D&D (2024) Maybe this is a bit late, but let's talk about Rogue's Niche, and What Rogue Should Be.

[James Gasik]

I do? Why?

View attachment 368076

He never used a buckler. It isn't part of the character concept in the first place. So why would I include it?



Right, but you seem to have missed my point.

You had responded to CreamCloud saying you don't want different shield mechanics. I was pointing out that, if you are adding bucklers and Tower Shields in the way CreamCloud suggested... you kind of need them. You can't have a shield that offers +1 and a shield that offers +2 that are otherwise identical, or there is no reason to have the +1 version.

Now, if you want to have all shields give a +2, but just reflavor it for the size you can.... but what's the point? You aren't adding anything except declaring a look, and no one has been saying you can't have the look. The look isn't why the point that Rogue's don't have shield proficiency was brought up. You are not adding anything, just stating something we already know. That aesthetics are flexible. And we know this. I had a rapier in one game that looked like this
View attachment 368083

I don't think just saying that shields can be small really changes anything.

Is that a falcata? It looks sweet, regardless.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I would like to see Scimitar, Longsword and Rapier have the same statistics certainly. I don't think the others should be identical to those, but it would not bother me that much if they were.

Also weapons are a bit different than shields which are really part of armor.

[snip]

But if it is easier to just say "Pole Arm (all of them)" or "Shields (all of them)" that would be better than having multiple types with different statistics IMO.

I see value in offering different thematic choices for similar things, I don't see nearly as much value in giving those things different mechanics.

my biggest point of confusion in your argument is that you seem to hold absolutely no value for anything on the mechanical side of things, why are the choices of numbers and requirements that armour and shields have any less meaningful than the numbers and requirements of your weapon? or your casting modifier? or any other build decision we make for our characters? if aesthetics and themes are all that matter why are there pages and pages of mechanics and numbers and options.

the idea that 'it's easier' to say there's only one polearm statblock that is applied to all of them is to me the fallacy of simplicity, that it doesn't make the game better that we crush all these options into being part of a single identical one.

it's 'easier' if there's only two weapons 'generic melee weapon' and 'generic ranged weapon', that doesn't make it better.

 

[Minigiant]

I will just reiterate that in my belief the swashbuckler archetype in D&D is closer to a warrior class than it is a expert class.

The swashbuckler class in 3E for closer to a fighter and didn't deal a whole trunk of damage at once. Day much like the swashbuckler in PF2 Just got bonuses to make up for the weaker weapon and lighter armor.

5e because it had a goal of being very simple, Did not have the mechanics to allow for swashbuckling to be allowed in the system.. and the designers just didn't care about them the idea enough to support it.

I mean we're still there.

There is fighting style for For heavy weapons and light weapons and versatile weapons and soon thrown weapons and unearned combat.

But a no fighting style for finesse weapons.

There are fans upset that the Swashbuckler subclass is not in the new PHB. But what does this Swashbuckler subclass do.

The Swashbuckler subclass lets the Rogue fight like a Fighter. You walk up to enemies attack it and stay there drawing their attention, and mitigate there damage. That's traditionally what fighters, barbarians, paladins, and rangers do.

 

[Aldarc]

If I could go back in time and change one thing re: D&D, it would be to erase the notion of Roles. Not because they are necessarily bad or wrong, but becasue they ended up driving design in a way that I find highly unsatisfying. And worst of all was turning the thief into a cuisinart killing machine. Ugh.

I think that was far less the result of roles and more the result of WotC desiring to make every class combat effective.

 

[GrimCo]

D&D, as a system, isn't really suited for classic swashbuckling fantasy. Swashbuckler doesn't work well next to knight in full plate. They are both fighters, but from very different eras. Classic d&d is mix of late medieval and early renaissance. Three musketeers are 17 ct, so baroque period. Zorro is even more modern, depending on media depiction, from late 18 to early-mid 19 century. Scaramouche takes place in late 18 century. Swashbuckler is a fighter, but fighter from age of gunpowder where firearms are norm, armor is less prevalent, and it moves to standardized military formations with muskets and artillery. In short, swashbuckler is best when used in dedicated swashbuckling genre and with dedicated system like 7th sea where you actually have mechanics to reward flashy shenanigans.

If we look at probably most famous Assassin from d&d novels, Artemis Entreri, we see he isn't really rogue/tief. In 2ed he was dual classed high level fighter/thief. In 3e he is mostly fighter (Fghter 12 / Rogue 4 / Ranger 1/ Assassin 1). Jarlaxle Baenre was mostly characterised as a rogeuish swashbuckling type. He is drow fighter 18 in 3e and fighter 17 in 2e.

 

[tetrasodium]

my biggest point of confusion in your argument is that you seem to hold absolutely no value for anything on the mechanical side of things, why are the choices of numbers and requirements that armour and shields have any less meaningful than the numbers and requirements of your weapon? or your casting modifier? or any other build decision we make for our characters? if aesthetics and themes are all that matter why are there pages and pages of mechanics and numbers and options.

the idea that 'it's easier' to say there's only one polearm statblock that is applied to all of them is to me the fallacy of simplicity, that it doesn't make the game better that we crush all these options into being part of a single identical one.

it's 'easier' if there's only two weapons 'generic melee weapon' and 'generic ranged weapon', that doesn't make it better.

I get the feeling that there is a mechanical value being held dear of resisting the idea of subjectively great choices balanced by opportunity costs rather than the current "simple" design paradigm of objectively best choices without any real opportunity costs.

 

[Aldarc]

D&D, as a system, isn't really suited for classic swashbuckling fantasy. Swashbuckler doesn't work well next to knight in full plate. They are both fighters, but from very different eras. Classic d&d is mix of late medieval and early renaissance. Three musketeers are 17 ct, so baroque period. Zorro is even more modern, depending on media depiction, from late 18 to early-mid 19 century. Scaramouche takes place in late 18 century. Swashbuckler is a fighter, but fighter from age of gunpowder where firearms are norm, armor is less prevalent, and it moves to standardized military formations with muskets and artillery. In short, swashbuckler is best when used in dedicated swashbuckling genre and with dedicated system like 7th sea where you actually have mechanics to reward flashy shenanigans.

Errol Flynn's Robin Hood. There are a lot of swashbuckling characters in the Middle Ages, at least as depicted in popular fiction.

 

[Minigiant]

I think that was far less the result of roles and more the result of WotC desiring to make every class combat effective.

I think it was less that and more TSR, WOTC, and 90% of fantasy game companies failing to support Duelists as fighters over and over.

Finesse Weapon Fighting: When wielding a Finesse Melee weapon with one hand, you gain a bonus to damage rolls with that Melee Weapon equal to your Charisma modifier.

Canny Defense: While you are wearing no armor and not wielding a shield, your AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Intelligence modifier.

Swashbucklers was always a more ability intensive combat style as you purposely opted to really on dodging and accuracy than heavier weapons and armor. The archetype has always a fighter that is agile, suave, and witty.

 

[tetrasodium]

Errol Flynn's Robin Hood. There are a lot of swashbuckling characters in the Middle Ages, at least as depicted in popular fiction.

ERROL FLYNN THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD (1938 Stock Photo - Alamy

Download this stock image: ERROL FLYNN THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD (1938) - BPB3PK from Alamy's library of millions of high resolution stock photos, illustrations and vectors.

www.alamy.com

That there is a short sword in the hands of peter pan. It's like the animators used it as the model for peter pan's outfit. I wouldn't call a shirt sword wielder a swashbuckler.

 

[GrimCo]

Errol Flynn's Robin Hood. There are a lot of swashbuckling characters in the Middle Ages, at least as depicted in popular fiction.

It looks that way cause they use theater fencing for sword play. They fence with arming swords like they would with rapiers. And in movie, most of baddies he fences are not armored at all. Robin is archer, first and foremost.