Fencer Class - now v3

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

 

[Bialaska]

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.

 

[Khaalis]

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.

 

[Bialaska]

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.

 

[Khaalis]

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.

 

[Ferdil]

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.

 

[Khaalis]

Re-posted v2 with slightly cleaned up formatting. See First post.

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.

What did you have in mind?

 

[Ferdil]

What did you have in mind?

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.

 

[Khaalis]

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).

Looking forward to responses.

 

[Ferdil]

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.