Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Khaalis" data-source="post: 4245094" data-attributes="member: 2167">Just out of curiosity, I'm curious why you would choose a Swashbuckler to portray a Musketeer.  Is this based purely on the movie variations of the Three Musketeers?  I ask because historically, Musketeers were not truly known for a "swashbuckling" fighting style. They were junior infantry units (though they did occasionally fight mounted [dragoons]) equipped with, trained in, and famous for musket use and are from the early 17 century. I would think that a Musketeer would deserve a class unto itself as a variant of the ranger (a ranged striker).I'll admit that "swashbuckler" means different things to different people, which is why it is always very difficult to create a class that fits everyone's ideals. In fact, using the term Swashbuckler may have been in error on my part as it is a very narrow view of the 'lightly armored striker' I was trying to portray.In fact, a Swashbuckler (or swasher) is also a 17 century term used to describe boisterous swordsmen who fought with a side-sword (note - not rapiers) and buckler.  However, what I was using the term as is the more modern usage, encompassing the more romantic and adventurous rake of a swordsman.  The typical such swashbuckler was notorious for their carousing as well as their familiarity with their locale (which in D&D terms basically equates to streetwise, the urban version of the nature skill). However, I CAN see the argument for making this simply a class skill, not a mandatory skill.With all that said, I should probably think to rename the basic class as "Fencer" - using the modern meaning of the term. From that I would then diversify the class by naming the two builds as follows:* Swashbuckler - a more defender oriented build relying on the use of a light weapon and buckler.* Duelist - an offensive focused build focusing on single light weapon or dual-wielded light weapons.As to powers, keep in mind that almost all of the core PHB classes have a single role for which they are "best" at, but they also fulfill secondary roles as well. As was mentioned the Paladin is primarily a Defender but fulfills the secondary role of Leader in the types of powers it gets. In this particular case, the "Fencer" archetype is primarily a striker, with the secondary role of Defender.  Also keep in mind that each class's powers have dual focuses, based on these roles. Even the fighter - who is a primary defender, has the option to instead focus on their secondary role of striker by taking primary focus on two-handed weapons and all damage dealing abilities rather than defender focused abilities.In that light, I don't think the mix of powers the first Draft of the class has are too far off the mark. Even the "buff" power is appropriate to a fencer based character that by definition is skilled at placing their target off-balance and at a disadvantaging position. This type of minor "variation" in the focus of powers is what makes a new class unique from an existing class.  If this class simply had powers that were 100% mimics of the rogue, it wouldn't be a new class, but simply a re-flavoring of the rogue, which was not the intent.</blockquote>

Verification