Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Voranzovin" data-source="post: 8098986" data-attributes="member: 7020495">Thanks for your comments!Thanks for pointing it out--it sounds really interesting! Unfortunately, I don't seem to be able to find it on ENWorld or through a google search. Would you happen to have a link?That's a good point--in the campaigns I play in we often start at level 3, but it would indeed be weird to transition into this at 3rd level. Maybe that suggests that this really should be a separate class after all.Also, as many people here have pointed out the Unarmored Defense should read 10 + Dex + Int, not an Int bonus--that was just an oversight on my part. And it would not apply when using a shield.This seems to be a common opinion, but it's one I'd like to question--are swashbucklers, in fact, defined by charisma? They are certainly often portrayed as very charismatic, but the same is true of many fighting characters in adventure fiction. Just off the top of my head, Aragorn, Sanjuro, John Carter, and Robin Hood are all extremely charismatic figures, but if you were to try to model them in Dnd (which you probably shouldn't, since Dnd does not actually represent any literary genre very well, but bear with me) you would be unlikely to come up with a charisma-based build. It looks to me more like the swashbuckler's reputation for charisma is part of the overall trend in adventure fiction for characters who are both highly charismatic and very skilled at fighting--a trope that Dnd sometimes struggles with since charisma is not a "useful" stat for a Fighter in strict white-room terms, but that's a problem that isn't in any way unique to swashbucklers.I'd say that swashbucklers are more defined, in terms of the capabilities they rely on in a fight, by cleverness. They defeat seemingly superior opponents (sometimes lots of them!) through wits and skill. Int seems like the closest thing we have to representing that in Dnd. Even d’Artagnan (look, I know I'm referring to him a lot but he's extremely iconic!) is described as someone "for whom swordsmanship is like chess," even though he's illiterate.Perhaps not. I do like the idea of the Swashbuckling Counters as this feels more like outwitting an opponent to me then most Battlemaster maneuvers do, but of course Battlemasters maneuvers also sometimes apply on a Reaction and these could potentially be turned into them and work similarly. There's still the question of Battlemasters being too "deadly" for my conception of the archetype (as stated above, dealing lots of damage in a burst doesn't feel very swashbucklery to me) but that could just come down to your maneuver selection.Applying an additional attribute to AC seems to be how 5e does unarmored defense, but it indeed makes the subclass awfully MAD. (I also think that Porthos is more low Wis then low Int but that's a matter of stat interpretation and nobody seems to be able to agree on what stats mean to begin with, so I'll grant that it's more a matter of opinion then anything else)In any case, I've come to the conclusion that this really would need to be either a separate class, or just some alternate Battlemaster maneuvers. Thanks for the feedback everyone!</blockquote>

Verification