Brybry's page

Great idea for a thread! I've converted the G1 Steading of the Hill Giant King to Pathfinder. I'd love to see all these in one place.

Here's a working link to your ENworld 3.5 Conversion Archive.

Awesome! I was actually looking for this, since I'm planning on running this module in the near future!

Hello! The purpose of this thread is to have a central place for people to post conversions for 1st edition modules to PFRPG, since these resources are scattered on various message boards across the internet. I primarily play Pathfinder, but I love the "vibe" of AD&D/B/X. I've had a lot of success running a few modules out of the book with on the fly conversions by cross-referencing enemies, hazards, etc. from the Bestiaries, Core Rulebook,and GM book. This can cause a lot of clutter around the game table; as you can imagine; but my group has a lot of fun with it!

I know there have been attempts like this in the past on other sites (ENworld, which I'll link to), but I'd like this one to focus specifically on Pathfinder rule set. 3.5 conversions totally work, but I know people have made pfrpg updates from hunting around on the message boards, but oftentimes being hit with dead links, or having to send PM that don't get responded to.

So, if you have a PFRPG conversion on your hard drive that you'd like to share, please post it here!

Here's the link to the ENworld 3.5 conversion archive: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?245278-Attempt-to-rebuild-conve rsion-library-please-upload-conversions-to-3-5-here

Occult Adventures first glance impressions (no chance at playtest yet):

Kineticist: This seems to be the answer to WotC's D&D 3.5 Warlock. Not a bad idea with respect to theme or balance, but confusingly written. Also would rather see a power pool rather than Burn, or allow Burn to be healed (perhaps with extra difficulty).

Medium: Thematically cool, but like some types of Alchemist, seems very dangerous for the practitioner. Could also use some work on the clarity of writing.

Mesmerist: Seems overpowered -- at least allow a save for victims of the Mesmerist's Stare to remember that they have been manipulated. At least this one is easy to understand with the way it is currently written.

Occultist: This one seems almost like it could be a Magus Archetype or Alternate Class. At least it is easy to understand with the way it is currently written.

Psychic: This one seems almost redundant with Arcanist/Sorcerer/Wizard, and could be rebuilt as an Archetype or Alternate Class of one of these. At least it is easy to understand with the way it is currently written.

Spiritualist: This one almost seems redundant with Summoner, and could be rebuilt as a Summoner Archetype or Alternate Class. At least it is easy to understand with the way it is currently written. (Edit: And some of the text even still mentions "Eidolon". Also note the error in the Spells Per Day for Level 1, where the columns got shifted over to make it look like a 1st Level Spiritualist gets Level 2 spell access.)

I do like the "Undercasting" mechanic, but I wish that they would just make this generally available for all Ranked Spells (the ones that go in Lesser-Greater or Roman Numeral series), for all spellcasting classes, and as an automatic side effect of Heighten Spell/Intensify Spell (sort of hankering after what D&D 5th Edition does with casting spells at higher levels, which is one of a small but noticeable number of things I liked in the 5th Edition free PDF).

And yes, since they went to the trouble to call...

I was going to post my two cents, but you beat me to it! Bravo! This is exactly how I feel as well!

I suggest reading the Elric series of books by Michael Moorcock to see how Blackrazor should be portrayed, considering Blackrazor is direct copy of Elric's sword Stormbringer.

If the sword is intelligent, its alignment should be Chaotic Evil.

I would add a Dominate Person ability for the sword usable against the wielder only. If the player fails the save, the sword takes over and commands the character to kill everyone around it, including ally's. This ability harkens back to the sword's AD&D roots.

I've read every main Elric story and I am a big Moorecock fan in general. Stormbringer is definitely an evil weapon, but I'm keeping Blackrazor seperate from it. Maybe my players will encounter it someday? I just went with what was in the module, which is a +3 Chaotic sword. I'm still planning on using the sword as an npc I control which will definitely pull some random acts of violence/feeding, especially if my player fails to dominate the blade

Thanks for the input! This is what I came up with. I decided to go with using all of the available abilities and listed stats in WPM, but somewhat limiting them and adding a progression similar to the Magus archtype and the 3.5 Blackrazor. I went with Bastard Sword because 1) this makes it exotic and requires some training (I allow for bonus weapon feats if the players take enough downtime to train with them) 2) it is listed simply as a "sword" in S2, and I've chosen to go with a sword that can be used with one hand if needed, but that is huge enough to utilize two. I also let the player know that Blackrazor is an intelligent weapon that I can use as a npc as needed, having it elaborate into a possible side story. Anyways, here's the weapon stats-

Chaotic Neutral
+3 sword (bastard)
Intelligence 17
Ego 16

1) Souleating- essentially Death Knell but instead of gaining 1d8 temporary hp, I went with the remaining victim's hp. 3/day
2) Use sword bonus to save vs. charm and fear
3) Telepathy with wielder
4) Haste (limited) 1/day- same as haste but last for # of rounds equal to Blackrazor's INT modifier
5) Detect life within a 60ft diameter
6) teleport to wielder after making a will save (DC current ego score)
7) can use sword's intelligence modifier to aid in skill checks pertaining to knowledge Arcana, Planes, Religion, Spellcraft, and Use Magic Device

Ego increases by +1 each week that the sword doesnt drink a soul. The wielder needs to make a check everytime the ego score increases. If the wielder fails to dominate, the sword will find its victim.

Blackrazor's progression

Wielder level
10 or less int 17, +3 enhancement, ego 16
11-12 int 18
13-14 int 19, +4 enhancement, ego 20
15-16 int 20, haste 2/day
17-18 int 21, +5 enhancement, ego 24
19-20 Souleating (Death Knell) becomes mythic and unlimited, haste 3/day

Hey! I'm seeking opinions on how to adapt the legendary Blackrazor from White Plume Mountain to pfrpg. In my campaign we did that classic dungeon with one of my players switching roles as a temporary game master using the wotc 3.5 conversion. My problem with the three magic weapons in that conversion are that they are pretty under"whelm"ing (get it??) In the sense that Blackrazor doesn't actually do what blackrazor should do as listed in the original module (until level 20 or whatever). I've been playing around with using a modified stat set-up from the magus archetype, but I feel as though that I takes away from the fun of any magus character that might join my party in the possible future. So then I was thinking of keeping it simple and just making it a basic enchanted weapon but there is a lot to consider when developing an iconic item like blackrazor using the current enchanents available in pathfinder.

So I suppose the big challenge for me is
1) How can I make pathfinder Blackrazor be immediately recognizable as Blackrazor from the original module
2) Should be treated as a fully fleshed out intelligent weapon or as an enchanted sword?
3) ideally the weapon should already be awesome and come with its known abilities, but the character that got it is merely 8th level. I'm not too concerned about balancing, but I don't want him to be taking all of the glory in every encounter.

I'm just curious to know what the community would come up with. And feel free to include your ideas for Whelm and Wave. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that the player who claimed Blackrazor is an arcane bloodline sorceror! The paladin certainly didn't want the weapon, nor did the druid or the bow-focused ranger. So im trying to think of fun stuff that could also benefit Blackrazor being wielded by a magic user. Thanks!

Erik Posted this on one of the other threads

Erik Mona wrote:

Devian wrote:

I for one like psionics. Any idea when the play test will be up?

We're currently expecting playtesting to begin in late October.

Just in time for Halloween. :)

Thanks!

Do we know when the play test might be released?

For the folks who continue to express concern about swashbucklers and rapier damage, I encourage you all to take the rapier-only swashbuckler archetype through a DPR spreadsheet and really be certain it's lacking on the damage output compared to a swashbuckler wielding a battleaxe... at least before venting a sixth or seventh time.

There is a swashbuckler archetype that focuses exclusively on the rapier which has a number of goodies like getting an extra feat at 1st level (hey, free Weapon Focus on top of finesse) and who's weapon training damage is an advancement step ahead of the regular weapon training damage advancement.

This is the same one with the bigger panache pool that gets to add Intelligence to attack rolls. It also gets the ability to spend a point of panache to automatically threaten a critical hit and an improved critical range ability that stacks with keen and improved critical. That's right. Stacks!

I suspect if you took the rapier swashbuckler at level 1, 5, 8, 12 and 20 - you might fight not only does it do just as much damage, it does even more.

I suspect this is why the designers/developers are quiet here as well, since they've already gone through this exercise.

There is also an obscene amount of swashbuckler magic gear in this book, from capes to rapiers to sleeves to hat plumes. Swashbuckler looks very strong.

This sounds awesome, I am very excited about this aaaand I cannot wait to have my book shipped and at my door in probably a few weeks. A rapier focused archetype is exactly what I wanted

I forgot about the PFS. I'm not a PFS member, and I definitely house rule in my games to make if more flexible to our gameplay style. I am surprised that GMs don't house rule. It's even encouraged in the GM guide. Dex-to-damage is something I definitely don't like, but I see it making sense for a scimitar or something similar, not a dwarven axe. But I guess it depends on how you flavor your description of your attacks in combat. You should house rule dex-damage for piercing weapons into your own games or discuss the possibility with your groups GM if people are really passionate about dex-to-damage

So I read the Swashbuckler. Then came here to confirm the most baffling thing I found. Yep, no dex to damage for the most iconic weapon of a swashbuckler. Closest I can get is a feat tax and using a cutlass. The whole reason I bought this book was because of this class and a promise in a blog post for dex to damage. For the first time, I honestly feel a little cheated by Paizo.

What's stopping you from house-ruling it into a class feature or feat?

I don't want to argue with you about this as I don't know nearly enough about rapiers to be any sort of authority. Only thing I can say is that my friend has told me, repeatedly, that wielding a rapier relies far more on his agility and dexterity than his strength.

There is a difference, after all, between brute strength and endurance. Someone can have a lot of endurance without bulking muscles, look at people like runners or gymnasts. Not saying they aren't strong, but aren't rippling with muscles as one would be in Pathfinder.

As for his swords (he has 3 I think), all of the blades are 3 ft. in length or longer; so I doubt they're 'short blades'.

I do know that he told me that, in essence, there are three kinds of rapiers. One was a piercing rapier, that the modern foil is descended from; it was used entirely for thrusting attacks and only the tip had an edge so that it could slide in and out of the body quickly. One was more like a conventional longsword; it had an edge to it and didn't make thrusts because it was a heavier blade and you couldn't retract it quickly if you hit. The third was an attempt at a hybrid between the two, in which it would be easy to thrust with, and have a slashing edge; it didn't work well because the blade was too thick for thrusts, but it wasn't strong enough for slashes and they just never really worked well.

However, the rapier as depicted in Pathfinder is a thrusting weapon, which relies a lot on being quick, precise, and agile. That is, according to what my friend has told me, the videos I've watched, and what little I've read on it.

Your friend isn't wrong, but Strength is also very important to using a rapier properly. There are three types of swords along that weapon evolution, The transitional sword (the "conventional" sword you mention, but is a side sword, not a longsword. Which is a shorter longsword. Short sword??), The rapier which had a long, narrow blade with various types of hilts, and the small sword, then that turned into the smallsword; which are shorter, very fancy looking and are only have a point.

The one depicted in PFRPG being used by the Rogue is a Rapier proper with blade and all. You get a good look at it on the cover of the Advanced Race Guide. The Rapier is Primarily a Thrusting weapon, but cutting is possible, but you don't do it the way you see people whip a sword around in a movie. To use the rapier with any kind of precision requires a lot of strength in your hands, forearms and shoulders. Using the weapon properly requires building up a lot of strength. I'm not saying bulky, but practical muscle for the stance and lunging and holding the weapon for a good amount of time while fighting. You certainly need to be nimble and fast and quick of wit, but maintaining control of your blade and quickly lunging in and back out needs a good amount of strength behind it to do accurately. Thats why i think dex to damage with a rapier doesn't make sense to me. But I guess the idea is to emulate Errol Flynn, so whatever

The point is, that a proper piercing weapons requires very little strength to actually stab someone with. At least, if you're not wearing armor anyway.

Even with a dull knife, take a 5 lbs. weight and put it on the pommel of the knife and you'll see it cut into someone. If you take a common steak knife, and a board, and you just drop the knife from about waist height, and you'll see it stick into the board fairly often. Now imagine if that was your neck, or chest, instead. Might not kill you, but it will pierce your skin.

The whole point of dexterity to damage is that you have to exploit weaknesses, like stabbing at the creases int he armor, or something like that. Where as someone with a high strength and a big sword can just smash their way through...

Rapiers definitely had blades, but smallswords didn't and that might be what your friend got as a gift. Fencing with a rapier has a lot of differences than modern sports fencing with a foil (such as using cuts) and in my experience doing both, a rapier requires a good amount of strength to properly use in a duel. To stab a piece of meat on a cutting board with a kitchen knife would obviously require minimal effort, but trying to get past an opponents blade requires more strength with a rapier to handle properly gwt a solid thrust than using pistol grip foils. I never liked the idea of a dex to damage feat for a piercing weapon (such as a rapier) because of how much physical strength it can take me to properly handle a rapier for any extended amount of time. It makes sense for slashing weapons, but I simply don't see the argument for a piercing weapon.

May I also receive a copy of this conversion? Thank you!

@ Googleshng- I don't know if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me about not using dex for damage, haha. But you quoted me and that makes me feel important :)

This may be an unpopular opinion, but I'd rather have the Swashbuckler fall slightly behind in flat damage (although it seems like one person's build had him evening out with the fighter pretty well) and be more useful in other ways, or have his damage boosted in a less direct way, than have Dex and Cha to damage. Its fine for a magic item quality because it's... well, magic.

The expanded crit ranges is a good start, though it doesn't come online until much later. Focusing on the bravado/intimidation aspect of the class at earlier levels could be an interesting way to handle it.

I back this idea 100%

I definitely see the argument to add Dex to damage, but I still don't agree with it. Am I crazy? I think it could be overpowered; combined with adding level to damage (that can also crit) and the class abilities that increase your crit range. Coupled with some feats (like vital strike or power attack) and I'm dishing out pretty good damage with just rapier similar to a fighter at the same level (maybe a bit less, but whatever). I think being able to use dex with damage would maybe be too exploitable by powergamers. Then we'd all just sink our best two stats into Dex and Cha. I'm expecting a lot of beef for this

WITH THAT SAID- the class's damage output might be a bit weaker, but I think the developers did that purposefully due to the inclusions of deeds that let you do more on the battlefield instead of just shear damage. So I can see the trade off.

I do agree with the argument that class abilities that are feats should count as prerequisites for other feats. For example- "Nimble" is Dodge with a different name. I think it should count for Dodge so I can get Mobility. I KNOW that with the Gunslinger that this isn't the case, but the gunslinger is a ranged character, so it's less necessary. The Swashbuckler is a front-line fighter, and is meant to be "nimble" so I can hop around the battlefield and stab enemies. But using a precious feat to get an additional dodge bonus, just so I can have the prerequisite for Mobility is a bummer, since I already have that feat built into my character.

A better fix for Derring-Do (if it costs panache to use) is the ability to choose to spend the panache/get the bonus after you see the result of the roll, allowing you to use it if you're close to the DC, while not utterly wasting valuable panache on rolls which were either made anyway or failed by a large margin. Something like 70% of you d20 skill rolls will be in the 'totally wasted' category.

Spending panache should make a difference, not be 80% likely to be totally wasted (I'm looking at you, Opportune Parry)!

This is a really solid fix, in my opinion

By the time you can get signature deed, all these skills will be basically meaningless. Acrobatics, Climb, Escape Artist, Fly, Ride, Swim. I can see using Fly. Because that's what you'll be doing after lvl 11 a lot.

Totally agree

Brybry wrote:

Derring-do still isn't ideal. I'm using a feat so I can NOT spend a Panache point to add 1d6 to my skill roll BEFORE i make the d20 roll. I don't think I should waste a feat to make a class ability useful. The deed should already be useful and the feat should reinforce that.

Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to spend my last point to preform a fantastic skill in a dire situation. It adds drama to the game! Instead, I'm spending a feat to get an average of +3 to a skill without wasting a panache point. I might as well spend that feat on Skill Focus.

Average is, in fact, +4.2. To 6 different skills. Now at this level, skill feats usually double. So for instance Alertness gives +4 to Perception and Sense Motive. Getting 4.2 to 6 different skills (and in a way that stacks with those other feats) is an excellent deal, assuming you weren't getting Signature Deed for anything else (Parry seems a solid choice).

But that still doesn't fix that Derring-do isn't awesome. I still have to use a feat to make it worthwhile, which I'd rather not do. The deed should already be playable. Or at least give me another deed that can enhance my non-combat abilities so he is a little bit more useful outside of combat.

Derring-do still isn't ideal. I'm using a feat so I can NOT spend a Panache point to add 1d6 to my skill roll BEFORE i make the d20 roll. I don't think I should waste a feat to make a class ability useful. The deed should already be useful and the feat should reinforce that.

Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to spend my last point to preform a fantastic skill in a dire situation. It adds drama to the game! Instead, I'm spending a feat to get an average of +3 to a skill without wasting a panache point. I might as well spend that feat on Skill Focus.

If it had TWF and slashing weapon support, this class could THE Miyamoto Musashi class.

That would be reeeeeally fun!

Brybry wrote:

- a "wandering warrior" type. I already feel like the flavor is already useable with the samurai alternative class, but I can totally understand the appeal for this concept using the Panache/deeds mechanics

This is my other big reasons for hoping swashbucklers get some slashing sword support (besides sabreur pride).

I've got a growing notion for a character switching between 1 and 2 handed stance with the katana (or works as well with the bastard sword), getting Precise damage one-handed, big power-attack chops two-handed, so having a reasonable option for either. My gut feeling is that it could be a more fun take on the wandering samurai than the samurai class itself, but I've not really taken a good look at the numbers.

totally. I mean, the Samurai class can be used as an knight Errant too. But as far as making a Yojimbo style guy, really like the Ronin order for that class. Still, there isn't a "wandering warrior" archetype for the samurai alternative class, and an Archetype of the swashbuckler could really help that out.

I'm also having a lot of fun! I think this thread is very constructive, and I really like what people have brought to the table.

It seems that people want to see similar stuff fixed, such as-
- the low Fort save
- weapon Finesse at first level instead of second.
- increase skills per level.
- The Opportune Parry/Riposte costs. Some people have suggested some really good solutions, like Parry requiring a panache point in your pool, but Riposte require spending a point
- Daring-do is the only non-combat deed, and it isn't worth the cost
- Not enough weapon options for the class (archetypes my change this)
- Precise strike doesn't let you do two-weapon fighting, which is a classic swashbuckler thing from the movies. Again, an archetype might fix this. Or maybe a feat?

I'm the kind of gamer who doesn't really like using archetypes except for a few that stick out, but this class has a lot of potential for really fun ones;
- A musketeer, where you can use a musket and maybe a bomb or two?
- Sword and pistol pirate
- drunken swashbuckler
- a masked hero/Zorro guy
- Two Weapon Fighting, who can use a dagger/light weapon/whip in the off-hand
- a "scoundrel" that uses Dirty Tricks/Improvised weapons in the off-hand
- a "wandering warrior" type. I already feel like the flavor is already useable with the samurai alternative class, but I can totally understand the appeal for this concept using the Panache/deeds mechanics

I think it would be awesome parry with a candlestick or a metal tankard in a tavern fight.

JRutterbush wrote:

For those who keep bringing it up, Daring-do is wordplay. It's a mash-up of the "correct" derring-do, and the word daring, a trait that any Swashbuckler should certainly possess. It's not a misspelling, it's an intentional twist on the normal word.

Just.... no. Not at all.

It's either a misspelling, or a pony nod.

I'm pretty sure Jrutterbush hit the nail on the head

Googleshng wrote:

You regain panache from both crits, and from killing blows. If you have 3x or 4x crits, things aren't going to survive when you land them, and you'll get 2 points back anyway. Your panache can't exceed your cha bonus (at least within this playtest), so you should be maxing out when you land them anyway. Especially if you're going with a 15 point buy.

Plus honestly, I don't really see how swashbucklers being best off using high crit weapons is a problem to begin with, when high crit ranges are already associated with flamboyant fighting styles by design. It's a little like worrying about the viability of high str, cha-dumping builds. If you aren't trying to make a dodgy fencer, why aren't you just making a fighter?

In part, to avoid the 'importing scimitars to our Scottish Magi' bit. For the magus, there's no reason to not use the scimitar* so they get pidgeonholed. I'd like to see a mechanic that rewards the pick, or falcata** using Swashbuckler, and carrying the crit over to panache is a good idea. (glad I'm not the only one who thought of it.)

*** spoiler omitted **
**** spoiler omitted **

Why don't they just made a "SABER" that is the same as a scimitar, but it has a special description of "block". I mean, any of those weapons you listed as pretty exotic for a Scottish magus to be wielding. They might add new items to this book for the classes to use.

Personally, my goal for suggesting the bastard sword was twofold - panache style class features with a two handed weapon, and a reason to use the bastard sword two handed other than losing your shield. I really can't see it being used one handed with anything approaching finesse, while two handed, it makes far more sense. It certainly makes more sense than some of the weapons that can currently be used (the heavy pick, for instance).

I could get down with that. like I said before, I'd like to see an archetype to cater towards this play-style and flavor.

Brybry wrote:

That IS a nice sword.Oakeshott Type XVIII swords are very beautiful. But it isn't a rapier, and I can't picture someone like Errol Flynn's Robin Hood swinging it around, when he could just thrust fast with a lighter blade and intimidate his opponent with a devil-may-care "a-HA!"

There are street duelists in Italy circa 1500 who would be quick to inform you that their Sideswords were not rapiers.

More importantly Robin Hood would have no business wielding a weapon pretty far ahead of his time. Hollywood be damned.

You're right! That's because the side sword is considered a transitional sword between a longsword and what we call a rapier, the 'missing link" that evolved parallel with the fashion of the time as cultures were transitioning from the late middle ages to the renaissance. Plus those Italians wouldn't even call it a Rapier, since that is a German word (I think?) and what we consider a "Rapier" didn't really become a common weapon until a bit after 1500

Why add an exotic weapon proficiency? Why not just let them use it two handed as a martial weapon, like they already can?

The exotic weapon proficiency is necessary to wield a Bastard Sword one-handed. Story-wise it's meant to be that you are better trained with this weapon than most, so switching between one and two hands isn't a problem. Mechanically, its meant to balance out this ability by using a feat. They are great for Maguses, or someone who doesn't want to walk around with a greatsword on their back

Brybry wrote:

Although I understand your opinion, I still disagree. I see the bastard sword as a weapon being closer to a Greatsword, rather than a sleek and elegant rapier. Plus a bastard sword would be more exploitable for damage output since it is a d10. And with the ability to switch between one and two handed, it could break the concept behind the swashbuckler in the hands of a power-gamer.

The average difference between a d6 and d10 is 2 damage, which is outweighed by its inferior crit range vs. a Rapier/Scimitar. Using it two-handed gets you a better Power Attack tradeoff, but that's not game-breaking in the slightest. As long as the Swashbuckler has worthwhile class features that key off Dexterity, and a decent source of damage, there won't be the temptation to make a Strength Swashbuckler with a two-handed Bastard Sword.

It's actually a good opportunity to give it some interesting class features to take better advantage of the fact that it can be used in one or both hands. Currently that's not actually all that useful.

And though this line of argument is pretty much entirely subjective, look up Albion's "Munich" sword, and tell me it isn't sleek and elegant.

IF the developers decide to include something like a bastard sword as a weapon option, i think ti would make more sense to have it be in favor for an archetype build to better use it, like maybe getting rid of a swashbuckler deed or class skill to replace the exotic weapon proficiency. But as a basic swashbuckler, which is aesthetically Errol Flynn/Zorro/Dread Pirate Roberts/d'Artagnan, They don't wield bastard swords.

That IS a nice sword.Oakeshott Type XVIII swords are very beautiful. But it isn't a rapier, and I can't picture someone like Errol Flynn's Robin Hood swinging it around, when he could just thrust fast with a lighter blade and intimidate his opponent with a devil-may-care "a-HA!"

Brybry wrote:

I think having weapon finesse is enough, but it should include all of the weapons under that feat (elven curved blade, whip, etc.)

I don't get the Bastard sword interest. Even from a Historic martial arts background, fighting with a bastard sword or two handed sword is pretty different from rapier (there is obvious overlap depending on what master's work your reading, but the weapons are still pretty different) and I would equate it with a fighter or any other martial class.

The swashbuckler is solely meant to fight with light one-handed weapons and similar one handed martial weapons. That's why we get the precise strike bonus and other cool combat deeds, to make up for the low damage output of bigger weapons and higher strength damage.

Think of it as an Elven Curve Blade, only not curved and not necessarily Elven. Bastard swords are as light, elegant, and balanced as any Dex-based fighter could want, and by definition can be wielded just fine in one or both hands.

Although I understand your opinion, I still disagree. I see the bastard sword as a weapon being closer to a Greatsword, rather than a sleek and elegant rapier. Plus a bastard sword would be more exploitable for damage output since it is a d10. And with the ability to switch between one and two handed, it could break the concept behind the swashbuckler in the hands of a power-gamer.

I think having weapon finesse is enough, but it should include all of the weapons under that feat (elven curved blade, whip, etc.)

I don't get the Bastard sword interest. Even from a Historic martial arts background, fighting with a bastard sword or two handed sword is pretty different from rapier (there is obvious overlap depending on what master's work your reading, but the weapons are still pretty different) and I would equate it with a fighter or any other martial class.

The swashbuckler is solely meant to fight with light one-handed weapons and similar one handed martial weapons. That's why we get the precise strike bonus and other cool combat deeds, to make up for the low damage of light weapons instead of the high damage output of bigger weapons and higher strength damage that a fighter would normally have.

I don't understand the concept behind a two-handed swashbuckler, or building them to be strength based. Isn't that what fighters do?

also- Am I the only person that doesn't like/care about the Dervish dance feat? I mean, i think its awesome for very specific character builds in the Golarion setting, but I don't play in that setting, so I've never had the need or want to use it for flavor.

I'm sure they would make a "slashing weapons" archetype that could be applied to people with Dervish dancer characters, or pirates that have cutlasses. I personally think adding dex to damage as a class ability doesn't make sense.

Although it's too soon for this, I'm going to assume when the archetypes come out, there will be a Two-weapon Fighting variant. I mean, you can already do it (at the cost of loosing Precise Strike), but it'd be cool to see deeds exclusive to that archetype.

Or maybe an archetype for a drunken duelist, sorta like Inigo Montoya

This class is already really fun and it has me thinking of stereotypical "swashbuckler" stuff you see in the movies that'd be fun to do. Like use a candlestick/stool in your off-hand to parry,disarm, what have you. Or use your cloak for CMB to disarm etc. Maybe those will be feats? Like "Improvised Combat Maneuver" or something?

Let's do a recap of all the Swashbuckler's strengths and weaknesses noticed by contributors to this thread, including the suggestions, propositions and ideas to fix them.

Please excuse me in advance if I don't gratify each suggestion with its original poster's nickname :

Negative : "The class is too Dex-based."
Counterargument : Being Dex-based is the class's whole concept, the same way a Wizard is too Intelligence-based or a Barbarian too focused on damage and awesomeness.
Origin : Swashbucklers typically dump Str for points in sheer awesomeness and agility, aka the Dex/Cha combo.

Negative : "The choice of weapons is too limited."
Origin : The weapon selection is currently odd and missing iconic choices.
Suggestions :
- Grant more weapon proficiencies (especially blade/sword-like weapons)
- Create a "Dueling Weapons" group.
- Grant to the Swash the ability to finesse more weapons than usual.

Negative : "The choice of weapons is effectively pigeonholed."
Origin : The weapon selection is effectively limited by Panache recovered by critical hits AND Dervish Dancing, making Rapier and Scimitar basically the only weapons you'll ever want.
Suggestions :
- Grant the ability to change the base crit-range of x2 weapons you wield to 18-20, stacking with Improved Critical, effectively making all 19-20/20x2 weapons viable choices (at the expense of having at least 1 panache or accuracy/damage or having a bonus for the rapier to counterbalance)
- Grant the ability to recover Panache with another method.

Negative : "The class is highly limited in builds" AKA "I can't survive 1st level" AKA "I can't pick thematic feats because of the prerequisites" AKA "I can't use my class features without feat taxes"
Origin : You NEED the Weapon Finesse and Combat Reflexes feats to use most of your base class abilities, or be efficient. This means even a human will suffer, even more other races. 2nd level is too late for finesse if you have to survive a sucky uslessness at 1st level...
Positive : Swashbuckler's...

I'd like to add movement based abilities. Daring-do is conceptually great, mechanically clunky/weak for the cost

Thanks for making this list, by the way

Brybry wrote:

Unless that's the point?

That is the point. Paizo hates prestige classes.

Good to know. But now I'm confused as to why they have them?

DM Crustypeanut wrote:

I haven't read through all 7 pages, but has anyone mentioned the Swashbuckler getting Charisma to damage or attack, similar to the Dashing Swordsman in the Order of the Stick?

I don't know about you, but that would be all sorts of awesome. Anyone who says Int to damage needs to be slapped. Swashbucklers don't have to be smart, they have to be charismatic.

Heck I'd love to see their Charisma counting as Int for Combat Expertise ;)

Thats a great idea.

I can understand the idea of adding INT to damage, because its assuming the swashbuckler; in all of her fencing training; knows exactly where to hit on a creatures anatomy (sorta like real fencing). This was used in the 3.5 class too. BUT since this class is focusing on CHA as it's mental stat, I can see having the class use this.

I would rather see CHA be used in place of swashbuckler's class for damage when using Precise strike, but have the CHA bonus get a multiplier every couple of levels to balance it out. So if your charisma modifier is 3, then it should get x2 after 4 or so levels, then x3 after the same amount of levels, until you hit 20 with x4 or x5, depending on the progression.

Why? because that's just like the duelist, and if anyone wanted to dip into duelist, then they are essentially loosing one of the more worthwhile aspects of taking that prestige class. I like the idea of a swashbuckler; who's good at fighting everyone; training with a master fencer to become apt at dueling, thus becoming a Duelist. otherwise, the swashbuckler takes away a strong reason to take that prestige class. Unless that's the point?

I think Daring-do could be awesome, but the risk/reward of the mechanic weighs more towards risk, considering that it costs one panache point.

example- if I'm in the heat of battle, and I have the option to swing from a chandelier to attack the main bad guy on the other side of the room OR to hold on to my last panache point and spend endless turns to get to him through he battle; I'd want to use my cool class ability to do an awesome cinematic move. If I roll not well on my d20, then roll a 1 on my d6, then I've not only missed grabbing the chandelier, but now I can't do half of my cool class abilities. And my chances of killing or criting on a guy are less now, so it will be harder for me to get back a panache point.

So the risk is- sacrificing a good chunk of my useful deeds (and my battlefield worth) to do something "daring" to help my allies and advance the story.

The reward is - an average roll of 3, to add to my d20 roll and skill rank? I think I'll hold on to my panache point for the deeds that could be more beneficial.

maybe make it so it multiplies your skill rank for that round by two, that way, if you roll bad, you might still be able to pull of a cool cinematic maneuver.

I strongly think the swashbuckler should be able to more non-combat stuff. I picture a swashbuckler dancing around a fight, parrying here, and thrusting there. "Daring-do" is the only class ability that attempts something like that, but IMO it just isn't worth it

Maybe increasing the skills per level to 6 + int coooould help with this?

I'd like to see the Swashbuckler be able to use a Buckler without sacrificing Precise strike. Since the the buckler is written to be strapped onto your arm, It seems like it would function more as a light armor than a shield you have to hold. Especially since you cannot shield bash with it. SO you still have a free hand to swing from a chandelier and do other swashbuckler stuff.

So, if you aren't wearing any armor, but have a Buckler (+1 AC) which equals Padded Armor, you loose the Precise Strike deed. But if i give my guy Padded armor, he can use this Deed? Padded armor weighs 10 pounds, whereas the buckler is 5.

I do historic fencing as a hobby, and having a dagger or buckler in your off-hand while thrusting does not inhibit my ability at all.

It does not state that you gain the Dodge feat, so you do not qualify for Mobility.

On the other hand, taking Dodge would not be much of a waste, since dodge bonuses to AC always stack, so you just even even MORE nimble by taking the feat.

I figured as much. I'd just rather not take Dodge when I already have dodge +3 at 11th level and not be able to get mobility without increasing it to +4 using my 11th level feat, then waiting to 12th level to use my bonus feat for mobility.

Just my opinion.

I was wondering if this ability counts as having the dodge feat; since that is essentially what it is; except renamed. Would this allow me to take feats that require Dodge as a prerequisite, or do I have to use (waste) a feat to get dodge, so I can then obtain Mobility?

It would be really funny if this keeps up until April 1st, when they would finally post an update saying something like- "APRIL FOOLS, THERE ISN'T GOING TO BE AN ADVANCED CLASS GUIDE"

MMCJawa wrote:

I think any plans on pinning down what day in November it will release are a bit foolhardy :P

You say that... but is coming out on Next Tuesday.

But what makes YOU so sure of this?

For the one remaining "class slot," how about some kind of class based on luck? This is the character concept of the "lucky hero" as someone who manages to survive every situation they find themselves in, no matter the odds, and not by virtue of their innate skills or talents (or perhaps in spite of them). The lucky hero isn't totally inept but the gods seem to clearly favor him without actually claiming him (or he would be a paladin, or cleric, or something like that). A fantasy version of Ferris Beuhler, perhaps, or the character who was just Born Lucky.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BornLucky

Of course, this concept might work as a prestige class too. The lucky hero usually has a day job.

Before anyone else says it: It would probably be really hard to make this class balance well with the other classes, especially if the class gains abilities in of itself that summarily enhance die rolls made by the character. The Lucky Hero would have to be designed to avoid making it game-breakingly absurd for any character NOT to level-dip into it.

Factotum 3.5 class?

20 Quatloos on the week of the 29th for the playtest to drop.

What makes you so sure of this?

Hey devs, in case you're following this closely, can you include a class kit for each of the new classes? I'm referring to the "starter gear kits" you introduced in Ultimate Equipment that came with a smattering of mundane adventuring gear pre-assembled for each class. I love those things as they save all my newbie players from having to comb their way through a huge list of mundane adventuring gear. Thanks!

I also thought that those kits were very helpful. Alot of them are pretty similar, so I figured if the Devs didn't make gear packs for any of the new classes, it'd be pretty easy to make some in-house packs. I've let my PCs swap out items for others of similar value and weight to customize them if they wanted to.

Playtest might start before November, because If we look back to the Advanced Race Guide, it's playtest was released on October 4th 2011. I'd say the two benchmarks for the ACG playtest release would be approximately between beginning of October to mid-November. Either way, it will come out eventually!

This is a weird combo, but I'd like to see a barbarian/rogue class. I'm mentioning it because the barbarian class seems to be modeled after Conan (in my opinion), but Conan was pretty much a thief in many of his adventures. I think the barbarian class is incredible, but I just never thought it lived up to what Conan is, unless I dipped into rogue for a level or two. I have no idea how you would combine those classes though.

I am extremely excited for the Swashbuckler. I have my own home-brewed version that i based off of the 3.5 one (like many other people do), but I am really into the idea of the class being based on the gunslinger. I've seen one build of a swashbuckler based on that class on a forum before (maybe the Paizo one?) that was impressive. I know I'm not alone in thinking this but I sort of think that the swashbuckler should have been released before the gunslinger. I know, I know, some people hate it and others defend it, but I feel that the swashbuckler would have been applicable to more generic fantasy settings people run than a more specific character type like a cowboy. Either way, I'm very excited to see an official Pathfinder swashbuckler is coming finally!

Any idea when the playtest might be making its way out (roughly)?

Yeah I am also interested in this. I'm assuming October? November maaaybe? Hopefully we'll hear an announcement sooner than later.