I would like to see an option for fighters who choose to go without armor...perhaps something on par with a monk's unarmored ability. Swashbucklers and many knife fighters would get a much needed boost from this and it would go even further than the armor training ability to giving options other than "I strap on the heaviest armor i can find even though it goes against my character concept and image. I'd like to live through the first round of combat at high level".
Possible a fighter class ability that allowed you to add either Int or Wis to your armor class or a AC bonus every few levels with the restriction that it only applies when not armored and unencumbered.
This would also be useful for fighters who normally wear medium or heavy armor for those times when the party is ambushed in camp and they dont have the time to put on armor. Or are just around town.
Weylin Stormcrowe
|
Perhaps that could be covered by a simple class variant.
I could see a fighter forgoing the new Armor Training (and armor proficiencies) and choosing either the INT based AC bonus of Invisible Blades or Duelists, or the WIS based monk AC with a slow progression.
I don't know how deep they want to get with variants to classes in the Pathfinder core book though...
My ideal for this is kinda simple I have 2.
one is a feat that allows the fighter to add his wisdom score to his dex score for AC. now keep in mind the armor training works with bucklers.and we all know where that name came from.
2 is give up light,medium and heavy armor at 1st.and gain a armor bounes
1ST +2 AC BF
2ND BF
3RD AT
4TH BF +1 AC
5TH WT
6TH BF
7TH AT
8TH BF +1 AC
9TH WT
1OTH BF
11TH AT
12TH BF +1 AC
13TH WT
14TH BF
15TH AT
16TH BF +1 AC
17TH WT
18TH BF
19TH AM
20TH WM +1 AC
So you see by 20th level there ac is+7 or +12 with a buckler
heavy armored fighter has ac of +8 or +10 with a shield and with armor training +14 not bad at all .
Perhaps that could be covered by a simple class variant.
Fighter Variant: Swashbuckler
The swashbuckler is a duellist and rake, one who is adept with both a sharp sword and sharp wits. He has most of the fighter's strengths, along with an aptitude for social interaction. He concentrates on mobility and canny use of tactics and terrain to defeat his opponents, rather than heavy weapons and armor.
Swashbucklers tend to neutral or chaotic alignments.
Class Skills
Add the following skills to the fighter's class list- Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, and Tumble. The swashbuckler gains skill points per level equal to 4 + Int modifier (x4 at 1st level).
Class Features
The swashbucker has all of the standard fighter's class features, except as noted below.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency
Swashbucklers are proficient with simple and martial weapons, light armor, and bucklers.
Bonus Feats
At 1st level, swashbucklers must choose either Combat Expertise or Weapon Finesse as a their bonus feat. Remove Power Attack (and feats in the Power Attack feat chain) from the list of bonus feats available to swashbucklers.
You're welcome. The Duellist PrC is an option later for a completely unarmored version.
|
You can do this already.
Combat Expertise
Fighting Defensively
(those feat(s) that help you fight defensively)
Dodge
Magic Items
There's already the monk too. Give him a rapier and you have what you want.
It sounds like you want you fighter (cake) and no armor (and eat it) too. You can no wear armor and have magic items give you AC. Or take a level of Scor/Wiz for Mage Armor.
I think a feat to give AC based on something would be nice too.
(Take a look at the Book of Iron Might by Malhavok, lots of those types of things in there. Also check out Iron Heroes by Malhavok.)
I would like to see an option for fighters
Perhaps something along these lines: Trade in your fighter's good FOR for a poor one and his poor REF for a good progression.
Then, if wearing no armor or light armor, the fighter can add his base save bonus to REF as a dodge bonus (or perhaps only half his base save bonus) to his AC.
Personally, I have never associated a swashbuckler type of warrior with monk. Monk and their styles are far different in my view.
Yet the unarmored fighter who survives in combat along side his tank-like brethren is one of the staples of fantasy to me. I would just like to see options other than strap on the heavy armor and grab the biggest weapon. The same goes for magic items, while they are extremely useful tools i would rather not see players being as reliant as they often are upon them especially at higher levels. The games to me are more about the characters and their capabilities than what cool uber magical item do they have to let them compete along side the monsters they combat and in many cases the spellcasters with who they adventure.
This break from tool reliance can be well done with a collection of class abilities and feats.
The agile fighting might best be done as a feat tree thus allowing the more battle-oriented rogues to survive.
In ending, to quute Thulsa Doom in the Conan movie:"That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it? Look at the strength in your body, the desire in your heart, I gave you this!" To me that is the core of being a fighter in D&D...it is not about the tools you wear or wield...it is about the person wielding them and that he or she can make a weapon and armor do things another class cannot.
How about you put your best stat in dex and not strength, have a 13+Int, take the the combat expertise and dodge feat and take skills apropiate to a swashbuckling mentality....
For example: using the elite array a fighter normally puts the 15 into str, 14 to con and 13 or 12 to dex...so...
Human Tank... Weapon Focus(chose a weapon), Power attack and cleave. and end up with 17str, 13dex, 14Con... but i rather be a swashbuckler... hmmm 13 Int, 12Str, 17dex and 14Con w/combat expertise, weapon finesse and wepon focus (rapier)...
Lets assume that for a similiar price range Tank is equipped with scale male and longsword while Swashbuckler is equipped with rapier and studded leather (the other 15gp going into a jaunty hat and flowing cape :-))... tank fights normal and swashbuckler goes -1Atk/+1Ac... Tank has +4 Atack vs AC 18 (+3Studded, +1 Dodge, +1 Combat expertise and +3 Dex)... Swashbuckler has +3 vs AC 15 (+4 Scale, +1 Dex)... seems they both could beat the other..the tank hits harder but a little less often, the Swashbuckler hits more often (and criticals more often) but less dmg per hit.
if you really want to be a swashbuckler, elves are almost custom built to it...
I think that not only should there be an option for swashbuckler types but other archetypes as well. The swashbuckler, bodyguard, survivalist, knight, archer, horseman, and pit-fighter are all very different concepts that evolve out of the base fighter class. My thought is that to make the fighter more attractive some changes could be made without changing the class’ utility as the entry level option for new players.
Add Acrobatics, Perception, and Stealth as class skills. The limited number of skill points ensures that these will not make the class a hardy version of the rogue, but it will make it easier for players to develop their concept without multi-classing.
Let fighters trade armor proficiency for skill points. At creation, a character can drop heavy proficiency to gain +1 skill point per level, or drop Heavy and Medium proficiency to gain +3 skill points per level. These points would be lost if the player later took the armor proficiency as a feat. These points come from the fighter not have to spend time training in those types of armor, thus having time to follow other pursuits, and would be lost for the opposite reason.
Add talents that can be taken with the fighter’s bonus feat slots. Things like the Insightful Strike of the swashbuckler, the defensive stance of the knight protector, and the rousing speech of the Commander variant from Dragon 310 would make great additions and allow experienced players to flesh out the fighter beyond being just a meat shield.
I think these suggestions add to the depth of the class, make it less likely to be multi-classed for character concept reasons, and does little to make it less desirable as the ‘basic’ class.
Handle it like Armor Training, but instead be "un-Armor Training" have the fighter type select one or the other at the beginning.
Mike
Wolfheart,
I love those suggestions for fighter archtypes/options. They can be easily handled by adding to the combat feat instead of the general feats.
In the past i think the slant has been to heavily (less so in 3rd and 3.5 than second edition) on the heavily armored melee combatant as what it means to be a fighter. The horseman, the archer, the swashbuckler and the pit fighter/gladiator are all prie examples of other methods of being a fighter...ones that i feel should be options in the base class not relegated to prestige classes. Some fighter begin their training in these methods, they are not something they only develop into later in their career.
Generally, i like the steps being taken to make base classes just as appealing as prestige classes instead of just being the stepping stone you use until you get to the prestige class that more embodies your core character concept. This is also why, as cool and interesting as some of them are, i have some problems with the proliferation of new base classes found in the "complete" series and the player's handbook II. MOst of them can be subsumed back into base classes by including feat trees or class options to accomodate them.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
I love those suggestions for fighter archtypes/options. They can be easily handled by adding to the combat feat instead of the general feats.
In the past i think the slant has been to heavily (less so in 3rd and 3.5 than second edition) on the heavily armored melee combatant as what it means to be a fighter. The horseman, the archer, the swashbuckler and the pit fighter/gladiator are all prie examples of other methods of being a fighter...ones that i feel should be options in the base class not relegated to prestige classes. [SNIP] i have some problems with the proliferation of new base classes found in the "complete" series and the player's handbook II. MOst of them can be subsumed back into base classes by including feat trees or class options to accomodate them.
I too would prefer a fighter class that is inherently fun/attractive, not just a stepping stone to a prestige class, and I agree that the Fighter class should handle archers and swashbucklers as well as it handles tanks.
A fairly radical idea would be to completely remove the starting armor proficiencies, and grant the same number of Combat Feats. A tank could spend these on armor proficiencies, a swash on Weapon Finesse, Dodge, and Mobility, or an archer on Light Armor Prof, Point-Blank Shot and Precise Shot. Since 1st-level characters can rarely afford Heavy armor anyway, even many future tanks might opt to take another Feat in place of Heavy Armor Prof at 1st-level, planning to pick it up later.
My $0.02,
--Dustin
Given that rogues are better able to handle combat now, and given some of the rogue talents, why is it that a swashbuckler is automatically something that a fighter should be? I picture fighters as well rounded, highly trained soldiers or mercenaries, guys that would learn how to use a lot of different armor and weapons.
Swashbuckers are more agile, showy guys that might be really, really good with some weapons (like rapiers), but probably have never touched other weapons, or couldn't claim more than passing knowledge with them (like greatswords). Swashbucklers tumble, jump, and fast talk. They feint and sidestep in combat. In other words, rogues make the best swashbucklers.
They may not fit the pick pocket-find trap-open locks mode, but they are still well within the abilities of the rogue. Plus, if you make an "unarmed armor training" ability, you run into the problem of a fighter having a good armor class in nothing, or in full plate and a tower shield, which then becomes a bit odd.
Given that rogues are better able to handle combat now, and given some of the rogue talents, why is it that a swashbuckler is automatically something that a fighter should be? I picture fighters as well rounded, highly trained soldiers or mercenaries, guys that would learn how to use a lot of different armor and weapons.
Swashbuckers are more agile, showy guys that might be really, really good with some weapons (like rapiers), but probably have never touched other weapons, or couldn't claim more than passing knowledge with them (like greatswords). Swashbucklers tumble, jump, and fast talk. They feint and sidestep in combat. In other words, rogues make the best swashbucklers.
They may not fit the pick pocket-find trap-open locks mode, but they are still well within the abilities of the rogue. Plus, if you make an "unarmed armor training" ability, you run into the problem of a fighter having a good armor class in nothing, or in full plate and a tower shield, which then becomes a bit odd.
If you also think of the wit associated with most swashbucklers... a bard also makes a decent one...
I dont see some of the archetypical swashbucklers as rogues. Athos, Porthos, Aramis, D'Artaghnan from the Three Musketeers/Man in the Iron Mask, Zorro, Inigo Montoya And Wesley from Princess Bride, Edmond Dante from Count of Monte Cristo. I really dont see any of these individuals as rogues. Their acrobatics are overall not that extravagant. It is more that they are fighters that rely on speed of body and mind and precision of attack over armor and heavy weapons. Overall, their more roguish aspects to me come across solidly as a cross-class sort of training and in some cases is actually lacking almost entirely.
That is why i think swashbuckler is more of a fighter than a rogue.
|
I am all for the swashbuckling-type warrior, but I don't think the way to go about it is to increase their AC with light armour in order to keep them on par. I think what should instead be done is to give them some combat options such as Combat Feats that only work while wearing light armour. Maybe abilities that give them better mobility, perhaps a faster base speed, or the ability to ignore threatened squares so that they can move around in combat better. Perhaps faster attacks, or an ability to use a flurry of quick strikes.
Also, give Acrobatics as a class skill to Fighters; it helps out the lightly-armoured fighters and does not really help the heavy-armoured fighters, so I think it would really help make a different type of fighter.
Already, a Fighter who takes Weapon Finesse, Dodge, Combat Expertise, Spring Attack, etc. is a pretty good representation of a swashbuckler-type, so maybe just one or two new feats that appeal to lightly-armoured characters would help make this archetype a viable possibility.
Plus, any feats that help out lightly-armoured warriors can help Rogues and Rangers as well, which is always nice!
Already, a Fighter who takes Weapon Finesse, Dodge, Combat Expertise, Spring Attack, etc. is a pretty good representation of a swashbuckler-type, so maybe just one or two new feats that appeal to lightly-armoured characters would help make this archetype a viable possibility.
Sure you could simulate this, but at what character level do you then have a swashbuckler? I think if we need a swashbuckler-type class than one which starts at 1st character level.
|
|
Sure you could simulate this, but at what character level do you then have a swashbuckler? I think if we need a swashbuckler-type class than one which starts at 1st character level.
See, for many swashbuckler classes that I've seen (the Duelist, the Swashbuckler from CW, stuff I've seen on boards, etc.), I didn't think there was enough of a disconnect between Fighter and Swashbuckler. They seemed to be Fighters with abilities already chosen for them and a few unique abilities that didn't have too much of an impact. This always led me to believe that the Fighter as a class is good enough to simulate the swashbuckler archetype with a little work; primarily, it needs a way to encourage light armour use.
As for which level he becomes a swashbuckler, I say 1st! Take a Human Fighter, at first level: he has his rapier, he's got Acrobatics (hopefully), Climb, Profession (sailor), and Swim as trained skills, and he's got feats like Weapon Finesse, Dodge, and Combat Expertise. This, to me, feels exactly like a swashbuckler, and as he goes on, he will learn new abilities like Mobility, Spring Attack, Wind Stance, Lightning Stance, Deadly Stroke that all fit into the character theme. He will get better and better at using his rapier, as well as other weapons that he learns to use along the way, and he will become more and more comfortable with his armour.
I feel that this captures the Swashbuckler very well; and it would be even better if a few more Dex/light armour-focused Combat Feats were to be made at some point in the future.
I disagree with the fighter having to be this heavily armored juggernaut. The majority of warriors in history as well as fiction have not fit this mold. To me, the only thing that perpetuates this is the mechanics of the game. My proposal does not disallow a tank, but it gives everyone else an option should they want to play something different.
Why not go the middle path and offer the Fighter Training Schools. They would work like Cleric domains, offering special Fighter-only talents (EX type only) and use up one the Bonus Feat to learn. A fighter might then specialize in one school or learn trick from a few other making up his own style (and maybe teaching it to pupils in later levels).
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4
|
It's not OGL & won't show up in Pathfinder fluff or rules, but I'd strongly suggest taking a look at the Swordsage class from the "Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords".
My home-game has universally removed the oh-so-broken Warblade and the too-complex-to-be-fun Crusader from our games, but we LOVE the cool, dashing fun of the Swordsage - unique and interesting abilities that grow with your character, adding all sorts of exotic flavor & high-powered (but not broken) combat abilities to a stylish, lightly-armored, shield-less, single-bladed swordsman.
A little bit Chow Yun Fat from "Crouching Tiger", a little bit V from "V for Vendetta", a little bit Inigo from "Princess Bride", a little bit of wild anime-inspired "Soul Caliber" goodness drizzled on top. MMMmmm.
To add more flexibility to the class, I'd suggest opening the Swordsage's schools to include all nine paths - every Swordsage chooses six total schools, including White Raven or Iron Heart for Desert Wind, if he wants.
Just a thought, obviously . . .
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Hmm, Swashbucklers from film and TV (Keeping them all approx 8th level).
I think the thug is a good place to start for a lightly armoured/unarmoured fighter. It's a bit too weak though. Give him back his shield profiency, a good reflex save, and a good skill list and you're golden.
*I include power attack for the final moves where he just tossed finesse aside and did the two handed rapier thing. If you look at hitpoints as abstract, and then look at the discussion of fighting schools and switching hands as various bluff attempts, then Wesley won by virtue of his greater skill points and better bluff checks allowing more sneak attack.
Matthew,
Those examples(which i do not agree with at all) illustrates exactly what i would like to see avoided...the necessity of multiclassing for playing somehting that is just a basic concept as the swashbuckler or other lightly armored fighter. Being able to play such a character should be an option from at least third level if not first and should not require multiclassing in my opinion. The Paladin doesnt have to multiclass for his abilities, nor does the Ranger. The war priest simply selects the appropriate domains and weapons he doesnt have to pick up a few levels here and there of fighter.
-Weylin
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Those were off the top of my head suggestions, though I'd point out my Inego is a pure Fighter (Thug)
If you allow the feat rogue access to the fighter tree and the bump to d8 the pathfinder rogue has you'd be flexible.
What do you feel is needed for the swashbuckler? With the caveat that any sort of x bonus to armor class that allows him to fight unarmoured will be impacted by mage armour/shield/bracers of armour/etc.?
Those were off the top of my head suggestions, though I'd point out my Inego is a pure Fighter (Thug)
If you allow the feat rogue access to the fighter tree and the bump to d8 the pathfinder rogue has you'd be flexible.
What do you feel is needed for the swashbuckler? With the caveat that any sort of x bonus to armor class that allows him to fight unarmoured will be impacted by mage armour/shield/bracers of armour/etc.?
The impact of items you mention would depend entirely on how one phrased the incrase to armor class (deflection, luck, natural armor) etc. You could also choose to allow the benefit of those items the same as a monk does.
Overall, i would say something similar to the armor ability tree already present in the Pathfinder Fighter for light, medium and heavy armor. Simply apply it only if not wearing any armor. For balance you could just as easily say it only applies if one does not have a armor or natural armor bonus (perhaps knowing you have such protection makes you take risks you would not completely unprotected).
More than the straight swashbuckler, I am more concerned about the concept of unarmored fighters in general...be they a tribal warrior who wears little armor (or clothing for that matter) and it is not always appropriate to make such people barbarians, an elven duelist who relies on his speed and wits to avoid blows, a half-orc tough in a city who trusts his instincts to avoid damage more than he does armor that would draw even more attention to him.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
This is soooooooo hard to do in D&D. Which is why I hired a SERIOUS swordfighter and game designer by the name o' Craig Shackleton (Rambling Scribe her on the boards) to write an article for me all about this topic. It was the only treatment of this style of fighter I've seen that made me go: "Yeah, that f$&+ing kicks ass."
And he did it with a cool new basic attack option, some feats and some variations on standard dueling weapons. Cool stuff.
I for one would LOVE to see the Alpha allow for this kind of fighter since they basically made the other kind (heavy armor big sword) obsolete in the Renaissance.
I for one would LOVE to see the Alpha allow for this kind of fighter since they basically made the other kind (heavy armor big sword) obsolete in the Renaissance.
You rock, Nicky! I knew I could count on you to stick up for the rest of the Renaissance-period gamers.
My take on armor is that it's real advantage is against multiple attackers or in a free-for-all. Maybe a Swashbuckler would be similar to an armored fighter in a one-on-one fight. But when getting swarmed by kobolds or there is a clash of two lines of fighters, the heavily armored fighter should have an advantage.
In game rules, I think it would function like Dodge. You designate opponents that you are defending against. As you get better maybe you can defend against multiple opponents. But when the combat gets chaotic, armor should really help. Same with martial arts. It should take a incredible trained artist to really take on multiple warrior opponents.
But maybe that is too complex to make the class enjoyable.
|
Contributor
|
I came in here to make a shameless plug for my 'indulgence' over on Sinister Adventures all about this topic, and Nick beat me by a day.
I strongly encourage you to take a look at it if you are interested in playing a swashbuckler/duelist type fighter, or a setting that supports that notion. As someone suggested above, it's mostly built off of feats, some of which work specifically with light or no armour. But mostly they just require a high Dexterity, at which point there is no reason to wear heavy armour anyways (using the current AC rules and Max Dex).
Because of the number of feats involved, a fighter is most suited to take advantage of the new material, and there's a fair amount of variety for them as well. Mostly it is new options for the swashbuckling fighter rather than an AC boost to make up for no armour.
|
|
I came in here to make a shameless plug for my 'indulgence' over on Sinister Adventures all about this topic, and Nick beat me by a day.
I strongly encourage you to take a look at it if you are interested in playing a swashbuckler/duelist type fighter, or a setting that supports that notion. As someone suggested above, it's mostly built off of feats, some of which work specifically with light or no armour. But mostly they just require a high Dexterity, at which point there is no reason to wear heavy armour anyways (using the current AC rules and Max Dex).
Because of the number of feats involved, a fighter is most suited to take advantage of the new material, and there's a fair amount of variety for them as well. Mostly it is new options for the swashbuckling fighter rather than an AC boost to make up for no armour.
Is this very pirate flavoured, or would it work for a landlubber?
|
|
Shields can be dashing. ask the swashbucklerThe most valuable thing for a swashbuckler is some kind of einhander feat.
Shields are not dashing, and two-weapon fighting is a whole other kettle of fish.
Yes, but real swashbucklers aren't especially dashing either.
I want a Princess Bride, Three Musketeers vibe.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Addressing the OP, there is a simpler solution - add an "armorless" armor specialty to the Fighter list. This allows them to get some kind of bonus when they're simply not wearing armor, similar or identical to their armor specialties.
I thought about that, but then it hit me. Why not make the bonus tied to the max dex bonus? That way Conan is using his bonus to the max, but Lancelot isn't.
Edit, and GE, I forgot the smiley, it was sarcasm ;-)
|
Contributor
|
Is this very pirate flavoured, or would it work for a landlubber?
Actually, most of it is based on the idea of the formal duel, and then how those techniques carry over to conbat in general. So more gentlemanly than piratey, although of course the two aren't mutually exclusive. And none of it is naval-specific, although all of it could be applied in a naval setting.
|
|
Perhaps that could be covered by a simple class variant.
Personally, I believe it should be part of the standard class options.
Let there be an unarmored option for Armour Training, and add in a new feat tree that develops off the revised Dodge feat that allows a fighter to be viable without armor. Viola! A swashbuckler fighter without a lot of fuss.
|
|
Is this very pirate flavoured, or would it work for a landlubber?Actually, most of it is based on the idea of the formal duel, and then how those techniques carry over to conbat in general. So more gentlemanly than piratey, although of course the two aren't mutually exclusive. And none of it is naval-specific, although all of it could be applied in a naval setting.
I've got it now and it's top-notch; thankyou.