Player Core 2 Preview: The Swashbuckler, Remastered

On rounds where you don’t need to move or do anything else, yeah, that would work. Sometimes you could move using tumble through to gain/regain. Sometimes that won’t be enough.

Yeah, ending your turn with panache is more limiting but doesn't stop you from using finishers with the right pattern of actions

The frequency of finishers vs opportune riposte is backwards currently from where it should be.

It kind of sounds like you don't actually want to play a swashbuckler then. Finishers are their central combat mechanic.

Champion might be a better pick if you want to be reaction focused.

My swashbuckler tends to gain panache with her 3rd action (right after using a finisher on the second action) so that I have it for any AoOs. That's totally doable.

Ferious Thune wrote:

The frequency of finishers vs opportune riposte is backwards currently from where it should be.

It kind of sounds like you don't actually want to play a swashbuckler then. Finishers are their central combat mechanic.

Champion might be a better pick if you want to be reaction focused.

See the many posts above. I don’t feel like the Finishers capture the concept of a Swashbuckler. I don’t want to play a Swashbuckler as it stands in 2E, no. I want to play a class that fits the characters that would be described as Swashbucklers in media. At the moment, that’s most likely going to be a Rogue.

Edit: I don’t want to rehash things that have already been posted, but there is something new here. The idea that because one class uses a mechanic, another class can’t use that mechanic is exactly how we end up with a Swashbuckler that is slow and methodical about trying to set up their one big attack. Swashbucklers could have leaned more into parry/riposte, like in 1E. Panache could have been more about being able to do cool things than being the means by which they deal their bonus damage. Give Swashbucklers Dex-to-damage and a consistent riposte and they don’t need finisher damage. They can expend panache when it makes sense and when it’s cool, instead of needing to do so every round. Champions are a class partially based around reactions, yes, but they are completely different than Opportune Riposte. Only one of them (for the good champions, anyway) even gives an attack, and it’s against someone who attacked your ally, not you. But Swashbuckler can’t have Dex-to-damage because thief rogue (and because they probably didn’t want anyone to have it to begin with), and they can’t have a consistent reaction because Champion, and they can’t be on par with the best swordsmen, because fighter, and they can’t have more skills, because martial, etc. That’s how you end up with a class that doesn’t represent the concept of the class and that isn’t fun to play. Opportune Riposte is not Retributive Strike. Champion doesn’t have Opportune Riposte. Opportune Riposte can be good without having to take anything away from the Champion.

What if Opportune Riposte proc'd on a CF normally, but on a F if you had panache?

=)

NGL I would totally dig opportune riposte triggering on a failure if you have panache. OR is the kind of feature you forget you have when it matters (I certainly did forget about it half of time I was playing a swashbuckler), since monster don't crit fail as often as PCs do. It's also a trade for a more "reactive" playstyle rather than the more "active" playstyle that finishers need. I also totally agree with Ferious Thrune that it feels more swashbuckler-y than spamming finishers every turn (can they be really be called finishers if you spam them every turn?).

See the many posts above. I don’t feel like the Finishers capture the concept of a Swashbuckler. I don’t want to play a Swashbuckler as it stands in 2E, no. I want to play a class that fits the characters that would be described as Swashbucklers in media. At the moment, that’s most likely going to be a Rogue.

I'm just saying "I prefer rogue mechanics to swashbuckler mechanics" seems like a self solvable problem.

We can leave the Swashbuckler to people who actually like the class, instead of trying to turn it into a different one.

Seeing a class as a mere bunch of game mechanics would do wonders to many IMO.

What if Opportune Riposte proc'd on a CF normally, but on a F if you had panache?

=)

Great minds think alike.

Seeing a class as a mere bunch of game mechanics would do wonders to many IMO.

It would save Paizo a lot of page count, too, since they wouldn’t need to include any flavor text at all. You can just as easily slap a different name on the class that makes sense for the mechanics and people who only care about the mechanics can continue to enjoy it just fine.

Ferious Thune wrote:

See the many posts above. I don’t feel like the Finishers capture the concept of a Swashbuckler. I don’t want to play a Swashbuckler as it stands in 2E, no. I want to play a class that fits the characters that would be described as Swashbucklers in media. At the moment, that’s most likely going to be a Rogue.

I'm just saying "I prefer rogue mechanics to swashbuckler mechanics" seems like a self solvable problem.

We can leave the Swashbuckler to people who actually like the class, instead of trying to turn it into a different one.

This is a blog where Paizo is telling us some of the changes they made to the mechanics to help the class feel more like a Swashbuckler, and where people are speculating about what other changes might be in there. You responded that you didn’t want one of those changes, because it would encourage people to do something other than use the mechanic that you like. You could ignore Opportune Riposte and continue to use finishers, so that is just as much a self solvable problem. A better Opportune Riposte would make it a better class and make it feel more like a Swashbuckler. Finishers aren’t going away.

That being said, I still don’t have to think that Finishers are a good mechanic or that they fulfill the concept of the class. It sounds like the changes are going to at least make it a playable class. If they don’t also fix the conceptual issues, then my swashbuckler characters will be Rogues, yes. I’ll give it a try, though. I do have a Swashbuckler for PFS that I rarely play, because it just isn’t fun to do so under the current rules.

Seeing a class as a mere bunch of game mechanics would do wonders to many IMO.

I mean, this way of seeing classes has its own set of problems too. If a class is called, I don't know, "warrior" but the class has literal spellcasting and not a ton of martial-esque features or feats then people are likely going to be angry (and rightfully so) because the name and concept of the class doesn't fit with its mechanics. I'm totally 100% on board with playing a rogue and reflavor it as a swashbuckler because, well, the rogue does the same job but better, but precisely one of the problems with the swashbuckler is that it wants to play like a rogue but it fails at doing so. Here of all places is the perfect place to discuss about that, since we are in a post about the future changes of the class going forward in the Remaster. Ofc the books are already printed so its not like we can change anything at this point, but it doesn't anyone that people that aren't happy with the execution of the class (which aren't a few people mind you, just look at the amount of responses this thread has and the amount of people interacting) to come together and discuss about that. Who knows, probably someone at Paizo sees this and later on they do an errata to change some things here and there (not like I expect them to rebuild the class from the ground up at this point, but I don't feel the swashbuckler needs a whole revamp anyways. At least, not to make its current iteration functional).

I don’t feel like the Finishers capture the concept of a Swashbuckler. I don’t want to play a Swashbuckler as it stands in 2E, no. I want to play a class that fits the characters that would be described as Swashbucklers in media. At the moment, that’s most likely going to be a Rogue.

I think you may be right.

Let's say I want a dashing, swaggering character that seems to fit the idea of a swashbuckler. She will be using Tumble Through to move gracefully around the battlefield. But if I build her as a rogue instead she can do that even better, as she will have more ranks in Acrobatics and won't trigger reactions.

My Swashbuckler will also fight with witticisms (Bon Mot), or intimidation, or feinting, or doing a little dance. But as a rogue I can do *all* of those things, to the same effect and better, because I'll have more ranks in the relevant skills (and more skill feats to support them).

Thematically the one thing I would miss from the Swashbuckler class is riposte, but that's an ability that triggers so rarely that you almost forget that it's there.

It feels like a Rogue can be more swashbuckling than the Swashbuckler. Or am I missing something?

Of course when you get into the weeds it doesn't matter what Rogues can or can't do. Swashbuckler is a class, it works, and you can play it. But this is a role-playing game, and we expect much more from our characters than just being 'functional'.

Thematically the one thing I would miss from the Swashbuckler class is riposte, but that's an ability that triggers so rarely that you almost forget that it's there.

Opportune Backstab fills that role mechanically, though it’s different thematically. And it probably illustrates where Rogue falls a little short of the ideal for a swashbuckler. A lot of Rogue abilities are designed around capitalizing when your enemy is outnumbered. Where when I think of a Swashbuckler, I think of them standing alone fighting one or more enemies. However, it is possible to build a Rogue who can do that. It’s just not every ability in the class that supports it. (EDIT: I’ll note that even with the Three Musketeers, they aren’t generally depicted ganging up on one poor enemy).

But probably the biggest reasons I prefer Rogue are things you posted, plus consistent bonus damage, and, more importantly, the ability to be good at anything besides the two skills Swashbuckler is locked into. When I think of a dynamic class, I think about versatility. With Swashbuckler, you don’t get that (currently, remaster could change things). With Rogue, you do. The only thing Swashbuckler really has going for it over Rogue is more hit points.

My Swashbuckler will also fight with witticisms (Bon Mot), or intimidation, or feinting, or doing a little dance. But as a rogue I can do *all* of those things, to the same effect and better, because I'll have more ranks in the relevant skills (and more skill feats to support them).

The Swashbuckler does the dance thing better, because there is a Level 1 Swashbuckler feat that is required to make the Fascination effect function in combat. Without that, it is impossible.

(EDIT: I’ll note that even with the Three Musketeers, they aren’t generally depicted ganging up on one poor enemy).

Unless it's a helpless and unarmed woman, of course.

The Swashbuckler does the dance thing better, because there is a Level 1 Swashbuckler feat that is required to make the Fascination effect function in combat. Without that, it is impossible.

The Entertainer background gets you that feat.

Ferious Thune wrote:

(EDIT: I’ll note that even with the Three Musketeers, they aren’t generally depicted ganging up on one poor enemy).

Unless it's a helpless and unarmed woman, of course.

Fair enough. Rogue it is.

Hepzibah Malgaze wrote:

My Swashbuckler will also fight with witticisms (Bon Mot), or intimidation, or feinting, or doing a little dance. But as a rogue I can do *all* of those things, to the same effect and better, because I'll have more ranks in the relevant skills (and more skill feats to support them).

The Swashbuckler does the dance thing better, because there is a Level 1 Swashbuckler feat that is required to make the Fascination effect function in combat. Without that, it is impossible.

The swashbuckler does it better for 3 levels, then a rogue can just poach that feat through the swashbuckler dedication (which isn't even that bad for rogues. Some extra mobility, some nice low level feats, and some extra precision damage though I don't think most would want to take that).

pH unbalanced wrote:

The Swashbuckler does the dance thing better, because there is a Level 1 Swashbuckler feat that is required to make the Fascination effect function in combat. Without that, it is impossible.

The Entertainer background gets you that feat.

I think they mean the 1st-level Focused Fascination feat, not Fascinating Performance.

The only thing Swashbuckler really has going for it over Rogue is more hit points.

Also higher AC due to defense style(buckler, dueling and twin). They can squeeze out more average damage, though not an impressive amount.

ph u, swash doesn't do fascinate much better, they can just focus on one opponent to get the effect on a success instead of only on a crit. Fascinate is still trash as if anything happens before the targets turn they break free. Anyone does any hostile action to the targets allies and it still breaks. Might as well be the definition of niche ability, works well on solo at or lower level things.

Hepzibah Malgaze wrote:

pH unbalanced wrote:

The Swashbuckler does the dance thing better, because there is a Level 1 Swashbuckler feat that is required to make the Fascination effect function in combat. Without that, it is impossible.

The Entertainer background gets you that feat.

I think they mean the 1st-level Focused Fascination feat, not Fascinating Performance.

Yes, exactly. Focused Fascination lets you Fascinate on a Success rather than a Critical Success, which, since this is an incapacitaion effect, is the only way you can ever succeed against a higher level enemy. (And reliably succeed on everyone else, although it is rare that my Lvl 12 Battledancer fails to crit succeed at dancing.)

And absolutely, a Rogue can poach it with Swashbuckler dedication, but IMO it doesn't make any sense to say "you aren't really a Swashbuckler" if you've taken their multiclass dedication.

Yes, exactly. Focused Fascination lets you Fascinate on a Success rather than a Critical Success, which, since this is an incapacitaion effect, is the only way you can ever succeed against a higher level enemy. (And reliably succeed on everyone else, although it is rare that my Lvl 12 Battledancer fails to crit succeed at dancing.)

I see. Point to the Swashbuckler then, but I'm not convinced.

I'm thinking mainly about the first levels before you get to 10th. If we meet once a week for 3 to 4 hours, with some weeks inevitably off, reaching Lvl 10 could take a year or more. That's a long time to stick with it before my character starts being fun. And more often than not campaigns tend to fizzle out around then, just as your character is getting good, so you'll never get to enjoy being Errol Flynn.

So if I'm going to be doing any swashbuckling, I want to start swashbuckling now, rather than a year from now.

Getting panache from a failure helps a lot, but it's still a failure. I would much prefer not to fail. Then again, we didn't really get much information from this preview, so who knows? Maybe there is more to it. But from what I hear, I kind of doubt it.

Ferious Thune wrote:

I don’t feel like the Finishers capture the concept of a Swashbuckler. I don’t want to play a Swashbuckler as it stands in 2E, no. I want to play a class that fits the characters that would be described as Swashbucklers in media. At the moment, that’s most likely going to be a Rogue.

I think you may be right.

Let's say I want a dashing, swaggering character that seems to fit the idea of a swashbuckler. She will be using Tumble Through to move gracefully around the battlefield. But if I build her as a rogue instead she can do that even better, as she will have more ranks in Acrobatics and won't trigger reactions.

My Swashbuckler will also fight with witticisms (Bon Mot), or intimidation, or feinting, or doing a little dance. But as a rogue I can do *all* of those things, to the same effect and better, because I'll have more ranks in the relevant skills (and more skill feats to support them).

Thematically the one thing I would miss from the Swashbuckler class is riposte, but that's an ability that triggers so rarely that you almost forget that it's there.

It feels like a Rogue can be more swashbuckling than the Swashbuckler. Or am I missing something?

Of course when you get into the weeds it doesn't matter what Rogues can or can't do. Swashbuckler is a class, it works, and you can play it. But this is a role-playing game, and we expect much more from our characters than just being 'functional'.

I won't argue swashbucklers are better at skills than rogues. They can be within their style, but certainly not at the skills of every style. But the significant difference is swashbuckler has more incentive to actually use this skills in combat. Your rogue gains nothing from doing a little dance. They just waste an action doing it. They can get some benefits from Demoralize or Bon Mot, but less than the swashbuckler.

The whole swashbuckler class is built to encourage what would otherwise be dumb actions. You're adding extra flair to your turn and getting rewarded for it. It might be under-tuned, but it conceptually does it's thing better than a rogue.

The rogue wants an ally to make the enemy off guard and then lay into them with as many attacks as possible. Once you're in a flank, you stay in the flank as long as your hit points let you. Your gimmick is that the enemy doesn't see you coming. They are about efficiency, not flair. If your rogue's turn is move > feint > strike they have to succeed at two checks for sneak attack to kick in. If a fencer does the same actions, they can fail their front and still get panache. Their finisher is also a d6 higher, and has stronger riders like damage on a failure or massive bleed. And they also have better survivability thanks to their hit points, AC stances, and riposte discouraging being targeted.

If you want to have the strongest skills out of combat and be able to efficiently dish out as much damage as possible with no fuss, then you should play a rogue. But if you actually want to dance and cartwheel across the battlefield while your biting words crumble your foes' resolve, then swashbuckler delivers better.

I won't argue swashbucklers are better at skills than rogues. They can be within their style, but certainly not at the skills of every style. But the significant difference is swashbuckler has more incentive to actually use this skills in combat. Your rogue gains nothing from doing a little dance. They just waste an action doing it. They can get some benefits from Demoralize or Bon Mot, but less than the swashbuckler.

Hard disagree. The only skill that a rogue can't use as efficiently is Performance, but a rogue using Intimidation (Dread Striker), Deception (scoundrel racket, Overextending Feint), Athletics (Shove Down), and Diplomacy benefits more than a swashbuckler using those. The only real thing a swashbuckler gains from using these skills is the (frankly) not that impactful effects of panache, a thing you want to spend ASAP, and precise finishers which are a couple of extra die of precision damage. A rogue doing these also gets the extra die of precision damage but also leave the opponent off-guard, in some cases even against all allies, which means that indirectly a rogue is also getting an accuracy boost from this. Some swashbucklers do too, but not all of them. I don't have numbers to prove this, but I'm pretty sure due to how finishers work that rogues on average make more attacks than swashbucklers do, so that means they benefit even more from this extra accuracy they get too.

A rogue doesn't need an ally to proc sneak attack that's just the easiest way rogues have to do it. A rogue has tons of tools to have someone off-guard, while the swashbuckler is forced into putting all their eggs in a single basket that if it fails it means they lost a turn, and they aren't even sure if they can generate panache to do that move in the first place (or at least they weren't before). A swashbuckler in its best turn can theoretically manage to generate panache > do a regular strike with precise strike damage > do a finisher, while a rogue in almost every turn can do whatever > strike w/ sneak attack > strike w/ sneak attack. This si the problem with the swashbuckler, even in its best day they still lag behind rogues, which on top of having better damage, have twice as many trained skills, skill increases, and skill feats. Even the investigator which also is worse than rogue does the "one attack per round" better than the swashbuckler.

I won't argue swashbucklers are better at skills than rogues. They can be within their style, but certainly not at the skills of every style. But the significant difference is swashbuckler has more incentive to actually use this skills in combat. Your rogue gains nothing from doing a little dance. They just waste an action doing it. They can get some benefits from Demoralize or Bon Mot, but less than the swashbuckler.

The whole swashbuckler class is built to encourage what would otherwise be dumb actions. You're adding extra flair to your turn and getting rewarded for it. It might be under-tuned, but it conceptually does it's thing better than a rogue.

The rogue wants an ally to make the enemy off guard and then lay into them with as many attacks as possible. Once you're in a flank, you stay in the flank as long as your hit points let you. Your gimmick is that the enemy doesn't see you coming. They are about efficiency, not flair. If your rogue's turn is move > feint > strike they have to succeed at two checks for sneak attack to kick in. If a fencer does the same actions, they can fail their front and still get panache. Their finisher is also a d6 higher, and has stronger riders like damage on a failure or massive bleed. And they also have better survivability thanks to their hit points, AC stances, and riposte discouraging being targeted.

Several ways that Rogues get enemies flat-footed involve skills. That's a whole thing for Mastermind, and especially Ranged Rogues that can't rely on flank.

So Swashbuckler isn't really unique in that, except that the class is built more heavily to lean into it. And it has far less skill boosts in order to make that work, which since you must do these things, you're really locked in.

This feels like a pretty good argument for you style skill being auto-scaling. Since the class wants you to spam that, you basically have to be good at it. Rogues get so many skill boosts that they can be good at a pretty wide variety of things, whereas Swashbucklers get really locked in.

If you want to have the strongest skills out of combat and be able to efficiently dish out as much damage as possible with no fuss, then you should play a rogue. But if you actually want to dance and cartwheel across the battlefield while your biting words crumble your foes' resolve, then swashbuckler delivers better.

Except not really? Rogues are actively better at succeeding at those things than Swashbucklers are if you want to have options to do more than one of them well. A more accurate representation would be "if you want to NEED to dance and cartwheel across the battlefield, Swashbuckler delivers better".

And that's kind of the whole problem: Rogues are better than Swashbucklers at doing the things that Swashbucklers must be able to do in order to function properly. I can't think of another class where that's true.

I agree with most of y'all's points, but the actual problem here is that Rogues are (IMO) the strongest, most versatile class in the game. So I walk into any class comparison assuming that a Rogue can do it better. :) That's usually my side of the argument.

So just because a Rogue can do it better doesn't mean that the basic class can't hold its own if you build it right.

I'm not going to argue that the Swash is "fine" -- it obviously needs some help. But I don't think it was far off, so I think it will get there. I do hope it doesn't end up as overtuned as it was in PF1.

I agree with most of y'all's points, but the actual problem here is that Rogues are (IMO) the strongest, most versatile class in the game. So I walk into any class comparison assuming that a Rogue can do it better. :) That's usually my side of the argument.

So just because a Rogue can do it better doesn't mean that the basic class can't hold its own if you build it right.

I'm not going to argue that the Swash is "fine" -- it obviously needs some help. But I don't think it was far off, so I think it will get there. I do hope it doesn't end up as overtuned as it was in PF1.

The thing is, the swashbuckler plays like a rogue in practice, but way worse. A rogue doesn't replace a fighter or barbarian, or even other arguably worse classes like an inventor because they play vastly different. However, the swashbuckler routine is nearly the same as a rogue, but the rogue does it much more efficiently and with better results.

To me, the thing that defined a Swashbuckler in PF1 was the exploding d6 from Panache, which meant that Swashbucklers would attempt -- and improbably succeed at -- things that they had no business trying.

So if *I* were designing the Swash, I would want to give them some kind of dice rolling mechanic, like a free reroll once every 10 minutes while in Panache.

A Rogue is a person with a particular set of skills who makes a plan and executes a plan.
A Swashbuckler is a person who just says YOLO, wings it, and somehow succeeds anyway. (EDIT: Or fails spectacularly in a way that makes a fantastic story.)

But the significant difference is swashbuckler has more incentive to actually use this skills in combat. Your rogue gains nothing from doing a little dance. They just waste an action doing it. They can get some benefits from Demoralize or Bon Mot, but less than the swashbuckler.

How so? A succesful Demoralize will leave them demoralized, a succesful Bon Mot will leave them... bon motted. As a rogue I can do either, or both, with better odds of success. I don't need an incentive to play my rogue like this if I'm doing it because I want to.

The whole swashbuckler class is built to encourage what would otherwise be dumb actions.

Um...

I do hope it doesn't end up as overtuned as it was in PF1.

Bite your tongue! I love my PF1 Swashbuckler. Love her more than ice cream, and cookies!

A Rogue is a person with a particular set of skills who makes a plan and executes a plan.

A Swashbuckler is a person who just says YOLO, wings it, and somehow succeeds anyway. (EDIT: Or fails spectacularly in a way that makes a fantastic story.)

I disagree. Literary swashbucklers are never lucky amateurs. They are always highly skilled and take crazy chances precisely because they are confident that their skill and talent will pull them through.

The PF1e swashbuckler was far from overtuned. It wasn't even among the best martials, which as a whole were way below casters themselves. In fact, the other classes that pulled the swashbuckler thingy did it way better (my very last character in PF1e before my table switched to PF2e was a daring champion cavalier, which had a ton of swashbuckler goodies on top of the, fairly few, cavalier goodies. I remember I had like 50 AC or something like that at level 10 or so, I assume it had to be with the items I had or something like that).

Funnily enough, I guess it's on theme for the swashbuckler for someone else to do whatever they do but better.

Mostly just need more reward for the things your doing, more damage from panache, more effects on finishers and more effects on all your bravado/panache generating skills.
Even on a fail, it's fine, because part of the point of swashbuckler is to look good. You don't fail, you meant to do that, you don't miss, your just taunting the enemy. You need to look like you've always got a handle on the situation, even when it's clear you don't.
Getting stronger effects you can rely on would help with that. It might also help to promote a more reckless style that I think lends itself to the theme, go big more often and risk crit failing.

I think the bare minimum a swashbuckler should accomplish in terms of damage should be similar to what a rogue can do with the Analyze Weakness feat (since a rogue with that feat plays similar to how a swashbuckler would, though slightly more clunky). However, I don't see Paizo effectively doubling the amount of damage finishers do to accomplish this, so I guess the solution should be to give them some other incentive for swashbucklers to do their thing. Conditions are nice, but rogues can also do those, so unless we talk about stronger conditions than those rogues can inflict I would want at least some kind of action compression of some kind. There could probably some new "stylish" actions or whatever that are free actions that you can do when making a finisher. A very basic "stylish" action could be a Stride, but probably each subclass could use their own panache-generating action as part of the finisher as a stylish action too. What if these stylish actions could generate panache too, but only on a success? (assuming bravado works with every action). If this was the case you could probably combo at least two finishers in a single turn (assuming this rule allows you to ignore the "you can't attack again on this turn" clause of finishers) which would give swashbucklers this Dante from DMC feeling that I think someone a ton of comments ago was comparing to.

Imagine a swashbuckler that gained panache in the last turn, starts the current turn by using a Stride + finisher, then generates panache again with their second action, and uses finisher + generate panache action to start the next turn with panache again and pounce to another enemy. It wouldn't be much different than what a rogue can do, but the swashbuckling feeling and action compression would be fantastic.

pH unbalanced wrote:

A Rogue is a person with a particular set of skills who makes a plan and executes a plan.

A Swashbuckler is a person who just says YOLO, wings it, and somehow succeeds anyway. (EDIT: Or fails spectacularly in a way that makes a fantastic story.)

I disagree. Literary swashbucklers are never lucky amateurs. They are always highly skilled and take crazy chances precisely because they are confident that their skill and talent will pull them through.

You are correct about literary Swashbucklers. I'm 100% talking mechanics.

The PF1e swashbuckler was far from overtuned. It wasn't even among the best martials, which as a whole were way below casters themselves. In fact, the other classes that pulled the swashbuckler thingy did it way better (my very last character in PF1e before my table switched to PF2e was a daring champion cavalier, which had a ton of swashbuckler goodies on top of the, fairly few, cavalier goodies. I remember I had like 50 AC or something like that at level 10 or so, I assume it had to be with the items I had or something like that).

Funnily enough, I guess it's on theme for the swashbuckler for someone else to do whatever they do but better.

Currently running a PF1 AP with a Swashbuckler and our running joke is that if the problem is solvably by poking it with a rapier, then the Swashbuckler is the best possible tool for the job. If not...then he may be bored.

(But he is never bored outside of combat because he is a phenomenal face and extremely competent skill monkey.)

Just don't ask him to make a Will save...

I think the bare minimum a swashbuckler should accomplish in terms of damage should be similar to what a rogue can do with the Analyze Weakness feat (since a rogue with that feat plays similar to how a swashbuckler would, though slightly more clunky). However, I don't see Paizo effectively doubling the amount of damage finishers do to accomplish this, so I guess the solution should be to give them some other incentive for swashbucklers to do their thing. Conditions are nice, but rogues can also do those, so unless we talk about stronger conditions than those rogues can inflict I would want at least some kind of action compression of some kind. There could probably some new "stylish" actions or whatever that are free actions that you can do when making a finisher. A very basic "stylish" action could be a Stride, but probably each subclass could use their own panache-generating action as part of the finisher as a stylish action too. What if these stylish actions could generate panache too, but only on a success? (assuming bravado works with every action). If this was the case you could probably combo at least two finishers in a single turn (assuming this rule allows you to ignore the "you can't attack again on this turn" clause of finishers) which would give swashbucklers this Dante from DMC feeling that I think someone a ton of comments ago was comparing to.

Imagine a swashbuckler that gained panache in the last turn, starts the current turn by using a Stride + finisher, then generates panache again with their second action, and uses finisher + generate panache action to start the next turn with panache again and pounce to another enemy. It wouldn't be much different than what a rogue can do, but the swashbuckling feeling and action compression would be fantastic.

they do have Mobile Finisher that's Stride+Finisher.

so i don't think action economy is lacking at all.

Plus, I think doing 2 "finishers" in one turn defeats the whole purpose of the Finishers.

You may not like them, but I personally find them very thematic.

What the Swash needs is a bit more streamlined way of generating panache, because currently he has 2 ways to fail doing damage in a turn as oppossed to 1 that's universal, which I hope Bravado will fix.

and better early game, because from level 9+, but especially level 10+, swashbuckler has no issues imo.

p.s. if you want to compare doing 1 finisher per turn to doing 1 sneak with analyze weakness, then you should probably use a single target finisher like bleeding or perfect finisher. Both of which will outdamage Analyze weakness.

Should definitely do more damage then a rogue. Rogue should be bottom tier damage as it's a skill monkey, not a striker. Swash is a striker, a mix of fighter and rogue, uses skills to accomplish combat excellence.

A mix of debuff conditions on enemies and self buffs could help differentiate them more from rogue debilitations. Stuff like goading feint does this, while antagonize and disarming flair make you more effective at those base actions. They could be a bit better though, have higher level feats to improve them slightly.

I think changing flamboyant cruelty to be thematically less villainous and more casually wearing someone down while increasing the conditions that trigger it could help with more damage focused swashbucklers once you drop the rare tag. I always take fearsome brute on fighter as it just keys off something you should be inflicting anyhow. Swash getting something similar could be very helpful.

Some form of dual-weapon blitz/dance of thunder where you can step after a bravado action and repeat on success would be interesting. Taunt, step, feint, step, disarm, step.
Also a feat to pickup the basics of another style to increase your bravado options could help a lot.

I might be missing it but isn't there a feature to always get confident finisher on all your finishers? Having that as baseline would help those that want to use combination finishers to get that two attack routine going.

Plus, I think doing 2 "finishers" in one turn defeats the whole purpose of the Finishers.

The whole design of the class defeat the purpose of finishers. When the only thing you do is try to get panache and then spend it as a quick as possible I would hardly say finishers "finish" anything really. Its if like if Goku from DBZ spent the whole combat charging Ki and then releasing it to do a kamehameha, just in this case is worse because this aren't even cool epic energy attacks but just slightly stronger weapon thrusts.

I also never meant to say the action economy of the swashbuckler is bad, as if the action economy of a class that does one attack per round could be bad to begin with, but that since swashbucklers aren't going to outshine a rogue in damage (which I agree with OrochiFuror that they should) and they also aren't going to be dealing more conditions than rogues either, they should at least have unparalled action economy to at least have something going on for them.

I seriously think a ton of people that like the swashbuckler only do so because they see the name of the class and their head fills the rest, but if you actually took their character sheets and replaced them with a rogue they wouldn't even notice the difference.

It would be pretty weird if you wouldn't notice the difference given the significant mechanical differences between how their damage gimmicks work.
Like even at a most basic level rogues want to land as many attacks as possible in a round while Swashbucklers are built around setting up one augmented attack.

I can't even fathom how you wouldn't notice that in play...

shroudb wrote:

Plus, I think doing 2 "finishers" in one turn defeats the whole purpose of the Finishers.

The whole design of the class defeat the purpose of finishers. When the only thing you do is try to get panache and then spend it as a quick as possible I would hardly say finishers "finish" anything really. Its if like if Goku from DBZ spent the whole combat charging Ki and then releasing it to do a kamehameha, just in this case is worse because this aren't even cool epic energy attacks but just slightly stronger weapon thrusts.

I also never meant to say the action economy of the swashbuckler is bad, as if the action economy of a class that does one attack per round could be bad to begin with, but that since swashbucklers aren't going to outshine a rogue in damage (which I agree with OrochiFuror that they should) and they also aren't going to be dealing more conditions than rogues either, they should at least have unparalled action economy to at least have something going on for them.

I seriously think a ton of people that like the swashbuckler only do so because they see the name of the class and their head fills the rest, but if you actually took their character sheets and replaced them with a rogue they wouldn't even notice the difference.

swashbuckler most of the time can do 2 attacks per round, just only 1 finisher per round.

i keep seeing people pushing this idea you should only do a single finisher and call it a day, when you can easily strike+finisher+move+panache every single round.

looking at something like level 10 with a +2 striking double runed weapon, vs something that you hit on your first attack with a 11+ for simplicity:

damage of 1 strike+1 confident finisher:
Strike
45% of 4d6+2 spec +3 str + 4 panache (average of 23) + 5% of 46
= 12.65
Finisher at -3map
30% of 8d6 + 5 (average 33)
5% of 66
45% of half of 4d6 on a miss (average 7)
=16.35

so total of Strike+Finisher, on a base confident finisher, is 29 damage.

Just Finisher as a single attack is
45% of 33
5% of 66
50% of 7

so average of 21.65.

29/21.65 = 1.34

You are doing, on average, 34% more damage when you do Strike+Finisher as opposed to simply Finisher.

---

for comparisson, the average damage of a thief rogue at that level who strides into position, sneak attacks, applies precise debilitations, and sneak attacks again would be 27x0.55 + 34x0.35 = 26.75

It would be pretty weird if you wouldn't notice the difference given the significant mechanical differences between how their damage gimmicks work.

Like even at a most basic level rogues want to land as many attacks as possible in a round while Swashbucklers are built around setting up one augmented attack.

I can't even fathom how you wouldn't notice that in play...

Yeah... a single attack thats slightly better than a single rogue attack.

That's exactly the problem I'm discussing here. If you have to put all your eggs in one basquet I would want that single attack to at least feel strong.

exequiel759 wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Plus, I think doing 2 "finishers" in one turn defeats the whole purpose of the Finishers.

The whole design of the class defeat the purpose of finishers. When the only thing you do is try to get panache and then spend it as a quick as possible I would hardly say finishers "finish" anything really. Its if like if Goku from DBZ spent the whole combat charging Ki and then releasing it to do a kamehameha, just in this case is worse because this aren't even cool epic energy attacks but just slightly stronger weapon thrusts.

I also never meant to say the action economy of the swashbuckler is bad, as if the action economy of a class that does one attack per round could be bad to begin with, but that since swashbucklers aren't going to outshine a rogue in damage (which I agree with OrochiFuror that they should) and they also aren't going to be dealing more conditions than rogues either, they should at least have unparalled action economy to at least have something going on for them.

I seriously think a ton of people that like the swashbuckler only do so because they see the name of the class and their head fills the rest, but if you actually took their character sheets and replaced them with a rogue they wouldn't even notice the difference.

swashbuckler most of the time can do 2 attacks per round, just only 1 finisher per round.

i keep seeing people pushing this idea you should only do a single finisher and call it a day, when you can easily strike+finisher+move+panache every single round.

looking at something like level 10 with a +2 striking double runed weapon, vs something that you hit on your first attack with a 11+ for simplicity:

damage of 1 strike+1 confident finisher:
Strike
45% of 4d6+2 spec +3 str + 4 panache (average of 23) + 5% of 46
= 12.65
Finisher at -3map
30% of 8d6 + 5 (average 33)
5% of 66
45% of half of 4d6 on a miss (average 7)
=16.35

so total of Strike+Finisher, on a base confident finisher, is 29 damage....

This simply isn't feasible because since the attack that you want to land the most is your finisher, using it as your second attack with a MAP penalty it means that your actual strong attack is the one that has the most chances of failing. I also said a couple of comments ago that even if we assume you can land two attacks in one round you are still dealing less damage than a rogue, who doesn't even need that much set up to land those two attacks to begin with.

shroudb wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Plus, I think doing 2 "finishers" in one turn defeats the whole purpose of the Finishers.

The whole design of the class defeat the purpose of finishers. When the only thing you do is try to get panache and then spend it as a quick as possible I would hardly say finishers "finish" anything really. Its if like if Goku from DBZ spent the whole combat charging Ki and then releasing it to do a kamehameha, just in this case is worse because this aren't even cool epic energy attacks but just slightly stronger weapon thrusts.

I also never meant to say the action economy of the swashbuckler is bad, as if the action economy of a class that does one attack per round could be bad to begin with, but that since swashbucklers aren't going to outshine a rogue in damage (which I agree with OrochiFuror that they should) and they also aren't going to be dealing more conditions than rogues either, they should at least have unparalled action economy to at least have something going on for them.

I seriously think a ton of people that like the swashbuckler only do so because they see the name of the class and their head fills the rest, but if you actually took their character sheets and replaced them with a rogue they wouldn't even notice the difference.

swashbuckler most of the time can do 2 attacks per round, just only 1 finisher per round.

i keep seeing people pushing this idea you should only do a single finisher and call it a day, when you can easily strike+finisher+move+panache every single round.

looking at something like level 10 with a +2 striking double runed weapon, vs something that you hit on your first attack with a 11+ for simplicity:

damage of 1 strike+1 confident finisher:
Strike
45% of 4d6+2 spec +3 str + 4 panache (average of 23) + 5% of 46
= 12.65
Finisher at -3map
30% of 8d6 + 5 (average 33)
5% of 66
45% of half of 4d6 on a miss (average 7)
=16.35

so total of Strike+Finisher, on a base confident

...

Math simply says "you are wrong"

Finishers have contigencies for missing: Lower Map, Damage on a miss, 2 Strikes, Fortune on the roll, etc.

The damage of Strike+Finisher is 34% higher than the damage of "Only Finisher"

And in fact, the damage of Strike+Finisher is higher than a thief rogue with precise debilitations that does Stride+Sneak+Sneak with the same double runed short sword (average 29 for the Swash (32.15 with Precise), average 26.75 for the rogue)

Currently running a PF1 AP with a Swashbuckler and our running joke is that if the problem is solvably by poking it with a rapier, then the Swashbuckler is the best possible tool for the job. If not...then he may be bored.

(But he is never bored outside of combat because he is a phenomenal face and extremely competent skill monkey.)

Just don't ask him to make a Will save...

Does he have Steadfast Personality?

exequiel759 wrote:

shroudb wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Plus, I think doing 2 "finishers" in one turn defeats the whole purpose of the Finishers.

The whole design of the class defeat the purpose of finishers. When the only thing you do is try to get panache and then spend it as a quick as possible I would hardly say finishers "finish" anything really. Its if like if Goku from DBZ spent the whole combat charging Ki and then releasing it to do a kamehameha, just in this case is worse because this aren't even cool epic energy attacks but just slightly stronger weapon thrusts.

I also never meant to say the action economy of the swashbuckler is bad, as if the action economy of a class that does one attack per round could be bad to begin with, but that since swashbucklers aren't going to outshine a rogue in damage (which I agree with OrochiFuror that they should) and they also aren't going to be dealing more conditions than rogues either, they should at least have unparalled action economy to at least have something going on for them.

I seriously think a ton of people that like the swashbuckler only do so because they see the name of the class and their head fills the rest, but if you actually took their character sheets and replaced them with a rogue they wouldn't even notice the difference.

swashbuckler most of the time can do 2 attacks per round, just only 1 finisher per round.

i keep seeing people pushing this idea you should only do a single finisher and call it a day, when you can easily strike+finisher+move+panache every single round.

looking at something like level 10 with a +2 striking double runed weapon, vs something that you hit on your first attack with a 11+ for simplicity:

damage of 1 strike+1 confident finisher:
Strike
45% of 4d6+2 spec +3 str + 4 panache (average of 23) + 5% of 46
= 12.65
Finisher at -3map
30% of 8d6 + 5 (average 33)
5% of 66
45% of half of 4d6 on a miss (average 7)
=16.35

so total of

...

I'm not a math guy, so I could fail at seeing the thin details beneath your numbers, but what I do know is that I played a swashbuckler for 8 levels and to have a situation in which you can do two strikes in one round with a swashbuckler don't haven every round, less so when you actually manage to hit with both attacks and not just the first one. Meanwhile, a rogue doesn't need any kind of set up whatsoever and even if they fail one or even both attacks they don't need to do anything to have chances of landing sneak attacks in their next round (provided they have an ally adjacent to their target). I'm also pretty sure you are ignoring in your calcs that abilities that enable rogues to proc sneak attack also give bonuses to attack rolls (which doesn't happen with all swashbucklers) so I'm pretty sure not only rogues land more attacks in average (because they also make more attacks on average) but that in average they end up dealing way more damage than swashbucklers too.

I've played a lot of Swashbuckler and really don't feel they need much of anything, but if they're getting more hey f*!# it I'll play another two or three.

shroudb wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

shroudb wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Plus, I think doing 2 "finishers" in one turn defeats the whole purpose of the Finishers.

The whole design of the class defeat the purpose of finishers. When the only thing you do is try to get panache and then spend it as a quick as possible I would hardly say finishers "finish" anything really. Its if like if Goku from DBZ spent the whole combat charging Ki and then releasing it to do a kamehameha, just in this case is worse because this aren't even cool epic energy attacks but just slightly stronger weapon thrusts.

I also never meant to say the action economy of the swashbuckler is bad, as if the action economy of a class that does one attack per round could be bad to begin with, but that since swashbucklers aren't going to outshine a rogue in damage (which I agree with OrochiFuror that they should) and they also aren't going to be dealing more conditions than rogues either, they should at least have unparalled action economy to at least have something going on for them.

I seriously think a ton of people that like the swashbuckler only do so because they see the name of the class and their head fills the rest, but if you actually took their character sheets and replaced them with a rogue they wouldn't even notice the difference.

swashbuckler most of the time can do 2 attacks per round, just only 1 finisher per round.

i keep seeing people pushing this idea you should only do a single finisher and call it a day, when you can easily strike+finisher+move+panache every single round.

looking at something like level 10 with a +2 striking double runed weapon, vs something that you hit on your first attack with a 11+ for simplicity:

damage of 1 strike+1 confident finisher:
Strike
45% of 4d6+2 spec +3 str + 4 panache (average of 23) + 5% of 46
= 12.65
Finisher at -3map
30% of 8d6 + 5 (average 33)
5% of 66
45% of half of 4d6 on a miss (average 7)

...

Nope.

As you said, your problem is the early game of the Swash which indeed is weak.

The Swash in my campaign, now level 10, has been doind 2-3 attacks almost every single round.

It's very easy to "tumble, Strike, Finisher/Dual Finisher" every round.

The damage he does with his Swash is noticeably higher than the damage of Scoundrel Rogue we used to have.

The issue is mostly one of perception:
People feeling that they have to do the Finisher as their 1st attack "because it's my hardest hitting" (as you yourself have stated that you've fallen to this mental trap) instead of using it as a Finisher, which is both mathematically very superior but also thematically superior (using the Finishers as finishers).

It would be pretty weird if you wouldn't notice the difference given the significant mechanical differences between how their damage gimmicks work.

Like even at a most basic level rogues want to land as many attacks as possible in a round while Swashbucklers are built around setting up one augmented attack.

I can't even fathom how you wouldn't notice that in play...

Swashs being set up for single attacks was always weird to me, the inspiration for them is characters famous for incredibly fast bladework, styling on the slow, brutal enemies...yet finishers make you that slow brute (Souls like dodge roll, then a single, powerful strike isn't very Errol Flynn)

But then a rogue with Twin Feint plays more like an historic swash

Nope.

As you said, your problem is the early game of the Swash which indeed is weak.

The Swash in my campaign, now level 10, has been doind 2-3 attacks almost every single round.

It's very easy to "tumble, Strike, Finisher/Dual Finisher" every round.

The damage he does with his Swash is noticeably higher than the damage of Scoundrel Rogue we used to have.

The issue is mostly one of perception:
People feeling that they have to do the Finisher as their 1st attack "because it's my hardest hitting" (as you yourself have stated that you've fallen to this mental trap) instead of using it as a Finisher, which is both mathematically very superior but also thematically superior (using the Finishers as finishers).

I do think the problems with the swashbuckler aren't only just on early game, the class is flawed as a whole. Just the very concept of the class of relying on single high damage attacks is weird conceptually for a class that flavor-wise doesn't have anything to do with that, but also because there's a class that can do that already and does it better (rogues). I can't say your experiences are wrong because I wasn't there, but I honestly can't see a swashbuckler outdamaging a rogue tbh.

Assuming both start with +4 Dex and +3 Str at 1st level, that they manage to land two attacks, and that they both use a shortsword (a good weapon for both classes because its finesse and agile which makes those second attacks more accurate), a 5th level rogue would be dealing 4d6+4 per attack (avg. 36) while a swashbuckler would be dealing 2d6+7 in the first attack and 5d6+4 in the second attack (avg. 35.5). I already discussed this in earlier comments, so I'll make the same process but at 10th level. A rogue would still be dealing the same damage (avg. 36) while a swashbuckler would be dealing 2d6+8 in the first attack and 6d6+4 in the second attack (avg. 40). Yes, now the damage for the swashbuckler is higher, but as I discussed earlier, the rogue would still be more accurate due to targeting off-guard targets more easily, not to mention that even if the swashbuckler had someone to flank at every single attack the rogue would still have more trained skills, more skill feats, and more skill increases. A difference of an average of 5 points of damage doesn't compensate for the lack of all those things.

Also, as I said earlier, in average a rogue attacks way more often a swashbuckler too, so its not only that they are more accurate, but they also attack more, because due to how the class works, a swashbuckler is rarely going to be making two attacks per round. I also would want to note that if everyone has "a perception issue" with the swashuckler and how it should be played then wouldn't that mean that the class is either badly designed or does a poor job with its mechanics?

Btw, how are you doing 2 or 3 attacks per round? 3 attacks means that you either don't generate panache or that you aren't using finishers, which means that a rogue (which is more accurate) in the same situation would certainly be dealing more damage as well. At 10th level it would be dealing an average of 54 points of damage (4d6+4 thrice), while a swashbuckler would be dealing an average of 45 (2d6+8 thrice) or 55 (2d6+8 twice + 6d6+4) in the miraculous situation you somehow manage to land an attack at -8 MAP, which again, a rogue is more likely to do even if still highly unlikely. At least unless you are targeting a lower level enemy.

And the worst thing is, if I made this exact same calculations but with a thief rogue using an elven curved blade (and arguably better weapon for a rogue than a shortsword) they would lean even more in favor for rogues than they currently do.