Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6789105" data-attributes="member: 6677017">I imagine most duelists going with a single weapon also. But that text was quoted from the dual-wielding Swashbuckler's introduction.This is actually the idea that I had. A smallsword looks much like a slightly shorter rapier anyway, so it works well enough visually. That's my current way of handling it without actually houseruling.So you think the Swashbuckler should essentially take the Dual Wielder feat? I have no problem with him doing so, but it sort of breaks the game assumptions to require a feat in order to take advantage of what is defined as a primary subclass feature for you.The heaviness of the cutlass is a concern.The problem with a shortsword that deals slashing damage is that, statistically that is exactly the same as a scimitar! That essentially amounts to giving the rogue scimitar proficiency (except that it would weight a pound less, so it's better (if insignificantly so)).If they had given the rogue scimitar proficiency, then they could at least say something like, &quot;We assume Swashbuckler rogues will two-weapon fight with scimitars (cutlass) or take the Dual Wielder feat and use a rapier and dagger.&quot; But without it, you can't even be a proper pirate, much less a two-weapon fighting swashbuckler variety.Basically, they dropped the ball on this one. It would be nice if they would give us a , &quot;Yeah, we kind of goofed on that one. I'd suggest...&quot; but that doesn't happen much. I actually really appreciated Mike Mearls expressing how he would have done the fighter subclasses differently if he had it to do over (even though I'm fine with how they are).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sword of Spirit, post: 6789105, member: 6677017"] I imagine most duelists going with a single weapon also. But that text was quoted from the dual-wielding Swashbuckler's introduction. This is actually the idea that I had. A smallsword looks much like a slightly shorter rapier anyway, so it works well enough visually. That's my current way of handling it without actually houseruling. So you think the Swashbuckler should essentially take the Dual Wielder feat? I have no problem with him doing so, but it sort of breaks the game assumptions to require a feat in order to take advantage of what is defined as a primary subclass feature for you. The heaviness of the cutlass is a concern. The problem with a shortsword that deals slashing damage is that, statistically [I]that is exactly the same as a scimitar![/I] That essentially amounts to giving the rogue scimitar proficiency (except that it would weight a pound less, so it's better (if insignificantly so)). If they had given the rogue scimitar proficiency, then they could at least say something like, "We assume Swashbuckler rogues will two-weapon fight with scimitars (cutlass) or take the Dual Wielder feat and use a rapier and dagger." But without it, you can't even be a proper pirate, much less a two-weapon fighting swashbuckler variety. Basically, they dropped the ball on this one. It would be nice if they would give us a , "Yeah, we kind of goofed on that one. I'd suggest..." but that doesn't happen much. I actually really appreciated Mike Mearls expressing how he would have done the fighter subclasses differently if he had it to do over (even though I'm fine with how they are). [/QUOTE]

Verification