|
Fighter are also good archers. I think an archer could do comparable damage to a swashbuckler without having to worry about the precision damage that might stop a swashbuckler.
Got to 2nd this. Fighter-Archers are very scary. While all archers are scary, each class that can be an archer is scary in a different way.
Fighter-Archers are scary cos they usually have a larger base damage to each shot and a higher to hit then other archers.Not to mention, if you drop them in an anti-magic field, they are just going to get a little annoyed and proceed to shoot the BBEG to death.
They also usually have enough feats to be crazily powerful with feats to spare to grab defensive feats to help overcome their lack of better saves.
@_@...Are we beating upon fighters, this is new
it occurs to me weirdly enough that you can a passable archer with a swash, picking up point blank master at level 6. you would have to ignore quite a few class features though, or go the switch hitter route though.I think you meant "make a passable". Swashbucklers can't add precise strike damage to bows.
never said they did, but being a self contained melee combatant means that throwing some feats up for archery wouldn't make an awful switch hitter build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the most appealing thing about a fighter is his consistency.
Rage is a variable that turns on and off. Precise strike is a variable that turns on and off (albeit usually on, but there's enough stuff immune to it that you need to know your limits). Smite is a variable that turns on and off. Challenge, studied target, sneak attack, bane, favored enemy, etc. ALL of these things are variables that turn on and off depending on what you're fighting.
Weapon and armor training are not situational. They are always there. There are quite a few feats that are variable and temporary in nature, but many of them are static and permanent or semi-permanent. You can make a fighter who CONSISTENTLY puts out decent damage on nearly anything you come across (barring damage reduction or the like). This means you have less to deal with numbers-wise. Not only is it good for ability to deal damage regardless of the situation or what you're facing, but it really cuts down on the annoyance of figuring out all your temporary modifiers, adding them up on the spot (or referring to a premade chart, whatever), and the like, while other players are eagerly awaiting their turns.
so you can stealth and swim in heavy armor. why does no one remember this.
There are also some very fun archetypes... Lore Warden, Cad, Dirty Fighter, Tower Shield Specialist, Buckler Duelist, Mobile Fighter, Roughrider, Dragoon...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Short answer: Because I like fighters.
Less short answer: I like melee combat, and I prefer passive/always on powers to those that can only be used X times per day for Y rounds each or against Z opponent. Also, I have no problem being reliant on gear, because I enjoy epic tales of great warriors that wield mighty blades. I also enjoy the build-your-own style that fighter offers, where you have many choices you can make. Even moreso since I got the Talented Fighter stuff from Genius Games. Additionally, I don't play in deathmarch style games where you need to eke out every possible numerical advantage just to live to see another sunrise.
Basically, I like playing a character that can kick butt without having to ration out chewing all their bubblegum first.
actually this guy gives me plenty of reasons to play a fighter. especially with some of my homebrew feats and such.
Having played a high level swashbuckler, a fighter can't match the AC of a swashbuckler (shield bonus from buckler, and dodge bonus from nimble).
So a swashbuckler has higher AC, more skill points, more abilities (uncanny dodge, evasion, immune sunder, disarm) and better saves than a fighter.
Can't? What is the highest AC a swashbuckler can get at level 11(because playing to 20 is not common)
Can't? What is the highest AC a swashbuckler can get at level 11(because playing to 20 is not common)Having played a high level swashbuckler, a fighter can't match the AC of a swashbuckler (shield bonus from buckler, and dodge bonus from nimble).
So a swashbuckler has higher AC, more skill points, more abilities (uncanny dodge, evasion, immune sunder, disarm) and better saves than a fighter.
Agreed. Heck, even 11 takes quite a few sessions to get to. At level 3 it's not unrealistic to have a set of MW Full Plate as a fighter. That puts you quite ahead of the curve for quite a while until the Swashbuckler can catch up.
|
One thing I'm surprised people didn't mention is the fighter archetypes. Some of them become VERY good at what they do. As far as I know, there is no swashbuckler 'Unbreakable' archetype. I had an unbreakable fighter, he was great. Did a fair bit of damage, was hard enough to hit, and he just had an insane number of hitpoints and fort save. Got poisoned one time and didn't even notice, it was great! Got hit for 90 damage at level 10 (from the stupid mammoth-rider auto-crit charge build) and I didn't even have to make a death save because it wasn't half my HP.
There are some other fun archetypes out there that the swashbuckler just doesn't get.
Other than that? If all you care about is raw damage output, play a swashbuckler or gunslinger or high level mage/sorcerer or whatever. You wanna have a high AC, run around at full speed in full plate (as well as be able to swim in it), deal pretty consistent damage, have a huge CMD/CMB? Be a fighter.
Agreed. Heck, even 11 takes quite a few sessions to get to. At level 3 it's not unrealistic to have a set of MW Full Plate as a fighter. That puts you quite ahead of the curve for quite a while until the Swashbuckler can catch up.Can't? What is the highest AC a swashbuckler can get at level 11(because playing to 20 is not common)Having played a high level swashbuckler, a fighter can't match the AC of a swashbuckler (shield bonus from buckler, and dodge bonus from nimble).
So a swashbuckler has higher AC, more skill points, more abilities (uncanny dodge, evasion, immune sunder, disarm) and better saves than a fighter.
I built swashbuckler recently and they put out decent damage, and it had decent AC, but I am sure I could have done better with a fighter. That is why I want to see what Jon had.
Kindly note: A fighter who doesn't invest in Dex loses all benefit of his Armor Training Dex to AC ability.
Also note that a true Dex fighter will not be able to keep his full Dex bonus to AC in heavy armor...he tops out at 24 Dex in Mithral Full plate, unless you allow Celestial Plate into play.
The Swashbuckler doesn't need Armor Training. He always has full movement, and with mithral chain or celestial Chain he can easily get use out of a post-30 Dex without a problem. Armor Training is a completely unnecessary ability on ALL LEVELS for a swash, so why waste class level abilities on it?
==Aelryinth
Not actually true. He still has the reduced armor penalty, and he has the full movement in heavy armor. Investing in some dexterity is still a good thing for a fighter but he doesn't lose everything for lack of dex, and even if he doesn't like his armor training there is still mutation fighter he could trade it out for.
At the end of the day though the answer is thus:
Swashbuckler is great -- if you like to be shoehorned into your role. If you want to not be the dexterity guy then the fighter is simply a better choice... or if you want to two weapon fight... or fight in heavy armor... or if you want to be an archer... or if you want to two handed fight... or if you want to move and full attack (with archetypes) or if you just like certain combinations of archetypes (again I'm digging the druman blackjack martial master mutation fighter).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kindly note: A fighter who doesn't invest in Dex loses all benefit of his Armor Training Dex to AC ability.
Also note that a true Dex fighter will not be able to keep his full Dex bonus to AC in heavy armor...he tops out at 24 Dex in Mithral Full plate, unless you allow Celestial Plate into play.
The Swashbuckler doesn't need Armor Training. He always has full movement, and with mithral chain or celestial Chain he can easily get use out of a post-30 Dex without a problem. Armor Training is a completely unnecessary ability on ALL LEVELS for a swash, so why waste class level abilities on it?
==Aelryinth
Not actually true. He still has the reduced armor penalty, and he has the full movement in heavy armor. Investing in some dexterity is still a good thing for a fighter but he doesn't lose everything for lack of dex, and even if he doesn't like his armor training there is still mutation fighter he could trade it out for.
At the end of the day though the answer is thus:
Swashbuckler is great -- if you like to be shoehorned into your role. If you want to not be the dexterity guy then the fighter is simply a better choice... or if you want to two weapon fight... or fight in heavy armor... or if you want to be an archer... or if you want to two handed fight... or if you want to move and full attack (with archetypes) or if you just like certain combinations of archetypes (again I'm digging the druman blackjack martial master mutation fighter).
This is the part that gets me. How exactly is the Fighter the one that is shoehorned compared to the Swashbuckler? Fighter can do all that you just listed, while the Swashbuckler can... use a 1h weapon.
Well their are interesting concepts once you get into the Fighter's archetypes.
Lore warden is rather interesting as it gives you a greater amount of skills and lets you be more efficient in your use of combat maneuvers without losing weapons training. For more combat maneuver goodness then you can add martial master to spontaneously gain feats as you need them while also gaining the Lore Warden's scaling bonus.
Their is also the Mutation Warrior which gives you access to mutagen and a limited number of alchemist discoveries while keeping weapon training as well.
Conversely you can give up weapon training and bravery to gain the Barbarian's rage ability and access to rage powers as well.
Furthermore, you can also combine the Viking and Mutation Warrior archetypes to gain rage, mutagen, rage powers, and Alchemist discoveries. Although, you do end up short changed on skills as a draw back.
In terms of a base fighter. Eh...you are limited in what you can do out of combat without playing a human and personally I would only use it as a dip. However, if we are including archetypes then their are certainly plenty of options that keep the fighter on par with other classes.
I've definitely wondered why anyone plays a straight fighter over an early entry Eldritch Knight. Even if you stick to full plate+still spell/verbal spells, you have actual options besides whacking people in the face.
The ACG actually did help fighters quite a bit.
Amateur Swashbuckler can get you Opportune Parry and Riposte.
Why does that matter?
I can parry with literally any weapon.
It's also a combat feat.
Then you have Mutation Warrior and the Martial Master. Two classes that reward a smart player very well.
And of course we still have so many feats going into Eldritch HEritage or Arcane Strike lines are very doable.
Why be a fighter instead of a swashbuckler? If you want to use two-handed weapons. If you want to use heavy armor. If you want to use a shield other than a buckler. If you want to use two-weapon fighting. If you want to have a good fortitude save. If you don't want to keep track of resources like panache.
I think you missed the point. "Want" isn't a factor here. If I wanted a class that casts spells I wouldn't choose swashbuckler either. What you use to do it is irrelevant in this conversation as pointed many many many times above. The point is that swashbuckler does melee fighting better than fighter. Stop being a klingon and start thinking like a vulcan. Thats the point of this conversation. There are plenty of classes that I would play just because I liked the flavor better, even if it was gimped and the same thing could be done much better by another class. I'm sure we all agree on that and pointing that out derails the intent of the conversation and should not be contributed.
So the question is, "why would I want to be a fighter instead of a swashbuckler, given that I only care about one vs one sustained melee combat and for some reason these are the only two options?"
Why be a fighter instead of a swashbuckler? If you want to use two-handed weapons. If you want to use heavy armor. If you want to use a shield other than a buckler. If you want to use two-weapon fighting. If you want to have a good fortitude save. If you don't want to keep track of resources like panache.I think you missed the point. "Want" isn't a factor here. If I wanted a class that casts spells I wouldn't choose swashbuckler either. What you use to do it is irrelevant in this conversation as pointed many many many times above. The point is that swashbuckler does melee fighting better than fighter. Stop being a klingon and start thinking like a vulcan. Thats the point of this conversation. There are plenty of classes that I would play just because I liked the flavor better, even if it was gimped and the same thing could be done much better by another class. I'm sure we all agree on that and pointing that out derails the intent of the conversation and should not be contributed.
But a swash DOESN'T do melee better than a fighter. It CAN, but depending on the fighter, it does not always. Arguments have been made otherwise. A fighter has higher AC at low and mid level. It does more damage at low level (and with the right feat choices, equal at mid). It has more versatile combat ability. It can hurt things that are immune to precise strike.
Swashbuckler is not purely better. It is situationally better than the fighter. That situation is "if I'm at a high level (most games are not) and/or the fighter does not have access to heavy armor AND the fighter chose his/her feats well AND I'm fighting something that is not immune to critical hits" then it is better.
The only 2 options are presented because the IRL conversation pit only those 2 classes against each other.
You keep using this "feats well" statement. What feats can a fighter take a swash can't?
Why be a fighter instead of a swashbuckler? If you want to use two-handed weapons. If you want to use heavy armor. If you want to use a shield other than a buckler. If you want to use two-weapon fighting. If you want to have a good fortitude save. If you don't want to keep track of resources like panache.I think you missed the point. "Want" isn't a factor here. If I wanted a class that casts spells I wouldn't choose swashbuckler either. What you use to do it is irrelevant in this conversation as pointed many many many times above. The point is that swashbuckler does melee fighting better than fighter. Stop being a klingon and start thinking like a vulcan. Thats the point of this conversation. There are plenty of classes that I would play just because I liked the flavor better, even if it was gimped and the same thing could be done much better by another class. I'm sure we all agree on that and pointing that out derails the intent of the conversation and should not be contributed.
But... as pointed out it doesn't melee better than the fighter. It does a single part of melee in a specific way better than the fighter.
Stop trying to sell something like a ferengi and think like a vulcan. IF you want to do a single type of melee fighting then yes, the swashbuckler is great.
BUT if you want to do anything else fighter is better.
And the ONLY 2 thinks prcise strike doesnt work against are oozes and elementals. Well and ghosts.
You keep using this "feats well" statement. What feats can a fighter take a swash can't?
About 5 more.
|
|
Why be a fighter instead of a swashbuckler? If you want to use two-handed weapons. If you want to use heavy armor. If you want to use a shield other than a buckler. If you want to use two-weapon fighting. If you want to have a good fortitude save. If you don't want to keep track of resources like panache.I think you missed the point. "Want" isn't a factor here. If I wanted a class that casts spells I wouldn't choose swashbuckler either. What you use to do it is irrelevant in this conversation as pointed many many many times above. The point is that swashbuckler does melee fighting better than fighter. Stop being a klingon and start thinking like a vulcan. Thats the point of this conversation. There are plenty of classes that I would play just because I liked the flavor better, even if it was gimped and the same thing could be done much better by another class. I'm sure we all agree on that and pointing that out derails the intent of the conversation and should not be contributed.
Yeah, looking over the Swashbuckler, it doesn't look like it does nearly as much damage as a well-built 2H Fighter Warrior. 1H duelist is the weakest fighting style in the game, by a lot. Unless you're a Magus, because MAGIC.
What would "anything else melee" be?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, looking over the Swashbuckler, it doesn't look like it does nearly as much damage as a well-built 2H Fighter Warrior. 1H duelist is the weakest fighting style in the game, by a lot. Unless you're a Magus, because MAGIC.Why be a fighter instead of a swashbuckler? If you want to use two-handed weapons. If you want to use heavy armor. If you want to use a shield other than a buckler. If you want to use two-weapon fighting. If you want to have a good fortitude save. If you don't want to keep track of resources like panache.I think you missed the point. "Want" isn't a factor here. If I wanted a class that casts spells I wouldn't choose swashbuckler either. What you use to do it is irrelevant in this conversation as pointed many many many times above. The point is that swashbuckler does melee fighting better than fighter. Stop being a klingon and start thinking like a vulcan. Thats the point of this conversation. There are plenty of classes that I would play just because I liked the flavor better, even if it was gimped and the same thing could be done much better by another class. I'm sure we all agree on that and pointing that out derails the intent of the conversation and should not be contributed.
Rogue Eidolon did a pretty good by the numebrs comparison of a Falchion Fred and Swashbuckler sally with identical stats. Precise Strike does push her over the fighter after a while.
What would "anything else melee" be?
Reach fighting.
Two handed fighting.
Two Weapon Fighting.
Natural Weapon fighting.
Sword and Board
This question has been answered before.
You keep using this "feats well" statement. What feats can a fighter take a swash can't?
It's not about what you can or can't take, it's about numerical access. The fighter has access to a greater quantity of feats at any given level than the swashbuckler. These can be used to increase damage output by the fighter, since damage is all you care about.
(BY THE WAY, if all you care about is damage, WTF are you even talking about swashbucklers and not playing a barbarian?!)
What would "anything else melee" be?Reach fighting.
Two handed fighting.
Two Weapon Fighting.
Natural Weapon fighting.
This question has been answered before.
Why do that things? The swash does better damage without that.
|
|
Rogue Eidolon did a pretty good by the numebrs comparison of a Falchion Fred and Swashbuckler sally with identical stats. Precise Strike does push her over the fighter after a while.Yeah, looking over the Swashbuckler, it doesn't look like it does nearly as much damage as a well-built 2H Fighter Warrior. 1H duelist is the weakest fighting style in the game, by a lot. Unless you're a Magus, because MAGIC.Why be a fighter instead of a swashbuckler? If you want to use two-handed weapons. If you want to use heavy armor. If you want to use a shield other than a buckler. If you want to use two-weapon fighting. If you want to have a good fortitude save. If you don't want to keep track of resources like panache.I think you missed the point. "Want" isn't a factor here. If I wanted a class that casts spells I wouldn't choose swashbuckler either. What you use to do it is irrelevant in this conversation as pointed many many many times above. The point is that swashbuckler does melee fighting better than fighter. Stop being a klingon and start thinking like a vulcan. Thats the point of this conversation. There are plenty of classes that I would play just because I liked the flavor better, even if it was gimped and the same thing could be done much better by another class. I'm sure we all agree on that and pointing that out derails the intent of the conversation and should not be contributed.
Huh. I imagine that means that a Daring Champion blows both out of the water, then? Might have to roll one up next time I'm feeling like playing a 100% martial character. Maybe grab Order of the Flame for even more silly damage stacking.
Why do that things? The swash does better damage without that.What would "anything else melee" be?Reach fighting.
Two handed fighting.
Two Weapon Fighting.
Natural Weapon fighting.
This question has been answered before.
Answer:
Reach - So you can hit without being hit. Or hit when someone else is in the way. Or make a combat reflexes build for multiple hits a round.
Two handed fighting - No, the swash DOESN'T. He CAN at HIGH ENOUGH LEVELS, which take a long time to get to, and even still, he doesn't always.
Two weapon fighting - With the right feats and enough static building, again, no he doesn't. It's not as easy to pull off as a 2 handed fighter, but it can be done.
Natural weapon fighting - see 2wf
Let's be clear here. I don't think the swash is better. I think they both have their merits. I'm trying to find someone to make a compelling argument to my group as to (other than sheet flavor) why they should take a fighter over a swashbuckler when I'm standing toe to toe with a bad guy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say... for RP? I mean, if you want to play a phalanx, you will not go ''oh! the swashbutler is better! I will forget my idea and go with a dex-build character!''. and there is still the question about precision damage vs concealment... it would hurt a lot the swatchbutler.
You keep using this "feats well" statement. What feats can a fighter take a swash can't?
Spellbreaker, weapon specialization, greater weapon focus, greater weapon specialization, disruptive, teleport tactician, shield specialization, greater shield focus, ray shield
Off the top of my head.
Of course then there is:
Two weapon fighting,
Point blank shot, rapid shot, precise shot, manyshot, deadly aim, and any other combat feat that doesn't involve stabbing things with a single one handed weapon.
You cannot actually be this obtuse.Why do that things? The swash does better damage without that.What would "anything else melee" be?Reach fighting.
Two handed fighting.
Two Weapon Fighting.
Natural Weapon fighting.
This question has been answered before.
Ad hominem.
Let's be clear here. I don't think the swash is better. I think they both have their merits. I'm trying to find someone to make a compelling argument to my group as to (other than sheet flavor) why they should take a fighter over a swashbuckler when I'm standing toe to toe with a bad guy.
Dude, seriously, did you not even read your own thread? A multitude of arguments that did not have anything to do with flavor have been put forth by multiple people.
That's it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xiWw5dwngc
Let's be clear here. I don't think the swash is better. I think they both have their merits. I'm trying to find someone to make a compelling argument to my group as to (other than sheet flavor) why they should take a fighter over a swashbuckler when I'm standing toe to toe with a bad guy.
Then have your group make a good argument why anyone would want a swashbuckler to two weapon fight, fight in ranged combat, grapple, or do anything else the fighter can do and the swashbuckler can't.
Because quite frankly your only argument has been, "In this specific case the swashbuckler is really good and the fighter isn't and I'm going to ignore anything else that is said about any other type of melee case."
Which isn't a good argument.
You keep using this "feats well" statement. What feats can a fighter take a swash can't?Spellbreaker, weapon specialization, greater weapon focus, greater weapon specialization, disruptive, teleport tactician, shield specialization, greater shield focus, ray shield
Off the top of my head.
Of course then there is:
Two weapon fighting,
Point blank shot, rapid shot, precise shot, manyshot, deadly aim, and any other combat feat that doesn't involve stabbing things with a single one handed weapon.
Swashbucklers count their levels as fighter levels and get combat feats ever 4 levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters are better at mass combat.
Arm chairing you are looking at one on one fighting.
They also last a lot longer and deal better with low rolls… a swashbuckler poops out early when nothing amazing happens (meaning no crits etc)
A fighter can hold a doorway against multiple enemies while the party prepares/escapes/heals.
The swashbuckler is so busy jumping around anything and everything can just run by him.
A fighter is more party cohesive.
If given the opportunity, and ALL skills are covered, I don't need to worry about casting, or disabling device etc.
Ill pick fighter almost every time.
(although I do like barbarian and occasionally paladin… holy guide looks particularly attractive)
Fighters are generally key (along with cavaliers) when your party is running past it's resource reserves and ventures past the 15 minute adventuring day… usually matters more if there is a time constraint or other compelling reason not to lounge around in dungeons or go in and bout of them at your leisure.
Personally I abhor the short hit and run incursion type game tables, and prefer the deep delving/conserve resources type of play… this is where fighters excel (and cavaliers like I said)
Let's be clear here. I don't think the swash is better. I think they both have their merits. I'm trying to find someone to make a compelling argument to my group as to (other than sheet flavor) why they should take a fighter over a swashbuckler when I'm standing toe to toe with a bad guy.
I would say... versatility. Sure, the swatch may do as much, or more, damage than the fighter in his style. But, let say the monster is a dragon, and the dragon choose to fly. While the swatch will look him with sadness, the fighter can easily put out his bow and rapid shot the beast.
Fighters are better at mass combat.
Arm chairing you are looking at one on one fighting.
They also last a lot longer and deal better with low rolls… a swashbuckler poops out early when nothing amazing happens (meaning no crits etc)
A fighter can hold a doorway against multiple enemies while the party prepares/escapes/heals.
The swashbuckler is so busy jumping around anything and everything can just run by him.
A fighter is more party cohesive.
If given the opportunity, and ALL skills are covered, I don't need to worry about casting, or disabling device etc.
Ill pick fighter almost every time.
(although I do like barbarian and occasionally paladin… holy guide looks particularly attractive)
Why can't a swash do this too?
Well... I do think that Swashbucklers are more effective than Fighters.
They fail at being a cunning and mobile class (i.e.: an actual swashbuckler), but they do make decent BSFs with a few extra tricks on top.
Their main failure is their awful, awful saves... Which I have no idea why they were kept, since this was possibly the most common feedback during playtest, second only to their lack of Dex-to-damage options (which Paizo managed to drop the ball as well).
Yeah, Swashbucklers are a disappointment... But they are still more versatile than most Fighters.
It's not an ad hominem. I'm not attacking your stance. I am expressing disbelief that you could actually even say something like that.
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.
Your right. You didn't attack my stance. That would in fact make it not and add hominem statement. Your statement attacked my character. Read above.