D&D 5E Non choices: must have and wants why someone that hates something must take it

[Argyle King]

Am I wrong in thinking that a 'swashbuckler fighter' would be a rogue or maybe just a rogue with a dip into fighter?


I'd say that's one area where I somewhat fall onto the other side of the fence from where I normally am. I don't feel that my character's in-game labels always need to align with the jargon found on the character sheet. Something like a favored soul, cleric, or paladin might have more of a relationship between in-game and out-of-game labels, but I think many parts are a lot more open ended when it comes to how things might be interpreted inside the game world.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I think the whole Swashbuckler archetype fits snugly into the Rogue class. I'd call a swashbuckler as a "rogue," even if that wasn't the game term.

 

[Ichneumon]

I think the whole Swashbuckler archetype fits snugly into the Rogue class. I'd call a swashbuckler as a "rogue," even if that wasn't the game term.

I like 'Swashbuckler' as a subclass for flashy rogue skirmishers, and 'Duelist' for the fighter equivalent.

 

[Kobold Stew]

However right now if you want to make a swashbuckling Fighter, you are out of luck.

Not true. I see you are trying to make a worst possible case, but you have far overstated it.

In order to take light armor you have to waste a feat to get a bonus to AC and you still don't match up to a Fighter in medium or heavy armour.

Not true. Strength is not needed in this build; and Light armour + maxed Dex does keep up.

I guess your image of a swashbuckler isn't fighting rapier-and-knife -- i.e. not two-weapon fighting. So as not to break your concept, you're getting a further AC bonus then from defensive style.

You have to grab skill mastery as a feat later to be able to be a sailor

No, you have a background that gives you the necessary skills. No extra investment.

and using a light weapon will seriously reduce your damage.

No, you use a finesse weapon -- rapier, which averages one point less/hit.

Without a shield you cannot tank/defend the party.

Now you are changing your archetype. Why would a swashbuckler ever tank? I mean, seriously. You've chosen Combat Weapon mastery (or whatever it's called) -- you have all sorts of fun maneuvers to use, all of which are fun swashbuckler-y things.

If you want, you can choose Fencing master as a feat, which gives additional attack/defense builds.

If you do accept the dual wield model, even more exciting things open up -- both with fighting specialty and with the feat. Either way is absolutely viable.

So are extremely gimped in 5E if you try to swashbuckle. Some might argue for a rogue build, but swashbucklers weren't about stealth, trap finding, lying, cheating, and backstabbing. It just doesn't match the concept.

"extremely gimped"? No. "worse at being a tank than a fighter designed as a tank?" obviously, but irrelevant.

There are many others. If you pick a Fighter you are automatically gimped out of combat and have to use all your feats and ability increases just to have a hope of keeping up with other classes.

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about.

This is the kind of stuff that makes me want to play a swashbuckler.

Even accepting the limited version of swashbuckling you seem to suggest, the build is viable and dynamic and potentially fun.

 

[Lokiare]

Let me start by saying that the only thing a swashbuckler and a Rogue have in common are light armor. That's literally it. A swashbuckler was a kind of sailor that was a duelist. They could use a parrying dagger, but generally left one hand free to grab onto things on a ship. They did not sneak, back stab, open locks, disable traps, or any of the other Rogue like things.

If you were to represent them as a Rogue, you would have to ignore half of your class features during play.

Not true. I see you are trying to make a worst possible case, but you have far overstated it.

I can think of much worse. This was just an idea off the top of my head.

Not true. Strength is not needed in this build; and Light armour + maxed Dex does keep up.

I guess your image of a swashbuckler isn't fighting rapier-and-knife -- i.e. not two-weapon fighting. So as not to break your concept, you're getting a further AC bonus then from defensive style.

Swashbucklers did not use rapiers. They used short swords or daggers. They also have to be relatively strong in order to do the things that sailors do or they are going to suck at skill checks related to sailing. So we will give them a 16/16 split between Dex and Str:

AC Leather Armor + Dex mod + Defensive Style
AC 11 + 3 + 1 = 15. Not super horrible, but still not anywhere close to a plate mail + shield fighter (20).

No, you have a background that gives you the necessary skills. No extra investment.

A background might give them the skills they need, but a swashbuckler isn't just a sailor. He's a master sailor that spends most of his life on the waters. Looks like they got rid of the feat that gave you mastery over a skill or skills. The closest would we Lucky used solely for skill checks that a sailor might face.

No, you use a finesse weapon -- rapier, which averages one point less/hit.

Sorry no. They used extremely short weapons because they usually fought in cramped spaces and needed to sheath and unsheath their weapon rapidly. They also needed a light weapon in order to swim with it in their teeth, usually a dagger. A short sword or a dagger are more likely.

Short Sword - Attack at 1st level: +4; Damage at 1st level: 1d6 + 3 (average 6.5)

Now you are changing your archetype. Why would a swashbuckler ever tank? I mean, seriously. You've chosen Combat Weapon mastery (or whatever it's called) -- you have all sorts of fun maneuvers to use, all of which are fun swashbuckler-y things.

Go watch some Errol Flynn movies. He protects his allies all the time, and he's the definition of a swashbuckler.

If you want, you can choose Fencing master as a feat, which gives additional attack/defense builds.

If you do accept the dual wield model, even more exciting things open up -- both with fighting specialty and with the feat. Either way is absolutely viable.



"extremely gimped"? No. "worse at being a tank than a fighter designed as a tank?" obviously, but irrelevant.



This is the kind of stuff that makes me want to play a swashbuckler.

Even accepting the limited version of swashbuckling you seem to suggest, the build is viable and dynamic and potentially fun.

So lets now compare a Swasbuckler to a sword and board fighter:

Swashbuckler (1st level)
HP 12
Str 16 (+3) Dex 16 (+3) Con 14 (+2) Int 10 (+0) Wis 8 (-1) Cha 12 (+1)
AC Leather Armor (11) + Dex mod (3) + Defensive Style (1) = 15
Feat: Lucky
Short Sword - Attack: +4; Damage: 1d6 + 3 (average 6.5)
Dagger - Attack: +4; Damage: 1d4+3 (average 5.5)

Sword and Board Protective Fighter
HP 13
Str 18 (+4) Dex 12 (+1) Con 16 (+3) Int 10 (+0) Wis 8 (-1) Cha 10 (+0)
AC Plate Armor (18) + Shield (2) = 20
Feat: Tactical Warrior (for the ally protective aspect)
Long Sword - Attack: +5; Damage: 1d8 + 4 (average 8.5)
War Hammer - Attack: +5; Damage: 1d8 + 4 (average 8.5)

Now we had to take several sub-optimal choices in order to stick to the concept. It turns out that the Swashbuckler will be less survivable (less hp and less AC), it can't help out its friends by having attacks directed at it, and it deals less damage than the protective fighter.

My question here is why isn't a light armor light weapon fighter supported. Why do they have to give up their concept in order to be able to protect others (like giving up Defensive Style and/or Lucky feat for the tactical feat and the Protector style)?

Now if they put this in the game, it would make it where we could play our light armored and lightly weaponed fighter with no problem and they could still choose to be protective of allies:

Fighting Style
Quick Fighter - Whenever you are wearing light armor you may add your Strength bonus to your AC while you can take actions. While wielding a light weapon in one hand and nothing in the other you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls.

That would allow them to have a high enough strength where they could forgo the Lucky feat and still be extremely good at sailing skill checks (which many are based on strength). It would also allow them to have a more comparable AC to the sword and board fighter (leather)11 + (dex) 2 + (str) 4 = 17, while still allowing the plate wearing sword and board fighter an advantage in AC. The +1 to attack with light weapons would make up for the lower damage of the weapon. It still wouldn't equal a great weapon fighters damage, but it would come close to the sword and board fighters damage.

There are things they can do to make choices more based on character concept than on mechanical effectiveness. This is just a simple example.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Let me start by saying that the only thing a swashbuckler and a Rogue have in common are light armor. That's literally it. A swashbuckler was a kind of sailor that was a duelist. They could use a parrying dagger, but generally left one hand free to grab onto things on a ship. They did not sneak, back stab, open locks, disable traps, or any of the other Rogue like things.

I will admit your definition is a swashbuckler, over the years I think at least some have expanded that thought.

let me also say for the most part I agree swashbuckler is one type of character D&D does bad (except in 4e)

I can think of much worse. This was just an idea off the top of my head.

and in a thread I started to ask why people complain it is a good example...in fact maybe a great one.

Swashbucklers did not use rapiers. They used short swords or daggers. They also have to be relatively strong in order to do the things that sailors do or they are going to suck at skill checks related to sailing. So we will give them a 16/16 split between Dex and Str:

now this is going to be argued as not right (not by me) but I will admit making that a 14/18 split will help...

A background might give them the skills they need, but a swashbuckler isn't just a sailor. He's a master sailor that spends most of his life on the waters. Looks like they got rid of the feat that gave you mastery over a skill or skills. The closest would we Lucky used solely for skill checks that a sailor might face.

this is one I will disagree with you on, until I see something more concrete I have only the play test, and in the play test a sailor background would do fine...

Go watch some Errol Flynn movies. He protects his allies all the time, and he's the definition of a swashbuckler.

agreed, 100% in 4e terms he is more defender then striker....

So lets now compare a Swasbuckler to a sword and board fighter:

Swashbuckler (1st level)
HP 12
Str 16 (+3) Dex 16 (+3) Con 14 (+2) Int 10 (+0) Wis 8 (-1) Cha 12 (+1)
AC Leather Armor (11) + Dex mod (3) + Defensive Style (1) = 15
Feat: Lucky
Short Sword - Attack: +4; Damage: 1d6 + 3 (average 6.5)
Dagger - Attack: +4; Damage: 1d4+3 (average 5.5)

Sword and Board Protective Fighter
HP 13
Str 18 (+4) Dex 12 (+1) Con 16 (+3) Int 10 (+0) Wis 8 (-1) Cha 10 (+0)
AC Plate Armor (18) + Shield (2) = 20
Feat: Tactical Warrior (for the ally protective aspect)
Long Sword - Attack: +5; Damage: 1d8 + 4 (average 8.5)
War Hammer - Attack: +5; Damage: 1d8 + 4 (average 8.5)

both of those have 1st level feats... so it is worse loose the feats....

Now we had to take several sub-optimal choices in order to stick to the concept. It turns out that the Swashbuckler will be less survivable (less hp and less AC), it can't help out its friends by having attacks directed at it, and it deals less damage than the protective fighter.

yes but it is still a good enough character to play (although I would like to see better) you should put a buckler on the guy (it's were the term came from in real life)

Now if they put this in the game, it would make it where we could play our light armored and lightly weaponed fighter with no problem and they could still choose to be protective of allies:

Fighting Style
Quick Fighter - Whenever you are wearing light armor you may add your Strength bonus to your AC while you can take actions. While wielding a light weapon in one hand and nothing in the other you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls.

I would go with
Light fighter- Whenever you a wearing light armor, and wilding a light weapon in one hand, you gain a +1 to AC, Attack, and Damage.

 

[Lokiare]

I will admit your definition is a swashbuckler, over the years I think at least some have expanded that thought.

let me also say for the most part I agree swashbuckler is one type of character D&D does bad (except in 4e)


and in a thread I started to ask why people complain it is a good example...in fact maybe a great one.


now this is going to be argued as not right (not by me) but I will admit making that a 14/18 split will help...



this is one I will disagree with you on, until I see something more concrete I have only the play test, and in the play test a sailor background would do fine...




agreed, 100% in 4e terms he is more defender then striker....




both of those have 1st level feats... so it is worse loose the feats....

yes but it is still a good enough character to play (although I would like to see better) you should put a buckler on the guy (it's were the term came from in real life)





I would go with
Light fighter- Whenever you a wearing light armor, and wilding a light weapon in one hand, you gain a +1 to AC, Attack, and Damage.

That doesnt really help the ac problem. with an eighteen dex thats still ac sixteen. which is still fouur points away from the sword and board fighter. i still contend that you would have to have lower than an eighteen in dex so you can have a decent enough str for skill checks. which would mean ac fourteen to fifteen with a dex of fourteen to sixteen. which is extremely low for a character that is supposed to be defending allies. plus one to attack and damage is fine though and makes a light weapon viable. perhaps plus two or three to ac when wearing light armor?

 

[Cadence]

That doesnt really help the ac problem. with an eighteen dex thats still ac sixteen. which is still fouur points away from the sword and board fighter. i still contend that you would have to have lower than an eighteen in dex so you can have a decent enough str for skill checks. which would mean ac fourteen to fifteen with a dex of fourteen to sixteen. which is extremely low for a character that is supposed to be defending allies. plus one to attack and damage is fine though and makes a light weapon viable. perhaps plus two or three to ac when wearing light armor?

It seems strange to me to expect a fighter using less equipment (no armor) to be just about as good at both offense and defense as the equivalently skilled fighter who is wearing the really freaking expensive suit of armor. Should the game support a sword and board fighter who has just about the same ability to run, swim, swing on ropes, and fight in cramped quarters while wearing armor as the swashbuckler does while unarmored? If your offense is just as good and your mobility is a lot better... what else are you giving up if not defense?

 

[Lokiare]

What happens when you want to play a light armored pole arm fighter? The solution would be to separate the armor bonuses from the weapon bonuses. So you would have a "weapon style" and an "armor style"

Weapon Style
Light Weapon - While wielding a light weapon you gain a +1 to attack and damage.

Heavy Weapon - Deal 2x Str mod damage while using a two handed weapon instead of the normal 1x Str mod.

Pole Arm - If a creature moves through an area you can attack while you are wielding a pole arm, you can spend your reaction to make an attack against them.

Archery - You can ignore penalties for shooting through enemies and extend your range by 5 feet while wielding a ranged weapon.

Two Weapon - You can add your ability modifier to the damage of your second attack while wielding two light or finesse weapons.

Armor Style
Light Armor - While wearing light armor without a shield you gain a +2 bonus to AC.

Medium Armor - While wearing medium armor you can ignore disadvantage granted by the medium armor. If the armor doesn't grant disadvantage, then instead you can add a maximum of +3 from your dexterity to your AC.

Heavy Armor - While wearing heavy armor you gain a +2 bonus to AC against opportunity attacks or attacks that require a reaction.

Shielding Style - As a reaction you can impose disadvantage on an opponent that is attacking an adjacent ally or yourself or who is using a ranged weapon through your space (such as an archer shooting at a target behind you).

Then you could mix and match. In addition to make it easier and simpler, we can create 'templates' that players can take to quickly create a character:

Swashbuckler - Light Armor, Light Weapon
Hunter - Medium Armor, Two Weapon
Sword and Board - Heavy Armor, Light Weapon
Pole Arm Master - Heavy Armor, Pole Arm
Spear Master - Light Armor, Pole Arm
etc...etc...

Not likely to happen at this stage of the development, but that's how I would do it...

 

[Lokiare]

It seems strange to me to expect a fighter using less equipment (no armor) to be just about as good at both offense and defense as the equivalently skilled fighter who is wearing the really freaking expensive suit of armor. Should the game support a sword and board fighter who has just about the same ability to run, swim, swing on ropes, and fight in cramped quarters while wearing armor as the swashbuckler does while unarmored? If your offense is just as good and your mobility is a lot better... what else are you giving up if not defense?

You'll notice that there is a different of 2-3 points in the AC between a sword and board fighter and my proposed swashbuckler. 2-3 points in a bounded accuracy system like 5E is a huge difference. So they aren't close, but at the same time the swashbuckler would be survivable whereas before they really aren't.

If D&D modeled fighting in cramped quarters at all you might have a point. If you'll read my other post, my suggestion for medium armor style is that they don't get the disadvantage on checks, which would emulate extreme experience or skill with medium armor.

The idea is to make the trade off a mechanical one instead of trading mechanical for concept. So when you choose the swashbuckler option you are trading 2-3 AC points for an increase in ability to succeed on skills. Which is a mechanical trade off. Which is fine.