Earlier this week I attempted to recreate a character concept from a different system into 2e, and it was going relatively well until I met a wall, the complete inability to focus on a ranged weapon as a Swashbuckler, I'm asking to be sure I'm not missing anything or if (outside of thrown knives) there is truly no way to make ranged weaponry work with the class as written.
The character in question is a Crossbowman (and yes, I am aware of the limitations of the weapon, but this isn't meant to be an optimized build) and originally a 5e Bard, a broke human son of a disgraced low-noble house that learned archery and debauchery alike before dropping from a respected military academy; in combat, his focus was in archery and buffing teammates/battlefield support, whoever I've never been a fan of the necessity of magic to realize that concept in 5e, so during the transition to Pathfinder I also decided to move away from the Bard chassis (which is usable with the Archer archetype, but once again, magic) into a class that could fit the Dex/Cha paradigm closer to what I had envisioned, and the Swashbuckler seemed like a perfect fit.
For the first few choices everything fell into place marvelously, the Wit style captured the charismatic combatant idea to a T, and by taking One for All at first level both the ability to aid allies (and generate panache doing it!) and be a competent sharpshooter were taken care of, except for the fact that Precise Strike specifies a melee weapon attack for the precision damage to be applicable, and the same limitation applies to finishers, the core damage enhancers of the class.
My question is, with many swashbuckling heroes such as Musketeers and Pirates being not only flashy and charming but also equally skilled with sword and firearm alike, why is there no option to accommodate ranged weapon use with the Swashbuckler? This is not coming from a build help perspective, as I believe the core concept can still be reasonably translated into PF2e with a Fighter/Rogue/Ranger/Bard with the relevant archetypes (Marshal for the first three and Archer on the Bard), but I believe there is a niche that could be filled by allowing the use of select ranged weaponry on the SB; maybe the use of high-damage finishers alongside the safety of ranged combat is the no-no in this situation? If this is the case I hope new finishers designed around the use of ranged weapons/firearms in GaG could solve this issue, even if a Class Archetype is necessary to solve the inability to use their only finisher at first level, as well as class features dependant on melee combat such as Opportune Riposte.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The character you're trying to build with the Swashbuckler chassis is actually a Pistolero Gunslinger.
Yep. Swashbucklers this time around are more like Zorro, Wesley, Inigo Montoya, etc. Gunslinger with the Swashbuckler archetype might get you there though.
You should check out the Guns and Gears playtest. There's builds specifically designed for this concept. They may have some issues that need working out, though, so you should play one and give some feedback.
The character you're trying to build with the Swashbuckler chassis is actually a Pistolero Gunslinger.
Huh, I completely missed that despite reading the playtest just earlier that day, well that's just the beauty of 2e isn't it, you can bring the same concept to life in so many different ways!
But even though I can see the argument (and the Pistolero does "borrow" some Swashbuckler flair with the ranged retort and charisma skills) I'm still not 100% sold. Mechanically speaking I'm sure it's the best option (can't compete with Fighter's legendary prof. + Ranger's crossbow feats in a single neat package) and the Marshal archetype would take care of the battlefield control facet, but the fluff just feels completely out of place, and that's even disregarding the whole "Gunslinger without a gun" issue.
My point is that every martial class has a way to fight adequately at range, specially if we're talking dex builds for switch hitting even without heavy feat investment: Fighters have unparallaled (until recently) proficiency for more frequent Deadly crits and extensive feat options, Paladin Champions can use their AoO reaction with a ranged weapon as early as level 1 with Ranged Reprisal, Monks have the Monastic Archer feat line, Rogues and Investigators can apply their precision damage at a distance at no additional cost (besides flat-footed being harder to set up), Rangers go without saying and even the Barbarian gets meatier support for a thrown weapon build (even if it's not quite in line with the other options yet).
Outside Flying Knives (which is limited to the first range increment), the ol' swash is just clueless at a range superior to 5ft./1.5m. But should a class be limited to this extent? The same way I'm not a fan of how the Gunslinger ends up being "play this if you want to use a firearm/xbow: the class" (and even then they have the means to get a secondary melee weapon to Master and combine it with the class' ranged focus) it also rubs me the wrong way the fact that the Swashbuckler class reads "Want to use a ranged weapon? Look elsewhere, you can't be daring and dashing by shooting someone from 30ft away, you coward". Surprisingly enough this doesn't seem to bother other players nearly as much as I was unable to find any online discussion showing discontent with this limitation of the class, but maybe the fantasy of a charismatic/flashy combatant and a sharpshooter just don't mix in most people's fantasies outside of westerns, who knows.
With that said, I appreciate the input and will try the build out with the playtest parameters to see how it plays out, if anything adjusting the fluff so it falls closer to the initial vision.
Yep. Swashbucklers this time around are more like Zorro, Wesley, Inigo Montoya, etc. Gunslinger with the Swashbuckler archetype might get you there though.
That's understandable, but truth be told if archetypical swashbucklers like Inigo Montoya, El Zorro, Jack Sparrow and D'Artagnan are outside the scope of a Swashbuckler class there might be a disconnect between what the class currently does and what it should be able to accomodate, as over the years the vision of a swashbuckler has expanded a bit outside the sword-and-cape axiom.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think most people are ok with class niches being a thing at least a little bit. If they aren't, why bother having classes to begin with? And the swashbuckler was specifically designed to create a viable dexterity based front liner, because that was sub optimal with existing classes. Fighter loses damage and rogue has low HP.
Also, monks didn't have the monastic archery feat lone when they were first published. Similarly, there's no reason why a similar feat line can't be added later for Swashbucklers, and Guns and Gear is a decent place to expect it. But of course class feats for existing classes wouldn't make it into the playtest.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. I too was disappointed that characters such as Zorro (uses sword and also pistol) and RL Musketeers (guess where they get the name from) can not be built with the Swashbuckler class. And the Swashbuckler archetype will not help the ranged part of the playtest Gunslinger.
I am curious why you don't just use a different class for this. IMO for the most part classes are just mechanics and in PF2 you can create an archer/support character super easy.
Yes swashbuckler's at the moment are mostly just melee. Who knows if something might change in the future, Monk's got a lot of ranged options in the APG.
There are just so many ways to make a DEX/CHA based archer/crossbow character based around support.
One of my favorite parts about PF2 is how every class can support quite easy even without magic.
Charisma gives you Bon Mot/Demoralize on every character. There are just so many archetypes to make this concept even better. Really it is just how you want to support.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. I too was disappointed that characters such as Zorro (uses sword and also pistol) and RL Musketeers (guess where they get the name from) can not be built with the Swashbuckler class.
Guns weren't even in the APG so how would that even have worked to begin with? You couldn't "build" those with any class.
People seem to be completely writing off the possibility of options before the book is even finalized, let alone released.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's sort of a thing that makes sense though. A swashbuckler literally comes from words for a brash or blustering manner, and the buckler shield.
It has nothing to do with ranged weapons in essence.
Yes. I too was disappointed that characters such as Zorro (uses sword and also pistol) and RL Musketeers (guess where they get the name from) can not be built with the Swashbuckler class.Guns weren't even in the APG so how would that even have worked to begin with? You couldn't "build" those with any class.
People seem to be completely writing off the possibility of options before the book is even finalized, let alone released.
While understandably this might seem like "jumping the gun" (pardon the pun), it's still a fact that the Swashbuckler as presented in the APG is anchored as a frontline melee combatant to the point of negating one of the quintessential swashbuckling archetypes of the "duelist that's equally skilled in blade and gun" (that lines up with the playtest Drifter, but that Way follows a Gun>Blade paradigm and is meant to evoke different themes), with class features like Precise Strike and Opportune Riposte being unusable with (non-throwable) ranged weapons, even if you're standing right next to the foe; thus for a system that is so elegant and futureproofed otherwise, it stands out as a glaring oversight.
I'm looking forward to the options introduced in Guns and Gears and understand that options will only increase with time as 2e is still a system in it's youth, but I'm also of the belief that bringing these issues to light prior to the book's release could spark some healthy discussion. As a sidenote, I can't wait to see what class archetypes have in store for the subsequent releases, the myriad of options that could derive from switching around proficiencies and clashing class features is one of the only standing "hard blocks" to a few concepts that could really be taken to the next level with that level of customization (which sounds insane considering just how extremely customizable 2e as a baseline, but that just increases the excitement further).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you wanted class features to accommodate guns, years before guns were even made? When guns and thrown are side things to what Swashbucklers are about. Which is a stylish dex based melee combatant.
Rather than them include gun using options in the the book that comes with guns.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you wanted class features to accommodate guns, years before guns were even made? When guns and thrown are side things to what Swashbucklers are about. Which is a stylish dex based melee combatant.
Rather than them include gun using options in the the book that comes with guns.
Crossbows, bows, even slings have been there since the core. Swashbuckler does not support them at all, in the meaning that Finisher, the core ability of Swashbuckler, just cannot work with any of those.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's sort of a thing that makes sense though. A swashbuckler literally comes from words for a brash or blustering manner, and the buckler shield.
It has nothing to do with ranged weapons in essence.
The lightly armored dexterous combatants became very popular at the same time as the firearms.
Also, many people, when asked about the inspiration for the Swashbuckler class, mention Zorro, the Three Musketeers and even Robin Hood. All of those are also good at ranged weapons (pistols, muskets, bows).
For a class-based system that's as broad as 2e and constantly expanding with new options to work, classes have to be clearly defined in a mechanical sense, not just thematics. By being specifically focused on their particular flavour of one-handed melee combat, Swashbucklers are able to have a strong niche that distinguishes them other classes, including Fighters who specialise in having a hand free. Not only does this answer the question of "why would I build this character as a Swashbuckler?", it also helps players building a Swashbuckler know what they'll be able to do and pick feats accordingly. If the Swashbuckler had come out with feat chains to support a ranged build, a ranged-and-melee build, and so on, it'd be less clear to a new player which feats were best to pick for their character and would have meant a lot less variety for builds doing what the swashbuckler is designed to be about.
From what we've seen in playtest of the Gunslinger, it's very clear up front that its selling point is "if your character's main deal involves using a gun (or similar use of a crossbow) this is the class for you". Archetypes will inevitably let you get at some of that from outside the class, but by covering close-up shooting, distance shooting, and melee/shooting fusion combat all within this class, it lets 2e give a more specific feel than you could get by just making it a weapon type or giving every single class gun options that can be also used as crossbow options.
The other angle is that the Gunslinger will be, as far as I know, the first class to directly support melee weapon/ranged weapon dual-wielding. Given that ranged and melee characters face different risks and opportunities in combat, balancing the two options against each other is an important part of design in a game like Pathfinder. It makes sense that options to support characters flowing casually between melee and ranged would be introduced later, after designers have had more time working with the system and seeing what happens in the stress-testing of real play.
Frustrating as it can be sometimes, when you're bringing an existing character concept into a system like 2e that has a lot of mechanical parts to put together, it's important to consider what you want the character to do and how the game mechanics let you represent those actions, rather than what class names look most fitting on the sheet or what cool options exist but don't quite come together into the character you're trying to play.
My point is that every martial class has a way to fight adequately at range, specially if we're talking dex builds for switch hitting even without heavy feat investment: Fighters have unparallaled (until recently) proficiency for more frequent Deadly crits and extensive feat options, Paladin Champions can use their AoO reaction with a ranged weapon as early as level 1 with Ranged Reprisal, Monks have the Monastic Archer feat line, Rogues and Investigators can apply their precision damage at a distance at no additional cost (besides flat-footed being harder to set up), Rangers go without saying and even the Barbarian gets meatier support for a thrown weapon build (even if it's not quite in line with the other options yet).
Outside Flying Knives (which is limited to the first range increment), the ol' swash is just clueless at a range superior to 5ft./1.5m. But should a class be limited to this extent? The same way I'm not a fan of how the Gunslinger ends up being "play this if you want to use a firearm/xbow: the class" (and even then they have the means to get a secondary melee weapon to Master and combine it with the class' ranged focus) it also rubs me the wrong way the...
I don't think you're really being fair here.
* Monks don't naturally have an easy way to do ranged attacks. Many do have reasonable dex, but weapon proficiency is generally harder for them. Their first ranged unarmed strike is at 8 via Wild Winds Stances and assumes they've invested in Ki Spells. Monastic Archer only recently came into existence and it requires feat investment, not every monk is going to be able to just grab a bow and go. They also need Monastic Weaponry and/or Shooting Stars stance to do it with shuriken.
* Barbarians likewise have limited built in ranged support. They're a strength based class that doesn't have the option of raising their Dex via their class boost. Even assuming they go into high (16 Dex), Rage bonuses inherently don't apply to ranged attacks. They have some limited...
Just signal boosting this post.
|
@cavernshark - nice builds!
I'll throw one out for OP:
W: Hand Crossbow and Rapier
1: You're Next
2: Ranger Dedication (Hunt Prey)
4/6/8: Crossbow Ace, Hunter's Aim, Quickdraw, and/or Running Reload
10: Targeting Finisher
Yes you will "lose" some actions reloading and swapping hands until the feats in the 4/6/8 range speed your process, but your skill tricks should make getting panache easier while de-buffing your foes for your party.
Good luck!
|
|
It seems that adding in a ranged focus (it's not like swashbucklers can't use ranged weapons, they'll have a good dexterity and proficiency - just no class features for it) is sufficiently distinct from the core mechanics of the class that it would be a little odd to do it via a feat chain like the monk's. As has been pointed out in the thread here, it's a fairly specific set of mechanics - but I do agree that a significant amount of the inspiration behind the class does draw from ranged weaponry as well. This seems like an excellent spot for a class archetype - modifying the definition of finisher to allow for ranged weaponry to function with the class' mechanics, giving versatility at the cost of a little power. It wouldn't even be too difficult to homebrew if it was important for your game! :)
|
So, are ranged Swashbucklers just... completely out of luck?I don't think anyone considers Swashbucklers to be anything but melee combatants, so... yes?
Swashbucklers are decent ranged combatants, if you consider 20 feet or so to be "ranged". Flying Blade is a first-level feat, and most Swashbuckler Styles gives options to gain panache at range. If you're a Swashbuckler built for melee, switching to a starknife and taking the Flying Blade feat gives you a good ranged option. In contrast, Barbarians, Champions, Fighters, Monks, and Rogues that are built for melee cannot switch over to ranged combat as easily.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a Champion that switch hits using Ranged Reprisal and a trident (so the same 20 feet). It works out well, because I can plant myself in the middle of the fight, keeping most things in the 15 foot radius of the reaction.
Flying blade is decent for thrown weapons. There are some styles that don't work as well with it. Excepting bolas, Gymnast would have a hard time with focusing on ranged. Fencer would have to rely on creating a distraction, but it's possible. The other styles seem better fits.