Well, we know how the Gunslinger looks, which is very different from the Fighter, so that's that.
How is it different from the fighter, conceptually, other than the fact that it uses guns?
It uses a pool of points to perform special attacks, contrasted with the fighter's mostly always-on or at-will abilities, but once you take away the guns, it seems to me that what the class represents is mostly indistinguishable from what the fighter represents.
Where do you feel is the difference?
Well, by that standard you can also say that the Paladin and Ranger are just disguised Fighters. Gunslinger has variable abilities and a pool system, oh and Dexterity to damage. Ranger has variable feats, spells and an animal companion and a second good save, but conceptually it also has class levels and a full attack bonus.
|
Well, we know how the Gunslinger looks, which is very different from the Fighter, so that's that.How is it different from the fighter, conceptually, other than the fact that it uses guns?
It uses a pool of points to perform special attacks, contrasted with the fighter's mostly always-on or at-will abilities, but once you take away the guns, it seems to me that what the class represents is mostly indistinguishable from what the fighter represents.
Where do you feel is the difference?
That aforementioned pool.
There is a lot of potential in what can be done with that for a melee martial character, greatly expanding such a character's options.*
Having it be something that can replenish in-battle through daring actions seems like it would help feed into the playstyle one probably imagines when hearing "swashbuckler". Could also see this going itno battlefield control territory too.
*I'm finding myself wondering about monks working this way lately...
You know, there's preciously little conceptual difference between Ranger , Barbarian and Fighter either. Or between Sorcerer and Wizard. Or between Cleric and Druid.
True, and yet even so it's a lot more than between a person whose primary skill is fighting with guns and a character of the fighter class who uses guns. And all those classes are included and differentiated for legacy issues as well, not just because they're such strong concepts.
Combining a fighter and a fighter-with-guns but without guns is an even weaker concept, and there's no legacy pressure. I can only conclude that the designers want to play with significantly different fighter mechanics (something like the gunslingers grit points, i.e. some sort of expendable encounter/daily resource), which makes me think they're chafing under the limitations of the current core fighter mechanics, is all I'm saying.
Well, by that standard you can also say that the Paladin and Ranger are just disguised Fighters. Gunslinger has variable abilities and a pool system, oh and Dexterity to damage. Ranger has variable feats, spells and an animal companion and a second good save, but conceptually it also has class levels and a full attack bonus.
You seem to be using "conceptually" a lot differently than I meant it. Mikaze, you're missing my point as well, when you say that the essential difference between the fighter and the gunslinger (or, presumably, the upcoming swashbuckler) is the point pool.
When I say "conceptually", I mean in inspiration, idea, what the class is meant to represent. The fighter is the purest warrior. The ranger is the cunning woodsy guide. The gunslinger is the gun warrior (in a world where guns are rare, that's enough to distinguish it from a warrior in general).
But when you take away the guns from "gun warrior" and combine it with "pure warrior" you don't get a new idea (the way you do when the magus combines the warrior and the mage), you just get: warrior. A new class does give you the option to implement the (old!) concept using new, significantly different mechanics, say, Dexterity to damage, or pool of points vs. always-on abilities... these are differences in implementation, not concept.
And when the designers are more interested in implementing the existing concepts anew than using existing implementations to represent new concepts, that means that the existing implementations are starting to show their age.
Yeah, maybe the point is being missed by you, not three other veterans of this board. ^^
Yeah, maybe the point is being missed by you, not three other veterans of this board. ^^
That's very dismissive! Do we defer to seniority here? If so, take into account that I've been on the boards longer than you.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, by that standard you can also say that the Paladin and Ranger are just disguised Fighters. Gunslinger has variable abilities and a pool system, oh and Dexterity to damage. Ranger has variable feats, spells and an animal companion and a second good save, but conceptually it also has class levels and a full attack bonus.You seem to be using "conceptually" a lot differently than I meant it. Mikaze, you're missing my point as well, when you say that the essential difference between the fighter and the gunslinger (or, presumably, the upcoming swashbuckler) is the point pool.
When I say "conceptually", I mean in inspiration, idea, what the class is meant to represent. The fighter is the purest warrior. The ranger is the cunning woodsy guide. The gunslinger is the gun warrior (in a world where guns are rare, that's enough to distinguish it from a warrior in general).
But when you take away the guns from "gun warrior" and combine it with "pure warrior" you don't get a new idea (the way you do when the magus combines the warrior and the mage), you just get: warrior. A new class does give you the option to implement the (old!) concept using new, significantly different mechanics, say, Dexterity to damage, or pool of points vs. always-on abilities... these are differences in implementation, not concept.
And when the designers are more interested in implementing the existing concepts anew than using existing implementations to represent new concepts, that means that the existing implementations are starting to show their age.
You mean the Fighty Person, Casty Person and Skilled Person concepts of Gygax are showing their age? Well, they do. Does anybody care, really? I mean, when I'm rolling a Gunslinger my concerns are whether the crunch and fluff will connect and if I'm going to have a good time playing the PC. I'm not musing about whether the fact that the "Gunslinger" as sociocultural concept of divergence from the "Fighter" as a sociocultural concept concept of x=4 where 4, according to Jensen (2009, p. 254) is a low divergence contrasted with the fact that mathematical divergence in game mechanics across Fighter and Gunslinger classes indicates grade D on Thormis-Honecker scale (2010b, p. 22) which indicates high divergence is or is not an indication that a new edition of Pathfinder is around the corner or that the Fighter class design is outdated or that my pizza is getting cold.
Yes, I made the quotations up.
You mean the Fighty Person, Casty Person and Skilled Person concepts of Gygax are showing their age? Well, they do. Does anybody care, really? I mean, when I'm rolling a Gunslinger my concerns are whether the crunch and fluff will connect and if I'm going to have a good time playing the PC. I'm not musing about whether the fact that the "Gunslinger" as sociocultural concept of divergence from the "Fighter" as a sociocultural concept concept of x=4 where 4, according to Jensen (2009, p. 254) is a low divergence contrasted with the fact that mathematical divergence in game mechanics across Fighter and Gunslinger classes indicates grade D on Thormis-Honecker scale (2010b, p. 22) which indicates high divergence is or is not an indication that a new edition of Pathfinder is around the corner or that the Fighter class design is outdated or that my pizza is getting cold.
... what?
magnuskn is right, I'm totally failing to see your point here.
|
But when you take away the guns from "gun warrior" and combine it with "pure warrior" you don't get a new idea (the way you do when the magus combines the warrior and the mage), you just get: warrior. A new class does give you the option to implement the (old!) concept using new, significantly different mechanics, say, Dexterity to damage, or pool of points vs. always-on abilities... these are differences in implementation, not concept.
And when the designers are more interested in implementing the existing concepts anew than using existing implementations to represent new concepts, that means that the existing implementations are starting to show their age.
I wouldn't call a fighter a pure warrior, it would be like calling a cleric a pure priest, implying the druid wasn't really a priest at all. I would call a fighter a arms master, since that's what their class abilities and archetypes seem to suggest. Comparatively the barbarian is a warrior of pure rage/bestial instincts, likewise the ranger is a warrior with heavy survival/woodland knowledge, and a paladin is a warrior of faith. I agree that a gunsligner seems to be a weapons (gun) master (something a fighter already covers), but I also play it fast and lose to what I think a class is or should be. So I don't personally have an issue with a gunsligner character class. Of course I also don't believe in rules bloat, so take my definition of fighter with a grain of salt. The game designers very likely have another definition, separate from yours and mine. Ask ten people what a fighter is and you'll get ten different responses.
So I don't personally have an issue with a gunsligner character class.
I don't have an issue with the gunslinger either. In a world with few guns, such as most PF/D&D worlds, it's a strong enough concept to stand on its own, and with rules support for guns as thin as it is by default, it's very useful mechanically for someone who wants to use guns.
I don't have an issue with the swashbuckler as announced either, even though I think it retreads the same conceptual ground as the fighter. I'm still interested in what they do with it mechanically; the fighter as it is hardly a comprehensive implementation that satisfies everyone!
I'm just saying that retreading the same conceptual ground as the fighter in itself, regardless of whether the results are good or for bad, is a sign of edition fatigue.
And I'm not saying that edition fatigue is good or bad either; that also depends on the results: we might get a crappy new edition, a great new edition, bloated and convoluted rules as designers are forced to shoehorn their new ideas into the existing edition's framework, a slowing down of output as designers run out of ideas that can be satisfyingly implemented within the existing edition's framework... and even between those options, different people might prefer different things.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just saying that retreading the same conceptual ground as the fighter in itself, regardless of whether the results are good or for bad, is a sign of edition fatigue (and I'm not saying that edition fatigue is good or bad either; that also depends on the results).
By that logic, there's edition fatigue since day one, because Sorcerer is a conceptual retread of Wizard. At this point you'll say "yeah but Sorcerers exist because of tradition" which actually isn't true. Sorcerers exist because people wanted a class that's conceptually the same (casty person with no armor and arcane spells) but *mechanically* different.
And Advanced Class Guide is, from what we see so far, all about covering existing concepts (it's not like you couldn't play a Swashbuckler using a Fgt/Rog, Ranger or a Duelist) using mechanics that allow them to be played as a single class and not multiclass/PrC combos.
People want a Swashbuckler that isn't an awkward. Jason comes around and says "hey, I think Swashbuckler is a guy who does awesome things X times per day. Now do we have a class that does that already? Well, yeah, casters, but people want a mundane Swashbuckler, not Arcane Trickster 2.0. So how about Fighter or Cavalier ... no, these two are about doing pretty much the same thing all day without expending resources. Hey, Gunslinger's grit! That's the idea".
Yeah, maybe the point is being missed by you, not three other veterans of this board. ^^That's very dismissive! Do we defer to seniority here? If so, take into account that I've been on the boards longer than you.
No, my point is that if several people who have been part of discussions here way more than you (although grantedly not as long in my part, I only have about 17 times more posts than you), they might have had this kind of discussion before and it always boils down to "I don't like this concept, because of reasons". The Gunslingers concept is fine and I personally think it is distinct enough with its unique abilities to distinguish it from the Fighter. It also is an unbalanced piece of crap, but that's another discussion. ^^
No, my point is that if several people who have been part of discussions here way more than you (although grantedly not as long in my part, I only have about 17 times more posts than you),
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/4608/postcountwe8.jpg
You seem to think your post count allows you to dismiss me without addressing my points, making further discussion with you useless for me.
And thanks for ignoring the rest of the post. So good that your arguments are also so persuasive.
the Hunter class doesn't seem to suggest much in the way of wildshaping :( I really want another class that gets wildshape! I don't care for 9th level spells or any spells at all!
By that logic, there's edition fatigue since day one, because Sorcerer is a conceptual retread of Wizard. At this point you'll say "yeah but Sorcerers exist because of tradition" which actually isn't true. Sorcerers exist because people wanted a class that's conceptually the same (casty person with no armor and arcane spells) but *mechanically* different.
Sorcerers in Pathfinder exist because of tradition, they're a legacy of 3E, and they were introduced during an edition change. That's exactly what I'm saying, fundamental mechanical changes for the same basic concept mostly come during an edition change, with the new mechanics first being tentatively explored towards the end of the old edition.
People want a Swashbuckler that isn't an awkward. Jason comes around and says "hey, I think Swashbuckler is a guy who does awesome things X times per day. Now do we have a class that does that already? Well, yeah, casters, but people want a mundane Swashbuckler, not Arcane Trickster 2.0. So how about Fighter or Cavalier ... no, these two are about doing pretty much the same thing all day without expending resources. Hey, Gunslinger's grit! That's the idea".
Sure, I imagine something like that was the train of thought.
People have been clamoring for a swashbuckler for ages. This game is not kind to light armored single handed weapon characters. At all. Feats and archetypes are bandaids on this problem, when really it needs surgery.
Is it a different type of fighter? Yea, in some sense.
But it's what people have wanted for a long time. It's not a sign if weakness, but of being in tune with their customers.
|
People have been clamoring for a swashbuckler for ages. This game is not kind to light armored single handed weapon characters. At all. Feats and archetypes are bandaids on this problem, when really it needs surgery.
Is it a different type of fighter? Yea, in some sense.
But it's what people have wanted for a long time. It's not a sign if weakness, but of being in tune with their customers.
Exactly!
People have been clamoring for a swashbuckler for ages. This game is not kind to light armored single handed weapon characters. At all. Feats and archetypes are bandaids on this problem, when really it needs surgery.
But surgery is often difficult to perform within the constraints of the current edition.
Is it a different type of fighter? Yea, in some sense.
But it's what people have wanted for a long time. It's not a sign if weakness, but of being in tune with their customers.
Sure. It's not a sign of the designers' weakness, it's a sign their ideas straining within the limitations of the current system.
|
|
So, I am taking my time typing this out so there is a good chance I will miss some point or other.
I agree that seniority does not indicate importance. I do find two other things worth mentioning, in that area. One, is of all of the people posting in response to you, I see no one in agreement. The other item I find interesting. I can honestly say this is the first time I have ever seen, Gorbacz, Magnuskn,and myself in agreement about anything on these messageboards, at least in a discussion of rules, etc. None of that is to dismiss your posts, merely to point out somehting I consider it worthy of note.
Wild West movies:
If I were to find a Fighter in a Wild West movie I would expect it would be a bar brawler, who uses his fists first. Sure he can shoot, but he will find himself most at home in a fist fight.
Gunslinger vs. Fighter conceptually:
In broad strokes, a Fighter is a student of war and the ways of battle. He has dedicated his life to learning about weapons and armor and how to use them to best advantage. Whether he specializes in a tight group or gains a broad understanding of many styles he is always learning about the tools of his trade.
I see a Gunslinger as more a seat of his pants, off the cuff warrior. Certainly he, over time, becomes more familiar with his guns and how best to use them, but his knowledge is more the knowledge gained through use. His success in battle is driven by luck, perseverance, and style more than skill.
Again that is all broad strokes.
EDIT: fixed spelling of name.
People have been clamoring for a swashbuckler for ages. This game is not kind to light armored single handed weapon characters. At all. Feats and archetypes are bandaids on this problem, when really it needs surgery.But surgery is often difficult to perform within the constraints of the current edition.
Guess we'll see in the playtest if it's possible.
Exactly! And in that the magus is quite unlike the swashbuckler, arcanist, hunter, or slayer. Unlike those, the magus combines two radically different character types, both mechanically and, more importantly, conceptually.
I feel that they are different concepts. The fighter is a master of weaponry. All weaponry. He is also a master of armor. The concept of Swashbuckler or Duelist differs in those areas. Mostly a master of a single weapon, and not utilizing heavy or likely even medium armor. Feats and abilities that the fighter gets, like heavy armor proficiency and armor mastery, to me are superfluous to the concept. I see a Swashbuckler/Duelist type being as different from the tin can with sharp things the Fighter is conceptually modeled on as the Ranger. The Magus had to have new mechanics created for the concept to work in a reasonable way. I feel that will likely be the case with a class like the Swashbuckler because the current rules don't lend themselves well to the lightly armed and armored heavy melee type.
How is a movie gunslinger different from a PF/D&D fighter, once you account for the differences in setting? Both are the primary, purest warriors of their setting. What more is there to the archetypes, and what are the differences?
Lack of heavy (or in most case ANY armor), making armor feats and abilities superfluous. Emphasis on ranged weaponry, with very little or no melee weaponry. If what you are getting at is that they both fight good, then there are a whole lot of core classes that fall into the same category, including the Magus.
I hope that helped clear up my position on the matter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Things that the Swashbuckler will probably get from the gunslinger:
>More Skill Points
>More social class skills
>No heavy armor
>Grit or something similar to allow feats of derring-do
>Good Ref save
|
Nearly 500 posts and we still don't have the other classes. I have read some great stuff here but I am really sick of not actually getting any more news. As someone who feels most classes are beneath my time playing, as someone who deeply miss the chance to play many 3.5 classes and subsystems, which are banned in society play and often by Paizo fanboys. Idesperately want these new classes. I highly suspect I will once again consider most.of them beneith my.time to play but I am sick and tired of playing several diffent styles of summoners and several multiclassed alchemists. The alcs are not even good enough for me to solo class, I.do not play them without adding another class.
I.cannot express how much I want actual news on tnis front nit just a bunch.of us BSing. I wad so desperate for the.play tests to begin, but now just even hearing the last extra classes would at least be some real news.
Looking for news of another type, anyone know what paizo's stance on making new classes, and subsystems of alternate power sources are. I am talking about making new classes like the apg, really new, not just mix ans matching like this acg sounds like? I know they seem to be interested in doing psychic magic but seem glued to the vancian/sorcery spell slot system. Anyone know if they ever plan to spread out again? I am talking about alternate systems.like magic of Incarnum, Book if 9 Swords, Psionics. It seems like theybare determined to stY awY from a.point system of Psionics even if they did a great job with arcane pool and ki, maybe grit. I have never noticed much of anything regarding words of power, performance combat or armor by piece. Is it just cause they are shut off from society play that I see nothing about them or are those rules treated like step children?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looking for Jews of another type,
Wait... what?
I wonder if a Paladin style arcane melee class would be viable. Not Magus but like a specialist illusion/melee fighter? Gain spells at lvl 4 and unique bonuses to replace lay on hands/smite?
I think that's a very cool concept! When you think warrior-mage in D&D, you think Evocation, and Transmutation probably works best.
But over time, we got some awesome 3E Illusion spells that show the direction in which this could go: bladeweave (daze people with hypnotic swordsmanship), swift invisibility (disappear, move into position, and attach unexpectedly, all in a single round), that one which creates a touch-attacking shadow weapon...
What would you like to see in a class like that?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The basic idea I have is he's a Martial warrior who had just enough of a talent in magic to study it early on and eventually starts to intergrate arcane special effects into his attacks until later unlocking spells.
So they would get something like a bonded arcane item(signature weapon/armor). UMD and a limited general pool of spells. And much like the Wizard Schools the Mystic Blade (for lack of name for them) would develop a pool of speciality spells for their path focus over time.
So they would get something like Counter Spell Parry using their Arcane pool they would develop at 2nd level. Replacing Lay on Hands like ability. They would also get an Arcane Strike allowing them to bypass most forms of DR but instead of extra damage like a Paladin they lay on a status effect based on their path. Daze for Evocation, Sicken for Transmutation, etc.
So you could have Illusionary Blade Path get something like Mirror Image X times a day useable on self. Death Blade would get a Chill Cut like attack that they could apply to their weapon, etc.
Add in free Arcane Armor training.
Their Archtypes would be either uberspecializations in their paths. Like a Shadow Dancer meets Illusionist combo archtype that gives up armor for better dex and sneaky shadow step. Or a Evoker class that gets something like the elemental enhancement they get for sacrifing X evocation spells. OR a focus more on their martial training. Uber armor sub type who gives up a lot of of the counter spell gimmicks. Or a Gunner type who get a longer counter magic effect. Etc.
They would NOT get the magus spell strike or easy meta magic effects. The Magus would be more like a extreme specialist. These guys would be dabblers in magic and melee experts first.
|
|
That was suppose to be news, not jews. I hate the touch screen keyboard. I know it is calibrated and it still often messes up.
I edited Jews to news before someone makes an antisemitic claim. I started with some others and stopped for how sick I am of not just typing but how terrible other aspects of this phone typing interface is. Like deleting others parts where the cursor is nowhere near.
|
|
I wonder if a Paladin style arcane melee class would be viable. Gain spells at lvl 4 and unique bonuses to replace lay on hands/smite?
It sounds like you are describing something very much like THIS :)
|
|
I wonder if a Paladin style arcane melee class would be viable. Gain spells at lvl 4 and unique bonuses to replace lay on hands/smite?It sounds like you are describing something very much like THIS :)
Don't take this wrong way, but I rarely if every touch 3pp products. I'm one of those folks that rarely allows it at my table unless there is going to be some form of core support for it. But eh, I'll give it a look it looks interesting.
(Too many bad memories of the bad old days of early d20, especially FFG and Scarred Lands stuff.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(Too many bad memories of the bad old days of early d20, especially FFG and Scarred Lands stuff.)
I HEARTILY advise you to give 3pp a second chance with Pathfinder. You'll find that a LOT of the market has really, really changed as far as the quality of secondary products.
Really, if you want a quick no-holds-barred advisory regarding what's good and what's crap, follow Endzeitgeist around. The guy is a 3pp review-writing machine, and his commentary is almost always accurate and unbiased. If he says it's good and balanced, you can pretty much bet it is.
There are a few other reviewers out there who do equally good work, but End just does so much of it that he's usually the go-to guy for if I'm curious how a product looks on the table.
Customer Service Dire Care Bear Manager
|
I.cannot express how much I want actual news on tnis front
Official news and product related announcements (including playtests) are generally found on the Paizo Blog, and will be available as the release date gets closer.
Occasionally the developers, designers or editors might discuss things that will be appear in a particular future releases in that product's "product discussion thread" on the product's page. Currently this project is far enough out that it doesn't yet have a product page.
Thank you for your continued patience!
I.cannot express how much I want actual news on tnis frontOfficial news and product related announcements (including playtests) are generally found on the Paizo Blog, and will be available as the release date gets closer.
Occasionally the developers, designers or editors might discuss things that will be appear in a particular future releases in that product's "product discussion thread" on the product's page. Currently this project is far enough out that it doesn't yet have a product page.
Thank you for your continued patience!
thank you for handling the dire carebears. those dire hugs can be annoying.
I wonder if a Paladin style arcane melee class would be viable. Gain spells at lvl 4 and unique bonuses to replace lay on hands/smite?It sounds like you are describing something very much like THIS :)Don't take this wrong way, but I rarely if every touch 3pp products. I'm one of those folks that rarely allows it at my table unless there is going to be some form of core support for it. But eh, I'll give it a look it looks interesting.
(Too many bad memories of the bad old days of early d20, especially FFG and Scarred Lands stuff.)
I would say bite your tongue clean off, but I have to account for people having different tastes.
More seriously, I loved me some Scarred Lands. And DragonStar was one of my favorite settings of all time. Calling it the Bad Old Days incites unneeded nerd rage, and I've not got a dip in Edition Warrior to benefit from it. :(
thank you for handling the dire carebears. those dire hugs can be annoying.No, No. I am a dire carebear, who happens to be the CS manager ;)
*backs away slowly*
I.cannot express how much I want actual news on tnis frontOfficial news and product related announcements (including playtests) are generally found on the Paizo Blog, and will be available as the release date gets closer.
Occasionally the developers, designers or editors might discuss things that will be appear in a particular future releases in that product's "product discussion thread" on the product's page. Currently this project is far enough out that it doesn't yet have a product page.
Thank you for your continued patience!
Hmmm, so what I get out of this is "more news probably very much later, playtest start at the soonest at the very last definition of fall, if at all." ^^
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, we know how the Gunslinger looks, which is very different from the Fighter, so that's that.How is it different from the fighter, conceptually, other than the fact that it uses guns?
It uses a pool of points to perform special attacks, contrasted with the fighter's mostly always-on or at-will abilities, but once you take away the guns, it seems to me that what the class represents is mostly indistinguishable from what the fighter represents.
Where do you feel is the difference?
Well, doesn't the same apply to barbarians once you take away their rage?
People have been clamoring for a swashbuckler for ages. This game is not kind to light armored single handed weapon characters. At all. Feats and archetypes are bandaids on this problem, when really it needs surgery.
Is it a different type of fighter? Yea, in some sense.
But it's what people have wanted for a long time. It's not a sign if weakness, but of being in tune with their customers.
(Emphasis mine)
While I agree that the swashbuckler concept could be better represented as a base class, I really don't think the bolded section is remotely true. We got the agile weapon property, a few archetypes, the duelist, Aldori Swordlord, Deflect Arrows and Crane Style (all style feats, really), the magus, dervish dance, and other features helping lightly armored single weapon users out. There isn't a lack of options for them at all, and it's a very competitive fighting style.
People have been clamoring for a swashbuckler for ages. This game is not kind to light armored single handed weapon characters. At all. Feats and archetypes are bandaids on this problem, when really it needs surgery.
Is it a different type of fighter? Yea, in some sense.
But it's what people have wanted for a long time. It's not a sign if weakness, but of being in tune with their customers.
(Emphasis mine)
While I agree that the swashbuckler concept could be better represented as a base class, I really don't think the bolded section is remotely true. We got the agile weapon property, a few archetypes, the duelist, Aldori Swordlord, Deflect Arrows and Crane Style (all style feats, really), the magus, dervish dance, and other features helping lightly armored single weapon users out. There isn't a lack of options for them at all, and it's a very competitive fighting style.
The main things that you've listed are found in the Campaign Setting rules, not the Core Rules. A lot of people play the game without any knowledge of those rules.
The magus is a magical class, and that's not really what people think of when they think swashbuckler. It's almost always non-magical, so that's what they want.