Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 5992847" data-attributes="member: 6696971">@<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/bow_seat.html" target="_blank">Bow_Seat</a> 1)  Rapier is 1d6 damage.  2)  Using a wood-elf with the rules that we have is a bad idea because Wood Elfs would presuppose Long Sword as their One-Handed Weapon of choice due to the mechanics mapping to the fiction of the "implied setting".  Due to their cultural affinity, the leverage a 1d10 as damage with a Long Sword.  However, extraordinarily, their cultural affinity does not grant them Weapon Finesse with Long Sword.  I would anticipate that this "implied setting" mess does not make it through the next QC.  However, it is what we have now so let us stay away from using Elves.3)  In a bound system, such as we have, a single + 1 difference in to hit, to damage, and AC is a very large disparity.  4)  While a an empty-handed fencing style is buckler-capable, it defeats the purpose of the empty-handed, duelist theme.  None of the great fencers/duelists mentioned in the lead post (and there are more where that came from) used a buckler.  If you have to use a buckler as a kludge to make the numbers work then the argument is nullified both within the fiction and within the mechanics.  It defeats the purpose of the exercise - which is to legitimize the genre-expectation of the lightly armored front-line fighter, who makes use of the one-handed/empty-handed fencing fighting style of Zorro, Dartagnan and the Three Musketeers, The Dread Pirate Roberts, Innigo Montoya, Captain Jack Sparrow, etc.Let us use human as the baseline.  Their broken racial setup fits the exercise perfectly.  Let us assume a 16 in primary score (Strength and Dex respectively) for a total of 18 + 4.  Their Combat Superiority is not relevant as they are granted dice at the same rate but different abilities (of which it is likely that there will be some decent overlap at high levels).   Neither have Feat Support at this point.Level 1 Slayer FighterAttack:  + 4Damage:  (Greataxe) 1d12 + 4 (mean of 10.5 damage)AC:  (Leather) 15Unique Maneuver:  Damage on a miss.  Useful given the inevitable miss rate of 40-45 % in a bound accuracy system.Level 1 Duelist FighterAttack:  + 4Damage:  (Rapier) 1d6 + 4 (mean of 7.5 damage)AC:  (Chainmail) 16Unique Maneuver:  Tumble through enemies?  Does this draw Opportunity Attacks?  It would seem to given that movement modes (Shift, Disengage) that specifically do not provoke Opportunity Attacks convey it explicitly.  If it does not, it has marginal utility.  If it does provoke OAs, then it is horrible and will require a rewrite.Metrics as front line fighter:  At level one we have an extremely large disparity in performance from both a metric standpoint and intangible (maneuver) standpoint.  However, as we move down the line of levels, the ACs will tighten up to be exactly the same with equivalent armor (likely 17 vs 17 at level 5).  However, the damage disparity will remain (30 % disparity).  Intangibles as front line fighter:  Examining the maneuvers (they share jab), Shift versus Cleave is situational.  Shift will have a decent bit of utility in mass combat to prevent being swarmed.  However, given that there is no flanking bonus in 5e (currently), being swarmed (unless the creature fought has specific bonuses for ganging up) is not much of a handicap.  If Shift also provided a + 1 to AC and Dexterity Saves until the end of your next turn, then you would have something.  However, given the base system combat system, it has minimal potency as either enemy action denial or minimizing flanking bonuses (which do not exist).  Unlike Shift, Cleave always has clear and present utility in the base combat system when engaging multiple enemies.Conclusion:  Damage disparity is large (upwards of 30 %) and needs some means to bottleneck.  AC disparity exists only at the first few levels, evening out likely somewhere around level 3 or 4 and staying that way for the duration.  Intangibles via maneuvers (within the core combat system) is highly in favor of the Slayer as Tactical Mobility will be of negligible utility without the ability to leverage it toward enemy action denial and without the threat of enemy flanking in mass combat for bonuses.  The post above still stands pending clarification of Tumble and the potency of Tactical Mobility being iterated into the future Core Combat System and/or the Tactical Combat Module.  Abstract, TotM combat and Tactical Mobility do not comport.  Tactical Mobility is generally actualized by way of modifiers in abstract, TotM combat due to lack of precision and implication of positioning sans-grid.</blockquote>

Verification