Well they get nearly exclusive use of Dex to damage, so there's something. A free vital strike with benefits would have been nice though.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because Paizo did the Swashbuckler wrong on many accounts and this is one of them
Brawlers get pounce?!
Funny thing is, the Monk has Finally came into its own as a mobile fighter now xD. Between the Monk of the Seven Forms and the Pummeling Style... xD
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, I'm not sure that many classes that are supposed to be "mobile" really are. Even pounce is just a way to get a full attack on a charge. It's a strategy that's easily thwarted by terrain or crowds (and unfortunately, the only way that I can think of right now to ignore difficult terrain is to use dragon style, which only a Master of Many Styles monk could combine with the pummeling style feats). Even if you do get pounce, you're still just full-attacking once you're in melee.
So there are certainly problems with the swashbuckler's mobility (among other things), but I think it's largely rooted in the turn-based and action-based combat system. Within this system, it seems that what "mobile" actually means is:
-class features that are geared toward characters with high dexterity: finesse, good reflex save, dex-based mobility skills, limited to light armor, the dodge bonuses from nimble
-opportune parry and riposte could be considered a form of "mobility;" with combat reflexes, a swashbuckler could "quickly" defend against many incoming attacks
-a (sadly small) number of deeds that affect mobility, like derring-do and kip up
So the swashbuckler could be considered mobile in a sense. It's just that a lot of that mobility seems rooted in the fiction of the game (the imaginary image of the swashbuckler making quick rapier thrusts and parries--mostly it's the arm that's mobile), and makes the swashbuckler "mobile" and "fast" within the given 5' grid square/hex they occupy.
What I think we can ultimately take from this is that this is a problem that's larger than just the swashbuckler, and is inherent in the way that melee combat works in Pathfinder in general. What I'm curious about is what "mobile" should actually mean in this system, and how to implement that onto the swashbuckler. Some ideas:
-breaking the rules on charge lines: allowing change of direction mid-charge, charging over rough terrain, being able to use acrobatics while charging (like the 3.5 Swashbuckler who could charge while jumping over tables for example--or least I remember it could do something similar to this)
-giving easier access to mobility-enhancing feats. This could be as simple as giving it better access to things like the Step Up chain, letting the Nimble class feature count as the Dodge feat for prereqs, giving Spring Attack as a bonus feat, etc.
-increased move speed?
-breaking other movement rules
This would certainly help the Swashbuckler be more mobile, but I'm not certain to what end. How could additional, mobility-while-moving features add to the Swashbuckler? What would be the benefit of this on a melee fighter?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
i think a lot of the swashbuckler's mobility has to come from the player... most of us fall into this 'end combat as fast as possible' mindset, and that obviously favors standing firm and trading full attacks, but that's not always the best approach. a swashbuckler with a creative player could spring attack an opponent and move away to an unchargable spot. when the enemy moves and single attacks he can use OPaR to (potentially) block it and get off a second attack of his own. on his next turn he can single attack and tumble 10' away, repeating steps 2 and 3 until the enemy dies or gives up fighting that way. if an enemy focuses on someone else, then he can stand and full attack until it turns on him again. obviously, that won't really work against casters and people with ranged weapons, but usually those are the ones you want to stay close to anyways.
i think a lot of the swashbuckler's mobility has to come from the player... most of us fall into this 'end combat as fast as possible' mindset, and that obviously favors standing firm and trading full attacks, but that's not always the best approach. a swashbuckler with a creative player could spring attack an opponent and move away to an unchargable spot. when the enemy moves and single attacks he can use OPaR to (potentially) block it and get off a second attack of his own. on his next turn he can single attack and tumble 10' away, repeating steps 2 and 3 until the enemy dies or gives up fighting that way. if an enemy focuses on someone else, then he can stand and full attack until it turns on him again. obviously, that won't really work against casters and people with ranged weapons, but usually those are the ones you want to stay close to anyways.
Except that the monk of the Seven Forms shows you can be a mobile fighter while not sucking. He can move 15 ft a turn as free 5 ft steps while still full attacking... and the horizon Walker/magus/EK can bounce around the battlefield with the Dimensional Savant pathline...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I felt pretty mobile on my swashbuckler.
Granted, it was because I ran past a trog, provoked an attack of opportunity from it purposefully, spent a panache point to parry it, killed it with a riptose, and then continued on to attack my actual target.
It was fun, actually.
If I was doing a swash
Duel talented Human
Str 13, Dex 17, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 16
Level points go into dex, Grab power attack, Attempt crits all day.
I'd say this class has more going for it than rogue or non mutagen fighter, but it's just not good enough. I wouldn't play this class.
Because Paizo did the Swashbuckler wrong on many accounts and this is one of them
Eh, not necessarily.
The thing with swashbucklers is that they gain the precise strike ability (which gives them their level worth of bonus on attacks...when in 1 hand with the other not attacking). The funny thing about how this ends up scaling is that it makes this 1 handed attack about match up to a full BAB character using a 2 handed attack (assuming power attack and decent enough strength for the level).
This kind of puts them ahead of a lot of DEX focused classes and builds, which have to rely on TWF- and thus full attacks. A swashbuckler on a standard action attack can do as well as a comparable fighter swinging a greatsword on a standard action attack. Overall, they are not as crippled.
Faced off against a rogue or ranger using TWF, a swashbuckler with spring attack would win since his attacks each hit harder and he can just play keep away so they can't show their stuff.
Is he more mobile than a fighter? Not really. Still, he is not another dex class that cries when the GM doesn't make enemies sit still and wait until they are full attacked to death.
Of course....yeah, I am still kind of high off of the idea of pouncing monks and brawlers with pummeling style and pummeling charge... ehehehehe. Oh, and the monk of the seven forms looks interesting (although I'll probably keep to sohei, admittedly- it is pretty close to brawler in many respects, oddly)
Oh- a question about swashbucklers though- Do they really HAVE to go DEX based? I know, they are dex friendly with with finesse and bonuses that get light weapons to hit like 2 handed ones.... but do I really NEED dex?
They lack some of the main reasons why other classes would go with DEX. Their reflex save is already fantastic, so why bother adding too much to it? And, while they are restricted to light armor, they have both nimble (which eventually makes up for the armor typing) and they are highly encouraged to use bucklers since they aren't really doing much with the offhand (sword and board can get a lot of AC; +3 armor costs a lot more than a +2 armor and +2 shield, even when it is a worse, since spreading bonuses over 2 items allows you to work around the scaling prices).
Why shouldn't I just go with strength and have my stat to damage now rather than when some feat or ability allows it? Because it isn't how it is 'supposed' to be? (please tell me if a lot has changed since the playtest, since a lot of these opinions are based on that material) I've asked this a couple of times, and never got a good answer.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
Oh- a question about swashbucklers though- Do they really HAVE to go DEX based? I know, they are dex friendly with with finesse and bonuses that get light weapons to hit like 2 handed ones.... but do I really NEED dex?
They lack some of the main reasons why other classes would go with DEX. Their reflex save is already fantastic, so why bother adding too much to it? And, while they are restricted to light armor, they have both nimble (which eventually makes up for the armor typing) and they are highly encouraged to use bucklers since they aren't really doing much with the offhand (sword and board can get a lot of AC; +3 armor costs a lot more than a +2 armor and +2 shield, even when it is a worse, since spreading bonuses over 2 items allows you to work around the scaling prices).
Why shouldn't I just go with strength and have my stat to damage now rather than when some feat or ability allows it? Because it isn't how it is 'supposed' to be? (please tell me if a lot has changed since the playtest, since a lot of these opinions are based on that material) I've asked this a couple of times, and never got a good answer.
I haven't gone over the class with a fine-toothed comb in comparison to the playtest, but it seems pretty much the same. The biggest change from the one to the other is probably the change to the Slashing Grace feat.
When I look at the Swashbuckler's actual class features, what I think really makes them stand out from, say, some sort of finesse-duelist fighter archetype is the fact that its other parent class is the Gunslinger. And that means Deeds! If damage is all you're concerned about with the Swashbuckler as a melee class, then a Strength build is, as you say, more optimized in that regard. But I think the opportune parry and riposte deed is what makes the Swashbuckler somewhat unique, and you need at least a decent Dex to pull off the Combat Reflexes stuff. I don't know if it's particularly good, but that seems to me to be at least one reason to play a Dex Swash.
Oh- a question about swashbucklers though- Do they really HAVE to go DEX based? I know, they are dex friendly with with finesse and bonuses that get light weapons to hit like 2 handed ones.... but do I really NEED dex?
They lack some of the main reasons why other classes would go with DEX. Their reflex save is already fantastic, so why bother adding too much to it? And, while they are restricted to light armor, they have both nimble (which eventually makes up for the armor typing) and they are highly encouraged to use bucklers since they aren't really doing much with the offhand (sword and board can get a lot of AC; +3 armor costs a lot more than a +2 armor and +2 shield, even when it is a worse, since spreading bonuses over 2 items allows you to work around the scaling prices).
Why shouldn't I just go with strength and have my stat to damage now rather than when some feat or ability allows it? Because it isn't how it is 'supposed' to be? (please tell me if a lot has changed since the playtest, since a lot of these opinions are based on that material) I've asked this a couple of times, and never got a good answer.
I haven't gone over the class with a fine-toothed comb in comparison to the playtest, but it seems pretty much the same. The biggest change from the one to the other is probably the change to the Slashing Grace feat.
When I look at the Swashbuckler's actual class features, what I think really makes them stand out from, say, some sort of finesse-duelist fighter archetype is the fact that its other parent class is the Gunslinger. And that means Deeds! If damage is all you're concerned about with the Swashbuckler as a melee class, then a Strength build is, as you say, more optimized in that regard. But I think the opportune parry and riposte deed is what makes the Swashbuckler somewhat unique, and you need at least a decent Dex to pull off the Combat Reflexes stuff. I don't know if it's particularly good, but that seems to me to be at least one reason to play a Dex...
Fair enough. Optimizing things like AoOs, and a few extra AC. And with the options available, you do not lose damage to any great extent (feats are always a bit of a cost, but such is life)
Plus, shadows are both less and more scary, since they don't cripple you, but they can kill and turn you easier. Heh.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
Honestly, I think the Mouser archetype is kind of neat. When I played a gnome swashbuckler in the playtest, I was pretty frustrated by the fact that I took a -4 to parry for every size category larger than me my attacker was. Reducing it to -2 in the playtest revision was helpful, but it felt like it just wasn't enough. I felt annoyed that the flavor text specifically called this out as a good class for small creatures, but they still suffered in melee compared to the tall people that they were supposed to do better than!
The Mouser's Underfoot Assault has a unique mobility function by moving into a larger opponent's square and providing a buff in the form of flanking and dodge-tanking to the rest of the party. I feel like a mouser/slayer duo could be a lot of fun and decently effective. The steal maneuver is pretty garbage, but dirty trick and the cat's charge look decent. Plus, since you're not spending panache on opportune parry and riposte, you can put it into your free maneuvers once you've gotten underfoot, or boost precise strike. The frantic dodging dare could be good too. Plus, if you're small (which I feel the Mouser could benefit from), you might as well go with a Dex build. If you're a halfling Mouser, I feel like you could get some nice aid another boosts going as well.
Personally I'd like to see stuff like..
-Standard action targeted strike (maybe with some tweaks if that's too strong)
-Vital Strike line as bonus feats, probably with some extras tacked on to make it a bit more appealing early and less likely to fall off late.
-Class feature spring attack at mid level that's compatible with the above.
-Derring Do changed to "if you have at least 1 panache" rather than costing panache.
-The ability to do some nonstandard charge shenanigans.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With precise strike, and the ability to spend panache to double the precision damage if you want to be a spring attacking warrior you can deal good damage (~1d6+16 or 1d6+27 at level 11).
Mobility fighting is primarily defensive, Your single attack deals more than the foes single attack and if they come after you, you can parry and riposte punishing them for their jerkitude. A mobile swashbuckler will be dealing less damage than a full-attacking swashbuckler but she'll also be taking less damage. All it takes is a couple of feats and some magic items to have a pretty fun mobile warrior.
|
|
I felt pretty mobile on my swashbuckler.
Granted, it was because I ran past a trog, provoked an attack of opportunity from it purposefully, spent a panache point to parry it, killed it with a riptose, and then continued on to attack my actual target.
It was fun, actually.
This is exactly the kind of thing a swashbuckler excels at.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because Paizo dropped the ball and then proceeded to ignore player feedback.
As far as mobility, Derring-Do should not cost panache to increase Acrobatics, Climb, Escape Artist, Fly, Ride, or Swim, merely require you have at least one point left. It should allow you to expend one point of panache to ignore difficult terrain, thin ledges etc. They need a better way to disengage still-living opponents and engage other opponents.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mobility fighting is primarily defensive, Your single attack deals more than the foes single attack and if they come after you, you can parry and riposte punishing them for their jerkitude.
^^^ This. This is what mobile fighting is about. Unfortunately, people consider it sub-par since it doesn't deal OMGRagePounceDPS. And as long as people are focused on doing as much DPS as possible without consideration to avoiding it or denying it to the foe, this will prevail in most areas where optimization is found.
In my campaign I'm experimenting with changing the wording on Spring Attack so that it allows a Standard Action in the middle of the move, instead of just a melee attack. (This gets rid of Shot on the Run and the other equivalents as well, causing less wasted Feat space.)
Now anybody can use it. Ranged guys. Melee guys. Switch-hitter guys. Caster guys. Gish guys. All in one Feat. Kinda fun, since some fights end up looking like modern battles with people ducking in and out of cover firing off spells and ranged attacks, as well as setting ambushes behind objects with readied actions followed up by Full-Attacks. Good times.
Another bonus? Can Vital Strike on it now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the other big issue with mobile fights is that, if the frontliner is bouncing around the room, he leaves the squishies in the back vulnerable.
From a tactical perspective, it's best to stand still and full attack. Not only because it deals more damage, but also because it protects your casters from getting bum rushed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find that a single deed solves most mobility issues people see with this class (including me)
Dash
As a swift action the Swashbuckler can spend 1 panache to move up to half her move speed. Performing an acrobatics check to avoid an attack of opportunity does not reduce the Swashbuckler's movement any further. This movement does not count towards the swashbucklers movement for the turn
This would allow for a type of spring attack that would work with any standard action. Thus getting swashbuckler a class specific, beefed up spring attack; which increases their DPS (assuming they use vital strike or some other fancy standard attack option or pounce) while allowing them to get in and out of combat on a whim more or less. All while being way less feat intensive than the standard spring attack feat.
I know this adds to their already clogged swift action slot, but I would totally use the hell out of this deed. A player can choose to run into combat, vital strike the baddy, and dash out, or choose to hang out in the fray for a possible full attack; saving his swift/immediate action for a riposte or charmed life.
One issues I see with this is the it makes working up the feat chain towards whirlwind attack that much more daunting because one of the feats in the chain is utterly useless. And whirlwind would work so nicely with this class...
EDIT: I'm thinking their should be a level minimum, How does Swashbuckler 5 sound?
Well, the other big issue with mobile fights is that, if the frontliner is bouncing around the room, he leaves the squishies in the back vulnerable.
From a tactical perspective, it's best to stand still and full attack. Not only because it deals more damage, but also because it protects your casters from getting bum rushed.
With the mobility and play style of the swashbuckler I think of him more like a sweeper-midfielder combo (soccer references) he hops in and out of the fray assisting the big hitters at key moments, while keeping an eye on the squishies so he can dash back to their defense if need be. So not a front liner, hes a purely utiliy last hopes defender.
With the mobility and play style of the swashbuckler I think of him more like a sweeper-midfielder combo (soccer references) he hops in and out of the fray assisting the big hitters at key moments, while keeping an eye on the squishies so he can dash back to their defense if need be. So not a front liner, hes a purely utiliy last hopes defender.Well, the other big issue with mobile fights is that, if the frontliner is bouncing around the room, he leaves the squishies in the back vulnerable.
From a tactical perspective, it's best to stand still and full attack. Not only because it deals more damage, but also because it protects your casters from getting bum rushed.
Yes, but keep in mind the 4 man party. Front liner, back-up/skill, divine, arcane. If you were to play a Shaman, Arcanist, Investigator and Swashbuckler, the Swash can't be bouncing around combat as that leaves the Shaman and Arcanist vulnerable.
|
|
Yes, but keep in mind the 4 man party. Front liner, back-up/skill, divine, arcane. If you were to play a Shaman, Arcanist, Investigator and Swashbuckler, the Swash can't be bouncing around combat as that leaves the Shaman and Arcanist vulnerable.With the mobility and play style of the swashbuckler I think of him more like a sweeper-midfielder combo (soccer references) he hops in and out of the fray assisting the big hitters at key moments, while keeping an eye on the squishies so he can dash back to their defense if need be. So not a front liner, hes a purely utiliy last hopes defender.Well, the other big issue with mobile fights is that, if the frontliner is bouncing around the room, he leaves the squishies in the back vulnerable.
From a tactical perspective, it's best to stand still and full attack. Not only because it deals more damage, but also because it protects your casters from getting bum rushed.
Actually...you can make a very solid Investigator tank-build, so that'd work pretty well. The point stands in principle, though.
Is there any build that the Investigator can't pull off except for fullcaster?
Han Solo, the investigator works a bit better than swashbuckler.
The Swashbukcler is yet another martial with high DPR and AC and zero mobility... This was brought up over and over again during the playtest, but the feedback was completely ignored.
Apparently "can stand up as a move action" is Paizo's definition of "mobility".
I would love to hear their justification for turning the "mobile combatant" into yet another DPR-obsessed victim of "stand-still-or-suck" syndrome.
Meanwhile... Arcanists and Clerics can teleport as a move action and then cast two different spells on the same round! That's some top quality game design, Paizo! Truly a paragon of class balance!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Swashbukcler is yet another martial with high DPR and AC and zero mobility... This was brought up over and over again during the playtest, but the feedback was completely ignored.
Apparently "can stand up as a move action" is Paizo's definition of "mobility".
I would love to hear their justification for turning the "mobile combatant" into yet another DPR-obsessed victim of "stand-still-or-suck" syndrome.
Meanwhile... Arcanists and Clerics can teleport as a move action and then cast two different spells on the same round! That's some top quality game design, Paizo! Truly a paragon of class balance!
I feel like the Paizo dev team is passive aggressively telling us to stop playing spell-less classes.
With the glut of 3/4th casters that fill the martial tactical role plus doing other things, there is actually little need for anyone in the party to not have access to at-least 6th level casting. 4th if you are a truely against magic. Or Ki if you want to be more defensively focused.
Even flavor wise, they made alchemy technically not spell casting.
Honestly though, what could have brought the swash up to par? Make parry cost only AOOs, riposte be a free action, charmed life be unlimited use, panache for extra move actions, precise strike multiply on crits, spring attacks auto crit?
Idk man. In this system the coolest martial I've run across in an Aegis, who flies around and can make vital strike an awesome action (still worse than a full attack but not pointless worse). But the Aegis still plays the caster game within his features just not directly. It's really hard to ignore magic and expect to be relevant in this system. Even the most mundane mundane uses magic gear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I, for one, will never again play a non-caster class, unless the game is really heavy on house rules. And even then, I'd think twice before doing so.
I'd rather not to be kicked in the teeth every time a new FAQ or errata is released.
That's how little faith I have in Paizo's ability and willingness to make Pathfinder a more balanced game.
Meanwhile... Arcanists and Clerics can teleport as a move action and then cast two different spells on the same round! That's some top quality game design, Paizo! Truly a paragon of class balance!
Oh this is kinda wrong.
Arcanists can teleport as /part/ of a move action! :D
I, for one, will never again play a non-caster class, unless the game is really heavy on house rules. And even then, I'd think twice before doing so.
Not hard considering there are only three(cavelier!) classes without spells and a handful of archetypes.
EDIT: Oh wait 4. Gunslingers also don't have spells.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry why do I need to protect the spellcasters? They are soooo much better than martials. If they want meatshields to stand in between themselves and the enemy they can cast summon monster themselves.
The swashbuckler should be striking the enemy spellcasters, or trolling monsters with great damage spikes and spring-attacking retreats. I'm sick of people complaining about martial classes because they can't imagine how to play differently.
I'm sorry why do I need to protect the spellcasters? They are soooo much better than martials. If they want meatshields to stand in between themselves and the enemy they can cast summon monster themselves.
The swashbuckler should be striking the enemy spellcasters, or trolling monsters with great damage spikes and spring-attacking retreats. I'm sick of people complaining about martial classes because they can't imagine how to play differently.
Be awesome if they could precise strike as a free action along side an attack (like power attack: not an action), instead of just a full attack action.
I, for one, will never again play a non-caster class, unless the game is really heavy on house rules. And even then, I'd think twice before doing so.Not hard considering there are only three(cavelier!) classes without spells and a handful of archetypes.
Let's see... Barbarian, Brawler, Cavalier, Fighter, Gunslinger, Monk, Ninja, Rogue, Samurai, Slayer and Swashbuckler.
That's 11. (Although some of them do have access to SLAs and (Su) abilities).
I'm unlikely to play classes with 4-level spell progression either. They are not "casty" enough to avoid being neutered by FAQs and errata (and giant feat chains full of awful prerequisites).
I, for one, will never again play a non-caster class, unless the game is really heavy on house rules. And even then, I'd think twice before doing so.Not hard considering there are only three(cavelier!) classes without spells and a handful of archetypes.Let's see... Fighter, Barbarian, Brawler, Cavalier, Gunslinger, Monk, Ninja, Rogue, Samurai, Slayer and Swashbuckler.
Although some of them do have access to SLAs and (Su) abilities.
I'm unlikely to play classes with 4-level spell progression either. They are not "casty" enough to avoid being neutered by FAQs and errata.
I don't count monks because of qinggong or ninja's cause they are also Ki casters. I spaced on Samurai and ACG classes.
I think I spaced on barbars because they can actually be good. Granted blood rager is really forcing their niche into "the one true barbar" build, but I am ok with that because the barbar bores me.
All in all though I spaced on some classes.
What I would have liked to see on the Swashbuckler to make it more mobile:
-Spring Attack as an automatic feature somewhere between levels 4 and 8.
-The ability to charge around corners, up/down stairs, etc...
-Either the Vital Strike chain included, or the ability to make a second attack during a Spring Attack, or something a bit like the Dervish PrC's full attack from 3.5's Complete Warrior.
-A panache deed that grants an extra move action.
It's kind of frustrating that so few things work with Spring Attack/Shot on the Run for basically NO reason, and Pathfinder hasn't adapted the extra-attack-during-Spring Attack feats from 3.5. Every non-magical character wants to stand around full-attacking unless they have pounce, which isn't easy to come by, or Ride-By-Attack and they're mounted, which has its own issues.
I'm sorry why do I need to protect the spellcasters? They are soooo much better than martials. If they want meatshields to stand in between themselves and the enemy they can cast summon monster themselves.
The swashbuckler should be striking the enemy spellcasters, or trolling monsters with great damage spikes and spring-attacking retreats. I'm sick of people complaining about martial classes because they can't imagine how to play differently.
I dunno, maybe because this isn't a caster/martial disparity theorycraft? In actual play, the Wizard doesn't get to walk around with ass-tons of spells on him all the time, especially at lower and mid-levels.
So you guys are in a dungeon, and you get ambushed by some minotaurs. Swashbuckler springs forward and bounces around the room while dealing damage. Now the Minotaur has a chance to charge the casters, which they do. Now you have a minotaur in the face of the Wizard and the Cleric. GG Swashbuckler!
Or, if he stood still, maybe he moves forward a bit and blocks the path of at least one minotaur! Or he sticks near to the Casters so he can get some buffs and also fend off the Minotaurs before they drop a caster.
The reality is, Casters don't become gods until they can always keep their defenses up. They're squishy for a reason, you know.
If there were another martial, or the Swashbuckler were a 5th man, I'd agree, he should be bouncing around a room, swinging from drapes and chugging his flagon... but the sad truth is, if you aren't between the casters and the enemy, the casters are going to be in trouble. Which means you've failed as a front-line martial.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry why do I need to protect the spellcasters? They are soooo much better than martials. If they want meatshields to stand in between themselves and the enemy they can cast summon monster themselves.
The swashbuckler should be striking the enemy spellcasters, or trolling monsters with great damage spikes and spring-attacking retreats. I'm sick of people complaining about martial classes because they can't imagine how to play differently.
I dunno, maybe because this isn't a caster/martial disparity theorycraft? In actual play, the Wizard doesn't get to walk around with ass-tons of spells on him all the time, especially at lower and mid-levels.
So you guys are in a dungeon, and you get ambushed by some minotaurs. Swashbuckler springs forward and bounces around the room while dealing damage. Now the Minotaur has a chance to charge the casters, which they do. Now you have a minotaur in the face of the Wizard and the Cleric. GG Swashbuckler!
Or, if he stood still, maybe he moves forward a bit and blocks the path of at least one minotaur! Or he sticks near to the Casters so he can get some buffs and also fend off the Minotaurs before they drop a caster.
The reality is, Casters don't become gods until they can always keep their defenses up. They're squishy for a reason, you know.
If there were another martial, or the Swashbuckler were a 5th man, I'd agree, he should be bouncing around a room, swinging from drapes and chugging his flagon... but the sad truth is, if you aren't between the casters and the enemy, the casters are going to be in trouble. Which means you've failed as a front-line martial.
So basically if you are a guy who doesn't have spells, and you have a melee weapon, you are a failure unless you're irish fist fighting with all the monsters, while Pretty spell casters can play whatever they want as they want, how they want?
snipThat seems like a 'square peg round hole' issue. The Swashbuckler is (supposedly) not the BSF. The whole theory is to have something that isn't just another BSF. So complaining about people looking for something other than a BSF seems... redundant and unnecessary. And silly.
People complain about not being able to play a highly mobile swashbuckler, and I pointed out that playing such a character is bad for the party as a whole because it leaves the rest of the people vulnerable. If your main melee character is off running around doing swashbuckler stuff, while the other three aren't, it means those other three are left vulnerable.
So you end up with the classes that can't be mobile (if the Swashy were theoretically a mobile fighter), being forced to attempt to do so in order to appease the Swashbuckler.
Try sitting down at a table and play a character who runs off once combat begins and leaves the casters unprotected. See how well that works.
A Mobile fighter only works if everyone is mobile, or there is someone else there to take on the role of meatshield/tank.
If all of the Pathfinder classes were designed from the ground up to be able to run mobile combats, that wouldn't be a problem. But they weren't. So to include one class that can do it while none of the others can means you have one guy off by himself without party support.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
People complain about not being able to play a highly mobile swashbuckler, and I pointed out that playing such a character is bad for the party as a whole because it leaves the rest of the people vulnerable. If your main melee character is off running around doing swashbuckler stuff, while the other three aren't, it means those other three are left vulnerable.
So you end up with the classes that can't be mobile (if the Swashy were theoretically a mobile fighter), being forced to attempt to do so in order to appease the Swashbuckler.
The problem is that there is no choice. Instead of making a tactical decision ("Should I move forward or hold my ground?"), the Swashbuckler is forced to ignore the class' flavor and stand still all the time, otherwise he loses too much of his effectiveness.
And casters are very mobile classes. They all have the potential to move and cast two spells in the same round. Some of them can even teleport and cast two spells in the same round. They can also fly, turn invisible, summon monsters, cast defensive spells, etc.
The only ones that can't move are martials... Including Swashbucklers. It'd be a much better game if the SB could assess the situation and then decide if he should move or not, but as it is, the class is stuck with "stand-still-or-suck" syndrome even when there is no reason for him to block anyone's path. In fact, even when standing still, martials are not very good at blocking anyone's path. At best, they can make an AoO, but other than that, any enemy can move around the martial and go after whoever he wants to engage in melee.
So, instead of having a mobile class that can move through the battlefield or choose to stand still when the situation calls for it, we got a "mobile" class with no mobility at all.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The solution is ridiculously simple: give the classes that are supposed to be mobile (swashbuckler, monk) an ability at level 1 which says that if they take the full attack action then they can move up to their speed, breaking up that movement between attacks as desired.
What's the worst that could happen? The guy isn't getting any more attacks than usual, just getting the attacks he's earned while being, y'know, mobile!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Mobile fighter only works if everyone is mobile, or there is someone else there to take on the role of meatshield/tank.That's an argument for not playing a swashbuckler if you need a tank, not keeping the swashbuckler terrible.
Eh, I wouldn't say it is terrible. It is just that everyone had their hopes and dreams pinned to this class (why people suddenly feel like it is a huge betrayal rather than 'sticking with our general design principles' is somewhat beyond me)
I suppose this is the same kind of problem and design question that live action movies face- is it actually terrible, or is it that the name and some aesthetics make people expect things that ultimately is not this product (And their sense of betrayal makes it seem terrible.
Let's ignore the whole dex-master, pouncing/spring attacking/whatever kind-of-bizarre-mobility-mechanics-people-are-hoping-for thing, and lets look at what we have here: a kind of fighterish class that is built to encourage 1hand/1weapon style, non-TWF sword and board style, and throwing weapons. Those are all nice looking things, which get a good degree of representation in media, and yet are normally underpowered to the point of uselessness in the system. And if you are looking for that, then this class is great, mission accomplished. It allows you to get tons of AC without sacrificing damage (Even TWF sword and board has a problem with moving and keeping up DPS).
It is a step above the fighter in other ways as well. It has decent skill points and class skills. It has a mechanic that can boost saves, which can be kept around for whenever you hear someone chanting for a 'dominate person' spell. It can have both a decent touch and flat footed AC (dex based+nimble vs armor+shield enhancements).
Now, I can understand that it is not what you specifically wanted, but that doesn't necessarily make it bad. As I said, with precise strike raising your damage up to 2 handed full BAB levels, you ARE using a fairly mobile style since things like TWF fall far behind when they take more than a 5' step. Sure, they aren't handing you pounce or anything, but it isn't exactly the worst way they could have done it. And someone has mentioned- they can enjoy things like their parry and riposte in order to zip around the battle field while getting attacks if they spend points (which isn't hard, since they can use rapiers to get a lot back)
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nononono.
See, as a swashbuckler player I am not a bloody body guard. I'm an adventurer.
If there's minotaurs I'm going to bounce around the room and buckle swash. If the spellcaster gets a minotaur in his face then he should probably have prepped invisibility or summon monster or any number of spells to deal with that contingency.
As a swashbuckler my single hits deal decent damage because I get to add my level to damage (twice my level to damage with panache) whenever I want. So I don't full attack unless I'm sure I have the AoO's to counter whatever the foes have.
MEATSHIELD is not a party role. If you are a spellcaster, then you better have picked some spells scrolls or wands to keep you safe, because heaven knows "Stand Still and Get Hit" is the most boring possible role I could think of.
In the party roles the Swashbuckler is closer to the Skilled/Rogue/Striker character than the Fighter, it's a class that has big moments thanks to Derring-Do and awesome deeds. Not just standing about and getting clubbed so the spellcasters can end the fights.
People complain about not being able to play a highly mobile swashbuckler, and I pointed out that playing such a character is bad for the party as a whole because it leaves the rest of the people vulnerable.
I feel this is kinda irrelevant.
People can play really good healer if they want. It could be a inferior tactical option but it is a option that is there for people who like it. The opposite for swashbuckler.