Should Swashbuckler / Investigator Really Require Finesse Weapons?

[Golurkcanfly]

Currently, both of these classes have their main mechanics tied to a rather small list of weapons, barring character concepts that would otherwise slot perfectly into them.

Current reasons for keeping it as-is:

1) Balance with damage dice size
2) Strength vs Dexterity balance
3) Goes Against Themes
4) Too much to errata

I do believe that all of these points can be addressed using both existing mechanics in the game as well as tropes in fiction.

---

The Damage Dice Argument:

I agree that allowing Precise Strike and Studious Strike to use d10 and d12 damage weapons would be too strong. However, limiting to Finesse and Agile (and in the case of Investigator, ranged weapons and saps as well) is not the only way to do this. We can instead limit strictly by damage dice size, just like the Ruffian Rogue. This way, your Swashbuckler could use a scimitar or your Investigator can use their staff.

The Strength vs Dexterity Argument:

While I understand that being able to use Strength weapons instead of Finesse weapons allows for more damage without sacrificing accuracy, the Strength vs Dexterity difference isn't even an issue. The two already have their own distinct benefits, such as Dexterity offering better defenses, and in the case of the Swashbuckler, better access to Panache. As for the Investigator, it does not even use Dexterity for accuracy to begin with, and already wants Strength for damage.

The Thematic Argument:

The restrictions present do not add any particular flavor, simply restrict who is allowed access to mechanics that could better fit their own flavor. Before the Swashbuckler is a fencer, it is a "Flashy Warrior." Why are the mechanics that best fit "Flashy Warriors" restricted to only nimble duelists when the trope is also represented by characters unsupported by finesse weapons? Flashy Warriors such as dervish dancers, professional wrestlers, showboat gladiators, and even cutlass-using pirates are excluded by the current mechanics. As for the Investigator, there aren't really any particular weapons that seem thematically dissonant with the Intellectual concept except some of the beefy two-handed weapons, which would be excluded with the damage dice limit described above instead. These changes also do not detract from any existing concepts that use these classes, and instead simply allow concepts that would be best represented by the classes to actually use the class. A character who is thematically identical to a Rapier-using Swashbuckler, except that they use a mace or hatchet or scimitar, should not be excluded from the mechanics that best suit their concept.

The Errata Argument:

This is perhaps the least sound argument, as the rest of the APG needs errata to begin with. In addition, we've seen much more extensive errata of classes already with the Alchemist. These changes would require a change of text to one feature of each class, and for the Swashbuckler, changing the Key Ability Score from Dexterity to a choice between Dexterity or Strength, just like other martials.

---

With all these in mind, I do not believe there are sufficiently valid reasons to bar Swashbucklers and Investigators from using additional weapons provided they are not d10 and d12 weapons, which are the only ones that could cause balance issues and might be too much of a stretch thematically.

[Kelseus]

The balance point should be against the Rogue. Both the Swashbuckler's Precise Strike (on a finisher) and the Investigator's Strategic Strike is either equal to or does more damage than a Rogue's sneak attack of the same level.

It's also about expected damage per hit. A rogue at level 5 can do up to 4d6+3 damage per hit (striking rune, sneak attack, 16 Str) for an average of 17 damage. An investigator at level 5 can do the same. A swashbuckler with panache does 2d6+6 on a normal strike (avg 13), and 5d6+3 on a finisher (avg 20.5).

If the investigator used a d10 or d12 weapon, the average would jump to 21 and 23 respectively. A level 5 giant instinct barbarian using a d12 is only doing 23 on average. The Swashbuckler with a d10 weapon is doing 18 on a normal attack and 24.5 on a finisher. Both are doing this damage with better AC, fewer drawbacks, and the Swashbuckler has the same to hit, with the investigator only 1 behind levels 1-4.

Maybe the "I'm a raging damage machine" should be able to out damage the other more subtle classes?

Could Paizo had just capped it at d8 and been done with it? Yes, but this is a more elegant option. It already caps you at a d6, unless you want to use your other resources to again access to the few d8 finesse/agile weapons.

[Kelseus]

Also, not all options have to be equally viable for all classes.

If you want to swing a giant weapon for lots of damage, be a Fighter, or Barbarian, or Ranger, or Champion, or Warpriest of a god with a greatsword/axe/club or polearm, or a Battle Oracle, or a Dragon stance Monk.

That's literally half of the classes out of the CRB, and 7 of 16 counting the CRB.

Heck, you could even do this with the Magus, bringing the number up to 8 of 18 published classes that have a baked in viable d10/d12 option.

[Squiggit]

I'm not really convinced that there is a balance point, tbh. A Barbarian with a one handed weapon is, at best, a single die step ahead of a similarly equipped Swashbuckler (and a human/tengu can pick up a dueling sword instead and completely nullify that, though that costs a tiny bit to do).

Even for two-handers we're still looking at 1-2 die sizes.

Is 1 damage really the only thing keeping Investigators in check?

[Golurkcanfly]

Kelseus wrote:

The balance point should be against the Rogue. Both the Swashbuckler's Precise Strike (on a finisher) and the Investigator's Strategic Strike is either equal to or does more damage than a Rogue's sneak attack of the same level.

It's also about expected damage per hit. A rogue at level 5 can do up to 4d6+3 damage per hit (striking rune, sneak attack, 16 Str) for an average of 17 damage. An investigator at level 5 can do the same. A swashbuckler with panache does 2d6+6 on a normal strike (avg 13), and 5d6+3 on a finisher (avg 20.5).

If the investigator used a d10 or d12 weapon, the average would jump to 21 and 23 respectively. A level 5 giant instinct barbarian using a d12 is only doing 23 on average. The Swashbuckler with a d10 weapon is doing 18 on a normal attack and 24.5 on a finisher. Both are doing this damage with better AC, fewer drawbacks, and the Swashbuckler has the same to hit, with the investigator only 1 behind levels 1-4.

Maybe the "I'm a raging damage machine" should be able to out damage the other more subtle classes?

Could Paizo had just capped it at d8 and been done with it? Yes, but this is a more elegant option. It already caps you at a d6, unless you want to use your other resources to again access to the few d8 finesse/agile weapons.

The class choice isn't about damage, it's about the fact that you're *literally not allowed to use the core feature of the class* if you don't use a rather narrow set of weapons. Plus, the strength build would deal marginally more damage but also have worse defenses to balance it out.

The mechanics are there to better represent concepts, not to prescribe builds for the player.

And how is "finesse weapons, agile weapons, ranged weapons, but also the sap" more elegant than "weapons with a base damage die of d8 or lower"?

[Alchemic_Genius]

Honestly, I've considered lifting the agile/finesse thing and just cap it at a d8; thats the hard cap for damage for these traits anyways. Ruffian Rogue would probably instead get full martial weapon proficiency

[Golurkcanfly]

I've also created a strawpoll to collect data on opinions: Poll

[Golurkcanfly]

After some feedback from someone on the Foundry discord, I split the poll into two separate polls, one for each class. The Swashbuckler one is more detailed due to the Swash being a bit more complicated to change.

Investigator: https://strawpoll.com/456xu18y6
Swashbuckler: https://strawpoll.com/bpw7ed3r6

[Gaulin]

I would be happy if the key ability could be either strength or dex. Bit of a bummer when you find a cool agile weapon (without finesse) that would work with things like finishers, but being behind on your main stat makes it less attractive.

[aobst128]

A d8 or less is probably not a bad fix, I don't agree with having strength or dex as a key ability though. Swashbuckler sentinels would just become the norm then. Dex is there to reinforce the archetypal "finesse" warrior. that's not necessarily a bad thing. You could still play a flashy fighter after all.

[Golurkcanfly]

aobst128 wrote:

A d8 or less is probably not a bad fix, I don't agree with having strength or dex as a key ability though. Swashbuckler sentinels would just become the norm then. Dex is there to reinforce the archetypal "finesse" warrior. that's not necessarily a bad thing. You could still play a flashy fighter after all.

The mechanics as they exist are not a "patch" to make finesse fighters good. They are there to encourage the character to actually be flashy. You should not be restricted to a narrow subset of weapons in order to use mechanics that better fit the character idea.

After all, DEX Swashbucklers could still play a flashy fighter and be ahead of the curve.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

aobst128 wrote:

A d8 or less is probably not a bad fix, I don't agree with having strength or dex as a key ability though. Swashbuckler sentinels would just become the norm then. Dex is there to reinforce the archetypal "finesse" warrior. that's not necessarily a bad thing. You could still play a flashy fighter after all.

Except, outside of Thief Rogue, your "finesse warrior" is just a worse damage-dealing martial with bad Athletics and slightly higher Reflex saves where it counts. And also has less AC, even though a trope of "Less armored is just as durable and hard to hit as the walking tank" has been in media for years.

Thanks but no thanks, they butchered Dexterity at both ends here, overcorrected with both extremely limiting options and inherent limitations. It's the same problem with Magus not having an option to boost Int. The fact that an Investigator with Magus dedication has a higher save DC than an actual Magus is poor design.

[Squiggit]

aobst128 wrote:

A d8 or less is probably not a bad fix, I don't agree with having strength or dex as a key ability though. Swashbuckler sentinels would just become the norm then. Dex is there to reinforce the archetypal "finesse" warrior. that's not necessarily a bad thing. You could still play a flashy fighter after all.

I'm not sure why it would be necessarily a bad thing if someone could play a Swashbuckler Sentinel either though. I'm sure people could or already have come up with cool concepts that might fit that design space.

[aobst128]

I don't see the problem. You could say the same thing about the barbarian. They only get strength and are discouraged from using agile weapons. Is that too restricting? They don't get dex as a key ability. Barbarian is a strength class, as swashbuckler is a dex class. If you want strength, play something else.

[Squiggit]

aobst128 wrote:

You could say the same thing about the barbarian.

I could, you're right. Let Barbarians pick their key stat too. The worst that would happen is a few character concepts become slightly easier to build. Sounds good to me.

[The Raven Black]

OK for allowing non-agile/finesse weapons, but then the PC should lose the damage equalizers of Strategic Strike and Precise Strike.

[Golurkcanfly]

aobst128 wrote:

I don't see the problem. You could say the same thing about the barbarian. They only get strength and are discouraged from using agile weapons. Is that too restricting? They don't get dex as a key ability. Barbarian is a strength class, as swashbuckler is a dex class. If you want strength, play something else.

Barbarians are still allowed to use those weapons and still get the bonuses. In addition, a DEX option for them *would* be nice. Plus, there's nothing about "Flashy Warrior" that has DEX > STR in the concept whatosever. In fact, the most prominent real-world "Flashy Warriors" would be STR specialists, being professional wrestlers.

It's not about whether someone wants to play a STR class or a DEX class. If that's your approach, you're totally in the wrong mindset when it comes to a class built around encouraging a specific play pattern like the Swashbuckler.

It's about someone who wants to play a character concept using the mechanics that best support that concept, but isn't allowed to because they happen to use a Trident instead of a Rapier.

[Golurkcanfly]

The Raven Black wrote:

OK for allowing non-agile/finesse weapons, but then the PC should lose the damage equalizers of Strategic Strike and Precise Strike.

That's literally how it is right now. Those aren't damage "equalizers"

The damage boosts are literally the core of the class. The difference between a d6 weapon with finesse vs a d8 weapon without finesse isn't anywhere near as large as the classes with their damage boost feature vs without the damage boost feature.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

aobst128 wrote:

I don't see the problem. You could say the same thing about the barbarian. They only get strength and are discouraged from using agile weapons. Is that too restricting? They don't get dex as a key ability. Barbarian is a strength class, as swashbuckler is a dex class. If you want strength, play something else.

It is a little bit. Especially because they can't realistically have more than a 14 Dexterity starting out, plus have penalties to AC inherent to their class, making them far weaker in AC compared to any other frontline class, all to get 2 more HP per level compared to others. (Even allowing Constitution as a score choice could have been interesting.)

Remember that in PF1, the Urban Barbarian archetype was a thing, which let you boost Dexterity instead of Strength, and the class could function with finesse weapons and certain Dex-to-Damage options. Plus, class archetypes are now a thing, meaning if Paizo really wanted, they could revisit this idea.

Just as well, Swashbucklers aren't just a Dexterity class. Some builds rely on a Strength main-stat to maintain effectiveness for panache and finishers, plus weapon choices are limited to by proxy.

[Golurkcanfly]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

I don't see the problem. You could say the same thing about the barbarian. They only get strength and are discouraged from using agile weapons. Is that too restricting? They don't get dex as a key ability. Barbarian is a strength class, as swashbuckler is a dex class. If you want strength, play something else.

It is a little bit. Especially because they can't realistically have more than a 14 Dexterity starting out, plus have penalties to AC inherent to their class, making them far weaker in AC compared to any other frontline class, all to get 2 more HP per level compared to others. (Even allowing Constitution as a score choice could have been interesting.)

Remember that in PF1, the Urban Barbarian archetype was a thing, which let you boost Dexterity instead of Strength, and the class could function with finesse weapons and certain Dex-to-Damage options. Plus, class archetypes are now a thing, meaning if Paizo really wanted, they could revisit this idea.

And they absolutely should. More character options to better tailor stuff to fit the character you have in mind is good!

Character creation stuff should be descriptive, not prescriptive. Give me juicy, interesting mechanics to choose from to build whoever I want to play, not just tell me to play Erron Flynn.

[aobst128]

Dex barbarians would be nice for thrown builds. Options are definitely a good thing, I'm just not sure if the ones here would fit well with the balancing of this system. Strength is a little op especially with full plate being pretty easily accessible. I guess a strength swashbuckler could be comparable with a ruffian rogue, with their precision damage, although, they only get their benefit with simple weapons, while swashbuckler has every martial weapon smaller than a d10 to use with this idea.

[Tectorman]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

I don't see the problem. You could say the same thing about the barbarian. They only get strength and are discouraged from using agile weapons. Is that too restricting? They don't get dex as a key ability. Barbarian is a strength class, as swashbuckler is a dex class. If you want strength, play something else.

Barbarians are still allowed to use those weapons and still get the bonuses. In addition, a DEX option for them *would* be nice. Plus, there's nothing about "Flashy Warrior" that has DEX > STR in the concept whatosever. In fact, the most prominent real-world "Flashy Warriors" would be STR specialists, being professional wrestlers.

It's not about whether someone wants to play a STR class or a DEX class. If that's your approach, you're totally in the wrong mindset when it comes to a class built around encouraging a specific play pattern like the Swashbuckler.

It's about someone who wants to play a character concept using the mechanics that best support that concept, but isn't allowed to because they happen to use a Trident instead of a Rapier.

This right here has been my lament on the Rogue since 3.5/P1E. Deciding to play "the skillsy guy" should not auto-equate to "wants to use finesse/agile/light weapons". And in 3.5 and P1E, it didn't (the Rogue started out with more specific weapon proficiencies, but anything else was a feat or a multiclass away). But 4E decided to make them be contingent on each other. And 5E just had to follow suit, Starfinder had to do the same thing to the Operative, and P2E is now doing the same thing to the Rogue and later the Investigator.

[Golurkcanfly]

Tectorman wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

I don't see the problem. You could say the same thing about the barbarian. They only get strength and are discouraged from using agile weapons. Is that too restricting? They don't get dex as a key ability. Barbarian is a strength class, as swashbuckler is a dex class. If you want strength, play something else.

Barbarians are still allowed to use those weapons and still get the bonuses. In addition, a DEX option for them *would* be nice. Plus, there's nothing about "Flashy Warrior" that has DEX > STR in the concept whatosever. In fact, the most prominent real-world "Flashy Warriors" would be STR specialists, being professional wrestlers.

It's not about whether someone wants to play a STR class or a DEX class. If that's your approach, you're totally in the wrong mindset when it comes to a class built around encouraging a specific play pattern like the Swashbuckler.

It's about someone who wants to play a character concept using the mechanics that best support that concept, but isn't allowed to because they happen to use a Trident instead of a Rapier.

This right here has been my lament on the Rogue since 3.5/P1E. Deciding to play "the skillsy guy" should not auto-equate to "wants to use finesse/agile/light weapons". And in 3.5 and P1E, it didn't (the Rogue started out with more specific weapon proficiencies, but anything else was a feat or a multiclass away). But 4E decided to make them be contingent on each other. And 5E just had to follow suit, Starfinder had to do the same thing to the Operative, and P2E is now doing the same thing to the Rogue and later the Investigator.

Yeah, I had the same issue with Rogue before they introduced Ruffian after the initial playtest, and even then Ruffian doesn't do a very good job. Just because it's the common trope doesn't mean it should be the only trope it supports. It'd be like making every Bard that awful horny stereotype.

[Tectorman]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Tectorman wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

I don't see the problem. You could say the same thing about the barbarian. They only get strength and are discouraged from using agile weapons. Is that too restricting? They don't get dex as a key ability. Barbarian is a strength class, as swashbuckler is a dex class. If you want strength, play something else.

Barbarians are still allowed to use those weapons and still get the bonuses. In addition, a DEX option for them *would* be nice. Plus, there's nothing about "Flashy Warrior" that has DEX > STR in the concept whatosever. In fact, the most prominent real-world "Flashy Warriors" would be STR specialists, being professional wrestlers.

It's not about whether someone wants to play a STR class or a DEX class. If that's your approach, you're totally in the wrong mindset when it comes to a class built around encouraging a specific play pattern like the Swashbuckler.

It's about someone who wants to play a character concept using the mechanics that best support that concept, but isn't allowed to because they happen to use a Trident instead of a Rapier.

This right here has been my lament on the Rogue since 3.5/P1E. Deciding to play "the skillsy guy" should not auto-equate to "wants to use finesse/agile/light weapons". And in 3.5 and P1E, it didn't (the Rogue started out with more specific weapon proficiencies, but anything else was a feat or a multiclass away). But 4E decided to make them be contingent on each other. And 5E just had to follow suit, Starfinder had to do the same thing to the Operative, and P2E is now doing the same thing to the Rogue and later the Investigator.

Yeah, I had the same issue with Rogue before they introduced Ruffian after the initial playtest, and even then Ruffian doesn't do a very good job. Just because it's the common trope doesn't mean it should be the only trope it supports. It'd be like making every Bard that awful horny stereotype.

Oh, tell me about it. Best P1E archetype for the Bard was the Archaeologist for almost completely excising any dependency on music or performance. And the only way I could stand to play my last Bard (in 5E, where you're either pulling random junk out of a spell component pouch or you have a musical instrument) was by using a flute, except really as a flute-shaped wand that she never played as an instrument. And while I'm aware that the P2E Bard CAN be played as non-musical/non-performing, I don't think enough was done to dampen the expectation.

...

Or did you mean something else when you said "horny"?

[Golurkcanfly]

Tectorman wrote:

Yeah, I had the same issue with Rogue before they introduced Ruffian after the initial playtest, and even then Ruffian doesn't do a very good job. Just because it's the common trope doesn't mean it should be the only trope it supports. It'd be like making every Bard that awful horny stereotype.

Oh,...

On the off-chance you're not just being coy...

I'm talking the drink flagons and smash dragons stereotype.

[Arachnofiend]

The Swashbuckler is dex only for the same reason people don't use finesse weapons for fighters. The default in PF2 is for strength to be strictly better for melee, dexterity builds need specific bonuses to catch up. If Swashbucklers can pick strength without giving anything else up like the Ruffian Rogue does then dex swashes vanish overnight.

[Deriven Firelion]

Scimitar should have been agile and finesse. I'm still not sure why they don't make this weapon finesse at least.

I don't think the swashbuckler is a "flashy warrior." I think they were created specifically to create characters like a Musketeer or an Errol Flynn type swashbuckler.

Investigator was more to create a Sherlock Holmes type of character.

I think the swashbuckler should have to stick with one-handed finesse or agile weapons. If you play a swashbuckler, you are playing that guy who swings from ship to ship or rips down the tapestry to ride it down a wall, while wielding a rapier.

[Squiggit]

Does that actually pan out in practice though? Fighters, Monks and Rangers can all pick their key attribute do in actual play often build either way.

Swashbucklers also have a lot less of an incentive to build Strength anyways because of their high innate damage bonuses (as opposed to the Fighter, who has no innate damage bonus and therefor values them higher).

I'm not sure it's a realistic fear.

[Golurkcanfly]

I think the fear of STR Swashbucklers outright replacing DEX Swashbucklers is unfounded given how DEX gets better defenses without Heavy Armor and Tumble Through is still critical for getting Panache. I think the name more than the mechanics are what drive people away from the idea of STR "Flashy Warriors." They mechanics just reward the player for being flashy and then letting them spend the reward for a big payoff. The biggest thing that defines it as "rapiers and daggers" only is the Precise Strike restriction.

Sherlock Holmes could certainly whack someone with a staff and Investigator doesn't care about DEX with accuracy that often anyways. It's damage wouldn't change all too much, except allow a die size increase (1-4 damage depending on level). And without Devise a Stratagem active, if you want to be more accurate while having the extra damage, you have to sacrifice on defenses.

Finally, is it really an issue if other people do start building STR Swashbucklers and Longsword Investigators? You don't see all Fighters and Paladins going with the Gnome Flickmace even though it's certainly the best melee weapon due to being a one-handed reach weapon with d8 damage *and* the best Critical Specialization effect in the game.

[Golurkcanfly]

There's also an additional bit here in that while I think a Class Archetype to do the STR Swashbuckler would work, it'd be incredibly disappointing for such a simple fix, especially considering that it could have the typical dedication clause where you're not allowed to take more archetypes until you spend feats on the existing archetype (which is the case for 3/4 Class Archetypes in SoM).

[aobst128]

Arachnofiend wrote:

The Swashbuckler is dex only for the same reason people don't use finesse weapons for fighters. The default in PF2 is for strength to be strictly better for melee, dexterity builds need specific bonuses to catch up. If Swashbucklers can pick strength without giving anything else up like the Ruffian Rogue does then dex swashes vanish overnight.

Exactly.

[Squiggit]

aobst128 wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

The Swashbuckler is dex only for the same reason people don't use finesse weapons for fighters. The default in PF2 is for strength to be strictly better for melee, dexterity builds need specific bonuses to catch up. If Swashbucklers can pick strength without giving anything else up like the Ruffian Rogue does then dex swashes vanish overnight.

Exactly.

I don't see it. You tank your reflex and have to spend a dedication feat on armor and you gain like... a couple extra points of damage on a class that doesn't really like making multiple strikes per round and has some of the highest static damage modifiers in the game already anyways.

That doesn't really sound anything like 'omg must have so overpowered' at all.

[Golurkcanfly]

Squiggit wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

The Swashbuckler is dex only for the same reason people don't use finesse weapons for fighters. The default in PF2 is for strength to be strictly better for melee, dexterity builds need specific bonuses to catch up. If Swashbucklers can pick strength without giving anything else up like the Ruffian Rogue does then dex swashes vanish overnight.

Exactly.

I don't see it. You tank your reflex and have to spend a dedication feat on armor and you gain like... a couple extra points of damage on a class that doesn't really like making multiple strikes per round and has some of the highest static damage modifiers in the game already anyways.

That doesn't really sound anything like 'omg must have so overpowered' at all.

Not to mention Tumble Through being less effective for generating Panache if you don't pump DEX.

The reason STR is dominant elsewhere is that two-handed weapons are mostly STR-based and they benefit the most from multiple damage dice from striking runes. Yet they still aren't the only builds around for flexible martials.

[aobst128]

Squiggit wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

The Swashbuckler is dex only for the same reason people don't use finesse weapons for fighters. The default in PF2 is for strength to be strictly better for melee, dexterity builds need specific bonuses to catch up. If Swashbucklers can pick strength without giving anything else up like the Ruffian Rogue does then dex swashes vanish overnight.

Exactly.

I don't see it. You tank your reflex and have to spend a dedication feat on armor and you gain like... a couple extra points of damage on a class that doesn't really like making multiple strikes per round and has some of the highest static damage modifiers in the game already anyways.

That doesn't really sound anything like 'omg must have so overpowered' at all.

You really only need a general feat, since swashbuckler only gets expert in armor at 13th level, then get sentinel along the way. I get what you're saying but it's more complicated than that, with medium and heavy armor, you can afford to dump dex if your key is strength, while current swashbuckler needs dex and at least some strength. Plus, once you can get agile finishers, your turns with multiple attacks can get pretty strong. Not everyone will take that but it's there.

[Golurkcanfly]

aobst128 wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

The Swashbuckler is dex only for the same reason people don't use finesse weapons for fighters. The default in PF2 is for strength to be strictly better for melee, dexterity builds need specific bonuses to catch up. If Swashbucklers can pick strength without giving anything else up like the Ruffian Rogue does then dex swashes vanish overnight.

Exactly.

I don't see it. You tank your reflex and have to spend a dedication feat on armor and you gain like... a couple extra points of damage on a class that doesn't really like making multiple strikes per round and has some of the highest static damage modifiers in the game already anyways.

That doesn't really sound anything like 'omg must have so overpowered' at all.

You really only need a general feat, since swashbuckler only gets expert in armor at 13th level, then get sentinel along the way. I get what you're saying but it's more complicated than that, with medium and heavy armor, you can afford to dump dex if your key is strength, while current swashbuckler needs dex and at least some strength. Plus, once you can get agile finishers, your turns with multiple attacks can get pretty strong. Not everyone will take that but it's there.

If you outright dump DEX with Swash, you lose your ability to Tumble Through for Panache, which is a huge loss considering its what allows Swash to move and gain Panache instead of using an action that doesn't let it move around to get in stabbing range.

[aobst128]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

The Swashbuckler is dex only for the same reason people don't use finesse weapons for fighters. The default in PF2 is for strength to be strictly better for melee, dexterity builds need specific bonuses to catch up. If Swashbucklers can pick strength without giving anything else up like the Ruffian Rogue does then dex swashes vanish overnight.

Exactly.

I don't see it. You tank your reflex and have to spend a dedication feat on armor and you gain like... a couple extra points of damage on a class that doesn't really like making multiple strikes per round and has some of the highest static damage modifiers in the game already anyways.

That doesn't really sound anything like 'omg must have so overpowered' at all.

You really only need a general feat, since swashbuckler only gets expert in armor at 13th level, then get sentinel along the way. I get what you're saying but it's more complicated than that, with medium and heavy armor, you can afford to dump dex if your key is strength, while current swashbuckler needs dex and at least some strength. Plus, once you can get agile finishers, your turns with multiple attacks can get pretty strong. Not everyone will take that but it's there.

If you outright dump DEX with Swash, you lose your ability to Tumble Through for Panache, which is a huge loss considering its what allows Swash to move and gain Panache instead of using an action that doesn't let it move around to get in stabbing range.

True, although that also allows them to start with higher charisma to make their better panache options more reliable. Or just have more con to tank. The damage bonus of swashbucklers for standard attacks, assuming they have panache, is on par with other strikers because of the extra precision damage. I think that's intended. It may seem like just a couple points difference, but that's how precision classes are designed. You could just reflavor some stuff too, to good effect.

[PossibleCabbage]

For me the thing is, can you think of any characters in media or fiction who can be best described as "investigators" or "swashbucklers" for which wielding a enormous axe or a polearm would not seem weird?

Like the investigator thematically isn't going to want a weapon that's going to draw attention to them, and the swashbuckler isn't going to want a weapon that negatively impacts their ability to move around.

[Golurkcanfly]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

For me the thing is, can you think of any characters in media or fiction who can be best described as "investigators" or "swashbucklers" for which wielding a enormous axe or a polearm would not seem weird?

Like the investigator thematically isn't going to want a weapon that's going to draw attention to them, and the swashbuckler isn't going to want a weapon that negatively impacts their ability to move around.

First, the d8 cap described above excludes any enormous weapons.

Second, classes already include concepts that aren't given by the name. Not all Bards use music or oration, not all Wizards are wise (the name literally means Wise Person), not all Witches are female, not all Rogues are scoundrels, not all Monks are monastic, and so on.

As for the last bit:

A Staff is highly innocuous for an Investigator, much less so than the grand majority of weapons they may use, and a Longsword is just as conspicuous as a Rapier. This is not to mention a variety of incredibly conspicuous weapons they can use, such as a Chakrams, Bladed Diabolos, or various Crossbows.

As for the Swashbuckler, a Scimitar, Mace, Longsword, Machete, Warhammer, and more would not impede movement whatsoever, while some weapons which are irregularly shaped like the Bladed Diabolo or Starknife more easily could.

[Tectorman]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

For me the thing is, can you think of any characters in media or fiction who can be best described as "investigators" or "swashbucklers" for which wielding a enormous axe or a polearm would not seem weird?

Like the investigator thematically isn't going to want a weapon that's going to draw attention to them, and the swashbuckler isn't going to want a weapon that negatively impacts their ability to move around.

The Bladed Brush feat from P1E let you apply Weapon Finesse to a polearm. I would submit that any character conceived in that manner (that is, to be the graceful dancing warrior whipping their glaive or other polearm around just as much as they let themselves be whipped around by it) is such a swashbuckler.

[The Raven Black]

Simplest way, which even avoids the d8 cap that I am pretty sure people will rail against for verisimilitude reasons, is to just reflavor existing agile or finesse weapons as lighter versions of the weapon you want. Or even design such lighter versions with the d8 cap in mind. It is your game after all.

[The Raven Black]

Tectorman wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

For me the thing is, can you think of any characters in media or fiction who can be best described as "investigators" or "swashbucklers" for which wielding a enormous axe or a polearm would not seem weird?

Like the investigator thematically isn't going to want a weapon that's going to draw attention to them, and the swashbuckler isn't going to want a weapon that negatively impacts their ability to move around.

The Bladed Brush feat from P1E let you apply Weapon Finesse to a polearm. I would submit that any character conceived in that manner (that is, to be the graceful dancing warrior whipping their glaive or other polearm around just as much as they let themselves be whipped around by it) is such a swashbuckler.

I would be extremely wary of allowing a PF1 feat in PF2. They are totally different rules system.

[The Raven Black]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

OK for allowing non-agile/finesse weapons, but then the PC should lose the damage equalizers of Strategic Strike and Precise Strike.

That's literally how it is right now. Those aren't damage "equalizers"

The damage boosts are literally the core of the class. The difference between a d6 weapon with finesse vs a d8 weapon without finesse isn't anywhere near as large as the classes with their damage boost feature vs without the damage boost feature.

Hard disagree. The core of Investigator is Devise a Stratagem. The core of Swashbuckler is Panache and Finishers.

I find it odd to think of the damage boosts/equalizers as the core of those classes.

[Deriven Firelion]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

For me the thing is, can you think of any characters in media or fiction who can be best described as "investigators" or "swashbucklers" for which wielding a enormous axe or a polearm would not seem weird?

Like the investigator thematically isn't going to want a weapon that's going to draw attention to them, and the swashbuckler isn't going to want a weapon that negatively impacts their ability to move around.

First, the d8 cap described above excludes any enormous weapons.

Second, classes already include concepts that aren't given by the name. Not all Bards use music or oration, not all Wizards are wise (the name literally means Wise Person), not all Witches are female, not all Rogues are scoundrels, not all Monks are monastic, and so on.

As for the last bit:

A Staff is highly innocuous for an Investigator, much less so than the grand majority of weapons they may use, and a Longsword is just as conspicuous as a Rapier. This is not to mention a variety of incredibly conspicuous weapons they can use, such as a Chakrams, Bladed Diabolos, or various Crossbows.

As for the Swashbuckler, a Scimitar, Mace, Longsword, Machete, Warhammer, and more would not impede movement whatsoever, while some weapons which are irregularly shaped like the Bladed Diabolo or Starknife more easily could.

You can get a D8 with an aldiori dueling sword with a common human feat.

[Perpdepog]

While I haven't really got a dog in this particular race, I did want to point out that Sherlock Holmes, at least in the original tales, arguably used more of a strength than Dex build. If there was a physical altercation he would primarily rely on fisticuffs, or the martial art of "baritsu," which at least partially relied on strong grappling technique.

[The Raven Black]

Joint locks do not require high STR.

[Deriven Firelion]

The Raven Black wrote:

Joint locks do not require high STR.

True in real life. In PF2 grapples do require high strength.

[The Raven Black]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Joint locks do not require high STR.

True in real life. In PF2 grapples do require high strength.

Exact. But then the Sherlock Holmes example provided above was not built under PF2 rules AFAIK.

[Deriven Firelion]

The Raven Black wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Joint locks do not require high STR.

True in real life. In PF2 grapples do require high strength.

Exact. But then the Sherlock Holmes example provided above was not built under PF2 rules AFAIK.

The investigator was created to mirror Sherlock Holmes. But the base rules don't always allow for well done simulations. It's why I don't bother to think of these games as simulations. They do they best they can to simulate something using the available rule set. The investigator focuses far more on Sherlock's deductive abilities than his combat abilities, though the intelligence based attack is an interesting way to simulate the new Sherlock Holmes playing out the fight in his mind ability the Robert Downey version of Holmes does.

[HumbleGamer]

The thing that bothers me most is that swashbucklers are competent in all martial weapons.

Kinda strange they can't properly ( properly means str as main stat and finisher with no agile/finesse weapons) fight they anymore of them but finesse weapons.

Investigators are more or less like thieves, so the limit is more understandable.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Arachnofiend wrote:

The Swashbuckler is dex only for the same reason people don't use finesse weapons for fighters. The default in PF2 is for strength to be strictly better for melee, dexterity builds need specific bonuses to catch up. If Swashbucklers can pick strength without giving anything else up like the Ruffian Rogue does then dex swashes vanish overnight.

Not necessarily. They are primary frontliners, and will need appropriate AC to protect themselves, they aren't a bag of HP like Barbarians, and can't realistically use Shields or Heavy Armor like Fighters or Champions, nor do they get Legendary armor proficiency like Champions or even Monks. They also aren't able to function at a range, very much like Champions, Monks, and Barbarians, and don't have many defensive tools at their disposal. (At least, any that are class-specific.)

On top of that, their primary damage source (panache and finishers) may require using a Dexterity-based skill, and is a level-based DC (at least, against monster DCs which scale to PC levels). They're in a weird spot that requires them to have more stats compared to other classes to function properly. They don't have Dex-to-Damage like Thief Rogues, so they are pretty weak in the early-game, and have no real means to shore up their damage.

Most classes post-CRB run into this problem; Magus, Investigator, Swashbuckler, and perhaps even Monk, suffer from this problem of MAD-ness that, if you require multiple attributes outside of the 3 saves (Dex, Wis, and Con) to function, you have to basically dump one of your 3 saves, or one of your multiple attribute dependencies, either of which creates a feelsbad playstyle because of the assumed game math.