Swashbuckler/Bravo/Duelist Archetype

[Manbearcat]

Zorro, D'artagnon, The Dread Pirate Roberts (Wesley), Inigo Montoya, etc. The infamous, lightly-armored, nimble, graceful, agile, skirmisher, who uses a Finesse weapon in one hand and nothing in the other (or a buckler). In its most bare essentials, the archetype must possess a certain panache and guile, be a master swordsman, and move with the uncanny grace and agility of an Olympic Floor Exercise Gold Medalist.

In editions prior to 3e, the mechanical infrastructure supported this archetype with limited success (at best). In the last 2 editions, the archetype has been a natural fit for the Rogue class, supported by its proficiencies, features, powers, feats, paragon paths, prestige classes. The Fighter mechanics of the last 2 editions supported it nominally (with some specific builds being better than others), but for the most part, the Rogue's mechanics more organically supported the archetype.

The current base Rogue mechanics appear to be premised upon more 1e and 2e conventions rather than the more broad interpretation of the class (which supported martial archetypes as well as the subterfuge archetypes of the spy, cut-purse, cat-burglar, thief acrobat, etc) found in 3e and 4e. That being said, the current base Fighter is also an odd fit as it appears to presuppose a leveraging of heavy armor proficiency and Strength as primary attribute, which obviously is at odds with two of the fundamentals of the archetype. Given what we have seen of the 2 classes (Rogue and Fighter) in the playtest thus far, do you guys think that its more likely that WotC will work out a future Rogue build that supports this archetype (obviously through currently unavailable means as the martial platform upon which the archetype is built is unrepresented in this 5e playtest Rogue), or do you think the trend will be overturned and it will best be created via the Fighter class with the proper Background and Theme (or whatever incarnation it will be by release)?

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Actually I could see them supported by both classes with a different focus. Fighter more combat (maneuvers with weapons) oriented and rogue more nimbleness (skills/movement) oriented.

Either way is fine with me. Then again, I like ironclad warriors...

 

[TwinBahamut]

If for whatever reason the Rogue doesn't suffice for such a character concept, there really should be a new class built just for it. I see no reason to go through a "should we stretch the Rogue or stretch the Fighter to include archetype X" game with an archetype that can so easily have a class built around it. We don't need to stuff every kind of non-magical fighting class into the Rogue or Fighter.

I would hope that 5E isn't returning to the days where there are four classes and only four classes, so I don't see how this is an issue. At all.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

The swashbuckler is an odd archetype for D&D, though an understandably popular one. It's odd because the source material, such as Princess Bride and Three Musketeers, are stories about men versus men in a time period where guns have reduced the use of heavy armor and metallurgy has improved to make light blades dominant among the gentry.

We have few examples of rapier versus monster.

In my mind, the swashbuckler is really a fighter using the weapons appropriate for his situation. I think may be the best way of handing the archetype. I'd be interested in seeing the game support the fighter changing up his weaponry and armor based on conditions.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I fully expect the 5e rogue class to have access to an ability or technique that gives them combat advantage for doing something other than hiding behind a rock, so that non-"lurker" rogues will be viable in combat. (This doesn't necessarily mean they'll be flank-assassins like in 3e, but SOMEthing.)

Meanwhile, the fighter's combat superiority abilities are specifically designed to allow for a bunch of different martial styles, and swashbuckler is specifically mentioned in the article. The biggest thing missing is a real mechanical incentive for the character to stick to light/no armor and not carry around a giant shield in his off-hand. That sounds to me like the perfect job for a good theme (or at least feat). Even if it's as simple as a feat that lets you add your Int bonus to AC, or a slight bonus to hit when fighting with nothing in your off-hand, I can imagine plenty of good thematic feats that would work to make the lightly-armored swashbuckler durable and mobile enough to stand up in melee.

Ideally, in fact, the swashbuckler theme would work well with rogues AND with fighters, and maybe even rangers and paladins, to create a bunch of different ways to approach the same archetype/role. (For example, doesn't Inigo Montoya seem like more of a fighter, and Wesley more of a rogue?) The fighter would be tougher and more focused on swordplay and endurance, while the rogue would be slipperier and trickier. Heck, maybe Robin Hood is a ranger swashbuckler!

IMO, the swashbuckler is the perfect example of what a theme should be able to do. Let's hope it works out!

 

[DEFCON 1]

The "finesse" weapons on the Weapons chart in the playtest that automatically defaulted to using DEX *or* STR for attack and damage certainly assists in creating the swashbuckler in that regard as well. A Fighter with the right Theme and a finesse weapon will probably work well out of the gate.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The "finesse" weapons on the Weapons chart in the playtest that automatically defaulted to using DEX *or* STR for attack and damage certainly assists in creating the swashbuckler in that regard as well. A Fighter with the right Theme and a finesse weapon will probably work well out of the gate.

To me, this archetype is largely about doing the same things as most fighters, but with different ability scores. Some well-placed rules that allow a cunning, dextrous fighter without devaluing strength or encouraging min-maxing could go a long way.

 

[Li Shenron]

...do you guys think that its more likely that WotC will work out a future Rogue build that supports this archetype (obviously through currently unavailable means as the martial platform upon which the archetype is built is unrepresented in this 5e playtest Rogue), or do you think the trend will be overturned and it will best be created via the Fighter class with the proper Background and Theme (or whatever incarnation it will be by release)?

I don't know what they'll do, but I hope for the latter (emphasis mine).

I think the Rogue would fit better the general archetype of someone knows how to get along in various situations by using wit and savvyness to replace missing skills (or equipment). Either opening a door with tools when you don't have the key, or fighting dirty when you don't have the proficiency. I think a Swashbuckler should better be a Fighter derivation rather than a Rogue after all.

I guess that in the past 12 years combat has become such the centre of all the game that the Rogue general concept had to switch to focus on how he fights, and that somehow pulled the Swashbuckler half way between the two classes. The Rogue however needed a different staple way of fighting in order to provide some different gaming experience, hence the idea that it must "hit less but hurt more (sneak attack)" and further development of the 4e roles...

But now check for instance those famous characters you mentioned and ask yourself this question: do Zorro, D'artagnan, Wesley and Montoya really "hit less but hurt more"? I'm not an expert of their tales, but IMHO they hit a lot, practically they hit all the time they want. They also hurt, but not by fighting dirty... not by ambushing or backstabbing at least, they hurt because they are precise hence skilled. You can vary the interpretation of sneak attack to include also a general skill of knowing where it hurts, but why wouldn't the Fighter also know the same? Everyone who practices martial arts learn that kind of thing for instance, and so do policemen and soldiers for their jobs, and they are all trained. And it is that training to fight that for me fits more with the idea of a Fighter rather than a Rogue.

 

[Manbearcat]

Meanwhile, the fighter's combat superiority abilities are specifically designed to allow for a bunch of different martial styles, and swashbuckler is specifically mentioned in the article. The biggest thing missing is a real mechanical incentive for the character to stick to light/no armor and not carry around a giant shield in his off-hand. That sounds to me like the perfect job for a good theme (or at least feat). Even if it's as simple as a feat that lets you add your Int bonus to AC, or a slight bonus to hit when fighting with nothing in your off-hand, I can imagine plenty of good thematic feats that would work to make the lightly-armored swashbuckler durable and mobile enough to stand up in melee.

The "finesse" weapons on the Weapons chart in the playtest that automatically defaulted to using DEX *or* STR for attack and damage certainly assists in creating the swashbuckler in that regard as well. A Fighter with the right Theme and a finesse weapon will probably work well out of the gate.

To me, this archetype is largely about doing the same things as most fighters, but with different ability scores. Some well-placed rules that allow a cunning, dextrous fighter without devaluing strength or encouraging min-maxing could go a long way.

But now check for instance those famous characters you mentioned and ask yourself this question: do Zorro, D'artagnan, Wesley and Montoya really "hit less but hurt more"? I'm not an expert of their tales, but IMHO they hit a lot, practically they hit all the time they want. They also hurt, but not by fighting dirty... not by ambushing or backstabbing at least, they hurt because they are precise hence skilled. You can vary the interpretation of sneak attack to include also a general skill of knowing where it hurts, but why wouldn't the Fighter also know the same? Everyone who practices martial arts learn that kind of thing for instance, and so do policemen and soldiers for their jobs, and they are all trained. And it is that training to fight that for me fits more with the idea of a Fighter rather than a Rogue.

I come at it from a few angles for my expectations of the archetype's mechanical interpretation. These angles are underwritten by my understanding of the fictional lore of the 4 character's mentioned in the original post but even more, by the expectations of two long-time PCs (and dear friends) who are ardent fans of the archetype.

Let me recapture the first paragraph and then delve deeper into how these archetypes should map to DnD's Ability Score mechanics and how the mechanics should inform the DnD fiction:

Zorro, D'artagnon, The Dread Pirate Roberts (Wesley), Inigo Montoya, etc. The infamous, lightly-armored, nimble, graceful, agile, skirmisher, who uses a Finesse weapon in one hand and nothing in the other (or a buckler). In its most bare essentials, the archetype must possess a certain panache and guile, be a master swordsman, and move with the uncanny grace and agility of an Olympic Floor Exercise Gold Medalist.

1) Ability Scores in order of relevance/prominence:

- Dexterity primary; Finesse weapon, extreme hand-eye and foot-eye coordination, agility, grace, precision over brute force, mobility over armored protection.
- Intelligence secondary; Uncanny guile, martial technician, well studied.
- Charisma tertiary; Panache (a measure of flamboyance in both martial and life pursuits), self-determination, extreme sense of self.
- Constitution and Wisdom; Extreme aerobic fitness, honed instincts, spatial awareness, keen insight into the human condition.
- Strrength; <Long Paragraph>

Under the auspices of a single, predominant, ability score as dictator, the physical, fast-twitch elements of the archetype are better expressed by Dexterity than Strength. However, this is where the murky underbelly of DnD process simulation is exposed as it goes pear-shaped. Classifcally (in real life), fast twitch musculature capability (burst strength and dynamic, explosive power) would be quantified as Strength. Classically (in real life), slow twitch musculature capability (coordination, body-control, balance, grace, agility, nimblness) would be quantified as Dexterity. In real life, most extremely Dextrous people would have both a high Dexterity and Strength and these two would synergize to create an elite athlete. Further, they likely would often also have an above average Constitution score (to simulate their aerobic endurance capabilities). Unfortunately, that does not map well to the world of DnD mechanics when you consider the limitations inherent in ability score spread (due to limited character creation assets) and the siloing away of/lack of synergy between the ability scores. We are limited in DnD due to these mechanical constraints and their abstractions/limitations with respect to the composition of biophysics and kinesis.

Given the above, if we want our mechanics should inform the fiction that the PC is (i) a World-Class Warrior who expresses this through (ii) Finesse/Coordination/Agility over Brawn, and (iii) Learned Martial Tactics and Economy of Action over Agression. To do this, we must choose a results-oriented route of Dexterity primary and Intelligence secondary and just fudge the component of Strength toward the Martial Output of the warrior's equation (which actually makes sense given how Strength's only potential contribution to the equation is circumvented due to the Finesse mechanic) . Trying to find a way to simulate the process (by putting Strength and/or Constitution into the equation) of this archetype's components -

Slow-twich biophysics predominance [grace, coordination, agility, nimbleness, balance, body-control]
+
Well-Studied [guile, martial tactician over brawn, economy of action over agression]
+
Fast-twich biophysics component [speed, explosive parries, thrusts, ripostes]

will expose the DnD Ability Score Model as a poor simulation of reality (and specifically the kinesis synergy between Strength and Dexterity) and will fail the expression of (i) due to the dilution of (ii) and (iii) to the point that the archetype cannot possibly be (i) when compared to his martial contemporaries.

What's more, the Fighter's build framework seem to presuppose Strength (as primary martial contributor) and Plate Mail (as arbiter of AC) as mechanical assets are already tied up in Heavy Armor Proficiency and a Strength Bonus inherent to the class. Unless the designers provide proper analogs for these two (and add a class component such as a ZombieRoboNinja mentioned above - Int to AC with Light Armor and no Shield), a rather large component of the Fighter's built-in mechanical assets (that weigh heavily upon the equation of his construct) will be lost. If that happens, the Swashbuckler/Duelist/Bravo (built from a Fighter's framework) will fail at (i).

 

[Remathilis]

If Combat Superiority works as we think it will, swashbucklers will be viable. Pick a finesse weapon and rely on your CS dice for extra damage (not coming from Str) and stunts. A good theme (like duelist) and a proper background can round off the mix.

I'd like to see a similar area of crossover for Rogues here as well. The charming thief (like Remington Steele, Remy Lebeau or Selina Kyle) is a perfectly good archetype as well, and the rules should allow Rogues some ability to dodge blades, disarm foes, and steal pouches off belts all while flashing a winning smile.