| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless they've changed the actual design principles 2e started on, Dex-to-damage isn't happening.
I remember once when we were fighting against some mindless enemies and the GM was ruling that feint wouldn't give panache no matter how well I rolled at it - that I still didn't want to use Tumble Through because I was the one plugging up the hallway and preventing the enemy from getting to the downed characters and spellcasters behind me. The thing instead had to try and attack me and my high AC, Hit Points, and Dueling Parry.
But... you can just use Tumble Through and return to your previous location. You're still moving through the square, and gaining panache. Is it the most efficient way? Definitely not. But you still trigger things like Tumble Behind, which in the situation you were in is still handy for off-guard.
|
But... you can just use Tumble Through and return to your previous location. You're still moving through the square, and gaining panache. Is it the most efficient way? Definitely not. But you still trigger things like Tumble Behind, which in the situation you were in is still handy for off-guard.
I remember once when we were fighting against some mindless enemies and the GM was ruling that feint wouldn't give panache no matter how well I rolled at it - that I still didn't want to use Tumble Through because I was the one plugging up the hallway and preventing the enemy from getting to the downed characters and spellcasters behind me. The thing instead had to try and attack me and my high AC, Hit Points, and Dueling Parry.
Only if I succeed at the Acrobatics check a second time.
Which isn't something I was willing to gamble my allies lives at.
...am I missing something about your situation such that failing wouldn't cause you to remain in place?
|
|
If I succeed at the first Tumble Through I would end up behind the enemy. The GM wouldn't allow Tumble Through if you don't end up in a different square than you started in. So I would have to do a second Tumble Through to go back to my defensive hallway-plugging position. If I fail that second Tumble Through check, then I would stay in a bad position.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is RAW. There is no ruling required - Tumble Through has absolutely no specification on where you go besides "into an enemy's square". If it did, you couldn't move past an enemy within a corner space.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is RAW. There is no ruling required - Tumble Through has absolutely no specification on where you go besides "into an enemy's square". If it did, you couldn't move past an enemy within a corner space.
So you're slipping in and out of their legs just to style on them?
Eh? Sounds legit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Out of curiosity, do you disallow Running Reload from taking a Step because then it's not a "Running" Reload?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is RAW. There is no ruling required - Tumble Through has absolutely no specification on where you go besides "into an enemy's square". If it did, you couldn't move past an enemy within a corner space.So you're slipping in and out of their legs just to style on them?
Eh? Sounds legit.
I like this one in combination with Tumble Behind, because it implies that they spin trying to follow you, only to find you didn't actually go through their legs as you stab them in the back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think one suggestion that I've heard was to give them a better chance to get benefit from being risky against tougher opponents.
Failing with Audacity: (or grace if you prefer)
When attempting to gain Panache from an opponent whose level is higher than yours. Potentially also have an option to include other opponents, when success is still hard, say a qualified check that would require more than a 15 to succeed on. Have a simple (not critical) failure grant panache, though the shock and audacity of the move.
Now, you can attempt moves that make you look good, or even attempt things that are a gamble, and reasonable risk you making a critical failure, but opens the ability to have a reasonable chance of gaining panache, even against a boss opponent.
Doing something someone "shouldn't" typically do seems perfectly in line with the concept of a swashbuckler, and them getting away with doing it seems perfectly reasonable.
There might even be a 'perk' that typical feats that grant reactions from acrobatics checks, might not trigger against swashbucklers unless they make a critical failure.
|
|
Yup. Just as legit as saying that my awesome feinting ability makes me feel awesome and inspired and I gain panache status even if the mindless enemy I am feinting against doesn't notice.I honestly have no problem with that. The audience Errol Flynn cares about is mostly Errol Flynn, not the other guy.
I would think so too. But apparently that is a disengenuous reading of the rules. I haven't found a GM yet that allows this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think one suggestion that I've heard was to give them a better chance to get benefit from being risky against tougher opponents.
Failing with Audacity: (or grace if you prefer)
When attempting to gain Panache from an opponent whose level is higher than yours. Potentially also have an option to include other opponents, when success is still hard, say a qualified check that would require more than a 15 to succeed on. Have a simple (not critical) failure grant panache, though the shock and audacity of the move.Now, you can attempt moves that make you look good, or even attempt things that are a gamble, and reasonable risk you making a critical failure, but opens the ability to have a reasonable chance of gaining panache, even against a boss opponent.
Doing something someone "shouldn't" typically do seems perfectly in line with the concept of a swashbuckler, and them getting away with doing it seems perfectly reasonable.
There might even be a 'perk' that typical feats that grant reactions from acrobatics checks, might not trigger against swashbucklers unless they make a critical failure.
Hmmm...
I like the idea that going up against a particularly impressive foe should give you something special, but... I'm not sure that "panache on failure" is the right thing to give. Possibly give some sort of "panache +1" on success? Possibly a "daring attempt" feat that gives you bonuses when attempting panache-generating abilities against higher-level foes? The extra risk inspires you.
Heck, just a rule that says "If you're attempting a panache-generating roll against someone of higher level, you count as having panache for that roll". That actually feels about right - taking a shot at the big guy is already cool. Now, failing isn't cool, but you can borrow just a little bit of the shine for the attempt itself. Maybe it coudl be a feat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of once per round - something that I think was missed in the original post...
Can we lift the restriction on making any Attack actions after a Finisher. It is clunky and causes strange interactions. Like being allowed to use a save-based cantrip after a finisher, but not a spell attack roll cantrip. Or that you can't escape a grapple after you use a finisher.
It also unjustly affects Gymnast style. The other styles can use their panache gaining actions after a finisher. But not Gymnast.
Give finishers the Flourish trait or something like that. I kinda get that the idea is that the Finisher should be the last attack of the round - but don't rely on the Attack trait to mean 'hostile actions'.
Speaking of once per round - something that I think was missed in the original post...
Can we lift the restriction on making any Attack actions after a Finisher. It is clunky and causes strange interactions. Like being allowed to use a save-based cantrip after a finisher, but not a spell attack roll cantrip. Or that you can't escape a grapple after you use a finisher.
It also unjustly affects Gymnast style. The other styles can use their panache gaining actions after a finisher. But not Gymnast.
Give finishers the Flourish trait or something like that. I kinda get that the idea is that the Finisher should be the last attack of the round - but don't rely on the Attack trait to mean 'hostile actions'.
It seems like it's trying to be a balance thing? Like, your finisher is supposed to be your big, beefy attack for the round... so you have to make the choice between either having that be your only attack for the round, or letting your Big Attack be the one to suck down all of the MAP.
I'm not saying that I disagree with you on a fundamental level.. just that it makes more sense than you might be giving it credit for.
|
|
It seems like it's trying to be a balance thing? Like, your finisher is supposed to be your big, beefy attack for the round... so you have to make the choice between either having that be your only attack for the round, or letting your Big Attack be the one to suck down all of the MAP.
I'm not saying that I disagree with you on a fundamental level.. just that it makes more sense than you might be giving it credit for.
And I am not disagreeing with that intent on a fundamental level either. Just saying that there should be a better way of doing it.
Saying that you can't use any Strike actions for the rest of your turn - either on their own or as subordinate actions - would work for the most part.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's sort of interesting how many restrictions Finishers have. Locking you out of extra attacks. Once per round. Having to pass sometimes very difficult skill checks in order to even attempt them.
All for +1d6 over sneak attack and a rider?
To be honest, I think Paizo has a problem overvaluing small amounts of static damage, because this is the same problem many reload weapons have where you're giving up a huge number of attacks for a small amount of extra damage.
... but another part of the problem the Swashbuckler suffers from too is the wild disparity in power between some of those options. Considering all those restrictions on something like Unbalancing Finisher feels like a joke. Flat footed after the attack finishes? And not only does that have all the finisher restrictions but it costs a feat too?
On the other hand, Bleeding Finisher is genuinely kind of silly. In a game where most damage bonuses come in values between 1 and 4, bleeding finisher gives you several times that even if your opponent succeeds right away on their recovery checks (which isn't likely).
On the other hand, Bleeding Finisher is genuinely kind of silly. In a game where most damage bonuses come in values between 1 and 4, bleeding finisher gives you several times that even if your opponent succeeds right away on their recovery checks (which isn't likely).
Yeah... Bleeding Finisher feels like something of a rocket-powered crutch here. It's strong enough on its own that it hides a bunch of other issues. Might be better to either dial it back significantly or get rid of it entirely to free up some space to make the rest of the class work better.
I think the Swashbuckler would be fine with an overhaul of panache. That's the main thing holding them back from what I saw as a GM.
Swash should be using finishers as finishers, while doing precision damage quite a bit of the time.
I do think they should give them Dex to damage as they did in PF1. Make them the ultimate Dex fighter. It seems there is something holding them back from doing this in PF2.
I'm pretty sure Swash and Investigator may well be the most modified classes in Player Core 2. They both need some work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I think swashbuckler could use auto-scaling with acrobatics and/or its style skill.
Some other things I think could be neat:
More incentive to stay in panache, popping up finishers every turn(or teying to and getting frustrated) feels antithetical to the name. Aiming for win a finisher feels appropraite is how i already play my swashbucklers and i tend to not get upset with the class when i play that way but people seem to think thats weak.
I feel like a lot of people just ignore the fact that you can get panache via other methods with gm discretion. I don't think this wording should be taken out but I wonder if people would appreciate some more hard baked rules. Future classes and character options such as the gunslinger and unexpected sharpshooter included feats that take for granted that there are things you can potentially interact during a fight. These feats are considered to be zany by some, but I think taken that core concept and given swashbucklers some potentially fun feats that could gain panache or do other cool things with would be pretty awesome and potentially encourage the more spontaneous nature of the class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the feel of the class...
- having an incentive to keep doing flashy, stylish things (even if they're a bit inefficient) is good.)
- Being just a little better than everyone else at doing flashy, stylish things (because you're on a roll) is good.
- being able to occasionally pull off really awesome tricks (because you're on a roll) is cool.
- the fact that doing something really awesome means that you're not on a roll anymore? That... feels a bit off.
Not sure what to do about this.
Possibly... maybe there could be some bonus for doing something that would grant you panache, if you already have panache? Like... make Finisher also inherently involve flourish, and then give them another flourish power that's just straight-up "Your last action would have granted panache, but you were already in panache. Strike as a free action." It's solid for obvious reasons, but not particularly abusable. It's going to make people look for ways to gain panache usefully, but not drive them to just bluff meaninglessly to get the strike because they could just strike normally anyway.
then you make sure that there's stuff that gives you other benefits for panache-granting actions. Possibly a feat that lets you take the panache-granting of a second classpath? Basically the idea is to build a style that's all about dashing around doing random stylish things and getting in little stabs along the way, but basically never going for the finale.
Maybe some sort of benefit if your Finale drops a foe? I know those kinds of benefit are kind fo weak, but it does feel thematic, at least. I'm just tossing stuff out here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some sort of rolling panache mechanic could be interesting.
A big part of the flavor is taking high risk actions for potentially high rewards, but because of the panache loop you're usually better off finding a safe routine generating and spending panache.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think something that'd be nice is better scaling for Finishers, because it seems weird that they get comparatively worse as you get higher level. At level 1, it's cool to do 10.5 damage on a rapier instead of 3.5. But when we get to level 20, let's use the triple damage rune weapon as an example - a rapier is 4d6+3d6 rune+6 specialization, averaging to 30.5. With finisher, that's 13d6+6, or average of 51.5. Significantly less impressive of an increase. Even if we take out the triple damage rune, that's still 20 to 41, which is a pretty big cut. Yes, we've gotten much more reliable about it, but the corresponding result is less interesting.
(Note that an example with 16->20 Str doesn't throw this off that much, even with a d8 weapon. We go from average of 7->14.5 to 39.5->60.5, with no damage runes being 29->50.)
I would think so too. But apparently that is a disengenuous reading of the rules. I haven't found a GM yet that allows this.Yup. Just as legit as saying that my awesome feinting ability makes me feel awesome and inspired and I gain panache status even if the mindless enemy I am feinting against doesn't notice.I honestly have no problem with that. The audience Errol Flynn cares about is mostly Errol Flynn, not the other guy.
So question: what separates feinting against a mindless enemy versus feinting against the adjacent vase, besides the difficulty?
You might argue that the vase isn't trying to kill you. In that case, what stops you from feinting against a hazard, say a Spinning Blade Pillar?I'd argue it's hard to say you're succeeding if you have no effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Typically is the explicit requirement that you be within melee reach of the opponent you attempt to feint. Somehow I doubt inanimate objects and hazards register as opponents.
Sure, you can stretch the definition of opponent quite a bit (unless it's actually defined somewhere) but it isn't much of a stretch for the gm to define that themselves so you don't get your vase example or some cheesey "I'm my own worst enemy" sillyness.
|
|
So question: what separates feinting against a mindless enemy versus feinting against the adjacent vase, besides the difficulty?
You might argue that the vase isn't trying to kill you. In that case, what stops you from feinting against a hazard, say a Spinning Blade Pillar?I'd argue it's hard to say you're succeeding if you have no effect.
Mechanically - that those objects don't have a Will DC. Also that you have to actually use the action in order to make the skill check - including meeting the requirements for using the action.
Narratively - that those aren't significant enemies and feinting against them isn't awesome and impressive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If anything... I feel like Swashbucklers ought to be able to throw around deuffs. Like yeah, the classic image involves a lot of getting into swordfights and stabbing people, but even more than the moment where you run them through, the iconic image is all of those moments where you make them look like absolute buffoons. They chase you across the room, you pull some gymnastics stunt, you swing from the chandelier, and now they have to run all the way down the stairs and across the room and up the stairs to get to you, huffing and puffing all the way, just so you can swing across the room with that same chandelier again.
If anything, "finisher" ought to almost be a sort of kill-stealer mechanic... like you aren't dealing all that much damage with any individual hit, but if you deal damage to them, and they only have X hp left when you're done (or 2X, if it was a crit), then they just fall over and die. It means that you're actually out there finishing people, and it gives you a reason to go tumbling across the room again because the best way to use you is to have you clean up mooks at the start of the fight and then finish off the big boys once someone else has ground them down enough. Works well with those casters who enjoy having big area-effects and multitarget spells.
Again, mostly tossing stuff out there. Sure, it's absurdly too late in the life cycle for major changes, but maybe some of this will be useful?
|
|
It isn't a Tumble Through if all you do is step across an imaginary line and back.I just can't leave it at that. Yes, it was strange for me too when people showed it to me, but can anyone find here any indication you must exit opponent's space 'on the other side' or can't end on your own space (you can run circles with Strides if you want):
Don't look at me. I don't have a problem with it.
I somewhat think that Swashbuckler is considered such a difficult class to play because people have been unintentionally nerf'ing it due to misunderstandings like this.
Finishing strike extra damage is so bad, that a swashbuckler does more damage full attacking than doing finishing strike in many high level real combats. If a class using it's key ability is worse than not using it's key ability - this proves the class is broken.
As I said earlier, the only way to fix swashbuckler is to remove finishers from the class.
What do you mean by high level?
Once the Swash obtains level 14, the no brainer feat is Perfect Strike. That feat substantially increases damage. It is a very brutal feat that is a true strike every time you use the finisher.
You can use it to do a normal strike followed by a Perfect Finisher with other feats to lower the MAP penalty for finishers. It greatly enhances damage if you build around it.
Prior to that feat, panache generation and finishers make their damage very swingy.
But the bigger problem for swash is the panache generation and all the ways it can be short-circuited. That's why the Wit Swashbuckler using One for All is one of the best panache generators and group boosters for the swash builds.
Other builds are barely worth taking. The best swash build right now is a Wit, One for Fall Swashbuckler that eventually takes Perfect Finisher.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another main problem with tumbling for panache is reflex saves. IF the enemy has a high reflex save, and they are higher level than you, it can be a no-go. I've failed with my maxed-out acrobatics and dex swashbuckler on a die roll of 15 before because the enemy was party level +3 and had high reflex/dex.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love the fantasy of swashbucklers... I hate the implementation. A fighter or rogue with duelist archetype is just better right now and that is sad.
At low levels its a super frustrating class, not sure why Paizo doesn't consider that classes need to feel good, or close to as good as each other at low levels. Most play is at low levels, not being disappointed by your class pick, having your moment to shine is super important, especially with keeping people playing.
Paizo also has a problem balancing risk vs reward playstyles, risk is always high, reward is balanced around what other classes seem to achieve without the risk which is just bad design. Succeeding against a very high DC especially at low levels is bad. Much better to have success against average DC with something extra for crit succeeding.
Finishers either need to hit a lot harder if I can't attack for the rest of the round or they to not have that restriction. This doesn't open up interesting play or interesting attack routines, it just leads to frustration and wishing they were playing a fighter or rogue themed as a swashbuckler.
Hopefully they get less conservative with Player Core 2 as they have more time to do things right. Unfortunately I feel it will be like player core 1 where 1 or 2 pet classes get great buffs and other classes get some window dressing disguised a fix for issue with the class. I still can't fathom the buffs for cleric and rogue, both were already super strong classes.
Finishing strike extra damage is so bad, that a swashbuckler does more damage full attacking than doing finishing strike in many high level real combats. If a class using it's key ability is worse than not using it's key ability - this proves the class is broken.
As I said earlier, the only way to fix swashbuckler is to remove finishers from the class.
I can tell you this is not true without even checking the math. At absolute worst, a base finisher with absolutely no added effects is 1.5x damage (with the d8 example I showed above), with a more likely number being 1.6x-1.8x.
I recall average damage goes down by approximately half with each multiple attack penalty, assuming no agile. So 1x, 1.5x, 1.75x with each attack. I'd have to do the math to figure out where each finisher places, but I'm quite sure that effective True Strike, for instance, is better than a 10% increase. Other examples get whackier, with Dual Finisher being obscenely out of whack if you satisfy the requirements (something like 2.8-3x would be my quick guess) and Bleeding being pretty out there.And even then, if Confident comes equal to triple attack, that's still 1 action vs 3.
Comparison high level based on a recent combat I had at level 17; this is comparing same enemy at level 18
Weapon +3 major striking, speed, +2d6 elemental
+4 strength, +2 hit circumstance, +1 statusSwashbuckler
TH 36
AC 42
Damage 55.5
Critical 0.25 0.4375
Hit 0.75 0.9375
1.375
Damage 55.5 76.3125TH 36 32 28 28
AC 42 42 42 42
Damage 37 37 37 37
Critical Damage 74 74 74 74
Critical 0.25 0.05 0.05 0.05
Hit 0.75 0.55 0.35 0.35Damage 37 22.2 14.8 14.8 88.8
With confident finisher swashbuckler does 76; same finisher without confident is 55.5
Without finisher attacking 4 times swashbuckler does 88.8
Fighter does 197; flurry of blows, agile grace, feral mutagen
Sooooooo a base swash vs a fighter multiclassed with monk with mutagens? That doesn't seem like a fair comparison
So literally nothing alike, okay. Especially when you're pulling four actions vs one plus random extra bonuses out of nowhere.
Uh huh. At the cost of literally your entire turn standing there just attacking, taking absolutely no advantage of literally anything from the swashbuckler.
And is there literally any sillier example you could take? As though the prime example of things includes a level 19 rune at level 17, a rare rune, and the worst possible comparison.
Like barely even trying I can simply drop this counterexample:
Swashbuckler
TH 36
AC 38
Damage 55.5 (+27)
Critical 0.6975
Hit 0.3
Damage 112.905
Oh and it has 4 higher AC than your example fighter and doesn't have to spend its entire turn standing there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly rarely see PCs make more than 2 attacks in a round, so I don't see why a class based around "one big attack in a round" can't work.
Attacking at maximum MAP is something that mostly happens in white room simulations, because over time you're going to roll some 20s. But in actual play, I find PCs almost always figure out something better to do (like "positioning")