Shield Gauntlet Style, and Spell Combat


Rules Questions


While having shield Gauntlet style active, and then using spell combat does the AC bonus get removed, or remain active?

Shield Gauntlet Style:
Benefit(s): When using this style, if you begin your turn wearing a gauntlet or spiked gauntlet on your off hand, and you are not using that hand to hold or make attacks with any other weapons or shield, you gain a +1 shield bonus to AC. You lose this shield bonus whenever you attack with your gauntlet or hold a weapon or shield in that hand. While receiving this shield bonus to AC, your gauntlet or spiked gauntlet is treated as a buckler for the purpose of using other feats and abilities (though you are also considered to have a free hand). This feat acts as the Improved Unarmed Strike feat for the purpose of satisfying the prerequisites of the Deflect Arrows and Snatch Arrows feats.

Liberty's Edge

I really hate "clever" writers trying to bypass the free hand requirement of spell combat and some other ability. They simply generate a lot of problems when they write loopholes in the rules.

I don't mean you, Rylden, but the guy that wrote that ability.

Contributor

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Spell combat works like two weapon fighting, with casting the spell counting as your off-hand attack. So using spell combat causes you to lose the AC bonus from Shield Gauntlet Style for the same reason you can't spell combat and use Slashing Grace under most circumstances. As a general rule, the feat makes a Gauntlet work in most ways a buckler.

But while I wrote the feat, I'm not Paizo. Any Campaign Clarification or FAQ they issue will obviously best my explaination.


It's a +1 AC...for spending two feats. I'd allow it. Although I believe Alexander is right that RAW it would not function. Which is a bit lame as the later feat in the chain, Shield Gauntlet Master, would work with Spell Combat. Spending a feat to not get to use its measly +1 AC until you have another 2 feats is a bit..well. Underwhelming.


DMRaven wrote:
It's a +1 AC...for spending two feats. I'd allow it. Although I believe Alexander is right that RAW it would not function. Which is a bit lame as the later feat in the chain, Shield Gauntlet Master, would work with Spell Combat. Spending a feat to not get to use its measly +1 AC until you have another 2 feats is a bit..well. Underwhelming.

I believe it also allows you to add the gauntlet's enhancement bonus to its AC, coupled with a Defending enhancement you can forgo your bottom iterative with the main hand (not entirely sure on the action logistics with Spell Combat, but given the proper system mastery its doable) one could get a sizeable bonus to AC, table variance notwithstanding.

Liberty's Edge

Diego Rossi wrote:
I really hate "clever" writers trying to bypass the free hand requirement of spell combat and some other ability.

Err... this feat doesn't do that.

Now, if you combine this feat with Unhindering Shield... that would allow you to use Spell Combat and still get the shield bonus from the gauntlet.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
I really hate "clever" writers trying to bypass the free hand requirement of spell combat and some other ability.

Err... this feat doesn't do that.

Now, if you combine this feat with Unhindering Shield... that would allow you to use Spell Combat and still get the shield bonus from the gauntlet.

Quote:
(though you are also considered to have a free hand)

Any feat with that kind of text is a recipe for confusion with spell combat, regardless of it being what the writer intended to do or not.


Gotta be awkward talking crap about a guy that wrote the ability and he follows your post right after that.

Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
I really hate "clever" writers trying to bypass the free hand requirement of spell combat and some other ability.

Err... this feat doesn't do that.

Now, if you combine this feat with Unhindering Shield... that would allow you to use Spell Combat and still get the shield bonus from the gauntlet.

Quote:
(though you are also considered to have a free hand)
Any feat with that kind of text is a recipe for confusion with spell combat, regardless of it being what the writer intended to do or not.

The feat makes it clear that you A) have a free hand, but B) the AC bonus is contingent upon your hand not being used for anything.

Liberty's Edge

Cavall wrote:
Gotta be awkward talking crap about a guy that wrote the ability and he follows your post right after that.

I apologize for thinking that it was done on purpose, but if you search the rule section of the forum for the threads that start with some discussion about "XX count as a free hand, so I can use it with spell combat/precise strike or whatnot" you will see that it is a big source of confusion.

Alexander Agunas wrote:


the AC bonus is contingent upon your hand not being used for anything.

Let's start the discussion about vestigial arms/Kasatha and so on. Or better, let's avoid it.

And sorry, but, if the citation in the first post is right, it say:

Gauntlet style wrote:
and you are not using that hand to hold or make attacks with any other weapons or shield, you gain a +1 shield bonus to AC.

Alexander, you really think that no one will argue that a spell isn't a weapon or shield? Or that if you are casting a utility spell (shield, blur, fly, etc.) you aren't attacking?

I don't have so much faith in our fellow gamers.

Liberty's Edge

So... authors need to anticipate every possible way that text could be mis-interpreted and somehow prevent that from happening (which is, of course, completely impossible)?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
So... authors need to anticipate every possible way that text could be mis-interpreted and somehow prevent that from happening (which is, of course, completely impossible)?

Maybe don't reuse language that has caused confusion in the past.


Diego Rossi wrote:

I really hate "clever" writers trying to bypass the free hand requirement of spell combat and some other ability. They simply generate a lot of problems when they write loopholes in the rules.

I don't mean you, Rylden, but the guy that wrote that ability.

The problem is that the Swashbuckler has similar "don't use your other hand" restrictions and unlike the Magus is one of the weakest classes in the game. So the question from a design perspective is how do we circumvent the "nothing in your off-hand" restriction the Swashbuckler requires in order to use Precise Strike, Slashing Grace, etc. without simultaneously giving the Magus more tricks.

Unless you were to just give up the 'Buckler for dead (which would be unfortunate since it's got fun fluff) this issue is going to keep coming up. Probably to make the distinction cleave better, you need to pay attention to "are you doing something with your other hand" which the Magus is, but the Swashbuckler isn't.

Liberty's Edge

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

I really hate "clever" writers trying to bypass the free hand requirement of spell combat and some other ability. They simply generate a lot of problems when they write loopholes in the rules.

I don't mean you, Rylden, but the guy that wrote that ability.

The problem is that the Swashbuckler has similar "don't use your other hand" restrictions and unlike the Magus is one of the weakest classes in the game. So the question from a design perspective is how do we circumvent the "nothing in your off-hand" restriction the Swashbuckler requires in order to use Precise Strike, Slashing Grace, etc. without simultaneously giving the Magus more tricks.

Unless you were to just give up the 'Buckler for dead (which would be unfortunate since it's got fun fluff) this issue is going to keep coming up. Probably to make the distinction cleave better, you need to pay attention to "are you doing something with your other hand" which the Magus is, but the Swashbuckler isn't.

Weakest? You really think that?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
So... authors need to anticipate every possible way that text could be mis-interpreted and somehow prevent that from happening (which is, of course, completely impossible)?
Maybe don't reuse language that has caused confusion in the past.

This!

Why there is a need to specify "(though you are also considered to have a free hand)" if using it in any way will stop your ability to work?
Because you want to use it with some ability that require a free hand.
If it is a specific ability you instead write "this ability work with XX" or "this ability count as a free hand for XX".
That way there is no risk of confusion.
It is when you try to make the ability so that it work with several other abilities while keeping out other abilities with similar requirements that we have problems.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Weakest? You really think that?

That the Swashbuckler is one of the lower tier classes? Yes. Pretty much every pure martial that's not the Barbarian ends up here. Since the advent of Advanced Weapon Training, the vanilla fighter has likely pulled ahead of the Swashbuckler, so the class isn't in a great place and could use more stuff.

With Barroom Brawler and Abundant Tactics the Fighter can cast Fly or Dispel Magic with class features; with Warrior Spirit and Abundant Tactics it can make a specific bane weapon. Swashbuckler is pretty much limited to swordfighting and social stuff.


Having run skull and Shackles with my wife playing a swashbuckler I couldn't disagree more.

If pure damage is your goal then it's decent but barbarian will of course do better. It's a strength based class allowed to use both hands.

But her ability to strike an opponent and disarm them automatically was supreme. We gave her a skill unlock with Intimidate and with few feats she could strike an opponent and turn an entire room into panic.

The damage she did would be very consistent and was crit focused to allow for string burst

With a few enchantments on her sword like keen and fortuitous when they dropped weapons due to panic and ran she would cut them down with multiple free attacks, ensuring her damage was now equal to a barbarian. Adding in cruel enchant to make the panicked (and later just shaken once it ran out) would become sickened. At a mostly -4 to everything they wouldn't live long. After her free multiple attacks of opportunity they would die and she would gain free temp HP as a buffer, essentially making her have a "damage reduction" like a barbarian. By handing out sickened conditions she essentially gave everyone some damage reduction.

Weakest? If you only think of hitting someone and they fall, maybe. She was total crowd control through fear, long jumping over difficult terrain or getting I to flank with no opposition and making whole rooms drop weapons and run. She was devastating and did better then her top tier summoning sorceress that came before it.

And bane? Swashbuckler rapier. Bane. Done. That wasn't hard.

It's weak only if your imagination is.

Liberty's Edge

Don't forget parry and riposte. You can block a good percentage of the attacks of a creature with a single powerful attack. And even against creatures with more than 1 attack it is still useful. Especially against attackers with iterative attacks, as the second attack will suffer from a -5 to hit, while your parry isn't affected.


To be honest given her high initiative if they ever got an attack off she may have used her parry more.

Only against fear immune enemies was she slightly diminished. Even then damage was consistent.


Ventnor wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
So... authors need to anticipate every possible way that text could be mis-interpreted and somehow prevent that from happening (which is, of course, completely impossible)?
Maybe don't reuse language that has caused confusion in the past.

The problem lies not with the feats, but with spell combat itself. Spell Combat says it works like TWF, except it's not a weapon in the off-hand, it's not an attack with the off-hand, and it doesn't get the same penalties (i.e. you don't need the TWF feat). The text for Spell Combat referencing TWF only makes stuff more confusing, and every single rule question regarding it comes from Paizo doing a lazy cop-out and shoehorning a TWF reference in instead of actually writing down how Spell Combat behaves.

@Cavall: You seem to have no idea how the tier list works. What did the swashbuckler do against: Flying enemies, invisible enemies, various barriers (walls, chasms, lava lakes etc.), nasty status effects, constant incoming damage, magically hidden stuff, and other non-combat hazards?
Low tier doesn't mean the character is crap in a vanilla combat. It's about being crap in non-vanilla combats and non-combat situations.

Liberty's Edge

Derklord wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
So... authors need to anticipate every possible way that text could be mis-interpreted and somehow prevent that from happening (which is, of course, completely impossible)?
Maybe don't reuse language that has caused confusion in the past.

The problem lies not with the feats, but with spell combat itself. Spell Combat says it works like TWF, except it's not a weapon in the off-hand, it's not an attack with the off-hand, and it doesn't get the same penalties (i.e. you don't need the TWF feat). The text for Spell Combat referencing TWF only makes stuff more confusing, and every single rule question regarding it comes from Paizo doing a lazy cop-out and shoehorning a TWF reference in instead of actually writing down how Spell Combat behaves.

@Cavall: You seem to have no idea how the tier list works. What did the swashbuckler do against: Flying enemies, invisible enemies, various barriers (walls, chasms, lava lakes etc.), nasty status effects, constant incoming damage, magically hidden stuff, and other non-combat hazards?
Low tier doesn't mean the character is crap in a vanilla combat. It's about being crap in non-vanilla combats and non-combat situations.

PossibleCabbage argued that the Swashbuckler is one of the weakest classes in the game on the basis of he being limited to the use of a single hand like a magus using spell combat, so it seem that he was basing his opinion on 6the damage output, not the tier argument.

And the tier argument function only if you play in a game where the spellcaster always have the time to prepare the spells, always know all the right spells, always have all their spells available and so on.
Essentially you stack the game in the favor of the spellcasters and then complain that the spellcasterss are all powerful.

Yes, if you play the 15 minutes adventuring day where spellcaster can go nova without any problem with the need to be able to fight again the same day, they are tier 1. If you try to play in a more realistic environment, that advantage is greatly lessened.


Derklord wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
So... authors need to anticipate every possible way that text could be mis-interpreted and somehow prevent that from happening (which is, of course, completely impossible)?
Maybe don't reuse language that has caused confusion in the past.

The problem lies not with the feats, but with spell combat itself. Spell Combat says it works like TWF, except it's not a weapon in the off-hand, it's not an attack with the off-hand, and it doesn't get the same penalties (i.e. you don't need the TWF feat). The text for Spell Combat referencing TWF only makes stuff more confusing, and every single rule question regarding it comes from Paizo doing a lazy cop-out and shoehorning a TWF reference in instead of actually writing down how Spell Combat behaves.

@Cavall: You seem to have no idea how the tier list works. What did the swashbuckler do against: Flying enemies, invisible enemies, various barriers (walls, chasms, lava lakes etc.), nasty status effects, constant incoming damage, magically hidden stuff, and other non-combat hazards?
Low tier doesn't mean the character is crap in a vanilla combat. It's about being crap in non-vanilla combats and non-combat situations.

No, see if you nerf the options: no flying, etc, it levels playing field (since I bet his DM didn't use flying).


Well. Lets see if i can help answer your questions to alleviate that salty taste in your mouths, guys.

1. I was the DM. When i say "having run " thats what that means. So Starbuck your lose the bet right away.

2. invisibility never came up in skull and Shackles due to the celestial totem based skald. In fact the few times dust of disappearance would have worked there was work around because skalds. Ranged with invisibility were taken care of with the Gozreh worshipper.

3. They owned a portable bridge. Chasms and ship boarding weren't an issue.

4. She was d10 character with a celestial based skald. Constant damage was NEVER an issue.

5. Flying characters needed to be more than 50 feet in the air to be a concern to her, given her incredible focus on jumping and fear effects. If they were more than 50 feet in the air, one dispel magic later and they weren't, were knocked prone 5d6 damage down and lunch meat for the martial
Classes. Even feather fall just saved them the damage not the result.

6. Tiers weren't mentioned. Just that it was a weak class. I proved they were actually a great crowd controlling debuffer. "Alt facts" only exist if you misread cabbages post. Or my response which, given once again you guys could not even figure out I was the GM of, was more likely.

7. Was very few magically hidden things in the AP. But ironically the few that were around she was the one that deduced it based on spacing of rooms on the maps she would draw. She would then leave it to the casters to try. In other words she found more by being smart than by rolling dice. The tier system is based on the intelligence of the player as well, so she furthered the plot better by paying attention and role playing than throwing dice.

And lastly 8. The tier system is a desperate clinging of people that demand a white room pvp game. My group plays as a group. It's never come up. So in a "who is better my tier one vs" the tier one would have to have taken on 6 players. Because they fought as a group. Like pathfinder is supposed to. I don't care about tiers (which were once again not the discussion abyways) because it engages lonely self masturbation at the gaming table and we frown on that.

Hope that helps! Don't care if it doesn't!


I find it odd that people have a problem with "the Swashbuckler could use some more nice things, the Magus probably does not need them" or at least that people have a problem with the first part of that.

These are the two classes with the most stringent "keep your other hand open" requirements so it's tricky to avoid giving the Swashbuckler something helpful without running into issues with Magus compatibility.

I mean, if nothing else the Swashbuckler is mechanically a mess if you want to do something far off from "rapier and intimidate" since it's got a bad case of "Whatever it was that happened to the ACG".


Well the ability to disarm or give other status effects against dc of armour class vs cmd (usually 10 to 15 points different) was a nice plus to the class. Hitting AC is what martial do best so... yeah it goes well.


@Cavall: Every single word I wrote to Diego Rossi applies to you, too. I could give you a list about every one of your points (like how the tier list has absolutely nothing to do with PVP), but there is one thing I actually have to adress:

Cavall wrote:
6. Tiers weren't mentioned.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
That the Swashbuckler is one of the lower tier classes?

So your statement is an obvious lie.


Or its not. Because it wasn't mentioned until we asked him to explain why he thought they were a weak class. Then they were the answer

Cart before horse.

"Obvious lie." Come on.

Liberty's Edge

Derklord wrote:

@Cavall: Every single word I wrote to Diego Rossi applies to you, too. I could give you a list about every one of your points (like how the tier list has absolutely nothing to do with PVP), but there is one thing I actually have to adress:

Cavall wrote:
6. Tiers weren't mentioned.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
That the Swashbuckler is one of the lower tier classes?
So your statement is an obvious lie.

No, the post by PossibleCabbage was an addendum after his original post.

This is what he wrote originally:

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

I really hate "clever" writers trying to bypass the free hand requirement of spell combat and some other ability. They simply generate a lot of problems when they write loopholes in the rules.

I don't mean you, Rylden, but the guy that wrote that ability.

The problem is that the Swashbuckler has similar "don't use your other hand" restrictions and unlike the Magus is one of the weakest classes in the game. So the question from a design perspective is how do we circumvent the "nothing in your off-hand" restriction the Swashbuckler requires in order to use Precise Strike, Slashing Grace, etc. without simultaneously giving the Magus more tricks.

Unless you were to just give up the 'Buckler for dead (which would be unfortunate since it's got fun fluff) this issue is going to keep coming up. Probably to make the distinction cleave better, you need to pay attention to "are you doing something with your other hand" which the Magus is, but the Swashbuckler isn't.

Point to where he speak of "tiers", before accusing someone to lie.

Weak and low tier are related but different concepts. The tier concept try to encompass everything, combat and not combat, and evaluate the ability of a class to cover every part of the game by itself. It fail as to do that it create an artificial environment. To repeat, it is based on the assumption that the spellcasters always have access to their full roster of spells and abilities, something that is rarely true while playing.

Weak implies that the class isn't capable to do what it is meant to do. A swashbuckler is meant to do damage and avoid being hit, and it to that well.


I really don't think the swashbuckler was particularly well designed, as martial classes go.

It gets bottlenecked very badly in that all of its class features depend on the same action, so your capacity to use them all effectively is very limited. You need immediate actions to use Charmed Life, and you need to use Charmed Life on a regular basis because the Swashbuckler has very weak base fort and will saves. Given that blowing either usually takes you out of the action immediately (or worse, makes you a hindrance to your friends) you're going to want to keep Charmed Life on them. Which creates a weird scenario of a martial, a go-all-day class, who has a daily resource that runs out faster than spells, after which he is extremely vulnerable to any effect that doesn't target his AC, of which there are a lot.

Then there's the fact that those immediate actions eat your swift actions for the following turn, which means your defensive class feature actively prevents you from using any of your deeds the following turn. This is the only class I know of that has one class feature that prevents you from using other ones. Normally class abilities are supposed to compliment each other, not interfere with one another.

One-handed weapon+Empty Hand is also pound for pound the worst melee fighting style in the game by a whole lot.

Absolutely nothing beats two-handed weapon for melee damage output, and it often does battlefield control better with reach.

TWF has a number of built in tricks, and while it's quite feat heavy it can similarly do a lot of damage when well-posistioned.

Sword+Shield is TWF but with much better defenses in exchange for being more feat-heavy. If we're talking about doing damage and not getting hit by attacks, Sword+Shield is the best style, period. You need a LOT of Dex before you're getting anywhere near the AC of a shield-bearing warrior who can wear decent armor.

One-handed fighting sacrifices two-handed's increased damage, twf's extra attacks, and the defensive use of a shield. In exchange, it gets...basically nothing. The swashbuckler gets Precise Strike to try and make up for the damage loss, but that's about it.

I'm still rather miffed that the class was presented as a "mobile fighter, dashing in and out of combat" and then got stuck with the same "stand still or suck syndrome" as every other martial in the game. The only fighting style that's able to make use of all their attacks while moving around is unarmed combat with the monk and the brawler.

As far as "do damage and avoid being hit," every class with d8 or higher hit dice was designed to accomplish that, so that's not super-impressive as a niche. The swash does at least have the fact it's a decent face going for it, but Parry & Riposte does not a good class make.


Going back to the OP's Q?, bucklers don't use the hand, so the combo should work out for ya.


Cavall wrote:


5. Flying characters needed to be more than 50 feet in the air to be a concern to her, given her incredible focus on jumping and fear effects. If they were more than 50 feet in the air, one dispel magic later and they weren't, were knocked prone 5d6 damage down and lunch meat for the martial
Classes. Even feather fall just saved them the damage not the result.

Um,, unless they erratwed Fly, it comes with Feather Fall effect when dispelled.


Thanks. I had forgotten that part. Which doesn't impact much of the point I was making but it's a great clarification.

Liberty's Edge

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

I really don't think the swashbuckler was particularly well designed, as martial classes go.

It gets bottlenecked very badly in that all of its class features depend on the same action, so your capacity to use them all effectively is very limited. You need immediate actions to use Charmed Life, and you need to use Charmed Life on a regular basis because the Swashbuckler has very weak base fort and will saves. Given that blowing either usually takes you out of the action immediately (or worse, makes you a hindrance to your friends) you're going to want to keep Charmed Life on them. Which creates a weird scenario of a martial, a go-all-day class, who has a daily resource that runs out faster than spells, after which he is extremely vulnerable to any effect that doesn't target his AC, of which there are a lot.

Then there's the fact that those immediate actions eat your swift actions for the following turn, which means your defensive class feature actively prevents you from using any of your deeds the following turn. This is the only class I know of that has one class feature that prevents you from using other ones. Normally class abilities are supposed to compliment each other, not interfere with one another.

Classes that are starved for swift/immediate actions: Magus and Inquisitor. I don't have played a gunslinger or most classes of the ACG, so I don't know how that are with immediate actions.

The swashbuckler can regain panache points during the day, a magus or monk can't (barring the use of wyroot). So the "limited resource" argument is questionable. The pool is small if you don't spend a feat to increase it, but if you don't regain points during the day either you aren't fighting or something is very wrong on how you use the swashbuckler.

Blackwaltzomega wrote:


As far as "do damage and avoid being hit," every class with d8 or higher hit dice was designed to accomplish that, so that's not super-impressive as a niche. The swash does at least have the fact it's a decent face going for it, but Parry & Riposte does not a good class make.

For most martial classes not being hit is a function of their equipment, not of a specific class feature.

And Precise Strike give a bit more of the benefit of using a 2 handed weapon against a one handed weapon. 1 hp of damage plus 1 every 4 levels against 1 level (unless the targets are somewhat immune to critical or sneak attacks). I would do that exchange every day. (Nothing stop a swashbuckler from taking power attack or pirana strike.)

Liberty's Edge

Starbuck_II wrote:
Cavall wrote:


5. Flying characters needed to be more than 50 feet in the air to be a concern to her, given her incredible focus on jumping and fear effects. If they were more than 50 feet in the air, one dispel magic later and they weren't, were knocked prone 5d6 damage down and lunch meat for the martial
Classes. Even feather fall just saved them the damage not the result.

Um,, unless they erratwed Fly, it comes with Feather Fall effect when dispelled.

He covered that, and what matter is that you are no longer flying, not the falling damage.

And that apply only to the fly spell and items that cast it. not to air walk, polymorph, items that give a way to fly (unless they actually cast the fly spell) and several other ways to fly.
On the other hand wildsaped druids and creatures with natural and supernatural way to fly don't care about dispel magic, but generally you can deal with them with ranged attacks (you know, bows), readied actions to attack them when they get close or finding shelter in a location with a low ceiling.

Sure, if you are caught in a plain, without any way to attack at a range, by a enemy that can make an unlimited number of ranged attacks, you have very little chance to survive. But that is more a problem of lack of preparedness than of tiers or class power.
A simple smokestick will stop any targeted spell and a lot of targeted abilities if you take cover in the smoke.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:

I really don't think the swashbuckler was particularly well designed, as martial classes go.

It gets bottlenecked very badly in that all of its class features depend on the same action, so your capacity to use them all effectively is very limited. You need immediate actions to use Charmed Life, and you need to use Charmed Life on a regular basis because the Swashbuckler has very weak base fort and will saves. Given that blowing either usually takes you out of the action immediately (or worse, makes you a hindrance to your friends) you're going to want to keep Charmed Life on them. Which creates a weird scenario of a martial, a go-all-day class, who has a daily resource that runs out faster than spells, after which he is extremely vulnerable to any effect that doesn't target his AC, of which there are a lot.

Then there's the fact that those immediate actions eat your swift actions for the following turn, which means your defensive class feature actively prevents you from using any of your deeds the following turn. This is the only class I know of that has one class feature that prevents you from using other ones. Normally class abilities are supposed to compliment each other, not interfere with one another.

Classes that are starved for swift/immediate actions: Magus and Inquisitor. I don't have played a gunslinger or most classes of the ACG, so I don't know how that are with immediate actions.

The swashbuckler can regain panache points during the day, a magus or monk can't (barring the use of wyroot). So the "limited resource" argument is questionable. The pool is small if you don't spend a feat to increase it, but if you don't regain points during the day either you aren't fighting or something is very wrong on how you use the swashbuckler.

I'm aware Panache regenerates doing the things a swashbuckler should be doing.

Charmed Life, a rather important defensive resource for a class that has bad saving throws, does not. You can use it a grand total of four times at level 6, and I've been in a number of campaigns where you might need to make four saving throws in a single encounter, let alone an adventuring day. It feels fundamentally wrong to me that the swashbuckler, despite being a martial and therefore an all-day class, has a resource that will run out faster than spells on nearly any adventuring day unless your GM is going very easy on you with fort or will effects.

Diego Rossi wrote:
For most martial classes not being hit is a function of their equipment, not of a specific class feature.

I respectfully disagree. Fighters, Gunslingers, and Rogues all have class features that allow them to make themselves more difficult for enemies to hit. If you're including some easy-access feats as class features, I'd also point out the Monk and the Fighter can spec fairly easily into things that allow them to "parry" ranged attacks, which is no mean feat for a melee warrior that is otherwise at a huge disadvantage against bowmen and ranged mages.

Quote:
And Precise Strike give a bit more of the benefit of using a 2 handed weapon against a one handed weapon. 1 hp of damage plus 1 every 4 levels against 1 level (unless the targets are somewhat immune to critical or sneak attacks). I would do that exchange every day. (Nothing stop a swashbuckler from taking power attack or pirana strike.)

Well, you should include that a 2-handed power attack, it's +3 damage with an additional 3 every 4 levels, albeit at the cost of a slight dip in accuracy. Add the 1.5 strength and precise strike will usually be able to stay competitive but have difficulty pulling ahead. Also, to my profound annoyance, Piranha Strike is a power attack technique for light weapons only, but the swashbuckler is absolutely at their best when using a one-handed weapon, particularly the rapier.

Precise Strike is a good class feature; I'd argue it's one of the only reasons to play the class at all, in fact. But I'm just pointing out it is there because without it fighting with a weapon in one hand and nothing in the others is at a big disadvantage in both damage and AC, so it needs extra stuff to try and bring it back up to par.


I think that charmed life at level 2 having what's the equivalent of a +4 cloak of resistance 3x a day for your character is vastly better than you're selling it.

Even if the entire ability was used in a single fight, that's still worth it to make 3 saves (an almost surety at that level with that bonus) than not. It's not considered a "weakness" when you've got a larger bonus than as a will based (but not wisdom.) character like, say, a wizard would. Ones got a 3 the other a 4, making the not will saved martial class actually better off.

If he's got to roll more will saves than that in one encounter, I'd say it an issue with the encounter more than the character. Who would still be better off than most the party at that point. (Paladin excepting, of course.)

I also think selling short the ability to handle out confusion, disarm one or even two handed weapons or give a rather impressive -2 to attacks and saves as a swift action (which can be made into -4 with a Cruel weapon very quickly) makes it a wonderful debuffer.

You could even knock them prone, make them sick and demoralized for massive debuffs within 2 attacks. Or take casters out with confusion effects they would normally save from with a high will save by targeting their ac instead.

If anything damage isn't it's selling point at all. Far from it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cavall wrote:

I think that charmed life at level 2 having what's the equivalent of a +4 cloak of resistance 3x a day for your character is vastly better than you're selling it.

Even if the entire ability was used in a single fight, that's still worth it to make 3 saves (an almost surety at that level with that bonus) than not. It's not considered a "weakness" when you've got a larger bonus than as a will based (but not wisdom.) character like, say, a wizard would. Ones got a 3 the other a 4, making the not will saved martial class actually better off.

If he's got to roll more will saves than that in one encounter, I'd say it an issue with the encounter more than the character. Who would still be better off than most the party at that point. (Paladin excepting, of course.)

I also think selling short the ability to handle out confusion, disarm one or even two handed weapons or give a rather impressive -2 to attacks and saves as a swift action (which can be made into -4 with a Cruel weapon very quickly) makes it a wonderful debuffer.

You could even knock them prone, make them sick and demoralized for massive debuffs within 2 attacks. Or take casters out with confusion effects they would normally save from with a high will save by targeting their ac instead.

If anything damage isn't it's selling point at all. Far from it.

If you were given a +4 cloak of resistance that only activated a couple times a day, and at the cost of not being able to do most of the things you mentioned in the second half of your post if you ever use it for any reason, you would not be too impressed with that cloak, I think. I certainly wouldn't be.

Charmed life was a complete waste of class features to cover a weakness in the class that had no good reason to exist in the first place. BOTH of the parent classes of the swashbuckler are strong fortitude classes, and the very first swashbuckler practically anyone thinks of is a guy who's immune to iocane powder and can walk off being mostly dead all day. The wimpy fort save has never made any sense.

Why did the class need two separate resource pools, one of which actively interferes with you using the other when you want to? If Swashbucklers got Steadfast Personality as a bonus feat and a strong Fort save they would be in roughly the same place defensively as the ranger or gunslinger and the class would actually be able to go all day because you don't have to start getting antsy after using your defensive class feature twice about if you're going to make it to the end of the dungeon without running out.

I'm sorry, but Charmed Life is stupid and unnecessary. It should just have had a strong fort and reflex save to begin with, like the Brawler and Slayer both did.


We disagree. Clearly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm afraid I have to agree, Charmed Life requiring an action is rather unnecessary when the Swash has so many other things vying for its Swift. There are a total of 4 swift action activated deeds and 2 immediate action deeds, aside from anything else on which you might care to use swift action.

That is a serious action economy pile-up, you need that action to

-Use Dodging Panache
-Riposte with Parry and Riposte
-Kip Up
-Menace Targets
-Use Dizzying Defense
-Double Precise Strike's Damage
-And Use charmed life

Now do not get me wrong, Charmed Life is a good ability. However, Paladins get Charmed life for free. No action. Obviously this is exceedingly powerful, however simply having charmed life activate automatically X times per day when you are targeted would not have been a huge stretch.

Also, as to the original question, the words on the feat pretty clearly make it work for Spell Combat. A shame that was not the intention.

Liberty's Edge

Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
And Precise Strike give a bit more of the benefit of using a 2 handed weapon against a one handed weapon. 1 hp of damage plus 1 every 4 levels against 1 level (unless the targets are somewhat immune to critical or sneak attacks). I would do that exchange every day. (Nothing stop a swashbuckler from taking power attack or pirana strike.)

Well, you should include that a 2-handed power attack, it's +3 damage with an additional 3 every 4 levels, albeit at the cost of a slight dip in accuracy. Add the 1.5 strength and precise strike will usually be able to stay competitive but have difficulty pulling ahead. Also, to my profound annoyance, Piranha Strike is a power attack technique for light weapons only, but the swashbuckler is absolutely at their best when using a one-handed weapon, particularly the rapier.

Precise Strike is a good class feature; I'd argue it's one of the only reasons to play the class at all, in fact. But I'm just pointing out it is there because without it fighting with a weapon in one hand and nothing in the others is at a big disadvantage in both damage and AC, so it needs extra stuff to try and bring it back up to par.

You are missing the point. The difference in damage between power attack with a 2 handed weapon and power attack/pirana strike + precise strike is str bonus *0.5 + 1 +1 every 4 levels vs. 1/level.

As I already said, nothing stop a swashbuckler from taking power attack or pirana strike.

If you compare a swashbuckler without power attack or pirana strike to a 2 handed weapon user with power attack you are comparing different things.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Shield Gauntlet Style, and Spell Combat All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.