Talk:Swashbuckler/@comment-210.19.183.214-20190801072837

This article is too wordy and misses the whole point of taking a swashbuckler. You don't take a swashbuckler because it deals high damage, has high AC bonus, or because of high hitpoints. The main point of getting a swashbuckler is to have someone who has thief skills but at the same time can fight almost as good as a Fighter.

Obviously, a Fighter is better in all respects in combat compared to a Swashbuckler. It's like saying, don't take a Fighter/Mage because a pure Mage is much better at spellcasting. If your party already has a thief and you need someone to swing a sword, take a fighter then. A Monk has better AC than a swashbuckler but I'd argue that more players would include a swashbuckler in their party rather than a monk because they are more useful.

And all of the points the article states are swashbuckler's "weaknesses" and "strengths" are applicable to other classes, not just Swashbucklers. For the swashbuckler's "weaknesses", all non-warrior classes have low APR and less hitpoints than warriors. All non-monks have worse AC. For the swashbuckler's "strengths", all classes who pick a dwarf race get "shorty saves". All thieves have useful thieving skills, level up faster and gain UAI HLA. Any class that can use wands are better than those who can't. Any class able to equip Gauntlets of Extraordinary Specialization, Belm, Firetooth are significantly better in combat versus someone who can't. Any class able to wield Carsomyr, Ring of Gaxx, Human Flesh can resist magic better than the rest.

I hope this article doesn't discourage people from using Swashbucklers. It is extremely misleading.