Swashbuckler Base Class Advocacy Thread

[Jeff Erwin]

Robert Brookes wrote:

That looks like a better draft, james, but I feel like giving the swashbuckler the fighter's allotment of bonus feats takes too much away from the fighter without pulling back enough difference to make your draft stand on its own as a base class rather than an archetype (or two).

I'd like to see the swashbuckler not simply have a pile-on of bonus feats, but rather have unique abilities all its own that take up those spaces, or perhaps a slower bonus feat progression with a handful of supplemental abilities.

I agree. If you want the versatility of the combat feats, you can multiclass as a fighter. It would reflect a broader, more jack of all trades approach to that character. The swashbuckler or duelist would stand in relationship to the fighter like other specialized melee classes, like a barbarian or a ranger.

[Robert Brookes]

If swashbuckler winds up becoming a Fighter "alternate class" they couldn't actually multiclass between the two. Much as how Rogue cannot take levels in Ninja and vice-versa. However if, like Gunslinger, it winds up becoming its own beast that line goes out the window.

[Kolokotroni]

I am liking more and more the idea of the swashbuckler as an alternate class for the gunslinger. I think it could work very well actually.

[Jeff Erwin]

Robert Brookes wrote:

If swashbuckler winds up becoming a Fighter "alternate class" they couldn't actually multiclass between the two. Much as how Rogue cannot take levels in Ninja and vice-versa. However if, like Gunslinger, it winds up becoming its own beast that line goes out the window.

I think they shouldn't be an alternate class for that very reason. It's both realistic and believable that a swashbuckler/duelist could be broadly-trained or a specialist in their type of fighting (It's the difference between say, Dartagnan, a soldier (arguably multi classed) and, say, Zorro, who generally doesn't have military experience, just a massive amount of classical swordfighting training. The real benefits of being a master in the use of the rapier take a lot of practice and training, and I don't doubt that an experienced street-fighting or classically trained duelist in their element has an upper hand on someone who has dabbled.

[James Martin]

Interesting idea. Let me ponder it a bit more and I'll have another draft in a day or so. How about allowing them combat styles ala ranger or bonus feats ala monks?

I also like the grit-ish idea, but what's a good name? Derring-do? Hutzpah?

[Jeff Erwin]

James Martin wrote:

Interesting idea. Let me ponder it a bit more and I'll have another draft in a day or so. How about allowing them combat styles ala ranger or bonus feats ala monks?

I also like the grit-ish idea, but what's a good name? Derring-do? Hutzpah?

If you want a grit-ish pool: elan and panache work as well. Chutzpah, being a Yiddish word, kinda doesn't say generic swashbuckling to me. Though the idea of a Yiddish-speaking Swashbuckler is pretty awesome.

[Robert Brookes]

Were swashbucklers to have a "reserve" like ki/grit calling it Daring would seem thematic. I don't, personally, feel as though the swashbuckler needs that kind of mechanic, however.

[Robert Brookes]

And to Kolo's point, swashbuckler would make a terrible alternate class for gunslinger, as it would mean you could not multiclass gunslinger/swashbuckler. I don't want to live in a world where swashbucklers and pistoleros cannot share class space.

[Sellsword2587]

Robert Brookes wrote:

James Martin wrote:

Okay, here's my go:

** spoiler omitted **...

I like some of the options on this, giving then light armor training and evasion all make good sense. I'm not a fan of making them yet another "extra" stat to AC class, because it feels like the easiest answer but not the most elegant, as it shoehorns swashbucklers into being high charisma. While some swashbucklers are very charismatic, it's not an across-the-board phenomenon. Also, making them DEX/CHA dependant makes them poor choices to advance into the Duelist PrC (which swashbucklers should be the best at) at higher levels as that will add a necessity for high Int into the mix too.

My other concern lies with "Improved Weapon Finesse." For a class to require a feat to exist seems like a mistake in design theory. While this could be rolled into a feature of the class, I'm also not a fan of opening up Dex to damage so broadly. I know it exists in some forms, but they are very niche and I feel it should remain that way.

Giving new options for a duelist to deal additional damage is more exciting and interesting than rehashing or reskinning old ones, I feel.

As for saves, I think as a d10 HD melee-oriented hybrid class they should have good Fort and Reflex saves. I believe Ranger is the same for saves, and that feels appropriate.

I think the fact that we are trying to make the Swashbuckler compatible with the Duelist PrC is holding us back. As James Jacobs has stated, his approach would be to turn the Duelist into a base class, and my mind can't help but keep drifting back to that idea as well.

With everyone's suggestions thus far, it appears that they are trying to make the swashbuckler be the duelist without calling him so (with a few exceptions). So why not just make the swashbuckler out of the duelist PrC? Leave the PrC for other classes that eventually want to become duelists, or just phase it out completely.

Just off the top of my head, this is what I feel the swashbuckler should resemble:

- Fighter alternative class, so no stacking
- HD d10
- Good Ref, poor others
- 4 + Int skill points, Gunslinger skills (minus Handle Animal and Heal)
- Full BAB
- Light armor prof, no shields
- Simple and some Martial (perhaps limit to weapon groups or a specific list)
- Weapon Finesse at 1st level
- Duelist canny defense feature (not worried about dipping, as you need levels in swashbuckler to make use of it, unlike monk ac bonus)
- Gunslinger Nimble feature and progression
- Gunslinger Bonus feat progression
- Duelist Parry feature
- Duelist Riposte feature
- Duelist Enhanced Mobility feature
- Combat reflexes for free
- Duelist Acrobatic Charge feature
- Duelist Elaborate Defense feature
- Duelist Deflect Arrows feature
- Uncanny Dodge & Improved
- Evasion
- Mobile Fighter Rapid Attack feature
- Mobile Fighter Fleet Footed feature
- Mobile Fighter Whirlwind Blitz feature
- Free Hand Fighter Deceptive Strike feature

I feel that the swashbuckler would also need at least one damage increasing feature. Some ideas include:

- Duelist Precise Strike feature (but at 1/2 level instead of full level)
- Duelist Crippling Critical feature (not really more damage, per se, but adds some nice utility)
- Extra damage die feature (say +1d6 precision damage with certain types of weapons or in certain circumstances, progresses, maxes at +5d6)
- Stat bonus to damage in certain circumstances (such as Int to damage when attacking an opponent that is denied Dex to AC or is flanked)
- Free Hand Fighter Singleton feature (but progressive faster/sooner, max +5 attack and damage)
- Cavalier Challenge feature (something similar, not exact)

For a customization feature, aside from bonus feats, perhaps something like:

- Gunslinger deeds, in that they function off a pool/use system. Perhaps call it "Panache" or "Finesse", but have its mechanics function like a Samurai's Resolve (daily uses instead of point pool). Perhaps some built in uses for Panache, like Resolve or Monk ki Pool. Use Panache to perform fencing tricks or mobility tricks, some of which could include other Duelist features not listed above. Perhaps Parried and Riposte are tied to Panache?
- Gunslinger deeds, in that you gain multiple abilities each time (some passive, some active), but the swashbuckler chooses say any 2 from a list each time (with level requirements). This allows a uniquely built swashbuckler, which could facilitate the need for some archetype concepts that didn't have much substance to them (like cloak fighting). Some abilities could include actions like swinging from chandeliers or combat maneuver uses.

Honestly, having a 'deed' system (multiple abilities gained at different intervals, some passive, some active) is a really great way to keep the base swashbuckler layout clean and general (look at the Gunslinger level chart, for example), while also offering deep customization (especially if you allow players to choose X abilities out of a list of Y abilities appropriate for a given level).

- Stance idea was interesting, but seemed to similar to the Dervish Dancer's battle dance. Perhaps something like Monk Style feats, but as fencing styles with weapons. Styles still need to be activated, but there is no limited use.

That's all I can think of for now, without actually stating up the swashbuckler base class myself. Maybe if I have time, and you guys even remotely like my ideas, I might do a quick mock up that includes everything I stated above. Lots of other projects going on at the moment (woot Pure Steam development, check profile), but I enjoy game designing, so its a nice (and still productive) distraction.

[Ciaran Barnes]

Lemmy wrote:

I'd like to see a swashbuckler focused on Dex, Int and Cha... But I fear it would bring him into Monk levels of MADness, and that's a bit much, IMO.

OTOH, Maybe it focusing on Int and Cha, having Dex/Con as secondary stats could work.

I think including some Int is great, much like a cleric can get extra milage out of Cha but doesn't need to pump it.

[Robert Brookes]

The problem is that perhaps before the Core books came out you could get away with that. But we can't simply take an extant Prestige Class like Duelist and dissect it to turn it into a base class. That just doesn't strike me as good design ethic. We live in a world where duelist exists as a prestige class, so we should design to consider duelist and accommodate for it, especially since it would be a solid option for swashbucklers.

[Queen Moragan]

If you use the Duelist PrC as the base for the Swashbuckler, then any other class can multi into Swashbuckler, and Swashbuckler never needs to take Duelist since it will be redundant.

IMHO Swashbuckler should NOT be an alternative class of anything, I think it is the wrong way to do it. Start with a fresh base class similar to the Duelist.

[Sellsword2587]

Then my original proposal still stands, except that we would take the Duelist features and offer them as optional 'deeds'. That way, you could still take them without sacking levels in the prestige class, but you would get them at a slower rate than if you took the PrC. If you wanted to gain the same feature sooner, than you would take the PrC.

This would also allow someone that is playing a non-duelist type of swashbuckler to grab some of those options without gaining all of them as a baseline (say if you wanted to focus on a Cha-based swashbuckler instead of Int).

However, I still feel that Duelist features like Parry is a pretty crucial feature for the baseline swashbuckler to have, as they will have a really hard time staying in melee combat at higher levels. Though I suppose that could be made up for in other 'deed' (lets call them 'Flourishes') abilities that increase AC. I also don't think we should give them something like Canny Defense, but based on Cha, as a baseline, because then if they took the Duelist, they would get Dex + Cha + Int to AC, and that seems like a bit much (but not game-breaking if they don't buy stat increasing items, then the average would only be about +5 or +6, +2 in each stat with a normal point buy.)

[proftobe]

ciretose wrote:

I would love to see the rogue class become a swashbuckler class.

YMMV

My God I agree with Citrose. :)

[Petty Alchemy]

James Martin wrote:

How about this:

Staircase Dancer (Ex): At 2nd level, the swashbuckler becomes nimble enough to ignore the first five feet of difficult terrain when he moves. At 6th level and every four levels after, the swashbuckler adds a further five feet to the distance of difficult terrain he can ignore, up to twenty-five feet at 18th level.

I was thinking more of as Acrobatic checks to completely ignore it. Your ability kinda falls into the Monk's Slow Fall, a weak ability that scales for a long time before it replicates a lvl1 spell.

The Oracle of Flame has a choice of this Revelation:
Cinder Dance (Ex): Your base speed increases by 10 feet. At 5th level, you receive Nimble Moves as a bonus feat. At 10th level, you receive Acrobatic Steps as a bonus feat. You do not need to meet the prerequisites to receive these feats. Oracles with the lame oracle curse cannot select this revelation.

How about Nimble Moves at 2, Acrobatic Steps at 6, and ignore all at 10?

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

The lucky hero is a good swashbuckler archetype.

[Jeff Erwin]

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

The lucky hero is a good swashbuckler archetype.

The like the "Picaro"? Well, maybe a rogue too. I think a feat chain might be better for this sort of vagabondism and blind luck/cunning.

[Oceanshieldwolf]

Lots of great ideas! I have some empathy with calls for making the Swashbuckler a rogue, monk, ranger, gunslinger or magus alternate. Which makes me positive it should be its own Base Class.

A pool of some type (I like "elan", "daring" and/or "panache") with a suite of choices is my preferred concept.

The class also needs to gain some awesome right out of the gate, 1st level, no waiting, do not pass go!

The sheer variety of concepts begs for a simple and versatile chassis. For those worried about all the focus on archetypes rather than on the Base I can only say I don't believe that is anyone's focus. Ensuring that the eventuality of the archetypes will be catered for actually allows for not cluttering up the Base class design space.

To my mind, the archetypes aren't just "options you could actually just create with different elan suite choices" (like magus arcana, rogue talents, alchemist discoveries) but hard coded variations to the Base class components: weapon choices, armor choices, tactical choices (teamwork over combat feats), maneauver focus (dashing, wall of steel etc), performance choices, skill choices...

Now that's only if you have a suite you want to avoid changing in your archetypes. It's not entirly necessary, or perhaps, desirable for some folk. My point is really to make it clear that a rigorous Swashbuckler Base class needs to be fairly simple, yet have the flexibility to create the tropes people will want.

P.S. I don't think ANY class should get less than 4 skill points/level, so I'm obviously insane and you can disregard everything I just said... ;)

[Atarlost]

I'm with Ciretose that the swashbuckler should replace the rogue. What about going for enhanced medium BAB so he can be an alternate class of that?

Spoiler:

BAB: 3/4
Hit Die: 1d8
Proficiencies: as rogue
Class Skills: as rogue
Skills: 8+int
Saves: reflex strong, others weak

1) dexterous fighter, trapfinding
2) evasion, fighting trick
3) weapon training, trap sense
4) fighting trick, uncanny dodge
5) adversary +1d6
6) fighting trick, trap sense +2
7) weapon training +2
8) improved uncanny dodge, fighting trick
9) adversary +2d6
10) advanced tricks, fighting trick
11) weapon training +3
12) fighting trick, trap sense +3
13) adversary +3d6
14) fighting talent
15) weapon training +4
16) fighting talent
17) adversary +4d6
18) fighting talent, trap sense +6
19) weapon training +5
20) weapon mastery

dextrous fighter: The swashbuckler receives both weapon finesse and agile maneuvers as free bonus feats.

trapfinding: as the rogue ability of the same name

evasion: as the rogue ability of the same name

fighting trick
* rogue talent: The swashbuckler may take any rogue talent that he qualifies for other than ninja trick. The swashbuckler can take this trick more than once.

* cunning blade: The swashbuckler may add his intelligence modifier to combat maneuver checks and his CMD against disarm and sunder. The swashbuckler may not select this trick if he already has daring blade.

* daring blade: The swashbuckler may add his charisma modifier to combat maneuver checks and his CMD against disarm and sunder. The swashbuckler may not select this trick if he already has cunning blade.

* chosen weapon: The swashbuckler receives weapon specialization in a weapon for which he already has weapon focus. He does not need to meet the prerequisites for this feat. In the future he may treat his swashbuckler level as his fighter level for the purposes of qualifying for feats that effect this weapon.

* feinting maneuver: The swashbuckler may make a feint attempt as a free action any time he attempts a dirty trick, sunder, or trip combat maneuver.

* versatile blade: The swashbuckler no longer provokes attacks of opportunity for combat maneuvers made with a weapon. For any such combat maneuver for which he has the improved maneuver feat he instead adds an additional +1 to his maneuver checks. Additionally the swashbuckler is treated as if he had combat expertise for the purpose of qualifying for feats and prestige classes.

* devious: The swashbuckler may sneak attack as a rogue using his adversary dice.

* daring strike: The swashbuckler receives power attack as a bonus feat even if he doesn't qualify for it.

* parry: as the duelist ability of the same name. The duelist takes no penalty to parrying attacks against allies, but may only parry attacks against allies if they are made by his chosen adversary.

* two weapon fencing: The swashbuckler may use two weapon fighting receiving all of his off-hand iterative attacks and with no penalty to his main hand and only a -4 penalty to his off hand as long as his off-hand attacks are used only for parrying and performing combat maneuvers.

* give ground: The swashbuckler may double the AC benefit of fighting defensively as a full round action or the total defense action against one opponent in his reach by taking a 5' step directly away from that opponent.

weapon training: as the fighter ability of the same name. The swashbuckler may only select the light blades, heavy blades, and close weapon groups. If the swashbuckler already has weapon training in all of these groups he may increase his weapon training bonus for one that is not his highest group by +1. Additionally, the swashbuckler may add his highest weapon training bonus to his BAB and all stats for the purpose of qualifying for feats.

trap sense: as the rogue ability of the same name

adversary: The swashbuckler may designate a target as his adversary as a move action. This lasts until the adversary dies, the swashbuckler selects another, or an ally of the swashbuckler attacks his adversary. The swashbuckler adds a +1 dodge bonus to his AC and +1 morale bonus to attack rolls against the adversary and may deal an additional 1d6 points of precision damage on attacks against his adversary any time that his adversary has attacked anyone other than the swashbuckler in the last round. These bonuses increase by +1 and +1d6 respectively for every four levels beyond fifth. These dice count as sneak attack dice for the purposes of rogue talents and meeting feat and prestige class prerequisites.

advanced tricks: After level 10 the swashbuckler can take advanced fighting tricks in place of fighting tricks.

* advanced rogue talent: The swashbuckler may take any advanced rogue talent that he qualifies for. The swashbuckler can take this trick more than once.

* swift strikes: The swashbuckler may make a full attack as a standard action, but forgoes his weapon training bonus when doing so.

* agile blade: The swashbuckler may add his dexterity to damage to attacks made with finessable weapons. He adds only half his dexterity to off-hand attacks.

* riposte: as the duelist ability of the same name

weapon mastery: as the fighter capstone

This swashbuckler essentially replaces the rogue and can take all rogue archetypes. He'll suffer a little at low levels from the lack of sneak attack, but with the extra addendum to weapon training he will qualify for +6 BAB feats at level 7, +12 BAB feats at level 12, and +16 BAB feats at level 15. Fighting tricks are balanced against rage powers instead of rogue talents because the weakness of rogue talents is one of the biggest problems with the class.

After level 3 this swashbuckler should have almost fighter-like attack and damage against his chosen adversary, which is why it has unlimited uses. If I've gotten things right by about level 6 a swashbuckler should be able to be better at one on one melee combat than any other martial so that in an e6 game the "best swordsman in the world" would be a swashbuckler, but in a larger melee his defenses will suffer.

The role of this swashbuckler in group combat is to take one enemy out of combat and force it to fight him. The half sneak attack as an "aggro punishment" should be threatening because of the swashbuckler's high accuracy. Because of this damage increase against adversaries who attempt to ignore him a defensively built swashbuckler should be able to contribute effectively either by occupying an opponent or dealing significant damage to a foe that refuses to be occupied.

[Oceanshieldwolf]

@Atarlost: But why all the trapfinding/trapsense stuff? And regardless of the feat choices he's still not full BAB/d10 HD.

[Elghinn Lightbringer]

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

P.S. I don't think ANY class should get less than 4 skill points/level, so I'm obviously insane and you can disregard everything I just said... ;)

That goes without saying OSW. :D

Edit: That you're insane, not that every class should have 4 skill points per level.

The Swashbuckler NEEDS to be a new base class, not an alternate class. There are a lot of great ideas here, and I'll need to ponder, play around with them, and see what I can come up with.

[Orthos]

I could agree to both.... ;)

I might not be completely lucid myself, so take that for what it's worth!

[VM mercenario]

I think I've got... Here we go. My take on swashbuckler. I've managed to write up a couple archetypes, but not fully flesh them and then my attention wanderd and I forgot about it. Based around Dex and Cha and with a talent system, because I really like classes with talent choices.

[Atarlost]

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

@Atarlost: But why all the trapfinding/trapsense stuff? And regardless of the feat choices he's still not full BAB/d10 HD.

Because he's a rogue alternate class and if he keeps them he can take rogue archetypes. He obviously supersedes the swashbuckler archetype, but knife master, rake, and thug will fit well in place of the trap stuff since the adversary dice act like sneak attack. (I should have worded it less narrowly, but I forgot there were things other than rogue talents that interacted with it.) He's medium BAB/d8 for the same reason, but he's augmented medium BAB. He's never more than -1 on attack rolls against his designated adversary relative to a similarly stated fighter.

The swashbuckler needs to be the class for "the best swordsman in the world." It can't do that without making other martial classes obsolete unless it has a weakness. My version's weakness is the hit die and the lack of AC except against his designated adversary. Good at dueling and good at making people duel him, but bad at fighting multiple opponents.

[Jeff Erwin]

Atarlost wrote:

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

@Atarlost: But why all the trapfinding/trapsense stuff? And regardless of the feat choices he's still not full BAB/d10 HD.

Because he's a rogue alternate class and if he keeps them he can take rogue archetypes. He obviously supersedes the swashbuckler archetype, but knife master, rake, and thug will fit well in place of the trap stuff since the adversary dice act like sneak attack. (I should have worded it less narrowly, but I forgot there were things other than rogue talents that interacted with it.) He's medium BAB/d8 for the same reason, but he's augmented medium BAB. He's never more than -1 on attack rolls against his designated adversary relative to a similarly stated fighter.

The swashbuckler needs to be the class for "the best swordsman in the world." It can't do that without making other martial classes obsolete unless it has a weakness. My version's weakness is the hit die and the lack of AC except against his designated adversary. Good at dueling and good at making people duel him, but bad at fighting multiple opponents.

Trained duelists could and did fight multiple opponents, and in fact this was a major part of their training. It's modern sport fencing that doesn't handle this well. Sport fencing evolved out of training for formal duels, not actual tavern and street based Three Musketeer-esque brawls.

I recommend this website: The Order of the Seven Hearts and this one too, if you want to study realistic swashbuckling. I think this class ought to embrace both realism and cinematic varieties of the concept.

[see]

Robert Brookes wrote:

We live in a world where duelist exists as a prestige class, so we should design to consider duelist and accommodate for it, especially since it would be a solid option for swashbucklers.

Mmm. We live in a world where the Eldritch Knight is a prestige class, but it isn't a solid option for a magus.

[Odraude]

Robert Brookes wrote:

If swashbuckler winds up becoming a Fighter "alternate class" they couldn't actually multiclass between the two. Much as how Rogue cannot take levels in Ninja and vice-versa. However if, like Gunslinger, it winds up becoming its own beast that line goes out the window.

Hmm, good point. I change my vote for Base20 class. Multiclassing is fun.

[Atarlost]

Jeff Erwin wrote:

Trained duelists could and did fight multiple opponents, and in fact this was a major part of their training. It's modern sport fencing that doesn't handle this well. Sport fencing evolved out of training for formal duels, not actual tavern and street based Three Musketeer-esque brawls.

I recommend this website: The Order of the Seven Hearts and this one too, if you want to study realistic swashbuckling. I think this class ought to embrace both realism and cinematic varieties of the concept.

The problem is that that niche is already nailed down. Barbarians and Fighters already do that and you can't put together a class that does it better without being broken.

[Oceanshieldwolf]

Atarlost wrote:

Jeff Erwin wrote:

Trained duelists could and did fight multiple opponents, and in fact this was a major part of their training. It's modern sport fencing that doesn't handle this well. Sport fencing evolved out of training for formal duels, not actual tavern and street based Three Musketeer-esque brawls.

I recommend this website: The Order of the Seven Hearts and this one too, if you want to study realistic swashbuckling. I think this class ought to embrace both realism and cinematic varieties of the concept.

The problem is that that niche is already nailed down. Barbarians and Fighters already do that and you can't put together a class that does it better without being broken.

How can you be so sure? Or to put it another way, are you at least amenable to Paizo attempting it? I know I am.

[Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper]

Robert Brookes wrote:

I, personally, do not feel that a Swashbuckler should be any better than any other class at fighting multiple opponents. They should be designed to excel at fighting single opponents.

+1

[Atarlost]

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

Atarlost wrote:

Jeff Erwin wrote:

Trained duelists could and did fight multiple opponents, and in fact this was a major part of their training. It's modern sport fencing that doesn't handle this well. Sport fencing evolved out of training for formal duels, not actual tavern and street based Three Musketeer-esque brawls.

I recommend this website: The Order of the Seven Hearts and this one too, if you want to study realistic swashbuckling. I think this class ought to embrace both realism and cinematic varieties of the concept.

The problem is that that niche is already nailed down. Barbarians and Fighters already do that and you can't put together a class that does it better without being broken.

How can you be so sure? Or to put it another way, are you at least amenable to Paizo attempting it? I know I am.

Absolutely. I'm also sure I'm not amenable to Paizo attempting a full BAB 9 level caster using the wizard spell list that gets an extra standard action per turn for every five class levels.

If the swashbuckler is going to compete for the fighter/barbarian niche we don't need it. We have the fighter and barbarian. If the swashbuckler is going to exist it needs to find a niche that isn't occupied.

The niche of a formal duelist is unfilled and is the unfilled niche most suited to the swashbuckler name even if it's technically a mismatch. It wouldn't be the first technically misleading class name. Real inquisitors are church judges rather than church police and if they had magic would be clerics if not a half BAB priest class and real magi were astrologers, not fighting evokers. If they had actual magic they'd be clerics or oracles or priests or diviners.

[Oceanshieldwolf]

Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper wrote:

Robert Brookes wrote:

I, personally, do not feel that a Swashbuckler should be any better than any other class at fighting multiple opponents. They should be designed to excel at fighting single opponents.

+1

I think a variety of real world proponents and cinema representations that toyed and annoyed groups of opponents through a mix of movement, placement, ship's furniture, chandeliers and village huts might have one or more bones to pick with you on that score.

Designed to be better? Not necessarily. Designed to be on par? Perhaps. Really though, it is in the hands of the astute player that the design rises to the occasion or falls to mooks.

As to the specificity of the design, I don't see the swashbuckler As A Base Class necessarily only designed as a dedicated one-on-one duelist. This thread has shown the breadth of the concept.

Look, I'm not a huge fan of the Swashbuckler, so I don't don't have an epee wielding dhampir in this race. I am concerned that there are folk who may not want to see the attempt, or who might want to pigeonhole it unnecessarily.

I posted my druthers, and I'm happy to see them equally disregarded, shot down as drivel or enshrined as canon yesterday.

[Jeff Erwin]

Atarlost wrote:

Jeff Erwin wrote:

Trained duelists could and did fight multiple opponents, and in fact this was a major part of their training. It's modern sport fencing that doesn't handle this well. Sport fencing evolved out of training for formal duels, not actual tavern and street based Three Musketeer-esque brawls.

I recommend this website: The Order of the Seven Hearts and this one too, if you want to study realistic swashbuckling. I think this class ought to embrace both realism and cinematic varieties of the concept.

The problem is that that niche is already nailed down. Barbarians and Fighters already do that and you can't put together a class that does it better without being broken.

Well, the way a duelist/swashbuckler fights multiple opponents is by tying them up and parrying, not hitting them all at once. Not Cleaves and multiple attacks - a high AC and maneuvring.

[Kolokotroni]

I dont think the rogue becomming a swashbuckler is a good idea. While some swashbucklers can be rogues, not all should be. In particular the trap based, and sneak attack things dont fit all concepts for a swashbuckler, and given the nature of rogues and sneak attack it does not lend itself to single one armed weapon fighting, which is a big portion of the swashbuckler's theme. Thats why I think it need to be it's own base class, because it needs to make the weakest form of combat work somehow.

[Ciaran Barnes]

Handily fighting off a swarm of mooks could be simulated with Combat Expertise.

[Jeff Erwin]

Kolokotroni wrote:

I dont think the rogue becomming a swashbuckler is a good idea. While some swashbucklers can be rogues, not all should be. In particular the trap based, and sneak attack things dont fit all concepts for a swashbuckler, and given the nature of rogues and sneak attack it does not lend itself to single one armed weapon fighting, which is a big portion of the swashbuckler's theme. Thats why I think it need to be it's own base class, because it needs to make the weakest form of combat work somehow.

This...

If I want to run a campaign, at present, which assumes a 17th century, swashbuckling vibe, and use the hardcovers as the basis for that campaign, there's going to be a disconnect. Smart martial players are going to wander around in half plate (even if I limit the weapons and armor to "appropriate" choices) and breastplates, and carry greatswords and shields. I'm not looking for a "better" martial class, rather, for a class that justifies the use of finesse weapons and light armor other than by its limited proficiencies.

Here's how one could balance a duelist or swashbuckler: they're going to be squishier than a standard fighter (& no soaking damage like a barbarian). Their weapons don't do quite as much damage. Their AC falls apart if they're incapacitated or flat flooted. They have a limited number of weapon proficiencies. Their Fort is probably Low. Their advantages may be based on a challenge mechanic or limited pool of "panache." They're going to be more MAD than an armored fighter because Dex and Str are both going to be important (as well as Con). They also will probably require more tactical skill on the part of the player, to extricate them from being cornered or fighting something that's too much to handle. In the RW, a swashbuckler would be more vulnerable to guns and artillery than a fighter (conventional soldier). The trouble with PF is that if you use touch attacks for that, they actually have an advantage.

As others have pointed out, there's little reason for the standard Swashbuckling figure to have sneak attack or trapfinding. They are probably in the middle to low range in terms of skill points, given that Acrobatics, perhaps Bluff, Sense Motive, and Climb would be their cinematic skill set (everything else would be a "smart" swashbuckler, i.e., with a good Int - and if Int is reflected into their AC like the Duelist PC, they're usually going to have at least a few pluses there).

In my semi-hypothetical 17th century campaign (I probably will run it, but it may or may not be PF) it's probably going to be a class that gets multiclassed a bit; a little sacrifice of power or class abilities on the part of bards, rogues, even spell casters, would mean some defensive ability in a class that doesn't demand a lot of heavy armor. It would function in the game more or less as the barbarian does - an alternate martial class with a different approach than the fighter, but with a few weaknesses.

[Jester David]

Let's see.... What does a good swashbuckler base class need?

Weapon Finess at first level is a must. But it might be nice tweaking it, adding some more weapons to the potential list (cutlass, scimitar).
At higher levels they might be able to ignore the shield penalty for bucklers (or that could be an archetype bonus).

I think they could gain another little bonus. They need something to nudge up AC.

After level 1 they could use a damage boost power. Finesse weapons are light (low dice) and they can't add their strength. So swashbucklers would be a saddly low damage class.
Everyone keeps adding Sneak Attack but a flat damage bonus should be fine.

A challenge mechanic might be nice. Or "duel", as swashbucklers tend to fight single opponents. This is another way to shore up defences and damage.

A deed or trick feature would be nice. To encouraging stunting and interaction with terrain.

[Orthos]

Jester David wrote:

Finesse weapons are light (low dice) and they can't add their strength.

They add their strength just fine. They just tend to have low strength (because if it's high, why bother with Weapon Finesse?).

What they CAN'T do is get the 1.5xSTR bonus for two-handing the weapon.

[magnuskn]

I've been begging James for an official base 20 level Swashbuckler for years. I still have hopes that we'll get one with the next splatbook to introduce new classes, he seems to recognize that no current base class or archetype really does what an iconic swashbuckler ( Three Musketeers, Errol Flynn, Pirates of the Caribbean ) should do.

In the meanwhile, my own 20 level take on the class: Link

[Sellsword2587]

Alright so I was able to throw some ideas together today during my lunch break.

Here is my VERY rough interpretation of the Swashbuckler base class.

Please feel free to share your thoughts and ideas, or to add your own suggestions.

[Jeff Erwin]

I like both interpretations, myself. Sellsword, "panache" seems to be two separate abilities, however.

[Sellsword2587]

Yeah, I'm not sure if the class really needs a "use pool" ability or not, so I decided to leave Panache open-ended for that possibility (mainly just as a note to myself). If we deem that a pool system is needed, then I will rename the AC bonus part of Panache to something else, and then move Panache to level 3.

[Kolokotroni]

I definately think some kind of pool system is a necessity. Pathfinder is pretty clearly moving toward that end for most classes. Every paizo created class has something like this. That is pretty telling to me. It unifies characters in terms of resource managementIt allows characters to do something extraordinary but on a limited basis. Without it you end up with some pretty uniteresting classes (read fighter and rogue). And especially something like swashbucklers should have extraordinary, cinematic moments in game that have that 'wow' factor thats only really possible with a limited resource.

[magnuskn]

Well, the "Lucky" ability is limited resource, but otherwise the class I built can go on all day. I don't think not having a major limited use ability is bad design per se, otherwise we can just petition to discontinue the Fighter and Rogue classes. ^^

I agree with you that Paizo really has focused a lot on limited ability classes over the last years. Which really feels ironic, given that this heavily promotes the "15 minute workday" playstyle... which has gotten a lot of criticism by players.

[Robert Brookes]

Kolokotroni wrote:

I definately think some kind of pool system is a necessity. Pathfinder is pretty clearly moving toward that end for most classes. Every paizo created class has something like this.

Cavalier

Witch
Oracle
Antipaladin
Alchemist

A list of some "Paizo-created" classes that do not have a "pool" ability.

In fact only Monk, Ninja, Gunslinger and Magus do. That is less than half.

[Orthos]

Granted, each of those classes has something relatively similar. The Cavalier's Challenges, the Anti/Paladin's smites and ToC/LoH, the Alchemist's bombs, and the uses of the Oracle's mystery abilities are all limited to X uses per day, usually scaling with level. The Witch is the odd one out - their Hexes aren't limited use, but they can (usually) only target an individual target once a day.

The point I think that's being made is that, with the singular exceptions of the Rogue and Fighter and the oddball reversed mechanic of the Witch, every Paizo class has some ability(/ies) keyed off a limited resource, be it numbered uses of the individual ability or a pool of points that must be expended to pay for uses of various disparate abilities.

[AinvarG]

Zombie Ninja wrote:

Idea, why not a modified version of the gunslinger.

A grit like mechanic would fit a swashbuckler pretty well, plus good reflex and fort saves, full BAB and d10 HD, 4 skill points per level, and nimble all fit the what people are looking for well enough. Wouldn't an alternate class work well here, just change the gun out for a single handed finesse based weapon. Heck, use swashbuckler as the base class and use gunslinger as an archetype, gunslinger always seemed too specific to be a base class anyway.

I believe this has been done by SGG in all but name. My GM and I coordinated a swashbuckler-type modification from the original 'slinger concept. I like it so far (it hasn't been in play for many levels yet).

I would definitely be game to play Paizo's swashbuckler. I've played the 3pp class mentioned earlier and dropped it - even as the player that was benefiting from it, I couldn't convince myself that it was balanced. I would be willing to look at it again if they would revisit it in light of a more-developed PF ruleset, though.

[James Martin]

I would change Panache to Audacity. I love the word.

I really like your version Magnuskn. I would use that one!

[magnuskn]

Thanks, it went through a lot of revisions to get there. :)

[Robert Brookes]

Orthos wrote:

Granted, each of those classes has something relatively similar. The Cavalier's Challenges, the Anti/Paladin's smites and ToC/LoH, the Alchemist's bombs, and the uses of the Oracle's mystery abilities are all limited to X uses per day, usually scaling with level. The Witch is the odd one out - their Hexes aren't limited use, but they can (usually) only target an individual target once a day.

The point I think that's being made is that, with the singular exceptions of the Rogue and Fighter and the oddball reversed mechanic of the Witch, every Paizo class has some ability(/ies) keyed off a limited resource, be it numbered uses of the individual ability or a pool of points that must be expended to pay for uses of various disparate abilities.

A single ability with multiple uses per day is a totally different beast from a pool of "points" that can be used to fuel myriad separate powers. It's a type of diversity vs. specialization. If the paladin drew all of their Mercies/Smites from the same pool, it would be different. You have to balance things out in another fashion when you design towards one rather than the other.