| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Designing a Swashbuckler class for D&D: How everyone fails at it
This is written in the context of Pathfinder, but is as valid in 3.0, 3.5, or similar systems. Some of it is valid for any system, and most of it is valid for a redesign of the Monk as well.
Who is the Swashbuckler? To me, he is first and foremost Zorro, specifically Duncan Regehr in the 1990ies series. He might be Inigo Montoya, Errol Flynn as Robin Hood, or Kiefer Sutherland as Arthos.
He is always witty, charming, nimble and quick with a blade. Often a rapier – but Robin Hood is a master archer and a decent staff fighter, Zorro is as handy with the whip as he is with the blade, and most of them are very good with fists and chairs in a tavern brawl.
What does he do? He fights. The Musketeers fight the Cardinal’s men. Zorro is always beating the crap out of Sgt. Mendoza’s handful of imbeciles. Inigo’s duel against The Six-Fingered Man is the climax of The Princess Bride. He is not necessarily averse to sneakiness and planning, but he defeats worthy foes face-to-face, not through ambush or backstabbing.
As someone who fights, he needs to better than Fighter in favorable situations (and worse than a Fighter in unfavorable situations, if you believe that fighter is a valid balance point), like a Ranger, Paladin or Barbarian is.
There are roughly four types of fight:
1. The hero against unworthy rabble – Zorro disarming four men with a sweep of his blade, after which they run away.
2. The Duel – Robin draws his sword for the climactic showdown with the Sheriff.
3. The Grand Melee – The Musketeers fight the Cardinal’s men.
4. The Boss Fight – A party of diverse heroes takes on a single opponent and barely wins.
Of these fights, 1 and 2 are the most common in Swashbuckler movies. 3 and 4 are the most common in D&D, because it’s a team game, not a lone hero game. Any Swashbuckler class designed with 1 and 2 in mind is a failure at the concept stage.
The Swashbuckler needs to be able to defeat enemies. In the movies, a duel flows back and forth, with many exciting last-second parries and dodges. D&D fights are over after 5 rounds, and someone prancing about with a rapier doing 1d6+4 gets ignored while his party is carrying his ass and wondering why they brought him. Disarming and Demoralizing all the enemies is not good enough either; being forced to play Mobile Annoyance Zone while the Fighter beats the enemy is unsatisfactory. Assuming the enemy can even be disarmed and demoralized to begin with. For any conceivable foe, the Swashbuckler has to be able to contribute appropriately to the unambiguous defeat of the enemy.
The Swashbuckler is obviously a profoundly low-fantasy concept. And every low-fantasy concept is inherently a low-level concept as well, but I’ll stick to the low-fantasy half of the problem. At his core, the Swashbuckler is a human who fights humans. I turn to Sinbad, the first Fantasy Swashbuckler who comes to mind, to see how he fights monsters. The answer is “Poorly”. A functioning Swashbuckler has to be able to fight spellcasters (Evasion and a good Reflex save is not enough), dragons, constructs, undead and oozes.
Finally, a Swashbuckler should not be forced to use a rapier. Or a scimitar. Longsword, two daggers, falcata-and-buckler should all be valid choices.
You raise some very good points. I do think that a swashbuckler should rely on skill and dexterity instead of brute force (although German medieval duels were fought with greatswords). The use of non-finessable weapons doesn't really fit in that case.
A swashbuckler that would fit in with DnD should probably focus on defense and agility in combination with combat maneuvers, AoOs and maybe precision damage.
A cross between the combat abilities of a monk, rogue and fighter.
He'd be parrying the strikes of his opponents, looking for gaps in his opponents defense and trying to set him up for his allies through disarming, tripping, repositions and the like.
I'd probably go with a rogue variant that has approximately half the skills points, loses most of the non-combat abilities, uses his level on CMB and CMD instead of his BAB and has some way of decreasing his MAD by using his Dex, Cha or Int for attacks or armor class when using light weapons (preferably not Int, Inigo Montoya was not the sharpest arrow in the quiver).
Alternatively, monk that has been heavily modified to lose the oriental flavor, loses his unarmed damage and uses western weapons.
Good talk
with the low-fantasy problem. Fighter, Cavalier, Barbarian and even monks are all "low-fantasy", with a more or less firm base in a historic type of warrior. They all would fail at taking on dragons, undead, oozes and whatnot. They just have been in high fanasy long enough for us to be able to imagine them fighting monsters and spellcasters.
The swashbuckler archetype has barely been explored in fantasy storytelling, and if it has he's usually fighting people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, now that I think about it. A swashbuckler-themed Monk archetype/alternate class (without the unarmed damage) is exactly the kind of character I've wanted to play for years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't think neutralizing enemies or setting them up to fail against the party's spellcasters is contributing to the party? That it all just comes down to damage?
I would say that's a pretty unhealthy point to design from as well.
You raise some very good points. I do think that a swashbuckler should rely on skill and dexterity instead of brute force (although German medieval duels were fought with greatswords). The use of non-finessable weapons doesn't really fit in that case.
That is a problem with the mechanics though.
Yes a swashbuckler shouldn't be toting around a greataxe or an earthbreaker, but using a longsword should be a viable option.
I think an important part about tying the classic swashbuckler combat style into the game mechanics is to highlight the advantages of fighting with a single one handed weapon: improved balance due to the open hand, smaller profile because you stand with your side to your opponent.
I have been giving this some thought before, because i wanted to make using a single one handed weapon without a shield a viable option in my games in general, without requiring feat chains to even start being an option. I got as far as offering a +1 to attack rolls and the benefits of the old 3.5 style dodge (+1 doge bonus against a declared opponent)
I have been giving this some thought before, because i wanted to make using a single one handed weapon without a shield a viable option in my games in general, without requiring feat chains to even start being an option. I got as far as offering a +1 to attack rolls and the benefits of the old 3.5 style dodge (+1 doge bonus against a declared opponent)
I actually made a duelist fighter build yesterday (using Free Hand Fighter going into duelist) and I was a bit disappointed with the combat results. You give up so much damage for not that many benefits (especially at lower levels).
I also really want to make one handed weapons without shields viable for non-caster classes. I think our idea of a swashbuckler would work phenomenally well as a Monk Alternate Class. A lot of the abilities (flurry of blows, skills, evasion, maneuver training etc) fit with the swashbuckler theme.
Get rid of some of the skills, monk weapon proficiencies, unarmed damage and more oriental-themed abilities. Use the Charisma or Intelligence (personally prefer Cha) on AC and abilities instead of Wisdom, replace the unarmed damage with precision damage on one-handed melee weapons when not using shields, turn the ki pool into something like Grit etc...
You don't think neutralizing enemies or setting them up to fail against the party's spellcasters is contributing to the party? That it all just comes down to damage?
I would say that's a pretty unhealthy point to design from as well.
There's nothing wrong with helping your party. It gets dull if it's the only thing your character can do, and it's terrible design if it's the only thing your class can do.
Oh, I agree with that then. Unless you're all about doing massive damage. That tends to stay fun when you splatter your foes with mighty swings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More problems with the concept:
1.) A swashbuckler needs to be mobile, but the game penalizes mobility with Attacks of Opportunity and the potential for less offense.
2.) A swashbuckler uses the environment as much as his weapon to confound his foes - usually to maintain superior mobility and limit his opponent's offense. There's little to support this in the rules.
If you watch a bunch of the old Robin Hood/Zorro/3M movies, they seem to do more crowd control than stabbing, and that's usually to escape superior numbers (and to keep the bodycount down for these movies). Usually it's one sword thrust and the target is dead, too, aside from the odd facial cut for dramatic effect.
Conclusion? Pathfinder is NOT built for this kind of fighting. The game doesn't like mobile fighters, the game doesn't like melee crowd control. It doesn't even like the 'mobile duel' where two opponents move around the battlefield, because the rules don't allow simultaneous movement.
The Duelist PrC is built around certain assumptions (basically an urban setting where strolling around in heavy armor is prohibited, and largely one-on-one fights) and pretty much requires those assumptions to be in play to be effective.
So the swashbuckler is obviously going to need some special tools in his box (i.e. class abilities) to function in a regular game. Such as:
N0 AoO from movement (probably only when in light/no armor). The Mobility feat or extra bonuses vs AoO's isn't enough, it should be flat-out IGNORE them, otherwise PCs won't move around.
Some form of Crowd Control in lieu of doing damage (if the swashbuckler can stun multiple foes with one action, he's winning at action economy).
Lots of Precision damage to compensate for the light weapon/single attack due to mobility. You could make it dependent upon moving around a lot (to gain 'superior position' to strike).
Enough bonus AC to compensate for the whole light armor thing.
A way to 'stick' to an opponent while he moves to allow for mobile dueling.
I guess then wizard and sorc are pretti boring and weak, the only thing they ever do is buffing the fighters and locking down opponents. They never do any damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More problems with the concept:
1.) A swashbuckler needs to be mobile, but the game penalizes mobility with Attacks of Opportunity and the potential for less offense.
2.) A swashbuckler uses the environment as much as his weapon to confound his foes - usually to maintain superior mobility and limit his opponent's offense. There's little to support this in the rules.If you watch a bunch of the old Robin Hood/Zorro/3M movies, they seem to do more crowd control than stabbing, and that's usually to escape superior numbers (and to keep the bodycount down for these movies). Usually it's one sword thrust and the target is dead, too, aside from the odd facial cut for dramatic effect.
Conclusion? Pathfinder is NOT built for this kind of fighting. The game doesn't like mobile fighters, the game doesn't like melee crowd control. It doesn't even like the 'mobile duel' where two opponents move around the battlefield, because the rules don't allow simultaneous movement.
The Duelist PrC is built around certain assumptions (basically an urban setting where strolling around in heavy armor is prohibited, and largely one-on-one fights) and pretty much requires those assumptions to be in play to be effective.
So the swashbuckler is obviously going to need some special tools in his box (i.e. class abilities) to function in a regular game. Such as:
N0 AoO from movement (probably only when in light/no armor). The Mobility feat or extra bonuses vs AoO's isn't enough, it should be flat-out IGNORE them, otherwise PCs won't move around.
Some form of Crowd Control in lieu of doing damage (if the swashbuckler can stun multiple foes with one action, he's winning at action economy).
Lots of Precision damage to compensate for the light weapon/single attack due to mobility. You could make it dependent upon moving around a lot (to gain 'superior position' to strike).
Enough bonus AC to compensate for the whole light armor thing.
A way to 'stick' to an opponent while he moves to allow for mobile dueling.
Emphasis mine. But it can be done with clever mechanics.
This was brought up plenty in the Swashbuckler Base Class advocacy thread. Being about to use walls, masts, chairs, tables etc as "flanking" allies is one way to do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are a lot of good ideas being thrown around here.
While it may not be exactly a swashbuckler, I've played an Aldori Swordlord build with Crane Style that was a lot of fun and fulfilled most of the dueling criteria. A lot of people complain about the low DPS, but I didn't mind too much, and the constant disarming worked great, even on groups. Of course, once I got disarmed, things changed very quickly...
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the possibility of utilizing the grit mechanic. Using grit to grant extra actions or temporary bonuses/invulnerability to certain things like AoOs, rough terrain and the like seem like a great way to do things. Especially when combined with the rogue/ninja tricks, you could have a swashbuckler built from a list of grit-fueled combat tricks.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
d10, full BAB
Basically bard weapon and armor proficiencies plus maybe a few more bladed weapons.
6 + Int skills, use basically bard skill list with fewer knowledges and magic related skills.
First level get Agile Maneuvers and Weapon Finesse for free, and something like the ability to deal Dex damage instead of Strength to creatures who are vulnerable to precision damage (Str must apply to those immune).
Give them Uncanny Dodge. Swashbucklers shouldn't sweat being surrounded.
They get Vital Strike tree as bonus feats at appropriate levels (so to move and standard attack with a fair amount of damage). Or maybe a pool of bonus feats, gained something like every four levels or so.
Weapon tricks generally requiring wielding a light or one handed weapon and in the other hand either nothing, a dagger/swordbreaker, a buckler, or a dueling scarf/cape.
Give most attack related abilities the Duelist PrC has, with the above stipulation as a revision. E.g., Precise Strike, Parry, Riposte, Acrobatic Charge. A number of the duelist class abilities actually address some of the maneuvers people are describing here. If not Precise Strike, something along a VAGUELY similar theme that allows them to deal extra damage.
They probably should be designed to work well with performance combat, if such a system is used.
I say we wait to see how the playtest goes when it is issued.
It's fun to come up with our own ideas. Besides, at least for me, I know the official swashbuckler will have "pool-based" abilities and I hate pool based abilities.
Of course I'm interested in seeing what Paizo does regardless but it's fun to see how other people would do it too.
Grit isn't really a "pool" so much as it is a ... self-refilling pool...
Man, that sounded a lot more profound in my head.
well for those curious about what a grit pool looks like on a swordsman check out the fencer alternate class here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I say we wait to see how the playtest goes when it is issued.
But this way, I get to look profound when Paizo fails to address a single problem with the concept.
I say we wait to see how the playtest goes when it is issued.But this way, I get to look profound when Paizo fails to address a single problem with the concept.
I should bring up that what I posted covers #2 pretty well (its a cavalier alt class so challenge heavily favors the one on one), it features different styles for various types of fencing with different types of weapons and was in fact written by a collegiate fencer who was unsatisfied with how current swashbucklers handled the concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This was brought up plenty in the Swashbuckler Base Class advocacy thread. Being about to use walls, masts, chairs, tables etc as "flanking" allies is one way to do it.
That's a really clever idea! I hadn't considered it, but this and the point about swashbucklers and crowd control is a really interesting one!
Being able to use them in conjunction with teamwork feats would be a great addition. I'm thinking something similar to the Inquisitor Solo Tactics ability, but using it in conjunction with objects as the "ally."
The funny thing is much of this is about perception. Many of the ops examples likely never actually buckled their swash. In fact robin hood really should be depicted with a longsword. Though as I said its about perception.
First, people seem to base damage on the optimsl rsther than comparing it to say. The 15 pt buy opponents.
Secondly for some weird reason the only easy dex to damage feat in the game is for the scimitar. Rather than the rapier wity identical stats.
But really a lvl 11 fighter 6/duelist 5 with dervish dance is doing around 1d6+20 or so. Compared to the games 15pt baseline os probsbly fine. I'm sure somone csn figure out higher damage though.
Rrally wish gunslinger 6/duelist x would work. I think the over all feel of grit I'd a good mechanic thpigh for this theme.
I think using an Urban Barbarian/Invulnerable Ranger build with a one-handed weapon can actually pretty much accomplish this.
The barbarian class grants 4 skill points/level, which, combined with a favored class bonus and the human racial bonus, should be plenty (the high barbarian HD lets you get away with not spending favored class bonuses on HP). You can then pursue the Vital Strike Line of feats to pair with Bestial Leaper so you can achieve a highly mobile style of combat that still packs on a fair amount of damage. Rage powers like Swift Foot and No Escape contribute to the "bouncing over the battlefield" type of fighting, and there are a host of other rage powers that make it easier to pull off combat maneuvers (or achieve them in unexpected ways) which fits the "manipulating the environment" elements of the archetype.
there was a urban barbarian in ravingdorks crazy character emporium.
Dot.
Well, I did a take on the class which I think includes a lot of what the OP wanted. It came out quite okay in my opinion, so here's a link. Might as well still promote it before Paizo does their official take. :p
There are some parts of the Freebooter Ranger Archetype that seem to fit this class well. being able to focus on one target, yet also boosting the ability of your comrades to fight together. The dashing, quick witted man that leads with cutting remarks and follows with blade in hand.
What if the Swash buckler is only proficient with Bladed weapons, With bonuses for light/one handed ones?
I feel like it's an ok start going with published abilities.
I think using an Urban Barbarian/Invulnerable Ranger build with a one-handed weapon can actually pretty much accomplish this.
I think I'll take a look at a build of this with a dip into unarmed fighter and with the crane style line.
Sounds like an interesting pc concept.
It has “failed” for the same reason why monk and Ninja “fails” – people expect to be Bruce Lee at level 1 and a full out wu-shu warrior by the mid levels. They want the AC and DPR of a fighter- PLUS all the special Monk tricks and powers.
Players want to be d’Artagnan at level one and Zorro by level 8. It is movies and TV, people want to do what they see characters on the screen doing. But most such screen action heroes are Epic Level mythic, not firsties.
Crowd control? One on one duels? Hercules did those on screen, and he’s no swashbuckler. Same with Conan, Lancelot, Indiana Jones, etc.
D&D heroes are not singletons. They are part of a team of four or so.
As someone who fenced in college I can appreciate your wealth of knowledge on the subject of swashbucklers, but as we all know this is a fantasy game. We have wizards, ninjas and gunslingers do I feel it's best not to look too closely at the details as they pertain to historical accuracy.
'Swashbuckling' combat is a fight of MISSED attacks and counter attacks up until the point that one of the combatants makes a mistake, then the fight is over. D&D and PFS are about doing hitpoints of damage with successful attacks, not avoiding those attacks all together.
In that light, how do you feel about the parry and riposte rules of the duelist prestige class? If you don't like them, do you think something could be done to improve them? If so, what?
I like the swashbuckler put up by magnuskn but with some small things I would personally like to see different. What marcryser said about swashbuckling being about missed attacks and counter attacks, I instantly think of the crane style feats. Having bonus feats of a users choice would make me the happiest so that people can make a swashbuckler the way they want. Include the crane style feats, I think the some of the dazzling display feats work well also. I don't know about the Grit mechanic or something similar for the swashbuckler, but I have never been the biggest fan of pools and thats a personal taste.
|
I like the swashbuckler put up by magnuskn but with some small things I would personally like to see different. What marcryser said about swashbuckling being about missed attacks and counter attacks, I instantly think of the crane style feats. Having bonus feats of a users choice would make me the happiest so that people can make a swashbuckler the way they want. Include the crane style feats, I think the some of the dazzling display feats work well also. I don't know about the Grit mechanic or something similar for the swashbuckler, but I have never been the biggest fan of pools and thats a personal taste.
I agree, but the pools like Grit and resolve have a recharge mechanic which makes me like them.
To capture the essence of realistic swordplay with light weapons (sabre, rapier, scimitar, etc) would require a mechanic that covers the following:
1. attack... the offensive action
2. counter attack... an offensive action made by evading (or outreaching) the attack
3. parry/riposte... the ability to stop an opponent's attack by intercepting it with your own weapon and then hitting them back. This leads, inevitably, to...
4. parry/counter-riposte... deflecting the opponent's riposte and then making your own
5. beat attack... using your weapon to knock your opponent's weapon out of a usable defensive position then hitting them on the rebound
6. feint... simulating one action in order to precipatate an anticipated defense or counter and then switching to the real attack so as to avoid your opponent's weapon entirely
7. point in line.... extending your own weapon so that the point threatens the opponent, evading their attempt to beat your blade out of the way then stabbing them as they attempt to attck
8. lunge... driving an attack forward against an opponent who finds themselves with inadequate control of the distance
9. footwork... advancing and retreating in order to deny your opponent the room necessary to attack or defend while facilitating your own offense/defense.There is a reason that fencing is called physical chess.
D20 simulates all of this (with all combat classes) with "I have two attacks each round at +11/+6."
This doesn't answer my question. Repeating:
In that light, how do you feel about the parry and riposte rules of the duelist prestige class? If you don't like them, do you think something could be done to improve them? If so, what?
Edit: I also had tried to post how Pathfinder does have mechanics for the above listed things, however quite imperfectly, which the boards just ate and I accidentally wiped out of my clipboard before I could save it. So I'll stick to the original query for now as I am running late and must go.
|
I'm a big believer in using and referring to tools (ie class abilities) that already exist, where they make sense.
While some may think that boring, unimaginative, or cheating, I think it helps a class stay relevant and be used more often. And it helps to prove how a class measures up against its closest niche competitors.
If you look at the non-core classes that WotC brought out, very few were ever referred to outside of the book they were introduced. Same with the feats in those same books.
An ability may sound great, but if it is never built on in succeeding books, it means your PC took a dead-end feat or feat chain, whereas the PCs who took feats and class abilities from the core rule book find more and more feats and prestige classes that reference those as prerequisites.
As such, if a swashbuckler can be emulated, using abilities that already exist in the core 11 classes, that would be great; if they can use a mechanic from the APG, that's still good; Ultimate Combat or Ultimate Magic, is getting more obscure, and if all else fails, inventing a new mechanic ought to be a last resort. Mechanics from Golarion-specific sources ought to be avoided, as this will be difficult to port over to a home game, or be picked up to support by a third party publisher.
So, if the class can be powered by grit, that would be better than having it be powered by some new source ('swash'?), since there will likely be a stream of feats giving extra grit, or new uses for grit, while you'd never hear of an 'Extra Swash' feat again.
'Setting up opponents for a fall' can be emulated well using teamwork feats, especially if they also come with a class mechanic like the cavalier or inquisitor, which ensure they aren't penalised for being the only person in their group with such a feat.
It also makes it easier to multiclass with those classes, if the abilities are written in similar language. Even if it takes a 'bridging' prestige class to do so well.
I'm a big believer in using and referring to tools (ie class abilities) that already exist, where they make sense.
I support this to a certain extent. I like that more than one class shares Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, Familiar, plus a few others. The reason is that I don't like when a prerequisite (for a feat, prestige class, etc) allows only one race or class. Its much more interesting when there are multiple ways to get there. But I also like that the majority of a class's features are unique to them.
I'm very happy with my weapon adept monk. I use a temple sword, flurry with it, and just refer to it as an épée.
Even with PFS rules, it works fine.