"Why do some people feel that the swashbuckler does not mechanically live up to it's narrative role"
"Why is this thread still going?"
(yeah I quoted myself I hope their is not rules against that.)
"Why is this thread still going?"
(yeah I quoted myself I hope their is not rules against that.)
Because I was right that certain people have negative emotions about the3 class and this thread is giving them a chance to express those feelings in a non destructive way?
Wasn't that the original plan for gunslinger? I can kind of agree but I feel like it would be a huge number of changes. I can see it going igther way. That and then you couldn't archtype the gunslinger and swashbuckler by themselves.Several of the martial classes, including Swashbuckler and Gunslinger, should really be made into archetypes of Fighter.
Why not have sub-archetypes/dependent archetypes? This would also help for organizing the archetypes of classes (including both Fighter and Bard) that have enormous numbers of archetypes anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because I was right that certain people have negative emotions about the3 class and this thread is giving them a chance to express those feelings in a non destructive way?"Why is this thread still going?"
(yeah I quoted myself I hope their is not rules against that.)
I was not aware people's feeling about a class where strong enough to elicit violence... that is kind of scary.
Wasn't that the original plan for gunslinger? I can kind of agree but I feel like it would be a huge number of changes. I can see it going igther way. That and then you couldn't archtype the gunslinger and swashbuckler by themselves.Several of the martial classes, including Swashbuckler and Gunslinger, should really be made into archetypes of Fighter.
Why not have sub-archetypes/dependent archetypes? This would also help for organizing the archetypes of classes (including both Fighter and Bard) that have enormous numbers of archetypes anyway.
I guess so. They probably just felt this was was simpler. I think it kind of depends on how many class features your replacing but then they do both have weapon training don't they?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^Gunslinger and Swashbuckler have something that is tantalizingly close to Fighter's Weapon Training, but with wording just different enough that it doesn't work as Fighter's Weapon Training for gaining access to Advanced Weapon Training and Weapon Mastery feats. Several Fighter archetypes, such as Archer, have the same problem, and were never fixed after the Weapon Master's Handbook came out.
Archetypes are a good idea but they can be something of a straightjacket if you're changing a lot, at least the way Paizo usually does them. Trying to tie each change to a class feature can result in (e.g.) a spellcasting fighter archetype not getting spells until 5th level, later than any base class does. It might have been easier to write a new class for the swashbuckler.
^Yeah, Child of Acavna and Amaznen is so bad that I would have rather had a separate hybrid class (backcross from Magus to Fighter, although in the meantime, the Myrmidarch Magus archetype, even being non-optimal in a couple of ways, is better in essentially every way).
One the that irks many players is all the coddling swashbucklers get. Either "panache" into a Nethy's magic item search, and there's seventeen matches. Rerolls? Got 'em. Extra actions? Got 'em. They're like the "special" kid that always gets "A"s because their daddy runs the school board.
One the that irks many players is all the coddling swashbucklers get. Either "panache" into a Nethy's magic item search, and there's seventeen matches. Rerolls? Got 'em. Extra actions? Got 'em. They're like the "special" kid that always gets "A"s because their daddy runs the school board.
I don't find it as irksome as I think the class needs some help. Maybe the reason to play the class if for all the magic item: It needs SOME reason for someone to pick it. ;)