I’m struggling with my Swashbuckler - does it get better?


Advice

51 to 82 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Squiggit wrote:
Traditional wisdom on the subject is that "Performance check to Perform" rather than simply "performance check" is meant to specifically head off skill replacement options.

I would propose the same question to you also.

Does a spellcasting Gymnast Swashbuckler gain panache from succeeding at the spell attack roll to grapple/trip/shove when casting Telekinetic Maneuver?

If not, why not?

If yes, why the nerf to Battledancer?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Quote:
Does a spellcasting Gymnast Swashbuckler gain panache from succeeding at the spell attack roll to grapple/trip/shove when casting Telekinetic Maneuver?

The answer is obviously yes.

Actually a great illustration of the difference here.

The Gymnast gains Panache whenever they grapple, shove, or trip. There's no concern for where or how you perform the trip.

Braggart and Fencer likewise simply require you to Demoralize or Feint, with no qualifications.

Battledancer is unique in not only specifying what skill action you must use, but also specifying the Skill itself.

Quote:
If yes, why the nerf to Battledancer?

If I had to guess, they were probably specifically trying to shut down acrobatic performer, since that would allow a battledancer to have two ways to generate panache with only one skill. Heaven forbid.

Maybe they also share VampByDay's perspective that being able to spend an action and make a skill check to do nothing at all is actually a very strong class feature that required some counterbalance.

Beyond that, you'd have to ask Paizo why they chose to make Battledancers so uniquely bad, it's a mystery to most everyone.


breithauptclan wrote:
Gortle wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
So which is the specific rule that overrides the general rule?
That part is clear. The Panache rule that is most specific is the Panache rule in the Style.
Why? How are you determining which is more general or more specific?

2 reasons.

a) A rule in one style is clearly more specific than the overall rule for a class. A style being a part of a class.

b) The rule for the class says there is a specific rule in the style.

So it is obvious and it is specific as to which rule is more specific.

There are cases where it is not clear as to which rule has priority. This is not one of them.


Squiggit wrote:
Beyond that, you'd have to ask Paizo why they chose to make Battledancers so uniquely bad, it's a mystery to most everyone.

Yes, the world may never know.

The wording in the rule is strange, the nerf to one Style and one feat is unnecessary, and the rationalizations for it are suspect.


Gortle wrote:

2 reasons.

a) A rule in one style is clearly more specific than the overall rule for a class. A style being a part of a class.

b) The rule for the class says there is a specific rule in the style.

So it is obvious and it is specific as to which rule is more specific.

That is not what I am pointing out as the question.

Yes, the rule for a specific Style is more specific than the general rules for Swashbuckler.

The question is which is more specific - the rule for a Style, or the rule for a Skill Feat?


Squiggit wrote:
Beyond that, you'd have to ask Paizo why they chose to make Battledancers so uniquely bad, it's a mystery to most everyone.

They aren't bad. They have some specific advantages.

If there is an important chokepoint in the encounter, or if you have a number of area effects available to your party, or even just to safely set up flanking they can be very useful.


Gortle wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Beyond that, you'd have to ask Paizo why they chose to make Battledancers so uniquely bad, it's a mystery to most everyone.

They aren't bad. They have some specific advantages.

If there is an important chokepoint in the encounter, or if you have a number of area effects available to your party, or even just to safely set up flanking they can be very useful.

Not a very unique benefit. As I said earlier, any Swashbuckler can get Leading Dance. And be quite good at it. They will just have to use a Hero Point to roll twice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
breithauptclan wrote:


The wording in the rule is strange, the nerf to one Style and one feat is unnecessary, and the rationalizations for it are suspect.

I disagree that it's particularly suspect. From Paizo's perspective, they wanted to ensure that Battledancers were incentivized to invest and use Performance rather than take a level 1 skill feat and just get around it entirely. Phrasing it in such a way directly addresses that problem.

The balance implications for the class itself is just collateral damage. This is consistent with the Swashbuckler and to an extent the rest of the APG, where balance was clearly a secondary (if that) concern when it came to design choices.

Gortle wrote:
They aren't bad.

They're pretty damn bad. You're throwing your very limited skill increases into the worst ability in the game, to enable the worst panache action in the game, and a fairly mediocre exemplary ability.

If they were Fighters or Barbarians, that might be okay... but they're swashbucklers, so you're already scraping the bottom of the barrel before you even start, which makes these extra layers of suck hit that much harder.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
Gortle wrote:

2 reasons.

a) A rule in one style is clearly more specific than the overall rule for a class. A style being a part of a class.

b) The rule for the class says there is a specific rule in the style.

So it is obvious and it is specific as to which rule is more specific.

That is not what I am pointing out as the question.

Yes, the rule for a specific Style is more specific than the general rules for Swashbuckler.

The question is which is more specific - the rule for a Style, or the rule for a Skill Feat?

There is no rules contradiction or clash there. So that is just irrelevant.


Personally, I feel Wit is the only worthwhile Swashbuckler style, all the others just don't give enough. Getting Panache with One for All is priceless and they also get one of the best level 9 finisher effects available.


You get to target multiple enemies as you level with performance, so instead of one chance to do your thing and get panache you get up to +2 per proficiency above trained, I think. So battle dancers have much higher chance to get panache against multiple enemies compared to other styles. You trade an effect for more reliable panache generation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

While true, you're still spending an action to do nothing but (hopefully) generate panache.

Which TBH is a little silly. Swashbucklers could have a single action ability that always generates panache and it still wouldn't be great.


The whole premise of a class that attacks once per round is flawed, unless the damage booster is substantial. Precise strike is not substantial enough to be worth it.

I don't think I will ever play a swashbuckler


nicholas storm wrote:

The whole premise of a class that attacks once per round is flawed, unless the damage booster is substantial. Precise strike is not substantial enough to be worth it.

I don't think I will ever play a swashbuckler

Most of the time you are better off attacking, then using the finisher.


nicholas storm wrote:

The whole premise of a class that attacks once per round is flawed, unless the damage booster is substantial. Precise strike is not substantial enough to be worth it.

I don't think I will ever play a swashbuckler

It is the same damage bonus as the giant barbarian. But you have a smaller weapon, you can only use it once per round, you have an action cost plus a roll to generate panache. That action is typically useful.

The class is not without merit, but yes its efficiency is low.


nicholas storm wrote:
The whole premise of a class that attacks once per round is flawed,

That is actually fairly common. Pseudo-full-attack is not an optimal strategy in PF2 in general. Especially when in an actual tactical battle rather than in a white-room doing math.

Normally only attacks once per round:
Investigator
Magus
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Oracle
Psychic
Sorcerer
Witch
Wizard
Summoner half of Summoner

Difficult to attack more than once per round:
Gunslinger
Alchemist
shield-using Champion

Gets the most benefit from one attack per round:
Precision Ranger
Swashbuckler

Attacks effectively 2+ times per round:
Fighter
Rogue
Barbarian
Other Rangers - especially Flurry Ranger
Thaumaturge
Maybe Inventor
Eidolon half of Summoner

That last group is actually a pretty short list to represent all possible character concepts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm not really sure why that list is including spellcasters in the first list when they generally aren't attacking at all (and operate on a completely different paradigm). It's also a bit misleading to split the Summoner in two spots to further pad out the list.

... also the Magus' core mechanic is literally making two attacks at once.
While not every ranger will have them, a staple first level ranger feat is two attacks for one action too.
There's nothing really stopping Alchemists or Champions from making multiple attacks per round if they want either (and again, Alchemists operate in a different design space anyways).

So once we discard the padding, your list kind of evaporates into just the Investigator, Swashbuckler, and Gunslinger: three of the most misaligned classes in the game... and to be honest even the Gunslinger doesn't really belong there given the developer commentaries we've seen on how the class is balanced and meant to play.

... So that leaves just the Investigator and Swashbuckler, two underperforming classes which share the issue of distorted action, high failure points, and mediocre outcomes.

... I don't think it's a coincidence that the two worst martials in the game have so many things in common when it comes to their attack routine.


Squiggit wrote:
I'm not really sure why that list is including spellcasters in the first list when they generally aren't attacking at all (and operate on a completely different paradigm).

We are talking about action economy here. Yes, the mages are generally casting spells instead of attacking with weapons. But according to the game terms a lot of those spells are literally Attacks since they have the Attack trait. And even a saving throw spell is generally considered an attack in the sense that they are trying to harm the opponents and win the fight.

And they can only cast one 2-action spell each round. And most of their damage-dealing and condition-applying spells cost two actions to cast.

So yes, I stand by my decision to include them in that category. Spellcasters generally only make one attack per round.

I see no good reason to omit spellcasters from the list entirely. Other than trying to sway the numbers to better fit into the opposing argument.

Squiggit wrote:
It's also a bit misleading to split the Summoner in two spots to further pad out the list.

Ranger also got split into two places - depending on choice of Edge. Because the play style of the character is different and their action economy changes. Was that also a mistake?

Would it somehow be better to only include Ranger in the list of classes that get improved benefits from one attack (Precision Ranger) and ignore the other ones? Or to only include the Flurry Ranger in the characters that benefit from multiple attacks and ignore the Precision Ranger?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
breithauptclan wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
It's also a bit misleading to split the Summoner in two spots to further pad out the list.
Ranger also got split into two places - depending on choice of Edge. Because the play style of the character is different and their action economy changes. Was that also a mistake?

So do you believe that 'summoner only' and 'eidolon only' are different builds of the class now too?

Clearly a misleading comparison.


Squiggit wrote:


So do you believe that 'summoner only' and 'eidolon only' are different builds of the class now too?

Actually, yes. I don't think that is misleading at all.

It isn't a subclass choice like it is with Ranger, but you can absolutely build Summoner to focus more on brawling with the Eidolon, or using spells from the Summoner. Go read SuperBidi's guide to the Caster Summoner.

It may even be possible to build a Summoner that can switch between the two - though any particular round is likely going to focus on one of the pair more than the other.


Spellcasters can cast a spell and use their other action to shoot a bow if they are designed that way. I played a precision ranger that often attacked 3-5 times per round with his animal companion.

A swashbuckler can't attack after making a finishing attack. They can attack more than once by not using their finisher or using it after a regular attack if they wish.

After playing a fighter with agile grace, flurry of blows, with lots of damage runes, it's apparent to me that finisher from swashbuckler is a bad class ability. I often hit 2-4 times per round with my fighter; each regular hit averages 35 damage (6d6+14) at level 15. The finisher limits a swashbuckler to one attack with a damage bonus of 21 at 17th level.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
nicholas storm wrote:

Spellcasters can cast a spell and use their other action to shoot a bow if they are designed that way. I played a precision ranger that often attacked 3-5 times per round with his animal companion.

A swashbuckler can't attack after making a finishing attack. They can attack more than once by not using their finisher or using it after a regular attack if they wish.

After playing a fighter with agile grace, flurry of blows, with lots of damage runes, it's apparent to me that finisher from swashbuckler is a bad class ability. I often hit 2-4 times per round with my fighter; each regular hit averages 35 damage (6d6+14) at level 15. The finisher limits a swashbuckler to one attack with a damage bonus of 21 at 17th level.

That seems pretty achievable on a Swashbuckler? Take Combination Finisher and flurry, throw out at least two attacks at 6d6+16, then (confident?) Finisher at -6. Seems unlikely that the higher static mod on the first Strikes and the 6d6 on the last will make up for fighter accuracy, but a Riposte on top might.


Yup. Fighter is the only martial class that is viable in play. Because their attack/damage boost is inherent. It takes no actions and requires no setup and especially no skill checks.

Everything else is trash tier.

Ranger takes an action in order to use their special abilities.
Thaumaturge takes an action and a skill check in order to get a minor boost to damage - and they are restricted to one-hand weapons.
Swashbuckler takes an action, a skill check, and the bonus only lasts until you actually use it.
Gunslinger has to do fiddly things with reload and gets heavily taxed on feats in order to get more reload abilities.
Champion doesn't get action tax if they don't use a shield. They are just a worse Fighter at that point since they have little to boost damage with.
Inventor, you can only use your damage boost once per fight unless you are lucky.
Magus only gets a good damage boost if they are spending a spell slot to do it with. Even then, it takes pretty much their entire turn for the one attack.
Monk has plenty of actions, but not much in the way of damage boost. Ki Strike isn't terrible, but it is nothing to write home about.
Rogue you are either having to put yourself or an ally into a bad position - and taking an action to do it, or you are needing to spend an action and a skill check to get your damage boost going.
Summoner doesn't really have much in the way of high damage either. Spamming Boost Eidolon is the best that you have - and again that takes an action.
And Alchemist isn't even really a martial class.

[/hyperbole]


Ran the numbers vs moderate AC at level 15.

Fighter attack with bardic with +3 weapon +32 vs AC36
4 attacks with flurry of blows (6d6+14) avg damage 131.25

Swashbuckler with bardic with +3 weapon +30 vs AC36
4 attacks with flurry of blows (6d6+17) avg damage 91.2
1 attack with finisher (11d6+17) avg damage 55.5
3 attacks with confident finisher avg damage 83

swashbuckler does the most damage without using a finisher


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Swashbuckler is particularly bad due to failure rates on panache generating skill as well as possible inherent limitations on the use of the skill like trying to use Tumble Through on something far away or trip or grapple a creature with high Fort or Reflex or some ability countering what you are doing.

A maul fighter (and likely flail) is the most powerful martial class in the game in my experience. I have recorded multiple fights with a maul fighter with a rogue and monk in the same group, maul fighter rarely gets beat for damage and general power crushing the encounters.

Never run a maul fighter and giant barbarian with a maul in the same group. That would be interesting to see.

I have run a Giant barbarian and wit swashbuckler in the same group. Giant barbarian did more damage until the Swashbuckler obtained Perfect Finisher at level 14. Perfect Finisher is a real game changer for swashbuckler damage. After the swashbuckler obtained Perfect Finisher, damage spiked.

Lots more crits on main attacks and if the Swash used a regular attack with precision damage then a second attack Perfect Finisher, he still hit a lot and did great damage. Perfect Finisher is probably the best feat the Swashbuckler can get from a pure damage perspective.


Deriven Firelion wrote:

Never run a maul fighter and giant barbarian with a maul in the same group. That would be interesting to see.

I have run a Giant barbarian and wit swashbuckler in the same group. Giant barbarian did more damage until the Swashbuckler obtained Perfect Finisher at level 14. Perfect Finisher is a real game changer for swashbuckler damage. After the swashbuckler obtained Perfect Finisher, damage spiked.

Lots more crits on main attacks and if the Swash used a regular attack with precision damage then a second attack Perfect Finisher, he still hit a lot and did great damage. Perfect Finisher is probably the best feat the Swashbuckler can get from a pure damage perspective.

Considering how easy it is to get that effect much sooner with True Strike (via a caster archetype say sorcerer dedication, basic spell casting plus ring of wizardry) or via Investigator (Devise a Strategem). I'm surprised you waited so long.


Gortle wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:

Never run a maul fighter and giant barbarian with a maul in the same group. That would be interesting to see.

I have run a Giant barbarian and wit swashbuckler in the same group. Giant barbarian did more damage until the Swashbuckler obtained Perfect Finisher at level 14. Perfect Finisher is a real game changer for swashbuckler damage. After the swashbuckler obtained Perfect Finisher, damage spiked.

Lots more crits on main attacks and if the Swash used a regular attack with precision damage then a second attack Perfect Finisher, he still hit a lot and did great damage. Perfect Finisher is probably the best feat the Swashbuckler can get from a pure damage perspective.

Considering how easy it is to get that effect much sooner with True Strike (via a caster archetype say sorcerer dedication, basic spell casting plus ring of wizardry) or via Investigator (Devise a Strategem). I'm surprised you waited so long.

It wasn't my character. Player wanted to try a swashbuckler. He was figuring out how to build it up. I was tracking group damage as I tend to do with new classes in real play scenarios. I noticed this sizeable spike after that feat. An unlimited use true strike is a very nice ability.


Deriven Firelion wrote:
An unlimited use true strike is a very nice ability.

Unlimited use, action-free True Strike effect. It doesn't cost any additional action than other finishers do.

Vigilant Seal

I haven’t gotten to try my revamped Swashbuckler yet.

Sometimes i get tired of the PF2E community. Not directed at anyone in particular just venting. In a different place i mentioned what I learned here, about how it’s not always a good idea to do the whole get panache -> spend panache -> third action “rotation” and sometimes it’s okay to leave it up for more consistency, at least I’m under the impression this advice was given in this thread more than once.

I’m ridiculed, told whoever told me that is woefully wrong, Swashbuckler has been “solved” for years, demanded to see math. Like I don’t know man I was just passing some info I got along and people want to act like I’m Galileo presenting heliocentricism to the Catholic Church.

I didn’t have any math to show them, but I have no reason not to believe the following:

1) generating panache isn’t easy. Especially if it’s your secondary stat which is automatically behind your primary because how stats work. Like being -1 is worse than not being -1. 18 dexterity > 16 Cha/str.

2) sometimes holding onto a kind of hard to get resource that buffs you might add up to a total of more damage than constantly failing to get it after spending it and then having completely unbuffed attacks with no finisher.

3) at some point the math might transition to being reliable to getting panache at some later level than 1 I don’t know about, or one might have just a really nice spell caster with a few of those spells that give bonuses to attributes or skill checks.


Trixleby wrote:
Sometimes i get tired of the PF2E community. Not directed at anyone in particular just venting. In a different place i mentioned what I learned here, about how it’s not always a good idea to do the whole get panache -> spend panache -> third action “rotation” and sometimes it’s okay to leave it up for more consistency, at least I’m under the impression this advice was given in this thread more than once.

We mostly agree with you. That the Swashbuckler is hard to run well. Holding onto panache is a viable tactic.

The Swashbuckler is a very up and down class that is undertuned on average.

It continues to be popular like the Witch, not because of power but flavour.

I'd be happy for it to get a boost.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Trixleby wrote:

Sometimes i get tired of the PF2E community. Not directed at anyone in particular just venting. In a different place i mentioned what I learned here, about how it’s not always a good idea to do the whole get panache -> spend panache -> third action “rotation” and sometimes it’s okay to leave it up for more consistency, at least I’m under the impression this advice was given in this thread more than once.

I’m ridiculed, told whoever told me that is woefully wrong, Swashbuckler has been “solved” for years, demanded to see math. Like I don’t know man I was just passing some info I got along and people want to act like I’m Galileo presenting heliocentricism to the Catholic Church.

Yup. Gets really tiring debating with people arguing that being 2% less than the optimal is useless. Especially in PF2. Maybe that was true in PF1...

Also, quoting myself again because it seems relevant.

Why do I play a Swashbuckler?

Corabee Cori wrote:

For the fun of it all.

Relax and just enjoy the game. The d20 has more influence over the overall outcome of a battle than the difference between Swashbuckler and weapon Monk.

And people are complaining about Thaumaturge in a different thread, so its not like you can win by choosing a different class anyway.


If Trix can make it to level 14, he might like the Perfect Finisher Swash. It really starts to do some strong damage with that feat.

51 to 82 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / I’m struggling with my Swashbuckler - does it get better? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice