Unearthed Arcana Waterborne Adventures: New from Unearthed Arcana

I, for one, am very pleased with the different options for existing classes over completely different classes.

I don't really have an balance thoughts. Balance isn't an issue with me unless it's incredibly flagrant.

 

[Fralex]

Don't think of the class or race feature making a feat redundant; think of it as a free bonus feat designed for an edition where feats are optional.

Also:

It would be interesting so see comments on UA rules after they have been used in play. Peoples perceptions may alter after using them. On all the UA articles I believe WOTC have said that they are playtest. Therefore they should be viewed as such.

If all things go according to plan, I SHOULD end up playing a one-shot D&D game on Friday. The characters are pre-generated, but as long as we start at level 1 I can just take the Swashbuckler archetype when I level up. I can't decide whether I should try it as written or go straight to using some of the suggested house-rules. Maybe I can do both.

 

[neobolts]

Quite pleased about the Swashbuckler! I felt this was definitely something that could be added to rogue. Not sure about the power level (overpowered possibly) but the flavor is spot on.

 

[Dausuul]

Two months ago, I created my new character: A swashbuckling ex-pirate rogue. I went with arcane trickster. Now this comes out. They couldn't have published it just a little bit sooner?

Actually, though, I'm not too fussed. I love the storm sorc, and the mariner fighting style is okay, but the swashbuckler is underwhelming. If I just wanted to jump into melee and whack things, I'd be playing a fighter. I prefer my AT. (Though I suspect that if I'd had the option, I would have gone with storm sorc for this character... ah well, bit late now. I've already talked my DM into letting me rebuild characters multiple times this campaign, I think he's about out of patience with it. )

 

[DEFCON 1]

Actually, though, I'm not too fussed. I love the storm sorc, and the mariner fighting style is okay, but the swashbuckler is underwhelming. If I just wanted to jump into melee and whack things, I'd be playing a fighter. I prefer my AT.

And that's the big question, isn't it? What is actually the best thing to use for the job at hand. I'm right there with ya... since I rarely get to play (and thus haven't exhausted all the different options in the PH available to me), when I think I want to design a melee fighting character, I can't help but think "Why should I use a melee Bard or Bladelock rather than just make a Fighter?" Or if I want an outdoorsy character, I think "Why go with a Nature domain Cleric or Ancients Paladin when I can make a Druid or a Ranger?" Or if I wanted a divine warrior with a big honking weapon, why make a War domain Cleric rather than a Devotion Paladin?

But then it's a matter of just settling myself down and accept that there are many more ways to skin the proverbial cat to get the type of character you want in 5E. Especially when you factor in the "make your own class or sub-class" instructions and hints in the DMG. So why is there a Bladelock in the game when you could easily make an Eldritch Knight instead? Because, why not? What's wrong with both? The Bladelock is serving somebody who is quite happy with it and doesn't have nearly the same intense balance issues that the CharOpers are finding with it (and who want it errata'd because of it.)

And the Swashbuckler sub-class is the same way. If someone wants a lightly-armored dueling character, can you make one a different way? Sure. Is the Swashbuckler thus useless? Not at all. Because for everyone who thinks that it's not going to serve their needs, there will be someone else who thinks it was the greatest thing in the world. I might not ever play a Nature domain Cleric because I'd choose to play a Druid instead... but that doesn't mean the Nature domain shouldn't ever exist.

 

[Mephista]

The only problem I have with the Swashbuckler is that it feels like it was designed specifically so we could have a Two Weapon Fighting Rogue that could function without worrying about losing out on Cunning Action. Well, it does lose out, but mimics CA abilities with class tricks.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

The funny thing about the swashbuckler's two-weapon fighting is that doesn't allow the iconic weapon--the rapier. And if they take the feat to allow it...well then mechanically they are better off fighting with 2 rapier's than with the more appropriate rapier and dagger.

I still haven't figured out how to support rapier+dagger without either creating a new feat or slightly throwing off the math. Sure, it does the same overall damage as two-shortsword if you only get one primary attack...except that there are times you are getting an extra attack (such as opportunity attacks), and now your extra attack is a d8 instead of a d6, and there are definitely times when you aren't getting your off-hand attack (such as when using cunning action or second wind). And there is no real reason why everyone wouldn't just use rapier and dagger over two shortswords if it were allowed.

It's an unfortunate design quirk I haven't figured out yet.

As far as the swashbuckler's crazy good panache, I have an idea.

I may end up treating it as a part of the social interaction pillar rather than the combat pillar. This seems reasonable, since it is using skill checks that are generally not combat skills. By doing that, it becomes suggestions for how the opponent will normally act in such situations, just like making checks for social interaction (see DMG) is a guideline but the DM can alter it depending on circumstances. This method encourages role-playing to get advantage on your Charisma (Persuasion) check, and allows the DM to apply advantage/disadvantage to either both sides--and in extreme cases just straight up decide it is or isn't going to work on this opponent (or perhaps say it provides a lesser benefit, like disadvantage on attacks vs. other than you). Plus, it provides an example of something other characters might try to lesser effect (takes a full action, perhaps has disadvantage on the roll, only works on opponent until struck, etc).

I think this is going to be a fun way to do it. Of course, you need to let your players know that's how you're running it, and you need to be generous in letting it work--the swashbuckler is supposed to be really, really good at it.

 

[AverageCitizen]

The funny thing about the swashbuckler's two-weapon fighting is that doesn't allow the iconic weapon--the rapier. And if they take the feat to allow it...well then mechanically they are better off fighting with 2 rapier's than with the more appropriate rapier and dagger.

I still haven't figured out how to support rapier+dagger without either creating a new feat or slightly throwing off the math. Sure, it does the same overall damage as two-shortsword if you only get one primary attack...except that there are times you are getting an extra attack (such as opportunity attacks), and now your extra attack is a d8 instead of a d6, and there are definitely times when you aren't getting your off-hand attack (such as when using cunning action or second wind). And there is no real reason why everyone wouldn't just use rapier and dagger over two shortswords if it were allowed.

It's an unfortunate design quirk I haven't figured out yet.

The thing I don't understand about the article is that is says they are trying to support cutlass/dagger but there is no reason not to use two cutlasses. Also I wish you could do rapier/dagger more, it really is a shame.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I have thought a lot about implementing rapier and dagger.

I see several possibilities:

1. Tweaking TWF: e.g. instead of (2 x 1d6) weapons, characters could be allowed (1d8+1d4) -- (a good solution, but doesn't represent rapier and dagger fighting well.
OR: giving +1 AC if using TWF and at least one weapon is a dagger.
2. Expanding dual wielding: Allowing those who have the feat to gain +1 AC if they use a dagger as one of their two weapons (but requires feat).
3. Expanding armour options: a dagger (or cloak, lantern, etc.) can be used as a +1 shield with shield proficiency (excludes rogues, though) when that object is not used to attack in a given round. (Implementing buckler rules such as this seems a no-brainer to me, frankly, and I don't know why it's not there).
4. Skinning short swords: only works for certain classes, but calling a short sword a dagger and taking the extra damage is also possible ("Now that's a knife" [/crocodile dundee]).

I'd like an answer that made rapier and dagger good for both fighters and rogues. These are the best I have.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I have thought a lot about implementing rapier and dagger.

I see several possibilities:

1. Tweaking TWF: e.g. instead of (2 x 1d6) weapons, characters could be allowed (1d8+1d4) -- (a good solution, but doesn't represent rapier and dagger fighting well.
OR: giving +1 AC if using TWF and at least one weapon is a dagger.
2. Expanding dual wielding: Allowing those who have the feat to gain +1 AC if they use a dagger as one of their two weapons (but requires feat).
3. Expanding armour options: a dagger (or cloak, lantern, etc.) can be used as a +1 shield with shield proficiency (excludes rogues, though) when that object is not used to attack in a given round. (Implementing buckler rules such as this seems a no-brainer to me, frankly, and I don't know why it's not there).
4. Skinning short swords: only works for certain classes, but calling a short sword a dagger and taking the extra damage is also possible ("Now that's a knife" [/crocodile dundee]).

I'd like an answer that made rapier and dagger good for both fighters and rogues. These are the best I have.

Yeah, I've thought of 3 and 4 myself.

Another thing I considered is allowing you to use a dagger in your off-hand for +1 AC (instead of as a weapon) if you are using the Dueling Fighting Style. But then I thought of #3 and it is just simpler.

Rogue swashbuckler wasn't really a problem for me before this article, because their lack of shield proficiency would mean (with this house rule) that they would just be using a rapier + cunning action, while fighter swashbucklers are the ones going with rapier + defensive main-gauche. But then this really nice article comes along and gives swashbuckler rogues a feature that is useless if they aren't dual-wielding.

Another possibility is to create a main-gauche as an actual weapon entry--sort of a martial dagger that lacks the thrown property but can be used to give you a +1 AC if you are wielding it but don't attack with it. Then add it to the rogue proficiencies.

I like to use the simplest possible solution that makes the least alterations to the rules that I can, and any of these rules are a little more than I'd ideally like to have to implement.

 

[Dausuul]

The funny thing about the swashbuckler's two-weapon fighting is that doesn't allow the iconic weapon--the rapier. And if they take the feat to allow it...well then mechanically they are better off fighting with 2 rapier's than with the more appropriate rapier and dagger.

I still haven't figured out how to support rapier+dagger without either creating a new feat or slightly throwing off the math. Sure, it does the same overall damage as two-shortsword if you only get one primary attack...except that there are times you are getting an extra attack (such as opportunity attacks), and now your extra attack is a d8 instead of a d6, and there are definitely times when you aren't getting your off-hand attack (such as when using cunning action or second wind). And there is no real reason why everyone wouldn't just use rapier and dagger over two shortswords if it were allowed.

It's an unfortunate design quirk I haven't figured out yet.

You could just make it a swashbuckler ability: Swashbucklers can dual wield rapier and dagger. Rogues don't get Extra Attack, so that's not an issue, and you don't get to become a swashbuckler till level 3, which makes it non-trivial to "dip rogue" for this benefit.