| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Swashbucklers are not tough, they are agile. I don't remember Jack Sparrow ever taking a brutal beating and keep going. Wesley wasn't physically strong and couldn't take a severe punishment. Inigo was the same.
Err...ave you watched the Princess Bride? BOTH take a lickin' and keep on tickin', at least long enough to accomplish what they need to.
1.) Yes, the Swashbuckler having a bad Fort save is both baffling and cripples the class in many ways.It makes sense to me. When I think 'Swashbuckler', I don't think 'tough/sturdy' at all.I do. My image of a Swashbuckler is not some dandy who crumples over at the slightest shove or cries over his oh so painful hangnail.
Nor is it the big beefstick.
But I certainly see them as sturdy. Dartagnan, Jack Sparrow, Westley/Inigo, and so on.
They're not wimps. They're not going to give in just because someone gave them a little poison, or some monster got his claws in deep and it really hurts. They'll still fight through the pain if it kills them, even if they won't shrug it off like the berserker.
Having a lower Fortitude doesn't make you a physical pushover. Having a low Constitution would reflect this.
Swashbucklers are not tough, they are agile. I don't remember Jack Sparrow ever taking a brutal beating and keep going. Wesley wasn't physically strong and couldn't take a severe punishment. Indigo was the same. Errol Flynn is the perfect vision of a Swashbuckler. Swashbuckler's don't get hit, they do a dazzling display of swordplay and acrobatics to avoid getting hit.
Having low Fortitude makes perfect sense. If you want a higher Fortitude up your Constitution and take Great Fortitude.
The ironic thing is that all those examples are also examples of high CON and not a good Fort save.
Fort saves are used against poison, fatigue, diseases, death effects, etc; not brutal beating and the sort.
Exactly!
So exactly the things Dread Pirate Roberts did. You know. Drink poison, get tortured, stuff like that.
He didn't survive the torture and he only developed an "immunity" to that specific poison.
Fortitude not really playing much of a part in those two.
Okay, let's try a different approach.
Most swashbucklers can hold their drink. People with low fort saves generally can't.
Unless they are dwarven ex-miners (as the pickaxe is a piercing weapon).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So exactly the things Dread Pirate Roberts did. You know. Drink poison, get tortured, stuff like that.He didn't survive the torture and he only developed an "immunity" to that specific poison.
Fortitude not really playing much of a part in those two.
You know what I call that immunity? An ex post facto descriptor to a passed fortitude check.
You know what I call that immunity? An ex post facto descriptor to a passed fortitude check.So exactly the things Dread Pirate Roberts did. You know. Drink poison, get tortured, stuff like that.He didn't survive the torture and he only developed an "immunity" to that specific poison.
Fortitude not really playing much of a part in those two.
You could look at it that way, you could also look at it as rolling a natural 20 on his Fortitude save.
You could look at it that way, you could also look at it as rolling a natural 20 on his Fortitude save.You know what I call that immunity? An ex post facto descriptor to a passed fortitude check.So exactly the things Dread Pirate Roberts did. You know. Drink poison, get tortured, stuff like that.He didn't survive the torture and he only developed an "immunity" to that specific poison.
Fortitude not really playing much of a part in those two.
Because, clearly, he would choose to poison himself (with a low fort save) on the hope that he'd roll a natural 20, as opposed to just having a good fort save and relying that Vizzini did not.
Because, clearly, he would choose to poison himself (with a low fort save) on the hope that he'd roll a natural 20, as opposed to just having a good fort save and relying that Vizzini did not.You could look at it that way, you could also look at it as rolling a natural 20 on his Fortitude save.You know what I call that immunity? An ex post facto descriptor to a passed fortitude check.So exactly the things Dread Pirate Roberts did. You know. Drink poison, get tortured, stuff like that.He didn't survive the torture and he only developed an "immunity" to that specific poison.
Fortitude not really playing much of a part in those two.
Well you clearly can't develop an immunity to a poison by taking it over and over again. Also, passing a Fortitude save doesn't make you immune. Wesley clearly stated he built up an immunity to the poison.
In other words, it's a bad example overall.
As far as I understand it, alcohol doesn't care about Fort saves, just your Con.
Because, clearly, he would choose to poison himself (with a low fort save) on the hope that he'd roll a natural 20, as opposed to just having a good fort save and relying that Vizzini did not.You could look at it that way, you could also look at it as rolling a natural 20 on his Fortitude save.You know what I call that immunity? An ex post facto descriptor to a passed fortitude check.So exactly the things Dread Pirate Roberts did. You know. Drink poison, get tortured, stuff like that.He didn't survive the torture and he only developed an "immunity" to that specific poison.
Fortitude not really playing much of a part in those two.
Well you clearly can't develop an immunity to a poison by taking it over and over again. Also, passing a Fortitude save doesn't make you immune. Wesley clearly stated he built up an immunity to the poison.
In other words, it's a bad example overall.
That depends on the poison. Some poisons, the body develops antibodies against. Bee stings and snake venom are two things that are pretty common for people who deal with the animals regularly to have an immunity to.
That depends on the poison. Some poisons, the body develops antibodies against. Bee stings and snake venom are two things that are pretty common for people who deal with the animals regularly to have an immunity to.Because, clearly, he would choose to poison himself (with a low fort save) on the hope that he'd roll a natural 20, as opposed to just having a good fort save and relying that Vizzini did not.You could look at it that way, you could also look at it as rolling a natural 20 on his Fortitude save.You know what I call that immunity? An ex post facto descriptor to a passed fortitude check.So exactly the things Dread Pirate Roberts did. You know. Drink poison, get tortured, stuff like that.He didn't survive the torture and he only developed an "immunity" to that specific poison.
Fortitude not really playing much of a part in those two.
Well you clearly can't develop an immunity to a poison by taking it over and over again. Also, passing a Fortitude save doesn't make you immune. Wesley clearly stated he built up an immunity to the poison.
In other words, it's a bad example overall.
But that doesn't work in Pathfinder and that was the point.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But that doesn't work in Pathfinder and that was the point.That depends on the poison. Some poisons, the body develops antibodies against. Bee stings and snake venom are two things that are pretty common for people who deal with the animals regularly to have an immunity to.Because, clearly, he would choose to poison himself (with a low fort save) on the hope that he'd roll a natural 20, as opposed to just having a good fort save and relying that Vizzini did not.You could look at it that way, you could also look at it as rolling a natural 20 on his Fortitude save.You know what I call that immunity? An ex post facto descriptor to a passed fortitude check.So exactly the things Dread Pirate Roberts did. You know. Drink poison, get tortured, stuff like that.He didn't survive the torture and he only developed an "immunity" to that specific poison.
Fortitude not really playing much of a part in those two.
Well you clearly can't develop an immunity to a poison by taking it over and over again. Also, passing a Fortitude save doesn't make you immune. Wesley clearly stated he built up an immunity to the poison.
In other words, it's a bad example overall.
Actually...Alchemists gradually develop immunity to poison, as do Druids. So maybe it does work that way if you put in the right kind of effort.
Clearly, with Wesley and Oberyn Martell as examples, we need a poisoner Swashbuckler Archetype who gradually gets Poison Immunity. That sounds really cool, actually.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled pointless argument.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned how incredibly MAD the bloodrager is! I played the lvl 3 pregen on free rpg day and at level 3 a straight barbarian would have been better in every way.
The war priest was stronger, hit more frequently and harder. The bloodrager was greatly handicapped by its need for a high charisma which at lvl 3 at least provided no benefit and left the "rager" with a 14 str.
Erm...why does the Bloodrager need a high Cha exactly?
The only benefit he gets from Cha is spells. He needs a max of 14 by level 13 to cast all his spell levels.
His Bloodrage and all his Bloodline abilities are based off Con.
A 20 PB 16 14 14 10 10 10 is acceptable if you don't want to drop Int. If you do, 16 14 14 8 10 12 or 16 14 14 7 12 12 or something is just fine.
Does the Bloodrager get full CL progression, or is he CL -3 like the paladin?
Like the Paladin.
Ouch!
Eh, casting isn't the main focus at all. It's just an extra.
You get full BaB, Rage, and a bunch of nifty Bloodline abilities. Including an option for free size increases, increased Reach on its own, and free Haste or Displacement when you Rage.
Seems like having the casting be not so great isn't a huge deal.
Erm...why does the Bloodrager need a high Cha exactly?
The only benefit he gets from Cha is spells. He needs a max of 14 by level 13 to cast all his spell levels.
His Bloodrage and all his Bloodline abilities are based off Con.
A 20 PB 16 14 14 10 10 10 is acceptable if you don't want to drop Int. If you do, 16 14 14 8 10 12 or 16 14 14 7 12 12 or something is just fine.
Perhaps this is more of a pregen issue as the pre gen chose to have a cha of 16 and str of 14 but lets see.
Barbarians already need
1. high strength you know for hitting stuff and high damage
2. high dex because they are light armored front line fighters
3. high con for hit points because of number 2 above
4. Int: not needed but beneficial for skills
5. Wis: 10 or better because they already need help on will saves
6. Cha: only absolutely un-needed ability
but now as a bloodrager you need to put points into charisma too the one for sure dump stat.
so that is what I mean.
A little extra MADness for a little extra utility. Doesn't really impact anything, IMO.
You can even dump Cha all the way to 8 or 9 if you pick a race with a Cha bonus, like an Angel Blooded Aasimar.
And a pre-gen being ridiculously unoptimized is nothing new.
Also since when are Barbarians light armored?
They have Medium armor proficiency, you know. Just because it ain't Full Plate doesn't mean it's "light".
Like the Paladin.
i remember them saying they were going to do full caster level.
Very well "lighter armored" than many front line fighters such that dex is more often gets more attention.
|
My take, based on the PDF and our current group's experience:
Arcanist - Probably OP and will need some nerfing to function.
Bloodrager - High Tier 3 or low Tier 2, normally. Depending on the bloodline it can just get stupidly powerful.
Brawler - The initial version of this SUCKED. 3/4 BAB and a crappy Will save? Ugh. Seems greatly improved, and I would probably take it over a Monk any day . . . but that's not saying a lot.
Hunter - So you give up 9th level casting, nerf Wild Shape, and in exchange you get . . . 3/4 BAB and the same Animal Companion you had as a Druid? So what exactly do they get from the "Ranger" side? No full BAB, no Favored Enemy, no Favored Terrain? They get the Ref save!... but give up the Druid's far-superior Will save for it. Just . . . WTF is this? This whole class seems like patchwork houserules a petty GM would make to spite Druid players or make you pay attention to Teamwork feats. The only conceivable way you could justify playing this class is if your GM bans Druids for being too powerful.
Investigator - Haven't played it, but it seems like the perfect fit if you want a more low-magic flavor Bard.
Shaman - I'm actually very excited to try this out. Oracles for the Cursed-Averse. Looks like it has a lot of potential power but is kept in check by limiting the hexes to themes.
Skald - I love combat Bards. I love this. Oddly, even though it's more combat oriented, some things actually make it even better out-of-combat than a vanilla Bard (Scribe Scroll for free, for instance) and I think somebody mentioned they'll be getting the Versatile Performance class ability - which benefits a 4+Int skills class even more than the Bard's 6+.
Slayer - The second nail in the Rogue's coffin. You want a skills rogue? Play an Investigator? You want a deadly rogue? Play a Slayer. You want a panache fighter Rogue? Play a -
Swashbuckler - see above. I'm sort of back and forth on the Fort save myself (if both parent classes have it, why wouldn't it be inherited?), but it would've been nice (since the class is a cross of Gunslinger/Fighter) if they could have found a way to include mechanics for a viable Sword-and-Pistol user. Or Sword-and-Hand-Crossbow if you prefer.
Warpriest - I understand they've made some minor changes to the class aside from what I'm familiar with. No more full-BAB with their Focus Weapons, but they also dropped any CHA requirements. If any class could've used a nerf (aside from Arcanist) it was probably this one - full BAB with even 6 levels of the Cleric's combat-focused spell list makes for some short fights.
Eh, casting isn't the main focus at all. It's just an extra.
You get full BaB, Rage, and a bunch of nifty Bloodline abilities. Including an option for free size increases, increased Reach on its own, and free Haste or Displacement when you Rage.
Seems like having the casting be not so great isn't a huge deal.
Low CL combined with a spell list full of blasting spells strikes me as a little counter-intuitive, but I guess you can focus on using buff spells instead. Guess I'll wait and see.
But that doesn't work in Pathfinder and that was the point.That depends on the poison. Some poisons, the body develops antibodies against. Bee stings and snake venom are two things that are pretty common for people who deal with the animals regularly to have an immunity to.Because, clearly, he would choose to poison himself (with a low fort save) on the hope that he'd roll a natural 20, as opposed to just having a good fort save and relying that Vizzini did not.You could look at it that way, you could also look at it as rolling a natural 20 on his Fortitude save.You know what I call that immunity? An ex post facto descriptor to a passed fortitude check.So exactly the things Dread Pirate Roberts did. You know. Drink poison, get tortured, stuff like that.He didn't survive the torture and he only developed an "immunity" to that specific poison.
Fortitude not really playing much of a part in those two.
Well you clearly can't develop an immunity to a poison by taking it over and over again. Also, passing a Fortitude save doesn't make you immune. Wesley clearly stated he built up an immunity to the poison.
In other words, it's a bad example overall.
Actually...Alchemists gradually develop immunity to poison, as do Druids. So maybe it does work that way if you put in the right kind of effort.
Clearly, with Wesley and Oberyn Martell as examples, we need a poisoner Swashbuckler Archetype who gradually gets Poison Immunity. That sounds really cool, actually.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled pointless argument.
That's great an all but still has nothing to with Fortitude, it's a class feature.
You don't ever develop an immunity from continuously passing Fortitude saves.
They're revamping the spell list.
Very well "lighter armored" than many front line fighters such that dex is more often gets more attention.
They're more heavily armored than the majority of frontliners. Especially when you factor in Natural Armor and DR mitigating the need for armor.
Swashbuckler - see above. I'm sort of back and forth on the Fort save myself (if both parent classes have it, why wouldn't it be inherited?), but it would've been nice (since the class is a cross of Gunslinger/Fighter) if they could have found a way to include mechanics for a viable Sword-and-Pistol user. Or Sword-and-Hand-Crossbow if you prefer.
I'm almost certain this will be one of the first archetypes for this class, either in the book itself, or soon after. It's just too entwined in the flavor of swashbuckling for it not to happen.
They said way back in Playtest 1 that there would be an archetype to support that. They just didn't want to include guns in the base class.
|
|
That's great an all but still has nothing to with Fortitude, it's a class feature.
You don't ever develop an immunity from continuously passing Fortitude saves.
It was a side note, not actual participation in the argument. I'm not interested in participating in the main argument in question, which strikes me as one of the most pointless I've run into, since it's arguing whether a mechanical concept is thematically appropriate (a deeply subjective topic, and thus one where consensus verges on impossible), and is too late to even have an impact on anything.
It's funny that folks keep referencing Westly's resistance to poison, and how it should be "built into the class", when it's obvious all he did was take Great Fortitude ;)
|
|
I agree it's subjective, but the topic of the thread is whether the ACG classes will be awesome. The swashbuckler (imo) looks awesome, but the will and fort saves will affect how awesome. It is likely players will have to invest in Great Fortitude Iron Will by level 5 or 7, so will save is an appropriate topic for whether ACG classes will be awesome.
See, that argument I'd participate in...but people aren't arguing whether they need the mechanics to be effective, they're arguing whether the mechanics are thematically necessary...and that's just so very pointless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does the Bloodrager get full CL progression, or is he CL -3 like the paladin?
I do believe he gets full progression. His spells text lack the phrase and when inquiring minds asked the devs did indeed say he gets full progression.
It's funny that folks keep referencing Westly's resistance to poison, and how it should be "built into the class", when it's obvious all he did was take Great Fortitude ;)
He does say he's spent years building up an immunity to one specific poison - sounds like a background story trait to me.
I still wish swashbucklers get two strong saves instead of one super strong reflex save though.
Does the Bloodrager get full CL progression, or is he CL -3 like the paladin?I do believe he gets full progression. His spells text lack the phrase and when inquiring minds asked the devs did indeed say he gets full progression.
Ah, great! I hope so. I didn't really have the time to follow the bloodrager play test, so I dont really know what the stress points were/are. Glancing over the PDF it looks interesting, if a little bland?
Well my friend played one and totally loved it. Its a more self reliant martial with options for when you cant smash.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People did that, for both playtests. I ran one myself at 7th.
There were a few encounters we ran through, meant to test various things. Swashbuckler did poor on 2/3.
First was a simple "Race to get this one thing" test.
Swashbuckler did well on the "getting to the thing" test, easily leaping a gap in the bridge, retrieving the item, and attempting to get back
Unfortunately it was guarded by an Erinyes. Fear was the encounter ender for my Swashbuckler, though we eventually triumphed because the rest of the party did better.
The second was an exploration of a house (the Investigator rocked all that), culminating in a fight with a Mohrg.
Brawler and Investigator handled it pretty well. Swashbuckler got in a good hit, and then was Paralyzed.
The third was a more straight up fight against enemies with few special powers. Everybody did well there, Swashbuckler most of all (it can get some pretty impressive damage output).
It's a fun class but the lack of a good Fort or Will is crippling since those are the majority of saves in most campaigns. More creatures and abilities trigger those two saves than Reflex, and Reflex is generally "Save to avoid some damage" whereas Fort or Will are "Save to avoid being out of the fight".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The swashbuckler's saves have been a topic of discussion for awhile now. If anyone has the time and interest it might be worth running levels 9-12 of an AP or The Emerald Spire and counting the number of fort and will saves a swashbuckler faces.
If you dig out the playtest threads I kinda wrote a novel about the issues I had putting several swashbuckler builds through Rise of the Runelords. Chapter 2 really just murdered the hell out of every single one.
But again, hopefully they've been tweaked since.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is the problem I'm seeing. D&D has always been a team game where every character helped each other to cover any weaknesses. Couldn't fly, well the Wizard made you fly. Needed a boost in an ability, one of the spellcasters gives you a buff. Some people are trying their best t9 make classes self sufficient, almost like it's a shame to ask help from others or god forbid you have to divert options to cover the weakness.
Some people are just looking to have a class set up where they can totally optimize it.
Strong Fort and Will don't fit the Swashbuckler concept.
I love roleplaying the s%~@ out of a character as much as the next guy. But if your classes base save is something that makes or breaks your roleplaying, I think you are looking too hard at the character sheet and not enough at the game you are playing.
It would be like doubling or halving a Rogue's Sneak Attack. In no way should that be influenced too much by thematics. Numerical bonuses and other mechanical benefits should have their quantities based in 95% balance, 5% theme.