| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am an overly critical person. Forgive me:
When I heard Fighter was taking AoO's and they were going to make it truly it's own Class, I was skeptical, for various reasons. It's too generic, right? It can't have that many concepts surrounding it.
Then we got to see Class Paths during the playtest, and I thought, ah a Fighter with a Class Path is a cool way to divide up the different kinds of Fighters! With the new Skill Feats and diverse Class Feat styles in the mix, that gives a lot of concepts for Fighting teeth right out of the gate!
Now, Fighters didn't really get Class Paths (by intention it seems), but that doesn't mean you can't play a lot of characters without one. In fact, nothing says that the current "Fighter" couldn't just become a Class Path, I thought, and then introduce new ones that change AoO to another move and change Armor/Weapon proficiency intervals.
And then, I heard the dreaded news of the APG playtest:
Swashbuckler is getting its own Class.
So I went back to the Fighter to make sure I hadn't missed something. Dueling Parry, Dueling Riposte, Dex as a choice for Primary, Skill Feats for Kip Up, Sudden Charge for a double move and attack.
Can a Fighter afford Charisma? It seems they could, even if they couldn't dump strength. Do the weapons support it with finesse well enough? Deadly is a nice compensation and the free hand feats offer a lot of tactics.
I looked at PF1 Swashbuckler, and I see almost no unique mechanics that aren't present in some form in PF2 (the difference being Panache, which you pretty much only spend to do the Class Feats Fighters get or things like Kip Up which Skill Feats offer).
So I thought: Why? Why does the game need a whole Class dedicated to do a concept that a Fighter can already do?
By "creating" a new Class, all that's really occurred is a reduction of space for the Fighter to operate as a "Swashbuckler".
If the true point of the class was to encompass those that Fight, why is moving one of the clearly intended playstyles of the Fighter to a completely separate Class necessary? What did adding the Swashbuckler back to the game (which IMO was only created to circumvent these issues PF1 had with Fighter) actually add to the game?
I'll preamble some rebuttals I've heard:
"What if the Swashbuckler does something different from PF2? We don't know what it looks like yet."
Creating a Class with the name Swashbuckler has consequences.
For starters, new players will hear that and think "this must be how to play a Swashbuckler."
Secondly, it directly correlates confusion in the name if it's not meant to fill that same role that a Fighter can already do within his class. Example:
If there was a "Thief" class or a "Charlatan" class, that dampens the Rogues day. It doesn't matter that the Thief/Charlatan has an entirely different mantra, it inherently encroaches on the Rogues role because the Rogue is meant to be the Thief/Charlatan Class.
"We don't have a person with Panache yet, that's entirely unique!"
If you actually go back and look at PF1 Panache, you'd see it doesn't actually offer anything that doesn't exist in the game currently. Panache allows you to Kip, Parry, and other actions that already exist as all day Class Feats.
And Panache is pretty much the only iconic thing they get that isn't possible already.
And then, Panache/Grit/etc. are all not so far removed from each other that an Archetype that anyone could take wouldn't be able to scratch a lot of itches in one go.
"Why not just roll the Ranger/Champion into Fighter then with that attitude?"
Well, to some degree, I can see that argument. But I will say, that Ranger and Champion have been in DND for a long time. I'm not saying grandfathering in exceptions is a great idea, but that is some of it.
Another part is that those two have very clear flavors attached to them that are apart of the larger parts of the game: The Primal/Divine spell lists.
Now even though they don't have spells anymore, they still fit those themes and operate as the effective martial counterpart to the Caster:
Barbarian - Sorcerer
Fighter - Wizard
Ranger - Druid
Champion - Cleric
So in that sense, to me, it seems to work.
"It doesn't invalidate the Fighter to introduce Classes that Fight a specific way"
Except, it sort of does. The Fighter is finally able to replicate a lot of different styles of play all in one roof. This was apparently a huge design goal, and I think they did a good job. By adding new Classes that fulfill this role of "Swashbuckler" you've now just told every Fighter player "don't try to be a Swashbuckler as a Fighter", even if you want to argue that's not true, the sheer name is going to impact that.
If they leave the Fighter in tact, it will likely be the Rogue who suffers (A Rogue with no Sneak Attack, less skills, but better armor/weapon training). You've now told the Rogue that if he wants to wield a Rapier and be a Swashbuckler that he's "doing it wrong".
And lets say that maybe there is some tiny area that a Swashbuckler can live in that resides somewhere between their two niches.
Maybe.
But you know what you've done even if you find one?
You've limited the Fighter/Rogue from expanding into those spaces organically with Archetypes/Class Feats/Class Archetypes, which are one of the stronger parts of the systems for adding "flair" to a build.
Isn't a Swashbuckler "flair"? Is that really full class material? I know it's got a fond spot in some peoples hearts, but all I can think to say "fear not, the Swashbuckler you loved is alive and well!"
Now, I'm sure people disagree, but that's why I posted. What does everyone think about Swashbuckler?
What does everyone think about this type of thing in general? You could make the same argument for other Classes as well.
Maybe the better question is:
"When does it make sense to make a stand alone Class vs. Archetype vs. Class Feats?"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I agree with you that Swashbuckler was not something needed.
But now that it's here, I will be hopeful that it might be completely different from what it was in PF1, just like the Champion is completely different from the old Paladin.
My bet is that Swashbuckler will be the "Flyby" class, where when moving from point A to B you can spend actions/resource to do attack and do stuff during the movement between A and B.
But if the class turn out to be something that the Fighter could do with some feats, I will be severely disapointed with the direction that PF2 might be going and might just drop it to be honest.
I share some of this concern, but I am willing to wait and see what we get. If it is stuff that feels like it should just be class feats, I will probably be disappointed. If it is fighter with dex to damage, I will be more than disappointed. But they keep talking up the "Mobility" of the class which offers a chance of something interesting. Can it match the Monk? WIll it be different enough from a free hand fighter with a monk dedication? Maybe, especially because it feels like the monk MC path doesn't support the light armor concept very well, but by 10th level light armor vs unarmored is pretty insignificant, especially for a class promised unrivaled maneuverability. I guess we will see.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of get the point, but at the same time, people are bit too fast to talk about X invalidating Y. It seems the fighter get can be good at a large variety of styles, but just because he gets a lot of good archery feats, and can pick up some spellcasting, we shouldn't dismiss an Arcane Archer Archetype coming and so on.
If anything, the Swashbuckler archetype shouldn't end up copying a lot of the fighter feats, other wise it'd be pointless, likely ending up with the two being able to be combined for even more swashy and buckling.
With that approach to things, Hellknights would have to be scrapped as well, because Champion already is the master of armor. No Master of Many Forms because it might invalidate the monster forms a sorcerer can take? Where's the line?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of get the point, but at the same time, people are bit too fast to talk about X invalidating Y. It seems the fighter get can be good at a large variety of styles, but just because he gets a lot of good archery feats, and can pick up some spellcasting, we shouldn't dismiss an Arcane Archer Archetype coming and so on.
If anything, the Swashbuckler archetype shouldn't end up copying a lot of the fighter feats, other wise it'd be pointless, likely ending up with the two being able to be combined for even more swashy and buckling.
With that approach to things, Hellknights would have to be scrapped as well, because Champion already is the master of armor. No Master of Many Forms because it might invalidate the monster forms a sorcerer can take? Where's the line?
I may be mistaken, but I think the issue is that Swashbuckler is being introduced as an entire new class, not an archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Swashbuckler is apparently based on mobility as a niche. Crazy amounts of moving about. Parkour up the wazoo and such.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Swashbuckler is apparently based on mobility as a niche. Crazy amounts of moving about. Parkour up the wazoo and such.
Right now that sounds a lot like a monk with a rapier or a scimitar in hand, but it would be cool if they can find a way to add in swinging from chandeliers and sliding down banisters while making attacks at the same time. Although with the three action economy, all of that still feels "already possible."
|
I kind of get the point, but at the same time, people are bit too fast to talk about X invalidating Y. It seems the fighter get can be good at a large variety of styles, but just because he gets a lot of good archery feats, and can pick up some spellcasting, we shouldn't dismiss an Arcane Archer Archetype coming and so on.
If anything, the Swashbuckler archetype shouldn't end up copying a lot of the fighter feats, other wise it'd be pointless, likely ending up with the two being able to be combined for even more swashy and buckling.
With that approach to things, Hellknights would have to be scrapped as well, because Champion already is the master of armor. No Master of Many Forms because it might invalidate the monster forms a sorcerer can take? Where's the line?
Hellknights at least have distinct Lore distinctions thar make them unsuitable as Champions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter is problematic.
Paizo has said that they started their class redesigns with the Fighter because it was problematic in PF1, because it was constantly getting stepped all over, had nothing to do outside of combat, and was generally a pain to design around.
They did not solve the problem.
Paizo decided that *the* niche of the Fighter was to be the best with weapons, despite that niche being devoid of any and all flavor. They threw the Fighter some bones, like improved perception, but they really get almost nothing outside of combat again. This makes them a flavorless pool of combat feats that you can ostensibly make into your own class path.
I felt that as long as Paizo let them shine in the various combat methods, Fighter could continue to justify its existence as the "This is how you make a person who's all about being really good at archery, dueling, brawling, swashbuckling, dual wielding, etc." class.
It has become clear to me that continuing down that road would be succumbing to the sunk cost fallacy. They decided to make Fighters a flavorless ball of feats again, so it's best if we just cut our losses and move forward with making actually interesting classes for those concepts that Fighter tried and failed to flexibly encompass.
So, bring on the Swashbuckler, give it some actual class features, let them get Legendary with the Rapier. People can go back to Fighter if they want to play the ho-hum, no-nonsense class.
Swashbuckler is apparently based on mobility as a niche. Crazy amounts of moving about. Parkour up the wazoo and such.Right now that sounds a lot like a monk with a rapier or a scimitar in hand, but it would be cool if they can find a way to add in swinging from chandeliers and sliding down banisters while making attacks at the same time. Although with the three action economy, all of that still feels "already possible."
It kind of does, but there might be a difference between "already possible" and "the best at that niche."
Sorry for the short post, I'll be back with more.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the "Swashbuckling Hero" occupies enough space in the popular consciousness, that they kind of had to do a Swashbuckler- it evokes more mental images/character concepts than a Magus in people who aren't already steeped in Pathfinder.
Now that they decided to do it as a class instead of an archetype or a subclass is arguable, but I believe that their survey data suggested most people preferred that things come back as a class rather than an archetype (i.e. the overwhelming response was "some old classes (e.g. the cavalier) are fine are archetypes, but most should be classes.")
I'm pretty sure that the 4 APG classes were chosen via the 2 obvious spellcasters, and 2 non-spellcasters to round it out. If we're trying to keep numerical parity between spellcasters and martials, we can't just give all the fighting concepts to the fighter. I'm not sure there were better PF1 non-casters to put in the spot, honestly.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
It always amazes me how people on these forums seem to be able to predict the future, because we have NO clue yet what the Swashbuckler will actually look like. Wait for the playtest. Look at what they come up with. Then criticize all you want. But yeesh, for a group of people who love a game, y'all sure can complain about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Swashbuckler as an archetype seems a given, and I respect Paizo so think there must be some reasoning, likely with multiple layers.
Or at least I hope so, since I share the exact same fears.
If Swashbuckler does nothing remarkable except Dex to damage (perhaps as one of several paths), then there still might be a valid reason to introduce one: to introduce combat feats that should be gated.
It might be too powerful to put all the feats into the Fighter (or Rogue) package at standard level. By splitting the pools, so that some are at double level, and only after an MCD which likely has overlapping abilities, then the new feats won't overpower the Fighter (or bloat, as mentioned).
I suspect Swashbuckler will be a mix of Fighter, Rogue, & even Monk (mobility & stance progression).
That said, I expect Swashbucklers will have a major mechanic, as in it really better have one, right?
It's likely one tied to Charisma & face abilities during combat. There might be high mobility feats that mirror skills. Barbarians can climb/swim very early, so it's not unheard of already. If we're lucky, there might even be leadership abilities that rally troops, raise morale, and so forth, which is to say I can imagine a mix of Bard/Commander in there too.
And maybe it has something similar to Rage, where they get bursts of combat excellence, maybe invite attacks like high level Barbs can. Or how about challenges like PF1 Cavaliers? That seems pretty swashbuckler-y. Or the ability to increase the die type of finesse weapons or give them agile.
Or...who knows really? (Well, Paizo, duh.)
So yeah, it may have a distinct role, or feats that need to be gated, or maybe Swashbuckler overlaps so much it could only duplicated by taking too many classes to manage. Which means it'll be a great MCD. :)
Maybe...
Personal request: The ability to make whips do lethal damage!
I may be mistaken, but I think the issue is that Swashbuckler is being introduced as an entire new class, not an archetype.I kind of get the point, but at the same time, people are bit too fast to talk about X invalidating Y. It seems the fighter get can be good at a large variety of styles, but just because he gets a lot of good archery feats, and can pick up some spellcasting, we shouldn't dismiss an Arcane Archer Archetype coming and so on.
If anything, the Swashbuckler archetype shouldn't end up copying a lot of the fighter feats, other wise it'd be pointless, likely ending up with the two being able to be combined for even more swashy and buckling.
With that approach to things, Hellknights would have to be scrapped as well, because Champion already is the master of armor. No Master of Many Forms because it might invalidate the monster forms a sorcerer can take? Where's the line?
Wouldn't a new class come with multiclass options and access to their core feature and feats? I meant to say that no matter which it comes as, archetype or class, it shouldn't have too many features that duplicate the fighter features.
I could be wrong tho.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It always amazes me how people on these forums seem to be able to predict the future, because we have NO clue yet what the Swashbuckler will actually look like. Wait for the playtest. Look at what they come up with. Then criticize all you want. But yeesh, for a group of people who love a game, y'all sure can complain about it.
Really man? I literally addressed your specific gripe in the initial post:
"What if the Swashbuckler does something different from PF2? We don't know what it looks like yet."
Where I then break down the issues with it, even knowing nothing.
And it's not a complaint so much as it is a thought exercise on what role the Fighter is supposed to fill, whether the name Swashbuckler is a bad one (since it directly invokes Swashbuckler from PF1), and whether or not the concept of "Swashbuckler" is already possible.
You wanna know what I don't get? People that show up to comment and complain about a thread that they didn't even read.
I get that it was a long post, but if you didn't want to read it, you could have skipped commenting..
I feel like the "Swashbuckling Hero" occupies enough space in the popular consciousness, that they kind of had to do a Swashbuckler- it evokes more mental images/character concepts than a Magus in people who aren't already steeped in Pathfinder.
Um, of course. No one is saying "Swashbuckling Hero" can't exist, anymore than people saying that a "Thief" can't exist.
They do exist.
That doesn't mean they need to name a Class "Swashbuckler" just to make someone feel like they're actually playing a "Swashbuckler".
If you're trying to argue Magus does not deserve a Class but Swashbuckler does, I can't really see the comparison.
At least the Magus has the argument that augmenting weapons with magical power is not currently possible, nor is striking the opponent with a weapon, or any number of Magus Arcana that were entirely unique.
The Swashbuckler from PF1 has no unique mechanics for PF2, unless you count the concept of Panache (which as stated, really just gates abilities you can already do in PF2).
Either it's going to be a totally different Class, and the name is literally an homage (a bad one that confuses new players) or it's going to be relatively similar to what we already have.
"Wait and see" isn't the only answer, because it still has consequences. Players are still going to read "Swashbuckler" and know that's where Swashbucklers get built. Creating a new Class still limits the spaces other Classes are allowed to expand into by extension of their Creation (to be a Class you have to have a unique space to live). Undoubtedly, if they are too similar, one is going to end up better than the other. Whether it's Fighter, Rogue, or Swashbuckler.
That's why the grander question "when does making a new Class make sense over an Archetype/Class Feat/Class Archetype?"
|
|
You wanna know what I don't get? People that show up to comment and complain about a thread that they didn't even read.
I get that it was a long post, but if you didn't want to read it, you could have skipped commenting
The part of your OP you pointed out didn't negate what Cartmanbeck brought up so I don't think it's a case of "not reading", which veers into the insulting side of things honestly. Nor does it address what got brought up.
|
Zorro, the Musketeers, Robin Hood. And I surely forget a lot others.
I can see them getting a new Class actually. And making the most of the 3-action system through mobility seems just the thing for them too. The action-movie stunt Class.
Just rewatched The Hobbit trilogy. Legolas sprinting on falling stones and standing on Dwarves' heads fits too.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No I definitely read the thread, and nothing said in the thread negates the fact that we have no idea what the class is actually going to be. I just don't think that the CONCEPT of swashbuckler as a class warrants a debate on the fighter. They might honestly be so different that there is no comparison that can be made. We just don't know.
The part of your OP you pointed out didn't negate what Cartmanbeck brought up so I don't think it's a case of "not reading", which veers into the insulting side of things honestly. Nor does it address what got brought up.You wanna know what I don't get? People that show up to comment and complain about a thread that they didn't even read.
I get that it was a long post, but if you didn't want to read it, you could have skipped commenting
Yes it does, it specifically states the issues it has without seeing it.
They then goes on a tirade about how anyone who wants to have a conversation about the ramifications of such and in a holier than though “stop complaining” belittling way.
If you don’t like what someone’s posting about, no one made you enter the thread and jumping in to tell everyone basically what amounts to “shut up”. That's probably the most off topic thing you can do.
So if they did read and still said that, it doesn’t make it any better, it’s actually worse IMO.
zorro examples
Sudden charge, dueling parry, Skill Feats and a mask.
What’s missing that those concepts can’t be done now? And not just done, but done pretty much to a t (not even Magus situation where you can’t really do it til level 2)
No I definitely read the thread, and nothing said in the thread negates the fact that we have no idea what the class is actually going to be. I just don't think that the CONCEPT of swashbuckler as a class warrants a debate on the fighter. They might honestly be so different that there is no comparison that can be made. We just don't know.
And the ramifications of naming a Class Swashbuckler, like the PF1 class of the same name, when it also stands for a concept?
Did you read those distinct parts?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, stop bickering or they'll shut the thread down which would be a shame because Paizo does read these for input.
Cheers
I think what all the classic literary and cinematic "swashbuckler" types have that the fighter or rogue does not is "Panache". They have likely simply decided to make that a sufficiently beefy mechanic that it can't just be an archetype.
I mean, if we're looking at all the PF1 classes, the one I would most want another shot at designing is the Swashbuckler because that was the class with the biggest gulf between concept and execution. So I suspect Paizo's designers have put a lot of thought into "how we could have done the Swashbuckler better" between now and August 2014, and a lot of PF2's basic structure (3 action system, how good skills can be, you get to pick stuff every level, how much people move in combat, etc.) seem specifically well suited to addressing the problems the PF1 Swashbuckler had.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes it does, it specifically states the issues it has without seeing it.
It then goes on a tirade about how anyone who wants to have a coversation about the ramifications of such in a holier than though “stop complaining” belittling way.
If you don’t like what someone’s posting about, no one made you enter the thread and jumping in to tell everyone basically what amounts to “shut up” is probably the most off topic thing you can do.
So if they read and still said that, it doesn’t make it any better, it’s actually worse IMO.
I'm gonna let this all go now, cuz it's not worth a flame-war, but I do have to say that I was in no way belittling you. I'm simply trying to remind people that Paizo has delivered good content for us in the past, and I am pretty confident that they'll deliver something excellent here as well. This idea that one class necessarily has to step on another because they have some overlap in the way they can be played is, in my opinion, a fallacy. If that was the case, Champions shouldn't have lay on hands, because Clerics are supposed to be our only healers... and why do Sorcerers even exist?!?! They just do what the other four spellcasting classes do!!!
More classes equals more options, and more options are a good thing. There might be a whole bunch of players who want to play a swashbuckling-style character and just aren't satisfied that the Fighter delivers on that. This class is probably going to be for them. It might not be for you, and that's okay. Why does it have to be all or nothing?
EDIT: Also, try to remember that you started this thread with the words "I'm an overly critical person." That is inviting people who think that criticism might be invalid to TELL YOU SO. :)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something like a Swashbuckler would like to have more combat than Rogue, but less armor or weapon focus than Fighter. They would probably have Master or Legendary Reflex and Master Will. Their ability focus would probably Dex and Cha. Finally, they generally aren't archers but their abilities could certain benefit some archers (PF1e had a few panache/deed archer archetypes).
So outside of your definitions for Saves being increased, nothing changes the Fighter from having Master Light Armor and Legendary Rapier.
They literally get those.
On ability Focus, Dex is already a choice as a Primary, which is the primary combat ability.
Cha is still valuable if the Fighter wants to go Skill Feats that support Charisma, and in this edition that's extremely doable.
As for they "generally" don't make good archers, I'd disagree. Guns are particularly entangled with Swashbucklers, since they are often times associated with Pirates.
Then on the issue of Panache, which is basically just a special Focus pool, that has no unique mechanics from PF1 to port over that don't already exist.
So if Swashbuckler ends up being the proposed "Guile" (someone had a better name, but it escapes me) Class, I'd have no complaints. Throw Gunslinger and a few other pool driven Classes from PF1 in there and we're good.
But naming them Swashbuckler is a disservice to anyone that wants to play a "Swashbuckler" on the two Classes that already support Swashbuckler. By naming something Swashbuckler, you are saying "don't build it with another Class".
Name it "Daredevil/Guile/Charmer/Vigilante/Bravado" and it's pretty clear.
Honestly, based off the little we know about it, I think the easiest path to address most of these points is if the swashbuckler just doesn't use the same theme for it's class feats. Fighters use weapons really well, and use weapon combos really well, all of their moves are basically hand to hand weapon techniques- parries, combat grabs, dual slices, brutal finishes- this is emphasized by the open and press mechanics which basically set up natural attack sequences throughout the class.
Meanwhile, they've talked about this class being about mobility and parkour, and when I think about that in terms of swashbuckling, I actually think about the duels in Pirates of Caribbean- leaping off of nearby objects, running sideways across walls, parrying your foes blows atop a rolling wheel as it bounces through a dense forest, swinging from the mast of a ship to meet blows.
I almost wonder if instead of being about weapon techniques like riposte, it'll have a little of that, but really be more about stunts- more elaborate maneuvers, maybe with some ability to use the environment (being able to use walls to give attack bonuses by bouncing off them and such?), or maybe with moves that involve a lot more re-positioning?
Actually, you could even do a lot by giving more complete attack and movement patterns as class feats that consume 2-3 actions.
Ultimately, they're playtesting it in October, ideally they can address it if it isn't the right direction based off playtest feedback.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can actually see Midnightoker's point here. There's already a super mobile class in the monk, an excellent one-handed duelist line of feats in the fighter, and a Charisma-oriented rogue path in the scoundrel, not to mention that liberator champions pair really well with either fighter or rogue multiclass for swashbucklery types that can even get Legendary unarmored proficiency (and liberating step to "twirl" and ally out of danger so you can dart in and attack is super swashbucklery). There's got to be at least a dozen different ways (probably more) to build a mobile, charismatic duelist type, so while there's probably a demand for something that actually says "swashbuckler" on the tin, it probably could have been nice to see that space used for a concept that isn't already supported in the CRB.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm gonna try to get things back on topic so people don't read snarky comments and assume that's all their is to discuss here:
A level 2 Fighter spec-ing this way can look like this:
14 STR
18 DEX
14 CON
10 INT
12 WIS
14 CHA
Ancestry - Fighter Level 1 - Snagging Strike/Exacting Strike
Fighter Level 1 - Sudden Charge
Fighter Level 2 - Dueling Parry
Shield Block
Skills:
Deception
Acrobatics
Diplomacy
Intimidate
Athletics - Background
Skill Feat
Cat Fall
I mean it's pretty basic, and we're only speaking level 2, but this guy is pretty much on par for most thematic things.
He can use a Rapier, Light Armor, charm people, lie, acrobatically flip around, feint, Jump, Climb, Swim, negotiate, and even intimidate people.
I didn't really have to do level 2 or Human, this was just a quick off the cuff build, and I think it offers a lot given the movement you gain from Sudden Charge and the advantages of investing in Charisma.
And this is with no Class Feats or Archetypes to supplement the concept at all. The fact that you can do this out of the gate makes me skeptical that there's a "need" in terms of fulfilling the concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand all this complaining... as long as it's not over-powered or under-powered, I'll never say no to MORE options. Who really cares if it's an archetype or class. Does it actually matter? I think it being a class probably allows more customization so you can build the character you want without making too many sacrifices. For those of you who say you can already build a "swashbuckler", guess what, those options aren't going away. Though at what level would that Swashbuckler come online? 5? 7? 11? 15? Maybe some people wanna play one at level 1...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand all this complaining... as long as it's not over-powered or under-powered, I'll never say no to MORE options. Who really cares if it's an archetype or class.
Well I do, that's why I stated such.
The design decision has implications:
In PF1, the Rogue was terrible. When the Alternative Class "Ninja" released, just about anyone that wanted to play a Rogue played Ninja, since the Class was much stronger and fulfilled the same role (differences, but ultimately close enough that it didn't matter).
At least until Unchained Rogue, which then made Unchained Rogue the new "king".
This "new king" situation happens when multiple Classes occupy the same role.
An Archetype can belong to everyone, or belong to a single class. It can replace a lot, or a little. It is far more modular and has less design implications.
I think it being a class probably allows more customization so you can build the character you want without making too many sacrifices. For those of you who say you can already build a "swashbuckler", guess what, those options aren't going away. Though at what level would that Swashbuckler come online? 5? 7? 11? 15? Maybe some people wanna play one at level 1...
And while it may be easier to customize, we're talking about the ramifications.
And when it comes to new players seeing the words "Swashbuckler" on the page is going to inherently drive people to play "Swashbuckler" even if their concept of a Swashbuckler might be a Rogue with a Pirate archetype or a Fighter with a Dueling focus.
I mean honestly, if the role of the new class is unique enough that it doesn't touch Fighter at all, my main gripe is the name.
If it's not different enough, then it's going to create a lot more problems.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guns.
Hadn't thought of that, but that could be one of Swashbuckler's paths.
Maybe hand crossbows and such too. I mean, Gunslinger doesn't really need a whole class centered on one weapon group, does it? People already have guessed it'd just be an archetype. And Grit & Panache were so similar.
Which now makes me wonder about the introduction of the Investigator too, which shared a similar pool.
Maybe what we're getting is two martial classes with a new non-magic focus pool to draw upon? Because really, do we need an Investigator when we have Rogues & Alchemists & MCDs?
Now I'm thinking Witch & Oracle will share a new mechanic too, like reusable hexes/curses/oracle powers (in the same combat, not just after a 10 minute Refocus). Similar to a Shaman perhaps.
That'd be quite tidy of Paizo; two sets of two classes that share a new mechanic.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guns.
Hadn't thought of that, but that could be one of Swashbuckler's paths.
Maybe hand crossbows and such too. I mean, Gunslinger doesn't really need a whole class centered on one weapon group, does it? People already have guessed it'd just be an archetype. And Grit & Panache were so similar.Which now makes me wonder about the introduction of the Investigator too, which shared a similar pool.
Maybe what we're getting is two martial classes with a new non-magic focus pool to draw upon? Because really, do we need an Investigator when we have Rogues & Alchemists & MCDs?Now I'm thinking Witch & Oracle will share a new mechanic too, like reusable hexes/curses/oracle powers (in the same combat, not just after a 10 minute Refocus). Similar to a Shaman perhaps.
That'd be quite tidy of Paizo; two sets of two classes that share a new mechanic.
This is exactly what I was thinking. Swashbuckler could subsume Gunslinger and gain a focus-based pool of options that are very different than anything a current Fighter or Monk could pull off.
Personally, I'm hoping Investigator doesn't have anything to do with alchemy, or at most maybe a class feat or two that gives you some alchemy options. It never made sense to me that Investigators had to also be pseudo-alchemists.
The Investigator I had similar feelings on, but given that Alchemy is now a "core system" of the game, I think that's justification enough.
It can be the "martial" equivalent of the Alchemist in a way, or at least maybe share enough mechanics in Alchemy that it brings more depth to that system.
Just to be clear, I am not saying whatever the Swashbuckler Class in the new APG can't have a new role than the one it had in PF1.
I am saying that if it occupies the same role as it did, that's going to take away from other Classes more than it's going to "offer" the table/players/GM.
And if it doesn't occupy the same role, then a name change would probably be in order, since "Swashbuckler" and "I have a charming pool of abilities centered around Charisma" are very different things. A Swashbuckler is a daring person with a sword (specifically a sword), the latter is something else.
It'd even be neat if the Class had a Class Path called "Swashbuckler". I can stomach that a lot more than an entire Class, since the concept would be a lot wider than "charmer with a sword".
The swashbuckler class is likely to max out at master with weapons and get fancy feats and abilities for using some skills to make up the +2 difference. How will it get these bonuses?
The most fun method would be for the Panache feature to either kick in or replenish (if it is essentially focus points) from dashing dare-do well. Flipping over tables and stuff like that to get actual bonuses would be pretty cool and would be an interesting deviation from the fighter or the rogue.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'm understanding a bit more what you are trying to get at, though I still don't agree that the name itself is inherently an issue. I'm fully expecting that the Investigator, for example, will be VERY different than what they gave us in 1e, because that was just a combination of two of their other classes.
However, if Paizo wants to expand the idea of a Swashbuckler when they make a new class called that, that's entirely their perogative... Wizards did it with the Warlock, for example. Warlock, by real-world definition, is a specifically-male-gendered witch or sorcerer or other spellcaster... but the Warlock in DnD is a very specific concept that has nothing to do with the classic idea of a witch.
Speaking of, though... OH MAN I can't wait for the Witch and Oracle! :-D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never thought alchemy made sense on an investigator either
There is an argument for a swashbuckler name change. It might not be too late. Paladin was changed after all
I personally was never really a fan of a lot of the names, notably APG. Cavalier, Inquisitor, Oracle and witch
Reasons:
Cavalier - implies daring to me (a cavalier attitude). I have clearly missed the actual etymology as I know there is a knight link there. But Knight would have been better especially as a mount was forced (something I really didn’t like about the class)
Inquisitor - can’t really explain but didn’t feel right. Might be that it has never had positive connotations - even the iconic has Spanish Inquisiton garb. And they weren’t nice at all
Witch - arguably too gendered as many assume woman with witch. Same argument could be made for wizard of course . But many assume you have to be a cackling old lady for this class. A different iconic right back at the start would have helped
Oracle - people assume it means someone who sees the future which is absolutely not what the base of the class is. I even had someone say they wouldn’t put oracles in the game as their powers would break the setting with the seeing the future part ...
|
As long as the swashbuckler doesn’t feel like a collection of fighter abilities I’ll be happy.
Like how a wizard, sorcerer, Druid, cleric all feel different. They have different thematic spell lists and even an arcane sorcerer feels different from wizard. We have good division with champion, monk, rogue, fighter, ranger, and barbarian already using themed abilities plus special features (flurry, sneak attack, rage, hunt prey, and focus powers).
A cool iconic feature + many themed abilities with a depth and breadth of options will make this swashbuckler alright. We’ve pirates, fencing, Robin Hood, dread pirate roberts, count rugan, three musketeers, Aldori sword lords, and other in game weapon styles. There is plenty of room here for a class in PF2.
Aldori sword lords.
Since the Aldori Sword Lords are being introduced as an Archetype, I feel like that lends itself to my argument.
There's plenty of space for Swashbucklers.
So much so, that I think that it could belong to a lot of different Classes. Fighter, Champion, Rogue, etc.
Now I know MCD are a thing, but that doesn't mean it has to be a Class just to supplement an "everyone can get this" concept. You could just do an archetype.
I am fairly certain Paizo will roll out a new Class for the Playtest called "Swashbuckler" that will probably be a lot more than PF1 Swashbuckler (it literally has to be since those guys already exist). What I'm hoping is that if it is that different, they at the very least reconsider the name (or make it a Class Path of the "Bravado" that chooses Rapier/Finesse weapon as it's focus).
Archetypes to me are stronger for these concepts than Classes, IMO, because Classes are generally defined in a space that no one has access to. So far, the "concept" of Swashbuckler is already in existence.
If we try to mirror that to other classes, it's easier to see their niche that no one else really fills:
- Monk - High mobility unarmed combatant - Discipline and style
- Fighter - High offense combatant - Learned expert, adaptive
- Barbarian - High disruptive combatant - innate power and hardy
- Ranger - High BFC Combatant - nature themed and gritty
- Champion - High defense combatant - divine themed and flamboyant
- Rogue - High stealth combatant - advantage seeking and capitalizing
Now, can a Swashbuckler exist along side the above?
Sure. You can make room for anything. The Vampire Hunter D Class is pretty indicative of that.
But if I was ever playing a Ranger/Inquisitor that killed Vampires for a living and that's all I did, the first thing I'd be thinking is "guess I picked the wrong class".
It's not enough that a Class has a unique mechanic. It has to have a unique role in a squad IMO. That's sort of the foundation of why Classes exist in a Class system, to enforce roles.
So if the Class is highly mobile, it encroaches on monk. If it's highly skilled, it encroaches on Rogue. If it's highly combative with a Rapier and Open Hand, it encroaches Fighter.
And in itself, that's not inherently a problem, as long as the above roles aren't considered "worse" in comparison.
Regardless of what it eventually looks like, the name isn't likely to represent what it actually is if it's a lot different than it was before.
Unless the term 'swashbuckler' means something specific in the context of Golarion, that might differ from what we know the term to be. The class then is that, and not the thing we're thinking of.
Similar to how the 'oracle' in Pathfinder is not a prophet or seer, but that's what we know them as in real life. Same with 'witch' and 'barbarian' and many others.
Paladins in real life have nothing to do with paladins as they are in TTRPGs, but they had such a specific connotation, that when Paizo wanted to break away from the 'divine warrior being locked to Lawful Good', they changed the name entirely.
Perhaps 'swashbuckler' in Golarion means someone who has an almost supernatural ability to harness luck and charisma in combat, so the class is named that because of it.
Just spit-balling, but what I'm saying is basically that PF2E seems to be a lot more rooted in the setting than 1E was on a meta level, and the classes seem to be 'as Golarion would see them', so they might be trying to define what a 'Golarion swashbuckler' is with this iteration.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that it's best to wait for more information before making a judgement call but I can also kind of agree with Midnightoker's point.
I'm wondering what design space the Swashbuckler is going to fill that won't feel like it's stepping on the toes of the rogue and fighter, mechanically and thematically.
Fleshing out Grit/Panache is an obvious option and we know the Swashbuckler is going to have lots of unique mobility options, but even those could make people who are building swashbuckling rogues and fighters just feel like they're being shortchanged. It all depends on the implementation.
Hopefully the class isn't too locked into a specific fighting style like the 1e version too. I could see it getting TWF feat options, gun options and maybe TWF sword+gun options as well as a way to give it more room to branch out too.