If it doesn't carry over what would be a good way to have that style of play? A rogue/bard combo perhaps? A light armor wearing striker fighter with a lot of mobility based moves? Perhaps a melee bard?
Thoughts?
besides the rakish swashbuckler paragon path, there is always a high dex fighter multiclass rogue. But a pure rogue with a rapier is a perfect swashbuckler. I mean what else could you want?
There are hundreds of "swashbuckler" builds currently in the game. why make a class out of it?
A pure rogue with a rapier is a perfect swashbuckler.
And you win.
A pure rogue with a rapier is a perfect swashbuckler.
And you win.
I'd have to agree, I've made a Swashbuckler using only the rogue that felt perfect.
You can "buckle up" pretty much any melee class. Get a lean, flashy blade, some nice clothing, and live life the swashbuckler style.
Rogue: Artful Dodger, as everybody else said. Pick a rapier and done.
Swordmage: Especially the Assault version. For the sword & sorcery swashbuckler.
Avenger: Pursuit version. Pick a deity that is not about dark, brooding revenge, but tricks and cunning. Mask in the FR is a prime candidate, or Vheraun (sp?) for a Drow. Swashbuckler with a secret. Or be campy and pick a deity of love. Style bonus for high AC just in cloth armor (rewrite the flavor to good at dodging).
Fighter: Tempest is your friend. Rapier + parrying dagger is a style over minmaxing choice, but it works well enough if you're not dead set on squeezing out the last +1. Or go scimitar and scimitar dance. Wear a nice shirt over your chainmail, or some stylish hide.
Ranger: Two longswords or two scimitars. Pick stylish hide armor, such as purple snake hide. Don't forget to boost your Dex. Ask the DM nicely whether you can switch some class skills, such as Bluff for Nature.
Bard: Any melee build. Works perfectly right out of the box.
all that is left are the core 4e deities and a few deities in the realms.
Eravan
and
tymora
come to mind
no no no, mask and Vhaerun are gone.
all that is left are the core 4e deities and a few deities in the realms.
Eravan
and
tymora
come to mind
Avendra would probably work for this concept as well. Ooh or even Sune now that would be hilarious.
Bard with mostly weapon based powers would work perfectly as a swash buckler.
Bard: Any melee build. Works perfectly right out of the box.
Grab a Parrot familiar for extra awesome.
- Avenger? Wasn't there already an Angelic Avenger paragon path for paladins.
- Who needs a barbarian when you can just have an angry fighter
- Aren't bards just rogues that like to sing and multiclass feylock.
- Why play a druid, when a wizard's spells can easily be refluffed as weather control.
- Invoker? just an overly aggressive cleric.
- We didn't need shamans when clerics could by flavor to worship nature.
- No need sorcerer when we already had two spellcasters in the wizard and warlock. Warlocks could even be reflavored to get their powers from innate bloodline rather a dubious pact.
- Warden? See shaman, just reflavor the paladin instead.
Avenger: Pursuit version. Pick a deity that is not about dark, brooding revenge, but tricks and cunning. Mask in the FR is a prime candidate, or Vheraun (sp?) for a Drow. Swashbuckler with a secret. Or be campy and pick a deity of love. Style bonus for high AC just in cloth armor (rewrite the flavor to good at dodging).
Or heck, just refluff it into a Martial class.
Just because reflavoring is a powerful tool in 4e, doesn't mean there is no room in 4e for classes like the swashbuckler. If that were the case most of PHB2 would have been unnecessary
- Avenger? Wasn't there already an Angelic Avenger paragon path for paladins.
- Who needs a barbarian when you can just have an angry fighter
- Aren't bards just rogues that like to sing and multiclass feylock.
- Why play a druid, when a wizard's spells can easily be refluffed as weather control.
- Invoker? just an overly aggressive cleric.
- We didn't need shamans when clerics could by flavor to worship nature.
- No need sorcerer when we already had two spellcasters in the wizard and warlock. Warlocks could even be reflavored to get their powers from innate bloodline rather a dubious pact.
- Warden? See shaman, just reflavor the paladin instead.
Thing with the swashbuckler rogue is at no point did I feel the need to refluff anything, multi-class or house rule to get what I wanted. To me a swashbuckler is a finesse fighter who uses mobility and style (charisma) to great effect. It's not that I'm settling for using something else to represent a what I want it's more the Swashbuckler already seems to be there.
All the examples you have given require refluffing. If I'd have to refluff my rogues powers then yes I'd agree a Swashbuckler class is justifiable. But to me part of the changes to the rogue in 4e is a move to incorporate the swashbuckler into the class. YMMV
All the examples you have given require refluffing. If I'd have to refluff my rogues powers then yes I'd agree a Swashbuckler class is justifiable. But to me part of the changes to the rogue in 4e is a move to incorporate the swashbuckler into the class. YMMV
I can largely agree with most of what you said. The rogue has indeed incorporated many elements of the what used to be the swashbuckler class, however, it still falls a bit short. Sneak attack doesn't feel quite right to me. Also auto training in stealth and thievery are a little off; swashbuckles are boisterous braggarts, not lurking thieves. Diplomacy as a class skill might be nice as well.
Lastly there is role. Personally I see swashbuckler as a defender. Unlike the fighter, however, he defends through taunts and by daring his enemies face him over other allies. I'd also see them as a martial class that has an incentive to to use cloth armor, compared to all the current ones that have no reason to wear anything less than leather.
Avenger: Pursuit version. Pick a deity that is not about dark, brooding revenge, but tricks and cunning. Mask in the FR is a prime candidate, or Vheraun (sp?) for a Drow. Swashbuckler with a secret. Or be campy and pick a deity of love. Style bonus for high AC just in cloth armor (rewrite the flavor to good at dodging).
Sehanine - goddess of loooooove. And moonlight trysts. ;)
my big problem w/ 4.0 rogue is that they dont start w/ rapier prof.
Your problem is resolved by the... feat... that you get at first level.
I can largely agree with most of what you said. The rogue has indeed incorporated many elements of the what used to be the swashbuckler class, however, it still falls a bit short. Sneak attack doesn't feel quite right to me.
A precise, telling strike because your opponent let his guard down isn't swashbucklery?
Also auto training in stealth and thievery are a little off; swashbuckles are boisterous braggarts, not lurking thieves.
Depends on the swashbuckler.
Diplomacy as a class skill might be nice as well.
Background.
Depends on the swashbuckler.
Yes it does. I feel that the rogue is a perfectly acceptable for some swashbuckler archetypes, but I feel that there are still other archetypes that it doesn't cover and it's those archetypes that I would like to see covered in any potential swashbuckler class.
Yes it does. I feel that the rogue is a perfectly acceptable for some swashbuckler archetypes, but I feel that there are still other archetypes that it doesn't cover and it's those archetypes that I would like to see covered in any potential swashbuckler class.
Then Perhaps a new Build for rogue is in order; certainly no need for another class. "Rogue" is practically a euphemism for "Swashbuckler", after all.
Then Perhaps a new Build for rogue is in order; certainly no need for another class. "Rogue" is practically a euphemism for "Swashbuckler", after all.
Not... really. Isn't swashbuckler more of a euphemism for rogue? Rogue seems to have more of a negative connotation, while swashbuckler sounds less dastardly.
Then Perhaps a new Build for rogue is in order; certainly no need for another class. "Rogue" is practically a euphemism for "Swashbuckler", after all.
Except as I also noted, my ideal swashbuckler isn't even the same role as the rogue (defender not striker). A fighter build is also unexceptionable, since fighters use STR as there primary. My ideal Swashbuckler would be a martial defender that uses DEX as a primary and INT/CHA as a secondary based on build (the INT build would probably be sub-striker, while the CHA build would be sub-leader).
I've got a swashbuckler bard I'm playing in a campaign and she's great. Captain of the party complete with parrot familiar (found in today's dragon article).
Lol I love this idea. And I dont see any swashbuckler as a defender. They always seem highly mobile. Id say striker or leader. Or if you want a defender swashbuckler Swordmage would work good. Swashbuckler doesnt seem to be a class as it is a lifestyle, or background. I can even see a swash buckling wizard that taunts enemies, while flinging fire balls.
Swashbuckler doesnt seem to be a class as it is a lifestyle, or background. I can even see a swash buckling wizard that taunts enemies, while flinging fire balls.
Yup. It's all charm, attitude, and swagger, combined with some daring acrobatics. I still think a rogue makes a perfect swashbuckler, but other classes could cover the concept in their own way.
WotC could have just given us a book with only four flavorless classes that have to be flavored by you, leaving you to explain and describe every aspect of your character and each of it's powers to everyone who looks at it. Or they could have made a specific class for every character concept ever created.
So I think when we consider if a class should exist or not, we need to measure how much reflavoring does it take to make it with what we have and if that's a reasonable amount. And with Hybrid-Classing many more concepts are going to be better represented. I don't think a person should have to do too much reflavoring, and I don't think we need a class for every archetype.
I think a large part of being a swashbuckler is style, it's 'mostly' just a style of fighting, and making a class just for a style of fighting seems a little unnecessary.
I feel that If my DM asked what my character is and I said a Swashbuckling Rogue(or even Fighter to a slightly lesser extent), they wouldn't feel the need to ask how I pulled that off. It's becuase the Swashbuckler is so easy to envision with some classes that I don't feel it warrants a new class.
Just because reflavoring is a powerful tool in 4e, doesn't mean there is no room in 4e for classes like the swashbuckler. If that were the case most of PHB2 would have been unnecessary
- Avenger? Wasn't there already an Angelic Avenger paragon path for paladins.
- Who needs a barbarian when you can just have an angry fighter
- Aren't bards just rogues that like to sing and multiclass feylock.
- Why play a druid, when a wizard's spells can easily be refluffed as weather control.
- Invoker? just an overly aggressive cleric.
- We didn't need shamans when clerics could by flavor to worship nature.
- No need sorcerer when we already had two spellcasters in the wizard and warlock. Warlocks could even be reflavored to get their powers from innate bloodline rather a dubious pact.
- Warden? See shaman, just reflavor the paladin instead.
Those are actually mechanically distinct options. Very mechanically distinct options.
You've got reflavoring backwards.
Reflavoring is for when the mechanical things you want already exist, but they're in a class with a different flavor from what you want. For example, suppose you're playing 3e. You want a character who wears a dress and a tiara, flies around, and shoots magical beams of light from her scepter of the moon. So you play a Warlock, and you fly around, where a dress and a tiara, carry a scepter of the moon, and shoot people with magical beams of light. Done. The mechanics were precisely what you were looking for, even though the flavor was the opposite, so you change the flavor.
Take the shaman/cleric issue. You could flavor a cleric to worship nature, but it would never match the shaman's mechanics. This is NOT a good place for "just reflavor it and you'll be fine." Now, if what you wanted wasn't a 4e style shaman, but a member of the clergy who wore chain armor and worshipped nature spirits while casting spells that heal his allies and smite his enemies, then yes, a reflavored cleric would work fine. But reflavoring a cleric isn't going to get you a spirit bear that bites people.
So... back to the OP's question.
The real issue that determines whether you can just play something that already exists and make the flavor what you need it to be is this:
What, mechanically, do you want from a Swashbuckler?
Without knowing that, its hard to tell you anything.
Bel
WotC could have just given us a book with only four flavorless classes that have to be flavored by you, leaving you to explain and describe every aspect of your character and each of it's powers to everyone who looks at it.
...or the even more extreme approach of having no classes. A free form classless system where every one just cobbles together features and powers. Fortunately neither of these is the approach that WotC took.
I think a large part of being a swashbuckler is style, it's 'mostly' just a style of fighting, and making a class just for a style of fighting seems a little unnecessary.
I agree that swashbuckling can be seen as more a life style than a character class, but the same could probably be said of other class names as well (Fighter, Avenger, BARBARIAN). It's not that I want to take the name swashbuckler and force a class around it. I don't feel the need to have such a name written on my sheet just so I can buckle a few swashes as it were. It's more so that I've got an idea for a distinct character archetype and I just happen to find swashbuckler is a good name to use to identify that class concept.
Those are actually mechanically distinct options. Very mechanically distinct options.
You've got reflavoring backwards.
No, I've got it the right way around. All of those classes are mechanically distinct, but they are only mechanically distinct because they were developed as new classes. Someone at some point could have just as easily decided that any of those concepts were not sufficiently different and should just be a new build option for an old class rather than a unique class of its own.
A reflavord cleric could never mimic the mechanics of the 4e shaman, but they could mimic the basic flavor. The mechanics that make the shaman a distinct class only exist because someone decided reflavoring wasn't enough.
What, mechanically, do you want from a Swashbuckler?
Without knowing that, its hard to tell you anything.
I can't speak for the OP but what I want from the swashbuckler is mechanically distinct and not entirely covered by any one class, and not really possible to create with multi classing either.
First as I see it there are two distinct swashbuckler archetypes; the pirate which rogue covers well; and the musketeer (as in The Three Musketeers, as presented in modern media and disregarding historical accuracy), it is this second archetype that I don't feel is fully covered. What I want to see is a Martial Defender, who uses light blades as their primary weapon (likely including automatic proficiency with the rapier), that wears cloth armor and has a mechanical incentive to stay that way, that uses DEX as a primary stat and uses INT/CHA as a secondary stat based on build.
Rogue is the wrong role. Fighter has the wrong primary stat. Presently a reflavored melee bard is about as close as it gets, but they lack a reason to limit themselves to cloth. A mechanically adjusted avenger (using CHA instead of WIS) almost works, though they have no real reason not to upgrade to at least leather, and also their powers are a little too explicitly magical.
Swashbuckler could also be a pseudo-class ala Gladiator or Assassin.
Actually gladiator and assassin are merely a collection of themed character options, mostly feats. Presently the only pseudo-class is spellscared. That said, while I would prefer a full class, I would only be mildly disappointed if swashbuckler ended up as a set of themed character options or as a pseudo-class.
Except as I also noted, my ideal swashbuckler isn't even the same role as the rogue (defender not striker). A fighter build is also unexceptionable, since fighters use STR as there primary. My ideal Swashbuckler would be a martial defender that uses DEX as a primary and INT/CHA as a secondary based on build (the INT build would probably be sub-striker, while the CHA build would be sub-leader).
What would be the ramifications of playing a fighter, except everywhere in the Fighter's class description where it says "Strength", replace it with "Dexterity."
Of course, that does not solve your charisma issue...
If you were in my campaign, I would say your Swashbucker would be a fighter (or ranger, if you want to go Florentine), but free to choose powers from Fighter, Rogue, or Warlord class, with the fluff changed as appropriate. (I wouldn't be concern with you trying to find power combination that break the game, since you are clearly going for flavor, not min-maxing).
As a defender, it's just a fighter who doesn't wear enough armour or use a big enough weapon. And defenders seem to look better standing firm declaring you shall not pass, than running around the battlefield and swinging on chandeliers to get out of tight spots.
As a striker, it doesn't really deal well with hordes of the Cardinal's guards/the Sheriff's guards/pirates/soldiers/etc. If you can't fight off hordes of minions, you're not a swashbuckler.
Hence controller. Powers should include lots of slides and shifts:
Just Try to Surround Me:
Martial, Weapon
Cha vs Will. Close Burst 5
Standard Action
Hit: Minor damage, pull all enemies 3 squares.
Effect: After the attack, shift 5 squares. During this shift you can move through the space of any enemy hit by this power.
(for those situations where the guards charge Errol Flynn and he swings away on a chandelier)
and redirect attacks:
Charge and Collide:
Martial Weapon
Cha vs Ref. Melee 1.
Immediate Interrupt
Trigger: An enemy charges you.
Hit: The enemy makes its attack against any other enemy adjacent to you. The enemy attacked makes a melee basic attack against the triggering enemy. (The enemies do not need to be in melee range of each other.)
(should be obvious).
What do you think the odds of the Swashbuckler being carried over are?
If it doesn't carry over what would be a good way to have that style of play? A rogue/bard combo perhaps? A light armor wearing striker fighter with a lot of mobility based moves? Perhaps a melee bard?
Thoughts?
None.
It's called the Rogue.
Seriously, the Martial source is what kind of Fighter you are. Warlord for Charismatic or Smart Fighters, Rogue for the Sly and Dextrous fighters, or the brutally dexterous. Fighter for the guy with a jacked STR score and heavy armor. Ranger is the two weapon skirmisher or sniper fighter.
What would be the ramifications of playing a fighter, except everywhere in the Fighter's class description where it says "Strength", replace it with "Dexterity."
Of course, that does not solve your charisma issue...
A DEX attacking fighter doesn't really work. No incentive to wear cloth armor, and considering my choice of weapon (single light blade) not much reason to not use a shield.
I suppose if this variant DEX attack/damage fighter was also granted a +2 AC bonus while wearing cloth, a +1 AC/Reflex when wielding a light blade with off-hand empty, switched WIS for CHA with combat superiority, and changed all powers with DEX bonus to use INT instead then maybe it would be about write, but after making all those changes it is practically a new class already. Oh, it would probably also need acrobatics and bluff added to its class skill list, though a properly chosen background help can there. Also, 4 trained skills instead of 3 would be nice, but I wouldn't push that (don't want to seem greedy).
If you were in my campaign, I would say your Swashbucker would be a fighter (or ranger, if you want to go Florentine), but free to choose powers from Fighter, Rogue, or Warlord class, with the fluff changed as appropriate. (I wouldn't be concern with you trying to find power combination that break the game, since you are clearly going for flavor, not min-maxing).
I almost wish you were my DM. It might have helped when I was considering playing an updated version of my old warmage and asked the DM if I could be a wizard that used CHA instead of INT, and get free leather and light shield proficiency to offset the loss of AC due to no longer having INT as a primary stat (this was months ago, long before PH2 brought us the sorcerer).
Personally, I think the Swashbuckler should be a Martial Controller.
As a defender, it's just a fighter who doesn't wear enough armour or use a big enough weapon. And defenders seem to look better standing firm declaring you shall not pass, than running around the battlefield and swinging on chandeliers to get out of tight spots.
As a striker, it doesn't really deal well with hordes of the Cardinal's guards/the Sheriff's guards/pirates/soldiers/etc. If you can't fight off hordes of minions, you're not a swashbuckler.
Hence controller. Powers should include lots of slides and shifts:
Just Try to Surround Me:
Martial, Weapon
Cha vs Will. Close Burst 5
Standard Action
Hit: Minor damage, pull all enemies 3 squares.
Effect: After the attack, shift 5 squares. During this shift you can move through the space of any enemy hit by this power.
(for those situations where the guards charge Errol Flynn and he swings away on a chandelier)
and redirect attacks:
Charge and Collide:
Martial Weapon
Cha vs Ref. Melee 1.
Immediate Interrupt
Trigger: An enemy charges you.
Hit: The enemy makes its attack against any other enemy adjacent to you. The enemy attacked makes a melee basic attack against the triggering enemy. (The enemies do not need to be in melee range of each other.)
(should be obvious).
WOW! This is a great idea! It's certainly the first idea for a martial controller that makes sense!.
"Swashbuckler" might be too generic a term for it, though. Perhaps, in D&D's historic spirit of name entire species for notable individuals (Medusa, Minotaur, etc...), this class could be called the "Cyrano".
Here another potential power for this class, representing strategic retreats:
At-Will, Utility, Immediate Interrupt, Weapon: When an opponent move adjacent to, you may shift a number of squares equal your Dex Mod, and pull the target along with you. The target must end in a square adjacent to you, and may then continue with her attack or whatever she was doing.
Another characteristic of this class would be that he gains rather than give combat advantage when he is flanked (this guy wants to be surrounded!)
At-Will, Utility, Immediate Interrupt, Weapon: When an opponent move adjacent to, you may shift a number of squares equal your Dex Mod, and pull the target along with you. The target must end in a square adjacent to you, and may then continue with her attack or whatever she was doing.
Maybe the at-will should just allow shifting 1 square; a encounter version allowing shifting multiple squares.
O maybe the shift-and-pull should be something you can due automatically after certain powers, like the battlerager's temporary hps.
Another characteristic of this class would be that he gains rather than give combat advantage when he is flanked (this guy wants to be surrounded!)
that's a good way to get a controller killed, controllers can't do what some would expect a swashbuckler to be able to do, controllers can't go toe to toe with the boss, controllers can't handle a bunch of incoming attacks.
(for those situations where the guards charge Errol Flynn and he swings away on a chandelier)
I imagine thats the most AoE type thing they could do and it does not seem even that useful and I don't even see why it would do damage.
and redirect attacks:
Neither of these attacks are the kind of thing controllers have a monopoly on, but one thing controllers do have a monopoly on is squishiness and someone who is supposed to be able take on a whole room full of gaurds like Zorro can is not squishy.
I don't have a problem with Martial Controllers or Melee Controllers, but I do have a problem with wrapping a concept around contrived mechanics.
Then again as I said swashbuckler is more about attitude. You could litterally make any class a swashbuckler.
Great now I have an idea for a swashbuckling sorcerer.
I don't think a new class is needed. But I would be happy to see a new fighter class feature in Martial Power 2; Dualist Fighter, for those that want a fencing dex based defender, someone who can swing aboard a pirate ship and start battling off swarms of scallywags with one arm tied behind his back.
I still dont see a swashbuckler as a controller or defender. They always move and dart around the battlefield striking key targets, ie striker.
I really don't see a problem with darting about and being a defender. The swordmage is a highly mobile defender with numerous teleport effects. The avenger, while a strike, is also very defender like in that it pseudo-locks down a single target yet they are also highly mobile.
I really don't see a problem with darting about and being a defender. The swordmage is a highly mobile defender with numerous teleport effects. The avenger, while a strike, is also very defender like in that it pseudo-locks down a single target yet they are also highly mobile.
true. Im just saying any class works as a swashbuckler. I dont know I just see them more as a striker or maybe a leader. Thats just me though. I dont think a single class could encompass everysingle swashbuckler concept.
I dont think a single class could encompass everysingle swashbuckler concept.
Word.
true. Im just saying any class works as a swashbuckler. I dont know I just see them more as a striker or maybe a leader. Thats just me though. I dont think a single class could encompass everysingle swashbuckler concept.
Which is why I'm not interested in a single class that tries. What interests me is a particular concept that no existent class currently fill very well. Swashbuckler, for me, is just a convenient name to call that class.
I see it as being much like barbarian. One doesn't have to be the barbarian class to be a savage/berserk warrior. No one class could every cover every possible concept of what it means to be a barbarian, however that no good reason not to use a very evocative name.
Which is why I'm not interested in a single class that tries. What interests me is a particular concept that no existent class currently fill very well. Swashbuckler, for me, is just a convenient name to call that class.
I see it as being much like barbarian. One doesn't have to be the barbarian class to be a savage/berserk warrior. No one class could every cover every possible concept of what it means to be a barbarian, however that no good reason not to use a very evocative name.
See heres the thing though Im not sure you could design an actual swash buckler class that was all that different from the rogue class. They would have a lot of the same abilities.
See heres the thing though Im not sure you could design an actual swash buckler class that was all that different from the rogue class. They would have a lot of the same abilities.
To repeat my self.
- martial defender
- DEX for attack/damage with INT/CHA based build options
- sub-striker role for INT build
- sub-leader role for CHA build
- proficient with only cloth armor, with incentives to stay in cloth armor
They might end up sharing a little thematic space with rogue, but should ultimately play very differently.
To repeat my self.
- martial defender
- DEX for attack/damage with INT/CHA based build options
- sub-striker role for INT build
- sub-leader role for CHA build
- proficient with only cloth armor, with incentives to stay in cloth armor
They might end up sharing a little thematic space with rogue, but should ultimately play very differently.
Eh I dont see this as working it would look too much like either rogue or bard.
And I see a swashbuckler as wearing leather armour and using a small shield as well as a light blade. Ie it looks exactly like a rogue. Swashbuckler should be highly mobile and have a lot of flashy attacks ie exactly like a rogue or bard.
anyway I think it would be a cross between striker and defender or striker and controller
Paragon paths
Epic destinies
Alternate builds for existing classes
Power swap feats using the multiclass system
Themed suites of feats
Feats that modify existing at will powers
There are probably more.
To repeat my self.
- martial defender
- DEX for attack/damage with INT/CHA based build options
- sub-striker role for INT build
- sub-leader role for CHA build
- proficient with only cloth armor, with incentives to stay in cloth armor
They might end up sharing a little thematic space with rogue, but should ultimately play very differently.
What should this class DO. Most of these don't actually tell us anything about what the class should be like. If its just a matter of shuffling around ability scores until you're happy, go houserule a fighter or something. I suspect you want something more than that, though.
You need to say something more than "defender who uses dex and sometimes int and cha and wears cloth armor." What sorts of things would this character actually do?
What would make this character's defender techniques different from a fighter's? What would make the striker attributes of this character different from those of a rogue? How would this character's leadership abilities differ from a warlord? If you just want to bodge together bits of classes that aren't presently combined (fighter defense + a little rogue striking + warlord leading + altered ability scores and an unusual weapon) then just do it, or dual class a fighter/rogue and multi into warlord or something. If you want to do something new, though, what? What new thing?
You need to say something more than "defender who uses dex and sometimes int and cha and wears cloth armor." What sorts of things would this character actually do?
What would make this character's defender techniques different from a fighter's? What would make the striker attributes of this character different from those of a rogue? How would this character's leadership abilities differ from a warlord? If you just want to bodge together bits of classes that aren't presently combined (fighter defense + a little rogue striking + warlord leading + altered ability scores and an unusual weapon) then just do it, or dual class a fighter/rogue and multi into warlord or something. If you want to do something new, though, what? What new thing?
If I knew the finer details then I would design the class my self and there would be no problem.
Furthermore, I find your expectations unfair. It's like if six month ago someone came on the boards asking for a divine striker that functions like some kind of zealous assassin and people just said that there was no need for such a concept and that they should just multi-class rogue/cleric or cleric/rogue. Now here in the present the Avenger class proves otherwise.
If I knew the finer details then I would design the class my self and there would be no problem.
Furthermore, I find your expectations unfair. It's like if six month ago someone came on the boards asking for a divine striker that functions like some kind of zealous assassin and people just said that there was no need for such a concept and that they should just multi-class rogue/cleric or cleric/rogue. Now here in the present the Avenger class proves otherwise.
If that was all there was to the concept, then they SHOULD have just multi classed a rogue and a cleric.
The Avenger actually does things that a rogue/cleric multiclass cannot do. Things too complex to make into feats. That's why it deserves to be a class.
What, other than ability score swaps, weapon swaps, and armor swaps, makes a swashbuckler a swashbuckler? Because if that's all it is, you could just swap some stuff and call it a night. As of right now, every class in the game plays at least a little bit differently from other classes. How would a swashbuckler play differently?
What, other than ability score swaps, weapon swaps, and armor swaps, makes a swashbuckler a swashbuckler? Because if that's all it is, you could just swap some stuff and call it a night. As of right now, every class in the game plays at least a little bit differently from other classes. How would a swashbuckler play differently?
As I said, if I knew the details I'd design it might self.
At a guess it's mark might be some kind of taunt against a character up to 2-5 squares away. When triggered by a target within ranger (maybe the equal to the swashbuckler's speed) the swashbuckler would shift adjacent to the enemy and make an opposed attack roll to cancel the attack. Their striker build might then grant them their INT mod to attack or damage against an enemy whose attack they recently deflected. While their leader build might grant the ally they just protected temporary hit points equal to the swashbucklers CHA mod.
I could also see the swashbuckler having lots of tricks that let it avoid defeat, such as powers that let them spend a healing surge as an Immediate Interrupt.
Once again, I really only have a vague idea of how the concept should play out. I might be able to sit down and refine it if I cared to take the time to do so, but even then I'm not sure I would have the patience to actually design all the necessary attack and utility powers.
Furthermore, I find your expectations unfair. It's like if six month ago someone came on the boards asking for a divine striker that functions like some kind of zealous assassin and people just said that there was no need for such a concept and that they should just multi-class rogue/cleric or cleric/rogue. Now here in the present the Avenger class proves otherwise.
Six months ago about half the people on this borad were saying that we were going to be getting the Inquisitor in PHBII as exactly that(at least I don't think we knew it would be called the Avenger yet). You might want to choose a different example.:P
Six months ago about half the people on this borad were saying that we were going to be getting the Inquisitor in PHBII as exactly that(at least I don't think we knew it would be called the Avenger yet). You might want to choose a different example.:P
...and the other half were expecting that the divine strike would be the templar. Even those expecting the inquisitor weren't really predicting anything nearly as assassin like as what the avenger turned out to be.
As I said, if I knew the details I'd design it might self.
I don't mean mechanical details. I mean, in terms of description, NOT in terms of powers or an actual class write up, what does this guy DO?
What should this class DO. Most of these don't actually tell us anything about what the class should be like. If its just a matter of shuffling around ability scores until you're happy, go houserule a fighter or something. I suspect you want something more than that, though
Do you think it's imposible to make a class that is different? I don't think it's as hard to come up with new mechanics as you might think it is.
martial defender
DEX for attack/damage with INT/CHA based build options
sub-striker role for INT build
sub-leader role for CHA build
proficient with only cloth armor, with incentives to stay in cloth armor
I'm feeling ya,
I would go with sub-controller for the CHA build; comes with a multible marking feature for taking on all comers, a trickster style fueled by chaotic cramped fighting conditions with lots of baddies, AoE taunting used for herding the enemies to where you want them
The INT build would be for dualists, a style more like fencing best for going 1-on-1 with elites, butes, solos and locking down skirmishers with a potent single target mark
Do you think it's imposible to make a class that is different? I don't think it's as hard to come up with new mechanics as you might think it is.
I'm sure you could. But if you're just coming up with different mechanical ways to do the same things, its pointless. You might as well use the original way. Ditto weapon swaps, or armor swaps- there's no point in writing a whole class just to change armor.
If WotC ever creates a swashbuckler, it will because they actually came up with something new for it to do. Weapon swaps aren't particularly new. If that's all they want, they'll make a feat. Same with armor swaps. Something descriptively new, though, that might warrant a new class.
Martial Power 2 or Adventurer's Vault 2 needs a Weapon Mastery Feat chain for Rapiers.
And one for every other martial weapon as well.
And one for every other martial weapon as well.
Military weapons don't need individual mastery feats, though something similar that applies to all weapon of a specific type (axes, hammer, spear, swords, etc...) might be interesting, or maybe to all weapon with a specific property. I'd love to see a feat chain that geared towards the mastery of heavy thrown weapons.
Individual simple weapons of specif significance might also be interesting. Scythes and Great clubs are cool and flavorful weapons, but their is little incentive to use them, especially if one has access to military weapons.
This is how to turn the rogue into a bit more of a legitimate swashbuckler.
1. trade shuriken proficiency for rapier proficiency. no ninja stuff here.
2. change both rogue weapon tallents thusly;
3. to maintain game balance the character does not have a rogue tactic, but you D.M. may allow you to keep "artful dodger" seeing as how it is quite in style with the "swashbucklery" theme.
4. "rapier" high crit, can be changed into a new weapon your d.m. might allow, like the "cutlass" offhand slashing- PIRATES, or "Saber" high crit.
play a human with an 16 or more dexterity, and a good charisma score.
your bonus human feat could be invested in, weapon expertise-rapier to get a +1 to hit,
your first level feat should be invested in "studdent of the sword" take light blades, for the rapier. this gives you an encounter power that will give you a +1 to hit with your rapier...
and the ability to shout a challenge at a foe, such as "I am indigo montoya, you have killed my father- PREPARE TO DIE!"
other feat ideas; nimble blade, quickdraw, alertness, improved initiative, toughness, into the fray, dirty fighting, weapon focus- rapier
your skills:
accrobatics- for fighting on high narrow stuff without falling to your death.
athletics- so that you can jump, swim, climb, i.e. adventure.
bluff- ridicule your foe as you fight, saying witty things is a free action after all. as a bonus, all the stuff that bluff and fienting offer.
endurance- So you won't get seasick. AHR, MATEY! this one was a bonus skill from student of the sword feat.
insight- to help you resist your opponent's bluffing.
Perception- the bonus skill for being a human, handy for spotting well, everything, and hearing it too.
ROGUE CLASS AUTOMATICALLY GIVES YOU:
stealth- for the better part of valor is descretion, an descretion being sneakiness, and sneakiness tends to mean that you are really good at hidding from the dragon without wetting yourself... much.
thievery- nuff sed. pick locks, disable traps, pick pockets,,,
if you wanna be all talk and bluster, by all means- play a bard.
if you can't get by without diplomacy, intimidation, and knowing a little of everything...
take skill training feats, or jack of all trades.
of course, you could opt to pursue the sword mage multiclass feat, just to get a +3 to ac whenever your off hand is empty...
of course that may mean no student of the sword feat...
which inturn could be looked at as two different styles of dueling schools.
one school that challenges and swears oaths. ala studdent of the sword.
one that has a +3 defense with an empty hand. ala swordmage Multi feat.
one that wields two weapons: rapier and dagger for extra damage and deffense... occassionally throwing the off hand dagger.
there ya go.
two different forms of swashbuckler:
Pirates, duelists,
three fencing style schools.
the ridiculer. who cracks jokes as they go first, hit and hit hard.
the empty hand stance. who is neigh untouchable.
the paired weapon school. who has numerous tricks up the sleeve.
enjoy.
Military weapons don't need individual mastery feats, though something similar that applies to all weapon of a specific type (axes, hammer, spear, swords, etc...) might be interesting, or maybe to all weapon with a specific property. I'd love to see a feat chain that geared towards the mastery of heavy thrown weapons.
Individual simple weapons of specif significance might also be interesting. Scythes and Great clubs are cool and flavorful weapons, but their is little incentive to use them, especially if one has access to military weapons.
Yeah weapon groups is what I meant because it would be an interesting way of making weapon choice matter more. Then you could easily make a swashbuckler simply by taking all the light blade feats.
Now someone might be able to suggest a Rogue/Fighter build that gets close, but I think there's enough ground here to build a class upon.
I know I'm quite late to this thread, but I thought I'd pop in and mention that I'm quite interested to see a Swashbuckler (or Swashbuckler) style class done as a Martial Defender. I'd like to be able to play a lightly armored guy who stymies foes attempting to attack his allies. I'm not sure how keen I'd be on a Taunt mechanic, because it's always seemed kind of gimmicky to me. I can think of several things I would like included though:
Now someone might be able to suggest a Rogue/Fighter build that gets close, but I think there's enough ground here to build a class upon.
Well yeah there is enough room, based on skimming your ideas, but the class is called swordmage. :P It might not meet all of your criteria, but I would say that it does fit more than half.
Well yeah there is enough room, based on skimming your ideas, but the class is called swordmage. :P It might not meet all of your criteria, but I would say that it does fit more than half.
...but it misses the most important one by being too flashy (aka magical) to possibly pass as a "real-life" class, which is a lot of what martial is about. Martial classes are supposed to be for the characters that could plausibly exist in our real world.
Quite honestly, I find that an avenger, that avoids implement powers, is much more passable as a non-magical character. With DEX/INT as secondaries their stats even line up better with the concept of a swashbuckler than swordmage. Get a DM to approve CHA instead of WIS for attack/damage and it almost works.
I don't think we should ever make a class based on a particular personality, it takes creative power away from the player.
Fencing on the other hand, is a form of combat, with just as many different styles and personalities as any other martial art. I feel that fencing as a unique form of combat could be better represented.
Fencing on the other hand, is a form of combat, with just as many different styles and personalities as any other martial art. I feel that fencing as a unique form of combat could be better represented.
Maybe so, but I think swashbuckler is a far more appealing name then fencer. So even if the swashbuckler were just a fencer by a different name I'd still prefer the name swashbuckler.
That being said, I think you're somewhat wrong that class should only dictate a form of combat and that style should be left entirely to the player. In many ways "form" could be equated to mechanics and "style" could be equated to fluff. While fluff should be within the player's power to alter as needed, that is no good reason for classes not to have a default fluff. Take the avenger for example. They have definite style, that of zealous assassin that kills in the name of god, but that's just the default fluff. Another strong example would be the barbarian class, which at its core has drawing on the power of one's inner anger/passion as it key stylistic element. In both cases, however, the player is both not only allowed to, but encouraged to adapt that fluff as needed to match it to their own personal style.
I know I'm quite late to this thread, but I thought I'd pop in and mention that I'm quite interested to see a Swashbuckler (or Swashbuckler) style class done as a Martial Defender. I'd like to be able to play a lightly armored guy who stymies foes attempting to attack his allies. I'm not sure how keen I'd be on a Taunt mechanic, because it's always seemed kind of gimmicky to me. I can think of several things I would like included though:
Now someone might be able to suggest a Rogue/Fighter build that gets close, but I think there's enough ground here to build a class upon.
While I disagree with the last statement (points three and four are both quite capable using PHB and Martial Power and point two can be done to a limited extent especially if you stay close to others), there is definitely enough for a sub-class - the obvious choice being fighter. The sub-class feature could achieve what you'd like in point one: just off the top of my head,
You may take Devilish Rake instead of Combat Challenge
You rely more on controlling the combat and reminding the enemy of it with a keen wit and acerbic tongue to draw the ire of the enemy than on causing harm. When you cause an effect on a target that target is marked until it dies or you cause an effect on another enemy. If you are wearing cloth armor, your mark does not immediately end but lasts one turn longer (assuming the marked creature is still combat active).
That being said, I think you're somewhat wrong that class should only dictate a form of combat and that style should be left entirely to the player. In many ways "form" could be equated to mechanics and "style" could be equated to fluff. While fluff should be within the player's power to alter as needed, that is no good reason for classes not to have a default fluff. Take the avenger for example. They have definite style, that of zealous assassin that kills in the name of god, but that's just the default fluff. Another strong example would be the barbarian class, which at its core has drawing on the power of one's inner anger/passion as it key stylistic element. In both cases, however, the player is both not only allowed to, but encouraged to adapt that fluff as needed to match it to their own personal style.
I think your making my statement out to be way too black & white, I don't recall saying that style should be left entirely to the player or that classes shouldn't have fluff.
I'm saying that when people want a new class for a concept, it should be because the mechanics of the concept or 'the form' if you will, lacks representation.
I'm saying that when people say they want the Swashbuckler class, what they should really be trying to say is that they want a fencing class; because the fluff or 'style' shouldn't be whats holding you back.
Semi-rant
I wish I had a nickle for every time someone lectured me on the origins of a word and I really didn't care because it was very much beside the point. :P
I'm saying that when people say they want the Swashbuckler class, what they should really be trying to say is that they want a fencing class; because the fluff or 'style' shouldn't be whats holding you back.
Why can't it be both? I admitted that fencing might be a reasonable concept to base a class around, but that I find fencer to be a rather dull and uninteresting name. I'm all for using some nice fencing based mechanics, but merely being a fencer cares next to zero archetypal weight. That's were the swashbuckler comes in. It brings a flare to liven the concept up and make it dramatically exciting. Also the name itself carries a lot of what the designers over at WotC call traction.
Well yeah there is enough room, based on skimming your ideas, but the class is called swordmage. It might not meet all of your criteria, but I would say that it does fit more than half.
Swordmage, surely the more obvious Fighter pretty much fits the bill directly, add in some Rogue and maybe the Rakish PP and you're pretty much done.Now someone might be able to suggest a Rogue/Fighter build that gets close, but I think there's enough ground here to build a class upon.
They did, its called a Fighter with a Rapier who uses Dex as a secondary stat, takes the light blade powers and focuses on movement stuff and Interupt attacks.
You pretty much described a Light Blade fighter in your list.
Throw in some Rogue Rattling powers and you're sorted.
Why can't it be both? I admitted that fencing might be a reasonable concept to base a class around, but that I find fencer to be a rather dull and uninteresting name. I'm all for using some nice fencing based mechanics, but merely being a fencer cares next to zero archetypal weight. That's were the swashbuckler comes in. It brings a flare to liven the concept up and make it dramatically exciting. Also the name itself carries a lot of what the designers over at WotC call traction.
Once again you take things to the extreme, I never said what they should name the class or that the class should be flavorless.
I don't care what the name or the flare is, that's not what warrants a class being made.
I think we're on the same page, you just don't seem to realize it.
I doubt that you or any other reasonable person on this thread just wants the class for it's name.
Swashbukler is more of an attitude that anyone can have. If you must have a swash buckler reflavoured Bard works perfectly.
More concerns I have with multiclassing or hybrids in 4e is that you are forced to try and find matches that fit what they gave you. Ie you want a defender striker that uses STR then it's easy to mix fighter and ranger. However you want a fighter/rogue instead and suddenly your stuck splitting str and dex. Now many say this is needed for balance. Why? I'm not trying to discuss balance issues in this post. What I'm saying is that Swashbucklers in the eyes of many would be a dex based class that was fast on their feat as well as quick thinkers. To just force all your Martial Defenders to require STR as their main Stat to me is very disappointing. I would love to see a Dex Defender class regardless of what you call it. OR I would love to see the fighter expanded in such a way that the swashbuckler concept was truly built into it fulling were DEX became the primary stat.
I'll agree to some extent that making just a fencer class would be hard to do. Heck sometimes thinking of the Ranger as just an Archer or TWFer is sad. I remember how they started off poor in 3.0 and then got a lot of neat stuff that created the image of them being excellent woodsman, survivalists, trackers, ect. Now in 4e they have become nothing more than a fighting style again. Heck Clerics are now the best trackers.
I think the important thing to remember is the feel of the class. Well I'm really rambling here. Bottom line is I would love to see a dex based defender that multi-classed really well with rogue to create a concept that I agree seems to be lacking from the 4e pool as of now.
I think we're on the same page, you just don't seem to realize it.
I doubt that you or any other reasonable person on this thread just wants the class for it's name.
For someone who claims to be on the same page, you sure seem argumentative.
Seriously though, we probably aren't that far from each other. I should hope your right about no one wanting the class just the name. Personally I want the class for unique mechanics (martial defender -- class features that encourage use of light blades and cloth armor -- DEX primary stat -- INT based build with sub-strike tendencies -- CHA based build with sub-leader tendencies), swashbuckler is just a name that I feal both fits the concepts and carries the right kind of "traction".
I know some people will just say that such a concept can already be accomplished through multiclassing/hybrid, but the first just tacks minor elements from one class onto another, while the second allows alternating play style but really can't blend them into a unified combat style. What I want to see is a class that has such concepts written into its very core.
Sure swashbuckling is more about a character's attitude and style than any arbitrary word written on a character sheet, but that's not what I want. Anyone can be swashbuckler in spirit, but the same can be said of names like barbarian. A classes name is just a convenient label for quickly conveying the concepts at a class's core.
Seriously though, we probably aren't that far from each other. I should hope your right about no one wanting the class just the name. Personally I want the class for unique mechanics (martial defender -- class features that encourage use of light blades and cloth armor -- DEX primary stat -- INT based build with sub-strike tendencies -- CHA based build with sub-leader tendencies), swashbuckler is just a name that I feal both fits the concepts and carries the right kind of "traction".
I know some people will just say that such a concept can already be accomplished through multiclassing/hybrid, but the first just tacks minor elements from one class onto another, while the second allows alternating play style but really can't blend them into a unified combat style. What I want to see is a class that has such concepts written into its very core.
Sure swashbuckling is more about a character's attitude and style than any arbitrary word written on a character sheet, but that's not what I want. Anyone can be swashbuckler in spirit, but the same can be said of names like barbarian. A classes name is just a convenient label for quickly conveying the concepts at a class's core.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
the swordmage though, if built with certain powers can do the job just the same, so does the avenger
And lastly, an item that I freely admit is based on personal preference so take with salt as needed
Also, similar to Tharag Bocc and McNancy mentioned I'm not interested in debating the semantics of the wording for the class. If you want to, refer to it as Fencing, Swashbuckling, or even Fancyman Fighting if you like. I'm viewing this as a modern interpretation, a blend of all the similar styles.
1If anyone considers this to be moving goalposts, I'll remind you that we're basically engaging in design and development here. We haven't moved past the brainstorm phase even, so the goalposts if you see any, aren't really set yet.
Allow me to add the following to my original list for clarification1:
I think if we're going to make something that stands out from Rogue, to the point of earning it's own class, it's going to have to be a Defender.
I would add Defender to the list.
Also I think we can agree that Int and Cha would be the secondary stats we're looking for.
I'm still not sure we actually need this class, but I'm willing to brainstorm and see if it's worth it.
there are sliding feats/powers.
each their own I suppose.
just a bit of advice, be careful on what you wish for, might end up being something we both hate