|
I've always enjoyed the Knight class (or Cavalier Prestiege Class), and the Swashbuckler class. I'm hoping there is a chance that somewhere in the pathfinder campaign setting that these two favorites of mine might be re-done later in a future book?
My only request for the swashbuckler is to maybe make them a bit of a cross between the Corsair & A Fencer (from the Variant fighters article back in Dragon #310). This probably isn't possible, but I figure the swashbuckler was always more of a scoundrel of the high seas come to port, than a musketeer in the royal courts.
|
|
I've always enjoyed the Knight class (or Cavalier Prestiege Class), and the Swashbuckler class. I'm hoping there is a chance that somewhere in the pathfinder campaign setting that these two favorites of mine might be re-done later in a future book?
My only request for the swashbuckler is to maybe make them a bit of a cross between the Corsair & A Fencer (from the Variant fighters article back in Dragon #310). This probably isn't possible, but I figure the swashbuckler was always more of a scoundrel of the high seas come to port, than a musketeer in the royal courts.
As they are not OGL they are probably going to be a working on it. But you can play a LG Fighter as a knight....I know it's not the same...
Not that Paizo is likely to rework it specifically for Pathfinder, but the Cavalier from The Cavalier's Handbook from Green Ronin is OGL. Just sayin . . .
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I too have much love for the Swashbuckler.
If you are interested in playing a Swashbuckler Themed Fighter, then try this Art of the Duel by Craig Shackleton (Rambling Scribe). Awesome article and definately worth more than you pay for it. At $1.50 it's almost like you're stealing it from him! ;)
In a campaign I'm running, we formerly had a Knight player. I pointed out several levels in that everything he could do, a Fighter could do just as well, if not better on an equivalent level basis. Knight's not exactly a new concept, it just filled a horrible gap in 3.x.
Swashbuckler, on the other hand...well I've never been a fan of having a base class that filled the same role as an easy to enter PrC, myself.
Swashbuckler, on the other hand...well I've never been a fan of having a base class that filled the same role as an easy to enter PrC, myself.
Right. I'd much rather have the base class than a PrC, if the concept is a general one.
Or, if we don't want to end up with a hundred base classes, have the rules properly support the concept with base classes. Fighters and Fighter/Rogues might make a decent swashbuclker in PF.
fighter / rogues made very good swashbucklers in 3,5e - never really seen the need for another base class for the light fighter
(did play around with urban ranger TWF but i think its eaier with the feats from the fighter)
|
The Knight would be very easy to convert as a straight Fighter if there was some mechanic, say a feat, to allow for an ability similar to the Knight's challenge. Perhaps make it a feat that allows for a new use of Intimidate (a class skill for Fighters) as a means of "aggroing" enemies
The Swashbuckler concept already exists in the form of the Duelist Prestige Class, which is rather unimpressive. It also means that your character will spend the early stages of his development as a Fighter with a bad AC (light armour) and not much in the way of dealing damage.
The Knight would be very easy to convert as a straight Fighter if there was some mechanic, say a feat, to allow for an ability similar to the Knight's challenge. Perhaps make it a feat that allows for a new use of Intimidate (a class skill for Fighters) as a means of "aggroing" enemies
Or just forget about it altogether. I prefer the classes to have a different kind of "aggroing" ability. I call it "hit the bastard hard enough he's really pissed at you"
The Swashbuckler concept already exists in the form of the Duelist Prestige Class, which is rather unimpressive.
I don't know, the Beta version doesn't look that bad: you get int/class (the lower value) on your AC, your level to damage, a bonus to init, and a number of other nice features.
It also means that your character will spend the early stages of his development as a Fighter with a bad AC (light armour) and not much in the way of dealing damage.
It's not that bad - after all, he'll have decent dex, anyway, so he'll be able to be close enough to others: While they have full plate and dex 12 for +9 total, he'll have a chain shirt (later mithral breastplate, or maybe a mithral shirt if he's that agile) and dex 16 for +7 total.
And until he starts with the class, he'll have at least a buckler (and later he'll get a ring of force shield).
|
While the classes themselves as presented are not OGL, I doubt there is much stopping them from making their own versions of said classes. I don't think the words "knight" or "swashbuckler" could be considered product identity, considering they are real words. Other RPGs have wizards and such, so why not?
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I am envisioning a book in a year or two that covers about a dozen core class concepts like these. Because the D&D versions of these concepts are generally not open, we'll have to take a different mechanical approach, but that's hardly a reason to avoid doing it. In many cases the new classes will be an improvement.
Knight and swashbuckler would probably both be in such as compilation, as well as witch, shadow-caster, blackguard, noble, and the like.
But right now we are still playtesting the core rules, and we're only just beginning to solidify what monsters are going to look like. Until that crucial work is done we don't have a lot of time or focus to devote to things like tertiary classes, psionics, "oriental" rules, or stuff like that.
Yes, we're interested in doing all that stuff. We've even penciled some stuff in on schedules for the next couple of years. But right now they are in light pencil, and no serious conceptual work has been done.
I am really glad that the knight will receive new mechanics. The old one always had a strange feeling. I mean a knight as a tank and bodyguard? Nah....I want my knight as a mounted charging damage dealing machine! Mounted or unmounted Knights have always been heavy shock troops and the rules should simulate this.
As for the swashbuckler i'm not sure. I love this charakter concept but it was always a little strange having both a base class and a prestige class simulating this.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Thanks for the info Erik. (Though I'll point out there's a wonderful OGL Binder out there already)
I hope this would lead to Prestige classes again being more about the Prestige (I'm a member of the Pathfinders, and here are my class levels to prove it) and less about the power ups (*cougharchmagecoughabjurantcheesewhorecough*)
|
|
I am envisioning a book in a year or two that covers about a dozen core class concepts like these
...
Yes, we're interested in doing all that stuff. We've even penciled some stuff in on schedules for the next couple of years. But right now they are in light pencil, and no serious conceptual work has been done.
That is such awesome news! Thanks again Paizo for keeping the spirit of Dungeons & Dragons alive and well.
Is it next year yet?
How about now?
I am envisioning a book in a year or two that covers about a dozen core class concepts like these. Because the D&D versions of these concepts are generally not open, we'll have to take a different mechanical approach, but that's hardly a reason to avoid doing it. In many cases the new classes will be an improvement.
Knight and swashbuckler would probably both be in such as compilation, as well as witch, shadow-caster, blackguard, noble, and the like.
But right now we are still playtesting the core rules, and we're only just beginning to solidify what monsters are going to look like. Until that crucial work is done we don't have a lot of time or focus to devote to things like tertiary classes, psionics, "oriental" rules, or stuff like that.
Yes, we're interested in doing all that stuff. We've even penciled some stuff in on schedules for the next couple of years. But right now they are in light pencil, and no serious conceptual work has been done.
Please oh please don't make a horde of classes with the word 'Mystic' in front of it (or arcane for that matter)
It got a little tiring to see dozens of 3.5 classes that were just mystic (or arcane) versions of a familiar class
Batts