AU Unfettered vs. AEG Swashbuckler -- compare and contrast please!
- Thread starter Desdichado
- Start date
Apok
First Post
hong said:
It's there to make up for the fact that lightly armed and armored mobile fighters fall behind on the damage scale. The Con damage on a crit helps to mitigate this somewhat.
The idea behind the Swashbuckler core class was to make fencer-types viable in hack 'n' slash situations where heavily armored Fighters and Power Attacking Barbarians dominate.
Gez
First Post
Monte Cook said that the power progression in AU is more linear than in D&D, with more powerful characters at low levels, and less powerful at high levels.
Which may be the case.
However, AU characters gets 2 feats at first level, rather than 1 (plus human or class bonus feats), so removing this additional feat to have them in-line with D&D-classed characters remove the greater power in low levels, and leave them with the lesser power in high levels.
That said, and for comparison's sake, here's the unfettered:
Good BAB, good Ref, bad Fort and Will. 4 skill points, with a wide range of roguish skills, and d8 HD.
Bonus combat feats at levels 2, 6, 10, 14, 18 and 20.
Sneak attack +1d6 every four level (4, 8, 12, 16, 20).
Parry: the capacity to add their Int bonus to AC against a single opponent in a round, with the added restriction that this bonus can't exceed half the unfettered level (minimum 1, however, otherwise it would make no sense being a 1st-level ability ever). It works only on melee attacks from one opponent the unfettered can see.
(Personally, I like the house-rule that base it on Cha bonus instead -- all about feinting the opponent.)
At level 7, the unfettered may parry ranged attacks. As he can only parry against one opponent in a round, he can't use parry against a ranged attacker and a melee attacker at the same time.
At level 9, evasion.
At level 13, he can parry spells. One spell per round, can't use the other parries in the same round, opponent must be visible, the spell's casting must be visible (so can't parry a spell without verbal or somatic components), the spell must targets him specifically (no area spell); and he must have a magic weapon to parry spells. Parrying magic works differently from parrying attacks, he makes an attack roll opposed to the spellcaster's caster level + ability modifier check; and if successful, he merely gains a +4 competence bonus on his saving throw.
The unfettered don't get Weapon Specialization.
It don't see this class as being madly overpowered. Less feats than a fighter, less hit points, less AC overall, in exchange for a bonus to AC against one opponent (handy for a duelist, but still not necessarily bigger than the bonus of an armor with magic enhancement), sneak attack, the capacity to save better against one spell from time to time.
Which may be the case.
However, AU characters gets 2 feats at first level, rather than 1 (plus human or class bonus feats), so removing this additional feat to have them in-line with D&D-classed characters remove the greater power in low levels, and leave them with the lesser power in high levels.
That said, and for comparison's sake, here's the unfettered:
Good BAB, good Ref, bad Fort and Will. 4 skill points, with a wide range of roguish skills, and d8 HD.
Bonus combat feats at levels 2, 6, 10, 14, 18 and 20.
Sneak attack +1d6 every four level (4, 8, 12, 16, 20).
Parry: the capacity to add their Int bonus to AC against a single opponent in a round, with the added restriction that this bonus can't exceed half the unfettered level (minimum 1, however, otherwise it would make no sense being a 1st-level ability ever). It works only on melee attacks from one opponent the unfettered can see.
(Personally, I like the house-rule that base it on Cha bonus instead -- all about feinting the opponent.)
At level 7, the unfettered may parry ranged attacks. As he can only parry against one opponent in a round, he can't use parry against a ranged attacker and a melee attacker at the same time.
At level 9, evasion.
At level 13, he can parry spells. One spell per round, can't use the other parries in the same round, opponent must be visible, the spell's casting must be visible (so can't parry a spell without verbal or somatic components), the spell must targets him specifically (no area spell); and he must have a magic weapon to parry spells. Parrying magic works differently from parrying attacks, he makes an attack roll opposed to the spellcaster's caster level + ability modifier check; and if successful, he merely gains a +4 competence bonus on his saving throw.
The unfettered don't get Weapon Specialization.
It don't see this class as being madly overpowered. Less feats than a fighter, less hit points, less AC overall, in exchange for a bonus to AC against one opponent (handy for a duelist, but still not necessarily bigger than the bonus of an armor with magic enhancement), sneak attack, the capacity to save better against one spell from time to time.
I know the game-balance rationale behind Wounding Critical. Note that I have no problems with the swashbuckler adding Int bonus to damage, which addresses the same issue. However, I can't see any reason, in terms of the _underlying archetype_, for causing Con damage on crits. It all seems a bit slapdash.Apok said:
EDIT: And goddammit, what kind of stupid name is Wounding Critical anyway? What is a critical hit except something that wounds you? I suppose any other critical is like a love-slap with nerf bats or something?
Last edited:
Gez
First Post
I think the reasonning behind it was that swashbucklers are especially apt at striking vital organs, the whole precision thing.
However, there's already Sneak Attack and Power Critical for this kind of thing.
I guess so that the primary reason was novelty. "Hey, let's create a new mechanism just for this class, that will simulate something we already have 27 mechanisms for, but which will be different."
Behold the magic:thegatheringisation of D&D. Introducing new rules not because the previous are uncomplete or flawed, but simply for the sake of novelty.
However, there's already Sneak Attack and Power Critical for this kind of thing.
I guess so that the primary reason was novelty. "Hey, let's create a new mechanism just for this class, that will simulate something we already have 27 mechanisms for, but which will be different."
Behold the magic:thegatheringisation of D&D. Introducing new rules not because the previous are uncomplete or flawed, but simply for the sake of novelty.
Dr. Strangemonkey
First Post
Something to remember about the AEG Swashbuckler is that it comes with a wide variety of other light fighter classes including musketeers, assassins, nobles, pirates, spies, and highwaymen.
The swashbuckler stands out from that crowd as lighter and more defensive. Indeed he is almost monklike in his dependence on ability scores, though he doesn't need too high a strength, oddly.
The other aspect is that the swashbuckler exists in a context where you would be a fool not to pick up lots of fencing school based prestige classes.
On the positive the swashbuckler does have one of the nicest skill lists for someone with two skill points I have ever seen.
And the feats of the system are designed for a low-magic/low-armor world. It's almost ridiculous to talk about the classes without discussing them. The most innately germane additions are the AEG firearms and fencing rules. The latter of which give everyone who weilds light weaponry abilities that would take feat chains in other systems.
Overall I would be happier playing one of the other light fighter classes from that book. The pirate, musketeer, and spy are particularly nice.
The unfettered fits in much better with vanilla DnD and is a lot more flexible what with the exotic weapons and better skill progression. I would not hesitate to argue that the unfettered is a superior generic light fighter.
In any non-early modern context I would choose the unfettered. And he would be competitive in a true Swashbuckling arena as well.
Both classes have problems with profeciencies in weapon categories that don't exist in a lot of worlds.
The swashbuckler stands out from that crowd as lighter and more defensive. Indeed he is almost monklike in his dependence on ability scores, though he doesn't need too high a strength, oddly.
The other aspect is that the swashbuckler exists in a context where you would be a fool not to pick up lots of fencing school based prestige classes.
On the positive the swashbuckler does have one of the nicest skill lists for someone with two skill points I have ever seen.
And the feats of the system are designed for a low-magic/low-armor world. It's almost ridiculous to talk about the classes without discussing them. The most innately germane additions are the AEG firearms and fencing rules. The latter of which give everyone who weilds light weaponry abilities that would take feat chains in other systems.
Overall I would be happier playing one of the other light fighter classes from that book. The pirate, musketeer, and spy are particularly nice.
The unfettered fits in much better with vanilla DnD and is a lot more flexible what with the exotic weapons and better skill progression. I would not hesitate to argue that the unfettered is a superior generic light fighter.
In any non-early modern context I would choose the unfettered. And he would be competitive in a true Swashbuckling arena as well.
Both classes have problems with profeciencies in weapon categories that don't exist in a lot of worlds.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
