Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ruleslawyer" data-source="post: 2940961" data-attributes="member: 1757">Actually, the flavor text pretty clearly indicates that the "'pure' fighter" you're talking about is in fact the Warrior NPC Class.Fighters are supposed to be the special forces types. Now, I agree that there are tanks and there are swashbucklers. The problem is that the latter archetype is pretty severely gimped under the current D&D rules, which do not feature classes like the OGL Conan Pirate, the Arcana Evolved Unfettered, or the Iron Heroes executioner, harrier, or man-at-arms. The Complete Warrior swashbuckler is, IMHO, a very weak fix.I don't know about that. The party I currently DM has three out of five skilled tumblers, but Tumble has hardly become "ubiquitous"; the use of terrain and opposed checks makes it *more* cinematic and involving, not mundane. Jump and Tumble checks IMC are as much a part of combat as an attack roll, which puts movement right up next to swinging a sword in combat priorities. For a swashbuckling game, I think that's a good thing.To a certain extent, I agree. However, if the goal is to have a game in which the default "fighter" looks more like Jack Sparrow, Will Turner, or Captain Blood than Sir Lancelot or the Kurgan, I don't really see anything wrong with encouraging that archetype by creating more skilful fighters.</blockquote>