| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Swashbuckler's damage is fine if everything goes according to plan, it just... doesn't, often. You're introducing a second failure point to your damage per round for a fairly small gain, or no gain at all in the case of some of the weaker styles.
If you're not willing to accept those pain points to play a Swashbuckler then Rogue is probably your best bet for playing a similar archetype of character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For a pure swordmaster, definitely pick the Fighter, not the Swashbuckler. Being a weapons master is absolutely what that class is about and you can feel it in play. It is also just a straight-up better class.
As far as the Swashbuckler is concerned, it is pretty much as Arachnofiend said. I would even go so far as to say it is completely outclassed by both Rogue and Fighter (maybe even more) even on a good day. They are way stronger and involve way fewer/no weird hoops to jump through all the time. It isn't Investigator-bad, but honestly not too far off due to the low hard-cap on your offense. The Swashbuckler's speed and sprinkling of skills are just a nice bonus, nothing more.
Rogue & Fighter are straightforward great. The payoffs for being a Swashbuckler, as pointed out, rely on luck, opportunity, & tactical acumen and that's simply to break even. You will have some feel-bad moments. That's based on chassis strength and some bread-n'-butter feats to operate. BUT, if you can maximize the Swashbuckler's exceptional features (a.k.a. the feats/features those other classes wish to poach like One for All or Antagonize), there is a niche there in which to contend. Maximizing like this requires party synergy BTW, and arguably campaign synergy too, but you'll experience unique feel-good moments that hopefully warrant the effort of playing a Swashbuckler.
Which is to say if you're beginning with the notion of a swordmaster who can operate and blend in with any party in most any situation without juggling Panache's fickle nature, then yeah, play a Fighter if emphasizing the sword or toughness or Rogue if wanting more utility or a nimble flair.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or it is too weak？
maybe a fight use the same weapon is better if I want play a hero like swordmaster?
Does someone do the math analyse between them?
In practice PF2 doesn't have a real bad class. All classes are good enough to play and have fun and none of them will turn you to play like a demigod (mechanically) nor make you weak and unable to deal with your enemies or challenging situations.
The problem of swashbucklers is when it's compared vs some others similar martial classes like figher or rogue because it has a worse action economy and its main mechanics are less reliable than those of other classes.
But if you don't worry about combat optimization and just want take a class based in its lore go and take it. You probably will have fun with it.
Swashbuckler is a decent class, they are just a little more reliant on making their stick work. For which, unlike many other classes, they need to do some extra rolls which have a distinct chance to fall flat, especially against higher level enemies
but if their schtick works, swashbuckler is an incredible fun and rewarding to play class
To all the (rightfully so) placed criticism here one should add that swashbuckler is in the process of (or probably actually done with it already) to get a remaster rework
With the Core 2 that will (according to the current store page date) come on the 1. august, they want to present a remastered swashbuckler with less finicky mechanics and more reliable damage
I agree mostly with what has already been said.
The pre-Remastered swashbuckler on it's own is weaker in dealing consistent damage compared to fighter (which is pretty much the ceiling, TBH) or rogue. However, it can be a fairly good martial debuffer to help the entire party if you build for it (Braggart for demoralize, Gymnast [possibly with the Acrobat archetype] for tripping, Wit to set up spellcasters targeting Will saves).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I played Swashbucklers across multiple campaigns for close to three years. They're fine. They're fun. You will meaningfully contribute to your party.
Ignore the negativity and play one if you want to.
Here is my though process why I think that isn't always the best advice:
Yes you can, but that is because Paizo have done a brilliant job of creating a system where it is quite hard to build an actually useless character. But that doesn't mean you wouldn't be more likely to have fun if that character was a different class. The Swashbuckler is a decent class, yes, but why limit yourself to "decent" from the start, when you can play the same character with the same vibe, but with a class that is simply more effective?
So I'll still never recommend certain classes, especially to what sounds like a rather new player. Between different tables I've had three players switch from Swashbucklers, two (plus myself) switch from Investigator, two from Inventor (which was every single time it was played) and a whooping four (plus myself) from Gunslinger. And they were so much happier afterwards, despite not caring about building strong characters like me. That accounts for almost all the switches I've seen in my entire four+ years of playing this game. It's only anecdotal evidence with a small sample size, but I've seen too many people get burned not to hold this view.
---
So my best recommendation in this case would be (provided you are playing with your home group) - if you are curious, try the class for an extended period of time. Like, at least 6 sessions where your character actually came into play and ideally you have seen the highs and lows that await you. But establish with your group from the start that you might switch classes afterwards if you aren't excited to play it anymore. If worse comes to worst, only switch the class, don't change the person they are in major ways. Mechanics are only there to deliver the fantasy, so as long as you keep the contiuity in that regard, everything should be fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To toss my experience-hat in: Swashbuckler is really fun when it hits and just awful when it doesn't. If you can regularly crank out panache, you can feel like a tornado cutting through the enemies. When you can't generate panache or your finisher misses, you just...kinda chill. They also suffer a lot from being weak against common enemies used to fill out APs such as constructs, oozes, things immune to mental stuff, and things immune to bleed. APs also have a lot of big-single-creature fights which doesn't lend itself to the swashbuckler, as mentioned above. Haven't played any of the more recent APs, so I dunno if that's changed.
I played a Swashbuckler in Extinction Curse and a friend is playing one in Agents of Edgewatch. Our experiences have been uncannily similar. I played a Braggart and he's playing a Wit.
that doesn't mean you wouldn't be more likely to have fun if that character was a different class. The Swashbuckler is a decent class, yes, but why limit yourself to "decent" from the start, when you can play the same character with the same vibe, but with a class that is simply more effective?
The thing is - that doesn't hold. The same character will have a different vibe if built with a different class.
I have played a couple of swashbucklers. One is a Fencer style, the other is a Gymnast style.
The fencer would not be the same character if built as a rogue. That game I was playing along side a rogue. The two characters play very differently.
The Gymnast would also not be the same character if built as a fighter. Or a monk.
The vibe is different. What the character focuses on doing from round to round and action to action is different.
-----
I also think there is a lot of distinction between Swashbuckler and other similar classes when the Swashbuckler player is not focusing exclusively on the Panache mechanics.
Having that possibility of extreme spike damage available is a nice benefit. But it isn't the only benefit that Swashbuckler can bring to the party.
swashbuckler on it's own is weaker in dealing consistent damage compared to fighter (which is pretty much the ceiling, TBH) or rogue. However, it can be a fairly good martial debuffer to help the entire party if you build for it.
Yep. A lot of the class comparisons are very simplistict damage comparisons and
don't consider the party as a team, or typical play situations. The Swashbuckler can contribute well to a party, or not, depending on the party, the build, and what people are doing.Don't be afraid to have a go at the class if it appeals to you. It is reasonably functional and has some good combinations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My player found the Swashbuckler problematic. Everyone has avoided it since that go.
Panache generation creates a failure point for all your abilities that can make you seem pretty useless when you fail to generate it. You also open battle with no panache, so your first action or actions is some ability to generate panache. If that fails, you start off real slow.
This can stand out a lot or very little depending on how good your group is at building characters. If your group is pretty casual, no one optimizes much, and they play fairly loose and fun, then you probably will barely notice the issues. If you're playing with optimizers who build characters to hit like trucks and destroy enemies, then you're going to notice you're the low man on the totem pole.
It seems to get better when you pick up Perfect Finisher.
Definitely read the Finisher tag going in to the class or you might be surprised how limiting the tag makes your rounds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't say the swashbuckler is a bad class per se, because its not a fundamentally broken class that doesn't work and is totally useless, but having played one from 1st to 10th level I can say that if I wanted to play a character with the feel of a swashbuckler I could have played a rogue or even a fighter and it would been much better mechanically and with other benefits that I wouldn't have had as a swashbuckler. I'll explain.
From 1st to 7th level I was playing a gymnast. Gymnast simply feels bad to play because if you want to be "efficient" you have to either Grapple, Shove, or Trip and then make a finisher with a -5 MAP or have a round of set up in which you gain panache and in the following round you do everything in your hand to set up your finisher to be succesful.
At 7th level I asked my GM if I could retrain into fencer, which wasn't that much of a change since I was already using Deception a lot anyways, so with his permission I retrained my whole character into a fencer. The difference was almost night and day for me; I was able to consistently Feint > Finisher almost every turn, and I also had the choice to use Goading Feint to aggro enemies towards the tanks of the party when I was flanking with them. Though this one was much better to play and certainly more efficient in DPR, I still didn't felt I was doing anything that rogue wouldn't be able to do, since rogues do have Overextending Feint which is effectively the same as Goading Feint and (assuming you are scoundrel rogue, which is the closest equivalent to fencer) have a feint that leaves enemis off-guard until the end of your next turn from level 1, unlike fencers that have it 9th level. Assuming everything goes as planned, the swashbuckler does in average a little more damage than a rogue does with sneak attack, though a rogue is much more reliable, has more trained skills, more skill increases, more skill feats, and honestly, a much better class feat list too.
I also seen a battledancer and braggart swashbuckler in two separate one shots I was playing. Both effectively had the same problem; the main source to gain panache was pretty much a 1/day thing, so if they had to fight against a single boss enemy they were effectively class-less after two or three rounds of combat. I think this is the worst problem swashs has, its not only unreliable because you have to succeed at two checks to land your finisher damage (the appropiate skill check + the finisher's attack roll), but also there's a huge difference in how reliably and often each of the styles can generate panache to begin with.
I think swashbucklers should at least have an auto-scaling skill, either Acrobatics or your style's skill, and change how panache works because most of the time its benefits are meaningless. First, I don't know who thought having a +1 to checks that give you panache made sense as an effect when to have that bonus you need to have panache already, and second, the bonus to movement speed is also kinda meaningless since you are likely going to be in melee when you gain panache in the first place already, and in my experience once everyone is in melee most characters only step or stride 10 or 15 feet. I seriously doubt Paizo would go this route, but I also think all the styles should be closer in frenquency of panache generation and reliability as fencer or wit, and the damage from finishers should be increased. The current bonuses from having panache should become passive effects, and I think panache should be a channel elements + overflow-like mechanic in which you receive some kind of action compression from receiving panache (let's say a fencer can feint or create a diversion, and when succesful, they can step or make an strike against the target. Even if the check isn't succesful, you receive panache anyways). I repeat I don't think this would happen since this would require a rework of the whole class, and the book is already in printing since its going to come out in a few months, but I wanted to mention my thoughts and experiences anyways.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Definitely read the Finisher tag going in to the class or you might be surprised how limiting the tag makes your rounds.
If you changed 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.
toFinishers are spectacular finishing moves that use your panache. You can use a finisher only if you have panache, and you lose your panache if you miss while performing a finisher. Once you use a finisher, you can't use another for the rest of your turn.
Swashbuckler would be a fantastic class.
Definitely read the Finisher tag going in to the class or you might be surprised how limiting the tag makes your rounds.If you changed 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.
toFinishers are spectacular finishing moves that use your panache. You can use a finisher only if you have panache, and you lose your panache if you miss while performing a finisher. Once you use a finisher, you can't use another for the rest of your turn.
Swashbuckler would be a fantastic class.
This would smooth things out enough that the other pain points might be worth it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also seen a battledancer and braggart swashbuckler in two separate one shots I was playing. Both effectively had the same problem; the main source to gain panache was pretty much a 1/day thing, so if they had to fight against a single boss enemy they were effectively class-less after two or three rounds of combat. I think this is the worst problem swashs has, its not only unreliable because you have to succeed at two checks to land your finisher damage (the appropiate skill check + the finisher's attack roll), but also there's a huge difference in how reliably and often each of the styles can generate panache to begin with.
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.
I keep trying to point out to people - the RAW for Panache generation only requires succeeding at the skill check associated to the action. It doesn't require that the action affects the enemy.
I know it is a common ruling that you can't gain panache by using Feint against a mindless creature, or using Demoralize against an enemy that is temporarily immune to your Demoralize. But I don't see where RAW supports that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, at that point you are just wasting an action to have the chance to gain panache. If I had to compare that with the magus, which is a class that has a similar playstyle of having a single nova attack, the magus not only deals way more damage with a spellstrike, but doesn't have a failure chance when recharging it, while a swashbuckler can fail to gain panache. Besides, if we go RAW, battledancer states "You gain panache during an encounter when the result of your Performance check to Perform exceeds the Will DC of an observing foe" which means that even if you don't fascinate them you'll technically gain panache, but braggart says "You gain panache during an encounter whenever you successfully Demoralize a foe" so you have to demoralize them to gain panache, not succed the check. Thats why I think an action to gain panache + action compression would be fantastic for the swashbuckler.
It would be something like...
* Battledancer : You gain panache + Perform
* Braggart : You gain panache + Demoralize
* Fencer : You gain panache + Feint or Create a Diversion
* Gymnast : You gain panache + Grapple, Shove, or Trip
* Wit : You gain panache + Bon Mot
I mean, at that point you are just wasting an action to have the chance to gain panache.
Sure. But at least it is available to try.
Being told, 'Nah, your fencer just doesn't get to use their class mechanics against these zombies' feels bad worse.
Besides, if we go RAW, battledancer states "You gain panache during an encounter when the result of your Performance check to Perform exceeds the Will DC of an observing foe" which means that even if you don't fascinate them you'll technically gain panache, but braggart says "You gain panache during an encounter whenever you successfully Demoralize a foe" so you have to demoralize them to gain panache, not succed the check.
Specific overrides general - but only for the specific case it is printed for and is overriding.
The Braggart wording can be seen as an override that requires you to affect the target with Demoralize. It can also be seen as loose language usage. In either case, it would only apply to the Braggart subtype. Fencer and Wit wouldn't be overridden by wording in Braggart.
As far as repeated use or affecting foes immune to your action, Battledancer is in agreement with the general rule. So I am not sure why that is even included here.
The override is that the Battledancer can gain panache by succeeding at the check against enemies not targeted with the action. Fencer certainly can't do that. A fencer can only gain panache if they succeed at the Deception check against the foe that they feint against. Succeeding against the Perception DC of a mook nearby doesn't count.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No? Fencer, Gymnast, and Wit have exactly the same wording Braggart has, so only Battledancer would be the exception here, which makes me believe they either didn't notice or wrote it weirdly to accomodate for how Fascinating Performance eventually allows you to fascinate multiple people. In either way, it shows that the content from the APG was clearly rushed and even if you could make an argument for your case, its clear that the writting is messy and implies RAI that you have to actually hinder the target in some way to gain panache.
As a side note, which would be the best way to improve a swashs damage? I feel both swash and investigator suffer from having "sneak attack but with extra steps that works only once per round", so it at least should compensate with extra damage. Since Analyze Weakness exists and is a thing that rogues can have, I certianly wouldn't mind double scaling (2d6 at 1st level, 4d6 at 5th level, 6d6 at 9th level, 8d6 at 13th level, and 10d6 at 17th level) though it would be a considerable boost in comparision to the current damage the class deals. Probably increase damage to d8s instead?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
thanks to everyone.
I know what shall I do now.
Good luck and have fun with your adventures then ^^
Definitely read the Finisher tag going in to the class or you might be surprised how limiting the tag makes your rounds.If you changed 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.
toFinishers are spectacular finishing moves that use your panache. You can use a finisher only if you have panache, and you lose your panache if you miss while performing a finisher. Once you use a finisher, you can't use another for the rest of your turn.
Swashbuckler would be a fantastic class.
A few weeks ago, we did exactly that. Plus the non-finisher bonus damage no longer requires panache, only finishers do.
That and a ton of buffs for other classes that felt like they could cook with a little more fire (e.g. Ranger can now change their hunted prey as a free action after their prey has died) will certainly change things up for the next character selection.
And All For One is a great ability, one of the best the swash offers. It's best on a Wit swashbuckler.
I ran an NPC wit support swashbuckler. Buffing people with All For One made the swash more fun. Stacks with almost everything. May be the best aid action use in the game.
Definitely read the Finisher tag going in to the class or you might be surprised how limiting the tag makes your rounds.If you changed 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.
toFinishers are spectacular finishing moves that use your panache. You can use a finisher only if you have panache, and you lose your panache if you miss while performing a finisher. Once you use a finisher, you can't use another for the rest of your turn.
Swashbuckler would be a fantastic class.
That would be a lot better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We tend to think of the Swashbuckler as a pretty fun class to play, but we also tend to play it differently from the "meta" so to speak. We like to stay in Panache untill an opportune time to spend a finisher(the enemy is debuffed,or I'm buffed or both, or there is a weaker minion near by, or I'm risking it all to try and finish them off). There are a couple of cool feats that involve staying in Panache, and the +1 is useful especially for someone like a gymnast especially when combined with that one higher level feat that let's you roll twice. Sure maybe getting the most damage is by using finishers as quick as possible but... that leads to the struggle of regaining panache. If tour fighting a boss, the passive damage from doing more attacks might catch up, especially if you are trying to use actions to regain your panache and failing.
Also remembering the explict rule that the gm can grant panache for doing cool and stylish things also helps add to the fun of swashbuckler.
That being said, people clearly think the former way is better. I wouldnt complain about more buffs to staying in panache though, or a rework.
I feel like if we were to change finishers, making you lose panache on a failure feels wrong. It doubles down on the failure. I feel like keeping your panache should sort of be the consolation prize for missing.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another class I see compared with swashbuckler is the thautamaturge.
- Swashbuckler prefers "fencing style" weapons. Thaumaturge prefers "one hand free" weapons. That can end up looking pretty similar.
- They both have an "activation sequence".
- Both tend to emphasize charisma.
- Both kinda middling armor classes.
- Both struggle a bit with action economy (recharging panache, not attacking after a finisher, having to exploit new enemies..)
But the thaumaturge seems to be getting a better deal:
- The activation sequence works even on a failed check.
- The activation sequence is based purely on the boss level based DC, not on whether your preferred skill meets the boss' good or bad save.
- The activation sequence can give the rest of your party some really good info especially against otherwise difficult (rare, unique) enemies.
- The bonus damage is more reliable (implement's empowerment is not precision damage, and weakness is fine too). You also don't depend on enemies having a mind that can be affected.
- Your activation skill auto-scales on level up.
- You don't expend your exploit on a big hit, unlike a finisher. Actually the damage per regular hit of a thaumaturge isn't far off from that of a finisher for a swashbuckler.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also seen a battledancer and braggart swashbuckler in two separate one shots I was playing. Both effectively had the same problem; the main source to gain panache was pretty much a 1/day thingWhat the ever living f*#$ are you talking about?
Battledancer you just... Perform. Then you compare it against all enemies, and likely get panache guaranteed unless you roll a 1 if there's more than 3 enemies total.
You know Fascinating Performance has a 1 hour cooldown, right? The fact that you target multiple allies with it makes it worse because you can't even target each enemy individually to receive panache from each of them once, but rather you make a single check that makes them all immune.
Then, the regular Perform action literally does...nothing.
At least Leading Dance exists.
No? Fencer, Gymnast, and Wit have exactly the same wording Braggart has, so only Battledancer would be the exception here, which makes me believe they either didn't notice or wrote it weirdly
Having all of the styles override the general rule makes it much less likely that it is an override and much more likely that it is an editing error.
The question is 'which is the error?'
If the styles are the error, that means that someone thought that "you gain Panache when you successfully {Action X} a foe" is the equivalent of "you gain Panache when you succeed at the check for {Action X} against a foe".
Which seems like a reasonable error for a writer to make.
If the general rule is the error, then - as you are pointing out repeatedly in this thread - Swashbuckler is much harder to play because of how difficult it is to gain panache and that several of the Styles are much worse about it than others.
So we have two possible interpretations of the rules. Which one would you say that the Ambiguous Rules rule says to use?
I also seen a battledancer and braggart swashbuckler in two separate one shots I was playing. Both effectively had the same problem; the main source to gain panache was pretty much a 1/day thingWhat the ever living f*#$ are you talking about?
Battledancer you just... Perform. Then you compare it against all enemies, and likely get panache guaranteed unless you roll a 1 if there's more than 3 enemies total.
You know Fascinating Performance has a 1 hour cooldown, right? The fact that you target multiple allies with it makes it worse because you can't even target each enemy individually to receive panache from each of them once, but rather you make a single check that makes them all immune.
Then, the regular Perform action literally does...nothing.
At least Leading Dance exists.
You don't need Fascinating Performance though, you only need to do the Perform Action and beat an enemy's Will DC. And Perform itself has 0 cooldown, and doesn't even have the Mental tag.
Granted, it does nothing but grant you Panache, but you know, that's something at least.
I mean, if 4 out of 5 have a specific wording it makes those the most likely to be the intended one, though I feel asking for "intent" in the APG is kinda futile because the whole book is kinda messy and overall poorly made. The fact that two of the 4 classes from the APG are going to receive reworks and that the 4 classes are constantly mentioned as the worst classes in the system is proof that whatever happened at Paizo at the moment didn't allow for a proper playtest.
I think the wording of the other styles is the intended way on how it should play, though I also think the devs didn't thought about its consequences because they didn't playtest it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if 4 out of 5 have a specific wording it makes those the most likely to be the intended one, though I feel asking for "intent" in the APG is kinda futile because the whole book is kinda messy and overall poorly made. The fact that two of the 4 classes from the APG are going to receive reworks and that the 4 classes are constantly mentioned as the worst classes in the system is proof that whatever happened at Paizo at the moment didn't allow for a proper playtest.
I think the wording of the other styles is the intended way on how it should play, though I also think the devs didn't thought about its consequences because they didn't playtest it.
I think Battledancer has a different wording just because, well, Perform as an action is kind of super vague.
If it said "You gain Panache whenever you succesfully Perform against a foe" people would be scratching their heads because Perform has 0 guidelines for that, since it's not supposed to be an action you use "against" anyone. So they had to add such a use, which is beating the enemies' Will DC.
That's fine, as a stopgap, but it actually ends up making Battledancer a weird style. Unlike others, the action you use to gain Panache doesn't have any sort of extra effect, unless you use specific Skill Feats and such. But also unlike other styles, it basically has 0 downsides: It isn't an Attack, so it doesn't suffer from MAP like Gymnast does. It has technically unlimited range though enemies do need to perceive you. It doesn't have the Mental Trait, unlike Bon Mot and Feint, so it works on mindless stuff. It doesn't generate temporary immunity, unlike Demoralize (and, Create a Diversion, kinda). And unlike Bon Mot, Grapple, Shove and Trip, it doesn't have a Critical Failure condition that hurts you.
I am in the camp that says "succeed at X" means "actually affect the enemy with X", even though the Immunity rules are kind of iffy there. Which does make Battledancer better for just generating Panache than the others. But that circles back to not all Styles being equally good and the whole Panache/Finisher thing being incredibly dodgy design (not as much as Investigator's whole mess, but still iffy).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if 4 out of 5 have a specific wording it makes those the most likely to be the intended one,
The one that is different is in agreement with the general rule. Why wouldn't the general rule be that you have to affect the target with the action so that the one Style would be the exception and override?
It sounds like you are an experienced PF1 GM and accustomed to needing to read every rule and ability in the worst possible and most restrictive way possible in order to try and stem the tide of players abusing the system. PF2 doesn't need that. When you do that in PF2 you end up crippling an entire class for no good reason.
Ruling that all Styles can gain panache by succeeding at the check even if the action doesn't affect the target still doesn't even bring the class above par. Much less actually being overpowered.