|
I have fun playing my swashbuckler, but i noticed i leaned a little hard into the absurd "Don Quixote" concept to justify how the mechanics and narrative intersect.
So what about this change for Panache, to give it a little more reliability without taking away the risk/reward concept:
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. This state of flair is called panache, and you are either in a state of panache or you are not.
You gain panache by successfully performing attempting but not critically failing the skill check associated with specific actions that have a bit of flair, including Tumble Through and additional actions determined by your swashbuckler's style. At the GM's discretion, after succeeding at a check to perform a particularly daring action, such as swinging on a chandelier or sliding down a drapery, you also gain panache if your result is high enough (typically the very hard DC for your level, but the GM can choose a different threshold).
While you have panache, you gain a +5-foot status bonus to your Speeds and gain a +1 circumstance bonus to checks to Tumble Through or to take any actions that give you panache due to your style. The precise strike class feature also causes you to deal extra precision damage while you have panache. Powerful finisher actions, including Confident Finisher can be used only while you have panache and if you succeeded or critically succeeded your most recent check to gain panache, but cause you to lose your panache.
Normally, you gain and use panache only in combat encounters; when an encounter ends, you lose panache.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm more wondering what internal math led them to the decision to make the Swashbuckler dependent on performing an action to use its primary damage booster.
The swashbuckler seems to have a series of issues:
1. Panache Generation: Panache generation is dependent on the level of the enemy. Weak enemies are fairly easy to generate panache against while stronger enemies are more difficult. Then it is also dependent on what save or ability the given panache skill goes against. Then distance can also become a factor.
So you multiple points of failure for panache generation controlled by the GM.
Panache generation is most difficult when fighting the enemies it is most needed against.
2. Finishers: It is odd the finisher tag doesn't allow additional attacks including attack skill actions.
Finisher: Finishers are spectacular finishing moves that use your panache. You can use a finisher only if you have panache, and you lose your panache immediately after performing a finisher. Once you use a finisher, you can't use any actions that have the attack trait for the rest of your turn.
Some actions that have the finisher trait also grant an effect on a failure. Effects added on a failure don't apply on a critical failure. If your finisher action succeeds, you can still choose to apply the failure effect instead. For example, you might do this when an attack deals no damage due to resistance.
So the gymnast cannot use an action other than Tumble Through after a finisher to regain panache to set up for the next round.
Which leads to the following question:
1. Are finishers so powerful as to make up for the multiple balance limiters that the Paizo designers have burdened the class with?
Balance Limiters on Finishers:
1. Requires panache
2. Uses Panache requiring you to use another action to regain panache meaning Finishers are all 2 action activities with a failure chance due to the skill check required for panache generation.
3. Limits other action options after you have used a finisher such as additional attacks.
4. Is Precision damage meaning creatures immune to precision damage are immune to your finishers.
5. Requires short range, usually melee range.
6. Can only be used with agile or finesse weapons meaning a lower damage dice.
All this for a 6d6 precision damage finisher at top end with some riders once per turn with the possibility of +6 flat precision damage for regular attacks if you decide to attack normally prior to using a finisher applying a MAP penalty to your finisher attack.
This class in operation is a good ways behind most of the martial classes I've seen. They are very clunky and hard to play at the lower levels when your skill failure chance for panache generation is much higher. They also have issues come up if you don't start combat within a very close melee range so Tumble Through or the range of your panache generation skill is close enough to execute.
I wonder what math they were seeing in playtests to release this class in its current form.
Presumably the main skill would be Acrobatics and using it to Tumble Through since it’s a Dexterity class, all get Acrobatics, and very few enemies can’t be tumbled through.
Is Gymnast a good fit for the class in general anyway? It’s notably different from the other more Charismatic specialties, it seems.
The rule I've played around with is something like "attempt whatever kind of roll, if you succeed you gain panache. If you fail, you may choose to instead critically fail, and gain panache."
It's just that there isn't a critical failure for tumble through, so I'm not sure how to handle that. I like the "you gain Panache from succeeding, or insisting that you "meant to do that" when "that" appears ill-advised.
A thought I had was that when you gain panache you gain a pool equal to your cha or str mod(depending on your style).
Uses Panache requiring you to use another action to regain panache meaning Finishers are all 2 action activities with a failure chance due to the skill check required for panache generation.
Just like the Inventors Overdrive you can't always retry. Many of the panache activities have an immunity period.
Uses Panache requiring you to use another action to regain panache meaning Finishers are all 2 action activities with a failure chance due to the skill check required for panache generation.Just like the Inventors Overdrive you can't always retry. Many of the panache activities have an immunity period.
And another limiter added to the list I missed. True. They cannot always retry their Panache skill.
So many balance limiters on the Swashbuckler that I'm not sure how it made it past play testing in this form with no play tester or designer bringing up the layers of issues.
Think about how many other classes they were working on and how much attention those classes demanded and how much of a mechanics focus APG had beyond the classes, with Swashbuckler getting some of their highest feedback results at the time, and you might have your answer somewhere in the mix. ¯\_('w')_/¯
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To fix it what they need to do is:
1) add in a faster die to Precise Strike. 2 to start then one more at levels 3,7,11,15,19.
2) remove the Finisher limit on attacks in a round and replace it with a new word and Flourish.
3) gain Panache on a successful Riposte. Retain Panache on a critical hit with a Finisher
4) free Acrobatics skill progression.
More Feats
5) Dramatic entry. If you use Acrobatics for initiative and you move to within melee range on an enemy as your first action you gain Panache.
6) Debilitations. Similar to some of the Rogue options, Swashbucklers need some options as well. But include a low level option to just inflict 1d6 bleed damage on a hit
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Think about how many other classes they were working on and how much attention those classes demanded and how much of a mechanics focus APG had beyond the classes, with Swashbuckler getting some of their highest feedback results at the time, and you might have your answer somewhere in the mix. ¯\_('w')_/¯
Wasn't the witch in the same book? And the investigator?
Yep. Investigator, Oracle, Swashbuckler, and Witch.
You could almost call those the worst classes in the game. Oracle is probably the best of the four in terms of making something interesting.
Lots of creativity with the APG classes, but effectiveness was sacrificed on the altar of creativity. Glad they went back to making sure effectiveness was important with the magus. I'm still not sure about the summoner, but you can definitely build interesting summoner builds.
Eidolon damage isn't great, but the overall class has some very odd interactions that can be powerful. Probably not upper tier, but definitely playable and requires experimentation.
But those APG classes, my groups avoids them like the plague other than the Oracle. I hope they do some re-design on the APG classes to make them competitive. I have one player that loves swashbucklers and he was real disappointed it played so poorly. He hasn't touched the swash since, but he played it to level 17 along with the witch, another class favorite of his, and he was very disappointed in the evil eye witch.
For his sake, I hope the witch and swashbuckler get some polishing up.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Four class playtest does that, especially when a lot of the attention got put into the Witch and Investigator getting soft reworks (which obviously themselves never got a proper playtest as a result) rather than polishing up or addressing design issues.
The swashbuckler looked cool and had interesting mechanics and I don't think there was a lot of attention directed that way beyond that at the time. People didn't start really being critical of the class' mechanics until much later.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only playtest I was involved in was the summoner. So if the same thing happened as what happened with the summoner, I can see why the swashbuckler ended as it was. A lot of people are more interested in providing qualitative feedback without providing quantitative feedback. Paizo designers tend to be more interested in qualitative feedback than quantitative, which is why you end up with classes doing weak damage or being ineffective while people claim they are still great.
I provided some quantitative feedback on the damage of the summoner, but it did not seem to get too many changes as the qualitative feedback that everything was fine was being sent by players playtesting that had zero interest in quantitative feedback on how the numbers performed for a given class in real play situations.
I would like to see more quantitative testing on playtests in normal play situations. I think the swashbuckler issues would have been caught if they had used quantitative playtesting in real play situations.
Qualitative feedback is only so useful in games like PF2 utilizing mathematical probability combined with limited action choice within finite periods of time to measure class capability.
I agree with Deriven Firelion. The feedback from a large part of the APG classes was mainly qualitative, talking about what was "cool" and what wasn't and much less about its effectiveness, whether numerically in the form of hits and damage, or in the economy of actions itself, even because at the time PF2 was still very new and even we players still didn't have a well-developed notion of the real mechanical balance and possibilities of the system and maybe that helped these classes to end up being what they are today.
But I think time has passed, many of the PF2 players now have much more experience with the system and the thing can be correctly reviewed along the feedbacks that were given during the existence of these classes.
Getting off topic a bit, that's why I'm really looking forward to the Kineticist, as it was the first class that I really saw the feedback focus on numbers and efficiency rather than just the topic. Most of the feedbacks were related to this, about the efficiency of the damage, the hit, the class DC, the economy of actions, the risk of triggering reactions and etc, to the point that I think for the first time in the analysis blog from the playtest data I saw the designers break out a significant portion of the text by saying something like "yes we hear and understand that the class is weak and inefficient, but don't worry we know and we hear it and we'll fix it", and what we had during Paizocon I was very excited to see that some of these mechanical aspects, such as the excessive use of manipulate actions, were resolved.
OK, the book still needs to be released to see how it really turned out, but whether the changes result will be as positive as I hope. But if it is, it's a hope that there can be a good work with Swashbuckler in Core 2, because after all, they already have 4 years of quantitative feedback to know its mechanical weaknesses and have good ideas on how to fix them.
I hope they finally find a way for him to be better at combat than a Rogue, because it always bothered me that the Rogue as a skill monkey is also better at combat than the Swashbuckler, which is supposed to be a combat-focused class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The later classes do seem to be better quantitatively. It may have to do with the community overall having more experience managing characters and actions including what builds and capabilities are optimal.
I know when I first started PF2, casters really threw me off. I had been playing PF1 for so long that it never occurred to me that casters could be effective with weapons. I was so used to casters being absolutely terrible with weapons and not wanting to enter combat or get hit at all.
Then I took a closer look at the game. Every class started with trained proficiency in weapons. Every ancestry providing some means to acquire a weapon proficiency of some type. Multiple archetypes provide access to weapons with a level two feat. Every class starting trained in defensive proficiencies. It all became clear that casters were intended to use weapons in this edition more like Gandalf and they could be effective using them as a one action option for additional damage combined with spellcasting.
This not only makes casters more versatile, but it allows them to build up some kind of weapon whether a staff or a sword or a bow. No more caster looking like bumbling fool trying to strike things with weapons.
You could build up a martial stat like Dex or strength with a minimal investment. You progressed to Expert proficiency which was only 2 to 4 behind a martial proficiency with plenty of stat increases to reach a point where you're 4 to 6 behind a martial to hit which is like a second attack. That attack when combined with your 2 action spell power using saves at higher level is quite potent. A weapon always provided a good 1 action additional damage option for a caster across all levels with a minimal investment.
Once I changed this mindset, my caster damage increased substantially even against single targets. I know some do not like casters having to use weapons to keep up, but it seems intentional and I personally like the Gandalf or Bayaz from The First Law trilogy.
Now if they would just get rid of Vancian casting, PF2 would be so damn good. Vancian casting is the worst sacred cow I would like to see killed in PF2 like they killed it in 5E to betterment of that game. Plays so much more like books or movies with casting spells as needed versus this holdover Vancian that is from one book series Gygax read 40 plus years ago. One book series is deciding how D&D does magic and keeping it stuck with Vancian sacred cow casting. Please get rid of it at some point. It's terrible for fun and simulating 99.99999% of non-Vancian books and movies.
Can you imagine Gandalf, "I used my flame spell for the day. Sorry."
Or Raistlin in his a series based on D&D, "Sorry guys, used up my spells."
Even the D&D authors don't use Vancian casting in their books. I'm not even sure PF authors use Vancian casting in their fiction books.
Dr Strange, "Sorry guys, I used my last Bands spell slot, can't cast it any more guys. I guess I'll launch my first level magic missile since I have a few of those slotted. Won't do much, but I'll try."
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now if they would just get rid of Vancian casting, PF2 would be so damn good. Vancian casting is the worst sacred cow I would like to see killed in PF2 like they killed it in 5E to betterment of that game. Plays so much more like books or movies with casting spells as needed versus this holdover Vancian that is from one book series Gygax read 40 plus years ago. One book series is deciding how D&D does magic and keeping it stuck with Vancian sacred cow casting. Please get rid of it at some point. It's terrible for fun and simulating 99.99999% of non-Vancian books and movies.
Can you imagine Gandalf, "I used my flame spell for the day. Sorry."
Or Raistlin in his a series based on D&D, "Sorry guys, used up my spells."
Even the D&D authors don't use Vancian casting in their books. I'm not even sure PF authors use Vancian casting in their fiction books.
Dr Strange, "Sorry guys, I used my last Bands spell slot, can't cast it any more guys. I guess I'll launch my first level magic missile since I have a few of those slotted. Won't do much, but I'll try."
This would happen even with non-vancian systems such as those using spell points.
Once you have expended your magical energy, you don't have it anymore.
Now, I think there are some games out there where magic is a bit more unlimited, but I feel it would be far too much of a departure from what PF2 customers are used to that we will not even get it in PF3, far less Remastered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do hope Swashbuckler gets a good revision as well. The class has a lot of awkward points, and honestly depends on having 8-10 levels under their belt to start performing with any consistency, and on a single overpowered feat (Bleeding Finisher) to do decent damage. They're novel and interesting, but not in the best place right now.
|
Now if they would just get rid of Vancian casting, PF2 would be so damn good. Vancian casting is the worst sacred cow I would like to see killed in PF2 like they killed it in 5E to betterment of that game. Plays so much more like books or movies with casting spells as needed versus this holdover Vancian that is from one book series Gygax read 40 plus years ago. One book series is deciding how D&D does magic and keeping it stuck with Vancian sacred cow casting. Please get rid of it at some point. It's terrible for fun and simulating 99.99999% of non-Vancian books and movies.
Can you imagine Gandalf, "I used my flame spell for the day. Sorry."
Or Raistlin in his a series based on D&D, "Sorry guys, used up my spells."
Even the D&D authors don't use Vancian casting in their books. I'm not even sure PF authors use Vancian casting in their fiction books.
Dr Strange, "Sorry guys, I used my last Bands spell slot, can't cast it any more guys. I guess I'll launch my first level magic missile since I have a few of those slotted. Won't do much, but I'll try."
I agree with you about Vancian casting, but during the playtest and & 2E marketing Paizo went out of its way to avoud alienating its customer base. And a vocal part of that customer base loves, or thinks they love, spellcasters with daily expendable resources.
I'd be great in 3E if spells replenished during 10-min breaks, the way HP does, but I think the designers are too conservative for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the approach we should be having here is the same we have on Inventors. They get something even on Failure, but success and critical successes improve the effects.
Also, as other people mentioned here, a successful riposte should grant Panache and assuming a degree of success mechanic, a bump to it from Failure->Success->Critical.
The class' main issue, I gather, is against boss-type monsters, which means gaining a benefit on a failure guarantee's a minimum performance for the class without removing the intended combat playstyle the devs wanted.
I've yet to see the class in play, however, it was one of the most well received classes here in this very forum. I like to think that was for a reason.
There are a lot of good ideas thrown around that might be pretty good, but an unexplored direction is to have more features that greatly improve a Finisher when the Swashbuckler is suffering from MAP. There are no mechanics that reward this playstyle and it is too much of a gamble to spend it on a lower attack bonus.
I imagine that a change on the [Finisher] tag itself would be preferable. Personally, my best case scenario would be like this:
"If you hit with your previous attack, you don't suffer the Multiple Attack Penalty".
Imagine how interesting the class could get by being able, with proper circumstances and buffs, to set up three attack rounds that are incredibly productive? It certainly would evoke the idea of a "Finisher" (something you do at the end of a combo). However, I know that it would be a small change in terms of word count, but it could potentially flip the class on its head, that's why it's my best case scenario... But it would be damn cool.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now if they would just get rid of Vancian casting, PF2 would be so damn good. Vancian casting is the worst sacred cow I would like to see killed in PF2 like they killed it in 5E to betterment of that game. Plays so much more like books or movies with casting spells as needed versus this holdover Vancian that is from one book series Gygax read 40 plus years ago. One book series is deciding how D&D does magic and keeping it stuck with Vancian sacred cow casting. Please get rid of it at some point. It's terrible for fun and simulating 99.99999% of non-Vancian books and movies.
Can you imagine Gandalf, "I used my flame spell for the day. Sorry."
Or Raistlin in his a series based on D&D, "Sorry guys, used up my spells."
Even the D&D authors don't use Vancian casting in their books. I'm not even sure PF authors use Vancian casting in their fiction books.
Dr Strange, "Sorry guys, I used my last Bands spell slot, can't cast it any more guys. I guess I'll launch my first level magic missile since I have a few of those slotted. Won't do much, but I'll try."
I agree with you about Vancian casting, but during the playtest and & 2E marketing Paizo went out of its way to avoud alienating its customer base. And a vocal part of that customer base loves, or thinks they love, spellcasters with daily expendable resources.
I'd be great in 3E if spells replenished during 10-min breaks, the way HP does, but I think the designers are too conservative for that.
I have been playing D&D since basic red box. I've been playing PF since it started. I'm part of the customer base. And I want Vancian casting gone. One of the only things that would make me go back to D&D at this point is them improving martial casting and not having Vancian casting.
Paizo's customers don't care about Vancian casting, someone at Paizo does. If they made the change, it would not be a make or break miss for the game. It's an old system that doesn't even get used in the fiction D&D writers use. I would wonder if Paizo fiction writers use it. I've never read Paizo's fiction. Given how terrible Vancian magic is to write in a game, I'd be surprised if Paizo authors used it in their fiction.
When you have this system that is terrible for fiction in a game attempting to simulate fantasy fiction, why keep it?
Fortunately they made it super easy for me to change. My players, all 40 plus year D&D vets, love that I have removed Vancian casting from the game. No one liked it. No one misses it. Magic is way more fun and fluid .
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with you about Vancian casting, but during the playtest and & 2E marketing Paizo went out of its way to avoud alienating its customer base. And a vocal part of that customer base loves, or thinks they love, spellcasters with daily expendable resources.
I'd be great in 3E if spells replenished during 10-min breaks, the way HP does, but I think the designers are too conservative for that.
I have been playing D&D since basic red box. I've been playing PF since it started. I'm part of the customer base. And I want Vancian casting gone. One of the only things that would make me go back to D&D at this point is them improving martial casting and not having Vancian casting.
Paizo's customers don't care about Vancian casting, someone at Paizo does. If they made the change, it would not be a make or break miss for the game. It's an old system that doesn't even get used in the fiction...
Sure, but your experience isn't universal. I'd go on, but it would be OT for this thread.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Folks, this is Swashbuckler's topic, isn't it better to discuss this elsewhere?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, to me the Swashbuckler is fun and interesting. The problem is that the gain/spend panache loop depends largely on the level of the opposition. It's very easy to gain panache against lower level opponents, and very hard to gain panache against higher level opponents.
It should be reasonable that there are some fights where you want to keep panache until the finisher would likely actually finish something (it does after all give you a bunch of benefits including damage just from having it). You just need to be able to *get* Panache when you're fighting a boss type enemy.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dislike dex-to-damage in general (ideally, no one would have it) but specifically for the Swashbuckler. The Swashbuckler should be somebody who can climb a rope quickly or swim well- it's a class that should benefit from having some strength.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as the playtest goes the main issue was that everyone spent their time talking about the much more problematic witch and oracle, with investigator being next, and swashbuckler was just given much less attention.
The secondary issue is the chronic underpowered balance point that Paizo has for post core classes. Just look at how the Witch turned out despite all the feedback asking for stronger focus spells.
*********************
As for how to fix swashbuckler:
* Get panache at the start of the day.
* While you have panache add half you level to damage. Yes that means a Swashbuckler would deal +10 damage while they have panache. Double the bonus damage on a finisher. (No this is not too much damage right now they get +7 at level 10 and 5d6 (max 30, avg 16) on a finisher, all I am doing is removing the randomness and making it slightly better.
* Gain panache when you score a critical hit or do the associated style skill.
* Add dex to damage with finesse weapons. No it should not be a thief rogue exclusive ability.
* Every feat should have an extra effect that happens when you have panache. For example Nimble Dodge should have had "when you have panache you can move 5-ft as part of this reaction".With those changes if you are fighting a boss you can keep panache without issue, but spend it vs weak creatures. Finisher also really becomes a "finisher" since you would only use it against a boss for the final strike.
Mainly the APG classes are not holding their own against the core classes.
Every other class seems to work. Magus, Summoner, Psychic, and Thaumaturge all seem fine. I have players that love the Magus and Psychic thematically and mechanically. My group doesn't play Gunslingers and Inventors. We don't like Steampunk in our fantasy.
If they can get the Swashbuckler and other APG classes up to par, they'll be doing pretty well overall.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dislike dex-to-damage in general (ideally, no one would have it) but specifically for the Swashbuckler. The Swashbuckler should be somebody who can climb a rope quickly or swim well- it's a class that should benefit from having some strength.
I don't mind Dex to damage. To me these statistics are abstract that doing Dex damage would means that you're likely striking more accurately with good hand-eye coordination areas to do damage.
Strength is more of a brute force type of damage.
Anyone who has fought in real life knows strength isn't a huge component of being a great fighter. You can be a big strong guy, way stronger than someone else and get your butt kicked because the other guy is quicker and more skilled.
So I wouldn't mind seeing the Dex to damage move like 5E did in PF. Ability score damage is one of the lower components for damage at higher level, so it would mostly affect low level damage.
In PF1 and old pre-4E D&D, I understood it given you could get your stats built up to immense levels like a 30 or 32 in a main stat adding a major component to damage and attack rolls. With Striking Runes and stats maxing out at +7, dex to damage wouldn't have a huge effect on game balance. It would make Dex classes more on par for damage and more fun to play being able to streamline your main statistic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Inventor and Gunslinger have a few pain points IMO, but they're nowhere near the low point that is the APG.
I agree with everything there but the dex to damage. You lost me there, all that does is undermine strength and add yet another thing that dex applies to. Giving too much to dex
I agree that it's not a meaningful solution (particularly since stat to damage scales poorly) but this is an overstatement too. Dex melee builds suck in PF2, virtually nobody does it unless their class features compel it, especially at low levels (if you're doing something that starts at very high levels dex-melee is better).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Strangely, you are self-imposing limits that make no sense to me.
First, why can't Swashbuckler add dexterity to damage?
Rogue already does this, he has already "unlocked" this limitation. So why shouldn't a martial class focused on using light melee weapons much more than a skill monkey benefit from it?
I go even further! Thematically speaking the Swashbucler could very well be Legendary with light weapons. Once again I come back to the point, he is the class that specializes in fighting with weapons of this type, it would be quite fair to make him legendary with them as the Gunslinger is with firearms.
As for Pool, I don't think she makes sense for Swashbuckler either thematically or mechanically. In practice I don't see a problem with panache being binary, what I see is a problem with it being so much more difficult and risky to achieve than it is for a Rogue to make a flat-footed target. You need to make panache mechanically competitive with flat-foot for the rogue, especially against strong opponents.
Another problem is that Panache is basically only relevant to Finisher and Finisher is something expensive in terms of the cost of actions and mechanically very plastered, practically forcing the character to use any action to walk, raise a buckler, or any other use that is not related to your Panache maneuver and your Finisher which is something you the way the Swashbuckler was built will end up being the 2 actions you will always repeat until the end-game (you don't want to risk Finisher with his second attack with - 4 MAP, and using Finisher early on prevents it from attacking).
That's why I agree 100% with Nicholas Storm here at the beginning of the thread. Swashbuckler is in a situation here where the only thing that takes advantage of the theme, everything else is so inefficient, limited and plastered, that it is better to throw everything away and redesign the mechanics of the class from scratch.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It should be reasonable that there are some fights where you want to keep panache until the finisher would likely actually finish something. You just need to be able to *get* Panache when you're fighting a boss type enemy.
I agree you should be able to get Panache more easily against bosses, but I disagree with the first statement. Mostly because the current benefits for keeping Panache are extremely mild. They don't even compensate for your weaker weapons and lack of main stat to damage, let alone actually make you do good damage, and give you Speed when you need it the least (usually after already having approached an enemy). If they want to make "sometimes you have to keep Panache, sometimes you spend it for a Finisher" an interesting gameplay loop, they have to start by making not spamming Finishers actually worth your while.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This would happen even with non-vancian systems such as those using spell points.
Once you have expended your magical energy, you don't have it anymore.
Now, I think there are some games out there where magic is a bit more unlimited, but I feel it would be far too much of a departure from what PF2 customers are used to that we will not even get it in PF3, far less Remastered.
Yeah, about every magic system I've seen in novels has a point where the magic user runs out of power, be it due to "using up the souls he had stored" or "burning out the energy", etc.
It's actually incredibly boring if people in narrative settings have no limits to how much power they can use daily. Gandalf, being literally miles above every other main character in the LOTR novels, just was always far from that point in every one of his appearances. Raistlin was out of magic / too weakened from using magic all the time until he turned fully bad guy and got an instant power up into archmage territory.
*edit* Whoops, didn't see I was in the Swashbuckler thread and that someone already had asked to not derail. Sorry, ignore this post. Although my point stands. ^^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Inventor and Gunslinger have a few pain points IMO, but they're nowhere near the low point that is the APG.
Inventor kinda works, though in my eyes that's more because reliable mediocrity tends to be less upsetting than wild swings in effectiveness.
As far as Swashbuckler and Gunslinger go, I'd say they actually have pretty much the exact major pain points. One, mandatory actions every round (panache/finisher vs reloading actions) that have extremely little variety. Two, despite all that effort, both classes' output on the other side is rather underwhelming. Swashbucklers because of the limitations of Finishers and almost all Gunslingers because their "success state" is basically limited to crits. Three, because of point two, their effectiveness is unusually strongly affected by enemy level.