Grousing about Gunslingers and Surmising about Swashbucklers


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I see Focus pool as being for magic-users. Thus, a Grit pool as being for martial-users. Five arguements:

1) It defines an Adventuring Philosophy represented by the "risk/reward" concept behind the Grit mechanic, which becomes the engine of the class's abilities.

2) Grit is not a "learned technique" as are Sneak Attack, Opportunist, Shield Block, Flurry of Blows. Grit is something else.

3) A Class allows for thematic modularity which could easily include choice of initial proficiencies (gun, fencing, etc), covering both Gunslinger and Swashbuckler.

4) Since it is a class, by default, it becomes a multi-class archetype.

5) A Class (as opposed to just an archetype) would probably be "in demand" enough by the playerbase to justify.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:


Quote:
... Sure ... but a guile class would also provide all of that via dedication. I don't see what we'd be loosing. As it stands, with the CRB, if you want to add rogue-like abilities to your Fighter, you take the Rogue dedication. Why not do the same with this Guile class?

Well for three reasons:

1. There's not much else to this class so far. Thematically, it occupies the same conceptual space as a Rogue+Fighter multiclass outside of the Focus pool. A Focus pool and powers is not enough to be a class on it's own in my book. There hasn't even been a suggested way to fill out this class proposed thus fair in the thread.

2. It restricts access to feats/abilities that a Fighter should definitely have access to. Riposting and Parrying are not unique concepts to a Swashbuckler, those are simply methods of Fighting. If I wanted to play a Fighter...

Not sure if that’s the forum or my iPhone cutting your quote short.

1. This feels like something highly personal to me - I like a certain type of Boardgame, therefore the differences between those games interests me, which makes them seem more different to each other for me, than they would to someone who doesn’t care about boardgames at all. I really like fantasy, and happily own many fantasy games - but know other people who roll their eyes and can’t be bothered to distinguish between them. In reverse, I really don’t care about cars, and cannot tell the difference between different brands - my friend’s car is blue is about as much as I care to remember. Similarly I’m sure there are people who don’t care about the difference between the Fighter, Ranger Barbarian and Rogue - they are all mundane weapon martials - for someone who plays exclusively casters, they may as well be the same class they never play. I’m giving an over the top example to try and make my meaning clearer. I imagine that for someone who likes both of these kinds of classes a lot the distinction between swashbuckler and fighter is more interesting, and more deserving. We currently lack data to judge if there are enough such people for it to be worth Paizo’s effort and time. Anecdotally this conversation makes me suspect there is, but I also suspect I am (relatively) biased towards it.

2. I would hope parry/riposte would work out like dual wielding; each class that should have it (fighter, rogue, guile, ranger, monk, bard?, barbarian?, etc...) would end up getting versions of them that suits their own class. For example a fighter’s might interact with stances, a monk’s with ki/focus, and a rogue’s with sneak attack - etc...

3. I currently imagine archetypes as being more restrictive than dedications, but we have no final version examples to compare, and I have to admit I’m not familiar enough with the play test to comment on the one or two examples it had. Simplistically one main reason I imagine them as being more restrictive is that there are two broad categories of ways to build a half fighter half guile, if guile is a class, but only one if guile is an archetype. Also, a class is far more likely to get ongoing support than an archetype - and I suspect I like the daredevil/reliant on fortune theme more than you do.

In my opinion Guile would be the perfect class for characters like Captain Jack Sparrow, Rincewind or Mat Cauthon, Though Mat would be dual classed with some unreleased martial leader class. While Rincewind might have the first dedication feat for Wizards ... he wouldn't have much more than that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rincewind has no magic capability. He has a pointy hat and that is it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:

I see Focus pool as being for magic-users. Thus, a Grit pool as being for martial-users. Five arguements:

1) It defines an Adventuring Philosophy represented by the "risk/reward" concept behind the Grit mechanic, which becomes the engine of the class's abilities.

2) Grit is not a "learned technique" as are Sneak Attack, Opportunist, Shield Block, Flurry of Blows. Grit is something else.

3) A Class allows for thematic modularity which could easily include choice of initial proficiencies (gun, fencing, etc), covering both Gunslinger and Swashbuckler.

4) Since it is a class, by default, it becomes a multi-class archetype.

5) A Class (as opposed to just an archetype) would probably be "in demand" enough by the playerbase to justify.

Monk has focus so the magic/martial goes out the door.

#2 Learned? sorcerers don't learn focus spells, it's in there blood so that's out.
#3/4 An archetype allows far more modularity, and could be added to any class hopefully without tethering it to a stat like a multiclass would, so I'm seeing #3 and #4 out.
#5 I haven't seen a majority here call out for a class vs an archetype and I have no way of knowing what the playerbase as a whole wants: So I think "demand" isn't so clear cut. Secondly, it has to be far more that grit, the class: it has to have 20 levels of abilities and I think "demand" would go down if most were copy/pastes of other martial classes feats with a minor change. IMO that's a tough thing as I don't think there are even enough PF1 deeds to have 3 choices every other level.

That leaves #1 and that's a matter of opinion and in no way limits it to a single class, archetype or class feat to pull off.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

I think we’ve been thinking of Swashbuckler in the wrong way. What if Swashbuckler was designed to inflict conditions (similar to rogue) and deal with positioning (similar to fighter). Part of what people have been describing the class as, and how i remember it from 3.5, the class is rewarded for always moving around and isn’t hindered as much by terrain. A dualist/debuffer vibe would feel unique to what we currently have class wise.

I think my argument here would be that you could still utilize that concept without a stand alone class.

Certainly a Guile Archetype applied to a Fighter would create the positioning aspect you speak of, and a Guile Archetype Rogue would accomplish the conditions aspect.

Personally, movement and conditions seems to be squarely in the Monk camp at the moment (which offers both). Adding Guile to a Monk would scratch that itch in some cases, though the weapon aspect could be weird (though not so much that I'd go the other way.

My comment was mostly on what it would look like if it were a class. Part of me feels a pure Archetype wouldn’t be as satisfying, but i’m Willing to be proven wrong. Also i’m Not sure what you meant my adding a Guile Archetype to Fighter and Rogue. Fighter already had feats specifically for positioning enemies where you want them and Rogue had feats focused on applying conditions to enemies and using those conditions to their advantage. If anything a Guile Archetype would give the Fighter better ways to apply conditions and Rogue would have better ways to position the enemies.

@Rainzax - I could see Grit working as a Class Feature. My real worry with/about Grit ends up being classes getting access to too many seperate pools for arbitrary reasons.


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
@Rainzax - I could see Grit working as a Class Feature. My real worry with/about Grit ends up being classes getting access to too many seperate pools for arbitrary reasons.

I'm not sure that's a big problem. These pools are pretty self contained and separate, generally speaking and if someone takes the effort to go out of their way to get as many pools as possible that's clearly something they're okay with managing.


Stone Dog wrote:
Rincewind has no magic capability. He has a pointy hat and that is it.

True, but also as written he wouldn't make a playable PC character. Rincewind inspired perhaps.

Also after posting that I remembered Luggage. Maybe multi-classed with some kind of spell-less summoner?


Squiggit wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
@Rainzax - I could see Grit working as a Class Feature. My real worry with/about Grit ends up being classes getting access to too many seperate pools for arbitrary reasons.
I'm not sure that's a big problem. These pools are pretty self contained and separate, generally speaking and if someone takes the effort to go out of their way to get as many pools as possible that's clearly something they're okay with managing.

And Dedication feats are three feat chains between links.

Let's say you have a "pool class", then pick up a second "pool class" at 2nd level with a Dedication feat. You need to choose two more feats from that class before picking up a third Dedication.

The system has that future-proofing built in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
rainzax wrote:

I see Focus pool as being for magic-users. Thus, a Grit pool as being for martial-users. Five arguements:

1) It defines an Adventuring Philosophy represented by the "risk/reward" concept behind the Grit mechanic, which becomes the engine of the class's abilities.

2) Grit is not a "learned technique" as are Sneak Attack, Opportunist, Shield Block, Flurry of Blows. Grit is something else.

3) A Class allows for thematic modularity which could easily include choice of initial proficiencies (gun, fencing, etc), covering both Gunslinger and Swashbuckler.

4) Since it is a class, by default, it becomes a multi-class archetype.

5) A Class (as opposed to just an archetype) would probably be "in demand" enough by the playerbase to justify.

Monk has focus so the magic/martial goes out the door.

#2 Learned? sorcerers don't learn focus spells, it's in there blood so that's out.
#3/4 An archetype allows far more modularity, and could be added to any class hopefully without tethering it to a stat like a multiclass would, so I'm seeing #3 and #4 out.
#5 I haven't seen a majority here call out for a class vs an archetype and I have no way of knowing what the playerbase as a whole wants: So I think "demand" isn't so clear cut. Secondly, it has to be far more that grit, the class: it has to have 20 levels of abilities and I think "demand" would go down if most were copy/pastes of other martial classes feats with a minor change. IMO that's a tough thing as I don't think there are even enough PF1 deeds to have 3 choices every other level.

That leaves #1 and that's a matter of opinion and in no way limits it to a single class, archetype or class feat to pull off.

graystone,

I count "Ki" as a form of "magic" by virtue of using the Focus mechanic. And in so doing, purport to maintain a magic / martial distinction. And besides, even if you disagree that Monks are not "magic", a distinction can still exist with Monks being a special exception.

Secondly, Interesting you mention Sorcerer (which I didn't for my second point). Because, the Grit mechanic can be analogous to sorcery, whereas Fighter, Rogue, and Monk abilities can be analogous to wizardry; One is more talent and the other is more training.

Thirdly, explain to me how an Archetype (a collection of feats) has more modularity than a class (a collection of initial abilities and feats)? I do not understand your logic.

Fourthly, I agree and disagree with you. Agree in that yes, using feats and deeds to distinguish the class sufficiently from other classes will require a lot of design work. Disagree in that "demand" is not measurable. Uncommon measures include thread content in these forums. Enough to say that Gunslingers and Swashbucklers are definitely popular with the playerbase.

Final point, citing a point of disagreement, or pulling in another perspective, is not an act of negation. Your making claims then labeling my points "out" does neither the work to verify nor disavow. Though, I do enjoy the discussion that is generated notwithstanding.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stone Dog wrote:
One is that if the only reason to have specific rules for swashbucklers/Gunslingers is to have a focus on the traditional weapons, then they can easily be an archetype or even just a series of feats and builds. However, the charm of the classes for me was the risk/reward mechanic that was seen in panache/grit. If there could be a mechanic that centered on that sort of daring-do, then I think that a Daredevil/Maverick/Swashbuckler/Gunslinger could be a good class on its own.

Absolutely, similarly to Cavalier's Mounted Combat ability/focus just being Archetype/Feats. I agree in seeing the Panache/Grit/Luck type mechanic being decent basis for class, which can be more weapon-independent, with gun/1-hander style mechanics being mostly pushed to independent Feats (although specific interactions with Panache/Grit/Luck could be Class Feats).

Actually, I think the non-Mount specific part of Cavalier (i.e. the social/banner/order stuff) could plausibly be lumped into such a Panche/Grit/Luck based class which would more generally be a CHA-based more social/skill-sy "martial" character... "Challenger" might be term encompassing all these tropes?. "Marshal" is also another concept which could fit in here, the mundane/non-magical teamwork enabler. EDIT: All those themes and tropes seem close enough already, that they feel like coherent basis for a class. Some could even be (sub-class) "Paths" with some degree of exclusivity (although I wouldn't expect them to be actually exclusive, more just like specializations).

Squiggit wrote:
I love the concept of panache/grit, but I don't really love the idea of a single class owning that concept. Conceptually what panache and grit represent absolutely seem like the kind of things rogues and fighters and nonmagical monks and probably barbarians and rangers should be able to pull off too.

I'm not sure why Multiclassing for these abilities is less appropriate in 2E than in 1E? Certainly any conceptualization of them as unified by single class would necessitate imagining what the Multiclass Dedication of that Class would offer.

WatersLethe wrote:
It may be possible that Focus isn't a suitable garden to plant Grit/Panache into, but I certainly don't think we should start with that assumption. I'm not sure what Risk/Reward paradigm makes those resources ineligible for Focus powers. (...) I could also easily envision restrictions such as: "If a focus point is gained via the Grit feat's Grit Recovery rules, that point can only be used on other Grit abilities." It may seem convoluted, but in practice wouldn't be any worse than multiple pools. Unless you multiclass, it wouldn't even come up, and if you do multiclass it would help reduce the nova potential of that combo.

I personally don't think any "Risk/Reward paradigm" is particular important to issue (whatever approach chosen could be "balanced"). The essence of issue is that it isn't magical, and having lots of other magical abilities doesn't logically improve your non-magical Grit/Panache/Luck (and vice-versa non-magical Grit/Panache/Luck doesnt' logicall improve other magical abilities).

You address how unjustified assumptions should be discarded, but your post seems premised on idea that Grit/Panache/Luck should necessarily involve a "pool" in the first place (i.e. "wouldn't be any worse than multiple pools"). In fact I reject that premise completely, it doesn't seem necessary, and policing the boundaries similar-yet-different pools seems a waste of rules text, and antithetical to idea of distinct class having distinct mode of play. I'd much rather have Luck/etc based ability with no pool whatsoever. That can be a Crit or whatever triggered effect which erratically allows bonus effects/special actions etc, but is not consistently usable like a "pool" suggests (i.e. the "push the button" analogy of character powers). A personality/luck based ability like panache/grit seems more thematic to NOT be consistent, but rather more unpredictable. As I wrote in other thread...

Quote:
Perhaps instead of a Pool, Grit/Panache could allow a Flat Check [e.g. 20%] in order to enable special effects, with specific actions or situations allowing heightened or automatic chance of success. Possibly with cool-downs after succesfully use, which could also be situationally modified. That would smell alot more like a Luck-based class to me, especially as it would avoid them needing "10 minutes to regenerate Focus Pool", which works for a Monk's meditation exercises but not really Billy the Kid or the Three Musketeers.

-----------------

...In terms of Investigator and Archaeologist that are mentioned, I see those being related to Alchemist and Occultist, so possibly Multiclassing Alchemist and Occultist with a "Challenger" class would be popular and viable, maybe even having specific feat options to enhance synergy.

Adjacency to Rogue is interesting issue, for one, a social skill-sy martial "Challenger" seems plausible to have similar Skill Feat dynamic to Rogue. I'm not sure if them having identical 2x Skill Feats is actually a problem, it obviously isn't one re: Multiclassing between them as Rogue MC doesn't grant that (AFAIK). While Rogue might be potential vehicle for some of same concepts (Swashbuckler, "fast talker" social Rogue?), I don't think that is problem to potential existence of "Challenger" class, and Rogue/Challenger MC combos seems entirely viable to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:
Thirdly, explain to me how an Archetype (a collection of feats) has more modularity than a class (a collection of initial abilities and feats)? I do not understand your logic.

A collection of feats can be stapled onto any class that has access to them. Class features are inherently limited to that class and whatever is allowed to be poached via multiclassing, which is itself a more restrictive system than regular feats.

My concern is that, for a lot of the things being described as potential niches for the swashslinger to fill, one question that keeps popping into my head is "Okay but why couldn't I just do that with a fighter, rogue or maybe ranger?" I don't see a compelling way to make a fencing, dashing swashbuckler that doesn't feel like it thematically steps all over a swashbuckling rogue.

In PF1 the answer was that the system had holes in it that could only be filled by sweeping packages of class features, which was unfortunate, but a necessary evil.

Here it just seems like the dividing line between where the existing classes end and where the hypothetical swashslinger begins feel kind of arbitrary and like it would lead to one class or the other feeling shortchanged.


Squiggit wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
@Rainzax - I could see Grit working as a Class Feature. My real worry with/about Grit ends up being classes getting access to too many seperate pools for arbitrary reasons.
I'm not sure that's a big problem. These pools are pretty self contained and separate, generally speaking and if someone takes the effort to go out of their way to get as many pools as possible that's clearly something they're okay with managing.

Going off the PT, the Druid and Cleric can slip into that fairly easily. Complications aside, there still isn’t a good reason given other than thematic for why there should be a Martial version of Focus.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I know this is a discussion thread about the viability of either of these as whole new Classes versus Archetypes but I don't have the bandwidth to get into detail explaining why I feel as I do so I'll just make my perspective known instead.

Neither needs new Classes. The Archetype system plus the inclusion of additional Class Paths down the line will offer more than enough room to create both of these ideas without having to waste 25 pages in hardcover and continue supporting them with every other book down the line, it's a waste of development time and space.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:
I count "Ki" as a form of "magic" by virtue of using the Focus mechanic. And in so doing, purport to maintain a magic / martial distinction. And besides, even if you disagree that Monks are not "magic", a distinction can still exist with Monks being a special exception.

Monks with ki powers have magic abilities, full stop. They were an (Su) class in 1E and the only thing that's changed is making those abilities opt-in rather than inherent to the chassis. A Monk with Ki Strike is every bit as magical as a Paladin with Lay on Hands.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Complications aside, there still isn’t a good reason given other than thematic for why there should be a Martial version of Focus.

Because grit isn't focus? A resource that's intended to go up and down within an encounter can't be focus. If you want to call it focus there'd be so many exceptions to the base assumptions of how focus works that it'd be easier to call it something else.


Arachnofiend wrote:


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Complications aside, there still isn’t a good reason given other than thematic for why there should be a Martial version of Focus.
Because grit isn't focus? A resource that's intended to go up and down within an encounter can't be focus. If you want to call it focus there'd be so many exceptions to the base assumptions of how focus works that it'd be easier to call it something else.

So it should work like focus; have powers like focus; but be called Grit?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know it's funny.

When people say the "guise" class can have a unique mechanic based on luck or something, the others respond with that should be for everyone.

But when people mention getting access to weapons, the other say: That's just a fighter, multiclass fighter, or dont step on fighter.

***********

Unpopular opinion:
There are plenty of feats that a Swashbuckler/Gunslinger/Sleuth/Archeologist could get if you combine all the class and archetype abilities they originally had. I mean just between default Swashbuckler and Gunslinger you have about 24 unique deeds from levels 1 to 19, the remaining being different versions for melee and range. Add in deeds from the 30+ Swashbuckler/Gunslinger archetypes, all the deed specific feats, and any potential new feats they might create; And you get 3 (up to even 5) times more abilities than PF2e classes have feats to expend.

************
Yes Fighters are weapon masters as so they get all the weapon feats, except all the feats that are class specific due to either mechanics or concept. So why cant there be a class that has a unique mechanic and feats that interact with said mechanic that has "guns" as their weapon?

Otherwise, Ranger should'nt get bow affecting feats (which they in fact do).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:

Every character should be able to do borderline impossible things. Non-combat things should ideally be tied to skill feats, magic things should be tied to spells or focus powers, and in-combat martial things should be equally achievable by Fighters specializing in those martial things.

I don't think you can base a whole class solely on its ability to do something cool without going into detail about how they do that.

If it's pseudo-magical luck, then you've got some sort of luck-magic class going on with some cool potential.

If it's derived from training and skill, well say hi to Fighter and Monk.

If it's sheer determination or gumption, say hi to Fighter again.

Panache? Seems like it's tied to being flamboyant and confident, so should be tied to Charisma, but why can't Fighters and Rogues be charismatic people able to do borderline impossible things with sufficient training?

This really resonated with me. And it is worth remembering that a lot of limits have been really dialed up-- playtest fighters could leap 30 feet straight up and spike an enemy out of the sky like the volleyball by like level 8. The monk shenanigans with wall run are CRAZY. Rogues start walking through walls and Rangers can find their target across all of existence.

Which isn't to say you can't make a class with a panache pool, but our bar for "impossible things martials can do" has already been raised without a resource pool attached to it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Everytime I read discussions about this topic I keep thinking about the Riskbreaker job originating in the game Vagrant Story.

It's not the same mechanically, it's just that the name Riskbreaker sounds so damn cool.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

(For the purposes of the argument, Gunslinger and Swashbuckler are interchangeable, as are Grit and Panache, naturally.)

When I look back over the Gunslinger Deeds, by and large, they were never any more or less "impossible" than combat feats of equivalent level. So to me, that distinction - impossible vs non-impossibe - misses the point. That begs the question:

"What differentiates Gritty Deeds from Class Feats (of the Fighter, Rogue, etc)"?

To me, the answer harkens back to the OP's first post: the concept of a ratio between risk and reward, acted out mechanically. So perhaps an Axiom could be as follows:

"When the Grit pool is full, a Gritty Deed is comparably better than a Class Feat. When the Grit pool is empty, a Gritty Deed is comparably worse than a Class Feat."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

On the basis of arguments against this as a class, I don’t see why Ranger should be a separate class from Fighter. Or Barbarian for that matter.

Everyone can be angry; let everyone have access to rage.
Everyone can focus on things, or hunt things. There is no reason not to give the fighter hunt target - or whatever it’s called.

And while we are at it, why doesn’t the fighter have access to sneak attack?
It’s just about hitting the target in the right way - why can’t a fighter who specialises in weapon use do that?

In short I really don’t see the argument that magical luck/panache should be for everyone therefore ‘Guile’ shouldn’t be a class. This is what the dedications are for.


I'd like to see reuse of Focus, but maybe the deeds and what not that would normally add to grit/panache instead add a Focus point that is usable until the end of the current or perhaps following round, and does not stack.

Got a crit? Great, you now have a bonus Focus point available until the end of the round. Or perhaps until the end of the next round (because how much would it suck if you got that extra Focus on your final attack of the current round but couldn't use it)?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ramanujan wrote:

On the basis of arguments against this as a class, I don’t see why Ranger should be a separate class from Fighter. Or Barbarian for that matter.

Everyone can be angry; let everyone have access to rage.
Everyone can focus on things, or hunt things. There is no reason not to give the fighter hunt target - or whatever it’s called.

And while we are at it, why doesn’t the fighter have access to sneak attack?
It’s just about hitting the target in the right way - why can’t a fighter who specialises in weapon use do that?

In short I really don’t see the argument that magical luck/panache should be for everyone therefore ‘Guile’ shouldn’t be a class. This is what the dedications are for.

Well to argue against that as a premise, let me tell you why I think those are distinct enough:

Barbarian is quite literally the "Sorcerer" to the Fighter's "Wizard". It is structured around innate power that you gained from your birth/tribe that allows you to do those things. It has a distinctly different feel because it is not focused on "Training" and "Skill" so much as it is focused on "Passion" and "Overwhelming Power".

On the note of the Ranger, they kind of went a little further away from the 3.5/PF1 version of "Nature" Fighter, but I do think that niche has enough space to live in if they continue to expand on Traps and their Focus options. This is the "Primal" response to the Champions "Divine" Fighter. Lastly, it is here because it has been in the editions for a while and because of Aragorn/Legolas if we're being totally honest.

How I see the martials breakdown in terms of combat:

- Fighter - Best at Offense
- Barbarian - Best at Disruption
- Champion - Best at Defense
- Monk - Best at Debuff/Enemy Control
- Ranger - Best at Battlefield Control

Now each of the above are generalized roles, and of course there is some overlap on each, but for the most part they lean in those directions.

A "Swashbuckler" is really just someone who's acrobatic and uses a sword. Given that all of the above can use acrobatics and a sword, that's not really much of an identity.

A "Gunslinger" is someone that slings guns.

If in this new edition, Weapons are not meant to be a class identity (which certainly seems like the case) then those two Classes are unnecessary.

So What is left?

Well Swashbuckler got some new actions, which is nice.

But look at the PF2 Fighter:

Dueling Parry, Dual-handed Assault, Dueling Riposte, etc.

So now we've established the only "Unique" mechanic left on the Swashbuckler really is the Panache aspect.

And if you look at the PF1 Swashbuckler Deeds, you'd see that about half of them are just Fighter Feats in the current edition (or just outright aren't applicable in the new system). Some are straight up Rogue abilities.

Basically, I think if you were to breakdown the Gunslinger and the Swashbuckler into their pieces and compared those pieces to the current game, it becomes very clear that a Charisma based Focus Pool with some "Daring" Focus Spells is about the only thing that's missing from the game.

A Charisma Based Focus Pool with Focus Spells, to me, sounds like an Archetype.

And all of the above Melee classes could use that pool to augment or alter their "role" as mentioned above.

The argument that you could flesh out a whole Class for it does not have a lot of teeth to it IMO. To me, architecturally it has to make sense in terms of the game design.

Example: it's logical to assume we would get 14 Spellcasters. There are 4 lists currently, and 4 essences. Given there are two essence combinations untouched at the moment, that would create 6 total possible lists. Each list would have a prepared and a spontaneous. And then, given the precedent the Sorcerer has set, two casters that "pick a list", one prepared and one spontaneous.

There's an obvious and logical progression to allow a different and new concept. Not saying the above will definitely happen, but it's easy to see it going there (and is almost assumed).

What "role" or missing piece does the Gunslinger/Swashbuckler really bring to the table? I would be really surprised if you couldn't play a daring acrobatic Fighter type right now. Creating it just to create it is, as someone else has said, a waste of work. I would rather they flesh out unique concepts instead of rehashing something that was created on necessity.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I get the feeling that people have become used to Rogues and Fighters being second-class (haha) classes, and the notion that you should play them if you want to do something flashy is just too foreign.

Like, the only reason I can see people wanting a different gunslinger or swashbuckler class as opposed to general archetypes, or class archetypes of fighter, is to not have to play a fighter.

To be clear, I do believe a compelling source of power or talent could provide the basis for a new, distinct class.

There is no class that gets most of their cool features from manipulating luck. (Also Riskbreaker IS a cool name)

There is no class that uses their in-born racial heritage to perform incredible feats of strength or agility (like a martial sorcerer, with a non-magical bloodline). This could easily be used as a basis for a good marksman character, in the vein of Wanted (curving bullets, quick movement, or other capabilities that were supposed to be a mix of training and heritage)

I specifically object to new classes being made with the premise that they have specific martial training unavailable to rubes like Fighters or Rogues. I also object to mechanics like Grit being gated from Fighters despite every description of those mechanics sounding exactly like a Fighter's bread and butter.


My counter-point is that there is a design space for a new martial class that would suit this proposed Guile class well.

You defined the other martial classes by what they excel at but isn't their room to create a jack of all trades which can do everything inconsistently, which a focus on critical hits and active defense.

I am playing devil's advocate. I don't have much stake in this beyond wanting pf2 to be good and for swashbuckler/gunslinger players to be happy. If we can get that with an archetype; fine. But just because of the 1e version being lackluster doesn't mean we can't improve it in 2e.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Someone mentioned upthread that, lumped in with Gunslinger and Swashbuckler, we could add the Archeologist (an old Bard archetype) and Sleuth (an old Investigator archetype).

It was nested in a spoiler.


What is meant above by 4 lists and 4 essences - 2 of which are untouched?

I know the lists but what is meant by essences? I recall it discussed but do not remember the specifics


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:

What is meant above by 4 lists and 4 essences - 2 of which are untouched?

I know the lists but what is meant by essences? I recall it discussed but do not remember the specifics

The Essences of magic are Material, Mental, Spiritual, and Vital.

The Traditions of magic (spell lists) are Arcane (Mat/Men), Divine (Spi/Vit), Occult (Men/Spi), and Primal (Mat/Vit).

In theory there could also be Mental & Vital as well as Material & Spiritual. However, there are arguments against it as well as no current plans mentioned to develop those ideas.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:

What is meant above by 4 lists and 4 essences - 2 of which are untouched?

I know the lists but what is meant by essences? I recall it discussed but do not remember the specifics

Well they were briefly defined in the Glossary description for the spell lists in the back of the book. These essences were the basis for comprising the spell lists: Vital, Material, Mental, and Spiritual

Currently the breakdown is:

Vital + Material = Primal
Mental + Spiritual = Occult
Spiritual + Vital = Divine
Material + Mental = Arcane

So the essence combinations left are:

Vital + Mental and Material + Spiritual

Leotamer wrote:

My counter-point is that there is a design space for a new martial class that would suit this proposed Guile class well.

You defined the other martial classes by what they excel at but isn't their room to create a jack of all trades which can do everything inconsistently, which a focus on critical hits and active defense.

I am playing devil's advocate. I don't have much stake in this beyond wanting pf2 to be good and for swashbuckler/gunslinger players to be happy. If we can get that with an archetype; fine. But just because of the 1e version being lackluster doesn't mean we can't improve it in 2e.

A "Jack of All Trades" class to me sounds like a Rogue thing.

But then "Jack of All Trades" is often paired with the phrase "Master of None"

Being a Master of None in Pathfinder 1 often meant you were just outshone by whoever else was doing their job,

Even saying there's some design space that Swashbuckler/Gunslinger could fit into that was fully fleshed out, that would need to be WHOLLY distinct enough that it didn't encroach on other roles.

Given what they are trying to do with the Fighter in making it finally stand on it's own, creating these Classes is going to be the antithesis of making it shine. By creating Gunslinger/Swashbuckler you are by extension limiting the conceptual space of the Fighter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
A "Jack of All Trades" class to me sounds like a Rogue thing.

In my mind, that was traditionally the Bard. He could fight, but not as well as the fighter. He had skills, but not as many as a rogue. He had spells, including Healing, but wasn't as good of a caster as a Cleric or Wizard. But if he showed up as the fifth member of the party everyone was happy to see him.

That said, in 2E, the Bard is a full caster, so that's likely no longer the case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Essence is a term from the playtest, it basically states that each spell list is made by taking 2 different types of magic. For example: The Divine list is Spirit/Vitalitiy, while the Primal list is Material/Vitality; or something to that effect.

A more general view is: What 2 things does the spell list affect most.

***********
Fighter gets bow feats, doesnt mean Ranger doesn't get bow feats.

A swashbuckling character would still get it's relevant Parry/Riposte feats that works for them, and distinct from the fighter version.

Again people dont want general weapon feats, but they also cant accept giving classes other than Fighter their own weapon feats. Its hypocrisy I say.

As for weapon defining classes, there is a lot of versatility in what weapons they can actually use. Gunslinger for example, was also the base for Siege Engine, Crossbow, and Longbow mastery.


WatersLethe wrote:

I get the feeling that people have become used to Rogues and Fighters being second-class (haha) classes, and the notion that you should play them if you want to do something flashy is just too foreign.

Like, the only reason I can see people wanting a different gunslinger or swashbuckler class as opposed to general archetypes, or class archetypes of fighter, is to not have to play a fighter.

To be clear, I do believe a compelling source of power or talent could provide the basis for a new, distinct class.

There is no class that gets most of their cool features from manipulating luck. (Also Riskbreaker IS a cool name)

There is no class that uses their in-born racial heritage to perform incredible feats of strength or agility (like a martial sorcerer, with a non-magical bloodline). This could easily be used as a basis for a good marksman character, in the vein of Wanted (curving bullets, quick movement, or other capabilities that were supposed to be a mix of training and heritage)

I specifically object to new classes being made with the premise that they have specific martial training unavailable to rubes like Fighters or Rogues. I also object to mechanics like Grit being gated from Fighters despite every description of those mechanics sounding exactly like a Fighter's bread and butter.

Personally i love how Fighter and Rogue have turned out; and Brawler was a favorite class of mine in 1e. Wanting to see Swashbuckler as a class or not isn’t hinged on weather people want to play the other classes or not; though there probably are people that lean that way.

One thing to keep in mind is even if a Grit/Panache class were to be a thing, that doesn’t mean a Fighter/Rogue specific Archetype with the mechanic can’t come about with it or after it. If a Swashbuckler Archetype comes out in place of a class it will never be a class, full stop. I will always argue if it makes sense to make it a class first and an Archetype second cause it’s easy to do that way; doing the opposite is an example of Sisyphus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm just generally in favor of more classes. Just because we make a swashbuckler class instead of an archetype, doesn't mean fighters can't get that stuff- archetyping works the same for multiclassing as it works for anything else.

Like the only reason I was in favor of reducing the cavalier to an archetype is that "mounted combat" as a niche is something that simply isn't going to work in a lot of campaigns, and a class isn't the sort of thing that shouldn't be eliminated from consideration by things like "this is an intrigue game" or "most of this game is on ships."


Quintessentially Me wrote:
I'd like to see reuse of Focus, but maybe the deeds and what not that would normally add to grit/panache instead add a Focus point that is usable until the end of the current or perhaps following round, and does not stack. Got a crit? Great, you now have a bonus Focus point available until the end of the round. Or perhaps until the end of the next round...

I don't understand what real value you see in forcing this into Point Pool paradigm, not why it need stack with other magical Focus pools? What you describe doesn't seem to inherently require those concepts, it sounds more like unique triggered condition of ~1 round duration which enables unique actions or special effects to normal actions.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
even if a Grit/Panache class were to be a thing, that doesn’t mean a Fighter/Rogue specific Archetype with the mechanic can’t come about
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Just because we make a swashbuckler class instead of an archetype, doesn't mean fighters can't get that stuff- archetyping works the same for multiclassing as it works for anything else.

Right, I feel that comments like PH11's above are somehow biased against Multiclassing or unconsciuosly considering it less than ideal. But whether an Archetype is tagged "Multiclass" or not doesn't change it's fundamentals, it's a pile of Feats with Dedication requirement. Only difference for Multiclass Archetypes is you can't take them if that already is your base class.

rainzax wrote:
Someone mentioned upthread that, lumped in with Gunslinger and Swashbuckler, we could add the Archeologist (an old Bard archetype) and Sleuth (an old Investigator archetype).

Yeah, I definitely mentioned Archaeologist (Luck) and Investigator, as well as Cavalier and "Marshal" as defining broader "social/skill-sy grit/luck/banner/teamwork based non-magical martial" which is IMHO a more than solid basis for base class (and multiclass), and all those niches feel ripe for mixing and matching within one class.

The thing is, even carving out 1h/gun/mount specializations into distinct archetypes (or merely dedication-less universal class feats), there actually still is room for this class to reference them, possibly even giving fast track access to them (or removing Dedication requirements to enable more mixing/matching?). Offering "Sub-Path" focused on those could even be route for people primarily focused on that, and there could be specific Feats enabling synergies with other Class Feats/Abilities.

But weapon/combat style isn't something that needs to be 100% baked into the class, or that needs to be hived off from other classes for characters not interested in the social/skill-sy/luck/grit/banner angle. Conversely, other classes can MC into this class for those non-weapon/combat style features that fit their concept.

Ignoring combat style specifics, 1E Inquisitor was sort of the solo version of Cavalier re: Teamwork Feats, I can totally see a martial Cleric MC into "Swashslinger"/"Challenger" for the Teamwork / Marshall type abilities, maybe with Subpath or Feat choices aimed at "selfish" mode (benefitting independent of allies, VS granting benefits to all allies ala Cavalier/Marshal), but not actually doing anything with Guns/1H-Swashbuckling/Mounted Combat... and that would feel totally coherent with theme of the Multiclass and overall character build. Which to me says a base class like this (and corellary MC) is well founded addition to the game. Generic "More Martial Cleric" is already covered by Cleric Sub-Path, but the more social/skill-sy/solo tactics angle of Inquisitor remains to be covered, which this type of class (and it's MC) would enable.

If the MC baseline only enables one "subpath", then character concepts only interested in that one subpath mechanic might be well served by other classes choosing this as MC. Going all into the class might do better at that single mechanic, but further enable easily mixing and matching between the range of mechanics (grit/panache, luck, banner, solo/group teamwork tactics). So in a way, I think a 2E class consolidating those would go beyond what any of those classes did in 1E, by really going all in on the social/skill-sy/tactics martial angle, rather than just being "master of specific weapon/style", although again I think allowing this class preferential access to those combat style archetypes would make sense too.


WatersLethe wrote:

I get the feeling that people have become used to Rogues and Fighters being second-class (haha) classes, and the notion that you should play them if you want to do something flashy is just too foreign.

Like, the only reason I can see people wanting a different gunslinger or swashbuckler class as opposed to general archetypes, or class archetypes of fighter, is to not have to play a fighter.

If there is a full swashbuckler class, I wouldn't want it to have Parry/Duelling feats, too. Equipment dependent fighting styles are (mostly) fighter stuff.

That new class should focus on grit, deeds, risk and the resource management that comes with it. It could be the Focus/Encounter Power class - you can't make the daring entrance be swinging the chandelier into combat twice per combat after all. :)
Like the barbarian also has no weapon dependent fighting styles... because its core is smashing things with whatever is available.

WatersLethe wrote:
There is no class that uses their in-born racial heritage to perform incredible feats of strength or agility (like a martial sorcerer, with a non-magical bloodline).

Now I want Dwarfiness and Elvishness instincts for the barbarian!


My problem with a martial sorcerer is I am hoping for an improved shifter class. But a dwarf/elf instinct barbarian could be cool. If for some reason, we can't get a shifter that turns into a giant, ooze dragon at a high level, maybe then could accept this as plan B.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Just to carify, there are huge consequences and differences between a standard Archetype and a Multiclass Archetype:

- Multiclass Archetypes have ability score requirements, and not particularly easy ones. Dedications can have these too, but Multiclass Archetypes are guaranteed to have them.

- Multiclass Archetypes are strictly purchased with Class Feats. It has been confirmed that some Archetypes will allow Skill Feats to access certain Feats in the Dedication. This is "cheaper" than Multiclass Archetypes

- Multiclass Archetypes have a half-level restriction, that is to say, you count as half your level for the purposes of qualifying to feats. This is considerably more restrictive than a standard Archetype, which does not have this requirement at all.

When I hear people say "same thing! Having a Class is better cuz you get the best of both worlds!" I cringe. They are considerably different and making it a Class has the above consequences (as well as the other things mentioned about Feature gating).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think you are overselling these consequences. There is some cost, and these are concerns, I believe you are overstating them.

It would require stats that you would need for the playstyle anyways.

You can't print skill feats associated with the multi-class, but you can print them as regular skill feats.

Could you meaningful distinguish having half-level class feats, and archetype feats? You can only know they are half-power if you have the class to compare it too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leotamer wrote:
It would require stats that you would need for the playstyle anyways.

Fair enough

Quote:
You can't print skill feats associated with the multi-class, but you can print them as regular skill feats.

And if over 50% of your "Class" is migrated to Skill Feats, is it really a strong enough concept to stand on it's own?

Kip Up is one of the old Swashbuckler's Deeds. This is a Skill Feat that a current Fighter could just take.

So a Fighter with Kip Up, Dueling Parry, a rapier, and wearing light armor is possible. Why again do we need a whole class? Half of the things Panache allowed you to do are either Skill Feats now or are already baked into the Fighter.

In essence, this argument is a weak because it further supports the idea that making Swashbuckler a Class is a poor decision, because if most of the abilities can be put under Skill Feats, then it isn't distinct.

Quote:
Could you meaningful distinguish having half-level class feats, and archetype feats? You can only know they are half-power if you have the class to compare it too.

Yes. Just look at current Class Feats and do your own comparison. Level 8 Class Feats are stronger than level 4 Class Feats.

You also count as half that classes level for those feats, so they don't scale with total level.

I don't really see how you can argue that they aren't going to be weaker. That's literally part of the design of Multiclass Archetypes.

If they didn't have measurable difference, the rule wouldn't even be necessary.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am the devil's advocate, so I am not the best person to address the second point, but I don't believe anyone is saying, "Keep it the same but less." The argument I have been seeing is, "Take these general ideas, and combine and expand them."

As for the third point, before we see non-multiclass archetypes, we can't say how they differ from them. If they are more on par with on-level feats, then it will be a concern. But even then, I would argue this wouldn't be an issue if it is a fully-fleshed out class.

Your arguments only work if the guile class is terrible. I think everyone who wants it, would want it to be good.


Leotamer wrote:
I am the devil's advocate, so I am not the best person to address the second point, but I don't believe anyone is saying, "Keep it the same but less." The argument I have been seeing is, "Take these general ideas, and combine and expand them."

That's the thing though, no one has really outlined what specifically is "missing" from the game outside of a Focus Pool with flamboyant abilities.

If you actually go and look at those abilities (Grit or Deeds), it's pretty easy to see that NONE of them are unique, almost all of them either already exist in the form of Skill Feats, Fighter Class Feats, or Rogue Class Feats.

Then the big "rebuttal" to this is "But they could make up new stuff to put in this Class!"

So in essence, create a Class for the sake of Creating a Class even though it has no real concept that it provides or unique role.

I disagree with that. I disagree with an implementation that amounts to be a waste of resources for the sake of "people might want it".

Quote:
As for the third point, before we see non-multiclass archetypes, we can't say how they differ from them. If they are more on par with on-level feats, then it will be a concern. But even then, I would argue this wouldn't be an issue if it is a fully-fleshed out class.

There were two in the Playtest. Gray Maiden was quite good. Pirate was lackluster, but mostly because of how many Feats in the dedication were Skill focused (which is what brought on the Skill Feats purchasing for some Archetypes that the devs mentioned).

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue. Are you saying Archetypes will be weaker than Multiclass Archetypes of appropriate level?

That comes way out of left field when we saw that's not really the case in the Playtest.

Why make Archetypes at all? Let's just make a bunch of classes and delete Archetypes all together and let Multiclassing dictate what concepts can exist.

Quote:
Your arguments only work if the guile class is terrible. I think everyone who wants it, would want it to be good.

No because my argument is agnostic of the power of the Class.

It has to do with the architecture of the game.

Making a class for the sake of making a Class is bad for the game. Especially considering the new route they've taken the Fighter.

The Classes (both Gunslinger and Swashbuckler) were created to solve a problem with the mechanics, Fighters could NOT be effective Dex wielding characters.

Guns were also too complicated for any of the standard Classes, so the gunslinger was created to solve that problem.

What's the "problem" the Guile is solving exactly? I have yet to see an answer to this.

I think it serves about as much purpose as the Gentleman class (which was a joke). Anyone can be a Gentleman, it doesn't have to be a Class because the concept is not at odds with the mechanic.

Swashbuckler and Gunslinger were literally examples of Classes that would likely not have to exist in PF2 that the devs and most of the community agreed on.

How people can argue that the Magus could just be an archetype, but the shallow puddle that is these two Classes deserves a full dedicated Class is beyond me. At least in the case of the Magus, there are several class options that are missing from the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:


Quote:
You can't print skill feats associated with the multi-class, but you can print them as regular skill feats.

And if over 50% of your "Class" is migrated to Skill Feats, is it really a strong enough concept to stand on it's own?

Kip Up is one of the old Swashbuckler's Deeds. This is a Skill Feat that a current Fighter could just take.

So a Fighter with Kip Up, Dueling Parry, a rapier, and wearing light armor is possible. Why again do we need a whole class? Half of the things Panache allowed you to do are either Skill Feats now or are already baked into the Fighter.

In essence, this argument is a weak because it further supports the idea that making Swashbuckler a Class is a poor decision, because if most of the abilities can be put under Skill Feats, then it isn't distinct.

This changes the entire discussion. If deeds can be equated to Skill-Feats then do we even need an Archetype? We certainly wouldn’t need Grit/Panache. If a Swashbuckler or Gunslinger just amounts to what they can do with Deeds and Deeds are as good as Skill-Feats then why even go through the semantics of taking a dedication feat? I guess Gunslinger at least has the Gun identity enough to warrant a dedication feat, but from your example i don’t see why Swashbuckler would need a dedication feat; just gut out the middle man and call it a day.

Midnightoker wrote:
Quote:
Could you meaningful distinguish having half-level class feats, and archetype feats? You can only know they are half-power if you have the class to compare it too.

Yes. Just look at current Class Feats and do your own comparison. Level 8 Class Feats are stronger than level 4 Class Feats.

You also count as half that classes level for those feats, so they don't scale with total level.

I don't really see how you can argue that they aren't going to be weaker. That's literally part of the design of Multiclass Archetypes.

If they didn't have measurable difference, the rule wouldn't even be necessary.

Half level caps out the feats others can grab to 10th for the original class. The feats themselves aren’t dependent on the ‘parent’ class level but rather the character level. Power Attack for example would still upgrade normally even if you grab it via multi-class. If there’s an example that says otherwise that isn’t normally a class feature, such as Rage, i’ll retract my statement, but i just don’t recall one at the moment. This also means where an Archetype would have feats seperated by 2 level increments MC Archetypes can just bundle a gaggle of feats at one level for the player to choose from.

EDIT: I fully believe that the Magus should be a class, but i feel that is more for another thread atm. I’ll also agree with your point about, ‘making a class for the sake of making a class’ is bad and not the side some of us are trying to make a case for. Both sides are worthy of making a discussion of though.


What's missing is a class that manages a resource that goes up and down depending on your actions during a combat, rather than something that's limited to a specific amount during the combat. The Swashbuckler and Gunslinger were honestly pretty crappy implementations of this concept; if you want something better to draw from DDS's Striker and Prodigy are quite interesting.


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:


This changes the entire discussion. If deeds can be equated to Skill-Feats then do we even need an Archetype? We certainly wouldn’t need Grit/Panache. If a Swashbuckler or Gunslinger just amounts to what they can do with Deeds and Deeds are as good as Skill-Feats then why even go through the semantics of taking a dedication feat? I guess Gunslinger at least has the Gun identity enough to warrant a dedication feat, but from your example i don’t see why Swashbuckler would need a dedication feat; just gut out the middle man and call it a day.

I agree. If there is no need, don't do it.

Could a "Flare" pool with unique stuff be a fun archetype? Sure, and I think that Luck/Charm/Grit concept could live there.

But in general, yes to this.

Quote:
If there’s an example that says otherwise that isn’t normally a class feature, such as Rage, i’ll retract my statement, but i just don’t recall one at the moment.

I went back and read to see what it says, and it does specify for the purpose of prerequisites so presumably the ability would still scale with total level. Certainly better than if it didn't scale with total level, which does make it a bit more palatable, but definitely not as free-flowing as a standard Archetype.

Quote:
This also means where an Archetype would have feats seperated by 2 level increments MC Archetypes can just bundle a gaggle of feats at one level for the player to choose from.

The archetypes in the Playtest offered multiples at the even numbered levels, Cavalier offers two choices at level 4 and there doesn't seem to be any limit.

Now Classes might offer more options overall at a given level, but that's with the assumption that Archetypes couldn't grant access to certain pools of abilities (for instance an Archetype that offers Stances like a Monk, but does not require you to be a Monk). That hasn't happened or had a precedent set, but it's a conceivable thing they could do.

Also you can't even select these other options of pools until level 4 (which you can do only once for a 1st or 2nd level Class Feat) and then cannot access everything in the full pool until Level 6 (still with the level restriction).

So in essence, if we are discussing the fate of the Swashbuckler/Gunslinger, my attitude is "So long!"

If we're speaking about a completely revolutionary class concept then my attitude is "I'd like to know what that is before I make any assumptions"

I've heard a lot of people state the Occultist should be the "Focus Class" so I have a hard time visualizing the "Guile" as that Class. Now I could see a Class Path for the Occultist centered on Luck based feats (or even like a Bloodline/School for focus powers where it could be Courage, Luck, Death, etc.) but again, the topic of the thread is "Swashbucklers and Gunslingers".

On the magus, perhaps a different thread, but in my mind we're not even talking about the Swashbuckler anymore, because that's just a Fighter with CHA/DEX Skill Feats now.

arachnofiend wrote:
What's missing is a class that manages a resource that goes up and down depending on your actions during a combat, rather than something that's limited to a specific amount during the combat. The Swashbuckler and Gunslinger were honestly pretty crappy implementations of this concept; if you want something better to draw from DDS's Striker and Prodigy are quite interesting.

And I agree some kind of Focus pool focused Class is indeed a unique concept that is missing.

Perhaps the Occultist can marry the concepts across the myriad of "pool based classes" under a single roof in the form of a Influence/Bloodline/School/whatever and cover the Grit/Luck/Ki/Panache categories. Incorporate "win-conditions" that repopulate the Focus Pool more quickly inside of combat.


While that makes sense, you are suggesting that there can't be other ways to do things.

Fighters have parry, therefore no one else can parry using a different technique (wait Rangers get Twin Parry so that's clearly false).
And everyone can get Kip Up, so no class can do Kip Up differently.

For example PF1e had two versions of Kip Up. Swashbucklers could as a move action stand up without provoking, and as a swift action pick up their weapon and get a bonus to feint. They also had like four/five different versions of Parry, all with different conditions and benefits.

A PF2e possible Swashbuckler Kip Up feat?:
Kip-Up: Passive; at turn start if you are prone, you stand back up without triggering reactions. 1 action; must have a free hand and still have X resource, pick up an unattended weapon or object from the ground and perform a feint action using Acrobatics (Dex).

A PF2e possible Swashbuckler Parry feat?:
Opportune Parry and Reposte: 1 reaction and spend 1 point of X resource; when attacked you may parry the attack, roll a Strike vs the enemies Strike roll.
Crit Success: You take no damage and you may roll weapon damage vs the enemy.
Success: You take no damage.
Crit failure: You take damage and drop your weapon.
Failure You take damage.

**********
May I ask why do we have to design the class that we want the dev's to design? That's like putting the cart before the horse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

While that makes sense, you are suggesting that there can't be other ways to do things.

Fighters have parry, therefore no one else can parry using a different technique (wait Rangers get Twin Parry so that's clearly false).
And everyone can get Kip Up, so no class can do Kip Up differently.

Rangers offer a new "role" that is not filled: "Primal Warrior"

No such Role has been offered for Swashbuckler, because "Swashbuckler" literally is defined as "daring swordfighter with charm".

"Daring Sword Fighter with Charm" is not a role.

Quote:
For example PF1e had two versions of Kip Up. Swashbucklers could as a move action stand up without provoking, and as a swift action pick up their weapon and get a bonus to feint.

Because Kip Up already exists for one:

Quote:

KIP UP

FEAT 7 Prerequisites master in Acrobatics Trigger Your turn begins and you are prone. You stand back up. This movement doesn’t trigger reactions.
Quote:
They also had like four/five different versions of Parry, all with different conditions and benefits.

The Fighter has literally these feats. What exactly are you "missing" that is sorely needed? I'm genuinely asking.

As for the comment on Ranger, it's called Twin Parry and is literally a replacement for not having a Shield since all it does is provide an AC bonus. It doesn't really offer anything akin to a "Swashbuckler".

Also, Parry is a Weapon attribute now, so by definition it can be used by whoever.

The existence of the PF1 Parry abilities already exist in the Fighter from the Playtest.

There's nothing missing.

Quote:


May I ask why do we have to design the class that we want the dev's to design? That's like putting the cart before the horse.

I didn't ask anyone to design anything.

I asked "What is missing/what role does this fill?"

I had gotten some genuine answers in regards to that in the form of a "Focus centered class"

However, that's not a Swashbuckler. A Swashbuckler is a daring individual that uses a sword.

I keep hearing that it's "wanted", and yet no one has said exactly what it is that they "want" that doesn't currently exist outside of the Focus pool.

You can Kip, you can parry, you can pick CHA Skill feats, you can wear light armor.

If we're going to wring our hands and say "but yeah Paizo could come up with something!" that's not really a response.

We're talking about reinventing the wheel.

The Swashbuckler from Pathfinder exists. It's called "Fighter".


Midnightoker wrote:
And I agree some kind of Focus pool focused Class is indeed a unique concept that is missing.

Okay seriously how dense can you possibly be

Quote:
What's missing is a class that manages a resource that goes up and down depending on your actions during a combat, rather than something that's limited to a specific amount during the combat. The Swashbuckler and Gunslinger were honestly pretty crappy implementations of this concept; if you want something better to draw from DDS's Striker and Prodigy are quite interesting.
Quote:
What's missing is a class that manages a resource that goes up and down depending on your actions during a combat, rather than something that's limited to a specific amount during the combat.
Quote:
What's missing is a class that manages a resource that goes up and down depending on your actions during a combat
Quote:
a resource that goes up and down depending on your actions during a combat

Does this sound like an Occultist to you? Did the Occultist's focus points go up and down during a fight, or did you have a limited number that could be refreshed during a rest? You know, exactly the way Focus works in PF2, and exactly not the way grit works? I have to assume you're being deliberately obtuse because you know the only way to argue your point is to misrepresent what other people are saying.


Temperans wrote:

**********
May I ask why do we have to design the class that we want the dev's to design? That's like putting the cart before the horse.

Because the cart is shiny. I feel the forums are a good place for feedback and stirring creativity. The devs could see something and be inspired or change their ideas based on public opinions and discussions. Also for home brew it’s a good place to get different peoples ideas and opinions for creative and critiquing purposes.

@Toker - Fighter has a Twin Parry as well in the PT. Also ‘Primal Fighter’ could be covered by Fighter/Druid or a separate archetype rather than a full class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think I have to agree with Midnightoker here. Swashbuckler is better represented by a series of skill feats, general feats, and fighter or rogue class feats than a whole base class.

Gunslinger as a 'take this class to use guns competently/get a free gun' should not exist. Guns should simply be good weapons with the rare tag.

A class that has a pool of fluctuating luck, or building attunement like the starfinder solarian sounds like it could be a unique mechanic, but I'm not seeing it having a thematic space not already taken by the rogue, the fighter, or the fighter/rogue. A neat mechanic does not make a class, the class also needs a battlefield role and flavor that isn't just 'this other class, but more specialized'.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
And I agree some kind of Focus pool focused Class is indeed a unique concept that is missing.

Okay seriously how dense can you possibly be

Quote:
What's missing is a class that manages a resource that goes up and down depending on your actions during a combat, rather than something that's limited to a specific amount during the combat. The Swashbuckler and Gunslinger were honestly pretty crappy implementations of this concept; if you want something better to draw from DDS's Striker and Prodigy are quite interesting.
Quote:
What's missing is a class that manages a resource that goes up and down depending on your actions during a combat, rather than something that's limited to a specific amount during the combat.
Quote:
What's missing is a class that manages a resource that goes up and down depending on your actions during a combat
Quote:
a resource that goes up and down depending on your actions during a combat
Does this sound like an Occultist to you? Did the Occultist's focus points go up and down during a fight, or did you have a limited number that could be refreshed during a rest? You know, exactly the way Focus works in PF2, and exactly not the way grit works? I have to assume you're being deliberately obtuse because you know the only way to argue your point is to misrepresent what other people are saying.

Um that's a lot of vitriol coming from a suggestion about incorporating it into the Occultist class.

I didn't misrepresent what you said:

Quote:
I've heard a lot of people state the Occultist should be the "Focus Class" so I have a hard time visualizing the "Guile" as that Class. Now I could see a Class Path for the Occultist centered on Luck based feats (or even like a Bloodline/School for focus powers where it could be Courage, Luck, Death, etc.) but again, the topic of the thread is "Swashbucklers and Gunslingers".

If you're trying to say that a "Focus based class that regains Focus during combat" is somehow revolutionary different from a Focus Based Class, then idk what to say. They aren't so different that they need two conceptual spaces to operate.

You're also talking about a mechanic that's deliberately designed not to be regained at it's core premise, to then be regained via some method.

I'm gonna disengage you. I understood perfectly what you said and offered my own interpretation of how it could work.

"I Regain focus during combat" is not a "role" or even something the game is designed to handle. You'd have to create an arbitrary new pool that's outside of standard Focus pools just to make it work (creating a whole new resource system to manage just for a single class).

As if you haven't gone through great lengths to be completely "obtuse" to the fact that the thread is about the Swashbuckler and you're arguing for some figurative class with no discernible anatomy or structure to even critique.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since we are discussing how we would want this proposed class to look, I might as well throw my hat in the ring.

I would call this class the duelist and have its primary mechanic be risk-management. Its primary stats would be dex and cha. It would incorporate the "flare pool" idea, only being able to restore flare through a full-night rest or on a critical hit. They would also be highly mobile.

One idea is that they could have a posture ability, and at the start of each their turns, as a free action, they can choose between getting an untyped +1 to hit but -1 to AC, or the reverse. And this could expand to other postures with their bonuses and penalties. You could expand this power to do more; this is just the baseline idea.

It could also have more effects based on critical hits and fails, like what Temperans suggested for the parry feat.

51 to 100 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Grousing about Gunslingers and Surmising about Swashbucklers All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.