Player Core 2 request-Overhaul the Swashbuckler

[Calliope5431]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think things like "encounter powers" for Martials are a fine idea, but the way you recharge whatever metacurrency limits them shouldn't be "you pray or meditate for 10 minutes."

The Inventor's Unstable mechanic where it takes 10 minutes to repair the thing that overheated and started making a concerning noise is the right way to do this. If we're going to limit an ability to only be used a few times per combat we have to think about "why can you only use it a few times per combat" first.

This was the fundamental objection to 4e encounter powers too. Because it makes sense for spells to have a 10 minute cool down but not "mighty blows" or whatever.

Myself? I'd argue that it's highly amusing to claim that wizards get tired but fighters can swing their swords all day. And I challenge anyone who believes otherwise to go do pushups and see how non-rate-limited physical exertion really is.

[Gobhaggo]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think things like "encounter powers" for Martials are a fine idea, but the way you recharge whatever metacurrency limits them shouldn't be "you pray or meditate for 10 minutes."

The Inventor's Unstable mechanic where it takes 10 minutes to repair the thing that overheated and started making a concerning noise is the right way to do this. If we're going to limit an ability to only be used a few times per combat we have to think about "why can you only use it a few times per combat" first.

Which, should IMO, is basically the same as meditating or praying. The fact that it's utterly separate from focus point is a travesty, not to mention how weak Unstable is especially after Remaster

[PossibleCabbage]

I think the Panache mechanic at its core is the right way to do "encounter powers" for the swashbuckler, to wit when you are feeling effortless confidence you can push yourself further than you can when you're second-guessing yourself, but you can't maintain that level of self-assuredness indefinitely- it needs to be predicated on something.

So I wonder what it would be like if the Panache mechanic was "you gain panache whenever you succeed on any roll at all when you do not have panache."

[Calliope5431]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the Panache mechanic at its core is the right way to do "encounter powers" for the swashbuckler, to wit when you are feeling effortless confidence you can push yourself further than you can when you're second-guessing yourself, but you can't maintain that level of self-assuredness indefinitely- it needs to be predicated on something.

So I wonder what it would be like if the Panache mechanic was "you gain panache whenever you succeed on any roll at all when you do not have panache."

I'm not convinced panache would be broken if you literally always had it and it was a permanent buff

[Deriven Firelion]

Calliope5431 wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the Panache mechanic at its core is the right way to do "encounter powers" for the swashbuckler, to wit when you are feeling effortless confidence you can push yourself further than you can when you're second-guessing yourself, but you can't maintain that level of self-assuredness indefinitely- it needs to be predicated on something.

So I wonder what it would be like if the Panache mechanic was "you gain panache whenever you succeed on any roll at all when you do not have panache."

I'm not convinced panache would be broken if you literally always had it and it was a permanent buff

I wouldn't care if they got rid of panache and made finishers a flourish action. Not like a rogue can't do crazy stuff with sneak attack for no action cost.

My archer rogue right now with Parting Shot flatfoots targets to entire groups with one arrow shot with his debilitation. Then I sneak attack at range without a problem. Far more damage than a swash for far less risk.

[AnimatedPaper]

Then we’re back to “get rid of the class” territory, and I agree with those that say that’s not on the table.

The swashbuckler is an interesting class to me, as its narrative concept is amply handled by other, existing classes (possibly because Rogue, Fighter, and Ranger are overly broad in the concepts they try to handle), so instead it offers new mechanics to accomplish it: heavy interaction with skills mid-combat, so that its round is a mix of skill actions and (effectively) flourish strikes.

It sounds like the problem lies in the skill action half of that. Given that is the entire point of the class, I don’t think it’s going away. So what would make it more worthwhile? Does the finisher need to exceed the potential damage of its action cost plus 1 skill action?

[Shisumo]

Honestly, I think the model for how the swashbuckler should handle panache is the magus. There are lots of really good reasons to compare recharging spellstrike and gaining panache and, while the action economy can be kind of tricky sometimes, the magus's version of the system works pretty well, all in all. If all it takes is spending an action to get panache, and each subclass gets a different kind of action they can combine with getting panache, then you've solved most of the inherent problems with how panache is gained and used.

[Teridax]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

It sounds like the problem lies in the skill action half of that. Given that is the entire point of the class, I don’t think it’s going away. So what would make it more worthwhile? Does the finisher need to exceed the potential damage of its action cost plus 1 skill action?

My opinion on this is that a lot of player frustration comes from needing to perform a skill action to gain panache, regardless of how appropriate the action is in context, and panache being unreliable to gain at earlier levels. Rather than feel like their Swashbuckler's doing something spectacular or helping their team, the player can easily end up feeling like their character's just flailing around uselessly as they're desperately fishing for their class's big power-up. It would help to give the class a reliable, yet costly activity at level 1 that gives them guaranteed panache, which would smooth out that issue while still ideally encouraging the use of skill actions in appropriate context.

The other half to this I think is that despite the class putting lots of emphasis on their skills, their finishers are very Rogue-ish in that they're mostly just a chunk of extra precision damage. It may help to change finishers up a bit so that panache can be used to supercharge skill actions for increased reliability and effectiveness. I wrote a separate thread about reworking the Swash, and unless I'm missing something critical, it could be interesting for panache to be used to bump up the degree of success of certain actions, whether it be Strikes, skill actions, or other actions unique to the class.

[AnimatedPaper]

Shisumo wrote:

Honestly, I think the model for how the swashbuckler should handle panache is the magus. There are lots of really good reasons to compare recharging spellstrike and gaining panache and, while the action economy can be kind of tricky sometimes, the magus's version of the system works pretty well, all in all. If all it takes is spending an action to get panache, and each subclass gets a different kind of action they can combine with getting panache, then you've solved most of the inherent problems with how panache is gained and used.

To be honest, I think that’s what they were trying for in the first place, so yeah I would also expect that to b close to were they land.

“Terridax” wrote:

The other half to this I think is that despite the class putting lots of emphasis on their skills, their finishers are very Rogue-ish in that they're mostly just a chunk of extra precision damage. It may help to change finishers up a bit so that panache can be used to supercharge skill actions for increased reliability and effectiveness. I wrote a separate thread about reworking the Swash, and unless I'm missing something critical, it could be interesting for panache to be used to bump up the degree of success of certain actions, whether it be Strikes, skill actions, or other actions unique to the class.

I would definitely love to see that, at least as feat options.

[Perpdepog]

If it's not fun having to use a skill action to turn on your panache, but you still want skill actions to be important, what about having some other method of turning it on, a single action or something, and then use skill actions whenever you do something that would turn it off? If you succeed you get to keep going, and if not then you can re-up it next turn.
Also, the ability shouldn't be contingent on the skill action working, but perhaps have an extra benefit if it succeeds? Skill actions giving your finishers extra abilities is what comes to mind for me.

As I type this I'm not so sure that'd solve the feelsbad problem, because then people will see not succeeding at the skill action as a downside rather than the baseline--look at how other martial accuracy gets treated compared to fighters--but it might be a good place to start thinking of ways to make the skill action sting less.

[exequiel759]

I don't think it would be that weird if you still got panache even if you fail the skill check. Most of the swashbuckler-y moments that characters tend to have in fiction is usually fencing against the bad guy while being very flamboyant and overlly dramatic, while the other guy isn't buying into that s*+&. That IMO should be how to differenciate rogues and swashbucklers; one creates situations favorable for them, while the other believes they are making them. Charisma plays a huge role in most swashbuckler ways and literally was their main stat in PF1e.

But yeah, if you actually succed you should be getting something from it. I guess you technically are because if you are feinting someone you'll get them off-guard, or -2 to Will saves if you use Bon Mot, though those are effects that everyone can inflict so they should probably look more into how rogue rackets make those effects a little more nastier.

[aobst128]

I do really like the idea of treating panache like special reloads. Spend an action to gain panache and use a skill action rather than gaining panache from a successful check.

[Deriven Firelion]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Then we’re back to “get rid of the class” territory, and I agree with those that say that’s not on the table.

The swashbuckler is an interesting class to me, as its narrative concept is amply handled by other, existing classes (possibly because Rogue, Fighter, and Ranger are overly broad in the concepts they try to handle), so instead it offers new mechanics to accomplish it: heavy interaction with skills mid-combat, so that its round is a mix of skill actions and (effectively) flourish strikes.

It sounds like the problem lies in the skill action half of that. Given that is the entire point of the class, I don’t think it’s going away. So what would make it more worthwhile? Does the finisher need to exceed the potential damage of its action cost plus 1 skill action?

You don't need to get rid of the class. The PF1 swashbuckler worked fine without a weird, hard to obtain panache system. Paizo can easily build a system that doesn't have so many points of failure for obtaining panache.

I like finishers. I like a class that focuses on rapier use and being the dashing Musketeer or Zorro.

But this panache system is not a very good system for a game with built in failure in the 40% plus range and with lots of movement, ranged fighting, immunities, and the like. You can't have that many points of failure for a key class mechanic that makes your main combat schtick work.

[Gortle]

Cyouni wrote:

Corabee Cori wrote:

Or the GM rules that Tumble Through and effectively go nowhere is allowed.

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.

Yep there is nothing about it that means you can't just move into the enemies square and straight back out to where you started from.

You are embarassing/taunting the enemy as much as moving.

[Gortle]

Corabee Cori wrote:

Kelseus wrote:

Corabee Cori wrote:

Kelseus wrote:

I have a Swashbuckler PC at level 12 in a game I am running. I see she has two big problems. The first is that she can't Bon Mot because whatever we are fighting doesn't speak common.

And again, that one would be fixed if it was clarified that you only need to succeed at the skill check - like the rule actually says - rather than requiring the action to affect the target.

This is a disingenuous reading. The only way to determine if the check succeeds or fails is if it affects the creature. The linguistics trait, which Bon Mot has, says it only works if the target speaks the same language.

Really? I thought the way to determine if a check succeeds or fails was to compare the roll results to the DC. Those creatures do still have a Will DC, right?

I'll quote the rule again:

Panache wrote:

You gain panache by successfully performing 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.

No requirement to affect the target listed.

Technically the GM always applies appropriate modifiers to the check. The DC is not just the creatures default DC. The creature being immune to the check means it is impossible. The DC should reflect that. You are never going to succeed that check.

If your GM is doing this as a patch to the game then I can see where he is coming from. The actual solution in game is to take extra languages, or magical understanding of langauges.

[Gortle]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

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.

Bleeding Finisher is too slow. I don't like it. Typically enemies just don't last that long.

[25speedforseaweedleshy]

until paizo figure out how to make swashbuckler less of discount rogue the class might as well already been deleted

at least paizo already released a better investigator with the name thaumaturge slap on it

[Gobhaggo]

The subclasses were a mistake, maybe Swash subclasses should instead have differing Panache benefits. Keep the extra speed and precision damage, but one sub may give you damage resiste, another gives unreactable movement, etc, etc.

Or maybe no subclass at all.

But yes I also agree that Panache in of itself has an issue in regards to gain and retaining, and the finishers themselves are a just a tad too weak.