Swashbuckler/Bravo/Duelist Archetype

[Sunseeker]

After a lot of thought, I don't really feel that the Swashbucker really fits into either a fighter or rogue sub-class.

The Swashbuckler may use stealth and trickery at times, but they are in general more flamboyant. When a rogue would hide or kick sand in the eyes of his enemy, a Swashbucker would challenge his foe to a duel with one hand tied behind his back!

The Swashbucker also lacks the overall brute of a warrior, often wearing little more than padded cloth and wielding light weapon(s). When the fighter charges in, the Swashbuckler swings from the ceiling hanging from a chandelier and jumps across his foes to take the high-ground, often using some world-object to impeed the ability of his foes to reach him.

It's almost more of a bravado melee urban ranger. Like armor, quick movements, good city-senses, big ego. The Swashbuckler is as likely to actually fight you as he is to light a carriage-wheel on fire and send it rolling down the stairs!

The Swashbuckler demands either a very specific theme which heavily alters the base concepts and presuppositions of either the fighter, rogue, or ranger(is the ranger in 5e?), or it's own unique class which plays upon these classic themes.

 

[the Jester]

I'm of the mind that "swashbuckler" makes a better theme than a it does a class.

Swashbuckler fighter, swashbuckler bard, swashbuckler rogue, swashbuckler ranger, swashbuckler assassin- I can see them all, and it's not too hard for me to envisage a swashbuckler mage or monk, either. Any class, really.

 

[pemerton]

I think [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] is right to worry about the fighter being the swashbuckler, if the fighter is per se a STR-based class (and we've seen suggestions to that effect, eg that being a fighter gives +1 STR).

Given a swashbuckler uses DEX, you need to have a DEX-based class to support it. (I suppose there could be a workaround of a feat or theme that more-then-compensates for missing out on that +1 to a key stat, but then it might be overpowered if combined with a DEX-based class.)

 

[Manbearcat]

Well, the good news is they seem to be attempting to provide means for the Fighter to properly capture this archetype.

- Fighter does not just presuppose Strength as primary attribute. Both Dexterity and Constitution can be selected at character creation.
- Duelist is explicitly a "Fighting Style" within the Fighter's build mechanics.

While these are strong indicators of support for the style, as ever, there are concerns that the One-handed Duelist/Fencing style will be sub-optimal and marginalized to irrelevancy due to (continued) lack of support. Within this playtest material, I do not see the means embedded within the Fighter Maneuver/Combat Superiority framework to properly express this style as a mechanically relevant combat style. Without proper support to up the AC of the light-armored fighter (which still seems to presuppose Heavy Armor as primary means of damage mitigation), which needs to be inherent in the class build mechanics (to avoid feat taxation), the Duelist Fighter is borne out as (relative to the other options) ill-equipped infantry/front-line warriors. In order to legitimize the style, there will need to be siloed maneuvers (that other styles don't get access to) within the Fencing style that give it extremely potent:

A) Melee Control - Negative status effects up to and including afflicting negatives to attack rolls and outright action denial. This would provide intangible proxy defense (rather than passive AC).

B) Tactical Mobility - Shifting, acrobatics and manipulation of opponents (slide effects) to move out of danger to avoid being swarmed and possibly induce action denial through forcing enemy into bad positions/terrain. Again, this would provide intangible proxy defense (rather than passive AC) and would help the style neutralize its AC deficiencies in "Swarm Melees" or "Mass Combats".

C) Immediate Action Options - Ripostes, damage avoidance via mobility, perhaps forcing disadvantage on attack rolls. Another option here that could leverage Opportunity Attack mechanics would be to give the Fencing style "Reach 10" to reflect the lightning quick lunging attacks that artificially inflate the reach of Fencers. These would provide Offense, Defense, and Melee Control.

If Swashbucklers/Duelists/Fencers are not going to have the requisite passive AC to be front-line combatants, then some of A thru C will be required to bulwark the style towards competitiveness with the other styles.

Finally, I would still like to see a Rogue Scheme (along with a feat tree) that allows the class to emulate this archetype to one degree or another.

 

[Stormonu]

What about the swashbuckler's disdain for armor? How is that to be modeled in a fashion in which he isn't the plate-clad fighter's pincushion?

 

[Manbearcat]

What about the swashbuckler's disdain for armor? How is that to be modeled in a fashion in which he isn't the plate-clad fighter's pincushion?

See A thru C above (specifically A and B). Further, a feat or feat tree could provide the support there (unarmored defense providing a + 2 bonus to AC or something to that effect). Yes, its a feat tax, but I think eschewing armor completely (when light armor does the trick) would be a willful choice in being sub-optimal and, as such, if you wish to "cover for" it, you would need to invest. They could just as easily build that into the Duelist mechanics of the Fighter "Fighting Style" Feature but the current iteration shows no such inclination and handling every corner case would be a hefty load for Class Features to canvass.

 

[Rune]

As much as I enjoy seeing the duelist option for the fighter in the current playtest packet, I tend to think of a swashbuckler more as a sort of bard than a fighter or rogue.

Combat for them (and all the stunts associated with it) is as much (or more) about style than actually dealing damage to their enemies. It's (at least) as much about defeating them by making them look foolish to those who would otherwise be intimidated and/or inspired by such foes.

 

[Bow_Seat]

I don't see how a swashbuckler is not supported by the fighter class.

Let's say you're a wood elf (because +dex). Hopefully you get about a 16 on your high stat and you use your +1 dex (wood elf) and +1 dex (fighter) give you an 18. This mean you have an 18 in your
1) armor stat
2) attack stat
3) damage stat
4) skill stat (I feel that most applicable skills are dex based)

not bad so far

Looking at equipment let's say you want to be lightly armored. Let's give him leather armor (because we really want that +1 AC over unarmored!).

Next we'll do the traditional swashbuckler approach and have a rapier and a buckler. Let's not forget that swashbuckers, you know, used bucklers.

so we have a 16 AC; +4 attack; 1d8+4 damage; 1d10 hit dice fighter that can use all sorts of cool maneuvery swashbucklingly cool stuff (like parry and tumble and shift!) with only having to put effort into ONE STAT

that gives you five big stats to customize your character however you want. Granted you might not hit quite as hard as an two handed weapon STR fighter, but you also get to do a lot more with your skills since your aren't encumbered by armor, move faster, and have only had to put points into one stat so far.

I think that's a pretty good build

 

[Manbearcat]

@Bow_Seat

1) Rapier is 1d6 damage.
2) Using a wood-elf with the rules that we have is a bad idea because Wood Elfs would presuppose Long Sword as their One-Handed Weapon of choice due to the mechanics mapping to the fiction of the "implied setting". Due to their cultural affinity, the leverage a 1d10 as damage with a Long Sword. However, extraordinarily, their cultural affinity does not grant them Weapon Finesse with Long Sword. I would anticipate that this "implied setting" mess does not make it through the next QC. However, it is what we have now so let us stay away from using Elves.
3) In a bound system, such as we have, a single + 1 difference in to hit, to damage, and AC is a very large disparity.
4) While a an empty-handed fencing style is buckler-capable, it defeats the purpose of the empty-handed, duelist theme. None of the great fencers/duelists mentioned in the lead post (and there are more where that came from) used a buckler. If you have to use a buckler as a kludge to make the numbers work then the argument is nullified both within the fiction and within the mechanics. It defeats the purpose of the exercise - which is to legitimize the genre-expectation of the lightly armored front-line fighter, who makes use of the one-handed/empty-handed fencing fighting style of Zorro, Dartagnan and the Three Musketeers, The Dread Pirate Roberts, Innigo Montoya, Captain Jack Sparrow, etc.

Let us use human as the baseline. Their broken racial setup fits the exercise perfectly. Let us assume a 16 in primary score (Strength and Dex respectively) for a total of 18 + 4. Their Combat Superiority is not relevant as they are granted dice at the same rate but different abilities (of which it is likely that there will be some decent overlap at high levels). Neither have Feat Support at this point.

Level 1 Slayer Fighter

Attack: + 4
Damage: (Greataxe) 1d12 + 4 (mean of 10.5 damage)
AC: (Leather) 15
Unique Maneuver: Damage on a miss. Useful given the inevitable miss rate of 40-45 % in a bound accuracy system.

Level 1 Duelist Fighter

Attack: + 4
Damage: (Rapier) 1d6 + 4 (mean of 7.5 damage)
AC: (Chainmail) 16
Unique Maneuver: Tumble through enemies? Does this draw Opportunity Attacks? It would seem to given that movement modes (Shift, Disengage) that specifically do not provoke Opportunity Attacks convey it explicitly. If it does not, it has marginal utility. If it does provoke OAs, then it is horrible and will require a rewrite.


Metrics as front line fighter: At level one we have an extremely large disparity in performance from both a metric standpoint and intangible (maneuver) standpoint. However, as we move down the line of levels, the ACs will tighten up to be exactly the same with equivalent armor (likely 17 vs 17 at level 5). However, the damage disparity will remain (30 % disparity).

Intangibles as front line fighter: Examining the maneuvers (they share jab), Shift versus Cleave is situational. Shift will have a decent bit of utility in mass combat to prevent being swarmed. However, given that there is no flanking bonus in 5e (currently), being swarmed (unless the creature fought has specific bonuses for ganging up) is not much of a handicap. If Shift also provided a + 1 to AC and Dexterity Saves until the end of your next turn, then you would have something. However, given the base system combat system, it has minimal potency as either enemy action denial or minimizing flanking bonuses (which do not exist). Unlike Shift, Cleave always has clear and present utility in the base combat system when engaging multiple enemies.


Conclusion: Damage disparity is large (upwards of 30 %) and needs some means to bottleneck. AC disparity exists only at the first few levels, evening out likely somewhere around level 3 or 4 and staying that way for the duration. Intangibles via maneuvers (within the core combat system) is highly in favor of the Slayer as Tactical Mobility will be of negligible utility without the ability to leverage it toward enemy action denial and without the threat of enemy flanking in mass combat for bonuses. The post above still stands pending clarification of Tumble and the potency of Tactical Mobility being iterated into the future Core Combat System and/or the Tactical Combat Module. Abstract, TotM combat and Tactical Mobility do not comport. Tactical Mobility is generally actualized by way of modifiers in abstract, TotM combat due to lack of precision and implication of positioning sans-grid.

 

[mlund]

Finesse Weapons aren't lame 3E Weapon Finesse. You use the Dexterity Modifier to hit and damage.

Even presuming that you have two 18s to work with as a human, the Rapier Duelist puts those into Dexterity and Constitution. The Ax Slayer puts them into Strength and Constitution and has to take Heavy Armor for AC. If he takes Strength and Dexterity along with Light Armor he's going to have a rubbish Constitution Modifier to the tune of the Finesse Duelist having +3 or +4 HP per level and vastly better Hit Dice healing.

That said, there's still an imbalance. Give a fighter a Heavy Weapon and Chain Mail and what's the Duelist got to show for his troubles? Better Initiative, Stealth, and Speed, I suppose. He also spent 65 GP less on armor.

It's still 1d6 + 4 vs. 1d12 + 4 when you get right down to it.

There's just not sufficient compensation for using a Finesse Weapon as a Fighter: Duelist as opposed to using the same class options with a Heavy Weapon and Heavy Armor. Nothing stops you from being a Duelist with Chainmail and a Great Sword and having massively better damage in exchange for Initiative, Stealth, and 5 feet of movement per round.

The "empty hand dueling" is a red herring, though. People used bucklers, cloaks, parrying daggers, and offensive daggers in non-sport fencing for good reason. Giving you something back for foregoing a defensive item in your off-hand sounds like a good Theme, though.

Theme in general is probably applicable here. A theme that gave you a bonus for using a Finesse Weapon with Medium or Light Armor would be just the ticket.

Also, some movement-based Combat Superior options probably shouldn't be usable in Heavy Armor - like Tumble. Yes, I know you can do a cartwheel in Full Plate. No, that isn't sufficient justification for being able to "leap and roll away from the strikes of your enemies" with the same functionality you'd have if unarmored.

- Marty Lund