatics shouldn’t make you worse at fighting.

It could have been that concept, but it isn't and was never going to be. If you want to be a not particularly acrobatic charismatic cad who is supreme at fighting, then play a fighter. The swashbuckler class that Paizo designed doesn't just rely on acrobatics for mobility. "You stay nimble, moving into the best position to perform your maneuvers while dodging enemy blows and responding with swift ripostes." The purpose of the class isn't just to be a flashy and charismatic. It is to incentivize actions which keep you mobile and aren't always optimal on their own. The class basically runs on "do stupid stunts." It isn't entirely successful at enabling it because it is weak. But that's a better reason to throw in buffs like auto skill increases than trying to fit a square peg character concept into a round hole class.

I find Acrobatics much less useful in this edition. Weirdly, more cool mobility actions key off of Athletics rather than Acrobatics. Athletics is jumping, climbing and swimming. Acrobatics is just tumbling. Most of the time I want to do something cool with Acrobatics, it turns out that mechanically I actually need to use Athletics.

So if your build doesn't need Acrobatics to generate Panache, you don't particularly need it to do cool things if you'd rather use Athletics.

Ferious Thune wrote:

This is, again, missing the point and a bit circular. Yes, a Swashbuckler needs Acrobatics, and it would be weird to want to play a Swashbuckler and not take Acrobatics… but that is only because the class is designed around needing Acrobatics. Swashbuckler the concept could be the character who maxes Acrobatics, or it could be the charismatic cad who is great at more than one social skill and maybe only good at Acrobatics. Being only Trained in Acrobatics shouldn’t make you worse at fighting.

It could have been that concept, but it isn't and was never going to be. If you want to be a not particularly acrobatic charismatic cad who is supreme at fighting, then play a fighter. The swashbuckler class that Paizo designed doesn't just rely on acrobatics for mobility. "You stay nimble, moving into the best position to perform your maneuvers while dodging enemy blows and responding with swift ripostes." The purpose of the class isn't just to be a flashy and charismatic. It is to incentivize actions which keep you mobile and aren't always optimal on their own. The class basically runs on "do stupid stunts." It isn't entirely successful at enabling it because it is weak. But that's a better reason to throw in buffs like auto skill increases than trying to fit a square peg character concept into a round hole class.

This is a thread discussing revisions to the original class to better realize the concept. Speculating on ways that might broaden that to include other varieties within the concept feels perfectly reasonable to me.

As far as the concept goes, it is also:

You are equally likely to charm or intimidate others—or both (my note:Diplomacy and Intimidation). You might be an adept socialite (Society), or you might create distractions (Deception) for others who do the talking.

And

You keep a careful eye on your surroundings (Perception or possibly Survival) and other people, always prepared to leap into action with bravado and flair (Acrobatics, but also Athletics). You interact with the environment in bold, sweeping strokes rather than skulking to avoid detection (So not Stealth, though Zorro and The Man In Black both had at least some Stealth).

And

You might carouse at the tavern (Diplomacy again, or just Charisma in general), repair and maintain your armaments (Crafting), or train to learn new techniques (Probably referring the the extra skill feats). To maintain your impressive reputation, you might build an organization in your name or establish a following of admirers (Perform).

I’m pretty sure the concept that Paizo created includes more skills than Acrobatics. And I’m pretty sure you can be all the things listed in the Combat section just using Swashbuckler feats and Abilities that don’t require Acrobatics. But it’s been necessary to max Acrobatics to get your bonus damage. Again, Bravado may change that, and maybe that’s enough. We’ll see.

Ferious Thune wrote:

But it also means that you are gaining Panache for trying to intimidate creatures who are immune to it. That’s not a situation I like conceptually, even if I recognize the benefit mechanically. I give you my best threat and you laugh it off, but somehow I’m still impressive and heroic? That’s never going to feel right to me.

I don't think failing at a check giving you panache is conceptually weird for the class tbh. As I said in an earlier comment, the concept of the swashbuckler is that of a goofball too. A perfect example of this is Jack Sparrow, who everybody knows is full of bullsh1t and that is very clumsy at times, but is still full of style and suave. Even the word panache itself means (as per Google) "flamboyant confidence of style or manner". What matters is not that you actually feint, intimidate, or trip a foe, what matters is that regardless of what you do, succesful or not, is likely very theatrical and full of style. In a sense its like a thaumaturge, a character that forces its way by literally molding reality with the strength of their personality, except swashbucklers do something and immediately think "that's the coolest thing ever".

That’s a fair take on it. I’m not entirely sure Jack Sparrow would be a Swashbuckler as the class stands in PF. Despite being on a boat, he comes across more as a Rogue to me. I haven’t watched all of the movies, but I never got the sense he was particularly good at fighting. It’s been a while, though.

Ferious Thune wrote:

This is, again, missing the point and a bit circular. Yes, a Swashbuckler needs Acrobatics, and it would be weird to want to play a Swashbuckler and not take Acrobatics… but that is only because the class is designed around needing Acrobatics. Swashbuckler the concept could be the character who maxes Acrobatics, or it could be the charismatic cad who is great at more than one social skill and maybe only good at Acrobatics. Being only Trained in Acrobatics shouldn’t make you worse at fighting.

It could have been that concept, but it isn't and was never going to be. If you want to be a not particularly acrobatic charismatic cad who is supreme at fighting, then play a fighter. The swashbuckler class that Paizo designed doesn't just rely on acrobatics for mobility. "You stay nimble, moving into the best position to perform your maneuvers while dodging enemy blows and responding with swift ripostes." The purpose of the class isn't just to be a flashy and charismatic. It is to incentivize actions which keep you mobile and aren't always optimal on their own. The class basically runs on "do stupid stunts." It isn't entirely successful at enabling it because it is weak. But that's a better reason to throw in buffs like auto skill increases than trying to fit a square peg character concept into a round hole class.

"Every swashbuckler should take acrobatics or else they're committing badwrongfun" doesn't really strike me as an argument against autoscaling though. Like, if a skill is allegedly so central to a class' identity that not investing in it is essentially playing the game wrong, then even presenting it as a choice to begin with is just a way to entrap players.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Ferious Thune wrote:

This is, again, missing the point and a bit circular. Yes, a Swashbuckler needs Acrobatics, and it would be weird to want to play a Swashbuckler and not take Acrobatics… but that is only because the class is designed around needing Acrobatics. Swashbuckler the concept could be the character who maxes Acrobatics, or it could be the charismatic cad who is great at more than one social skill and maybe only good at Acrobatics. Being only Trained in Acrobatics shouldn’t make you worse at fighting.

It could have been that concept, but it isn't and was never going to be. If you want to be a not particularly acrobatic charismatic cad who is supreme at fighting, then play a fighter. The swashbuckler class that Paizo designed doesn't just rely on acrobatics for mobility. "You stay nimble, moving into the best position to perform your maneuvers while dodging enemy blows and responding with swift ripostes." The purpose of the class isn't just to be a flashy and charismatic. It is to incentivize actions which keep you mobile and aren't always optimal on their own. The class basically runs on "do stupid stunts." It isn't entirely successful at enabling it because it is weak. But that's a better reason to throw in buffs like auto skill increases than trying to fit a square peg character concept into a round hole class.

"Every swashbuckler should take acrobatics or else they're committing badwrongfun" doesn't really strike me as an argument against autoscaling though. Like, if a skill is allegedly so central to a class' identity that not investing in it is essentially playing the game wrong, then even presenting it as a choice to begin with is just a way to entrap players.

I really believe the Acrobat archetype originated as Swashbuckler feats that they decided to make available to all classes.

So unless they give the swashbuckler rogue skill increases (which they totally could the rogue already has more utility and damage than them).

Having two out of the three skills you can scale to max be dedicated to acrobatics and your style to be able to effectively use your core class feature is too limiting. You pretty much only have 1 scaled skill to differentiate yourself from any other swashbuckler using your style.

So unless they give the swashbuckler rogue skill increases (which they totally could the rogue already has more utility and damage than them).

Having two out of the three skills you can scale to max be dedicated to acrobatics and your style to be able to effectively use your core class feature is too limiting. You pretty much only have 1 scaled skill to differentiate yourself from any other swashbuckler using your style.

If I get you, I think I agree? The facts that (1) the swash is getting an expanded list of styles and (2) an expanded list of actions they can use to generate panache, and (3) can generate panache even if a target is unaffected by the panache-generating effect, all undermines the argument for giving the class autoscaling acrobatics. Because acrobatics is no longer the one main way everyone's going to use to get panache. Giving them an extra skill bump progression and letting those who want to use it for acrobatics do so, would be a better fit for all the styles and builds who don't focus on acrobatics. Is that the message?

I really believe the Acrobat archetype originated as Swashbuckler feats that they decided to make available to all classes.

While I certainly don't mind a class feat which gives you autoscaling Acrobatics, the fact that taking the dedication feat locks you into taking two more feats from the archetype before you can take another archetype kinda sucks. Well, aside from the thing that many Swashbuckler class feats are too good to not take and therefore taking so many archetype feats is not that interesting, but still.

That’s a fair take on it. I’m not entirely sure Jack Sparrow would be a Swashbuckler as the class stands in PF. Despite being on a boat, he comes across more as a Rogue to me. I haven’t watched all of the movies, but I never got the sense he was particularly good at fighting. It’s been a while, though.

Jack Sparrow is actually supremely good at fighting. He loses most of the fights he's in, but that's because he mostly fights against people who are (often literally) inhumanely good at fighting.

He definitely multiclasses rogue, but swashbuckler is his main thing. At least my humble opinion.

tbh "Not particularly good at fighting" is on brand for the swashbuckler anyways-

I’ll take everyone’s word on Jack Sparrow.

tbh "Not particularly good at fighting" is on brand for the swashbuckler anyways-

I don’t know if this is sincere or a joke about the state of the pre-remaster Swashbuckler. If it’s a joke, I agree!

You could do Panache on a knowledge check, (see the duel between Westley and Inigo in the Princess Bride, calling out the styles and abilities the opponent is using and having the counter, then the counter to the counter etc), that could be expanded (according to Maestro Montoya of Cheliax Barbazu tend to over extend on the chop leaving them open to a thrust into the left elbow or w/e) People trained by the Taldoran Phalanx tend to do x.countered by y etc.

I’ll take everyone’s word on Jack Sparrow.

Squiggit wrote:

tbh "Not particularly good at fighting" is on brand for the swashbuckler anyways-

I don’t know if this is sincere or a joke about the state of the pre-remaster Swashbuckler. If it’s a joke, I agree!

I believe it's driving at the idea that the iconic swashbucklers (Guybrush Threepwood comes instantly to mind, but this applies to characters like Zorro or Jack Sparrow also) tend to win fights by being clever and taking advantage of the environment, rather than by being strictly better at swordfighting than their opponents.

That's not to say that Zorro or Jack Sparrow are bad swordsmen, but their extra edge comes from that cleverness instead of raw skill and that's why they are swashbucklers and not fighters.

Yeah, I think his most well-known victory was when midway through his first big fight he draws a pistol.

Actually, that's how he wins the fight at the end of the movie, too. Symmetry!

Ferious Thune wrote:

I’ll take everyone’s word on Jack Sparrow.

Squiggit wrote:

tbh "Not particularly good at fighting" is on brand for the swashbuckler anyways-

I don’t know if this is sincere or a joke about the state of the pre-remaster Swashbuckler. If it’s a joke, I agree!

I believe it's driving at the idea that the iconic swashbucklers (Guybrush Threepwood comes instantly to mind, but this applies to characters like Zorro or Jack Sparrow also) tend to win fights by being clever and taking advantage of the environment, rather than by being strictly better at swordfighting than their opponents.

That's not to say that Zorro or Jack Sparrow are bad swordsmen, but their extra edge comes from that cleverness instead of raw skill and that's why they are swashbucklers and not fighters.

Zorro was definitely a skilled swordsman. I don’t think that the Swashbuckler needs to be equal to the Fighter. I just don’t want the Swashbuckler to be actively bad at fighting, which it kind of is at low levels pre-remaster. Bravado looks like it will fix that (mechanically), it’s just still not going to convince me that being terrible at something (failing, repeatedly) is what gives Swashbucklers their flair.

Could I see a style that gives the flavor of Jack Sparrow? You succeed more with your cunning and luck than with your skill with the blade… etc. Sure. But Swashbucklers are the classic high adventure fencers. They should be good at fencing as a baseline.

Relying on Finishers to keep up in damage was just the wrong decision from the beginning, in my opinion. I would rather their baseline damage be closer to other classes, and then Panache be used to do cool things.

Regardless of how their combat mechanics work, they should have at least a little flexibility in their skill choices without making that combat effectiveness even worse. My initial point in all of this was not that auto-advancing skills is the only way to do that. It was that the reason people wanted auto-advancing skills was for skill flexibility, not as a way ti fix the hurdles around gaining Panache. If they’ve found other ways to free up the skill increases Swashbucklers already have, then great.

Yeah, I think his most well-known victory was when midway through his first big fight he draws a pistol.

Actually, that's how he wins the fight at the end of the movie, too. Symmetry!

I mean, this is a classic Indiana Jones move. It’s as much Scoundrel Rogue as it is Swashbuckler.

EDIT: I will acknowledge that this is part of the challenge that the designers have. Rogue is already able to encompass many of the archetypal swashbucklers from fiction better than the Swashbuckler class does. Cool acrobatic maneuvers? Check. Use cunning to catch people off-guard? Check. Once you’ve caught them off-guard, deal a fatal blow? Check. Able to blend into social situations? Check (based on the number of skills they get, there’s plenty of room to pull that off). Use their skillfulness and agility to deal more damage with lighter weapons? Check (via Thief Rogue. Swashbuckler should have been the other Dex-to-Damage class).

So what we got is much more locked down to a specific subset of the concept, with more hit points than a Rogue.

Yeah, I think his most well-known victory was when midway through his first big fight he draws a pistol.

'Surprise pistol draw' cited as characteristic of Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean? I feel old now. So, so old lol.

Given the information in this blog, I expect to be retraining out of “After You” into something more interesting. The change to gaining panache will make a huge difference when trying to punch above your level.

This mechanism also opens the possibility of gaining panache from casting a spell if they create a feat encouraging a swash/sorcerer combo. It could be similar to the Magical Trickster feat that rogue had in the original CRB.

Zorro was definitely a skilled swordsman. I don’t think that the Swashbuckler needs to be equal to the Fighter. I just don’t want the Swashbuckler to be actively bad at fighting, which it kind of is at low levels pre-remaster. Bravado looks like it will fix that (mechanically), it’s just still not going to convince me that being terrible at something (failing, repeatedly) is what gives Swashbucklers their flair.

Could I see a style that gives the flavor of Jack Sparrow? You succeed more with your cunning and luck than with your skill with the blade… etc. Sure. But Swashbucklers are the classic high adventure fencers. They should be good at fencing as a baseline.

Relying on Finishers to keep up in damage was just the wrong decision from the beginning, in my opinion. I would rather their baseline damage be closer to other classes, and then Panache be used to do cool things.

Regardless of how their combat mechanics work, they should have at least a little flexibility in their skill choices without making that combat effectiveness even worse. My initial point in all of this was not that auto-advancing skills is the only way to do that. It was that the reason...

Really this is kind of the problem with Fighter, more than anything else.

The defining feature of Fighter is being better than every other class at baseline, generic fighting.

By definition, in PF2E, if you are the best fencer in the world, your class is Fighter.

Fighters having that space is very necessary mechanically, but it crowds out some other classes thematically. Swashbucklers can't be "the best fencer in the world", no matter how thematically appropriate it is, because a Fighter will always beat them in raw skill.

One could definitely argue that the thematic space Fighter occupies is far too wide, but I'm not sure how to fix that without reverting to the problem other editions had with Fighter (namely that so many other classes were just Fighter+).

I think the reason behind this discussion about skill vs. luck in regards to the swashbuckler is why I don't get why they have 10 + Con HP per level instead of 8 + Con HP per level. 10 + Con HP martials are usually considered to be the "true" martials, in the sense that they rely on their martial capabilities alone while in combat. Meanwhile, 8 + Con martials are usually martials that "cheat" (not in a literal way) to make themselves comparable against those other martials. These would include inventors who pull up a batman with gadgets to overcome obstacles, investigators that analyze their opponents, magi that balance magic and martial prowess, rogues who use subterfuge, and thaumaturges who are monster experts that can bend reality to their whim. A swashbuckler would thematically be part of the 8 + Con HP group, though weirdly enough it is part of the 10 + Con HP group instead.

Its likely this decision was made initially because a) rogues didn't have access to martial weapons so swashbucklers were, in a sense, one step above them, and b) because investigator was in the same book who already filled the more "rogue-ish" approach in its class design (though it also had martial weapon proficiency like the swashbuckler). This effectively means that swashbucklers were designed with the same power budget of a "true" martial in mind, but its mechanics kinda need th extra support that "half" martials usually have. Is it possible Paizo did reduce the amount of HP of the class to 8 + Con to compensate for bravado and the other changes made to the class? If that's the case, it would be the only class that changes its HP per level in the transition to the Remaster AFAIK.

I don't really like the idea of reducing the Swashbuckler's HP to 'compensate' for things.

For one, the 10 HP gives them another point of differentiation from the rogue. For another, you don't need to 'compensate' for making a bad class slightly more functional.

Swashbuckler may not be the best class at winning a fight. Some other classes can do equivalent damage and do it more reliably.

What I have found is that Swashbuckler is very good at not losing a fight. I have a Fencer in PFS that generally takes a front line 'tank' role - being enough of a threat that the enemies can't just ignore it, but having the AC and HP (and self buffs / debuffs I can apply) to be difficult to go through and drop quickly.

I dislike that the classes that have to jump through hoops still can't match fighter damage output. The fighter fencer should be the one that parries and stabs you, while the swashbuckler should be the one that jumps off the table, calls your mom fat, rolls between your legs, stabs your thigh and slaps your knuckles with the flat of the blade.
The problem is that the panache skills coupled with finishers still aren't as effective as fighter just stabbing you.
The fact it's difficult to do the most optimal attack routine, strike twice, is a big factor to this, since the precision damage doesn't equal it out. One strike with a finesse weapon is so far behind two strikes with a d8 or d10. Kinda why I like dual finisher so much, I at least feel I'm doing some damage even though it's spread out and thus less effective.

Hopefully we have more feats that enhance the results of panache skills to get more effects out of them.

I like that a Swashbuckler with Panache stays pretty close to a similarly built Fighter.

Level One Swash: Dex +4/Str +0 with a Rapier: 1d6+2 (Precise Strike) = 5 points on average.

Level One Fighter: Dex +4/Str +3 with a Rapier: 1d6+3 (Str) = 6 points on average.

Yes, the Fighter will Crit more, but for regular day-to-day hits, (still the most common result at 50% usually) they're going to be really, really close.

A Gymnast Swashbuckler will normally out-damage a Dex Fighter on hits.

Dex melee is one of the weakest ways to play a fighter so being almost as good as one of those is not a great look.

Swashbucklers don’t need to be the best fencer in the world. They just need to be good fencers without requiring a bunch of other stuff first (on par with other non-fighter martial classes).

In that fighter vs swashbuckler comparison, it’s also ignoring that the swashbuckler would have to spend at least one action first, and the fighter is more likely to hit on a second or even third attack. The swashbuckler should probably have some strength, though.

Fair... but I don't see how you can compare Swashbuckler with a Str based Fighter. Well, I suppose you could go with Str +4/Dex +3 and still use a Rapier, but it doesn't match the picture in my head as well. In the end you'd end up with 7d6+15 on the Fighter side vs 7d6+12 on the Swash (with Panache); a Gymnast would be doing 7d6+17.

A 3 point difference on a Build that never invested in Strength is decently close, IMHO. Plus, you can get Charisma as high as you can (without KAS or Apex), which the Swashbuckling Fighter can't really do as well.

Dex melee is one of the weakest ways to play a fighter so being almost as good as one of those is not a great look.

Ehhh, having the option of shield feats, dueling feats, open hand feats, and bow feats all bc you picked the switch hitting stat is far from weak imo

Fair... but I don't see how you can compare Swashbuckler with a Str based Fighter

The same way you compared them otherwise? A fighter with a greatsword is no less of a martial than a fighter with a rapier.

Squiggit wrote:

Dex melee is one of the weakest ways to play a fighter so being almost as good as one of those is not a great look.

Ehhh, having the option of shield feats, dueling feats, open hand feats, and bow feats all bc you picked the switch hitting stat is far from weak imo

Oh sure, in the totality the options are good. But in terms of just numbers comparisons (which is what I was replying to) fighter with rapier is not really a standout.

ottdmk wrote:

Fair... but I don't see how you can compare Swashbuckler with a Str based Fighter

The same way you compared them otherwise? A fighter with a greatsword is no less of a martial than a fighter with a rapier.

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Dex melee is one of the weakest ways to play a fighter so being almost as good as one of those is not a great look.

Ehhh, having the option of shield feats, dueling feats, open hand feats, and bow feats all bc you picked the switch hitting stat is far from weak imo

Oh sure, in the totality the options are good. But in terms of just numbers comparisons (which is what I was replying to) fighter with rapier is not really a standout.

Sure, sure. I'm just saying that the reason you should be a dex fighter is bc you wanted the flavor OR specifically bc you wanted to switch hit. Dex martials that aren't keeping a runed out ranged weapon in the back pocket are leaving half of their power budget on the table IMO. In that sense swash and dex fighter stack up pretty well to each other. Str is damage, dex is options. Swash as a dex class has a surprising amount of damage considering it uses the options stat