Dexterity-Based Fighter in 13th Age?

[Morty]

Hmm, so a Ranger would work as a quick-and-dirty swords(wo)man who isn't a meathead. Unfortunately, multi-classing isn't an option for me, as I don't have any non-SRD material. Druids also don't seem to be in the SRD. Perhaps I could try to cobble together a variant Fighter class for nimble swordsmen, but I'd need more familiarity with the system.

 

[Uskglass]

Multiclass and druid and in 13th True Ways. They'll make it to the SRD eventually, but are not there yet.

Consider that the rogue has Dex attacks with 1hd weapons for d8 damage. In 13th Age you can pretty much decide whatever you want those to be: pick rapier for a swashbuckler concept, pick a scimitar for a bladedancer concept and so on. In 13th Age the class is just a mechanical construct: it doesn't constrain or mandate your roleplay beyond that. Even backgrounds are completely dissociated from the class.
I'm not really trying to sell you on the rogue or any other class here! Just providing some examples on how to leverage the flexibility of the system for your purpose.

 

[Morty]

I'm aware that they're only metagame constructs, although to be honest, I think in that case the designers should have gone a step further and let go of D&D's legacy classes. At any rate, I'm looking at the rogue right now, and it might work too, except for the sneak attack feature. I'd rather not rely on others to set up my attacks.

 

[Uskglass]

I know what you mean. When I wrote my 'rogue' class (which is not even called a rogue) I gave it a more flexible feature to boost damage: exploding dice -> when you roll max on a damage die you roll it again and add to the total.

To stay within the 13th Age framework, perhaps you may drop the Sneak Attack requirement for engaged allies, but make it work on Surprised or Staggered enemies only instead. Just a thought.

 

[Morty]

That could work, I suppose, for another quick-and-dirty fix.

 

[Hammerhead]

If Ranger and Rogue weren't to the would-be Swashbuckler's liking, I might try inventing a Fighter Talent that replaces most instances of Str with Dex for the class. Then give some other bonus from the Talent as well, like maybe the Rogue's Swashbuckle freeform stunt.

 

[Dungeoneer]

I don't really want all the baggage that comes with the Ranger class - particularly since it looks like I'd have to either use two weapons or have an animal companion if I wanted to be a melee warrior. I want a swordsman and martial artist who uses dexterity rather than strength.

Over on the RPG.net forums people were suggesting using the Rogue and changing the 'backstab' so that it works against enemies the player is SOLELY engaged with (and calling it something else, natch). This actually seems like a pretty solid suggestion.

 

[mlund]

Swashbucklers and other finesse fighting styles are handled just fine between the Bard, Ranger, and Rogue classes. All of them can fight in melee with their Dexterity and all 3 represent some varied mechanical styles. Bards have flexible attacks. Rangers can fight with 2 weapons or pole-arms and deliver horrify damage round-to-round with expanded critical hit ranges and they can use terrain-based stunts. Rogues use momentum and have the literally "swashbuckle" talent.

-- Marty Lund

 

[Morty]

Over on the RPG.net forums people were suggesting using the Rogue and changing the 'backstab' so that it works against enemies the player is SOLELY engaged with (and calling it something else, natch). This actually seems like a pretty solid suggestion.

That could work, yes. This would put the emphasis on a more 'duelling' style, rather than back-stabbing. It's still a half-measure, but, perhaps, a good enough one.

 

[mkill]

If homebrew is an option, I can recommend this Tome of Battle conversion for 13th Age.

If you choose Swordsage, your attack and damage are based on Dexterity.

http://13thage.org/index.php/classes/467-master-of-nine