|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 9:29PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Feb 15, 2008
|
In 3e and 4e, the swashbuckler character concept has never really been adequately filled. To me swashbuckler means:
1) A lightly armored, highly mobile fighter.
2) Based more on dexterity and overall agility than brute strength.
3) Typically fights with a light one-handed weapon, like a saber or rapier.
4) May use a small shield or a parrying dagger for defense.
I remember a 3.5 class in some book called swashbuckler, but it suffered from the problems of all 3.5 martial classes. In 4e, the rogue does ok, but the sneak attack ability doesn't really fit the swasbuckler archetype very well. I don't imagine swashbucklers as being sneaky or fighting dirty, they are actually excellent duelists in my vision. The ranger can do ok, but he uses strength for his melee attacks and is pretty much required to use two weapons. The assassin is clearly magical, and uses heavy weapons, same for the avenger.
To me, the swashbuckler archetype is absolutely basic to adventure fantasy. Why does it always receive so little support in the core rules?
"So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been."
- Manwë, High King of the Valar
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 9:34PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2012
|
Two things about this:
1) I worked with the 3.5 swashbuckler and honestly it was exactly what you describe. It was weaker because it was martial but I felt it encompassed that idea well.
That said the biggest flaw I saw with it was you could build nearly the same character out of a figher and get more feats (though you certianly lost skills).
2) The thing is the fighter (in previous editions) could be that. This is a concept that frustrates me sometimes. Because I take the wizard class I have to act like the iconic wizard. Because I took fighter I have to be that guy in heavy plate.
I love drawing RP ideas for the character sheet but the thing I loved most about 3.5e's inteasely open multi-class system was I could build any archetype I wanted really. It is why I am hoping for a module that allows very open multi-classing.
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 9:35PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Apr 11, 2009
|
Make a DDN Fighter, dump STR and pump DEX and CHA, put him in light armor, and give him a rapier. There's your Swashbuckler. Probably better than a STR fighter at the moment anyway, since Heavy Armor is currently a trap option.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 9:37PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Feb 20, 2012
|
The swashbuckler was so "ignored" in 4e that before I ran out of classes that have dex-heavy rapier duelist builds, I ran out of fingers to count them on.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 9:45PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2010
|
...swashbuckler isn't ignored on 4e...just because a character concept build into a character isn't optimal, doesn't make it unviable...i have created characters that goes against what charop say... brutal scoundrel buckler and rapier duelist rogue works fine (you can get CA even without being sneaky or flanking) and even when it's not optimal, a fighter too
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 9:50PM
#6
|
|
|
In 3e and 4e, the swashbuckler character concept has never really been adequately filled. To me swashbuckler means:
1) A lightly armored, highly mobile fighter.
2) Based more on dexterity and overall agility than brute strength.
3) Typically fights with a light one-handed weapon, like a saber or rapier.
4) May use a small shield or a parrying dagger for defense.
I remember a 3.5 class in some book called swashbuckler, but it suffered from the problems of all 3.5 martial classes. In 4e, the rogue does ok, but the sneak attack ability doesn't really fit the swasbuckler archetype very well. I don't imagine swashbucklers as being sneaky or fighting dirty, they are actually excellent duelists in my vision. The ranger can do ok, but he uses strength for his melee attacks and is pretty much required to use two weapons. The assassin is clearly magical, and uses heavy weapons, same for the avenger.
To me, the swashbuckler archetype is absolutely basic to adventure fantasy. Why does it always receive so little support in the core rules?
4e Rogue + rapier + parrying dagger + artful dodger. I dunno how much more swashbuckly you can get. Plus it was actually a really good build.
Then there was the scout with rapier or thief with rapier for those who want to hit things with basic attacks.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 10:04PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
Yeah 4e had lots of fun with swashbuckler builds.
3e had several good swashbuckling classes, just not the actual swashbuckler. He kinda sucked.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 10:42AM
#8
|
|
|
To me swashbuckler means:
1) A lightly armored, highly mobile fighter.
2) Based more on dexterity and overall agility than brute strength.
3) Typically fights with a light one-handed weapon, like a saber or rapier.
4) May use a small shield or a parrying dagger for defense.
Sounds like half a dozen really effective character builds from 4e. As long as you're willing to write something other than "fighter" at the top of the sheet, 4e is the best thing that ever happened to swashbuckling.
"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish."
D&D Outsider
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 10:49AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
Yeah 4e had lots of fun with swashbuckler builds.
3e had several good swashbuckling classes, just not the actual swashbuckler. He kinda sucked.
The Swashbuckler was a bold experiment, really. A core class with only three levels.
That Insightful Strike was an interesting capstone to the class. A bit hard to keep your Str, Dex, and Int high enough to make real use of it though.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 11:19AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2010
|
The fact that finesse weapons add dex to attack and damage in 5E pretty much means that swashbuckler should be playable.
I hope they don't remove that.
|
|
|
