4e Fan Creations and House RulesWorking on variant powers? Statting up a PC race or your version of a monster? Creating or converting an adventure? Put it here!
This is an exercise in basic class design using strictly a combination of elements of fighter and ranger to create a lightly armored, mobile, hybrid defender / striker that focuses on allowing for two basic builds –sword and shield (swashbuckler) and two-sword (duelist). This originally came to me back in early May by all the complaints in the Weapon Excerpt thread (and other threads) about the lack of a two-weapon fighting class other than the ranger which seems to be more heavily ranged then dual wielding.
This was also a mental exercise in how to “modify” current existing powers to give them a new flavor and use while not really changing the mechanics, or mixing very basic concepts from existing powers. After putting it all together I figured I'd share it just for posterity and to see if it elicits any comments.
Without further ado… the Fencer. It is too large to post in Forum chat so I have attached the file as .zip PDF file.
Change Log: 07Jul08
• Reduced AC bonus to +2 from +3, so that a DEX 18 Leather wearing fencer has the same AC defense as a fighter in plate.
• Fixed STR to DEX changes for paragon paths and feats.
• Dropped STR 13 prerequisite from the Student of the Circle feat.
Change Log: 08Jul08
• Slight reformating. Thanks go to Ferdil for suggestions and help.
Hmm. I like the idea of a fencer class. However I feel it's a pure striker, an off-shoot of the Rogue, rather than the Fighter. The Fencer is using a light blade and aims for vulnerable spots, thus the powers should be dexterity based, rather than strength. Rogue already got some of the powers of a fencer built in, such as the Riposte, the Sly Flourish, Trick Strike, Positioning Strike, etc.
I think I would have removed the challenge and hybrid ability and made the important stats Dexterity, Intelligence, Charisma. Give the class Piercing Strike, which would add 1d6 damage once per round against the first target hit (a bit similar to the Hunter's Quarry). Make the Fencer Combat Talent a +1 to hit with Light Blades and you add the lowest of Int or Dexterity (the one you do not use normally) to AC when wearing a light armor.
Other than that I think it's a decent class, though I think the need is already covered by Rogue.
This looks really good, I have to say, though I'd consider some form of lunge as one of the at-wills, and there should be a fleche in there somewhere.
In fact, if I did one thing, it would be to give them all-new at-wills, as they're such a defining feature of a class, even if they're based on/close to the existing at-wills of the fighter. Like, I don't think the Fencer "Tide of Iron" should require a shield, for example.
__________________ Hobo - "You're confusing you with someone else."
Ruin Explorer is officially pleased with 4E's DM advice (mostly), and thinks that it's RP-advice etc. is both present and pretty darn solid, and certainly better than all other editions.
Other than that I think it's a decent class, though I think the need is already covered by Rogue.
That's because you're not really understanding what he's going for. The fencer of the movies is not a Rogue. He intentionally draws attention TO himself. He fights multiple opponents at once and lives. He taunts, he jumps around. He is the center of attention. He is not a backstabber who only gets his good blows in when the opponent is distracted, surprised, etc. Indeed, he may intentionally ruin the element of surprise.
All this points to a Defender.
The "rogue"-style fencer guy does exist. He's usually the BAD guy in a movie or book with fencing in it.
So, no rogue doesn't remotely cover this guy. Rogue covers his evil twin.
__________________ Hobo - "You're confusing you with someone else."
Ruin Explorer is officially pleased with 4E's DM advice (mostly), and thinks that it's RP-advice etc. is both present and pretty darn solid, and certainly better than all other editions.
Keep in mind this is not an Olympic Fencer. It is 'meant' to be a hybrid defender / striker because we already have 2 pure strikers, and this is an exercise in creating a viable hybrid, since we know that WotC has already gone ahead and stated they Will be writing hybrids (Druid is #1 on the hybrid list). This class concept was meant to encompass two basic archetypes that are similar in style but different in function that could be combined into a single uniform hybrid class that made sense> The core concept was a lightly armored fighter that could be a hybrid defender and striker, thus the Swashbuckler (sword and shield) and Duelist (2-weapon).
Perhaps "Fencer" is the wrong name? The problem is that every "Name" ... unless it is a completely fictional nonsense word conjures up a different "image" for every person. We ran into this in the original thread that this spawned from when it was named a Swashbuckler and people didn't like it cause it didn't have the use of a shield (buckler) anywhere.
For a true, pure striker build, as was noted by Bialaska, Rogue and Ranger would be the preferred combination source, focusing on single weapon and dual-wield "fencing style" powers. Perhaps I'll take a crack at a pure striker variant as well, or perhaps add a third build and another set of powers to the class to allow it to open up to rogue-like DEX based attacks as well, but without the inherent "thief" aspect.
To Ruin: As for all-new At-Wills, I was specifically avoiding, for this exercise at least, not making new powers. Even those that appear "new" in the class are simply renamed existing powers from the Ranger or Fighter class with one simple change, usually removing a weapon type (such as Ranged), changing WIS to CHA on powers, or changing the bonus gained from specific weapons to the Fencer weapons.
Once I am more comfortable with the system from exercises like this, then I'll get into possibly developing all new powers.
That's because you're not really understanding what he's going for. The fencer of the movies is not a Rogue. He intentionally draws attention TO himself. He fights multiple opponents at once and lives. He taunts, he jumps around. He is the center of attention. He is not a backstabber who only gets his good blows in when the opponent is distracted, surprised, etc. Indeed, he may intentionally ruin the element of surprise.
All this points to a Defender.
The "rogue"-style fencer guy does exist. He's usually the BAD guy in a movie or book with fencing in it.
So, no rogue doesn't remotely cover this guy. Rogue covers his evil twin.
Well, the Fencer in movies is a highly mobile highly damaging dexterity based character, there's absolutely no doubt about that. None of the Musketeers are brawns-above-brains, no, isntead they got swift reflexes and a piercing blade and a quick wit.
So I'd still argue that the Fencer should be a subclass of Rogue, in that most of the powers are suited to the fencer. Replace Sneak Attack with Piercing Strike +1d6 (like Hunter's Quarry) and you got the honourable fencer that you see in movies. Possibly add an at-will power that 'taunts', such as:
Taunting Strike (Dexterity vs. AC, hit: 1[W]+dexterity modifier damage, the target is marked until end of your next turn)
Other at-will powers a Fencer should have would be Sly Flourish, Piercing Strike and Riposte Strike.
Then instead of Artful Dodger and Brutal Scoundrel you should have Defensive Fencer:
When the character wears a light armor, wields a light blade and uses an At-Will power or a Basic melee Attack, add intelligence modifier to the Armor Class until the end of your next turn.
Amongst the encounter abilities you should have the main gauche, the attack with a rapier and a dagger. The fencer doesn't attack all out with both weapons all the time, but instead awaits the opportunity, because such an attack leaves him wide open to attacks.
What I don't see the Fencer as is a copy of Conan (strength as the most important score) with huge bulging muscles, who pokes people with a tiny rapier.
That's because you're not really understanding what he's going for. The fencer of the movies is not a Rogue. He intentionally draws attention TO himself. He fights multiple opponents at once and lives. He taunts, he jumps around. He is the center of attention. He is not a backstabber who only gets his good blows in when the opponent is distracted, surprised, etc. Indeed, he may intentionally ruin the element of surprise.
All this points to a Defender.
The "rogue"-style fencer guy does exist. He's usually the BAD guy in a movie or book with fencing in it.
So, no rogue doesn't remotely cover this guy. Rogue covers his evil twin.
Pretty well stated if I do say so myself. You saw quite well the nature of the attempt I was going for with the hybrid build. A pure striker variant is not out of the question and quite a few of the rogue powers are technically fitting to the style, as would basing the class on DEX rather than STR. However, to do that would have broken the basics of the exercise, which was to use as many powers as possible directly from the two contributing classes to make a new hybrid class. I wanted to see if it could be done and make a viable class.
If the ideas and interest are strong enough, I'd have no problem moving from the exercise into "new class" territory by building new powers, but that is a much larger task to take on.
If there is interest I could see adding a third build to the class and adding a whole new set of powers, but this also takes into ground we are unsure if WotC will go. We really have no idea if WotC will say take the fighter and add new archetype builds into the class other than sword & board and two-hander. I am not sure if they intend for classes to have more than 2 paths. I'd be interested to see what people's opinion is on the topic.
Keep in mind this is not an Olympic Fencer. It is 'meant' to be a hybrid defender / striker because we already have 2 pure strikers, and this is an exercise in creating a viable hybrid, since we know that WotC has already gone ahead and stated they Will be writing hybrids (Druid is #1 on the hybrid list). This class concept was meant to encompass two basic archetypes that are similar in style but different in function that could be combined into a single uniform hybrid class that made sense> The core concept was a lightly armored fighter that could be a hybrid defender and striker, thus the Swashbuckler (sword and shield) and Duelist (2-weapon).
Perhaps "Fencer" is the wrong name? The problem is that every "Name" ... unless it is a completely fictional nonsense word conjures up a different "image" for every person. We ran into this in the original thread that this spawned from when it was named a Swashbuckler and people didn't like it cause it didn't have the use of a shield (buckler) anywhere.
For a true, pure striker build, as was noted by Bialaska, Rogue and Ranger would be the preferred combination source, focusing on single weapon and dual-wield "fencing style" powers. Perhaps I'll take a crack at a pure striker variant as well, or perhaps add a third build and another set of powers to the class to allow it to open up to rogue-like DEX based attacks as well, but without the inherent "thief" aspect.
To Ruin: As for all-new At-Wills, I was specifically avoiding, for this exercise at least, not making new powers. Even those that appear "new" in the class are simply renamed existing powers from the Ranger or Fighter class with one simple change, usually removing a weapon type (such as Ranged), changing WIS to CHA on powers, or changing the bonus gained from specific weapons to the Fencer weapons.
Once I am more comfortable with the system from exercises like this, then I'll get into possibly developing all new powers.
Hmm. Yeah, I think Fencer is not the best name to use for the class that you describe. But truthfully I can't really see any name to cover what it is that you're aiming for. I guess the best would be not to make this a class, but instead to simply make it a Fighter/Ranger multi-class, because that's what it seems to be.
Hmm. Yeah, I think Fencer is not the best name to use for the class that you describe. But truthfully I can't really see any name to cover what it is that you're aiming for. I guess the best would be not to make this a class, but instead to simply make it a Fighter/Ranger multi-class, because that's what it seems to be.
I don't see any way in which Fencer is not a good name, and you provide no justification for your logic. Perhaps Swashbuckler would be better, because it supports the "Look at me!" aspect of it more - that's what swashing your buckler is, banging your sword on it to draw attention yourself.
It's not a Fighter/Ranger multi-class, because it's designed to fight in light armour and it's Class Features support that. Honestly, Bialaska, I think you're only posting to troll, here. You clearly have absolutely no personal interest in swashbuckling-type characters and haven't considered how, y'know, wearing full plate might not really be appropriate to a swashbuckling-type, nor is it really warranted for them to lose 4+ feats just to swap over a few non-unbalancing abilities.
A swashbuckler or fencer is defined by a few things - one these is fighting in light armour. The +3 AC provided by the class feature makes this entirely viable. Without that, it's simply not.
__________________ Hobo - "You're confusing you with someone else."
Ruin Explorer is officially pleased with 4E's DM advice (mostly), and thinks that it's RP-advice etc. is both present and pretty darn solid, and certainly better than all other editions.
I don't see any way in which Fencer is not a good name, and you provide no justification for your logic. Perhaps Swashbuckler would be better, because it supports the "Look at me!" aspect of it more - that's what swashing your buckler is, banging your sword on it to draw attention yourself.
It's not a Fighter/Ranger multi-class, because it's designed to fight in light armour and it's Class Features support that. Honestly, Bialaska, I think you're only posting to troll, here. You clearly have absolutely no personal interest in swashbuckling-type characters and haven't considered how, y'know, wearing full plate might not really be appropriate to a swashbuckling-type, nor is it really warranted for them to lose 4+ feats just to swap over a few non-unbalancing abilities.
A swashbuckler or fencer is defined by a few things - one these is fighting in light armour. The +3 AC provided by the class feature makes this entirely viable. Without that, it's simply not.
I actually like 'fencing/swashbuckling' characters, hence the reason I was so confused by the name. The traditional Swashbuckler/Fencer is the 3.5 Swashbuckler of the Complete Warrior and the Duelist Prestige class of the Dungeon Master's Guide. Both of these classes are highly mobile, dexterity based characters with little to no need for strength. It is for this reason I think the character should be Dexterity based, rather than Strength based. Since it's the Sneak attack that makes a Rogue into a Striker, simply don't have any damage boosting abilities, but keep the Fighter class abilities. But make the powers into the Rogue powers, this honestly isn't unbalancing, as the damage for either of the defenders remain the same, since there's no Sneak Attack.
Since this character should wear light armor, the dexterity modifier stacks with the light armor, which brings a character with 18 dexterity (which someone with dexterity as primary score will usually have) in a hide armor up to a 17 AC. 17 AC is also what the fighter wearing a scale mail (the heaviest armor they can wear without taking feats) will have. Therefore they will start out on the same playing field as the Fighter. You could remove combat superiority to give a bonus to AC under certain conditions.
Because I don't really care if it's built on a defender or striker platform, as long as the main attribute is dexterity with strength either unimportant or a tertiary. It's the main attribute of strength that is making me a bit uneasy, not whether or not it's going to defend or deal a lot of damage.
After the comments made, I went through and did a revision.
The Fencer v2:
* Changed from STR to DEX as primary ability score.
* Addition of a Fencer weapon group restriction to all powers (group defined under class features)
* New At-Will powers (mostly close variants of existing powers but renamed and reflecting the new DEX focus for the class)
* Re-done powers
-- conversions to DEX
-- weapon restrictions
-- smattering of style appropriate 'rogue' powers
-- some modifications to make them slightly different from the original (such as all new names)
-- alterations to secondary ability score triggers (more reliance on CHA and STR)
I'd be interested in any feedback that comes along.
After the comments made, I went through and did a revision.
The Fencer v2:
* Changed from STR to DEX as primary ability score.
* Addition of a Fencer weapon group restriction to all powers (group defined under class features)
* New At-Will powers (mostly close variants of existing powers but renamed and reflecting the new DEX focus for the class)
* Re-done powers
-- conversions to DEX
-- weapon restrictions
-- smattering of style appropriate 'rogue' powers
-- some modifications to make them slightly different from the original (such as all new names)
-- alterations to secondary ability score triggers (more reliance on CHA and STR)
I'd be interested in any feedback that comes along.
This is a great class now, I can easily see the lightly or unarmored daring duelist leaping into battle wielding his trusty rapier.
This is a great class now, I can easily see the lightly or unarmored daring duelist leaping into battle wielding his trusty rapier.
Thanks for the thumbs up. I really do hope that it covers all 3 basic types of "swashbuckler/duelist": Sword & Buckler style, Classic "fencing" Solo Sword, and of course plain old Two-Weapon fighter without the tree-hugger added in.
This class is definitely going to help me, thank you. This is the kind of character I always do and I was disappointed to not find it on the core books.
Your layout is not perfect (no offence ), if you give me the source file I can make it look better, I'm quite good at those things.
__________________
Last edited by Ferdil; 2nd July 2008 at 03:07 PM..
Nothing exceptional, your layout is quite good as it is, you already managed to make it quite similar to the WotC handbook. I just wanted to move around some layout elements, change some fonts, change the column width, something on the powers' «cards», and to move the page number more on the angle of the page, and to cut it, like it is in the paper handbook. Just minor things.
Anyway, I suggest you to upload the source file because if someone wants, for example, to make a power card with one of the great tools out there, he cannot copy the text from the pdf properly (if you don't understand, try yourself. if you still don't understand, i can explain you why) and it can be very annoying to cannot simply do cut-paste. Also if someone wants to do his own adjustments it's quite impossible with a pdf file.
P.S. I know where you took those page numbers . I did the same thing when I released some content for 3.5.
EDIT: also, a tip for the class. The fencer should not have a shield, in fact in none of the pictures you included shows a fences with a shield. You should change his shield-onehanded fighting style with a onehanded-noshield (and the weapon must be held with one hand) fighting style that gives +1 to AC to compensate for the missing shield. All the powers dependent from the shield should be removed or changed. Also, the Riposte power is overpowered for an at-will, and the AC bonus if wearing no or light armor should increase with level, maybe beginning at +2 or +1.
__________________
Last edited by Ferdil; 2nd July 2008 at 10:22 PM..
EDIT: also, a tip for the class. The fencer should not have a shield, in fact in none of the pictures you included shows a fences with a shield. You should change his shield-onehanded fighting style with a onehanded-noshield (and the weapon must be held with one hand) fighting style that gives +1 to AC to compensate for the missing shield. All the powers dependent from the shield should be removed or changed. Also, the Riposte power is overpowered for an at-will, and the AC bonus if wearing no or light armor should increase with level, maybe beginning at +2 or +1.
On the suggestions:
1) One of the builds in question is specifically meant to be a swashbuckler. This of course is based on Swashing Your Buckle, which is beating your buckler with your sword to draw attention. I had already made the point earlier that this is not an Olympic style fencer class. However, single weapon (with no shield) is still possible. You just wouldn't wear a shield and woudln't take shield based powers. As to the art, I simply couldn't find a picture of a true swashbuckler.
2) How is Ripost overpowered? I'm curious as to your logic here.
Note that I've already changed it from an Interrupt to a Reaction in v3 to remove the ability to prevent the original hit from landing. Also note that you can only use 1 Immediate action per round, so at most you get to deal 1[W] damage more than your Standard Action for the round, but it requires that you be attacked in melee (thus taking damage) before you can make your second strike.
3) Why should the AC bonus increase with level?
Keep in mind that "Cloth" is considered 'no armor' but can be enchanted normally like any armor. The design of this class isn't meant to remove the need for the PC to spend money on magical armor under the core system. The AC bonus is a one time bonus that brings the class up to the same AC Defense level as a Cleric or Warlord even though they don't wear armor that heavy. For any AC bonuses beyond this, they still have to invest in magical armor (even if its magical cloth armor like a wizard).
On the suggestions:
1) One of the builds in question is specifically meant to be a swashbuckler. This of course is based on Swashing Your Buckle, which is beating your buckler with your sword to draw attention. I had already made the point earlier that this is not an Olympic style fencer class. However, single weapon (with no shield) is still possible. You just wouldn't wear a shield and woudln't take shield based powers. As to the art, I simply couldn't find a picture of a true swashbuckler.
2) How is Ripost overpowered? I'm curious as to your logic here.
Note that I've already changed it from an Interrupt to a Reaction in v3 to remove the ability to prevent the original hit from landing. Also note that you can only use 1 Immediate action per round, so at most you get to deal 1[W] damage more than your Standard Action for the round, but it requires that you be attacked in melee (thus taking damage) before you can make your second strike.
3) Why should the AC bonus increase with level?
Keep in mind that "Cloth" is considered 'no armor' but can be enchanted normally like any armor. The design of this class isn't meant to remove the need for the PC to spend money on magical armor under the core system. The AC bonus is a one time bonus that brings the class up to the same AC Defense level as a Cleric or Warlord even though they don't wear armor that heavy. For any AC bonuses beyond this, they still have to invest in magical armor (even if its magical cloth armor like a wizard).
Looking forward to responses.
1) If it's so, you should change the weapon-and-shield fighting style to a one-handed-weapon fighting style, that applies in both cases (if you have a shield and if you don't). Now it forces the player to use a shield, if he wants the AC bonus.
2) Now, in v3, it's much, much less overpowered, but the dual strike already gives you a bonus attack, with the two powers combined you could make three attacks in one round. But, since there are no bonuses to damage, you have to take damage to do it, and you changed the action from interrupt to reaction, it's not a big problem.
3) You are right.
__________________
Last edited by Ferdil; 4th July 2008 at 10:58 AM..
), if you give me the source file I can make it look better, I'm quite good at those things.
. I did the same thing when I released some content for 3.5.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
