| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think by the function of the class, swashbuckler ends up being more support oriented due to the fact that you must use your panache skills to do your damage. Unless you just want to tumble through the whole time. Even though they're not the best at those skills, you make a lot of them through the rounds because you that's how the class works.
Swashbuckelrs being worse at skills than other classes is debatable. They will be lower on their bonuses (at least for some levels) than a class with KAS in Charisma or Strength, but they also get enhancements to the base skill usage unique to the class. The Braggart Exemplary Finisher is the only way to bypass Demoralize immunity outside house rules. Goading Feint, Antagonize, Leading Dance, and Flamboyant Athlete all enhance skill usage. And with those extra skill feats they get a leg up on broadening their options further.
That's a fair amount of nice stuff to trade a +1 to the skill for, IMO.
The big difference between the Rogue and the Swashbuckler, though, is the Rogue is *much* squishier than the Swashbuckler. The Swashbuckler can be built into one of the tankiest martials besides the monk and the champion.
The whole "I want you to swing at me, because you'll miss and then I get to stab you" thing isn't even available to the Rogue.
The whole point of this thread is early levels, though. At level 1-3 the only thing that actually makes a difference in survivability is your AC and Shield blocks (HP matters too, but by level 1 a Swashbuckler will fall unconscious in any spot a Rogue would, being reallistic).
|
The other martial has to land two attacks. You need to land 1.let me see if I remember how to do math.
Finisher for 1d6(weapon)+2d6(finisher)+2(14 str) is 12.5 damage or 6.25dpr assuming a base 50% hit rate and 0% crit adjusted to 8dpr because you still do 3.5 on a miss ((12.5+3.5)/2). This assumes you will never fail to regain panache and always use confident finisher.
Champ swings twice for 1d8+4 (8.5) so if we assume 50/25 hit rate that's 4.25+2.125 or 6.375 dpr assuming a glaive or meteor hammer. With a greatsword, it's 1d12+4 (10.5) so 7.875.
Barb swings twice for 1d8+4+4(dragon rage) for 12.5->9.375 dpr and obviously higher with a d10 or d12 weapon.
Fighter swings twice for 1d8+4 but has 60/35 for 8.075 dpr
Again, someone correct me if I'm butchering the math, but it seems like any martial with a damage booster is going to surpass the swashbuckler baseline even if you have a benevolent gm who gives you 100% chance to gain panache.
I think the first thing to note here is that the hit-rate assumption here does affect the results. With the swashbuckler gaining damage on a miss, the more likely that miss is, the more advantage the Swashbuckler has; that being said, a 50/25% hit rate is likely going up against an on-level enemy, so is a pretty fair point to compare. I think the maths is slightly off on the swashbuckler's miss damage - it should add an amount to the DPR equal to 3.5 * 0.45 (45% chance of Failing, 5% chance of crit failing) - though that still gives the Swashbuckler a DPR of 7.825, so it's a minimal difference.
The other part of the maths that does need to be accounted for, and is more variable, is the effect of the Swashbuckler's panache-gaining action. This will make quite a difference, but is variable based on the swashbuckler's style. If they're a Fencer and they've just Feinted, the enemy is flat-footed, giving them a 60% hit chance - and a DPR of 8.725; the same is true for a Gymnast who successfully Grappled or Tripped an enemy on their last turn - if it's on this turn, their DPR drops to 6.925 with an Agile weapon. A Braggart who succeeded at a Demoralize attempt has a DPR of 8.275, but also reduces the enemy's attack rolls, AC, saving throws, etc, for the entire party. A Battledancer or Wit swashbuckler won't affect their DPR, but might significantly change the encounter for other PCs.
This comparison is also being performed for a 14 STR swashbuckler - someone who is really focused on combat might be a 16 STR/18 DEX swashbuckler, putting their Fencer's DPR at 9.725, very similar to the greatsword fighter's 9.975. A less combat-focused swashbuckler (or one holding out with low damage until later in the game) and 10 STR would be at a Fencer DPR of 7.525 in the example we're using. Where you stand on these numbers is somewhat personal - this low-level swashbuckler varies from the offence of a champion to an offence-focused fighter depending on their STR. In my experience, the variability is small enough that it allows for people to play according to their preferred playstyle, but that's going to be personal (and dependent on how common combat is in your campaign).
(This is also assuming a 100% success chance for panache gain actions, which obviously isn't true)
I was interested in Roquepo's Thief Rogue example, so I worked on some numbers for it.
High AC for a L1 creature is 16. So, in general, when flat-footed, a L1 Martial will Crit Miss 5%, Miss 25%, Hit 50% and Crit 20%.
Both the Thief and the Swashbuckler are Dex 18 Str 10 using a Shortsword.
So, on average, the Thief will do 15.95 pts a round under these conditions, if Striking twice.
The Swashbuckler, with no Panache, striking Twice: 5.075 pts.
With Panache, not using a Finisher, Striking Twice: 7.975 pts.
With Panache, only using a Finisher: 10.2 pts.
With Panache, Striking then using a Finisher: 12.075 pts.
So, considering the Thief has a +4 flat bonus to damage + 1d6 Sneak Attack on each attack, I don't think the Swashbuckler is doing too badly here.
Against a non-Thief Rogue, it's closer. A non-Thief Rogue would be doing 10.95 a round.
|
The other martial has to land two attacks. You need to land 1.let me see if I remember how to do math.
Finisher for 1d6(weapon)+2d6(finisher)+2(14 str) is 12.5 damage or 6.25dpr assuming a base 50% hit rate and 0% crit adjusted to 8dpr because you still do 3.5 on a miss ((12.5+3.5)/2). This assumes you will never fail to regain panache and always use confident finisher.
Champ swings twice for 1d8+4 (8.5) so if we assume 50/25 hit rate that's 4.25+2.125 or 6.375 dpr assuming a glaive or meteor hammer. With a greatsword, it's 1d12+4 (10.5) so 7.875.
Barb swings twice for 1d8+4+4(dragon rage) for 12.5->9.375 dpr and obviously higher with a d10 or d12 weapon.
Fighter swings twice for 1d8+4 but has 60/35 for 8.075 dpr
Again, someone correct me if I'm butchering the math, but it seems like any martial with a damage booster is going to surpass the swashbuckler baseline even if you have a benevolent gm who gives you 100% chance to gain panache.
No you’re absolutely correct. Swash does fall behind in damage relative to the other martial classes, with an effective 2a routine of panache gain+finisher against 2 strikes.
You need 1d8/2 levels as bonus damage to equal fighter/barb/ranger with a single attack at master accuracy, roughly. It’s definitely gonna be worse the closer you are to level 1 if you don’t have str to damage and they do. 1d6/2 levels gets you 90% there.
Swash doesn’t even have that. It has 1d6+1d6/4 levels. Presumably because they’re not actually spending 2 actions doing it, because the panache gain action also has value (but it can also fail).
Swash is definitely reliant on taking one of the good finisher feats (bleeding or dual) to deal competitive damage. The miss damage on confident doesn’t add enough to beat out that loss.
Btw, average acc for martials with no buffs or debuffs in play is 60% (mkst monsters have High AC). Fighter is 70%.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was interested in Roquepo's Thief Rogue example, so I worked on some numbers for it.
High AC for a L1 creature is 16. So, in general, when flat-footed, a L1 Martial will Crit Miss 5%, Miss 25%, Hit 50% and Crit 20%.
Both the Thief and the Swashbuckler are Dex 18 Str 10 using a Shortsword.
So, on average, the Thief will do 15.95 pts a round under these conditions, if Striking twice.
The Swashbuckler, with no Panache, striking Twice: 5.075 pts.
With Panache, not using a Finisher, Striking Twice: 7.975 pts.
With Panache, only using a Finisher: 10.2 pts.
With Panache, Striking then using a Finisher: 12.075 pts.So, considering the Thief has a +4 flat bonus to damage + 1d6 Sneak Attack on each attack, I don't think the Swashbuckler is doing too badly here.
Against a non-Thief Rogue, it's closer. A non-Thief Rogue would be doing 10.95 a round.
Thief and Ruffian are generally considered the best styles for that reason. The other 3 don’t really give anything that competes with the huge benefit of having a stat mod to damage in the early levels. A single level 2 feat, an upgrade to an action that sucks to make it still suck, or mastermind which you only take if you’re going ranged and even then it can have some difficulties (but at least it had a benefit).
Thief and Ruffian are generally considered the best styles for that reason. The other 3 don’t really give anything that competes with the huge benefit of having a stat mod to damage in the early levels. A single level 2 feat, an upgrade to an action that sucks to make it still suck, or mastermind which you only take if you’re going ranged and even then it can have some difficulties (but at least it had a benefit).I was interested in Roquepo's Thief Rogue example, so I worked on some numbers for it.
High AC for a L1 creature is 16. So, in general, when flat-footed, a L1 Martial will Crit Miss 5%, Miss 25%, Hit 50% and Crit 20%.
Both the Thief and the Swashbuckler are Dex 18 Str 10 using a Shortsword.
So, on average, the Thief will do 15.95 pts a round under these conditions, if Striking twice.
The Swashbuckler, with no Panache, striking Twice: 5.075 pts.
With Panache, not using a Finisher, Striking Twice: 7.975 pts.
With Panache, only using a Finisher: 10.2 pts.
With Panache, Striking then using a Finisher: 12.075 pts.So, considering the Thief has a +4 flat bonus to damage + 1d6 Sneak Attack on each attack, I don't think the Swashbuckler is doing too badly here.
Against a non-Thief Rogue, it's closer. A non-Thief Rogue would be doing 10.95 a round.
Thief and Ruffian also get the best debilitations with their respective level 10 feat.
About my calculations, I chose higher level creature AC to make math easier and to see how they fared in a dangerous encounter.
In regards to the on level math, I think it is telling how meh the early levels are when you have to compare them to a Scoundrel Rogue, which is far from a desirable pick (most it can do can be done as a Thief). Them dealing less damage on 2 action routines when they have an attack that does damage on a miss is something worrying.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
It baffles me just how afraid people can be of stuff like stat replacements. Stat replacements existing existing has never been 1e's problem. The issue is how available they were for people who went around Gung-Ho grabbing multiple such features from different feats, multiclasses and archetypes. This is simply not the case anymore; Paizo crafted a very well thought and future proofed multiclass system where they have full control of what one can and can't snatch from other classes. Strength is also not the poor marginalized stat that it once was anymore. Strength characters can get some of the best, most reliable combat actions in the game in maneuvers, +1 total AC with heavy armor, better mobility in Athletics skill feats and generally better weapons, not to mention Bulwark covering for the main weakness of having low Dexterity and many other things. I really think people should stop analyzing things in this game as if it were 1e. This is a completely different environment.
As for all the damage comparisons, I'll just echo what Exocist said: having damage features is not "making up" for low stats, because characters with Strength as their main stat and damage features have existed since the CRB. Heck, Thief Rogue has existed since the CRB. If your damage dealer is doing as much damage as a full plate Champion, a tank-oriented class with no damage features but a +2 to AC, normally does, you're simply a bad damage dealer.
Being able to interact out of combat with mental stats is not a huge privilege, either. Strength/Charisma martials in heavy armor can do that extremely well while also having the two best combat skills at once (Athletics and Intimidation) and not losing a single drop of damage because of it. Same goes for Thief, minus the Athletics part. Oh and these also get to only ever care about 4 stats so they don't need to dump any saves either.
I agree with you, OP. Some classes really need stat replacements both to compete with existing stuff and have more straightforward build paths for new players. There's no need to leave these classes in an impaired state in fear of things that, honestly, haven't been an actual threat ever since 1e "ended".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm... the thing I'm getting here is that Swashbuckler's biggest strength isn't that it's a damage class, it's that it's extremely versatile. You can build them as a damager if you can manage to pump their Str (or if not, your damage will come online later in the game), you can go tanky skillmonkey, you can be a flexible party support, you can be an off-tank...
Perhaps the solution is to make a Cha-based damage alternative (whether simple Cha-to-damage like Thief Rogue, or something more like Investigator's Devise a Strategem) available as a class archetype, so that it can trade out features if necessary? Maybe even make an archetype for flamboyant builds in general, so Bards can get in on it too (as a way to try to get back some of the 1e gishiness they lost; actually, this could be an interesting idea for a Dawnflower Dervish or Dervish Dancer take on Battle Dance, at the cost of more selfish buffs, but that's outside the scope of this thread).
. . . Plus unique skill options compared to the rogue, like goading feint and disarming flair. . .
Picking a nit. For all practical purposes, Gaoding Feint is identical to Overextending Feint.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm... the thing I'm getting here is that Swashbuckler's biggest strength isn't that it's a damage class, it's that it's extremely versatile.
I'm not really sure I agree. It very much feels like a damage class and not like it's built for really all that much outside it. It's consistent with how I see most people play them too.
There are a handful of different things you can pick up depending on your Style, but I wouldn't really call the class versatile or particularly tanky.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm... the thing I'm getting here is that Swashbuckler's biggest strength isn't that it's a damage class, it's that it's extremely versatile.I'm not really sure I agree. It very much feels like a damage class and not like it's built for really all that much outside it. It's consistent with how I see most people play them too.
There are a handful of different things you can pick up depending on your Style, but I wouldn't really call the class versatile or particularly tanky.
Was mainly looking at what people have mentioned doing here in this thread, and... oh, wait, typo. "Tanky skillmonkey" was supposed to be "combat skillmonkey", that was a typo. What I was looking at was:
• Damage builds are, of course, one of their main intents. They seem like they're supposed to do less damage per round than most other damagers because they have a big burst, though.
• "Combat skillmonkey" was a reference to how Swashes have a nice selection of combat skill support, and how certain styles are rewarded for using said support. Getting panache from, e.g., Bon Mot or tripping makes it very easy to fit those actions into your combat rotation, enabling a playstyle that prioritises cleaning up after the Barbarian and then using a combat skill or two to get ready for next turn.
• Flexible party support builds are similar to the above, but with more of a focus on setting up better turns for the rest of the party. If you can get panache for Aiding a party member or putting the boss between you and that Fighter that's been itching for a chance to go all out, for example, then you'll be upping the party's damage considerably even if you're not a high-damage build yourself.
• Off-tanking was referring to how the Swash's reckless bravado has a mechanical tendency to manifest as drawing aggro and making attackers miss so you can punish them for it. It's not full-fledged tanking, for sure, since you're still not a Champion. But, despite that, it's not that hard to make a Zorro build that focuses on making a mockery of the fool that thought he could land a hit on you, then knocking the weapon out of their hands, or stabbing them in the back if they turn away (Fencer, Buckler Expertise, Dueling Parry, Goading Feint, AoO, etc., mix and match with other stuff). Makes for an interesting way to keep a dangerous foe tied up in a duel. ;3
Overall, while they can be seen as a damage class, I get the feeling that they're meant to have lower damage output than other "damagers", but compensate with strong bursts every so often, and a (more consistent) high focus on marrying skill checks and Strikes to fill any gaps in your party composition (controller, buffer, debuffer, secondary dodge-tank, etc.). Basically, they're so self-focused and egotistic that it somehow loops back around to being great team players. ;3
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
• Damage builds are, of course, one of their main intents. They seem like they're supposed to do less damage per round than most other damagers because they have a big burst, though.
What are they bursting? They can't effectively burst anything that threatens the party and would need to get extremely lucky to drop most on-level foes with a single attack, so is bursting mooks supposed to be their job?
• "Combat skillmonkey" was a reference to how Swashes have a nice selection of combat skill support, and how certain styles are rewarded for using said support. Getting panache from, e.g., Bon Mot or tripping makes it very easy to fit those actions into your combat rotation, enabling a playstyle that prioritises cleaning up after the Barbarian and then using a combat skill or two to get ready for next turn.
If you're looking for support won't a Bard always do that better while still clearing mooks with Electric Arc?
• Flexible party support builds are similar to the above, but with more of a focus on setting up better turns for the rest of the party. If you can get panache for Aiding a party member or putting the boss between you and that Fighter that's been itching for a chance to go all out, for example, then you'll be upping the party's damage considerably even if you're not a high-damage build yourself.
Are they better at this than an actual support class?
• Off-tanking was referring to how the Swash's reckless bravado has a mechanical tendency to manifest as drawing aggro and making attackers miss so you can punish them for it. It's not full-fledged tanking, for sure, since you're still not a Champion. But, despite that, it's not that hard to make a Zorro build that focuses on making a mockery of the fool that thought he could land a hit on you, then knocking the weapon out of their hands, or stabbing them in the back if they turn away (Fencer, Buckler Expertise, Dueling Parry, Goading Feint, AoO, etc., mix and match with other stuff). Makes for an interesting way to keep a dangerous foe tied up in a duel. ;3
In a party with a Champion or Tank Monk wouldn't the group be better off rounding out with a Fighter, Bard, and Cleric rather than replacing those extremely good classes with a Swashbuckler? What is a party where a Swashbuckler is the best choice to fill a slot?
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
• Damage builds are, of course, one of their main intents. They seem like they're supposed to do less damage per round than most other damagers because they have a big burst, though.What are they bursting? They can't effectively burst anything that threatens the party and would need to get extremely lucky to drop most on-level foes with a single attack, so is bursting mooks supposed to be their job?
• "Combat skillmonkey" was a reference to how Swashes have a nice selection of combat skill support, and how certain styles are rewarded for using said support. Getting panache from, e.g., Bon Mot or tripping makes it very easy to fit those actions into your combat rotation, enabling a playstyle that prioritises cleaning up after the Barbarian and then using a combat skill or two to get ready for next turn.If you're looking for support won't a Bard always do that better while still clearing mooks with Electric Arc?
• Flexible party support builds are similar to the above, but with more of a focus on setting up better turns for the rest of the party. If you can get panache for Aiding a party member or putting the boss between you and that Fighter that's been itching for a chance to go all out, for example, then you'll be upping the party's damage considerably even if you're not a high-damage build yourself.Are they better at this than an actual support class?
• Off-tanking was referring to how the Swash's reckless bravado has a mechanical tendency to manifest as drawing aggro and making attackers miss so you can punish them for it. It's not full-fledged tanking, for sure, since you're still not a Champion. But, despite that, it's not that hard to make a Zorro build that focuses on making a mockery of the fool that thought he could land a hit on you, then knocking the weapon out of their hands, or stabbing them in the back if they turn away (Fencer, Buckler Expertise, Dueling Parry, Goading Feint, AoO, etc., mix and match...
The party where the swashbuckler is the best choice is one where one of the players wants to be a character that swashes buckles.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. I believe they purposefully made the core classes the best as far as raw power is concerned.
And they made the later classes a little lower powered but best at fulfilling their thematic role.
And they really hit the target.
The only class widely recognized as a bit too strong is the Bard. IMO because they made it a full caster in addition to Inspire Courage : it was a new balance to find.
The only class likewise widely recognized as too weak is the Alchemist. Though there are concerns about the Magus.
And they try and find innovative ways to plug the holes while not destroying the balance of the whole system, like Shadow Signet.
Excellent work overall AFAIC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. I believe they purposefully made the core classes the best as far as raw power is concerned.
And they made the later classes a little lower powered but best at fulfilling their thematic role.
And they really hit the target.
The only class widely recognized as a bit too strong is the Bard. IMO because they made it a full caster in addition to Inspire Courage : it was a new balance to find.
The only class likewise widely recognized as too weak is the Alchemist. Though there are concerns about the Magus.
And they try and find innovative ways to plug the holes while not destroying the balance of the whole system, like Shadow Signet.
Excellent work overall AFAIC.
I would say both Bard and Druid are above CRB average, mostly because their early levels are strong while still being a full caster later on. I don't think any person who had played with an alchemist that knew what they were doing to level 7-ish would say the class is weak. At least not post errata. CRB classes are a work of art balance wise.
The problem is not that they aim slighly below CRB average power wise, that I think it is a wise move. The problem I see is that they overshoot it in a lot of cases (specially in the case of the APG, being the first batch of extra classes and all). As I said before, if Swashbuckler early on has to be compared to a Scoudrel rogue, which is one of the poorer choices you can take, then we have a problem that needs solving. Or at least something we we should try to evade as much as possible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alchemist and witch are the only two classes that need changes imo. And witch only needs changes in comparison to the other 3 slot focus cantrip caster that shall not be named. Swashbuckler might not be as good a striker as a rogue, but it does different mechanics to approach a different class fantasy. If your goal is loads of precision damage above everything else, rogue was the class you wanted to play all along.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
• Damage builds are, of course, one of their main intents. They seem like they're supposed to do less damage per round than most other damagers because they have a big burst, though.What are they bursting? They can't effectively burst anything that threatens the party and would need to get extremely lucky to drop most on-level foes with a single attack, so is bursting mooks supposed to be their job?
They can burst something that threatens the party if they roll well, and if they don't they're the only martial that can do chip damage on a fail pre-level 10. As for mook clean up duty, they are one of the best at it, high move speed and ability to hit back against a crit-miss means mook mopping is quite easy.
• "Combat skillmonkey" was a reference to how Swashes have a nice selection of combat skill support, and how certain styles are rewarded for using said support. Getting panache from, e.g., Bon Mot or tripping makes it very easy to fit those actions into your combat rotation, enabling a playstyle that prioritises cleaning up after the Barbarian and then using a combat skill or two to get ready for next turn.If you're looking for support won't a Bard always do that better while still clearing mooks with Electric Arc?
A. Bards are good support, but they're also aren't able to be in melee for an extended period of time taking hits and body blocking. They also get unique skill actions to support in combat that Bards don't.
B. Bards don't get EA, or any elemental damage cantrips. They get Daze, Tele Proj, Chill Touch, and the new Haunting Hymn, all not being primo damaging spells (except Tele Proj).• Flexible party support builds are similar to the above, but with more of a focus on setting up better turns for the rest of the party. If you can get panache for Aiding a party member or putting the boss between you and that Fighter that's been itching for a chance to go all out, for example, then you'll be upping the party's damage considerably even if you're not a high-damage build yourself.Are they better at this than an actual support class?
Depends both on what you consider a "support" class and what support they can supply. You can trip to give universal flatfooted to The Crew, Tumble Through being your thing means you can flank with ANYBODY, even in a cramped hallway, and you have access to several "taunt" moves that punish the enemy from hitting someone other than you, something that the Champion doesn't even have explicitly (their reaction is implicitly this, but it takes a smart enemy to figure that out).
• Off-tanking was referring to how the Swash's reckless bravado has a mechanical tendency to manifest as drawing aggro and making attackers miss so you can punish them for it. It's not full-fledged tanking, for sure, since you're still not a Champion. But, despite that, it's not that hard to make a Zorro build that focuses on making a mockery of the fool that thought he could land a hit on you, then knocking the weapon out of their hands, or stabbing them in the back if they turn away (Fencer, Buckler Expertise, Dueling Parry, Goading Feint, AoO, etc., mix and match with other stuff). Makes for an interesting way to keep a dangerous foe tied up in a duel. ;3In a party with a Champion or Tank Monk wouldn't the group be better off rounding out with a Fighter, Bard, and Cleric rather than replacing those extremely good classes with a Swashbuckler? What is a party where a Swashbuckler is the best choice to fill a slot?
The thing is, you can be a Swash INSTEAD OF a Champion or a Tank Monk, do these things, and still do the other stuff a Swash can do! And the Swash is the ultimate "fill" class if the other players already have characters, or you're introducing a new player to an existing group. They can fill any gap in any team that can be filled by a non-caster, and if they pick up a caster MC (via FA or otherwise) they can do pretty much EVERYTHING at an okay level (student of all master of none syndrome notwithstanding).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why should Swashbuckler need to pay for utility with damage potential when things like Intimidation/Intimidating Strike + Shatter Defenses Figther can have more utility while also being more tanky and doing more damage, and also being easier to play, build and less dependent on luck? I don't get why new classes need to he held to such low standards.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why should Swashbuckler need to pay for utility with damage potential when things like Intimidation/Intimidating Strike + Shatter Defenses Figther can have more utility while also being more tanky and doing more damage, and also being easier to play, build and less dependent on luck? I don't get why new classes need to he held to such low standards.
I assume it's because the fighter is what peak performance looks like and paizo is purposefully keeping them as a power ceiling never to be touched by another martial. Whether or not that's a satisfactory answer is up to opinion. I personally don't mind that my magus will never touch fighter levels of performance. I'm doing something different and reaching for a different class fantasy. I can make a shameless weeb character AND be designed not to steal spotlight... I'm just another dude in a party of people. Fighter is the class for "that guy". Treat it as such for the sake of power comparisons. The fighters niche as best in combat is unassailable and I imagine it's gonna remain like that for the rest of the edition. It doesn't ruffle my feathers too bad though, considering "fight" is in the name.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm honestly of the opinion that the swashbuckler is one of the best designed classes in PF2. Math aside, it's just fun to play and the essential swinginess of the class really is on-theme.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I assume it's because the fighter is what peak performance looks like and paizo is purposefully keeping them as a power ceiling never to be touched by another martial. Whether or not that's a satisfactory answer is up to opinion. I personally don't mind that my magus will never touch fighter levels of performance. I'm doing something different and reaching for a different class fantasy. I can make a shameless weeb character AND be designed not to steal spotlight... I'm just another dude in a party of people. Fighter is the class for "that guy". Treat it as such for the sake of power comparisons. The fighters niche as best in combat is unassailable and I imagine it's gonna remain like that for the rest of the edition. It doesn't ruffle my feathers too bad though, considering "fight" is in the name.
I'll admit that I could have explained better, but my point wasn't supposed to be specifically about Fighter. I think people overestimate how OP the Fighter is a bit. Anyway, I compared Swash to Fighter because they're both skilled warriors that can do little utility tricks, but in terms of power level you can compare the newer classes to Bard, Champion, Fighter, Rogue, or even stuff that flies more under the radar like Sorcerer or Cleric. The new classes come with tons of hoops to be jumped through and tradeoffs to be made. They need more stats than a character can reasonably invest in; if they want damage, they need to sacrifice utility, and if they want both they need to be mega squishy. Meanwhile the core classes just get to do all the stuff, do it well and with barely any tradeoffs. It just doesn't feel like they're in the same playing field at all to me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, just an addendum to the whole stat to damage thing which is the actual topic: discussions on how it affects Strength and all this stuff aside, I think there's a second, pretty big issue to this whole thing. How much having your primary stat to damage affects your character is a completely volatile variable. Level 1? Huge, can be literally +50% more damage. Level 19? Barely changes anything. And then you have everything in between.
Because of this, I believe making a character invest in a third stat to do damage, like is the case with Swash, is a pretty poor balance mechanism. If in a campaign that starts at level 1 your best choice is having 14 Strength, but if the same campaign starts a level 10 your best choice is having 10 Strength, something's clearly wrong to me. If the balance of whatever super utility people think Swashbuckler has is doing less damage, then so be it, but I think this is actually a pretty poor way of executing on that. It just makes the class kinda confusing to build and extremely volatile in how it scales over the levels. Also, even if Swash had Dexterity or Charisma to damage it would still do less damage than pretty much every other offensive-oriented martial, because of the nature of how finishers work, but I digress.
Also, just an addendum to the whole stat to damage thing which is the actual topic: discussions on how it affects Strength and all this stuff aside, I think there's a second, pretty big issue to this whole thing. How much having your primary stat to damage affects your character is a completely volatile variable. Level 1? Huge, can be literally +50% more damage. Level 19? Barely changes anything. And then you have everything in between.
Because of this, I believe making a character invest in a third stat to do damage, like is the case with Swash, is a pretty poor balance mechanism. If in a campaign that starts at level 1 your best choice is having 14 Strength, but if the same campaign starts a level 10 your best choice is having 10 Strength, something's clearly wrong to me. If the balance of whatever super utility people think Swashbuckler has is doing less damage, then so be it, but I think this is actually a pretty poor way of executing on that. It just makes the class kinda confusing to build and extremely volatile in how it scales over the levels. Also, even if Swash had Dexterity or Charisma to damage it would still do less damage than pretty much every other offensive-oriented martial, because of the nature of how finishers work, but I digress.
Yea strength to damage does really seem like a lvl 1-5 or lvl 1-10 benefit, depending on how many dice somebody wants on their weapon before they don't care about 1-4 static damage. I just really like d12 strength weapons being devestating early game. Beat sticks really feel like such in this game due in large part to weapon balancing and strength being the main path to early game static damage buffing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It just doesn't feel like they're in the same playing field at all to me.
To some extent I think that's on purpose. Not that the classes are super underpowered but there seems to be a pattern of design decisions that seem primarily focused around being careful with the class' balancing rather than anything else.
Notice that post-CRB classes tend to be much more specific, too. I think the idea is that if you want to fulfill a very specific idea, these classes exist to help with that, but come with a price that tells you you should probably stick to the CRB unless you really need to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just really like d12 strength weapons being devestating early game. Beat sticks really feel like such in this game due in large part to weapon balancing and strength being the main path to early game static damage buffing.
So you think certain fighting styles being poorly balanced compared to other ones at a certain stage of the game is... a good thing? Well, I guess that's a valid viewpoint but it's certainly not one I can sympathize with. I think the ideal we should strive for is that classes and player choices in general should keep the same balance at all stages of the game as much as possible, and thematics aren't enough of an excuse to stray away from that, especially with how subjective this kind of thing tends to get: you can believe beatsticks being overpowered early makes sense for your reasons; Bob can think spellcasters being overpowered early makes sense because common folk don't know how to deal with magic; John can think assassin-like characters being overpowered early makes sense because lowly bandits don't know how to deal with trained, agile people, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Notice that post-CRB classes tend to be much more specific, too. I think the idea is that if you want to fulfill a very specific idea, these classes exist to help with that, but come with a price that tells you you should probably stick to the CRB unless you really need to.
This feels like a deliberate acknowledgement that in PF1 the post-CRB classes were broadly more powerful than the CRB classes that weren't the full casters.
Like the PF1 Alchemist, Inquisitor, and Occultist were really very strong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just really like d12 strength weapons being devestating early game. Beat sticks really feel like such in this game due in large part to weapon balancing and strength being the main path to early game static damage buffing.So you think certain fighting styles being poorly balanced compared to other ones at a certain stage of the game is... a good thing? Well, I guess that's a valid viewpoint but it's certainly not one I can sympathize with. I think the ideal we should strive for is that classes and player choices in general should keep the same balance at all stages of the game as much as possible, and thematics aren't enough of an excuse to stray away from that, especially with how subjective this kind of thing tends to get: you can believe beatsticks being overpowered early makes sense for your reasons; Bob can think spellcasters being overpowered early makes sense because common folk don't know how to deal with magic; John can think assassin-like characters being overpowered early makes sense because lowly bandits don't know how to deal with trained, agile people, etc.
I do like it, yes. "Poorly balanced" isn't a subjective view I share, but we're free to disagree and neither of us is wrong. The only martial damage I think is in a really poor spot is mutagen alchemist (or just alchemist in general). I don't think there's a place in the game for a class that doesn't have at least master in it's combat proficiency by endgame, be it bombs, swords, or spells.
|
|
Yes. I believe they purposefully made the core classes the best as far as raw power is concerned.
And they made the later classes a little lower powered but best at fulfilling their thematic role.
And they really hit the target.
The only class widely recognized as a bit too strong is the Bard. IMO because they made it a full caster in addition to Inspire Courage : it was a new balance to find.
The only class likewise widely recognized as too weak is the Alchemist. Though there are concerns about the Magus.
And they try and find innovative ways to plug the holes while not destroying the balance of the whole system, like Shadow Signet.
Excellent work overall AFAIC.
I would say both Bard and Druid are above CRB average, mostly because their early levels are strong while still being a full caster later on. I don't think any person who had played with an alchemist that knew what they were doing to level 7-ish would say the class is weak. At least not post errata. CRB classes are a work of art balance wise.
The problem is not that they aim slighly below CRB average power wise, that I think it is a wise move. The problem I see is that they overshoot it in a lot of cases (specially in the case of the APG, being the first batch of extra classes and all). As I said before, if Swashbuckler early on has to be compared to a Scoudrel rogue, which is one of the poorer choices you can take, then we have a problem that needs solving. Or at least something we we should try to evade as much as possible.
I assume you mean “past level 7ish” because even post errata the class is still extremely weak early on. Especially if you’re playing APs with insane# of encounters/day, you run out of reagents and become a crossbow or electric arc peasant, you barely have any utility (because of so few reagents) and the items you do make aren’t very effective. Around level 8-11ish you get enough reagents (and perpetual infusions) that two out of four subclasses can work well, but the class requires so much brainpower just to be “on par” with another class using 1/10th of that brainpower.
Then there comes playstyle issues. I assume “a bunch of tiny effects with a long duration” is supposed to be the alchemist playstyle, otherwise it utterly failed at whatever playstyle its supposed to have.
I assume you mean “past level 7ish” because even post errata the class is still extremely weak early on. Especially if you’re playing APs with insane# of encounters/day, you run out of reagents and become a crossbow or electric arc peasant, you barely have any utility (because of so few reagents) and the items you do make aren’t very effective. Around level 8-11ish you get enough reagents (and perpetual infusions) that two out of four subclasses...Yes. I believe they purposefully made the core classes the best as far as raw power is concerned.
And they made the later classes a little lower powered but best at fulfilling their thematic role.
And they really hit the target.
The only class widely recognized as a bit too strong is the Bard. IMO because they made it a full caster in addition to Inspire Courage : it was a new balance to find.
The only class likewise widely recognized as too weak is the Alchemist. Though there are concerns about the Magus.
And they try and find innovative ways to plug the holes while not destroying the balance of the whole system, like Shadow Signet.
Excellent work overall AFAIC.
I would say both Bard and Druid are above CRB average, mostly because their early levels are strong while still being a full caster later on. I don't think any person who had played with an alchemist that knew what they were doing to level 7-ish would say the class is weak. At least not post errata. CRB classes are a work of art balance wise.
The problem is not that they aim slighly below CRB average power wise, that I think it is a wise move. The problem I see is that they overshoot it in a lot of cases (specially in the case of the APG, being the first batch of extra classes and all). As I said before, if Swashbuckler early on has to be compared to a Scoudrel rogue, which is one of the poorer choices you can take, then we have a problem that needs solving. Or at least something we we should try to evade as much as possible.
Yes, I was trying to say that. The class is abysmal from levels 1 to 3 and weak until cantrip bombs/elixirs/whatever, but it is also pretty strong later on (way more than most non CRB classes), so while I think it is the weakest class in the CRB I don't think overall it is far from average. Strong classes are more ahead of the curve than Alchemist is behind.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting discussion. I ran a Swashbuckler for 16 levels and tracked damage for a good 10 levels or so. Other members of the group were a Giant Instinct Barbarian, Ranger Precision Archer, Storm Druid, Curse Witch.
I made some adjustments to the Swashbuckler due to the issues with the class I was able to measure:
1. Having to spend an action at the start of combat to gain Panache slowed them down substantially when other classes had opening moves like Sudden Charge or ranged weapons.
2. Missing Panache rolls or not being able to use them was a big deal. If they couldn't move far enough to use Tumble Through on the opening round or had to move into range to use a Panache gaining skill, then that was an issue. That happened quite a bit on the opening round.
Then even when you can get there, failing a roll which happened surprisingly often at lower levels, made the class feel terrible.
3. The finisher tag disallowing other attack actions in the same round it is used limited the class and forced it into an unintuitive and nonsensical round progression on those rounds where they hit the Finisher early and got panache back using 2 actions. That third action became useless.
I eliminated that element of the finisher tag, so they could choose to attack if they wanted to. This was a noticeable improvement on their round to round damage, especially if they missed the finisher.
4. Opportune Riposte does not work very often on bosses, but was quite potent at higher level against mooks. Though it could be countered quite easily with reach given the Swash doesn't have reach normally.
5. Swashbuckler has a better AC and defenses than a rogue. And they were surprisingly tanky. The Wit Swashbuckler when they were able to Bon Mot could tank a boss or equal level creature.
6. The best finisher was Perfect Finisher. Once the Swashbuckler obtained Perfect Finisher at level 14, they experienced a big damage spike.
7. Bleeding Finisher is very good as well. Though bleed did not last long with a heavy hitter like a Giant Instinct Barbarian in the group. I think if monsters lasted longer, the bleed damage would be more effective.
In regards to the OP, I don't think the Swashbuckler doing dexterity for damage would dramatically help the class or make it imbalanced. It would have a relatively neutral effect because the proportion of the damage from a main statistic is negligible past the lower levels as everyone has said.
If you house ruled the Swashbuckler able to use dexterity for damage with finesse and agile weapons, it would have a nearly zero effect on their damage as they progressed but would help some at lower level.
Swashbuckler damage generally comes from finishers and using the appropriate finisher on the right type of enemy.
The changes I made above did more to close the gap for the Swashbuckler than using dexterity for damage. The one finisher attack per round is a really terrible limitation. If you miss your finisher or your panache roll, you feel like you wasted your round.
When your watching the raging barbarian or dragon shaped druid teeing off at will with nothing other than an attack roll required while moving across the battlefield or having immense reach, it can feel rather deflating.
The swashbuckler would benefit far more from:
1. Starting battle with Panache without rolling.
2. Remove the attack limitation on the Finisher tag. They don't do so much with the finisher that taking a second attack even with a precision bonus is going to make them imbalanced. Just make it so they can do one finisher a round, then spend their other actions as they see fit.
If you want to toss on Dexterity for damage to help them at early levels, go for it. At higher levels it won't even be noticeable.
I think I calculated the final damage difference between the Giant Instinct Barbarian and the Wit Swashbuckler at 15 to 17% lower until they picked up Perfect Finisher. Perfect Finisher was a ridiculous damage spike. They quickly caught up with the barbarian with that ability. If you ever level a swashbuckler to level 14, you will love Perfect Finisher.
Swashbuckler is definitely a very viable and fun class to play. But it needed some adjustments to smooth the swashbuckler's playstyle. It wasn't making sense on some rounds and that opening battle required a DM to be nice to have the battle start always within a single move range of the Swashbuckler or they suffered more than other classes on that opening round. When you have some real heavy hitters in the group, that opening round can decide the battle real quickly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
• Damage builds are, of course, one of their main intents. They seem like they're supposed to do less damage per round than most other damagers because they have a big burst, though.What are they bursting? They can't effectively burst anything that threatens the party and would need to get extremely lucky to drop most on-level foes with a single attack, so is bursting mooks supposed to be their job?
They'd likely be bursting the boss' mooks, or as cleanup after the heavy hitters. The Swash is really good at the former, as people have pointed out, and having the ability to output a single, heavy hit when needed can be useful if the main damager already went, but wasn't able to finish the boss off. The egotistic showboat class is one of the best killstealers, who'da thunk it. ;3
• "Combat skillmonkey" was a reference to how Swashes have a nice selection of combat skill support, and how certain styles are rewarded for using said support. Getting panache from, e.g., Bon Mot or tripping makes it very easy to fit those actions into your combat rotation, enabling a playstyle that prioritises cleaning up after the Barbarian and then using a combat skill or two to get ready for next turn.If you're looking for support won't a Bard always do that better while still clearing mooks with Electric Arc?
Probably not; electric arc is arcane/primal, and there are, alas, no Spell Secrets in Pathfinder. ;3 That said, though, comparing to Bard is a good counterpoint, since Swashbuckler honestly feels a lot like an attempt at a martial Bard counterpart, at least in spirit. As a martial, it's probably going to fall behind if it focuses on pure damage, but being able to blend stylish moves and witty retorts with their somewhat lesser combat abilities both allows them to compensate, and makes for a fun playstyle that lends itself to getting absorbed in your character. It... well, to be perfectly honest, Bard and Swashbuckler feel like two halves of a whole "ideal" bard class, style-wise.
• Flexible party support builds are similar to the above, but with more of a focus on setting up better turns for the rest of the party. If you can get panache for Aiding a party member or putting the boss between you and that Fighter that's been itching for a chance to go all out, for example, then you'll be upping the party's damage considerably even if you're not a high-damage build yourself.Are they better at this than an actual support class?
I don't think so, myself, and would honestly consider it a balance issue if they were. Pure supports tend to be on the low end of the damage scale, while swashbucklers are closer to the middle; I'd probably put them at above-average, but not enough to approach the high bar. Having support on par with pure supports, while being a noticeably better damager than they are, would just obsolete the other support classes. Swashbuckler feels like it fits comfortably in between damager and support, with special focus to its flexibility; while they're likely relatively well balanced from this perspective, it does lead to the next issue you mentioned.
• Off-tanking was referring to how the Swash's reckless bravado has a mechanical tendency to manifest as drawing aggro and making attackers miss so you can punish them for it. It's not full-fledged tanking, for sure, since you're still not a Champion. But, despite that, it's not that hard to make a Zorro build that focuses on making a mockery of the fool that thought he could land a hit on you, then knocking the weapon out of their hands, or stabbing them in the back if they turn away (Fencer, Buckler Expertise, Dueling Parry, Goading Feint, AoO, etc., mix and match with other stuff). Makes for an interesting way to keep a dangerous foe tied up in a duel. ;3In a party with a Champion or Tank Monk wouldn't the group be better off rounding out with a Fighter, Bard, and Cleric rather than replacing those extremely good classes with a Swashbuckler? What is a party where a Swashbuckler is the best choice to fill a slot?
This, unfortunately, is the flip side of being flexible enough to fill any opening: If there isn't an opening you need to fill, then all that flexibility won't really help you. Trading mastery of a single role for the ability to cover the party's gaps, like Swash does, has the logical issue that you have to fall behind the "masters" so you won't obsolete them.
Overall, the Swashbuckler can do a lot of things, but can't do any one of them as well as the master; rather, its strength is that it can easily mix and match multiple roles as needed. This can make it hard to fit into a standard 4-slot party, but makes it shine in a 5+-slot party (where fights are big enough that secondary role coverage becomes a lot more useful, and Swash's slightly lesser coverage of multiple roles effectively lets them function as 3-4 secondary coverage characters smushed together), in a 1/2-slot party (where its flexibility lets it cover multiple roles decently enough), or in games where the players choose classes for character instead of role (where it's easy enough for the Swashbuckler to build into whichever role the rest of the party didn't cover, without needing to sacrifice much personality to do so). It's... actually the same issue that tends to plague Bards in most video games, amusingly enough.
-----
Why should Swashbuckler need to pay for utility with damage potential when things like Intimidation/Intimidating Strike + Shatter Defenses Figther can have more utility while also being more tanky and doing more damage, and also being easier to play, build and less dependent on luck? I don't get why new classes need to he held to such low standards.
I'm not sure if it's something I agree with entirely, myself. I'm mainly just looking at what appears to be the underlying design logic, myself.
(And, as a note, Swashbuckler provides more utility than just fear and flat-footedness, so I'm not really convinced that a Fighter can provide more utility than they can. Remember, Swashes have tools for grappling, shoving, tripping, disarming, fear, flat-footedness, repositioning, fascinating, debuffing, and even drawing aggro; while it's probably not possible for any one Swashbuckler to do everything, they have a bigger toolkit to choose from than most martials. It'd be nice if that kit included more damage, for sure, but they were likely concerned that being a better damager on top of everything else would overshadow a few CRB classes.)
-----
I assume it's because the fighter is what peak performance looks like and paizo is purposefully keeping them as a power ceiling never to be touched by another martial. Whether or not that's a satisfactory answer is up to opinion. I personally don't mind that my magus will never touch fighter levels of performance. I'm doing something different and reaching for a different class fantasy. I can make a shameless weeb character AND be designed not to steal spotlight... I'm just another dude in a party of people. Fighter is the class for "that guy". Treat it as such for the sake of power comparisons. The fighters niche as best in combat is unassailable and I imagine it's gonna remain like that for the rest of the edition. It doesn't ruffle my feathers too bad though, considering "fight" is in the name.I'll admit that I could have explained better, but my point wasn't supposed to be specifically about Fighter. I think people overestimate how OP the Fighter is a bit. Anyway, I compared Swash to Fighter because they're both skilled warriors that can do little utility tricks, but in terms of power level you can compare the newer classes to Bard, Champion, Fighter, Rogue, or even stuff that flies more under the radar like Sorcerer or Cleric. The new classes come with tons of hoops to be jumped through and tradeoffs to be made. They need more stats than a character can reasonably invest in; if they want damage, they need to sacrifice utility, and if they want both they need to be mega squishy. Meanwhile the core classes just get to do all the stuff, do it well and with barely any tradeoffs. It just doesn't feel like they're in the same playing field at all to me.
Now that one... I'm not sure, really. My best guess would be that the CRB covers all the "simple" classes, the ones that are easy to use out of the box. Other books, since they're supplements and not the basic package that all the newbies are going to think they're supposed to start with, have more room for design complexity. This leaves them vulnerable to the complacent gamer issue (if the more complex class doesn't blow the easier class out of the water, then only people that actually like the more complex class will typically bother to learn it), and makes actual balance issues harder to spot (because you can't tell if the problem is that the class is unbalanced, or that it's being used incorrectly). Swashbuckler, being content from the very first supplement, came at a time while Paizo was still figuring out how to do this: It's definitely a sound idea, and the logic is there, but it's really hard to tell whether the implementation does everything it sets out to do, and how well what it sets out to do can stand up against the basics from the CRB.
-----
Overall, I think Swashbuckler is most likely relatively well-balanced as a whole, but this depends on it being used in a way that allows its flexibilty to shine; it has to be able to leverage its combination of roles to keep up, supplementing its damage with control, support, and/or tanking. If it doesn't get to do that, then it's probably going to fall behind, so it rewards playing smart and playing flashy above all else. (And even when it keeps up, a portion of "its" damage will typically come from making it easier for everyone else to deal damage, making it more difficult to track stats.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Once you have always-on dueling dance or comparable at level 12, the Swashbuckler progression of "Finished, Gain Panache, now what do I do with my third action" is nicely filled by the bard archetype giving you inspire courage (or inspire defense if you *really* want to tank).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't really get the automatic assumption that Swashbucklers are inherently more support-y.
Bon Mot stands out as a good ability, but that's only supported by one Swashbuckler archetype. The Battledancer innately doesn't really offer any support though. Gynmasts and Braggarts are pretty good, but Fighters have intimidate and athletics support too so I'm not seeing a really special unique benefit to the Swashbuckler here (and that's not even looking at rogues who just get... both and thensome).
IDK a few posters in this thread seem to be taking the position that the Swashbuckler trades damage for high support skills and this is just treated as a basic assumption of the class but... I'm not really seeing it at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not necessarily high support, Squiggit, just more built-in support & role flexibility than most classes, and support that synergises with and ties into their other roles.
Battledancer, for example, offers an innate fascination option which, while admittedly is [incapacitation] during combat and thus not always that great, allows them to gain panache by debuffing a mook (on a success, with Focused Fascination); their best support option is their battlefield control feat, Leading Dance (thematically tied to them, and refreshes Battledancer panache): If successful, it eats one of the target's actions or keeps them from focusing on easier targets (if you move them away from squishy friends), possibly setting the target up for further debuffs (if they roll with it and decide to just take you out first, putting them at risk of missing and being disarmed), and/or effectively gives one or more allies an extra action (since they won't need to Step away if you move the target away, or won't need to Stride to a better vantage point if you shove the target into their face); the latter option also helps you set up flanking, as well. Other styles are similar, in that they tend to open up options that give you neat support if used well, and/or help you control enemies (or penalise them if they disobey you).
It's not that they're amazing supporters, really, as much as it is that they're very flexible for a martial. They can be pretty durable (allowing them to help with tanking, which in turn lets them debuff enemies), they can put out decent damage (their consistent DPR isn't as high as other martials, but it's not that shabby either, and their burst can be pretty big), they can provide skill support that synergises with their combat options (they're rewarded by gaining panache, which in turn enables their burst), and they can offer field control support that tends to help their allies' action economy/increase ally damage/save wounded allies. They're not as good at any of these things as a dedicated specialist; rather, what they're good at is combining them. They can mix & match as needed to help compensate for the party's weaknesses and capitalise on their strengths, if used well. It does tend to take a good deal of thought to make them actually effective, though, and I'm not entirely sure whether they're balanced compared to core classes overall; I believe they are, but it's close.
Their biggest weakness, though, is that they're jacks of all trades, but masters of none. That's often better than a master of one, yes, but being in a party full of masters-of-one makes it hard for them to stand out; when everyone else is a master of one of the jack's trades, then the jack's advantage is being able to combine them in ways that the masters-of-one can't. They do worse damage than a Fighter, have worse support than a Bard, and are worse tanks than a Champion, but their tanking supports the party and their support recharges their damage, and they have a knack for isolating enemies & moving them around. This lets them flow from one role to another as needed, compared to the more static roles that other classes tend to have.
Basically, where some classes are square pegs, and some are round pegs, the Swashbuckler is a memory foam peg; you can just squeeze them into the hole, whatever shape it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The tradeoff swashbucklers get is gaining additional benefits on their skill actions for being forced into Acrobatics and another skill. That is what a tradeoff looks like.
Dealing low damage on top for no reason is no tradeoff. Is a one sided loss.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't really get the automatic assumption that Swashbucklers are inherently more support-y.
Bon Mot stands out as a good ability, but that's only supported by one Swashbuckler archetype. The Battledancer innately doesn't really offer any support though. Gynmasts and Braggarts are pretty good, but Fighters have intimidate and athletics support too so I'm not seeing a really special unique benefit to the Swashbuckler here (and that's not even looking at rogues who just get... both and thensome).
IDK a few posters in this thread seem to be taking the position that the Swashbuckler trades damage for high support skills and this is just treated as a basic assumption of the class but... I'm not really seeing it at all.
I don't get it either. Having played a Str/Cha Einhander Fighter with Intimidation stuff and feats like Combat Grab, and both Braggart and Gymnast Swashbucklers, I think the Fighter mops the floor with both in everything but mobility. More tanky, more damage, stronger CC that's easier to hit with, yada yada. Swashbuckler has a very slightly increased chance to hit with certain skill actions while in Panache, and more room to use them because their damage is compressed in a single action. That's something. But it's not like Core classes don't have support for this kind of stuff either. Hell, some feats like Dazing Blow, Dread Striker, Intimidating Howl and Shatter Defenses are absolutely nuts in the utility they provide.
I'll give an honorable mention to One For All, though. That feat is really strong and there's some nutty builds you can do around it (hello One For All + Pathfinder Swordmaster + Deft Cooperation). However, one feat that only one style can use well doesn't carry a class in terms of utility.
Also, I don't get why people are saying Swashbuckler has big burst? Even if you take level 5, for example, which is a level where Swash just got an increase to their damage booster, and assume they started with 16 Strength and just boosted it to 18, their Confident Finisher with a Rapier is doing 5d6+4 damage, average 21.5. A Dragon Barbarian with a two hander does 2d12+8, average 21. Except the Barbarian can then do a second attack on the same turn and takes no setup except spending one action on turn 1. Magus does big burst, this is just compensating for low damage dice for one attack.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The tradeoff swashbucklers get is gaining additional benefits on their skill actions for being forced into Acrobatics and another skill. That is what a tradeoff looks like.
Dealing low damage on top for no reason is no tradeoff. Is a one sided loss.
Is that really the tradeoff, though? I'd still invest in it even without the additional skill benefits. If I was to be making a Swashbuckler-like character with the Fighter or Rogue chassis instead of the Swashbuckler class, I'd still be heavily investing in my Style's skill. It's part of what I'd want to be good at when playing that character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once you have always-on dueling dance or comparable at level 12, the Swashbuckler progression of "Finished, Gain Panache, now what do I do with my third action" is nicely filled by the bard archetype giving you inspire courage (or inspire defense if you *really* want to tank).
Not everyone wants to do that. Some swashbucklers want to stab away. I modified finisher to let them. I still don't quite understand why they applied that limitation to the finisher tag as it doesn't do anything but limit it for no real good reason.
|
|
Just want to add that outside of the early levels “Bursting” isn’t really a thing anyone can do. A swashbuckler crit, which I’ve seen a enough times at 10+, might do 100 damage. The average HP of a mook by then is like 200+, possibly more. Once you leave the realm of levels 1-8, nothing really goes down in a single hit or crit anymore, not even level-4 mooks.
To further answer the OP, I don't think adding statistic based damage does much. It's much better to analyze the play-style issues of a class and modify the class shortcomings. I think you could add stat-based damage to any class and it wouldn't do much at all as most of the damage classes do isn't tied to their statistic as a damage bonus. Casters have stat based damage, but do some of the lowest round to round damage in the game from cantrips. Thief rogues have stat-based damage, but do more from sneak attack. All the martials have it, but the majority of their damage comes from special abilities.
So it is much better for a DM to see how a class operates within the group game structure, then adjust. That is what I prefer to do when requesting or making modifications. This allows you to see the true issues causing a class to underperform.
PF2 has a lot of issues with movement actions interfering with class abilities that require actions to activate like Hunt Prey or skill rolls involving panache. This generally slows some classes down from maximizing their damage and why action economy boosters are so valuable such as monk flurry or an ability like sudden charge.
I would look into what hampers a given class if you feel they are underperforming and make or request specific modifications based on the shortcomings you're seeing during gameplay.
Just want to add that outside of the early levels “Bursting” isn’t really a thing anyone can do. A swashbuckler crit, which I’ve seen a enough times at 10+, might do 100 damage. The average HP of a mook by then is like 200+, possibly more. Once you leave the realm of levels 1-8, nothing really goes down in a single hit or crit anymore, not even level-4 mooks.
Very true. A group can take down mooks in a round using their combined abilities, but a single critical hit isn't usually enough at higher level.
Our extinction curse group destroyed groups of mooks with a druid softening them up with AoE, then the barbarian, swash, and archer hammering the rest down with the aggregate damage taking them down very quickly. It is fairly easy to crit lower level mooks, but not one shot them with critical hits from a single character.