The ranged attack issue isn't the same as what's being discussed.
Please explain how "I can't fight in certain combat situations that my class isn't designed to excel against"
is the same as:
"I have 1/3 the narrative choice of any other Class and if I don't choose what I'm supposed to choose I become the worst member of my party"
_____________________________
Let's entertain the strawman just a minute though:
And to the "FLYING BLADE SOLVES ALL YOUR PROBLEMS IN RANGE AS A SWASHBUCKLER!"
Let's actually look at what Flying Blade says:
When you have panache, you apply your precise strike damage on ranged Strikes you make with a thrown weapon within that weapon's first range increment.
Oh and the weapon must have the Agile or Finesse traits.
Guess how much range that amounts to at maximum? 20 Feet if you choose a Hatchet and most other weapons have a lower range increment.
How do you get Panache back after you throw it if you're not a Wit or Braggart? Guess you just spent your only Panache of the whole combat with your toss! Hopefully you didn't increase Acrobatics instead of Intimidate/Diplomacy!
>.>
Yeah. "Best Switch hitter in the game!", not really. Ranger blows this out of the water by orders of magnitude and if you are unable to deal with a target that's 20 feet away by closing something is amiss. A leap can close that distance.
To close on them, you needed to endure the traps' damage and you would be alone facing them in melee, since the squishier PCs did not want to risk taking the traps' damage and going down.
Woah woah woah. This is not "I have to use range" this is "I didn't want to endure trap damage and made the choice not to close".
Literally WHAT. You making a tactical decision to not engage is not the same as being FORCED to use range.
You know what is actually being forced? Taking your Skills with your Skill increases as Swashbuckler.
This is big oof. Rarely do I call things strawmen, I'm hesitant on calling out fallacies in general here, but this one is just way too blatant.
These two situations have nothing to do with each other and per your own examples it was a cognitive decision you were allowed to make on the fly, not one you were forced to do by the standards of the game.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's make an easy point here.
A Wit Swashbuckler who has maxed Acrobatics and Diplomacy.
A Wit Swashbuckler who has maxed Acrobatics.
One of these is inherently more powerful, regardless of the other skill choices, thanks to their core skills providing so much power to their core concept.
Saying "don't play Swashbuckler if you don't want to max those skills" is like saying "don't play a 1e two-handed fighter if you don't want to take Power Attack". It's effectively a skill tax, and while Swashbuckler is still a great and fun class despite that, that doesn't make it any less of a skill tax.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I rather be a Harmlessly Cute Leshy Barbarian instead.
What could be cuter than a Leshy Barbarian with the Animal Instinct [kitten] who's seedpods looks like a balls of yarn? ;)
|
Let's make an easy point here.
A Wit Swashbuckler who has maxed Acrobatics and Diplomacy.
A Wit Swashbuckler who has maxed Acrobatics.One of these is inherently more powerful, regardless of the other skill choices, thanks to their core skills providing so much power to their core concept.
Saying "don't play Swashbuckler if you don't want to max those skills" is like saying "don't play a 1e two-handed fighter if you don't want to take Power Attack". It's effectively a skill tax, and while Swashbuckler is still a great and fun class despite that, that doesn't make it any less of a skill tax.
not quite. Its saying don't play a wit swashbuckler unless you want to max acrobatics and diplomacy. A wit swashbuckler is all about using those two skills in combat. It can basically be renamed the "diplomacy and acrobatics martial character". So, yeah, you can't play the "diplomacy and acrobatics martial character" without maxing out those two skills. Boo hoo.
Its fairly similar to "don't play a polymath bard unless you want to max out performance" or "don't play an Enigma Bard unless you want to invest in intelligence".
Quite a few character choices strongly impact on ALL of stat choices, skill choices and feat choices. This really is only slightly different than that.
I admit that it IS slightly different AND slightly worse. But only slightly. And the Acrobat dedication is a pretty good fix to what remains of the issue.
Sure, its imperfect and slightly off. But it really is only a minor nit.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The alleged "skill tax" is a non-issue. If you don't want you to use Acrobatics or , for example, Intimidation, then you can't play an optimal Braggart Swashbuckler. And that's good! The whole point of a Swashbuckler is that they gracefully move around the battlefield and quip at their enemies. The panache mechanic encourages that behavior. Likewise, if you don't want to heal, then the optimal Cleric isn't for you. If you want to cast spells, then you can't really do that with a Barbarian.
For example, I have a Fighter that Trips and Demoralizes foes. Obviously I need high Athletics and Intimidation. But I don't think my PC should automatically get skill proficiency increases that the build requires. The same goes for the Swashbuckler class.
Question: Let's say the swashbuckler class could gain panache by succeeding at a class check (class DC -10) and that the DC was low enough that it was about as accurate as using Tumble Through or the respective Style Skill. What skills would you prefer to boost? If it's not Acrobatics or a Style skill, then why are you playing a Swashbuckler?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
not quite. Its saying don't play a wit swashbuckler unless you want to max acrobatics and diplomacy. A wit swashbuckler is all about using those two skills in combat. It can basically be renamed the "diplomacy and acrobatics martial character". So, yeah, you can't play the "diplomacy and acrobatics martial character" without maxing out those two skills. Boo hoo.Its fairly similar to "don't play a polymath bard unless you want to max out performance" or "don't play an Enigma Bard unless you want to invest in intelligence".
Yeah, you want to know the difference?
An Enigma Bard only needs to max Occultism, and not even that. They can just pick other things that don't rely on Bardic Knowledge.
A Polymath Bard is the same - they only need to max Performance, and again, aren't really required.
Both of these examples are strongly encouraged, but not necessary.
A swashbuckler who doesn't max their two skills is basically not a functional character. You barely have panache (I hope you took After You and don't plan to expend it), can't really do finishers, and basically every class feat revolves around the focused skills.
Your example would be if a Polymath Bard needed a Performance check to cast spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, its imperfect and slightly off. But it really is only a minor nit.
It's really not and the other scenarios you present are choices that you make early that you DO NOT HAVE TO DO.
Let's look at your examples:
A polymath bard does not have to max performance at all actually, you only need to do that to take advantage of one feat in Versatile performance. Even if you do not max performance, you still have 10 levels of spellcasting, bardic cantrips, and other options.
Not even close to the same ball game.
Polymath bard doesn't max performance? They still have access to their main class abilities (spells and bardic cantrips) and they are still formiddable.
Enigma Bard gets Bardic Lore, which substitutes for any knowledge skill (WIS or INT) and boosts when you gain Occultism all on its own.
Once again, you still have access to every single spell on your list, bardic compositions, and any of your other Class Feats.
____________________
No other Class, even the Rogue has the level of dependency on Skills that Swashbucklers have.
Comparing a single Class feat investment to the entire Swashbuckler kit being reliant on Skills is like saying that a four-wheeler and a monster truck are the same thing because they both have four wheels and a suspension.
One is a giant problem, the other is a minor inconvenience that you can literally ignore and still be an effective character.
"SaMe ThInG!" gimme a break.
|
|
Sure, its imperfect and slightly off. But it really is only a minor nit.It's really not and the other scenarios you present are choices that you make early that you DO NOT HAVE TO DO.
Let's look at your examples:
A polymath bard does not have to max performance at all actually, you only need to do that to take advantage of one feat in Versatile performance. Even if you do not max performance, you still have 10 levels of spellcasting, bardic cantrips, and other options.
Not even close to the same ball game.
Polymath bard doesn't max performance? They still have access to their main class abilities (spells and bardic cantrips) and they are still formiddable.
No other Class, even the Rogue has the level of dependency on Skills that Swashbucklers have.
Classes do not; class paths and builds do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Classes do not; class paths and builds do.
Oh sure, show me the fighter that loses Legendary Proficiency if they don't trip someone every turn.
I'll wait.
The fact that you think build choices are the same as immutable dictations of a Class structure already shows me you're not really understanding what the counter-argument is even saying.
A specific build path is a choice you CHOSE to make and it is not the same thing as choosing a Class. The point of a Class is to house choices. You might as well change the Swashbuckler's Skill Increases to read:
"At 3 you gain your choice of Acrobatics or your Style Skill, at 5th you gain the other, at 7th you gain your choice of acrobatics or Style skill, at 9th you gain the other, at 15th you gain your choice of Acrobatics or style skill, at 17th you gain the other"
Unless you all are actually saying that Swashbuckler's should be allowed to "choose wrong" on their Skills and become terrible.
And you wanna know what to the silly build argument: retraining
You decide you don't want to max athletics? Swap your feats. Done.
What does the Swashbuckler do? They can't. They have to max the Skills in order to gain their main class features.
Got nothing to say at this point if you continue with the same shallow argument.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless you all are actually saying that Swashbuckler's should be allowed to "choose wrong" on their Skills and become terrible.
To be honest, I'm less concerned about choices like this where the right answer is really, really obvious than other things built into the system. "Swashbucklers use acrobatics plus one other skill in combat, so you should prioritize those two skills" feels way more intuitive to me than how important it is start with an 18 in your key stat at level 1. Or how to pick the right armor out based on your strength and dexterity scores. For the former, I explicitly tell noobies they should probably boost the key stat at every step so they end at 18 and some still choose to go with a 16. For the latter, I usually just tell players what to pick because there really are right and wrong answers.
I think at this point the arguments have pretty much all been said. Everyone in this thread understands the difference between the swashbuckler's lack of flexibility and what every other class deals with. What we disagree on is whether or not that is a {i]meaningful[/i] difference. And that's just, like, your opinion man.
Personally, I think I'd be more convinced the Swashbuckler should get some free skill increases by an argument that they lack the consistent martial performance of other classes that get the normal number of increases, and therefore should get more skill focus (than they already have with the extra feats) to compensate.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's imagine what could be the results of giving the Swashbuckler the automatic increase in their Style's skill (say Intimidate here), as suggested by the OP (what I call the skilled Swashbuckler).
At 2nd level, they become Expert in Intimidate. And they get a skill feat that can have Expert in Intimidate as a requirement.
At 3rd, they become Expert in another Skill (say Acrobatics). And they get a skill feat that can have Expert in Intimidate or Acrobatics as a requirement.
At 4th, they get a skill feat that can have Expert in Intimidate or Acrobatics as a requirement.
At 5th, they become Expert in yet another Skill (say Diplomacy).
At 6th, they get a skill feat that can have Expert in Intimidate, Acrobatics or Diplomacy as a requirement.
At 7th, they become Master in Intimidate and another Skill (still Acrobatics). And they get a skill feat that can have Master in Intimidate or Acrobatics as a requirement.
At that time, Rogue and Inquisitor are Master in only one skill.
At 8th, they get a skill feat that can have Master in Intimidate or Acrobatics as a requirement.
At 9th, they become Master in Diplomacy.
At 10th, they get a skill feat that can have Master in Intimidate, Acrobatics or Diplomacy as a requirement.
At 11th, they become Expert in another skill (say Thievery).
At 12th, they get a skill feat that can have Master in Intimidate, Acrobatics or Diplomacy or Expert in Thievery as a requirement.
At 13th, they become Master in Thievery.
At 14th, they get a skill feat that can have Master in Intimidate, Acrobatics, Thievery or Diplomacy as a requirement.
At 15th, they become Legendary in Intimidate and Acrobatics. And they get a skill feat that can have Legendary in Intimidate or Acrobatics as a requirement.
At that time, Rogue and Inquisitor are Legendary in only one skill.
At 16th, they get a skill feat that can have Legendary in Intimidate or Acrobatics as a requirement.
At 17th, they become Legendary in Diplomacy (for example).
At 18th, they get a skill feat that can have Legendary in Intimidate, Acrobatics or Diplomacy as a requirement.
At 19th, they become Legendary in Thievery.
At 20th, they get a skill feat that can have Legendary in Intimidate, Acrobatics, Diplomacy or Thievery as a requirement.
Now, let’s imagine the skilled Swashbuckler takes the Acrobat dedication, which, after all, provides immediate benefits to their fighting prowess (not the case for any other Class).
At 2nd level, they become Expert in Intimidate and Acrobatics. And they get a skill feat that can have Expert in Intimidate or Acrobatics as a requirement.
At 3rd, they become Expert in another Skill (say Diplomacy). And they get a skill feat that can have Expert in Intimidate or Acrobatics as a requirement.
At 4th, they get a skill feat that can have Expert in Intimidate, Acrobatics or Diplomacy as a requirement.
At 5th, they become Expert in yet another Skill (say Thievery).
At 6th, they get a skill feat that can have Expert in Intimidate, Acrobatics, Diplomacy or Thievery as a requirement.
At 7th, they become Master in Intimidate, Acrobatics and another Skill (still Diplomacy). And they get a skill feat that can have Master in Intimidate or Acrobatics as a requirement.
At that time, Rogue and Inquisitor are Master in only one skill. Unless they also took the Acrobat dedication even though it does not directly contribute to their fighting prowess, as opposed to the Swashbuckler. And even in this case, they are only Master in Acrobatics and another skill.
At 8th, they get a skill feat that can have Master in Intimidate, Acrobatics or Diplomacy as a requirement.
At 9th, they become Master in another skill (say Thievery).
At 10th, they get a skill feat that can have Master in Intimidate, Acrobatics, Diplomacy or Thievery as a requirement.
At 11th, they become Expert in another skill (say Stealth).
At 12th, they get a skill feat that can have Master in Intimidate, Acrobatics, Diplomacy or Thievery or Expert in Stealth as a requirement.
At 13th, they become Master in Stealth.
At 14th, they get a skill feat that can have Master in Intimidate, Acrobatics, Thievery, Diplomacy or Stealth as a requirement.
At 15th, they become Legendary in Intimidate, Acrobatics and another skill (still Diplomacy). And they get a skill feat that can have Legendary in Intimidate or Acrobatics as a requirement.
At that time, Rogue and Inquisitor are Legendary in only one skill. Unless they also took the Acrobat dedication even though it does not directly contribute to their fighting prowess, as opposed to the Swashbuckler. And even in this case, they are only Legendary in Acrobatics and another skill.
At 16th, they get a skill feat that can have Legendary in Intimidate, Acrobatics or Diplomacy as a requirement.
At 17th, they become Legendary in Thievery (for example).
At 18th, they get a skill feat that can have Legendary in Intimidate, Acrobatics, Diplomacy or Thievery as a requirement.
At 19th, they become Legendary in Stealth.
At 20th, they get a skill feat that can have Legendary in Intimidate, Acrobatics, Diplomacy, Thievery or Stealth as a requirement.
TLDR
I feel getting this “skilled swashbuckler” makes the Acrobat dedication problematic, since it already benefits Swashbucklers far more than other classes. The proposed change would compound the problem.
In fact, by itself, it is better than getting the Rogue or Archetype dedication.
The Acrobat dedication is okay by itself, because the benefits you get from an auto-advancing Acrobatics skill are good, especially for the Swashbuckler, but not game-breaking.
Getting the same for debuffing skills, and only available to the Swashbuckler, is far more problematic IMO.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think I'd be more convinced the Swashbuckler should get some free skill increases by an argument that they lack the consistent martial performance of other classes that get the normal number of increases, and therefore should get more skill focus (than they already have with the extra feats) to compensate.
Considering every single other Martial Class doesn't have their damage gated behind an on-level check, I don't see how you could say they don't fall behind a standard martial.
Fighter - They get one tier higher proficiency at all parts of the game, no expenditure needed
Barbarian - They rage to get damage. No check needed.
Ranger - They literally pick a target. No check needed.
Rogue - They flank any target or trigger FF in one of that various other ways or by an allies action. No check needed.
Investigator - They use Devise a Strategem, a reroll mechanic that doubles their chances of hitting. There is no additional check beyond the actual attack itself.
Monk - They land an unarmed Strike while in a stance. Stance requires no check.
Champion - An ally gets attacked, they get to use their reaction and regardless of whether the actual attack hits, the ally still gets damage reduction
Alchemist - No skill check to create alchemical materials at all, you simply have them. Literally both Advanced Alchemy and Quick Alchemy ignore the Crafting check.
_____________________
It's like I'm shouting into the void here. No other Class has their damage gated behind an on-level check, which is already a tough pill to swallow.
Telling them you have 1/3 choices of a standard class in terms of Skill Increases is just adding insult to injury.
Getting the same for debuffing skills, and only available to the Swashbuckler, is far more problematic IMO.
Why is it problematic?
Seriously, why?
Even if they got a free max in their Style Skill, they would still be 1 behind the maximum of the max bonus to the Skill possible.
Rogue Scoundrel? Still better at Feinting than Fencer and better at Bon Mot than any Swashbuckler. Same with ET.
Rogue Ruffian? Still better at Athletics than Gymnast
It's not problematic at all, and Rogue is still dumpstering the Swashbuckler on bonuses regardless of where the Skill increases go.
Edit I will say the getting two master skills at 7, I get that can be a bit of an issue.
This is why I really want the solution to this problem instead of "free skill increase for Swashbuckler" to be no change at all to the Swashbuckler and a new Skill Feat at 3/7/15 that upgrades Proficiency a tier.
That would allow the Swashbuckler to take advantage of the Skill Feats they get as bonus to solve their problem, because to be honest the Skill Feats don't really solve their problem on its own.
Might bow out on this though. I'm getting a little too worked up because I feel like I'm not really getting my point across anyways.
To each their own.
|
|
Classes do not; class paths and builds do.Oh sure, show me the fighter that loses Legendary Proficiency if they don't trip someone every turn. I'll wait.
The fact that you think build choices are the same as immutable dictations of a Class structure already shows me you're not really understanding what the counter-argument is even saying.
A specific build path is a choice you CHOSE to make and it is not the same thing as choosing a Class. The point of a Class is to house choices. [/QUOTE
They’re both choices, though, that the player is free to make or not make. So if the player’s chosen build doesn’t work with high proficiency Acrobatics and any Style skill then they should choose a different class altogether.You decide you don't want to max athletics? Swap your feats. Done.Well, to be a good Trip Fighter, by taking advantage of their Attack of Opportunity class feature, then my PC needs Athletics (and Knockdown). But nobody is saying the Fighter class should automatically receive Athletics skill increases.
To be a good Swashbuckler, by taking take advantage of the Precise Strike and Panache class feature, then the PC needs either Acrobatics or one skill of their choice depending on style (but preferably both). Why should the Swashbuckler class receive automatic increases?
To tie everything together, it sounds like you want your build to have high proficiency in certain skills, in addition to Acrobatics and another depending on Style, for flavor reasons. But you also don’t want to have anything less than an optimal build. But because Swashbuckler is by design contingent upon a couple skill but lacks the Rogue’s or the Investigator’s extra Skill Increases, something has to give.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They’re both choices, though, that the player is free to make or not make. So if the player’s chosen build doesn’t work with high proficiency Acrobatics and any Style skill then they should choose a different class altogether.
You think it's "free" to not choose your Style Skill or Acrobatics?
You're legitimately saying a Swashbuckler can choose to be 20% worse as a character and that's a good and enriching character choice?
Well, to be a good Trip Fighter, by taking advantage of their Attack of Opportunity class feature, then my PC needs Athletics (and Knockdown).
Uh no. AoO can be used for a multitude of triggers. Sorry bud, you can't just twist things into being equivalent by pointing to one avenue where something matters.
And we're not talking about a single reaction. Swashbuckler, if they cannot trigger panache, loses the following:
- Precise Strike
- All finishers
- Any Feat that requires or uses panache
- Vivacious Speed
That's not "I can only use AoO on certain things, you know, things others can trigger for me", that's literally their whole kit.
But nobody is saying the Fighter class should automatically receive Athletics skill increases.
The Fighter doesn't need Athletics at all. See any Fighter build that doesn't use it. Heck, Combat Grab doesn't even require you to use Athletics, you can literally just automatically grapple.
Do I really need to make a Fighter that doesn't use Athletics so you understand that one is required and the other is not?
To be a good Swashbuckler, by taking take advantage of the Precise Strike and Panache class feature, then the PC needs either Acrobatics or one skill of their choice depending on style (but preferably both). Why should the Swashbuckler class receive automatic increases?
Because every other class doesn't have to complete an on-level check with a Skill just to get to nearly all of their Class features.
That's the difference. It's really not that hard to understand.
To tie everything together, it sounds like you want your build to have high proficiency in certain skills, in addition to Acrobatics and another depending on Style, for flavor reasons. But you also don’t want to have anything less than an optimal build. But because Swashbuckler is by design contingent upon a couple skill but lacks the Rogue’s or the Investigator’s extra Skill Increases, something has to give.
"Something's got to give" in what way? Are you saying Skill alleviation would mean the Swashbuckler is better than Rogue or Investigator at Skills?
Are you saying it would make them better at fighting than a Fighter?
I don't think you are, because it wouldn't be true and we both know that.
As far as "what I want", I've stated it multiple times, a Skill Feat that allows increasing proficiency beyond Trained would be fine. It wouldn't be great, but it would help sooth the sting of no Skill Increase help at all while fighting an uphill battle.
And to put it into perspective, if a Fighter did not max STR every level after 1st and left it at 18, they would still only be 2 behind their maximum to hit at level 20. Which is their main Class Feature, Legendary Proficiency.
A Swashbuckler can be -6 behind the expected maximum and is -7 behind the expected maximum on their Style skill.
They are -2/3 behind the expected maximum from 3-5, 7-9, and 15-17 in their unchosen Skill if they max everything the way they have to.
If you understand the tight math of the system, you understand why circumstantial and versatile feat behaviors are different from literal math requirements.
The fact of the matter is, it is possible to break your own character on Swashbuckler. That should not be possible. And for those saying "Why play a Swashbuckler if you're not going to max those skills?", it would be nice to have a choice of more than 1 Skill.
Dedications require multiple Feats and are not a solution to in-class problems. If every Swashbuckler has to take Acrobat as a Dedication, that doesn't "defend the Swashbuckler", it proves there's a problem, which is why you have to go outside the Class just to fix it.
Okay now I'm out lol.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The swashbuckler is absolutely brilliantly designed in one respect. Far more than most classes the mechanics very strongly encourage you to actually play as a swashbuckler.
The whole skill thing is part of that design. If you don't want to play a character constantly relying on acrobatics and one other skill then this class probably isn't the right choice for you.
Yes, you're almost forced to maximize those skills. But that just should NOT be a problem. If you don't want to maximize those skills then pick a different character.
I'm having a great time with my swashbuckler BECAUSE I get to constantly use acrobatics and performance. I get to play a ballet dancer who FEELS like a combat capable ballet dancer.
It's really not a bug, it's a feature. One that relied on the Acrobat dedication admittedly so I could max out BOTH skills at all times.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Getting the same for debuffing skills, and only available to the Swashbuckler, is far more problematic IMO.Why is it problematic?
Seriously, why?
Even if they got a free max in their Style Skill, they would still be 1 behind the maximum of the max bonus to the Skill possible.
Rogue Scoundrel? Still better at Feinting than Fencer and better at Bon Mot than any Swashbuckler. Same with ET.
Rogue Ruffian? Still better at Athletics than Gymnast
It's not problematic at all, and Rogue is still dumpstering the Swashbuckler on bonuses regardless of where the Skill increases go.
Let's take the Rogue Scoundrel in your example. They made the non-optimal choice of putting CHA to the max, even though it is not their attack stat.
At 15th level, they are Legendary in Diplomacy and say Master at Deception.A skilled Wit Swashbuckler would indeed be 2 points behind them in Diplomacy, even though also Legendary, because they maxed DEX. However, they would also be Legendary in Deception (thus equal to the Scoundrel there) and 4 points above the Scoundrel in Acrobatics. The latter because they will take the Acrobat dedication for max panache gain, which the Scoundrel will not take since it brings them little.
And if the Scoundrel had maxed DEX, their attack stat, just like the Swashbuckler did, they would be equal to the Swashbuckler in Diplomacy, and 2 points behind them in both Deception and Acrobatics.
The Scoundrel would have strictly fewer Legendary skills than the skilled Swashbuckler with the Acrobat dedication on 15th and 16th level.
Yes. I do find this problematic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then lock the skill increase to Acrobatics. Sure, then Acrobat Dedication isn't great for Swashes, but Sentinel Dedication isn't good for Champions and I haven't heard any complaints about that.
This is why I really want the solution to this problem instead of "free skill increase for Swashbuckler" to be no change at all to the Swashbuckler and a new Skill Feat at 3/7/15 that upgrades Proficiency a tier.
No offense, but this is a horrible solution. This is just asking for Rogue and Investigator to break it over their knee.
Edit: Just Rogue, though actually this just really equates to "now everyone has four legendary skills".
|
|
The Scoundrel would have strictly fewer Legendary skills than the skilled Swashbuckler with the Acrobat dedication on 15th and 16th level.Yes. I do find this problematic.
And then the rogue would have equal or greater past that...
ANY class right now that takes the Acrobat dedication will have more Master skills at 7 and more Legendary skills at 15 than a base rogue/investigator.
You're not making a base class to base class comparison. You're making a base class to base class + Archetype comparison.
It's like complaining that an Investigator + Mauler gets access to Power Attack while a Ranger doesn't.
I am quite alright with the Rogue taking a dedication.
But they have far less incentives that the Swashbuckler to take the Acrobat dedication.
And AFAIK, the Acrobat dedication is the only one that gives a non-Lore skill auto-raises.
The Rogue might take Assassin, for example, or Investigator for even more skills and the Devise Stratagem ability, or Wizard. They would still end up at level 15 with 2 Legendary skills behind the skilled Swashbuckler with the Acrobat dedication.
And, in addition to all the benefits of Skill raises it gives to any class, the Acrobat dedication is a real boost to get panache for the swashbuckler.
Being Legendary in Acrobat is far more crucial to the Swashbuckler than being Legendary in any skill to any other Class, as the proponents of the skilled swashbuckler have precisely demonstrated.
No offense, but this is a horrible solution. This is just asking for Rogue and Investigator to break it over their knee.
Edit: Just Rogue, though actually this just really equates to "now everyone has four legendary skills".
If it was only takeable once at each of the tier level (3/7/15) to increase an existing Skill Proficiency to the respective tier, it really wouldn't be that big of a deal.
And I think a fair prerequisite that reads "A X or higher in the governing ability score of the Skill you select with this feat" would close it up pretty nicely.
I don't know that a straight-up free increase would be fair, because then you do have the situation where a Swashbuckler has the most Expert skills at levels 7 and 15 (not at 3 though since Rogues/Investigators get one at 2).
I don't like that everyone is restricted to 3 Legendary Skills period anyways or that the distribution of Skill increases is basically trained X, Untrained Y, and Legendary 3. It's a pretty inorganic character when you can never have any skills besides the 3 you chose at even a modicum of reasonable.
The fact that everyone is great at low levels for everything and then becomes trash as later levels for on-level checks is pretty jarring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's take the Rogue Scoundrel in your example. They made the non-optimal choice of putting CHA to the max, even though it is not their attack stat.
They have the ability to Feint for FF to gain -2 to the enemy AC which is their main Class Feature.
It is their attack stat. That's why they are allowed to select CHA. Literally, the whole point of them being able to select CHA as their Primary is so they can do this.
I notice you didn't touch the ET, where it is directly the Attack stat...
A skilled Wit Swashbuckler would indeed be 2 points behind them in Diplomacy, even though also Legendary, because they maxed DEX. However, they would also be Legendary in Deception (thus equal to the Scoundrel there) and 4 points above the Scoundrel in Acrobatics. The latter because they will take the Acrobat dedication for max panache gain, which the Scoundrel will not take since it brings them little.
You wouldn't be 4 points above the Scoundrel, you would be a grand total of 1 because and if we're speaking 15 (where the Ability Score increases provide no additional benefit and Scoundrel increased DEX) then no difference because in your exact example you just said they made Diplomacy Legendary.
Are you forgetting Rogues get Skill Increases literally every level? Because they can have 5 skills at Master and 1 at legendary by level 15. You're not beating the rogue on literally any of the skills.
Oh and the Swashbuckler is -4 to 3 other nameless skills the Swashbuckler couldn't even dream of affording.
And if the Scoundrel had maxed DEX, their attack stat, just like the Swashbuckler did, they would be equal to the Swashbuckler in Diplomacy, and 2 points behind them in both Deception and Acrobatics.
No they wouldn't unless you're granting Swashbuckler some bonus increases.
The Scoundrel would have strictly fewer Legendary skills than the skilled Swashbuckler with the Acrobat dedication on 15th and 16th level.
LOL really?
Didn't you see though? Scoundrel also took Acrobat! Guess what, your entire argument fails to make any sense now because you literally built the whole assumption that Swashbuckler + Archetype > Scoundrel when the Scoundrel can also take Acrobat (and it's not even a bad get honestly considering level 2 Feats are pretty easy to avoid).
Come on. If you're seriously going to be like "BUT ACROBAT!" to everything, you at least need to consider that the Rogue can also take the same dang Archetype.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, you're almost forced to maximize those skills. But that just should NOT be a problem. If you don't want to maximize those skills then pick a different character.
"Thou must take a dedication to have the same character versatility as everyone else" is such a weird point to sell as an advantage. This is like if Rangers had to use Survival to Hunt Prey and people kept shouting "that's great, you should want to take Survival as a ranger anyways and it gives more benefits for you than anyone else".
It gives more benefits to the swashbuckler because it's assumed they're stuffing all their increases into it. Because they need it to actually have functional class features.
Again, this is not true of any other class in the game. A bard that doesn't touch Occultism or Performance is still a 10th level caster with inspire courage.
A swashbuckler that doesn't touch their two skills is playing a rogue without skill increases or sneak attack.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Considering all this thread taught me, I am now pretty sure the auto-increase in Acrobatics, which is the skill needed by the panache-gaining action all Swashbucklers get, granted by the Acrobat dedication feat is no coincidence. I think it was a feature the devs decided on. And then they made it into a dedication so that all Classes could benefit from it.
I feel that most simple solution would be to give the Acrobat dedication feat for free to Swashbucklers and not have it count against taking other dedications.
The Swashbuckler is the Martial designed on being good at iconic skills. This has pros, but also cons that this thread highlighted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that most simple solution would be to give the Acrobat dedication feat for free to Swashbucklers and not have it count against taking other dedications.
If it at least didn't lock you out of other Dedications I would have less of an issue with it, but I really fail to see how "take an archetype" is the "good design solution" for in-class mechanics.
Especially when you evaluate this as if you were a brand new player coming to the system:
"No see you need to advance Acrobatics or you'll never get panache"
"What about Deception for Feint? Yeah idk maybe you can max that one instead."
"You only get one Skill increase so you can't max both, that's why."
"You could retrain your level 2 Feat to be Acrobat, so that way you have both!"
"I know you thought the Aldori Duelist looked cool, but you really need these Skills or you're not going to be able to use Panache"
"Why not just play something else like a Rogue or a Finesse Fighter? Yeah I mean you'd have less to worry about then for sure."
______________________________
The buck stops for me when I have to tell new players ridiculous stuff like the above.
And I am going to have to have this conversation when they hit level 3, and I'm really not looking forward to it.
And let me emphasize, I love the Kit design of the Swashbuckler. I literally think it's one of the cooler systems in the game right now (I built a version of the Gunslinger using the binary system because I love it so much).
My issue is the system as it stands with Swashbuckler taxes the player as they level and creates uneven combat choices (whichever skill you favored is now the worse option most of the time).
You can love the kit and not like the resource taxing aspect of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...though actually this just really equates to "now everyone has four legendary skills".
Is that really a bad thing, though?
Personally, being locked explicitly to 3 "skills you're good at" and the rest being "skills you had but can't really use appropriately anymore" isn't really good design. Yes, you should pick and choose the skills wisely, and Rogues and Investigators should have more than the rest, but there really should be more capacity of skill shoring for groups who don't have these classes in their groups to at least have something that gives them the skill versatility the game expects you to have. Ever ran a group where everyone is Master Acrobatics for Kip Up? I am now, and it's hurt us to the point of almost causing a TPK on multiple occasions. Having players that take the same skills does not work in a game that expects 12 different Legendary skills, and several of those are the same for each group.
Also consider that everyone having 4 (or more) means Investigators and Rogues can have 7 (or more), or be left at 6 and pick something else that they would rather improve, making it not extremely broken or overly intruding on class niche.
...though actually this just really equates to "now everyone has four legendary skills".Is that really a bad thing, though?
Personally, being locked explicitly to 3 "skills you're good at" and the rest being "skills you had but can't really use appropriately anymore" isn't really good design. Yes, you should pick and choose the skills wisely, and Rogues and Investigators should have more than the rest, but there really should be more capacity of skill shoring for groups who don't have these classes in their groups to at least have something that gives them the skill versatility the game expects you to have. Ever ran a group where everyone is Master Acrobatics for Kip Up? I am now, and it's hurt us to the point of almost causing a TPK on multiple occasions. Having players that take the same skills does not work in a game that expects 12 different Legendary skills, and several of those are the same for each group.
Also consider that everyone having 4 (or more) means Investigators and Rogues can have 7 (or more), or be left at 6 and pick something else that they would rather improve, making it not extremely broken or overly intruding on class niche.
I would even argue they wouldn't be must takes.
At levels 7/8 (General and Skill) do you want another skill or do you want Battle Cry if you're an Intimidate specialist?
I'd say it's actually a bit close, there are definitely characters where I would not necessarily grab the extra proficiency Skill Feat on.
Let's write it up the way I figured it would look
Expert Training 3
[Skill][General]
_________________________________________________________
Prerequisites Trained in the skill chosen with this
Feat and at least a 16 in the Ability Score tied to it
__________________________________________________________
You increase your proficiency in the selected Skill to Expert.
Master Training 7
[Skill][General]
_________________________________________________________
Prerequisites Expert in the skill chosen with this
Feat and at least a 18 in the Ability Score tied to it
__________________________________________________________
You increase your proficiency in the selected Skill to Master.
Legendary Training 15
[Skill][General]
_________________________________________________________
Prerequisites Master in the skill chosen with this
Feat and at least a 20 in the Ability Score tied to it
__________________________________________________________
You increase your proficiency in the selected Skill to Legendary.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My problem here is that part of the swashbuckler fantasy (at least for me) is that you are a person of several talents. But as the swashbuckler currently stands you will have two talents, Acrobatics and your Style Skill. I don't feel the need to match a Rogue in skills, but I want to be able to do things outside of combat other than my style skill and trained doesn't cut it once you have a few levels.
Swashbucklers basically offer only their style skill once combat is over. You can't have a swashbuckler that can be a full party face since they can't afford to advance Diplomacy and Deception. Knowledge skills are just straight out. Can't be a woodsman. Want to be a suave pirate? Hope you don't mind not being able to swim, cause you can't have Athletics and social skills. As swashbuckler stands, the only way to fulfill a bunch of standard swashbuckler fantasies is to take the Acrobat archetype. Acrobat to be a pirate.
To grant some diversity of skills to the swashbuckler I would give them an ability at 4 and 8 to increase a skill from trained to expert, then an ability at 12, 16, and 20 to go from expert to master. It would let them get two extra Master skills and an Expert. They won't outpace the rogue with this and they won't be reduced to standing in a corner with nothing to offer when "I do kick-flips at it" doesn't solve the problem.
|
|
I think what you describe above might be applied to any class that only gets 3 skills to upgrade.
Which is connected with the Swashbuckler situation, but is actually another topic.
And at least Swashbucklers (and others interested) have Acrobat for the Acrobatics skill auto-increase.
No such thing for Athletics, or Stealth, or Arcana for example.
Now, Rogue and Investigator dedications have feats that give something a bit similar to what you described.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...though actually this just really equates to "now everyone has four legendary skills".Is that really a bad thing, though?
Personally, being locked explicitly to 3 "skills you're good at" and the rest being "skills you had but can't really use appropriately anymore" isn't really good design. Yes, you should pick and choose the skills wisely, and Rogues and Investigators should have more than the rest, but there really should be more capacity of skill shoring for groups who don't have these classes in their groups to at least have something that gives them the skill versatility the game expects you to have. Ever ran a group where everyone is Master Acrobatics for Kip Up? I am now, and it's hurt us to the point of almost causing a TPK on multiple occasions. Having players that take the same skills does not work in a game that expects 12 different Legendary skills, and several of those are the same for each group.
Also consider that everyone having 4 (or more) means Investigators and Rogues can have 7 (or more), or be left at 6 and pick something else that they would rather improve, making it not extremely broken or overly intruding on class niche.
I do think that while that may be true, the fact that it's technically optional (but is really more "trade 3 skill/general feats for more big numbers") isn't really good for the game. The game's really predicated as much as possible on not trading skill/general feats for direct numerical power.
Also seriously why would everyone take master Acrobatics just for Kip Up? It's good when it happens, but not so good I'd build multiple characters around it, since you don't go prone that much.
The game's really predicated as much as possible on not trading skill/general feats for direct numerical power.
Skill Training literally does exactly that. So does Clever Improviser.
Intimidating Prowess straight up grants you a +1 circumstance bonus to checks.
If you want to rope in Generals, Canny Acumen literally does this and so does Toughness and Fleet to a degree.
The game is built with the expectation for you to have certain numbers by certain levels. Allowing other skills to be up to the same standard benchmark numbers increases the versatility of a character, but it does not increase power because you could have just as easily picked that Skill in question for your Skill Increase.
If it allowed you to increase a Skill past the expected trained level, then you'd have a point, but that's not the proposal.
|
|
IMO Versatility is power in PF2. All classes, but especially those with only 3 skills going up to Legendary, would love to get all increases as soon as possible.
Not being able to do so is part and parcel of the balance of the game.
The specific problem we have with Swashbuckler is that their power is predicated on skills.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO Versatility is power in PF2.
I agree but that's not what they said.
All Skill Feats add versatility. Kip Up literally provides a benefit in a circumstantial moment (being prone).
ll classes, but especially those with only 3 skills going up to Legendary, would love to get all increases as soon as possible.
Not being able to do so is part and parcel of the balance of the game.
Yeah? Even at the cost of one of your precious Legendary Skill Feats?
If I'm a Barbarian and I maxed Intimidate, Athletics, and (insert skill of your choice here because the first two are literally all most Barbs care about) by selecting a Skill Increase Feat, you have missed out on 1 Expert Skill Feat, 1 Master Skill Feat, and 1 Legendary Skill Feat.
All so I could do what? Sneak a little better? Oh but my buddy has Quiet Allies and I'm not the worst roll? Huh.
It's an option and when you tell the Barbarian "Hey so you have to give up Titan Wrestler, Battle Cry, and Scare To Death/Cloud Jump" its really not that clear cut as you all are making it.
The specific problem we have with Swashbuckler is that their power is predicated on skills.
I like this aspect of it. The way it uses the action economy is great. What's rough is the tools you are given to "feed the machine", and let's just say once the machine gets going you are scrambling to keep up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My problem here is that part of the swashbuckler fantasy (at least for me) is that you are a person of several talents. But as the swashbuckler currently stands you will have two talents, Acrobatics and your Style Skill. I don't feel the need to match a Rogue in skills, but I want to be able to do things outside of combat other than my style skill and trained doesn't cut it once you have a few levels.
Swashbucklers basically offer only their style skill once combat is over. You can't have a swashbuckler that can be a full party face since they can't afford to advance Diplomacy and Deception. Knowledge skills are just straight out. Can't be a woodsman. Want to be a suave pirate? Hope you don't mind not being able to swim, cause you can't have Athletics and social skills. As swashbuckler stands, the only way to fulfill a bunch of standard swashbuckler fantasies is to take the Acrobat archetype. Acrobat to be a pirate.
To grant some diversity of skills to the swashbuckler I would give them an ability at 4 and 8 to increase a skill from trained to expert, then an ability at 12, 16, and 20 to go from expert to master. It would let them get two extra Master skills and an Expert. They won't outpace the rogue with this and they won't be reduced to standing in a corner with nothing to offer when "I do kick-flips at it" doesn't solve the problem.
That is a very fair objection. :-)
Yeah? Even at the cost of one of your precious Legendary Skill Feats?ll classes, but especially those with only 3 skills going up to Legendary, would love to get all increases as soon as possible.
Not being able to do so is part and parcel of the balance of the game.
You actually gain a legendary skill feat if all your skills don't have one.
From level 15-20, you can get up to five skill feats if you so desire. If your chosen skills do not have three or more legendary skill feats, then you simply slot the fourth skill feat as a proficiency increase and the fifth feat as a legendary skill feat.
From level 15-20, you can get up to five skill feats if you so desire. If your chosen skills do not have three or more legendary skill feats, then you simply slot the fourth skill feat as a proficiency increase and the fifth feat as a legendary skill feat.
Ah ah ah, you get 2 General Feats, which can be used on anything.
You gain one more option and you lose other General Feat options.
You don't gain one unless the one you chose has nothing to spend it on, and you still lose out on the Expert/Master based feats.
And that's losing options on your generals. This argument falls especially flat as more high level options get introduced, which if a new book were to release these feats, hopefully it would come with more high level options.
|
|
I missed the costing Legendary skill feats. My comment was on "Allowing other skills to be up to the same standard benchmark numbers increases the versatility of a character, but it does not increase power because you could have just as easily picked that Skill in question for your Skill Increase."
On its own, being able to get 2 skills at Legendary at level 15 is IMO a power-up from getting one at 15 and having to wait 17 to get the second one.
3 skills is even worse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I missed the costing Legendary skill feats. My comment was on "Allowing other skills to be up to the same standard benchmark numbers increases the versatility of a character, but it does not increase power because you could have just as easily picked that Skill in question for your Skill Increase."
On its own, being able to get 2 skills at Legendary at level 15 is IMO a power-up from getting one at 15 and having to wait 17 to get the second one.3 skills is even worse.
Not getting Scare to Death at level 15, to me, seems like a massive mistake if you have Intimidate.
Skills, for the most part, are largely up to the Class whether or not they need more than 3.
Swashbuckler is pretty much the only one where they absolutely can't diversify at all.
You could just as easily bump the levels on each one, so level 8 on the Master and level 16 on the Legendary.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Skilled Human Heritage gives an extra Expert skill at level 5. Multitalented(rogue) at level 9 + Skill Mastery at level 10 or 12 and be Master at 4 skills at level 13. Levels 2-8 are free to multiclass in whatever you want (or not).
I realize that this is just going to add "I shouldn't have to play a human" to the list of what's 'wrong' with swashbucklers, but it's just not true that "they absolutely can't diversify at all."
“Swashbucklers have less flexibility on skill increases by orders of magnitude more than other classes to the point where it not only strains narrative choice, it actively punishes players for not increasing specific skills since failing to do so means your class becomes unplayable. It has a built in trap because it has no skill increase support but requires skill increases more than any class.”
Is that fair to say?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Skilled Human Heritage gives an extra Expert skill at level 5. Multitalented(rogue) at level 9 + Skill Mastery at level 10 or 12 and be Master at 4 skills at level 13. Levels 2-8 are free to multiclass in whatever you want (or not).
I realize that this is just going to add "I shouldn't have to play a human" to the list of what's 'wrong' with swashbucklers, but it's just not true that "they absolutely can't diversify at all."
“Swashbucklers have less flexibility on skill increases by orders of magnitude more than other classes to the point where it not only strains narrative choice, it actively punishes players for not increasing specific skills since failing to do so means your class becomes unplayable. It has a built in trap because it has no skill increase support but requires skill increases more than any class.”
Is that fair to say?
I would say less trap and more "narrow passageway". Trap would imply there was something to fall into, whereas it's plain to see.
|
I missed the costing Legendary skill feats. My comment was on "Allowing other skills to be up to the same standard benchmark numbers increases the versatility of a character, but it does not increase power because you could have just as easily picked that Skill in question for your Skill Increase."
On its own, being able to get 2 skills at Legendary at level 15 is IMO a power-up from getting one at 15 and having to wait 17 to get the second one.3 skills is even worse.
Not getting Scare to Death at level 15, to me, seems like a massive mistake if you have Intimidate.
Skills, for the most part, are largely up to the Class whether or not they need more than 3.
Swashbuckler is pretty much the only one where they absolutely can't diversify at all.
You could just as easily bump the levels on each one, so level 8 on the Master and level 16 on the Legendary.
I am really torn apart talking about scare to death vs demoralize.
To begin with, it seems that intimidate has a nice and smooth progression in terms of skill feats, which enhances its features ( no language required, +1 vs spells, free roll on inititative, etc... ), none of which seems to work with scare to death.
Finally, scare to death has either the death and incapacitate trait, as well as linguistic ( you will probably be using the glare with your demoralize ), making it not the best choice against many enemies.
Not sure if they are meant to work together, but because of either the feats which don't work and the scare to death limit, I might consider taking a different lvl 15 skill ( unless my secondary is something without it like acrobatics ).
Even with all those limitations, Scare to Death is still nigh-broken as a skill feat. It has like a 40-45% chance of outright killing a level-2 opponent... for 1 action no MAP at range. Something that, at that level, would take a whole round of focused attacks from two melee party members... reduced to a single action at range no MAP from one.
That being said, it's kind of janky that those things don't work with scare to death, but I'd be a little hestitent of buffing something already that strong... maybe reduce the power of it somewhat in some other way (make it 2a or something).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Skilled Human Heritage gives an extra Expert skill at level 5. Multitalented(rogue) at level 9 + Skill Mastery at level 10 or 12 and be Master at 4 skills at level 13. Levels 2-8 are free to multiclass in whatever you want (or not).
I realize that this is just going to add "I shouldn't have to play a human" to the list of what's 'wrong' with swashbucklers, but it's just not true that "they absolutely can't diversify at all."
“Swashbucklers have less flexibility on skill increases by orders of magnitude more than other classes to the point where it not only strains narrative choice, it actively punishes players for not increasing specific skills since failing to do so means your class becomes unplayable. It has a built in trap because it has no skill increase support but requires skill increases more than any class.”
Is that fair to say?
less flexibility - fair
orders of magnitude - no
trap - baloney: How can a player not notice that they're using a skill every round?
no skill increase support - you're replying to my post where I described one of the ways to get skill increases.
Swashbucklers have two skills defined for them, and Gymnast might have one, if you want to skip Acrobatics.
Inventor has Crafting.
Enigma Bard has Performance (somewhat) and Occultism (maybe, if you want to go heavy into Bardic Lore). Neither of these are required for base function.
Chirurgeon has two (Crafting/Medicine), unless you want to ignore the main benefit of the subclass. This one is the closest.
Everyone else has one that they might want, at most. Even Wizard can literally get by without any Arcana.
Orders of magnitude is completely accurate.
---
Saying Acrobat/Rogue Dedication and level 8+ class feats is a solution is like saying a caster dedication and Moment of Clarity is a solution for an Animal Barbarian. "Don't worry guys, Animal Barbarians have ranged spell support."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say less trap and more "narrow passageway". Trap would imply there was something to fall into, whereas it's plain to see.
I don't really think it is all that plain to see and I'll explain why.
Skill Increases are one of the choice aspects of a character, just like any other portion of a character. So when my groups, and I play with mostly new people, get told "Okay you level up, you get to pick the following things" my Swashbuckler doesn't necessarily know that the math of the game requires him to increase BOTH of those skills.
He just wanted to play a Swashbuckler and be a debonair Inigo type, he didn't know that PF2 came with predefined numbers requirements.
And I would argue that while it might seem obvious to us here because we are all of course very involved with the game, it's really not that obvious to people that see those choices as actual choices.
Now he might select Deception at 3, but will he select Acrobatics at 5 or vice-versa? It would still be a "trap" not to select them at those levels, if only so his character has more than one action option in combat, but not selecting it a second time is a much easier trap to fall into.
"It's obvious to me" doesn't make it not a trap. It's still a trap.
tl;dr It's a trap unless you understand the game has tight math. Assuming new players have a grasp on the math of the system is Ivory Tower design, which PF2 mostly did away with. The biggest reason the game is so balanced is because you can't mess up the math in most places.
no skill increase support - you're replying to my post where I described one of the ways to get skill increases.
This is ivory tower design to require players to hunt for other places to solve in class problems.
And you knew when you said it that it wasn't fair to say "play a human" because people generally don't pick Ancestries at level 1 just so they can get a Feat at level 5 unless they are min-maxing to avoid the Class issues.
I didn't say "the human doesn't have Skill Increase support", I said the Swashbuckler has no Skill Increase support. And it doesn't. Period.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say less trap and more "narrow passageway". Trap would imply there was something to fall into, whereas it's plain to see.
I don't really think it is all that plain to see and I'll explain why.
Skill Increases are one of the choice aspects of a character, just like any other portion of a character. So when my groups, and I play with mostly new people, get told "Okay you level up, you get to pick the following things" my Swashbuckler doesn't necessarily know that the math of the game requires him to increase BOTH of those skills.
He just wanted to play a Swashbuckler and be a debonair Inigo type, he didn't know that PF2 came with predefined numbers requirements.
And I would argue that while it might seem obvious to us here because we are all of course very involved with the game, it's really not that obvious to people that see those choices as actual choices.
Now he might select Deception at 3, but will he select Acrobatics at 5 or vice-versa? It would still be a "trap" not to select them at those levels, if only so his character has more than one action option in combat, but not selecting it a second time is a much easier trap to fall into.
"It's obvious to me" doesn't make it not a trap. It's still a trap.
tl;dr It's a trap unless you understand the game has tight math. Assuming new players have a grasp on the math of the system is Ivory Tower design, which PF2 mostly did away with. The biggest reason the game is so balanced is because you can't mess up the math in most places.
no skill increase support - you're replying to my post where I described one of the ways to get skill increases.
This is ivory tower design to require players to hunt for other places to solve in class problems.
And you knew when you said it that it wasn't fair to say "play a human" because people generally don't pick Ancestries at level 1 just so they can get a Feat at level 5 unless they are min-maxing to avoid...
TBH I consider the classes of the Advanced Player's Guide to be indeed advanced and thus not beginner-friendly.
And, I just now realize that the name of the book is why the 3rd category of weapons is Advanced. Epiphany.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TBH I consider the classes of the Advanced Player's Guide to be indeed advanced and thus not beginner-friendly.And, I just now realize that the name of the book is why the 3rd category of weapons is Advanced. Epiphany.
I wholeheartedly disagree on this. Witch isn't exactly advanced compared to Wizard. Oracle, maybe, because of the curse, but it's not really that difficult. Swashbuckler, in play, is super easy and smooth. Investigator is really the only one I'd consider possibly "advanced" in comparison.
Also Exotic was honestly a terrible name for a lot of the weapons in that category. Bastard sword, falcata, spiked chain, and harpoon were all in there.