Should Swashbuckler / Investigator Really Require Finesse Weapons?

[Tectorman]

The Raven Black wrote:

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.

I brought up the P1E feat as an example of that design space (a swashbuckler with a polearm) having already been expressed in this world. Of course the P2E expression of that concept would be different, so long as the concept itself still gets to be expressed.

[The Raven Black]

Tectorman wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

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.

I brought up the P1E feat as an example of that design space (a swashbuckler with a polearm) having already been expressed in this world. Of course the P2E expression of that concept would be different, so long as the concept itself still gets to be expressed.

Note that just because a build was possible in PF1 does not mean it appeared in canon setting, and thus that it will be a possible PF2 build.

Example : low-level Paladins with Smite Evil.

[Golurkcanfly]

aobst128 wrote:

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....

.

If I wanted pure reflavoring, I'd play a system like FATE or 13th Age. This is Pathfinder, where customization is key and even small choices can result in different gameplay patterns.

The primary reason for a restriction would be balance, but there is already variance in balance to begin with, so as long as it's within an acceptable range, it's fine.

Most other reasons come down to adhering to the class nomenclature (which is not the case for other classes) or outright pettiness.

[Golurkcanfly]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

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.

I think you're missing the point.

It's not about having the d8 to damage, but having more options in general.

Mechanics that better fit particular concepts that are only gated off by a weapon restriction that's to service a narrow flavor (rather than a restriction by balance) should be opened up. The mechanics are great, encouraging players to pursue a given play pattern.

However, despite a myriad of concepts that best fit within those mechanics but are disallowed solely by this one restriction, only the prescribed "fencer" is actually allowed access.

Additionally, disliking that others are allowed to better represent their characters mechanically by "taking" from the Swashbuckler (whose current existence wouldn't lose anything) is downright petty.

[Temperans]

Wait what? Are people really going to deny Shelyn's entire gameplay style? Bladed Brush is and has always been a Shelyn feat: Spear Dancing Style an extension of it. Devoted Muse, her PRC, was a direct extension of Swashbuckler. But it does not deny any weapon. Why? Because it's meant to be able to use with a Glaive, her favored weapon. The Warrior Poet archetype, which is a real thing btw, also follows this convention. Sarenrae Dervishes do the same thing but with Scimitars. Taldans have a similar fighting Style using Falcata.

Half the people in media doing the "super fancy polearm attack" and a large portion of "Dainty Combat" are surely doing the Dex. Specially if they are following the "Lady of War", "Naginata are feminine", "Girly Bruiser", etc.

Heck spear fighting is known for the "big finisher" that PF2 Swashbuckler is built around of.
********************

You are all literally denying existing lore, for the sake of a "balance concern" that does not exist. It's only reason for existing is to artificially limit options.

[The Raven Black]

Lore does not state what a class does.

There were already Priests in PF1 that were not Clerics, and PF2 NPCs have titles that have little to do with existing classes.

A spear fighter does not have to be a Swashbuckler. Just ask all the Barbarians, Champions and Fighters who already fight with polearms.

[Squiggit]

I mean... being able to use a polearm as a fighter is great and all but it doesn't really do anything for the OP who's looking to play a Swashbuckler.

[Tectorman]

The Raven Black wrote:

Lore does not state what a class does.

There were already Priests in PF1 that were not Clerics, and PF2 NPCs have titles that have little to do with existing classes.

A spear fighter does not have to be a Swashbuckler. Just ask all the Barbarians, Champions and Fighters who already fight with polearms.

But lore and mechanics do go hand in hand on the broader level. If a game has a game mechanic, especially one gated behind worshipping one of the setting's deities, then it exists in some form in the world's lore. In like and equal fashion, something existing in the world's lore may not have its corresponding mechanics under the same name or format, but it exists* in some way (those P1E Priests weren't Clerics but they were SOMETHING; they didn't just exist in the game as uninteractable collections of "hp error 404 not found").

*

Spoiler:

Excepting, of course, game mechanics that they haven't gotten around to YET, because they can only do so much at a time. I.e., Psychics existed in-universe before the playtest dropped recently.

All of this to dispute the notion that "flashy polearm warrior" isn't a concept that needs to be expressed or even exist.

You even agree with me when you suggest that fans of the concept should just settle for Barbarians, Champions, and Fighters, which is not the same thing as saying "you shouldn't even look for a means to express that concept and just have your polearm warrior be not-flashy like God intended".

And yes, that is technically true. And it's just as true to say that players who want a Barbarian should have just settled for Fighter. That players who wanted a Champion should have just settled for a Fighter with a Cleric dedication.

Happily, they didn't get invalidated. We're not all so lucky.

[Squiggit]

Ironically, "just play a fighter (or rogue)" was something people said about the Swashbuckler in general before the APG playtest hit...

[Deriven Firelion]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

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.

I think you're missing the point.

It's not about having the d8 to damage, but having more options in general.

Mechanics that better fit particular concepts that are only gated off by a weapon restriction that's to service a narrow flavor (rather than a restriction by balance) should be opened up. The mechanics are great, encouraging players to pursue a given play pattern.

However, despite a myriad of concepts that best fit within those mechanics but are disallowed solely by this one restriction, only the prescribed "fencer" is...

No. I'm not missing the point. You're asking for something from a class that has been like it has been since it was created. It's a fencer class.

There are plenty of ways to build what you want to build. I don't know why you think the Swashbuckler has to be expanded to accommodate what you want.

If you absolutely have to play your concept using the Swashbuckler, then ask your DM to fashion some house rules as it is unlikely Paizo adjusts the swashbuckler any time soon to be other than various types of fencer.

[Golurkcanfly]

You quite simply are, and the absurdity of your argument is plain to see. Since when do you "fence" with a Whip? Or a Starknife? Or a Combat Grapnel? Nunchaku? Chakrams? Bladed Scarves? Pens? All of these are wildly different from the "fencer" concept, much moreso than a Longsword.

The Swashbuckler bests supports the mechanics of a huge variety of concepts. The nomenclature argument is debunked. The rampant pettiness behind preventing other, balanced approaches is childish at best. It would be like restricting the Gunslinger to only guns when the mechanics present in the playtest also fit crossbows quite well. And guess what, they also supported crossbows.

The only valid argument is balance, and there are various ways to do that.

[The Raven Black]

Those ways are called houserules. You suggested some, as did others including myself.

So this thread should go to the homebrew forum.

I do not get what else you expect.

[Golurkcanfly]

The Raven Black wrote:

Those ways are called houserules. You suggested some, as did others including myself.

So this thread should go to the homebrew forum.

I do not get what else you expect.

The APG needs errata to begin with. These are things that should be included in it. You should not have to play "Mother May I" to do these things.

[Golurkcanfly]

Squiggit wrote:

Ironically, "just play a fighter (or rogue)" was something people said about the Swashbuckler in general before the APG playtest hit...

The funny part is that argument is significantly *more* valid than the one against opening the Swashbuckler up, as developing an entire class is time that could be spent developing a class that supports a concept that has no support whatsoever, like a Kineticist.

[The Raven Black]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Those ways are called houserules. You suggested some, as did others including myself.

So this thread should go to the homebrew forum.

I do not get what else you expect.

The APG needs errata to begin with. These are things that should be included in it. You should not have to play "Mother May I" to do these things.

PF2 is by design the game of Mother May I, aka greater GM power. This argument holds no water. You might as well ask for the removal of Rarity.

[Golurkcanfly]

The Raven Black wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Those ways are called houserules. You suggested some, as did others including myself.

So this thread should go to the homebrew forum.

I do not get what else you expect.

The APG needs errata to begin with. These are things that should be included in it. You should not have to play "Mother May I" to do these things.

PF2 is by design the game of Mother May I, aka greater GM power. This argument holds no water. You might as well ask for the removal of Rarity.

PF2e is about player empowerment more than "Mother May I?".

If it were about the latter, there wouldn't be any need for rules. The permissiveness of the system is there to provide player options so they don't need to ask the GM for everything.

Compare PF2e to other systems which rely much more on GM permissiveness, such as PbtA, 13th Age, FATE, etc.

There is no point to this whataboutism, either.

[aobst128]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Those ways are called houserules. You suggested some, as did others including myself.

So this thread should go to the homebrew forum.

I do not get what else you expect.

The APG needs errata to begin with. These are things that should be included in it. You should not have to play "Mother May I" to do these things.

Just saying that it needs errata doesn't make it true. It's fine if you don't like it, nothing is perfect after all, but unless there is significant need or player feedback to the developers to change it, it probably won't happen. Maybe this thread will have an effect though.

[Golurkcanfly]

aobst128 wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Those ways are called houserules. You suggested some, as did others including myself.

So this thread should go to the homebrew forum.

I do not get what else you expect.

The APG needs errata to begin with. These are things that should be included in it. You should not have to play "Mother May I" to do these things.

Just saying that it needs errata doesn't make it true. It's fine if you don't like it, nothing is perfect after all, but unless there is significant need or player feedback to the developers to change it, it probably won't happen. Maybe this thread will have an effect though.

From the (admittedly small) poll results, it's seems the majority are in favor of opening up both classes in some way by default.

And I think that for the Investigator on particular, their current restriction setup is more trouble than it's worth since it already contains an exception in the Sap. It's a relic of it's time as a Rogue offshoot in 1e.

[The Raven Black]

You can check Mark Seifter's posts for very good explanations on why this kind of poll always gives biased results.

Why do you need an official errata when a homebrew rule gives what you're looking for ?

Finding the best houserule that gives what you are looking for is the best way to spend our collective time and energy IMO.

[rnphillips]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

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

1d6 finesse, sweep?

[rnphillips]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Ironically, "just play a fighter (or rogue)" was something people said about the Swashbuckler in general before the APG playtest hit...

The funny part is that argument is significantly *more* valid than the one against opening the Swashbuckler up, as developing an entire class is time that could be spent developing a class that supports a concept that has no support whatsoever, like a Kineticist.

Swashbuckler and witch were both a waste of development time and are basically archetypes. Investigator almost as well but its mechanic turned out at least unique and interesting.

[Golurkcanfly]

rnphillips wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Ironically, "just play a fighter (or rogue)" was something people said about the Swashbuckler in general before the APG playtest hit...

The funny part is that argument is significantly *more* valid than the one against opening the Swashbuckler up, as developing an entire class is time that could be spent developing a class that supports a concept that has no support whatsoever, like a Kineticist.

Swashbuckler and witch were both a waste of development time and are basically archetypes. Investigator almost as well but its mechanic turned out at least unique and interesting.

Swashbuckler's (currently) narrow concept could be relegated to an archetype, but the Panache and Finisher mechanics are absolutely enough to make a separate class around. Much moreso than, say, the Gunslinger playtest, which has lots of unique options but doesn't have a particularly unique mechanic.

Witch is mainly an issue of underdevelopment due to the rework as well as caster power budgeting.

[aobst128]

rnphillips wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

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

1d6 finesse, sweep?

I think finesse and forceful would make it an interesting foil to the shortsword. Sweep in this case would just make it a worse shortsword.

[Cyouni]

rnphillips wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Ironically, "just play a fighter (or rogue)" was something people said about the Swashbuckler in general before the APG playtest hit...

The funny part is that argument is significantly *more* valid than the one against opening the Swashbuckler up, as developing an entire class is time that could be spent developing a class that supports a concept that has no support whatsoever, like a Kineticist.

Swashbuckler and witch were both a waste of development time and are basically archetypes. Investigator almost as well but its mechanic turned out at least unique and interesting.

I've seen some silly PF2 takes, but this one tops most of them.

[Golurkcanfly]

Cyouni wrote:

rnphillips wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Ironically, "just play a fighter (or rogue)" was something people said about the Swashbuckler in general before the APG playtest hit...

The funny part is that argument is significantly *more* valid than the one against opening the Swashbuckler up, as developing an entire class is time that could be spent developing a class that supports a concept that has no support whatsoever, like a Kineticist.

Swashbuckler and witch were both a waste of development time and are basically archetypes. Investigator almost as well but its mechanic turned out at least unique and interesting.

I've seen some silly PF2 takes, but this one tops most of them.

Witch I can see, since its really not all too different from other full casters.

But how the Swash goes about things is way different than any other martial, with distinct "active" and "inactive" states that it swaps between by building and expanding a resource. Even though you could make a fencer as a Fighter, the mechanics Swash provides more strongly enable very thematic builds, with the current issue plaguing it being that it only enables a specific subset of those thematic builds.

[rnphillips]

Cyouni wrote:

rnphillips wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Ironically, "just play a fighter (or rogue)" was something people said about the Swashbuckler in general before the APG playtest hit...

The funny part is that argument is significantly *more* valid than the one against opening the Swashbuckler up, as developing an entire class is time that could be spent developing a class that supports a concept that has no support whatsoever, like a Kineticist.

Swashbuckler and witch were both a waste of development time and are basically archetypes. Investigator almost as well but its mechanic turned out at least unique and interesting.

I've seen some silly PF2 takes, but this one tops most of them.

You don't think they phoned in the Witch? They handed that one off to the intern and gave him 3 hours to add "flavor" to the Wizard chassis.

As mentioned in the post above the SB has an interesting-ish mechanic at least, but the theme is so narrow and already perfectly replicated by the fighter that is wasted when it could have been applied to a more interesting and unavailable concept. Fighter already had a whole line of feats dedicated to the free hand style...what were people using that for if not swashbuckler type characters? What's next, the "Dervish" class that is just a dual-wielding martial? Or the "Mauler" class for 2H fighter types?

To further make my point, look at page 150 of the CRB. Huh, looks a bit like a "Swashbuckler" to me.

[rnphillips]

aobst128 wrote:

rnphillips wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

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

1d6 finesse, sweep?

I think finesse and forceful would make it an interesting foil to the shortsword. Sweep in this case would just make it a worse shortsword.

Good point.

[Golurkcanfly]

rnphillips wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

rnphillips wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Ironically, "just play a fighter (or rogue)" was something people said about the Swashbuckler in general before the APG playtest hit...

The funny part is that argument is significantly *more* valid than the one against opening the Swashbuckler up, as developing an entire class is time that could be spent developing a class that supports a concept that has no support whatsoever, like a Kineticist.

Swashbuckler and witch were both a waste of development time and are basically archetypes. Investigator almost as well but its mechanic turned out at least unique and interesting.

I've seen some silly PF2 takes, but this one tops most of them.

You don't think they phoned in the Witch? They handed that one off to the intern and gave him 3 hours to add "flavor" to the Wizard chassis.

As mentioned in the post above the SB has an interesting-ish mechanic at least, but the theme is so narrow and already perfectly replicated by the fighter that is wasted when it could have been applied to a more interesting and unavailable concept. Fighter already had a whole line of feats dedicated to the free hand style...what were people using that for if not swashbuckler type characters? What's next, the "Dervish" class that is just a dual-wielding martial? Or the "Mauler" class for 2H fighter types?

To further make my point, look at page 150 of the CRB. Huh, looks a bit like a "Swashbuckler" to me.

That's why they should expand the Swash's weapon styles and just have it be the "Flashy Warrior" and not "Flashy Warrior but only finesse weapons"

[HumbleGamer]

The "Flashy but only finesse weapons Warrior" is somehow required given how a swashbuckler works.

They need either acrobatics ( which relies on dex ) and one of their skill.

4 out of 5 rely on charisma, while one on STR, and this is why they "can" either start 16, while you always start 18 dex.

You might create a 18 char swashbuckler but, realistically speaking, you wouldn't.

[Temperans]

Just because its "finesse" does not mean you cannot use other weapons. The problem is that people refuse to give the class the mechanism to use those other weapons (mainly letting other 1-handed weapons be finesse).

[SuperBidi]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

1) Balance with damage dice size

It's not a balance with damage dice size but with weapon strength. Non-Finesse/Agile weapons are stronger. Limiting to damage dice size won't be enough as traits are an important balancing factors, too.

Also, it would be wonky with Fatal weapons that change dice size when critically hitting.

Golurkcanfly wrote:

3) Goes Against Themes

Strength-based melee characters are stronger than Dex-based melee characters: That's why Dex-based melee Fighters, Champions and Rangers are the rarity. Allowing Strength-based melee weapons to Swashbuckler and Investigator would push to play Strength-based Swashbucklers and Investigators, which would go against the theme. Even if Strength options are not directly against the theme, Dexterity options are the core of these classes and should stay the core of these classes.

As a side note, you can play a Strength-based Swashbuckler, it works fine. The difference in damage dice and extra damage from Strength compensate the lower hit rate. And you don't have to use finishers (Gymnast with Derring-Do love to keep Panache all the time and never use a Finisher).

[HumbleGamer]

Temperans wrote:

Just because its "finesse" does not mean you cannot use other weapons. The problem is that people refuse to give the class the mechanism to use those other weapons (mainly letting other 1-handed weapons be finesse).

In fact a swashbuckler "can" use different weapons, but the class is designed around Agile/Finesse weapons because different reasons:

- Acrobatics is one of your two skills used in order to gain panache, and it's dex based

- Agile/Finesse weapons are traits required ( not both of them ) benefit from precise strikes ( and finishers )

- Dexterity Keeps balance among the "secondary skill" every swashbuckler has. Given 18 dex, you'd be able to have either 16 STR or 16 Cha.

The latter is imo the most important to understand, because many people still wonder "why" can't a swashbuckler get STR as main stat.

A swashbuckler could indeed go with different weapons, but he'd have to forgo his class mechanics if he opt for neither agile nor finesse weapons.

Quote:

You strike with flair. When you have panache and you Strike with an agile or finesse melee weapon or agile or finesse unarmed attack, you deal 2 additional precision damage. If the strike is part of a finisher, the additional damage is 2d6 precision damage instead.

As your swashbuckler level increases, so does your additional damage for precise strike. Increase the amount of additional damage on a Strike and the number of additional dice on a finisher by one at 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th levels.

He'd become a normal combatant with no extra features.

[Ravingdork]

I for one think things are fine as is. It better serves to define class roles and themes.

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Should Swashbuckler / Investigator Really Require Finesse Weapons?

Should rogues? /rhetorical

Most of the arguments presented in the first post could be applied to other classes just as easily.

[Golurkcanfly]

Ravingdork wrote:

I for one think things are fine as is. It better serves to define class roles and themes.

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Should Swashbuckler / Investigator Really Require Finesse Weapons?

Should rogues? /rhetorical

Most of the arguments presented in the first post could be applied to other classes just as easily.

Not only is this some serious whataboutism (and the Rogue does get options to expand their weapon choices) the class already has strong themes without weapon restrictions.

Especially when you consider how wildly different some of the finesse/agile weapons are. A whip is much more different from a rapier than say, a longsword is from a shortsword.

And to those who say you already can use those features, your main class mechanic that everything is built around literally does not work without Finesse/Agile weapons. Furthermore, the damage from Precise Strike is far greater than that of the difference between a 1-handed STR weapon and a 1-handed Finesse weapon.

[Roadlocator]

Like one of the above posters, I don't really have a horse in this race, but for the thematic point, I think people are slightly mistaken, swashbucklers are not "flashy" alone, part of it is that they are lightly armored and have a specific fighting style, the death by a thousand cuts rather than a single powerful blow (the barbarian, basically), because of it. Similarly their panache and acrobaticism are derived from their lighter armor and more portable (and more easily hidden and/or acceptable for someone to openly carry in more urban areas) weapons, they are all part of the same dynamic fighting style. That said, I feel that there is room for a style that extends to polearms and such, for instance, but its hard to justify for the sake of argument, a swashbuckler swinging a greataxe or warhammer about, they just don't "swash" very well. My overall point is, most classes, with the possible exception of fighter, are built of several themes together, and trying to justify a position, on either side of this or any other discussion, by cherry picking a single thematic aspect, is a disservice to yourself and the game as a whole

[Verdyn]

Roadlocator wrote:

Like one of the above posters, I don't really have a horse in this race, but for the thematic point, I think people are slightly mistaken, swashbucklers are not "flashy" alone, part of it is that they are lightly armored and have a specific fighting style, the death by a thousand cuts rather than a single powerful blow (the barbarian, basically), because of it. Similarly their panache and acrobaticism are derived from their lighter armor and more portable (and more easily hidden and/or acceptable for someone to openly carry in more urban areas) weapons, they are all part of the same dynamic fighting style. That said, I feel that there is room for a style that extends to polearms and such, for instance, but its hard to justify for the sake of argument, a swashbuckler swinging a greataxe or warhammer about, they just don't "swash" very well. My overall point is, most classes, with the possible exception of fighter, are built of several themes together, and trying to justify a position, on either side of this or any other discussion, by cherry picking a single thematic aspect, is a disservice to yourself and the game as a whole

A proper duelist in the swashbuckling style should seek to end a battle against a humanoid opponent with a single clean thrust with the rest of the duel being a series of probing strikes, feints, defenses and footwork. I reality a thrusting weapon such as a rapier was devastatingly lethal even if sometimes the opponent didn't know they were dead for a few moments after the strike.

[Squiggit]

Ravingdork wrote:

Should rogues? /rhetorical

Yes... and in fact, rogues do actually have an option for this.

Quote:

Most of the arguments presented in the first post could be applied to other classes just as easily.

Maybe, but the answer is the same for those classes too.

Roadlocator wrote:

part of it is that they are lightly armored and have a specific fighting style, the death by a thousand cuts rather than a single powerful blow (the barbarian, basically), because of it.

This isn't really right though. The swashbuckler playstyle is built around landing one extremely damaging blow. That's literally their core gimmick.

[Riddlyn]

Part of their core gimmick is building up that one devastating blow. AKA death by a thousands cut, you. Uild up to that final one

[Pixel Popper]

Neither Investigators nor Swashbucklers are restricted to Finesse weapons. Their respective features list "agile OR finesse melee" (emphasis mine) weapons: Boarding Axe, Buugeng, Clan Dagger, Gauntlet and Spike Gauntlet, Hand Adze, Kama, Katar, Light Hammer, Light Pick, Orc Knuckle Dagger, Polytool, War Razor, and etceteras.

[Verdyn]

Riddlyn wrote:

Part of their core gimmick is building up that one devastating blow. AKA death by a thousands cut, you. Uild up to that final one

Even that's wrong, they do some kind of action like tumbling through a square, and then rock you with a finisher. They make one big attack per turn as often as they can make it happen and try to avoid making attacks that aren't fully juiced.

[Pixel Popper]

Roadlocator wrote:

. . . swashbucklers are not "flashy" alone, part of it is that they are lightly armored and have a specific fighting style, the death by a thousand cuts rather than a single powerful blow . . .

Swashbucklers are designed to gain panache and perform a finisher. There is little reason to perform any other attack actions unless the character is a Gymnast and Grappling, Shoving, or Tripping. They don't get 2d6 to 6d6 (4d6 by level 10) Precise Strike damage dice for "death by a thousand cuts;" they get 'em to do big, flashy strikes

[BloodandDust]

Yes, the Swashbuckler class mechanics should require melee weapons that are finesse or agile (since OP is asking for an opinion)

Further opinion:
IMO the entire reason for the class mechanic, as opposed to just flavoring Fighter, is to support the common "unnecessarily audacious warrior with teeny weapon". Lots of fantasy warriors are flashy / intimidating, but that is not the same as Swashbuckler. It's a tough class mechanic to deliver while keeping balance and the devs did a pretty solid job of it.

Oberyn Martell (a nimble polearm warrior) was a Fighter with Acrobat (or staff acrobat) dedication, not a swashbuckler

Conan, and others, general-purpose flashy warriors are Fighters with good roleplay, no extra mechanic needed.

Drizzt and Geralt are efficient killers. Highly skilled and acrobatic, but not intentionally flashy

Jack Sparrow is probably a flashy rogue with shortsword (cutlass). Maybe a Swashbuckler with a shortsword (cutlass), but frankly he was far more tricky than aggressive.

Zorro, Alatriste, Don Juan de Marana, Cpt Blood are Swashbucklers with rapier (and in many cases also main gauche)

Playing swashbuckler with a longsword breaks the trope, but if someone just *has* to play that particular weapon, easiest to just restyle the weapon so balance is unaffected. "Hey GM, I'm using a rapier mechanically, but it looks like a longsword, ok?".

...and lastly, I do not see the Swashbuckler doing big flashy strikes. It's absolutely *not* about a giant slashing swing and blood everywhere. It is the reverse: flamboyance, distraction, and a quick, subtle strike that "somehow" slips through the opponents guard

[Kekkres]

All of this just reminds me of that moment in the pf1 playtest when swashbuckler could happily use a heavy pick or morning star but could do nothing with a scimitar because they where weirdly piercing gated

[Pixel Popper]

BloodandDust wrote:

...and lastly, I do not see the Swashbuckler doing big flashy strikes. It's absolutely *not* about a giant slashing swing and blood everywhere. It is the reverse: flamboyance, distraction, and a quick, subtle strike that "somehow" slips through the opponents guard

Regardless of how you characterize is, narratively describe it, or simply imagine it, the mechanics of +2d6 to 6d6 Finisher Precision Damage is one big strike.

And Bleeding Finisher? Blood everywhere!!

[Verdyn]

BloodandDust wrote:

...and lastly, I do not see the Swashbuckler doing big flashy strikes. It's absolutely *not* about a giant slashing swing and blood everywhere. It is the reverse: flamboyance, distraction, and a quick, subtle strike that "somehow" slips through the opponents guard.

Is it really so difficult to see a swashbuckler's mechanics transferring to a cautious fighter who only strikes when a telling blow is sure to land? Or applying to a warrior who makes a show of twirling their scimitar or falchion before unexpectedly launching a devastating cut? Or even the ever flamboyant Landsknecht using their skill at arms to bait a foe in for a sudden strike with their Zweihander?

I can see any of those styles easily working with only minor modifications to the base Swashbuckler class.

[HumbleGamer]

I wouldn't stick with iconic characters, trying to justify a class.

Classes are mostly meant to give players different approaches in terms of mechanics/playstyle.

Which means, you can make a Drizzt ( for example ) using the fighter, ranger, swashbuckler or some other class.

What changes is the way you play it ( IIRC, on d&d 3.0 drizzt was a ranger, fighter and even barbarian, unable to properly benefit from using scimitars because they weren't a dex weapon ).

And that's it.

Rather than focusing on the swashbuckler mechanics, which are there for a purpose, I'd go for the character image, trying to reproduce it the way I see it, or the way I'd like to play it.

[Squiggit]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Rather than focusing on the swashbuckler mechanics, which are there for a purpose, I'd go for the character image, trying to reproduce it the way I see it, or the way I'd like to play it.

The two go hand in hand though. The mechanics are how you help deliver on that fantasy and image.

[HumbleGamer]

Squiggit wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

Rather than focusing on the swashbuckler mechanics, which are there for a purpose, I'd go for the character image, trying to reproduce it the way I see it, or the way I'd like to play it.

The two go hand in hand though. The mechanics are how you help deliver on that fantasy and image.

Indeed, but the concept I meant to share was an approach which can go with anything.

Talking about the swashbuckler, for example, it would be something like:

"I'd like to have a character that has a good combat proficiency... my choices are then: Barbarian, champion, fighter, investigator, magus, monk, ranger, rogue and swashbuckler"

"I'd like not to be too squishy ( remove magus, investigator and rogue ) and I'd like to be dex based ( Remove barbarian, because a large amount of dex weapons are agile too )"

"I'd also like to dual wield, and make some special attacks ( remove champion, since it has only 1 weapon with critical spec, and it doesn't have speical moves. I'd also remove the monk, because of the poor weapon pool, and lack of significant attack patterns )"

This leaves out Fighter, Ranger and Swashbuckler.
Knowing the differences in terms of mechanics between them, the player may be able to decide the combat approach.

It would be able to be swagging as a ranger, fighter or swashbuckler, so everything'd really come down to mechanics ( I wouldn't force stuff like "zorro is a swashbuckler", because "I am able to play a zorro character as a fighter or a rogue too" ).

[Verdyn]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Indeed, but the concept I meant to share was an approach which can go with anything.

Talking about the swashbuckler, for example, it would be something like:

"I'd like to have a character that has a good combat proficiency... my choices are then: Barbarian, champion, fighter, investigator, magus, monk, ranger, rogue and swashbuckler"

"I'd like not to be too squishy ( remove magus, investigator and rogue ) and I'd like to be dex based ( Remove barbarian, because a large amount of dex weapons are agile too )"

"I'd also like to dual wield, and make some special attacks ( remove champion, since it has only 1 weapon with critical spec, and it doesn't have speical moves. I'd also remove the monk, because of the poor weapon pool, and lack of significant attack patterns )"

This leaves out Fighter, Ranger and Swashbuckler.
Knowing the differences in terms of mechanics between them, the player may be able to decide the combat approach.

It would be able to be swagging as a ranger, fighter or swashbuckler, so everything'd really come down to mechanics ( I wouldn't force stuff like "zorro is a swashbuckler", because "I am able to play a zorro character as a fighter or a rogue too" ).

The whole premise of this thread is asking if it would be okay to open up Swashbuckler to use more weapons with their class features not about which characters are or aren't suited to being in any given class. The talk about which characters fit which classes was from a poster trying to say that you don't need to open things up to build a swath of iconic characters that could be built as Swashbucklers.

[Kekkres]

On topic one case where I do this is monastic tradition, for a few reasons,

1 they explicitly made str monk a viable option str monks should be allowed str weapons

2 many ancestories just dont HAVE an agile finesse option in their repertoire

3 actual monastic weapon traditions where largely built around self defence with at hand tools, farm implements woodcutting axes, walking sticks, and NONE of those things are finesse, even you nunchucks, yeah looking at you, there is nothing finesse about a chain, its flashy and floppy, but it's not finesse

4 in king full movies the most common weapons of choice are long swords and pole arms which havent been monk options since dnd 1e for some reason

5 and most importantly, the idea of dwarven mountain monistaries where dwarves learn battle axe and war pick martial arts is awesome