Community

Oct 4, 2009 -- 10:55PM, chanter_hound wrote:

Ah, but really the rogue doesn't cover that. Sure the rapier and stuff are light blades, but the rogue isn't like the Dread Pirate Roberts (Aka Westly.)

The rogue is ONLY about getting Combat advantage or you suck. You are also limited to light blades (beyond a few minor jerry-rigs), while the duelist/swashbuckler thingy wouldn't have such limitations. Infact the duelist/swashbuckler would be much more like a fighter, but in light or no armor and very very mobile. 

The most important thing for me about this duelist/swashbuckler thingy though, like i said isn't bound to light blades, so is the first class that would give the whip MC feat a proper home. Assassins are one of the few classes that actually use Dex for attacking in melee. Most of them use Str or some other stat.

 

Only reason I use Swashbuckler/duelist thingy is because thats what the 3.5 dex fighter was.

 

Edit: Heck, really it could be some new path or something in fighter or rogue that breaks some of their norms, but says like you can't use 2h weapons with it or shields or something.The biggest keys for me though is that it has to be able to do acrobatics and be able to use whips with dex.

But my vision of a swashbuckler is a guy who uses either a 1h weapon due to its effinecy, or uses a 1h weapon, with an off hand weapon to parry attacks. Basically an agressive build and a defensive build.

Yea, sorry, I dsiagree with you. I think that the term "rogue," as well as the manner in which the class plays, is exactly what the dread pirate roberts was. The rogue offers a number of ways to get combat advantage via fancy footwork. And in the film, Westly won his combats by knowing the weaknesses of his enemies and using those weaknesses against them (read: sneak attack). I also can't think of a single heavy blade, or really any non-light blade, that I think a "swashbuckler" should be using. Rapier and dagger is the shtick. Both are light blades.

I don't agree with you. I don't see the need for a duelist class. Between the fighter and the rogue, its already covered. There is already a good str/dex fighter build. The rogue already covers the straight up rapier/dagger swashbuckler. Between those two classes, hybrid classing, and multiclassing, the concept is covered.

Oct 5, 2009 -- 7:34PM, Tharag_Bocc wrote:

One could make the same argument about several other already existent classes.

Oct 5, 2009 -- 9:46PM, Veok wrote:

Emphasis mine. Word of the day, my fellows! Extant! Look it up! *inner grammar nazi trudges away sourly*

Interesting, I was unfamiliar with the word "extant", but my original use of the word "existent" seems equally correct.

Oct 6, 2009 -- 9:11AM, Cyber-Dave wrote:

Yea, I don't know, I still don't think that a swashbuckler is necessary. I don't really like class bloat. If a barbarian was nothing but a fighter who got angry, I wouldn't think it was necessary. Its the extra emphasis of primal powers that has sold me on the barbarian in 4e. I suppose I am ok with the paladin because its a staple of D&D. It has been here since the earliest days. But I am not sold on the swashbuckler. In 2e it was just a kit. In 3e it was a class, but I never saw a good reason why. In 4e, there is already a paragon path named swashbuckler, and I don't see anything that a new class could offer that a rogue with that paragon path, a fighter with that paragon path, or a fighter/rogue hybrid with that paragon path, could not already mechanically cover.

Maybe, but a similarly named/themed paragon path doesn't preclude the potential for a class any more than multiclass or hybrids do, otherwise we wouldn't have either the avenger (angelic avenger PH1) or the assassin (shadow assassin PH1 and zealous assassin PH2).  A classes name is not its concept, it's only a convenient means of labeling.

As for what the swashbuckler could bring that is unique, I envision it as a highly mobile martial defender.  The role makes it distinct  from the rogue and the mobility makes it distinct from the fighter.  In some ways it would function like a reverse avenger, instead of designating a target and doggedly pursuing it, my swashbuckler would mark the target and then lure it into precarious positioning.

Furthermore instead minoring in striker like the fighter, it would minor in leader.  As a sub-leader the swashbuckler would focus not on healing, but on buffing.  My ideal swashbuckler would be the type of class that excels at exploiting the terrain (swing from chandeliers, dropping from balconies, and sliding down banisters), and it would provided effects that encourage it's allies to do the same.  This also further distinguishes it from the rogue, as that class focuses mostly on only it's own mobility rather than the group as a whole.

I could probably achieve some, maybe even most, of this concept by using both multiclassing and hybrid to combo aerialist rogue, bravura warlord, and a dexterous fighter, but if I have to jump through that many hoops just to get close then there is likely some merit to making the concept into a distinct class.  This is my concept, and swashbuckler is merely what I find to be the best label by which to identify that concept.

FYI: Although there was neither an Assassin Multiclass Feat nor Ki Focuses in the Assassin Articles las month, the updated Compedium and Character Builder now have them both.  Everyone can now rejoice.