Hi everyone,
I'm playing a bit my Swashbuckler lately and I ended up with a small issue: even if tumbling through enemies is definitely panachey, doing it every round like a maniac is not much dashing. So, I was looking at alternate ways of gaining Panache. And I thought of using this rule: "At the GM's discretion, after succeeding at a check to perform a particularly daring action, such as swinging on a chandelier or sliding down a drapery, you also gain panache if your result is high enough (typically the very hard DC for your level, but the GM can choose a different threshold)."
Unfortunately, this rule is a bit unclear so I wanted to know what people here would consider as daring. For example, yesterday, my Swashbuckler was chasing an ice creature in its cave and had to cross a patch of iced floor. I thought it could be a nice panachey way to slide on the ice to catch the creature on the other side. How, as a DM, would you handle that?
First, would you allow it? Or would you consider that it's a hazard from the adventure and as such not a way to gain Panache?
How would you rule it? Would you increase the DC? Or would you compare my check to a very hard DC of my level to see if I cross it with Panache or not?
And if I forget about doing it in a panachey way but roll a critical success to the Acrobatics check, would you consider that it was panachey?
I think it has to be particularly out there to justify being a higher DC than a simple hazard would be during exploring.
So merely sliding on ice wouldn't qualify but taking a leap onto the ice or similar could. Also meaning the better you get the more daring you have to become which sounds rather flavourful.
I don't set a DC in these circumstances if the action already has a DC associated with it.
At the GM's discretion, after succeeding at a check to perform a particularly daring action, such as swinging on a chandelier or sliding down a drapery, you also gain panache if your result is high enough (typically the very hard DC for your level, but the GM can choose a different threshold).
If your roll for the action met the very hard DC for your level I would simple let you gain panache. That way you can describe your action however you want without clogging up the game with changing difficulties adding modifiers etc.
So in your example, the action sounds like you would need an acrobatics roll to keep your balance so I would let you roll that against the correct DC for keeping your balance. If your roll would meet the very hard DC for your level you would gain panache independent of the outcome of the roll (although achieving a very hard DC would usually give you at least a success but you can always fail with style too). You would then be able to describe it however you want.
Although it would be tempting to allow you to gain panache for something that doesn't normally require a roll, it creates a few problems. For example: If you allow someone to make an athletics roll to Stride in style and possibly gain panache this causes issues with the action economy. You could resolve this by making the action have a fail state if you don't make the very high DC but I'm not aware of any rules support to say that is possible (So although I do allow this in my home game, I wouldn't if it was Pathfinder Society play).
In fact, I fail to see the developers intent behind this rule. Do they consider that any action that I can describe as dashing grants Panache as long as I meet a very hard DC? Or do they consider that I have to perform dashing (but useless) actions and meet a very hard DC to gain Panache?
The first interpretation is clearly an advantage, as I could slide dashingly on the ice patch and (potentially) gain Panache thanks to a roll I make to avoid a hazard.
The second interpretation makes it half useless as the Swashbuckler already has a few available actions he can perform to gain Panache and that are way easier (very hard DC is +5... it's nearly twice harder than Tumble Through).
I far prefer the first one, as it really pushes the player to play like a Swashbuckler. For example, I could Step to avoid making an Acrobatics check because of the ice patch, but if I can gain Panache while sliding on it, it's very valid tactically and definitely swashbuckley to go for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd go with the first interpretation because it's more fun, with one caveat. I feel like, given the use of "daring" as well as the examples provided, there has to be some risk involved if you fail. So you can't just do a little pirouette before attacking because the only thing that will happen I fcb you fail is looking a little stupid. Sliding on ice, on the other hand, I would say you might fall prone if you fail your check (or, if it was an actual hazard, whatever that hazard says happens).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The first interpretation is what we go with in my home game. I play the Swashbuckler, so being encouraged to kick in doors/leap off balconies/swing across canyons/etc is pretty dope.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, this rule is a bit unclear so I wanted to know what people here would consider as daring. For example, yesterday, my Swashbuckler was chasing an ice creature in its cave and had to cross a patch of iced floor. I thought it could be a nice panachey way to slide on the ice to catch the creature on the other side. How, as a DM, would you handle that?
First, would you allow it? Or would you consider that it's a hazard from the adventure and as such not a way to gain Panache?
How would you rule it? Would you increase the DC? Or would you compare my check to a very hard DC of my level to see if I cross it with Panache or not?
And if I forget about doing it in a panachey way but roll a critical success to the Acrobatics check, would you consider that it was panachey?
As a GM, this is exactly the type of thing that I would be looking for to reward from my players.
In your specific example, the ice was a terrain hazard of the encounter. So likely the DC was already level-appropriate. So going with that, the swashbuckler probably could do a basic balance check to cross the ice using assurance. So no panache gained in that case.
However... You wanted to gain panache, so elected to do the task in a flashy manner. So I would have you describe how it is different than just a simple crossing of the ice patch (have fun with it). Whatever you describe, I then set a DC appropriate for gaining panache with (typically the very hard DC based on your swashbuckler's level - ignore the actual DC of the ice patch).
So then the player can make the roll. If they make the DC for gaining panache - great. They do the movement, gain panache, and carry on. If they fail the panache DC, but still succeed at the normal DC for the ice patch, then they don't gain panache - but they suffer no ill effect from the crossing of the ice. If somehow they fail the normal DC for the ice patch, they suffer the normal failure effects for the ice patch.
Another interesting scenario is where there isn't a built-in hazard to play off of. At that point, it would be more difficult for the player to come up with something appropriate. But as soon as they do - I would work with them on it. Let them describe the action they want to take, pick the DC appropriate for panache, pick a DC to avoid disaster (a crit fail DC would probably be fine), have them roll and award panache accordingly.
|
Yeah I also think usually, the element of risk is what you're looking for. So for example, instead of just taking an extra action to walk around the pit, you're going to jump over it. If you pass the check really well, you gain panache. Of course, if you fail, in the pit you go.
It's a "hard DC for your level" but it also has to be "daring". If you have a +18 Athletics, a DC 20 jump isn't really daring enough to get your blood pumping. If you had only a +12 Athletics, well, that's a more real chance of falling in. As a very loose rule of thumb, I think anything with less than about a third or quarter chance of failure probably isn't thrilling enough.
I feel like the "hard DC for your level" standard can always be reached by increasing the degree of difficulty for no other purpose than "showing off". Like sure, you can jump over the pit, but it would be more impressive if you did 2 and a half somersaults in midair.
There's "sliding on the ice" and then there's "sliding on the ice in a way that looks really cool." Panache is for the latter.
I run this kind of like stunts in Exalted, where the player describes the coolest thing they can think of, and the DC for doing that is "hard for your level".
Any check can be hard enough to qualify if you append it with "I'm gonna do a flip!".
I really like the very hard DC rule, it gives a lot of flexibility to the swashbuckler, but it's still a pretty hard check to make, in comparison to the other regular ways to gain panache.
At level 10, with a +2 item and maxxed acrobatics/dexterity, you're sitting at +23 and still have to beat a DC32, whereas vexing tumble through a level 10 opponent will be around DC26-29, fascinating/bon mot will be around 25-28 and feinting will be around 28-30.
Might be worth it against a single boss, though.
So it's very flavorful, fun to do and it expands your options, but it's still a pretty risky way to gain panache, up until you're legendary with a +3 item.
|
|
I also feel like the intent is that gaining panache shouldn't too hard - but that you should be constantly doing stunts to get it again, do a finisher, then gain panache again.
As opposed to it being really hard, and you just preferring not to do any finishers and eke out some meager bonus damage from being in a state of panache but not using it.
I feel like the "hard DC for your level" standard can always be reached by increasing the degree of difficulty for no other purpose than "showing off". Like sure, you can jump over the pit, but it would be more impressive if you did 2 and a half somersaults in midair.
There are 2 ways of handling that (also). Either
- you increase the DC of the main check or- You don't modify the DC but grant Panache if, on top of succeeding, the roll is high enough compared to a very hard DC.
The rules are hinting at the second way, as they say: "At the GM's discretion, after succeeding at a check to perform a particularly daring action, such as swinging on a chandelier or sliding down a drapery, you also gain panache if your result is high enough (typically the very hard DC for your level, but the GM can choose a different threshold)."
I think it's better to award Panache in case of high roll than to modify the DC. As I don't see why anyone would do 2 somersaults in midair if it means having nearly twice more chances to end up in a pit when one can just Tumble Through with no failure effect and an easy DC.
"There's no reason to do a backflip over the pit, throwing your weapon mid-spin and catching it when you land" is specifically why it gains Panache. It's risky and pointless, but if you land it you feel *awesome* which is basically how the Swashbuckler is supposed to operate.
Have to agree with SuperBidi. The mechanic talks about the results being higher, not arbitrarily raising the DC of the whole activity.
It makes sense too. It's the difference between simply doing something and doing it with style and grace and, well, panache.
Sort of reminds me of FATE's Succeed With Style mechanic.
I feel like the "hard DC for your level" standard can always be reached by increasing the degree of difficulty for no other purpose than "showing off". Like sure, you can jump over the pit, but it would be more impressive if you did 2 and a half somersaults in midair.There are 2 ways of handling that (also). Either
- you increase the DC of the main check or
- You don't modify the DC but grant Panache if, on top of succeeding, the roll is high enough compared to a very hard DC.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.
Mechanically, what is the difference. Given the example of the icy ground above - If the character wants to gain panache by sliding across the ice in a flashy manner, set the panache DC arbitrarily higher than the normal check (option 1). If they simply say that they are crossing the ice and make their balance check, then you notice that they rolled well enough to gain panache so you award it to them (option 2).
I think it's better to award Panache in case of high roll than to modify the DC. As I don't see why anyone would do 2 somersaults in midair if it means having nearly twice more chances to end up in a pit when one can just Tumble Through with no failure effect and an easy DC.
Succeeding in a simple and straightforward way is for Fighters, is why.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"There's no reason to do a backflip over the pit, throwing your weapon mid-spin and catching it when you land" is specifically why it gains Panache. It's risky and pointless, but if you land it you feel *awesome* which is basically how the Swashbuckler is supposed to operate.
At level 1, you have 65 to 80% chance to fail such an Athletics check. So, mostly, you fall into nearly every pit, trip on nearly every patch of ice, but always in a very flashy manner. It's not how a Swashbuckler is supposed to operate, but how a jester is supposed to act.
I would agree with you if there was real chances of success. But with current rules, I don't see why a player would decide to act with Panache if it mostly means fail with Panache. Especially when you consider how easy it is to gain Panache by Tumbling Through (average difficulty check, nothing negative in case of failure).
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I feel like the point of the alternate panache system is to encourage the player to interact with the environment and be on the lookout for interesting things to do--i.e. to fulfill the swashbuckler trope of swinging on chandeliers, etc.
Setting the DC to do 'daring things' too high is going to do the opposite. It's going to discourage players from trying interesting moves, because they can usually accomplish the same thing in safer, boring ways (including earning panache).
So I think it makes the most sense to keep the DCs reasonable/appropriate to the task, and then reward panache if the player rolls well.
To go back to the example of jumping over a pit--I'd narrate the jump after the player rolled:
If the PC succeeds by a little, they jump over the pit, but just barely--no flashy moves, no panache
If they succeed by a lot, then they do the backflip, they twirl the weapon, etc. Everyone is impressed = panache time!