Grousing about Gunslingers and Surmising about Swashbucklers


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I didn't have a better alliteration for G and speculating was already taken by sorcerers in a previous thread.

So there is a spirited debate about these classes overwhelming another thread.

Personally, I'm of two minds.

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.


Would regaining points need to be different since criticals have changed? I am not sure if it is easier or harder now? Easier for gunslingers and harder for swashbucklers would be my guess

As long as both have strong proficiency in fortitude and reflex then I don’t really mind. Swashbuckler fell down as a front liner due to saves


9 people marked this as a favorite.

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 think it might be more valuable then to turn it into an open mechanic, kind of an alternative to focus with unique rules and nonmagical flavor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am somewhat with squiggit

imo the best options would be either as he said open it to fighters and monks (maybe to some other martials as well)

or put it with the respective skills in new archetypes


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Guns and one-handed weapons should be something all characters can access pretty well. The concept of a lucky fighter that grit/panache dip into would make an obvious choice for an archetype; it's in the same vein as cavaliers being turned into an archetype.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like the essence of the gunslinger is less "you can use guns" and more "your uncommon skill with guns allows you to do borderline impossible things." We can do the former as an archetype, but I feel like the latter should be part of a class.

One thought I had is that the the Gunslinger/Swashbuckler could be made into a Martial with a Focus pool, with a unique refocusing mechanic that functions in combat. Obviously you would need to worry about multiclassing here, but that's why we playtest.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I think the grit/panache element is unique enough element that at the very least I would like to see a class embody that.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think there's merit to having a "trick shot" character like that, and that could maybe justify it's own class, but I don't see much reason to limit it to firearms. I think if I were to build a class like that, I'd want it to work as well for building Robin Hood as it would the Mysterious Stranger.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like the essence of the gunslinger is less "you can use guns" and more "your uncommon skill with guns allows you to do borderline impossible things." We can do the former as an archetype, but I feel like the latter should be part of a class.

I feel like the former should just be something anyone can do and the latter could easily be an archetype or feat chain to specialize.


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

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.

Remember, Focus Powers are obtained usually through class feats which can be quite lengthy and often introduce new mechanics to a player. What's stopping a Grit power feat being created which does one thing if not spent, and another if spent?

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think we break the seal on "different kinds of focus, restrictions on types of focus" with the Occultist and see how that works. Since by all rights the Occultist should be the focusey-est focus caster that ever focused (as it inspired every step of the system and language that became focus), and to work correctly it will need to track focus invested in different implements differently.

So if we can handle something like "Conjuration focus can only be spent on Conjuration powers, you can spend Focus to gain Conjuration Focus" we can do something similar with Grit/Panache.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Once again, I think as soon as you add specific rules or need to track a separate number, it should be distinctive from focus.

You can write restrictions like the one Lethe mentioned, but it would be easy to miss them, misinterpret them, and would be simpler if it was "this is focus, it has these rules." and "this is panache/grit, it has these rules."

And even with these restrictions, there are other considerations. For example, there would be no reason not to spend your last grit at the end of the fight because you can mediate to recover it. And you could multiclass to get more focus points.


Grit/Panache don't need to be focus powers, Druid and Clerics have unique pools as well with wild shape and channel energy.

But anyway I believe that these two classes would work better as archetypes, in the moment that you get the dedication of gunslinger per example it makes guns a martial weapon for the character and the shotting feats give a pool of grit just like wild shape gives a unique pool as well.


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

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?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

As I recall, Mark Seifter suggested in one of his podcasts that in PF2 the Gunslinger and the Swashbuckler might end up being the same class, as Grit and Panache are basically minor variants of the same game mechanic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I could see it done via a condition, making it binary instead of a pool. So assuming that they combine into a single class, you could have the Daring condition, which many feats and features key off of, then choose a daring drive which adds some basic features to the daring condition and links it to a mental stat (Wis for a grit drive, Charisma for Panache). Maybe even make a special Dare action that makes you daring in exchange for a short term penalty, like taking extra damage or penalties to certain checks until the start of your next turn, so you aren't at the risk of not being able to become daring but still need to weigh the cost to use abilities that require you to lose the condition.


Making Grit/Panache a seperate pool, especially easily accessed by Martials, seems problematic even from a conceptual level. Why not try with non-magical focused based abilities first and see how that works? Maybe the final rules ties it too closely with magic to make this possible, but to add a seperate pool that can easily get accessed starts sliding things back into 1e.

Gunslinger itself ends up being tricky. It might work as an Archetype, and i wouldn’t be upset if it ends up that way; but a part of me isn’t totally convinced.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

As I recall, Mark Seifter suggested in one of his podcasts that in PF2 the Gunslinger and the Swashbuckler might end up being the same class, as Grit and Panache are basically minor variants of the same game mechanic.

We could throw the Investigator and the Archaeologist Bard archetype in there. Like the essence of the class is that you posses pseudomagical orneriness, elan, luck, or insight (as determined by your subclass), and you have learned to leverage this into adventuring acumen.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

As I recall, Mark Seifter suggested in one of his podcasts that in PF2 the Gunslinger and the Swashbuckler might end up being the same class, as Grit and Panache are basically minor variants of the same game mechanic.

We could throw the Investigator and the Archaeologist Bard archetype in there. Like the essence of the class is that you posses pseudomagical orneriness, elan, luck, or insight (as determined by your subclass), and you have learned to leverage this into adventuring acumen.

This could be interesting, but Investigator seemed to have little in common with Grit/Panache in 1e. Could possibly work into something interesting in 2e though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

The investigator to me is a very distinct class conceptually and mechanically.

I think you could open up a grit class to different weapons. I could definitely see a path for a non-mystical Jacky Chan style martial artist, or maybe a captain america esq shield fighter, and so on.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
I think there's merit to having a "trick shot" character like that, and that could maybe justify it's own class, but I don't see much reason to limit it to firearms. I think if I were to build a class like that, I'd want it to work as well for building Robin Hood as it would the Mysterious Stranger.

What Arachnofiend said. At least in the playtest, the fighter has no resource management (other than hit points and gear). All fighter class feats except Determination can be used as much as you want as long as you're in the right situation. This is nice, but it would also be nice to have a character with slightly lower baseline fighting ability (say, on par with a champion before adding in the magic) but with some form of resource management that lets you do extra-cool stuff. I could even see a mix of point-based resources (e.g. grit/panache) and time-based resources ("cooldowns")

And yes, such a mechanic could make sense for other classes to dip their toes in as well. That's what multi-classing is for.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

As I recall, Mark Seifter suggested in one of his podcasts that in PF2 the Gunslinger and the Swashbuckler might end up being the same class, as Grit and Panache are basically minor variants of the same game mechanic.

Even together, it seems like a WHOLE lot of class to fill out with things different than what the fighter can already do like slippery shooter, Debilitating Shot, Incredible Aim, Assisting Shot, ect. Other that grit/panache feats what is going to differentiate the 'normal' class feats between fighter and this new class? If they are the same or very similar, IMO that alone should lean away from it's own class. And if they are different enough it moves those weapons away from general use and into the category of pushing you into at least a multiclass of the class just to specialize in those weapons.

Arachnofiend wrote:
I think there's merit to having a "trick shot" character like that, and that could maybe justify it's own class, but I don't see much reason to limit it to firearms. I think if I were to build a class like that, I'd want it to work as well for building Robin Hood as it would the Mysterious Stranger.

Now if it's open to any weapon and it's mostly focused on crazy, off the wall situational stuff... I'd be more for it. Like bounce my sling stone off a wall to hit around cover then do a double backflip to avoid an attack and then maybe smash someones foot with my sling staff to slow them down.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
We could throw the Investigator and the Archaeologist Bard archetype in there.

IMO those two have a bit too much rogue in them for a straight inclusion into it IMO: they draw on different abilities [like trap abilities, alchemy and rogue talents] than the first two. I think you'd have to multiclass rogue if you wanted to emulate those with a grit/panache class.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like the fundamental difference between a fighter and a swashbuckler in terms of martial prowess is basically the difference between a wizard and a sorcerer. A fighter knows what they can do because they have trained extensively at it, whereas a swashbuckler does thing because they don't know they *can't* do it and have found things generally work out for them when they try. It's like how a wizard has to read a lot of books and understand a lot of theory to learn how to throw fireballs, whereas a sorcerer just wakes up one morning and thinks "hey, why not try making fire into a ball."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
IMO those two have a bit too much rogue in them for a straight inclusion into it IMO: they draw on different abilities [like trap abilities, alchemy and rogue talents] than the first two. I think you'd have to multiclass rogue if you wanted to emulate those with a grit/panache class.

Logan during the interview with Know Direction did say something about a possible Investigator racket together with a more magical racket for rogue in the future.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

So I did a conversion for the playtest game I am running. I went with Grit as class feats that gave you powers or now focus. I am still struggling a bit with the refill mechanic. Although with the 10 minute refocus it might not be as big a deal.


graystone wrote:
IMO those two have a bit too much rogue in them for a straight inclusion into it IMO

I'm not sure that's a huge issue. Swashbuckler and Gunslinger have a lot of roguish energy in them anyways.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'd lean pretty hard on the dynamic movement part of swashbuckler to make them distinct in a different way to monks.

Give them standard attack proficiency but an action like

Unorthodox Assault. <Double Action>
Stride, then Strike. If during the Stride you made an Athletics check to jump instead of your standard attack proficiency use your Athletics proficiency.

So they are good at making one more accurate than normal attack. From a fluff point of view they bounce along over the scenery.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like the fundamental difference between a fighter and a swashbuckler in terms of martial prowess is basically the difference between a wizard and a sorcerer. A fighter knows what they can do because they have trained extensively at it, whereas a swashbuckler does thing because they don't know they *can't* do it and have found things generally work out for them when they try. It's like how a wizard has to read a lot of books and understand a lot of theory to learn how to throw fireballs, whereas a sorcerer just wakes up one morning and thinks "hey, why not try making fire into a ball."

In some ways I get this analogy.

But mostly I don't think it works to describe the situation.

Realistically in terms of what each class is meant to do and the role they fill, a Swashbuckler is a Fighter + Panache - Proficiencies

An Archetype based on Charisma that removes some starting armor proficiency and adds Panache/Grit would accomplish this. A Charisma based Focus pool with some focus spells.

Make it combineable with a weapon based archetype (Guns or whatever) and you've got a fair amount of the "luck/grit/panache" angles covered.

I personally think dedicating a whole class to something like that is a waste if it can be accomplished with an Archetype.

Basically, if Magus can be consolidated to a single Archetype, because you can already sort of package a Magus as is Spellstrike is the only thing missing, and that concept had a LOT more teeth to it than simply "I have a pool of luck/charm based abilities".

Especially when we consider Gunslinger/Swashbuckler were created to make a weapon style work. Given that Guns could be implemented in a much more organic way and Dex based weapons are no longer as costly feat wise (and actually possible without making weird builds) those two issues are gone.

Those classes were created to solve problems with play that likely won't exist in PF2. If they were created again in a full Class form, it would probably be unnecessary.

*In my opinion of course.*


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm on favor of a class existing so long as it has a clear mechanical niche. Fighter and Rogues can certainly have potent weapon abilities and be charismatic, but there is still space for a class that does something different in those areas.

The most obvious is the pool of abilities that could be granted by something like panache/grit, since we've seen that.

Another niche that could be filled might be a Critical specialist. Somebody that manipulates the situation based on the extreme ends of the D20 roll.

Perhaps early access to critical specialization for their weapons, improving the die type for Deadly and Fatal weapons, and maybe special reactions that trigger when an enemy critically fails a roll.

They might be so dashing or impressive in their abilities that when they crit or down an enemy their allies gain temporary hit points from the moral boost.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like the fundamental difference between a fighter and a swashbuckler in terms of martial prowess is basically the difference between a wizard and a sorcerer. A fighter knows what they can do because they have trained extensively at it, whereas a swashbuckler does thing because they don't know they *can't* do it and have found things generally work out for them when they try. It's like how a wizard has to read a lot of books and understand a lot of theory to learn how to throw fireballs, whereas a sorcerer just wakes up one morning and thinks "hey, why not try making fire into a ball."

I'd disagree. The swashbuckler trains extensively too. Swashbuckler Finesse, Nimble and Swashbuckler Weapon Training seem IMO pure extensive training. IMO a swashbuckler is a fighter with a bit of luck that can wear off if overused. IMO, the the caster thing it's more like a generalist wizard [general combat goodness] vs a specialist wizard [getting more by focusing on luck].

Squiggit wrote:
graystone wrote:
IMO those two have a bit too much rogue in them for a straight inclusion into it IMO
I'm not sure that's a huge issue. Swashbuckler and Gunslinger have a lot of roguish energy in them anyways.

Not so much with sneaking, traps, bombs, and even spell like abilities [from rogue talents]. They've got more an acrobat vibe IMO than everything a rogue does. I don't expect a swashbuckler to be disarming traps for instance while I'd expect it from a rogue [or at least the possibility that could if they wished].


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:

...

Especially when we consider Gunslinger/Swashbuckler were created to make a weapon style work. Given that Guns could be implemented in a much more organic way and Dex based weapons are no longer as costly feat wise (and actually possible without making weird builds) those two issues are gone.

Those classes were created to solve problems with play that likely won't exist in PF2. If they were created again in a full Class form, it would probably be unnecessary.

*In my opinion of course.*

It is a good opinion and a good point.

Tapping into the tropes of the Swashbuckler or Gunslinger are likely more important to them being a Class or not than simply allowing for weapon use.

If they are going to be a class, which I think they should, they need their own design space.


Stone Dog wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

...

Especially when we consider Gunslinger/Swashbuckler were created to make a weapon style work. Given that Guns could be implemented in a much more organic way and Dex based weapons are no longer as costly feat wise (and actually possible without making weird builds) those two issues are gone.

Those classes were created to solve problems with play that likely won't exist in PF2. If they were created again in a full Class form, it would probably be unnecessary.

*In my opinion of course.*

It is a good opinion and a good point.

Tapping into the tropes of the Swashbuckler or Gunslinger are likely more important to them being a Class or not than simply allowing for weapon use.

If they are going to be a class, which I think they should, they need their own design space.

And, while I personally wouldn't have a problem if that did occur, would rather have had something like this directly incorporated into the Fighter as a "Class Path".

Alas, since that ship has sailed, it may just make more sense to create a new Class for it and try to map out the "space" of that.

I will say given how generic the Fighter is, and how much "Rogue" flavor is present in the Swashbuckler, that it's going to be very difficult IMO to not step on either of the other's toes.

Now, if they retroactively added Fighter Class Paths (current Fighter is just the "Warrior" path or something) that swaps Proficiencies and AoO for something comparable (Guile Path removes heavy/medium armor proficiencies, adds a Focus Pool and Focus Spell, and then trades AoO for Riposte) that might be the most elegant solution.

If it was a standalone, I'm not sure what conceptually would give it some meat, but it needs to be more than "Fighter + Grit/Panache" that's for sure.

Perhaps Cabbage's premise of "innate ability" could be paralleled here (but that really seems like a Barbarian thing.. hard to say).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Something else to consider is that gunslingers/swashbuckler doesn't have to be just guns and grit/panache. A gunslinger should include those two things if it exists, but we can expand it and give it a greater class identity.

I don't know how to expand it, but I think the conversation is hung up on what they were, and not what they could be.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Now, if they retroactively added Fighter Class Paths (current Fighter is just the "Warrior" path or something) that swaps Proficiencies and AoO for something comparable (Guile Path removes heavy/medium armor proficiencies, adds a Focus Pool and Focus Spell, and then trades AoO for Riposte) that might be the most elegant solution.

Another option is one of the archetypes we haven't seen yet: one that alters those set abilities like AoO. IMO that is an option pretty similar to your suggestion.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Leotamer wrote:

Something else to consider is that gunslingers/swashbuckler doesn't have to be just guns and grit/panache. A gunslinger should include those two things if it exists, but we can expand it and give it a greater class identity.

I don't know how to expand it, but I think the conversation is hung up on what they were, and not what they could be.

And I think that's what some people are saying, but that type of thing kind of comes at a cost.

If you lock up these abilities that are now given to the "Guile" Class (my stand in name for this "luck/grit/panache" class) so that other classes cannot get them, that can be problematic.

Most of the abilities that this class would possess are going to be things that a Fighter/Rogue will possibly want (if we're speaking outside Focus Pool/Spells).

Is it right to restrict a "Parry/Riposte/insertactionhere" behind the Guile when Rogues and Fighters would both want those types of actions (and realistically should be available to them)?

Now you could always make the argument "just take the Dedication then!", but that's the thing, should they have to take a Dedication to "be this other class" or should they just take a Dedication that adds this to their current class since those abilities aren't really unique or iconic anyways?

I mean honestly, Ki Pool for the Ninja is very close in some ways to the Panache/Grit pool, even in spirit.

By opening it up as an Archetype instead of a Class, we now have limitless options of concepts.

A Bard that uses panache and fights with a violin? Take the archetype and you're good.

Swashbuckler? Fighter + Guile Archetype

Gunslinger? Ranger + Guile Archetype

Brawler? Monk + Guile Archetype

Eldritch Magus? Fighter + Wizard Dedication + Guile Archetype

To me it seems like one of the most straightforward Archetypes discussed here. Sort of surprised to see so many people want/expect a class for it (Especially when Jason designed Swashbuckler it was discussed that the class shouldn't have to exist, it was created in PF1 as a necessity for concept).

graystone wrote:
Another option is one of the archetypes we haven't seen yet: one that alters those set abilities like AoO. IMO that is an option pretty similar to your suggestion.

And I'm sure those are on the way if we're being honest, but I do feel like retroactively making the current Fighter the "base" class path and then adding others to fill concepts could be a good route.

In fact, if the whole second book was just additional Class Paths for all the classes (very much in the spirit of what the APG was to Core in PF1) then that could be amazing. It offers a lot of variation.

Rage inducing suggestion: I want my Cleric Inquisitor Class Path y'all! You know Channel and Judgement are pretty close logistically, just do some effect swapping :)


Class Archetypes are yet unrevealed. So we don't know what they do. They may change the parent class radically.

Paizo did not put them in the PT as they felt they were okay and did not need testing and/or muddy the test data with them. Like how the optional boost for two flaws at ancestry stage was left out of the playtest.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:

I will say given how generic the Fighter is, and how much "Rogue" flavor is present in the Swashbuckler, that it's going to be very difficult IMO to not step on either of the other's toes.

...

If it was a standalone, I'm not sure what conceptually would give it some meat, but it needs to be more than "Fighter + Grit/Panache" that's for sure.

I agree here as well. It would need to be different to be worth a full 20 levels.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:


I will say given how generic the Fighter is, and how much "Rogue" flavor is present in the Swashbuckler, that it's going to be very difficult IMO to not step on either of the other's toes.

This encompasses the situation I find Swashbuckler in right now.

A GMPC in my home game was a Swashbuckler, and it was ridiculously easy to convert to Playtest rules without sacrificing mechanical identity with a simple Fighter/Rogue multiclass. The swashbuckler was easier to convert to the new ruleset than the majority of core classes. In PF2, Fighter/Rogue fills the concept of a swashbuckler better than the Swashbuckler class did, IMO.

And I don't see any particular reason to bring the class back simply because they were tied to a resource pool in PF1. I say just ditch the resource management and go Fighter/Rogue. They would have to make the Swashbuckler class fundamentally different than its PF1 iteration in order for it to seem like its inclusion was anything more than a legacy throw-in.

Not to say they couldn't make it mechanically distinct. But in that case, it would likely feel like something quite different than it was before.

TL;DR on Swashbuckler - Fighter/Rogue already represents the concept mechanically equally well in the new system, if not better, than the Swashbuckler class did in PF1.

Gunslinger is a bit more complicated, but in short I don't see why a class needs to be based around a single weapon type. Gunslinger has no more justification to be its own class than something like a polearm master. Just let the Fighters and Bards and Rogues and (insert whatever class best fits the concept of whoever your gunslinging character is) use guns.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saint Evil wrote:

Class Archetypes are yet unrevealed. So we don't know what they do. They may change the parent class radically.

Paizo did not put them in the PT as they felt they were okay and did not need testing and/or muddy the test data with them. Like how the optional boost for two flaws at ancestry stage was left out of the playtest.

Well they won't be in the release either, so what form they take is completely up in the air.

The realistic thing to do would be to just make them Class Paths along the same lines as the War Priest is now for the Cleric.

The reasoning there is it is not bound by the "level 2" restriction (although they have mentioned some offering Level 1 entry).

Class Paths are by definition available at level 1, they could radically change any innate abilities of the Class, and still leave the main pieces of the Class (so Class Feats can remain intact) all in one swoop.

I wouldn't be surprised if they totally ignore how valuable I think the new "Class Paths" are in terms of making Class Archetypes. To me, they're one and the same.

But, if it quacks like a duck, and it walks like a duck....


I hope class features can't be changed out. If class features need to change, make an unchained class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Leotamer wrote:

I hope class features can't be changed out. If class features need to change, make an unchained class.

I'm on the other side of that: sometimes a class in ALMOST perfect but you have a class feature or two that you'll never use [or wouldn't want to]. Being able to swap it for something you DO like seems amazing to me. I don't see making a whole new class that's identical except for changing a couple of features but a archetype seems easy enough and does the same thing without duplicating stuff.


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

Something else to consider is that gunslingers/swashbuckler doesn't have to be just guns and grit/panache. A gunslinger should include those two things if it exists, but we can expand it and give it a greater class identity.

I don't know how to expand it, but I think the conversation is hung up on what they were, and not what they could be.

And I think that's what some people are saying, but that type of thing kind of comes at a cost.

If you lock up these abilities that are now given to the "Guile" Class (my stand in name for this "luck/grit/panache" class) so that other classes cannot get them, that can be problematic.

Most of the abilities that this class would possess are going to be things that a Fighter/Rogue will possibly want (if we're speaking outside Focus Pool/Spells).

Is it right to restrict a "Parry/Riposte/insertactionhere" behind the Guile when Rogues and Fighters would both want those types of actions (and realistically should be available to them)?

Now you could always make the argument "just take the Dedication then!", but that's the thing, should they have to take a Dedication to "be this other class" or should they just take a Dedication that adds this to their current class since those abilities aren't really unique or iconic anyways?

I mean honestly, Ki Pool for the Ninja is very close in some ways to the Panache/Grit pool, even in spirit.

By opening it up as an Archetype instead of a Class, we now have limitless options of concepts.

A Bard that uses panache and fights with a violin? Take the archetype and you're good.

Swashbuckler? Fighter + Guile Archetype

Gunslinger? Ranger + Guile Archetype

Brawler? Monk + Guile Archetype

Eldritch Magus? Fighter + Wizard Dedication + Guile Archetype

To me it seems like one of the most straightforward Archetypes discussed here. Sort of surprised to see so many people want/expect a class for it (Especially when Jason designed Swashbuckler it was discussed that the...

... 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?

Additionally, you also gain the ability to play a Guile class and take a Fighter dedication - giving at least two ways to build each of your concepts, rather than just the one you get if it is only an archetype.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Leotamer wrote:

I hope class features can't be changed out. If class features need to change, make an unchained class.

Am I crazy or don't Class Paths do exactly this?

Rogue's Technique is exactly this type of thing, as would the initial choice of the Champion (Paladin, Liberator, or Defender).

Hunter's Edge and Researcher's Field both operate on this paradigm as well, causing the class focus to be changed pretty dramatically. They deliberately swap abilities and functions to allow concepts to be realized.

Now I think some core components need to stay for the Class to still be the same Class, but Pathfinder 1 definitely played with how much you could push a Class and still be considered that Class.

So Alchemists have to still do Alchemy. Wizards have to cast spells with Books. Rogues gotta Sneak Attack (or maybe Skill Increases, sorta depends here).

Now Fighter's are a bit tricky, because AoO is really the only thing they get early, but that said they have a LOT of long term "swaps" available (particularly ones that revolve around Weapon Mastery and Armor Mastery) that could be useless/bad for some concepts.

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 without Charisma as a focus I now have to take a Dedication (likely with a CHA requirement) just to get these actions now.

3. The intent of the original class we are speaking about was to solve a conceptual idea that didn't cooperate with the mechanics. The problem it was fixing no longer exists, so thus, it doesn't have to exist. It also stifles the concept if you make it Class exclusive (yes dedications are open to everyone, but it's half level and starts at level 2, which is a HUGE restriction). Making it an Archetype (not even speaking Class Archetypes which would be even less restrictive) is less restrictive than a Multiclass Dedication which has half level restrictions on Class Feat selections which standard Archetypes do not have, slowing the concept for others.

I find problem 2 especially troublesome when you consider what the intended design space for the Fighter was, to be the best with weapons/fighting. It was for this reason AoO, Sudden Charge, and several other Class Feats were gated behind the fighter.

Creating another gate, especially one that is so heavily interlaced with obvious Fighter influence, is not a great idea in my mind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I should have clarified. I hope paths are the replacement of 1e archetypes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if they totally ignore how valuable I think the new "Class Paths" are in terms of making Class Archetypes. To me, they're one and the same.

But, if it quacks like a duck, and it walks like a duck....

From my reading that's basically it. Archetypes sound like class paths they're adding after the fact for classes that don't actually have paths. I'm not sure there'll be any meaningful difference between deciding to play a caster or warpriest cleric vs playing a base fighter and a hypothetical fighter archetype that replaces AoO with something else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Stone Dog wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

I will say given how generic the Fighter is, and how much "Rogue" flavor is present in the Swashbuckler, that it's going to be very difficult IMO to not step on either of the other's toes.

...

If it was a standalone, I'm not sure what conceptually would give it some meat, but it needs to be more than "Fighter + Grit/Panache" that's for sure.

I agree here as well. It would need to be different to be worth a full 20 levels.

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.

@Midnightoker - I believe the dev’s have mentioned on Fighter and Monk not having class paths; so unless they change that in the future i don’t think they’re going to get any. Personally i like them w/o class paths, but to each their own.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really like the idea of the Guile archetype. Not least because adding it to a bow user gets you Robin Hood

I also don’t think any one weapon deserves a whole class especially one that jars with “conventional” fantasy and is only really common in two areas of golarion as far as I understand (shackles and mana wastes?)

If there is a whole class then it shouldn’t be weapon restricted but I can see the arguments about why certain tricks should be locked away from other classes. But then you could ask the same about the existing ones to an extent. Perhaps the dividing line would be fighters are trained and disciplined and the others are somewhat maverick?

On class abilities I would like to see a way later archetype can trade them out but it is tricky as they are layered. For example how would you trade out parts of your armour proficiency when one class gets one level, another two and another three (light, medium and heavy). Although mentioned above if they are class specific trade outs then this would work


2 people marked this as a favorite.
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).

Quote:
I believe the dev’s have mentioned on Fighter and Monk not having class paths; so unless they change that in the future i don’t think they’re going to get any. Personally i like them w/o class paths, but to each their own.

Sure but nothing is set in stone, and I was fairly certain that Monk got a Class Path associated with Wisdom (though that might have just been rumored).

Making the current fighter the "Default" Path, and adding a few more is relatively straightforward. This is more or less what was done with the Ranger in PF1 APG in terms of Weapon Styles.

Besides a Class "Archetype" that swaps your level 1 proficiency in Heavy and Medium Armor and all Two Handed weapons for a Focus Pool + Focus Spells (or whatever else Guile would offer) is not really that much different than a Class Path (thus my "duck" comment prior).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think we will see more class paths that aren't really Archetypes, but just additional options. The order of the City for an Urban Druid for example. In addition when we do get class specific archetypes, I expect those will be more like actually replace a Class feature, like remove Bravery for the Fighter and give them something else.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

People keep saying "Guile class" and I keep hearing this.

1 to 50 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.