| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is this not a dedication feat that any character can take? Gains a focus pool (or adds to it) that can be used to cast focus spells (that are the panache abilities). Gains the finisher mechanic - why would a barbarian NOT want to finish in this way?
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have never understood why so many people dislike getting more classes and more choices. More options are a good thing. When some see "bloat" I see "a rich quantity of options".
Why aren't Ranger, Barbarian and Champion just Fighter feats?
they certainly could have been, like in previous edition of D&D.
You could get super minimalist, and have 3 classes (Warrior, Spell-caster, and Warrior-Spell-Caster). Or you could have every sub-class be its own class. Most D&D-based systems go somewhere in the middle, judging how much a character idea is worth to give an entire class write-up for.
Looking at the class mechanics, it feels like it's made to signal people who want to do fancy and impressive things during combat (trade barbs with foes, backflips over bannisters, etc.). Someone playing a Rogue could do all of this, but it empowers them to do it with mechanical rewards, and tells the GM that this is what the players wants to do. Allowing or not allowing the Swashbuckler gives the player a good idea of what kind of things you can do in a GM's game. GMs can screen out playstyles like the Investigator or Swashbuckler out easier when it's a multi-page write-up, as opposed to a feat on one page.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like some people would only be happy if we had a dozen different types of spellcaster and Fighter, and those were the classes we could choose.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We could also go back to having non humans be their own class, so every elf is a fighter/mage capped at level 12. Every Halfling is a thief. Every Dwarf is a axe and shield fighter.
It seems a silly complaint to knock additional classes. They'll all have multiclass dedications if you want to dip. Variety is fun, if you don't want to take advantage of it just play a vanilla fighter.
|
Why aren't Ranger, Barbarian and Champion just Fighter feats?they certainly could have been, like in previous edition of D&D.
Yeah. I was kinda hoping that PF2 was going to have just 4-6 classes that provided less than classes do now, and everyone has one or more archetypes/subclasses which provide more than just feat options.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. I was kinda hoping that PF2 was going to have just 4-6 classes that provided less than classes do now, and everyone has one or more archetypes/subclasses which provide more than just feat options.Why aren't Ranger, Barbarian and Champion just Fighter feats?they certainly could have been, like in previous edition of D&D.
Similar to this, I had hoped from early on in pf2's previews, that it was going more modular in character creation. But instead, it seems to be just that the class feats are being used to just get the feel of the pf1 archetypes on a given class, but that they still feel they need a class for every major trope. Seems a cop-out from what was teased, to me at least.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, you can build a competent fighter as a duelist. But there's absolutely nothing in the fighter that rewards risk taking, showiness, and braggadocio. These sorts of things are part and parcel to the fictional archetype of "the dueing swordsman" that thematically Swashbuckler absolutely deserves to be its own class.
The fact of the matter is that if we do something as an archetype there's a limited amount of space there to add new mechanics. So if some broad theme is strong enough that it requires more mechanics than that to represent, it should be a class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That’s also my “class vs archetype vs subclass” distinction.
Can work within existing class with maybe 1 or 2 additional mechanics: subclass
Adding new options for existing mechanics, like new focus powers or extra proficiency: archetype
Adding new mechanic or unique combination of several existing mechanics: class.
I’m sure others have their opinions on that, but that’s where I put mine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, you can build a competent fighter as a duelist. But there's absolutely nothing in the fighter that rewards risk taking, showiness, and braggadocio. These sorts of things are part and parcel to the fictional archetype of "the dueing swordsman" that thematically Swashbuckler absolutely deserves to be its own class.
The fact of the matter is that if we do something as an archetype there's a limited amount of space there to add new mechanics. So if some broad theme is strong enough that it requires more mechanics than that to represent, it should be a class.
By this token, why is Aldori Duelist considered fine as an Archetype, while Swashbuckler needs its own class? Where is the dividing line?
So would the Aldori Duelist archetype fit best on the champion, fighter, or the (testing) swashbuckler? You can just as easily put the Aldori Duelist archetype on a bard or alchemist if you choose - doesn't matter. All it takes is proficiency in the sword, available via the human unconventional weaponry feat.
This is the flexibility that means things like swashbuckler don't need to be their own feats - it's something that can be built on an existing, more versatile chassis, by specializing down feat selections.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By this token, why is Aldori Duelist considered fine as an Archetype, while Swashbuckler needs its own class? Where is the dividing line?
Well, you could make an Aldori Duelist who is 100% all business, who swordfights in a careful, competent, and efficient way- this person is a fighter. You could make an Aldori Duelist who is flashy, a talker, a self-promoter, and a risk taker- this person is a swashbuckler.
Having two classes plus the archetype lets us represent the polar opposite kinds of Swordlords.
Why aren't Ranger, Barbarian and Champion just Fighter feats?they certainly could have been, like in previous edition of D&D.
Which are these previous editions of D&D you are referring to?
Which are these previous editions of D&D you are referring to?Why aren't Ranger, Barbarian and Champion just Fighter feats?they certainly could have been, like in previous edition of D&D.
Dungeon and Dragons
Advanced Dungeon and DragonsAdvanced Dungeon and Dragons 2nd Edition.
Those were kits not feats totally different thing.Which are these previous editions of D&D you are referring to?Why aren't Ranger, Barbarian and Champion just Fighter feats?they certainly could have been, like in previous edition of D&D.Dungeon and Dragons
Advanced Dungeon and Dragons
Advanced Dungeon and Dragons 2nd Edition.
they were basically dedications. which i think is the point of the OP's questions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which are these previous editions of D&D you are referring to?Why aren't Ranger, Barbarian and Champion just Fighter feats?they certainly could have been, like in previous edition of D&D.Dungeon and Dragons
Advanced Dungeon and Dragons
Advanced Dungeon and Dragons 2nd Edition.
None of the games have any feats at all.
So would the Aldori Duelist archetype fit best on the champion, fighter, or the (testing) swashbuckler? You can just as easily put the Aldori Duelist archetype on a bard or alchemist if you choose - doesn't matter. All it takes is proficiency in the sword, available via the human unconventional weaponry feat.
This is the flexibility that means things like swashbuckler don't need to be their own feats - it's something that can be built on an existing, more versatile chassis, by specializing down feat selections.
That seems like an argument to have BOTH in game, to be honest. A separate class for someone that really wants to focus on this kind of fighting style (somewhat more focused than the fighter at the expense of several options available to the fighter, and also with different mechanics that allows for a different feel), while still allowing the Aldori Duelist to exist to represent membership in that specific organization.
Of course, if you don't play on Golarian, that's a distinction without difference, but some of us do.
None of the games have any feats at all.Which are these previous editions of D&D you are referring to?Why aren't Ranger, Barbarian and Champion just Fighter feats?they certainly could have been, like in previous edition of D&D.Dungeon and Dragons
Advanced Dungeon and Dragons
Advanced Dungeon and Dragons 2nd Edition.
not really true.
the skills and powers slat books basically intraoduced feats that were the percursor to Dungeons and Dragons 3rd edition.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So would the Aldori Duelist archetype fit best on the champion, fighter, or the (testing) swashbuckler? You can just as easily put the Aldori Duelist archetype on a bard or alchemist if you choose - doesn't matter. All it takes is proficiency in the sword, available via the human unconventional weaponry feat.
This is the flexibility that means things like swashbuckler don't need to be their own feats - it's something that can be built on an existing, more versatile chassis, by specializing down feat selections.
That seems like an argument to have BOTH in game, to be honest. A separate class for someone that really wants to focus on this kind of fighting style (somewhat more focused than the fighter at the expense of several options available to the fighter, and also with different mechanics that allows for a different feel), while still allowing the Aldori Duelist to exist to represent membership in that specific organization.
Of course, if you don't play on Golarian, that's a distinction without difference, but some of us do.
There's also the fact that Pathfinder is, in fact, a game. Swashbuckler justifies itself just by having a kickass build around mechanic in panache. If you just gave panache to Fighters without neutering it like they did with rage in the Barb dedication then Fighters would be horrendously overpowered with that archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you seen the current archetypes? They are shallow and short, and certainly don't add new mechanics as different as panache. Then you have the different styles (braggart, fencer, gymnast) which significantly alter how the base panache mechanic works and how the character is typically played. Would these all be different archetypes then? Would you be able to combine them? Would they all have a pool of shared feats which are the current swashbuckler's feats? It seems like making into an archetype would necessitate removing large portions of what they've designed, or otherwise completely changing the archetype/class paradigm, which is why this is a class.
I can see the appeal of a more modular system where base classes were basically nonexistent (maybe a good homebrew project?), though that is much easier to produce broken combos in. The paradigm of classes vs archetypes allows them to ensure no single character can grab all the strong class features, so they can be a little bolder with what they include into said class features. It makes balancing the game much easier for the developers. It eliminates the PF1 problem where a character couldn't do "their thing" for half the campaign because giving that class feature at level 1 would be too strong a multiclass.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is "Why is the swashbuckler its own class" its own thread when it really should just be an archetype applied to the "Why is _____ its own class" thread?
Why is this not a dedication feat that any character can take? Gains a focus pool (or adds to it) that can be used to cast focus spells (that are the panache abilities). Gains the finisher mechanic - why would a barbarian NOT want to finish in this way?
When you design such type of games, you have to find a proper spot between choice and balance. If you give too many choices, you can't take into account all possible interactions and balance goes down.
Having different classes reduces the risk of unexpected bloat when Bill the overoptimizer starts taking archetypes and feats here and there to make his one punch man character.
As the Swashbuckler inserts very different and new mechanics to the game, it's better from a balance standpoint to create a class than to give this ability to potentially any type of characters.
But it's true that it reduces choice, at least apparent choice.