Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6239550" data-attributes="member: 42582">Maybe you didn't read this part of the post to which you replied:You are the one who, upthread, denied that the character concept "swashbuckler" is linked to any particular mechanical expression such as 3d6+7 damage.You now seem to be conceding that, in fact, competence as a fencer is linked to mechanical capabilities. In which case, we are in agreement!As to what the actual mechanical capabilities should be, I don't know: I'm not a 3E player (and 3E seems to be the example being used) and hence don't have much experience in building 3E PCs.In 4e, I can tell you that it is easy to build a swashbuckler, and in fact there are five pathways I can think of to that outcome: (1) build a PHB rogue; (2) build an Essentials rogue; (3) build a STR melee ranger; (4) build a DEX melee ranger (using the options in MP2); (5) build a STR/DEX two-weapon fighter (using the options in MP). Any of these should be at least competent, if not quite strong, in melee combat with level-equivalent enemies.As I understand it, [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] is arguing that if I build a 1st level rogue swashbuckler in 3E (ignoring the fact that I don't qualify for Weapon Finesse yet - let's call that a swashbuckler-friendly house rule) then I am likely to lose in combat to the 1st level druid's pet wolf. This strike me as a reasonable marker of relative combat ineffectiveness, and hence failure to actually achieve the concept I was aiming for.What are my odds against a CR 1/2 orc?Why can't I have both? That doesn't strike me as a particularly broken combination!I am confident that when most people imagine a swashbuckler they are thinking of Robin Hood, a stereotypical pirate (perhaps Westley), or Zorro, or something similar. I don't think they're thinking of someone who can't fence but brags to the contrary.</blockquote>

Verification