Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 1191527" data-attributes="member: 151">Well, here I think you're trying to eat your cake and have it, too.  The genre is also full of plenty of scenes in which just such a scenario occurs, that is that the 'one in a million' strike defeats or wounds the otherwise unstoppable foe.  The natural 20 models this, to some effect.  You also get a completely different problem, that of verisimilitude going right out the window.  If the only way a 10th level fighter can be touched by 80-90% of mankind is for him to fumble or be asleep, then you've got a completely different problem, IMHO.  Well, see here's the thing: I don't think you're envisioning your swashbuckler correctly, under the rules.  A couple of thoughts: Your goal seems to work to two different ends: that of a swift fighter, and that of a precise fighter.  A swift fighter will do less damage, and emphasize both mobility and speed.  You correctly suss that, from a movement perspective, D&D does not favor this character in respect of hitting more often, which I was I think you're really talking about with initiative issues.  You need to dissassociate these concepts.  A swift fighter will have light or no armor, a high DEX, will use things such as Dodge, Quick Draw, Run, Spring Attack and Tumble to move about the battlefield.  He may have two weapon fighting and weapon finesse, so that he can strike more often.  He will do less damage than the barbarian with the two handed-weapon or the fighter with the flail and shield.  By design, as those opponents cannot keep up with his mobility.  This type of fighter needs to utilize the environment to his advantage, and deny his opponents the benefit of thiers.  The fighter and barbarian's greatest advantage in this scenario are their superior BAB...but if have to move around to get you, they sacrifice iterative attacks.  Keep that in mind, we'll return to it in a second. A precise fighter is one that strikes hard with a relatively light weapon...his goal is to deliver a penetrating attack that badly wounds his foe, and owes it to his mastery of his weapon and where the deliver the blows to do the most damage.  Such a fighter is not as concerned with moving around, merely with meteing out damage as effectively as possible.  He would choose feats like Improved Critical, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and, of course, Weapon Finesse or Power Attack, depending on his weapon of choice.  More importantly, he takes a few levels of rogue (for sneak attack damage), and master the art of Feint (and Improved Feint), and takes feats like Expertise.   I personally think that the disconnect is that you're thinking a little too linearly about how to construct a combatant effectively enough.  Consider that a well designed fighter/rogue, ranger/rogue or barbarian/rogue can achieve the design you're looking for, and is a completely viable contender to the brute or the tank...moreover, they can much more versatile. Now, let's return to that iterative attack idea and the initiative's value.  I mentioned above (in a prior post) how significant Init is in both early and late levels...let's return to that, now.   You mention that you don't see Init ats meaningful, and show that by explaining that you might get the first hit...in a 'so what?' implied response.  I think that misses a major factor, particularly of high-level battles, but true all around: he who starts the battle, sets it's tone.  If the deep-wood sniper leads off the battle and does over a hundred points of damage in the suprise or first round to one character, you've suddenly been put on the defensive.  The whole party's tactics change.  If the enemy sorceror puts a wall of force around the fighters, or casts a prismatic spray that turns the cleric to stone...you're in reactive mode.  The cleric suddenly drops that dimensional anchor to cast a heal, or the wizard suddenly decides to 5' step and Dim Door to safety, removing a big gun from the battle.   This ties into the mobile fighter concept in the denial of Full Attack options.  The mobile fighter only goes to his opponent when he can deal a killing blow, take adavantage of a weakness or dash-in and bounce out.  If the enemy warrior has to run 60' to reach the mobile figher, he's sacrificed his best ability, iterative attacks.  The mobile fighter steps in, attacks, and then retreats, possibly setting up for AoOs.  That's what he does.  Remember, D&D 3E pretty much makes it that a higher-level fighter or monster rarely misses on the first hit.  After that, it gets much dicier.  Add effects like Power Attack, and you can see that it doesn't actually get as good for the heavy hitter as it first appears.  Folks have run the numbers for that two-handed power-attacking barbarian in other threads, for example:  power-attack doesn't always benefit him, because of the loss to his attack bonus on the iterative attacks.  Extra damage is meaningless if it doesn't actually get dealt. Now, you may contend that the D&D 3e doesn't mold itself to a swashbuckling style, as much.  This is true.  The design of combat is not meant to simulate what you're after.  However, I would point you to Dragon Magazine a few months ago, where a set of feats for actual parrying and more swashbuckling swordplay was introduced.  This would probably give you the options you're looking for to make an effective Dumas'-esque rapier fighter who could stand toe-to-toe in single combat with Conan. You might also consider GURPS for a more realistic combat model, but I'd give you two warnings about it: one, it is a very gritty, realistic system with a higher level of lethality about such things and two, the system, which is about what you're looking for in terms of design, tends to favor a single combat option, specifically the high-skilled parry fighter.  We literally had a session where two master swordsman fought for thirty minutes (real-time) in a duel, and neither one managed to land a single strike.  The actual combat only lasted about 20-30 seconds of game-time (1 round=1 sec.).  It was mnay things, but the fun factor started to bleed out by round 10.  YMMV.</blockquote>

Verification