-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
What are the characteristics of a swashbuckler, in game terms?
- Thread starter WizarDru
- Start date
ThoughtBubble
First Post
Mostly, I think a fighter's lack of skill points really slows it down.
While my initial reaction is that a swashbuckler is fine without needing its own class, we do have a special class for Paladins, Druids, and Sorcerers, so there is precident for it.
One thing that works in the advantage of swashbucklers is armor check penalties. In my games, those penalties came up very often. However, it should be noted that my games are lower level (1-5). And so magic items may be able to mitigate a lot of those problems. Does the occurance/hinderance of heavier armor become less of an issue as time progresses?
While my initial reaction is that a swashbuckler is fine without needing its own class, we do have a special class for Paladins, Druids, and Sorcerers, so there is precident for it.
One thing that works in the advantage of swashbucklers is armor check penalties. In my games, those penalties came up very often. However, it should be noted that my games are lower level (1-5). And so magic items may be able to mitigate a lot of those problems. Does the occurance/hinderance of heavier armor become less of an issue as time progresses?
ThoughtBubble
First Post
takyris said:
If I were to venture a guess, the "Heh" is due to the fact that Hong has allready built one of these, and if I recall correctly, it looked pretty good.
Though, oddly, if I were to try to make a swashbuckler, I'd start with a monk.
Oni
First Post
The swashbuckler swashes bucklers just fine when up against the sorts of things a swashbuckler would be up against. That is other lightly armoured men with similiar arms. Pitting him against a fighter in full plate with a greatsword ends with predictable results. In fact DnD seems to be remarkable accurate in the particular situation.
The fact that is doesn't work well is due to the most dnd setting are mixed up in regard to the sorts of weapons in use in them. You could make a perfectly wonderful and competent swashbuckler in a campaign where that was the standard and not the armoured knight using the dnd rules in my estimation.
The fact that is doesn't work well is due to the most dnd setting are mixed up in regard to the sorts of weapons in use in them. You could make a perfectly wonderful and competent swashbuckler in a campaign where that was the standard and not the armoured knight using the dnd rules in my estimation.
Kahuna Burger
First Post
Oni said:
well, we are talking about fantasy, here. the lightly armored fighter dancing around the knight, dodging the blows and taking quick jabs at the chinks in the armor is a completely acceptable fantasy (and action adventure for that matter) fight, and I don't see it as being particularly unreasonable. IIRC there have already been two fights with that theme in A Song of Fire and Ice and they resolved with a slight edge towards the fast mover. (three if you count one holding action we never officially saw the end of.) So I don't buy the idea that the swashbuckler should get killed by the tank as a given. Its just a typical big strong guy/little fast guy fight.
Kahuan burger
storyguide3
First Post
I think the problem is a possibly faulty assumption that the "fast mover" will be appreciably faster than the trained armoured warrior in any way that will gain him a real advantage on the battlefield. To our modern eyes it seems "obvious" but modern folk also believed that knights were lifted into the saddle with cranes and could barely move when on foot.Kahuna Burger said:
Having watched some demonstrations of trained men in real armour and how fast they can move, I'm not so sure that the dex fighter has an advantage. It is just as likely that the armoured warrior, nearly impervious to the light weapon of the "fast mover", will close with him physically, negating the light fighter's weapon, and beat him to a pulp with an armoured fist, before stepping back and disemboweling him with a broadsword. The knight's armour lets him take several blows if he has to, the dex fighter does not have that luxury. And the knight can move plenty fast. Running, jumping and getting up from prone in armour is not that hard if you are trained with it.
Remember that the type of fencing we think of a swachbuckling was not the product of "light fighters can kill armoured fighters with ease". If unarmoured fighters had any real advantages over those in heavy arnmour, they would have been the norm. Heavy armour went away becuase it didn't stop bullets and therefore became a waste of money. Without armour it became more important to dodge and defelct blows than it had been before, hence the fighting styles of fencing.
The defining factor in a swashbuckling campaign is the gun. If firearms rules are designed to allow these weapons to bypass armour (such as by using melee touch attacks to hit instead of normal attack rolls), and guns are common enough then people will be less likely to wear armour, as it will not give them the advantages it normally does when compared to its costs. That means that the swashbuckling fighter comes to the fore as he can dodge sword thrusts better with his higher dexterity, which also stands him in good stead when being shot at, as not getting shot is the best defense against gunfire. Guns create swachbucklers, IMO.
WizarDru
Adventurer
Well, I can only think of one of the top of my head, but the Red Viper versus the Mountain was not really swashbuckler versus tank, it was lightly-armored-tank-with-poisoned-reach-weapon versus super-tank. And the Viper didn't win, for that matter, although he was victorious*. In the case of Arya's fencing master versus the armored guards,Kahuna Burger said:
according to GRRM he lost
* -
You might debate this point, but from a game standpoint, if the Red Viper was a PC, he might consider that an RP-ing victory, but not a tactical one, by any measure. Mutually assured destruction is not exactly a victory past one combat.
Edit: Added spoiler tags, just in case.
Last edited:
For the armor issue, I'd play a swashbuckler with, you know, a piercing longsword, which I'm probably naming wrong but which you can define as a moderately heavy blade designed with the primary purpose of punching through armor. That's what the rapier eventually devolved into as it became a gentleman's dueling weapon, but there was a period of time where the rapier was light enough to duel with but heavy enough to use against someone in armor. (Says the guy who vaguely remembers this from a newsgroup when he was looking for a good sword purchase.)
But we're dealing with other issues, too, as people noted. Magic. Personally, I think that the swashbuckler should have the ability to use a little bit of magic. Just a dabbler, nowhere near an expert, but good if he can get his hands on a device, maybe.
So, a good face-man, a good environment-using dextrous fighter, and a passable support magician... my swashbuckler is starting to sound a lot like a bard or bard/fighter, if I turned the bardsongs into witty banter.
But we're dealing with other issues, too, as people noted. Magic. Personally, I think that the swashbuckler should have the ability to use a little bit of magic. Just a dabbler, nowhere near an expert, but good if he can get his hands on a device, maybe.
So, a good face-man, a good environment-using dextrous fighter, and a passable support magician... my swashbuckler is starting to sound a lot like a bard or bard/fighter, if I turned the bardsongs into witty banter.
Desdichado
Hero
See, now a swashbuckler that uses a little magic; I can definately see that as a multiclass between a true swashbuckler and some kind of magic-using class.
Similar Threads
