D&D 5E Why the claim of combat and class balance between the classes is mainly a forum issue. (In my opinion)

[GMforPowergamers]

Well, no. The rest of the PHB is full of very disparate concepts as well.

Yes lots to fix but nothing can be done if we don't find some basics

 

[Derren]

Start here: and they say "Well I'm a swashbuckler that always gets the girl, I'm also really smart, able to fight things smarter not harder"
They roll18, 15,14,14,13,10

If that is the goal I would put the 18 in Int, not Char as smart seems to be really important in your description.
But, nowhere does it say in there that the character must be able to kill a wolf at level 1 or even be a very good fighter. Yet we both know that in your next post you will continue to go on about how a wolf is stronger, how the character is not good enough at combat, etc.

So, again. What do you actually want?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If that is the goal I would put the 18 in Int, not Char as smart seems to be really important in your description.
But, nowhere does it say in there that the character must be able to kill a wolf at level 1 or even be a very good fighter. Yet we both know that in your next post you will continue to go on about how a wolf is stronger, how the character is not good enough at combat, etc.

So, again. What do you actually want?

What does an 18 int do? I really don't get that.

I want to show up and do some fun rp and when combat comes out
I want to be cool there TOO (in addition) I want my cool guy to be cool in my example he picked rogue becuse combat was secondary to his concept but he still wanted it here

 

[Derren]

What does an 18 int do? I really don't get that.

You want the guy to be smart and fight smart. And as your description focuses much more on his intelligence than his charisma I would put the 18 in Int and not Cha.

I want to show up and do some fun rp and when combat comes out
I want to be cool there TOO (in addition) I want my cool guy to be cool

Slowly we are getting there. Now define "cool" as it is very subjective. Best so that it can be measured (you likely have some measurement in your mind already).

 

[Ahnehnois]

Start here: and they say "Well I'm a swashbuckler that always gets the girl, I'm also really smart, able to fight things smarter not harder"
They roll18, 15,14,14,13,10

This sounds like the point where the DM (and the rules) have to inform the player that he is not the guy from those "most interesting man in the world" commercials. On some level, you have to pick which things you want to be good at. Do you want to be clever and daring and smooth with the ladies, or do you want to be able to actually get stuff done? To some extent those are disparate concepts, and to some extent you do have to choose between them.

That being said, with the array and mandate you've given, I see nothing preventing you from throwing an 18 into dex, two of those 14's into Int and Cha, and making a rogue or other character who is extremely effective at feinting and deals big SA damage whenever he fakes someone out, and is fairly effective at everything you describe. If that isn't enough combat effectiveness or enough charisma to satisfy, refer to the above.

Yes lots to fix but nothing can be done if we don't find some basics

The basics are this. Swordplay, subterfuge, channeling divine power, researching arcane secrets, playing music, and so on and so on are completely disparate ideas. Characters defined by doing those things are apples and oranges and all sorts of other different fruits.

If you have a system that allows for skill in basketweaving and skill at swinging swords (as 3e does), those will never be comparable, leaving one of three paths. Either accept that, or silo the different types of skills and balance within the silos, or simply eliminate the basketweaving part. To me, 3e does some of #2 and #3, and 4e does more. I'd rather just stick with option #1: acceptance. There's still a lot of room for playing around with how broad the categories are (is it skill with all weapons, just swords, just parrying with swords), and what the numbers mean (how much it costs to get a bonus, how DCs scale). But I don't feel the need to try and make unequal things equal.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You want the guy to be smart and fight smart. And as your description focuses much more on his intelligence than his charisma I would put the 18 in Int and not Cha.



Slowly we are getting there. Now define "cool" so that it can be measured (you likely have some measurement in your mind already).

Able to at the table act like a musketeers minus the gun... Um fight with a distinct style and charm people and be a major asset to the team in and out of combat

Extra points if I can do something big and splashey

 

[pemerton]

Except that you arbitrarily made up your typical duelist

<snip>

Every level 1 character has no chance to defeat that 40 HP guy 1 on 1, so no level 1

Maybe you didn't read this part of the post to which you replied:

Because you haven't posted your conception of a typical 3E duelist, I don't have actual numbers to work with - hence my hypotheticals. But whether the numbers are hypothetical or actual, the point remains that a character who has no realistic prospect of winning a duel against a typical duelist is a poor fencer. Hence, you cannot divorce your conception of a character as a swashbuckler from the mechanical expression of that conception via attack statistics.

You are the one who, upthread, denied that the character concept "swashbuckler" is linked to any particular mechanical expression such as 3d6+7 damage.

You now seem to be conceding that, in fact, competence as a fencer is linked to mechanical capabilities. In which case, we are in agreement!

As to what the actual mechanical capabilities should be, I don't know: I'm not a 3E player (and 3E seems to be the example being used) and hence don't have much experience in building 3E PCs.

In 4e, I can tell you that it is easy to build a swashbuckler, and in fact there are five pathways I can think of to that outcome: (1) build a PHB rogue; (2) build an Essentials rogue; (3) build a STR melee ranger; (4) build a DEX melee ranger (using the options in MP2); (5) build a STR/DEX two-weapon fighter (using the options in MP). Any of these should be at least competent, if not quite strong, in melee combat with level-equivalent enemies.

As I understand it, [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] is arguing that if I build a 1st level rogue swashbuckler in 3E (ignoring the fact that I don't qualify for Weapon Finesse yet - let's call that a swashbuckler-friendly house rule) then I am likely to lose in combat to the 1st level druid's pet wolf. This strike me as a reasonable marker of relative combat ineffectiveness, and hence failure to actually achieve the concept I was aiming for.

What are my odds against a CR 1/2 orc?

Build what better?
A dashing swordman or a swashbuckler who gets the girl?

Why can't I have both? That doesn't strike me as a particularly broken combination!

a swashbuckler is not defined by having prowess, but swagger and daring, and thus there is no mandate that for the swashbuckler concept to be represented mechanically, it must meet a particular threshold of combat effectiveness.

I am confident that when most people imagine a swashbuckler they are thinking of Robin Hood, a stereotypical pirate (perhaps Westley), or Zorro, or something similar. I don't think they're thinking of someone who can't fence but brags to the contrary.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This sounds like the point where the DM (and the rules) have to inform the player that he is not the guy from those "most interesting man in the world" commercials. On some level, you have to pick which things you want to be good at .

Why? If you can play gandaulf or Merlin orthe guy that can turn I to a bear and have a bear friend and summon more bears well calling lighting. Then why can't I be the most interesting man in the world?

 

[Ahnehnois]

I am confident that when most people imagine a swashbuckler they are thinking of Robin Hood, a stereotypical pirate (perhaps Westley), or Zorro, or something similar. I don't think they're thinking of someone who can't fence but brags to the contrary.

Really? I'll challenge you to a duel on that one. When I hear that word, I think of someone who is all suave and cool, but if you dropped him into a cage with a wolf would get torn to pieces. The word has a "pretty boy" connotation to me.

As to your examples, Wesley is from a comedy and his exaggerated abilities are part of the comedy, Robin Hood is clearly one of those ranger swashbucklers I was talking about and Zorro would be a similar non-rogue class designed for the setting he's in. There are plenty of other diverse examples of what people might consider a swashbuckler. It's a pretty broad and vague term, and one that in no way demands that one class be rethought as a primary combatant in order to satisfy its definition.

 

[Derren]

You now seem to be conceding that, in fact, competence as a fencer is linked to mechanical capabilities. In which case, we are in agreement!

No. You are the one who made up a pile of numbers and said that anyone not able to defeat that is not a swashbuckler, thus linking the term swashbuckler to stats. That a level 1 character has no means of defeating your pile of numbers just shows how unrealistic this concept actually is.

I still say that the swashbuckler is independent from stats. Its how about a character acts, and to fit into the genre, also what equipment he uses. How well he does so is independent of being a swashbuckler.