Foe is the opposite of ally.
Then if I unleash a bag of cats on the battlefield before I fight then fascinate them, does it mean I get free panache? They're clearly not my allies!
Sure they're gonna run away as soon as felinely possible and pose no threat to me whatsoever, but by the foe/ally dual metric you've positioned here they're not allies ergo they must fall into foe.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also a lot of mindless creatures have very low will dc.
They won't know what you're doing, but you'll know in your heart of hearts that your dance was awesome and if they had enough brain cells to appreciate art, they would have been impressed by your aggressive salsa battle dance!
The advantages that Battledancers have are that they can gain panache at range, they can roll against multiple creatures at once and only need to succeed against one, and they can gain panache whether or not the creature is immune to fascinating performance. That's really good, because it means they can just keep trying over and over again, and if there are weaker creatures (or creatures with lower will saves), the Swashbuckler's got a better chance to gain panache.
The disadvantage, as SuperBidi pointed out, is that the action that they use to gain panache doesn't really help in other ways. Once you get Leading Dance, you have a more useful thing to do to gain panache, but then you are only targeting one creature, and you can no longer do so from range.
Either way, what you can't do is target your ally's Will save to try to guarantee a success. That's the part people are referring to as "cheese."
Also a lot of mindless creatures have very low will dc.
They won't know what you're doing, but you'll know in your heart of hearts that your dance was awesome and if they had enough brain cells to appreciate art, they would have been impressed by your aggressive salsa battle dance!
The advantages that Battledancers have are that they can gain panache at range, they can roll against multiple creatures at once and only need to succeed against one, and they can gain panache whether or not the creature is immune to fascinating performance. That's really good, because it means they can just keep trying over and over again, and if there are weaker creatures (or creatures with lower will saves), the Swashbuckler's got a better chance to gain panache.
The disadvantage, as SuperBidi pointed out, is that the action that they use to gain panache doesn't really help in other ways. Once you get Leading Dance, you have a more useful thing to do to gain panache, but then you are only targeting one creature, and you can no longer do so from range.
Either way, what you can't do is target your ally's Will save to try to guarantee a success. That's the part people are referring to as "cheese."
Indeed, I graciously concede that point and will advise the player that this is no longer allowed.
I will quote you however, prepare to receive dead fauna in the mail ;)
|
|
As a side note, building Panache must not be the only goal of your Swashbuckler's Style. If the action that your Style provides you isn't appealing to you, then maybe it's better to play something else.
The Wit Swashbuckler Style action is Bon Mot. If you don't care about reducing the enemies Will Saves, then it's pointless. Now, if you have an Occult caster targetting Will easily, Bon Mot both builds your Panache and builds the caster's spells, 2 birds one stone, but also the proper way of playing a Swashbuckler.
Re: Wit Swashbucklers, nothing stops a Wit Swashbuckler from following up a Bon Mot with a Demoralize if there isn't something better to do like move into flank. It means also needing to raise Intimidation, but you'll already be prioritizing CHA as a secondary stat. You might not be able to get it to Expert quickly (unless you're doing something like taking Acrobat for auto increases to Acrobatics, freeing up other increases), and you wouldn't do it every round, but if you're adjacent to a creature, Bon Mot for Panache and penalty to Will DCs, Demoralize against the now lower DC, then Finisher isn't a terrible round. It leaves you without Panache for your reaction, which isn't fantastic, but if it means you kill the creature or leave it frightened for others to attack, I'd still consider it a win.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good points about the hazardous terrain.
On the one hand, I think that everything from an acid pool to burning embers/ flame tongues can be replicated with magic somehow.
On the other hand I fear that players might use this to their advantage, while monsters won't be able to do so ( or to better say, a very limited part of them might ).
My personal take is that Hazardous Terrain has to be taken very literally. It's because terrain is not balanced to your level, right at level 1 you can be next to a cliff with a fall that would instakill you. That's why they limited the use of Hazardous Terrain to moves that are in general increasing MAP and as such can't be used many times in a row. But that's my personal opinion.
I also don't find that the repositioning abilities are stronger than the pushing or pulling abilities, as such I don't see why there should be a big gap in efficiency between both. And playing with positioning is funny and asks for multiple characters to coordinate themselves, so I prefer to encourage it.
I also don't find that the repositioning abilities are stronger than the pushing or pulling abilities, as such I don't see why there should be a big gap in efficiency between both. And playing with positioning is funny and asks for multiple characters to coordinate themselves, so I prefer to encourage it.My point was that would have been a thing just for characters, rather than characters and enemies.
Not going to exploit any fight with mindless or not intelligent beings, but to think that players will always be the only ones using that mechanics ( replicating the effects of an hazard ) because a very limited number of enemies are able to recreate hazards, it's something which goes beyond coordinations and good positioning ( which do already exist, for both parties ).
The way I see it is that enemies are more violent than PCs but the PCs compensate with good strategies. So I'm fine with PCs being able to use that mechanics. Also, even if it's a good strategy, a Wall of Fire doesn't deal that many damage as to trivialize fights.
Way I see it, a creature will not want to enter a square that is obviously and inevitably dangerous to them.
Would a square with 3 martials with readied actions be inevitably dangerous?
How about a square that is within the reach of 2 martials, or where they are being flanked?
How about a square with spinning blades everywhere (a hazard)
If no to the first 2 then yes to the third, what is the difference ? What makes one inevitable and the other not?
If all 3 are inevitably dangerous, then what would not be inevitably dangerous?
Way I see it, a creature will not want to enter a square that is obviously and inevitably dangerous to them.
If you give the creature the choice, then she won't move. I think the premise of "Forced Movement" is that the creature doesn't have the choice.
No
No
YesIt is the inevitability of it. Also it is why we have GMs rather than computers.
But in the third case, it is evitable, as much as sword blows are, since both harmful environements include attack rolls, and thus an element of evitability. Same thing with a cloudkill or a wall of fire. It's total evitable, just got to crit succeed that save.
I realise that I'm stretching those cases, but you can understand how this is definitely not clear cut.
As SuperBidi mentions, if it is up to the creature's perception, the creature will just always choose not to move, therefore the power is invalid.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Foe is the opposite of ally.Then if I unleash a bag of cats on the battlefield before I fight then fascinate them, does it mean I get free panache? They're clearly not my allies!
Sure they're gonna run away as soon as felinely possible and pose no threat to me whatsoever, but by the foe/ally dual metric you've positioned here they're not allies ergo they must fall into foe.
That would be deliberately something meant to exploit the system.
Consider that you'll be find
- A group of adventurers ( and their allies )
- A group of enemies ( and their allies )
- Random neutral fauna or critters ( Squirrels, horses, cows, etc... )To put it simple: if it's not an ally, it's a foe.
If a player of mine were to ask to release a bag full of cats just to get free panahce, guess what the answer might be :D
I think its fair to say that neutral parties exist, so I would be considering foes to only be enemies. So a bag of cats would not work.
And before you talk about mistreating small animals to make them hostile, I would simply rule against such tactics by pointing you back to the definition of panache i.e. You care as much about the way you accomplish something as whether you actually accomplish it in the first place. When you perform an action with particular bravado, you can leverage this moment of verve to perform spectacular, deadly maneuvers.
Any sort of short cut here is just not going to be stylish or specatular on an ongoing basis.
|
No
No
YesIt is the inevitability of it. Also it is why we have GMs rather than computers.
But in the third case, it is evitable, as much as sword blows are, since both harmful environements include attack rolls, and thus an element of evitability. Same thing with a cloudkill or a wall of fire. It's total evitable, just got to crit succeed that save.
I realise that I'm stretching those cases, but you can understand how this is definitely not clear cut.
As SuperBidi mentions, if it is up to the creature's perception, the creature will just always choose not to move, therefore the power is invalid.
You get a save for the third case. Not in the first and second case.
Then if I unleash a bag of cats on the battlefield before I fight then fascinate them, does it mean I get free panache? They're clearly not my allies!
I'm sure they would consider you a foe at that point.
And I am not sure that this is providing much in the way of advice any more. But I suppose things get miscategorized regularly, so it really doesn't matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, I graciously concede that point and will advise the player that this is no longer allowed.
I will quote you however, prepare to receive dead fauna in the mail ;)
Well, we can all run with houserules in our own games.
Just don't people on the rules forums to always agree with them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Way I see it, a creature will not want to enter a square that is obviously and inevitably dangerous to them.Would a square with 3 martials with readied actions be inevitably dangerous?
How about a square that is within the reach of 2 martials, or where they are being flanked?
How about a square with spinning blades everywhere (a hazard)
If no to the first 2 then yes to the third, what is the difference ? What makes one inevitable and the other not?
If all 3 are inevitably dangerous, then what would not be inevitably dangerous?
The dangerousness of the location in those first two (three?) scenarios is dependent on the decision of the martial characters to take those readied actions or make attacks on their turn.
So no, the ground is not inherently dangerous terrain simply because someone else is ready to attack that location.
A position or area of ground is dangerous terrain if it forces a creature there to risk damage. If you stand *here* you will have an attack roll rolled against you or you must roll a saving throw. No other decisions needed from characters (or even semi-intelligent spell effects). Simply being in that location causes the risk.
Well then if that person stands here and here is in the air and then falls it won't take damage. It will however suddenly move down several squares and take damage in another square.
That would thus make leading dancing someone off a cliff viable. Because falling is not a property of the terrain itself.
|
|
Well then if that person stands here and here is in the air and then falls it won't take damage. It will however suddenly move down several squares and take damage in another square.
That would thus make leading dancing someone off a cliff viable. Because falling is not a property of the terrain itself.
It falls under dangerous by itself.
But is it? To a great amount of creatures in the game, an empty square in the air isn't harmful at all. You just need to flap your wings or focus on your flight powers and you're perfectly safe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But is it? To a great amount of creatures in the game, an empty square in the air isn't harmful at all. You just need to flap your wings or focus on your flight powers and you're perfectly safe.
Exactly. If the creature is not forced to fall when 'standing' in that empty space, then the space wouldn't be hazardous. But if the creature has no other choice than to fall and risk damage, then it is.
And no 'grab an edge' as a way to optionally prevent falling doesn't count because it again involves choices by characters. And rolls. As does having Feather Fall prepared. The space is still hazardous to most non-flying creatures.
All very reasonable interpretations. I'm of course running devil's advocate here as I feel these are questions one needs to ask to reach their interpretation. I unfortunately don't think paizo's gonna clarify this ;)
I will however run a more permissive take on the forced movement in my game, as I do like SuperBidi's take on it.
For battledancer swashbuckler, nothing says you have to affect an ally to get panache with impressive performance btw.
In one of my games, the battledancer is a crazy kitsune who's in live with her older brother, the fighter of the group.
First thing almost every fight she does is "flash her panties" at the fighter while blushing and yelling "nee damnnn why are you looking at my panties!!"
And since the fighter has low will DC it almost always works. Fascinate is not that bad of a condition to have for him.
Battle Dancer: "... You gain panache during an encounter when the result of your Performance check to Perform exceeds the Will DC of an observing foe, even if the foe isn't fascinated."
Battle Dancer: "... You gain panache during an encounter when the result of your Performance check to Perform exceeds the Will DC of an observing foe, even if the foe isn't fascinated."For battledancer swashbuckler, nothing says you have to affect an ally to get panache with impressive performance btw.
In one of my games, the battledancer is a crazy kitsune who's in live with her older brother, the fighter of the group.
First thing almost every fight she does is "flash her panties" at the fighter while blushing and yelling "nee damnnn why are you looking at my panties!!"
And since the fighter has low will DC it almost always works. Fascinate is not that bad of a condition to have for him.
We've covered this, cats and all :)
Anyway, I really like the braggart with duelist dedication.
Against low level enemies you'd be able to crit more often and because so demoralize for free ( and even more with perfect finisher), saving an extra action once and when.
It kicks in starting by lvl 9, so it requires a little to be available.
Also, because how finisher works, you'd better have some non attack action you could use after delivering your critical hit ( for example, vivacious bravado, or another char based combat check).
Sorry, I'm not certain what Duelist Dedication adds to Braggart that they can't access natively through Swashbuckler. Quick Draw is all I'm seeing.
Oh, yeah, Aldori Duelist would make tons of sense.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Swashies kinda suck at early levels because of the fact that skills get soooo much better at later levels. But once you get to level 5-6 you’re pretty much golden.
I think this is significantly overstating things.
I know that I've enjoyed my swasher from level 2 through 5 (started her at level 2).
And I still see a fair few in PFS.
|
|
This issue at low levels is, again, that you often struggle to get panache at all against higher level enemies. You can’t hold onto something you don’t get in the first place. Which is why I’ve just finally given in and retrained into After You. We’ll see if it makes a difference in how the class feels.
I did run a graph through the damage calculator and tried two routines for a braggart:
1: Demoralize -> if it fails tumble -> if any succeeds Confident Finisher
2: Strike twice with panache
Base parameters: Swashbuckler with 10 str, gets damage runes and item bonuses to skills whenever they can. Charisma 14->20.
This is the result vs a +2 enemy and it does seem pretty close to the same damage at least.
No, this is merely the basic Finisher. Bleeding and Perfect increases the damage of the finisher routine by a lot.
|
|
So I looked up some videos, did some thinking, and came up with this idea:
Human Swashbuckler
Heritage: Skilled human (Acrobatics) (This is basically for the auto expert at 5 so I can choose to level up some skills other than my two swashbuckler skills.
Human feat: Cooperative nature
Background: Anything that gives either dex or charisma
Swashbuckler style: Wit
Swashbuckler feat: one for All
Attributes:
STR 14, Dex 18, con:12, Int 10, wiz: 10, Chr 14
Level 2:
Finishing follow-through? After you?
Level 3:
increase diplomacy to expert,
The plan is to tumble through or Bon Mot lower level foes, and to gain panache against higher level foes by using One For All, using my cooperative nature to make the chance of my aid pretty good for generating panache.