I can't believe svrtr is advocating for spellswords supremacy
Seriously speaking, Spellswords are egregiously overtuned and I just noticed that the extra attack was on 27.
I thought it was on 28 since that'd make sense to pureclass them sensibly, but on 27 this lets you get away with taking a wonderful 3 level dip to no consequence. Since by 26 they also get +3 dispel resistance, that also means that they can hit the dispel cap at no cost.
~Edit: I wrote this before reading Kalopsia's comment. More thoughts on the *
This is specially annoying to me because bards - as a the direct arcane combat-caster equivalent of spellswords - only get +1 APR /if/ they sing a specific solo-buff song, with a 28 level requirement.
It wouldn't be wrong to exacerbate the sacrifices spellswords have to make - beyond obviously moving the extra APR at 28 (or better yet, not giving them an extra APR at all) - by means of having to actually sacrifice more spell versatility, for example, by having spellswords sacrifice 3 whole schools. You could even argue more, since most spellswords have not a lot of use for evocation/necromancy/enchantment/conjuration, and it wouldn't hit them nearly as hard as losing transmutation/illusion/divination/abjuration.
*But why though?
Other classes have to sacrifice to dip. Bards and clerics, warpriests specially - Spellswords pretty much have to give nothing away right now and they get all their cookies, and those are some pretty strong and sugar-heavy cookies they are getting, and I say this as a player that loves spellswords as a class and enjoyed thoroughly playing one when they were first introduced.
Either this becomes the standard or they get hit with the nerf bat, and they need a nerf because currently casters are at the weakest they've ever been, with martial and gish builds breezing through content and PvP that many casters can't respectively solo, or do so much as actually win.