Fencer Class - now v3




+ Log in or register to post
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 41
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Cutpurse (Lvl 5)

    Khaalis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    1,592

    Ignore Khaalis

    Fencer Class - now v3

    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.

    Updated revision attached.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by Khaalis; Tuesday, 8th July, 2008 at 02:01 PM. Reason: Change Log: 08Jul08
    - Khaalis
    4E: Races: Dhampir, Risi, Minotaur / Classes: Fencer

    Old 3E Stuff: Classes: Lineage Sorcerer, Duelist, Primalist, Witch, Simple Sorcerer Variants, Daggerspell Psion, Alchemist / Races: Atan

 

  • #2
    Registered User
    Gallant (Lvl 3)

    FabioMilitoPagliara's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    via Leopoldo Cassese, 30 - 84122 salerno (sa)
    Posts
    329
    I Defended The Walls!

    Ignore FabioMilitoPagliara
    nice work, have to read better to evaluate it
    regards, Fabio

  • #3
    Registered User
    Cutpurse (Lvl 5)

    Khaalis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    1,592

    Ignore Khaalis
    Quote Originally Posted by FabioMilitoPagliara
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    nice work, have to read better to evaluate it
    Thanks. No rush, but any feedback is appreciated.
    - Khaalis
    4E: Races: Dhampir, Risi, Minotaur / Classes: Fencer

    Old 3E Stuff: Classes: Lineage Sorcerer, Duelist, Primalist, Witch, Simple Sorcerer Variants, Daggerspell Psion, Alchemist / Races: Atan

  • #4
    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.

  • #5
    Registered User
    Scout (Lvl 6)

    Ruin Explorer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    London, -, UK
    Posts
    2,421

    Ignore Ruin Explorer
    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."

  • #6
    Registered User
    Scout (Lvl 6)

    Ruin Explorer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    London, -, UK
    Posts
    2,421

    Ignore Ruin Explorer
    Quote Originally Posted by Bialaska
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    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."

  • #7
    Registered User
    Cutpurse (Lvl 5)

    Khaalis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    1,592

    Ignore Khaalis
    Thanks for the input everyone.

    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.
    - Khaalis
    4E: Races: Dhampir, Risi, Minotaur / Classes: Fencer

    Old 3E Stuff: Classes: Lineage Sorcerer, Duelist, Primalist, Witch, Simple Sorcerer Variants, Daggerspell Psion, Alchemist / Races: Atan

  • #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruin Explorer
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    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.

  • #9
    Registered User
    Cutpurse (Lvl 5)

    Khaalis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    1,592

    Ignore Khaalis
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruin Explorer
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    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.
    - Khaalis
    4E: Races: Dhampir, Risi, Minotaur / Classes: Fencer

    Old 3E Stuff: Classes: Lineage Sorcerer, Duelist, Primalist, Witch, Simple Sorcerer Variants, Daggerspell Psion, Alchemist / Races: Atan

  • #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Khaalis
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    Thanks for the input everyone.

    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.

  • + Log in or register to post
    Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. Brutal Fencer (A Fighter Build)
      By Cadfan in forum Character Builds & Optimization
      Replies: 25
      Last Post: Tuesday, 8th December, 2009, 12:39 AM
    2. A sport fencer's view of D&D (Iron Heroes) feats
      By Driddle in forum General RPG Discussion
      Replies: 23
      Last Post: Tuesday, 15th May, 2007, 02:12 PM
    3. Replies: 44
      Last Post: Friday, 18th February, 2005, 03:55 PM
    4. Wretched Fencer
      By Bulak in forum Monster Homebrews
      Replies: 23
      Last Post: Wednesday, 7th May, 2003, 07:35 PM
    5. d20 Modern fencer vs. D&D swordsman
      By Olidammara in forum General RPG Discussion
      Replies: 1
      Last Post: Thursday, 15th August, 2002, 04:45 PM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •