I think the difference between 1e and 2e's lack of options for non-swordsmen was that in 1e non-swordsmen were still viable without academies. Sure they didn't get a ton of cool maneuvers, but they could still hit nearly has hard with enough investment in skills and attributes. Actually there was a school of thought in 1e that Swordsmen schools in general were incredibly inefficient for their points. Comparatively, the best fighter was simply the one that invested the most in having the highest attributes and just hitting people for a ton of damage over and over again, inelegant and not the most fun, but very effective.

I'm entirely open for this sort of direct form of combat characters (It has its place in swashbuckling. It's difficult to argue that Fezzik was any sort of master in the field of unarmed combat, but he arguably got closer to defeating Westly than Inigo did simply due to his incredible strength.) Obviously it's better to ensure that these sort of cheaper cruder styles don't completely overshadow the swashbucklers, but I'm not adverse to the style existing.

The problem though is that it really doesn't matter how much you invest in mundane skills, for the most part you will be very overshadowed by anyone with a sword. Simply due to the fact that every swordsman has access to slash (which can inflict up to five times more wounds per raise than a normal combatant can) means that it's incredibly difficult for even a grade-A, maxed brawl and brawn (plus the boxer advantage) pugilist to do much against even a fairly average duelist.

The pugilist is probably going to be tossing around eleven dice, with max skills that's going to be probably average between six to eight raises each round. Very impressive, meanwhile the duelist with three weaponry and three finesse is only going to be tossing around six dice, which averages to only about three raises. From an outsider's perspective someone who has rolled over double the raises of their opponent should probably beat them handily. Except the Pugilist can only inflict wounds equal to their raises, while their opponent inflicts three wounds for each raise. They're somewhat limited because they can't slash on each of their raises, but feint allows them to nearly match the difference (ignoring that a Leegstra fighter would completely ignore the difference.) Eight raise pugilist and three raise duelist both can inflict eight wounds on each other. (or the duelist ripostes and the pugilist only deals five wounds to the duelist's eight.

Five Brawn, Five Brawl and Boxer is actually a larger investment of experience than three finesse, three weaponry, dueling academy, but it takes that much investment for them to even have a small chance at matching an average duelist in one-on-one combat.

I want effective unarmed fighters as well, but I think we need to achieve that by opening the door for others to get maneuvers as well, not by pretending that they're effective in some other way.

Sparky, I can't definitively know what the other fans and players are thinking, but my general impression is that the split in fan opinions is caused by a few things:

• 7th Sea Second Edition is one of the largest game mechanics and setting changes between editions that I've ever seen. 2e is very narrative and closer to games like Fate, where 1e was closer to moderate heavy ruleset for its time of release (late nineties) with several good narrative tweaks. The old edition had a lot of dedicated fans that held on for a decade without releases before the Kickstarter and genuinely loved first edition (warts and all), so the new mechanics are probably a big adjustment/dissapointment for them. I really loved 1e, but never got it to the table, so I can't say I know where they're coming from completely, but even I miss some of the fun mechanical fiddly bits of the old edition that didn't carry over.
• The system really hasn't had a chance to be put through its paces by the player community at large yet. I get the feeling that some people are commenting from a position of authority after several games, while others are sharing thoughts after a single session or just reading the book. Some of the obvious problems being discussed right now could actually turn out fine (especially after the effect of some supplementary material hitting everyone's tables), while some current non-issues could be potentially game-breaking after everyone's had a chance to put some mileage on the game. It seems like time will probably work some of the perceived problems out, or at least introduce others. Then again, maybe not, who knows at this point?
• Dueling is a huge issue under debate, some people seem to love it, some seem to hate it. I can't argue that the rules don't make a duelist a much more effective fighter than a non-duelist. In a swashbuckling-themed game, I'd really expect that duelists would be the ones shining in fights, and its a significant character investment. I'd expect a significant investement in cyberware in a cyberpunk game to make you much more powerful than those without. I'd expect a significant investment in kung fu in a wuxia game to make you much more powerful than those without. It isn't a huge concern for me, but it could be for you and others. Non-duelists might feel left out of fights, so you should definitely be aware of that and discuss it with new players, even if you like the mechanics as-is.
• The assumed success aspect of the Risk mechanics is another huge issue up for debate. To me, the game shifts the core decision of every die roll away from rolling to determine if the character succeeds towards rolling to determine how the character succeeds, and what it costs them. To me, its very cool. If you like the narrative uncertainty of success/failure die mechanics, it probably sounds like a terrible idea.

In short, I really think you'll enjoy the game if you feel up for a narrative, Fate-style game (its really good, if only to read for setting and rules idea-mining). There's a lot of debate on it right now, but I'd chalk that up to a matter of personal taste. We're not going to agree on everything, but a lot of the complaints have been well thought-out and I can see where some people with valid concerns are coming from. I'd read the posts on a few hot topic issues and see if the negatives would be a concern for you personally or not.

When trying to gague the community opinion, I'd also keep in mind that I think we're seeing discussion among, what, about 1% of the Kickstarter backers or less (and some people who purchased the game after the fact included in that figure). There are lot of copies of the game out in the wild. Even assuming that only one in ten of the silent crowd with a copy have gotten around to reading it, there are ten people that are not saying anything for every one that are vocal on their opinions on the new edition. I'd assume most of those fall somewhere between extremes. For a sample of twenty people, you're getting one person that really likes the game as-is, one that takes some severe issues with parts of it, and eighteen others whose opinions vary from, "its ok, I liked it," to, "its ok, not really my taste."

One possible idea that a lot of people (myself included) have been using is offering a lower point option for dueling, usually to represent a novice or a self-made fighter without formal training. Usually this involves offering only a small selection of manuevers as a two or three point advantage.

Apparently, the designers have said there's a duelist-lite advantage slated for a later book, but most of these ideas work as a placeholder in the meantime.

The one difficulty is bringing brawl up to snuff, by all rights it shouldn't be quite as strong as dueling (particularly since it has the advantage that you can use it regardless of what weapons are available to you.), but it also needs a boost from what it has currently, Aim too for those that want to use things like bows and throwing weapons. (The fact that firearms inflict unavoidable dramatic wounds helps them in that regard, but throwing knives are archetypal enough for swashbuckling that they should be made viable.)

Regarding Duelists, as was said earlier in the thread, it's very akin to having a kung fu expert be awesome in a wuxia-themed game, or the street samurai being the meanest SOB in a cyberpunk-themed game, or a Jedi Knight being a dominant presence in a Star Wars game, or that a mage would be top dog in a game of Ars Magica.  Plus, we see constantly in swashbuckler-themed media that someone who's a well-trained swordsman is going to clean house in a fight.

On paper, a Duelist is a very dominant force in this game, especially in combat. And if the only sorts of encounters you have in your 7th Sea games are combat-centric, then they are going to contribute a lot more than other PCs.  But, if a Duelist focuses on combat to the exclusion of all else, then they're likely going to wind up in support roles for encounters that can't be solved with swordplay.  Things like investigations and social events, where your ability to cut a man to ribbons in seconds is of little use.  But at the same time, a creative player can find plenty of ways to meaningfully contribute in combat, provided you included Brute Squads for them to tear down and don't set up your Villains up so that only the Duelist has a prayer of inflicting any actual harm to them.  Frankly, for most fights a GM is better off using Brute Squads of varying Strengths, being sure to include some smaller clusters so the non-Duelists in the group can take them out or severely weaken them and feel an honest sense of accomplishment at doing so.

But as Salamanca said, a large part of it is expectations on the part of the players, and managing those expectations.  Some players are happy playing a character that isn't a combat machine (Catalina has a thread in the Tall Tales section about her "useless PC" that's of no major help in combat), so it strongly behooves you to discuss with your players what sort of game they'd like and what their expectations are.

To continue you narrative:

In the 7th Sea you roll to determine how your character succeeds - and what it costs them

Player: “I want to jump from the bar top, swing off the ceiling beam and smash through the window to escape.”

GM: “Ok, there are some potential Consequences for that, so it will be a Risk for you Hero. You could get get injured falling from the window - that's a 2 Wound Consequence. The other Brutes outside could see where you fled, that's a Consequence. Also, might drop the map you just acquired in the act, that's also a Consequence. However, you do have a chance to land on a Guard Captain's horse outside and take off, that'll be an Opporutnity. From your Approach (the way you've described your intent), that'll take a Finesse + Athletics roll, but since you described it in a cool, swashbuckly way, add one bonus die for flair.”

Player: “Ok, from this result I can make five Raises (sets of dice totalling ten or more). I'm spending one Raise to succeed at my Approach for sure, so I smash through the window in a dazzlingly display of daring and agility. I definitely don't want to loose the map, so I'll spend another Raise to snatch it with my off hand as it slips from my grip while swinging from the beam. I'm already hurt, so I'll have to make a soft landing here - a Wound Consequence costs one Raise per Wound, right? Ok, that's two more Raises, meaning that I've spent four right now. It'd be nice to sneak away unnoticed, but if the Count's Guards are here, then I need to get back to the ship quickly. I spend the last Raise to take the opportunity to land on the Captain's horse outside, with a hearty, 'do try to keep up!' to the underlings he kept outside the tavern.”

GM: “So the only Consequence you didn't cancel was being spotted fleeing by the Brutes outside.”

Player: “Yep.”

GM: “Sounds like a chase to the docks, then. The mount is strong and well-trained, its hoofbeats pounding out a regular beat on the street as you hear the Captain shout through the now-open tavern window, 'what are you idiots doing? catch him!' ...”

Besides Wounds being sometimes beneficial, some other things to consider that are out of the ordinary:

• Character death rarely, if ever occurs. Heroes and Villains only become Helpless if injured too much. If your character dies, it will be deliberately at the hands of a Villain, and your friends will have a chance to save you. You may want to have a talk with players on character death expectations, since this changes the typical RPG dynamic there somewhat.
• Players have a large amount of authority over the narrative of the game. If you've got experienced Fate players, they might be more used to taking on more of what are traditionally GM responsibilities, but its something to discuss here.
• A lot of the game can involve the Hero Point economy. You can use them to gain extra dice like bennies in many other games, but you also need them to trigger a lot of your character's cool Advantage-based abilities, which are usually variations on "spend a Hero Point to do a cool thing." Want to lure a guard into an alley against all his better judgement to knock him out and steal his uniform? That's a particular Advantage and costs a Hero Point. You can get Hero Points for some character-based roleplaying, but you can also get them by just choosing to fail in a Risk.
• Character advancement is based on completing Stories, which may seem odd if they're using to storing points until you hit defined minimums (levelling mechanics) or storing points to spend on the stuff you want (experience point buying mechanics). Each game session will be a Story, each plot arc, over several sessions, will be a Story, everyone will have their own personal Hero Stories. Every Story will have several Steps, or plot beats, until they're over. When you finish a Story, you've learned something in the whole mess, and get better at a (or get a new) thing. More advanced things only improve with harder/longer Stories (ones with more Steps). If you want more character bells and whistles, work on that character background plot you made duing Hero Creation, or find some other side Stories with the GM (if the players get interested enough in an NPC, you can create an extra Story just to explore their backstory, for example).

I have never ran into a player calling them "eye-nish".

I've been pronouncing it that way since 1st edition rolled out.  Inish = "Eye-nish".  How exactly is it supposed to be pronounced?

Not my thing, but hey, it's your group, so remix as you like.

I don't know, the halflings he made for Wicked Fantasy are pretty interesting. I'd put them up there with the Dark Sun feral cannibal halflings and the Eberron tribal dinosaur-riding plains culture halflings for showing how they can be interesting if you do something with them other than just throwing in "happy, pastoral halflings just like Tolkien used to make."

Speaking as one that has done playtesting for a couple different RPGs, it's also a possiblity that some of the playtester groupds did identify some of these "issues" as just that, and reported them in their feedback.  But, the authors decided that said "issues" were not a problem or fit with their original vision of what the product should be.  In a couple playtest groups I've been part of, there have been times we've generally said "this element really feels out of place with the rest of the material" or "this element of the new rules really doesn't work" and had our feedback ignored.  Part of the process and nature of the beast.

The rules for Duelists, while far less cumbersome than the Quick Start material, may very well have been one of those things that the design team felt was "working as intended" and that it was meant to make a Duelist Hero be the top dog in a combat, something that one of the principal editors all but confirmed.  To me, it's akin to complaining that a person who only studied karate for several months at a McDojo will generally get his ass kicked by a guy that has actively studied karate for most of his adult life.  A Duelist Hero has made an in-game investment to be awesome with a sword, just as a Hero with the Lyceum advantage has made an in-game investment to awesome with social skills, or a Hero with the University advantage has made an in-game investment to be awesome with their academic skills, or a Hero with Academy is awesome with non-weapon combat skills.  In all four cases, the player has declared "this is what my character's really good at!"  If the GM is throwing little more than combat encounters at their party, then yes a Duelist Hero is going to shine, because the GM is playing to that Hero's strengths, just the same as if a GM that ran little more than social encounters would be playing to the strengths of a Hero who invested in social skills and advantages, or ran little more than ship-based adventures would be catering to those Heroes that invested their points in being capable sailors/pirates.

Similar complaints were leveled at Legend of the Five Rings for being "too deadly" as getting into combat could very well result in dead PCs, and yet that lethality was an element of the setting, where the PCs as part of the samurai caste lived "three feet from death."  To say nothing of the recurring problems in D&D of high-end spellcasters absolutely dominating the game while the fighter types are relegated to support roles at best or glorified meat shields at worst.  I've seen a lot of complaints with FFG's Star Wars that a PC can be taken out very quickly due to offensive capability increasing a lot faster than defensive capability; even the Jedi-types in Force and Destiny aren't immune to this as a squad of stormtroopers can quite possibly decimate even a high-XP character with a single attack roll since there's zero way to ensure you can never be hit apart from not being involved in the combat to start with.

Over in 1e (and I presume will be carried over into 2e), the reason for the Inquisition running amok is that the guy in charge (Cardinel Verdugo) is a religious fanatic that believes he is destined to save the souls of Theah and that the time of the Fourth Prophet is right around the corner.  Normally, the Heirophant would keep the Inquisition in check, but as that seat is currently vacant and the means to elect a replacement is out of commission to the Sun King's short-sighted machinations, nobody has the authority to keep Verdugo from doing whatever he wants, such as swelling the ranks of the Inquisition and calling for a halt to all further scientific research.  All based upon a vision (which may not even have been real in the first place) he had as a child that "tells" him that such extreme measures are not only necessary, but are "right" and even carry the creator's blessing.

In Rapier's Edge, the last supplement for Swashbuckling Adventers, there was a timeline of future events, one of which was the eventual election of a new Heirophant whose first order of business was putting the brakes on Verdugo's actions and bringing the Inquisition (which had generally been held as a necessary evil prior to Verdugo's rampage) to heel.  Granted, a lot of damage had already been done by that point, but with a Heirophant in office the Inquisition could no longer run rampant and had it's strength (officially) reduced.  But odds are that Verdugo was still scheming his schemes; few are the religious zealots that will truly back down once they've tasted so much worldly power even if someone of higher authority has stripped them of much of it.

So it's probably a generally held belief that the Inqusition has been perverted from what the Third Prophet intended under Verdugo's leadership, albiet one that's not discussed openly in Castille.  Prior to going global in 2e, one of the driving goals of Los Vagobundos was to stymie the Inquisition's efforts and prevent it from preying upon the people of Castille.  But they knew that such was a war of attrition they could not win, and had to find some way to make a lasting change that would curtail the Inquisition's power; a hard task when Verdugo was one of the primary reasons Good King Sandoval was being denied his proper title and authority.

Page 160: improving a rank 4 skill means it's still at rank 4 and you want it to reach rank 5, so it's a 5 step story.

Page 173: you describe how you act suggesting a new approach. You can tell your GM what's the new approach you want to achieve but he gets the final words.

Page 179, yes, I believe it's an errata. The room explodes as soon as a Hero has 2 or less (you can spend more than 1 raise at a time). But keep in mind that heroes with raises still get to spend them in one last action (scape the exploding room maybe spending extra raises to avoid damage).

Page 181. Every time the hero gets a wound, he fills a wound spot on the death spiral. If the hero has taken dramatic wounds, they stay filled untill medical asistance or end of session while other wounds you clear at the end of the scene.

Pages 176 and 183. You get an extra die every time you use a new approach in a scene (flair 1) and you can also get an extra die for your roll if you describe what your character does in a thorough, creative or interesting way (flair 2). This two extra dice are stackable.

Page 188. Using your example:
I sneak over the wall, cross the garden keeping low against the bushes. That's one raise.

Sneak past the solitary guard. That's a consequence of the first action so you have to spend another raise or face the guard.

Pick the lock of the front door. Sneaking as you describe the first action would be finesse+hide, Picking the lock is finesse+theft, so you change your approach and have to spend an extra raises (2 raises).

Hide behind the stone statue and watch the ambassador's door all night until I see who he leaves the house with. That's a single rise unless your GM tells you otherwise: "A tall cloaked figure walks next to the ambassador, you can't see tha face but looks like a man with an aquiline nose".