Swashbuckler: stealing from fighter, bad naming convention, or direly needed

[shroudb]

Squiggit wrote:

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.

rogue doesn't actually have that many mobility options.

he has like 1 feat that gives him a free step once per round, and another feat that allows you to move for free if you come out of stealth.

Rogue is mostly focused on burst damage and debuffs, combat wise, with their real niche being skill masters.

Fighter also doesn't have that many mobility options, sudden charge/leap come to mind, but not much beyond that.

Monk is the trully mobile class, but like Fighter doesn't infringe on Monk simply due to the distinction of weapons vs stances similary i don't see the niche of a highly mobile weapon user that (hopefully) can pull off daring stunts (panache)

[GeneticDrift]

Midnightoker wrote:

GeneticDrift wrote:

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....

I’m not sure of your point. I am happy to have roles covered by multiple classes, archetypes, backgrounds, and feat choices. The more ways to make an idea the better.

Anyone can be a vampire hunter, but class and ability names help players get into the game and help direct you in making choices. I don’t see how you can pick a wrong class if you are having fun and it meets your goals. If you built an angry character and later saw the barbarian sure the fighter does it well but the barbarian runs with that specific theme. Should the rage and totem mechanic fit in the fighter frame?

[Midnightoker]

I feel like you’re muddying my issues as if I’m looking at this exclusively from a player perspective.

I’m far more concerned with the issues overlapping roles causes in play, like with my Ninja and Unchained Rogue example up the thread.

[Ssalarn]

Quote:

I’m not sure of your point. I am happy to have roles covered by multiple classes, archetypes, backgrounds, and feat choices. The more ways to make an idea the better.

Anyone can be a vampire hunter, but class and ability names help players get into the game and help direct you in making choices. I don’t see how you can pick a wrong class if you are having fun and it meets your goals. If you built an angry character and later saw the barbarian sure the fighter does it well but the barbarian runs with that specific theme. Should the rage and totem mechanic fit in the fighter frame?

I think a potential point is more that we're in the early days of a new system and for some people, they'd prefer to see new options that aren't already supported get added before we get to the point where a class is being added to support a concept that is already supported.

For example (and this is an intentionally silly comparison) there are currently numerous ways to make a character who fits the trope of the swashbuckler in the new edition, but there aren't any ways to create knights in steam-powered armored suits. Adding a Swashbuckler class doesn't add any new concepts to the game; it lets you play a concept the game already allowed you to play with a different set of mechanics. If we had gotten a Steam Knight class instead, the total number of concepts that the new edition supports would have actually grown, rather than just adding more ways to play a concept that was already supported.

Arguably, it is better to have 13 different concepts available to pick from than it is to have 13 different ways to play the same concept with a few variations on the particular execution.

[Temperans]

So question how is mobility encroaching on the Fighter or Rogue, one who is all about weapons while the other is about stealth and backstabs? Even Monk who are all about mobility doesn't have all the possible movement options available to where getting a new class is bad.

Why include Rangers when they are effectively a Fighter/Druid? What about Barbarians that can just be a Fighter/Alchemist that only uses rage inducing alchemical items.

A Swashbuckler is a High mobility armed combatant with light armor daring moves and flamboyant style. Swashbuckler dont use speed to out run opponents (which is what monks due) instead they dodge, tumble, or lunge out of the way while they counter the enemy's attack (not just +1 to AC).

[Jason Bulmahn]

Folks,

We are aware of the challenges that we face bringing the Swashbuckler into the game. We are working hard to ensure that this class, which has a find conceptual niche, also has a good place in the rules that is not stepping on the fighter, but instead is a different style of combatant, moving around the battlefield with ease, taking risky moves for the possibility of big gains.

And now that has been said, the tone of some of the posters here is out of bounds. This thread is locked and will be referred to moderation.