swashbuckler how would you do it?

[bestialwarlust]

One of the advantages of not having feats I think is that it gives the game much more flexibility. You want to play a heavy armored fighter you can just buy the equipment and play him that way. Suddenly decide you want that same character to be a medium armored archer ala Robin Hood, simple store your old gear and buy new gear and play it that way. No retraining feats or being dissatisfied because you're locked into a feat chain/tree.

But what if you have a player that wants to play a light to no armored swashbuckler type? sure they can equip and play that way but they are at a severe disadvantage when getting into fights with heavily armored foes. The fighter may be running around with AC 9 or 7 at best. I know there is a swashbuckler class in Fight On, but what if you don't want to create a class but demonstrate the flexibility of OD&D. Most look at the fighter as boring but I see it as one of the most open classes. You can be a Ranger, barbarian, knight, etc... all with the base class, no feats to buy no reason to keep creating a class for it.

Without using the Greyhawk Dex bonus just the 3 LBB's.

I'd like to show how just by playing a fighter you could start out as a light armored rake and still hold your own, but then later in the game through play that same character could transition over to an armored knight with his own tower and drop his old ways of light to no armored fighting to a plate clad knight all without a new class or multi classing.

One thought I had was allow any fighter who chooses to fight without armor a slight AC bonus say a +1 for every 3-4 levels as soon as armor is worn they loose it. And maybe half that bonus if they wear leather.

level Bonus
1-3 +1
4-6 +2
7-9 +3
etc...

or +1 per level and cap it at 5th level for a +5 max bonus.

I'm trying not to tie it to an ability score to keep away from ability score min/maxing

[Deleted]

The rules allow for this, in a way.

If the player of lightly-armoured rake uses his wits in order for his character to survive to 5th Level that character becomes a swashbuckler with the accompanying HP giving him even more combat/saving throw advantage over normal men.

[bestialwarlust]

Oct 4, 2013 9:39:38 GMT -6 @relic said:

The rules allow for this, in a way.

If the player of lightly-armoured rake uses his wits in order for his character to survive to 5th Level that character becomes a swashbuckler with the accompanying HP giving him even more combat/saving throw advantage over normal men.

True but against an armored 5th fighter in plate he's at a disadvantage. I see your point though and that's partly my thing is abstract HP take that into account.

[crusssdaddy]

I would tie the unarmored advantages to movement. Allow an expanded charge distance, ability to attack and move, disengage freely, change opponents from one round to the next, some sort of dodge-based saving throw vs. missile attacks, etc.

[bestialwarlust]

Oct 4, 2013 10:06:44 GMT -6 crusssdaddy said:

I would tie the unarmored advantages to movement. Allow an expanded charge distance, ability to attack and move, disengage freely, change opponents from one round to the next, some sort of dodge-based saving throw vs. missile attacks, etc.

Some good thoughts there, maybe even a dodge based save against melee attacks -- this could be done only one on one excepting where a creature is at that 1 HD when the fighter can dodge one attack per level similar to the attacks against low HD. Seems something like that would be better than an AC bonus. The dodge based save combined with with higher HP a fighter gets would be a good combo, plus the ideas of movement additions.

[talysman]

If they are unarmored, faster than their opponent, and using light weapons, make their effective AC vs melee attacks = opponent's Move score. This reflects their mobility. If they are wearing leather armor and not using a shield, treat their mobility as the equivalent of a shield.

[snorri]

Make it the Epée & Sorcellerie way :

- use ascendant AC
- Use DEX score as AC when unarmoured.

so high dex characters characters are better defended unarmoured than in armor.

[inkmeister]

I like the OP. I can see renaming AC to Defense Capability (DC?) and having it rise with level (or every other level, or whatever), to be capped at something like 20 (ascending) or 0. EVentually, the most skilled warriors may not need much armor at all, and those who prefer not to use armor can improve with level and also move more quickly, swim, climb, and sneak better.

[Lord Cias]

Personally I'm generally against fighter-type classes that get armor-equivalent AC while not having to wear armor. Yes, a lightly armored swashbuckler is usually going to be at a disadvantage vs. a heavily armored fighter. There is no reason to artificially give the swashbuckler the same benefits as the armored fighter. Instead focus on things that fit the archtype. In most fiction, swashbucklers are featured in seafaring adventures. Wearing metal armor in and around the ocean not only is a huge drowning risk, but the salty sea breeze will corrode metal very quickly. Also, most swashbuckler-types are capable of acrobatic feats. Sure your AC is only 7, but you can climb the tapestry to the balcony where you can then swing on the chandelier rope out the 3rd story window (of course dropping said chandelier on the guards below) then shimmy along the window ledge till your directly over the cart full of hay below. I'd like to see someone in plate do that!

[Red Baron]

See "fighting men" on page 6 of men and magic.

[peterlind]

I would allow either a flat +2 AC, or a progression of +1 AC per 3 levels, or perhaps use the Monk's progression, if the fighter gives up the ability to wear heavy armor (chain or higher) and the ability to use heavy weapons, such as two-handed swords.

[Red Baron]

Class prerequisite: the player constantly cracks witty one liners and charms the ladies.

[strangebrew]

Oct 4, 2013 12:11:17 GMT -6 Lord Cias said:

Personally I'm generally against fighter-type classes that get armor-equivalent AC while not having to wear armor.

Good points. I think it's important to keep in mind that armor went out of fashion largely because of crossbows and firearms, not because it was too cumbersome. They were "The Three Musketeers" after all. Despite all the swordsplay.

I think that a code of chivalry or honor might force fighting men to face each other on equal terms, especially in urban areas, which might enable some more swashbuckling action. But I think a fighter going into combat without armor at the usual D&D technological level is foolishness and not something to be rewarded with bonuses. I think a soldier from that era would wholeheartedly agree with me.

But I guess anything is legit in the pursuit of fun. Though I would personally find great fun in saying 'You weren't wearing armor! What did you THINK was going to happen?!?'

[Deleted]

The swashbuckler's advantage over the knight is mobility. This is just like the light vs heavy gladiator matchups. I need more time to chew on this but I think it's doable.

Note that as an old school judge, I have no compunction about making a house rule.

[machfront]

I tried a dozen things to facilitate this. The only one that worked well and caused no issues (and I still use) is the house rule that Dex bonus to AC doubles when not wearing armor.
Yeah, you may have stuff like a high dex character having a better AC than a low dex character in leather + shield but so what? The one without armor is still at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to, say, missile weapons and maybe even bumps and bruises from sliding falls or some such to be ruled on the fly.
I like the house because it allows for swashbucklers who aren't men of the sword. Having a swashbuckling magic-user (however briefly) one time a few years back was quite fun. In the fighter realm it also allowed the comic-book-barbarian and the Robin Hood type, etc.

[oakesspalding]

There is already a Swashbuckler in OD&D (at least if you count Greyhawk as OD&D). He's called a Thief.

So, you have a desire to create a lightly armored class that can't use magic. (I'm using "you" as a manner of speech here.) Call it a Thief, Swashbuckler or what have you. You have this desire presumably because it is such a popular fantasy trope (nothing wrong with that). Taking the combat rules as written supplemented with implied rules concerning sneaking, surprise and initiative, etc., and then saying players can CHOOSE to play such a character within the Fighting-Man class is a non-starter, in my opinion. Unless of course, suicide is your thing.

It strikes me there are only two ways to go to make it a viable class: 1. Give him combat advantages that make up for the lack of armor, or 2. Give him non-combat advantages that make up for the lack of armor. Many of the suggestions above go the first way. The Greyhawk Thief goes the second way. Let's look at the first again:

You could give him combat advantages by giving him ATTACK advantages-making him a super Errol Flynn-like dervish with three attacks in a turn, or whatever. I see nothing in principle wrong with this. To the complaint of "why can't Fighting-Men do that too?", you answer with "this is simply the way THIS class has learned to fight." On the other hand you could give him DEFENSE advantages such as AC bonuses for dexterity or an extra dodge roll, or whatever, and defend this on the same basis. Or some combination of the two.

In the end, though, you're confronted with this simple question: Why? All you're really doing is saying, "you can choose to be a fighting guy with armor or a fighting guy without armor, but ultimately, you'll do about the same either way." It seems almost an aesthetic issue: do you want to clink around or leap around? Or, for the campaign designer, do you want a campaign filled with only clinking people or only leaping people, or some clinking people and some leaping people, or mostly clinking people with one or two occasional leaping people around to add spice?

What I have just said is not a criticism of any of the efforts of the above posts. MY impulse also is to have a thiefy-type "swashbuckler" in the game. Indeed, in my rules-set, the Thief is THE third class (replacing the Cleric). The problem is how to do it in a meaningful way that adds interest and choices during play, rather than simply satisfying a, so to speak, merely cinematic urge.

[Zenopus]

Another option would be extra luck and energy (due to lack of fatigue) for the swashbuckler, in the form of extra hit points.

Someone could probably calculate the equivalent hit point boost that would be equivalent to wearing chain or plate mail.

[inkmeister]

One reason I like the idea of a defense bonus instead of armor class is that it seems consistent with certain monsters being hard to hit not because of tough armor/shields/etc, but because of being naturally agile and quick. Armor should be one factor in avoiding damage, but not the only one. It makes sense to me that really good fighting types are just better at dodging blows than others. I realize that for some of us here, HP represents that, but I don't find that satisfactory.

On the other hand, I don't really care for the idea of adding an extra class with this ability. I do like the idea that the fighty types have to make a choice between armor and no armor, and I like the idea that wearing armor is generally superior in combat situatons (as Strangebrew pointed out), and that not wearing armor would be superior for mobility, sneaking, swimming, climbing, etc (basically everything non-combat related). So that brings us back to the original post; I think the suggestion of gaining a +1 to AC every couple levels or so is reasonable. I think armor should be capped at perhaps 18 (Ac2) or 20 (0).

In my game, I cap levels at 8 anyway, so there aren't level 16 people running around that are god-like (just isn't my thing). No one gets nearly to level 8 anyway, it's just a hypothetical max.

[Stormcrow]

Oct 4, 2013 7:34:33 GMT -6 bestialwarlust said:

But what if you have a player that wants to play a light to no armored swashbuckler type? 

Then he should be hacked to pieces. There's a reason why men wore armor.

[Deleted]

Oct 5, 2013 11:09:50 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Oct 4, 2013 7:34:33 GMT -6 bestialwarlust said:

But what if you have a player that wants to play a light to no armored swashbuckler type? 

Then he should be hacked to pieces. There's a reason why men wore armor.

Okay, I know little about medieval arms and armor besides what the game has taught me, so please forgive this question if it's a bit naive. Didn't heavy swords and armor give way to lighter weapons and little to no armor(The Three Musketeers, et al.), historically speaking? Or, was it the advent of gun-powder weapons that spelled the end of such?

[talysman]

Well, I know Cortez and his army wore steel breastplates And helmets, so I think people are overselling the effect of guns on wearing armor. Guns basically made leather armor worthless, which meant that you'd have to outfit thousands of soldiers with metal armor to have any effect. It was money, not guns, that killed armor, or rather it made armor get restricted to vital areas: head and chest, then later just the head (steel helmet in WWII.) It became cheaper to just hire more men and give them less protection, making them ... cannon fodder.

Notice that, with the invention of Kevlar, armor is basically back in fashion, at least for part of the army and part of law enforcement.

[Deleted]

Thanks, I figured there was more to it than it seemed at first glance. And, the kevlar thing occurred to me after I posted. I appreciate the information.

[idrahil]

Oct 4, 2013 17:32:53 GMT -6 Red Baron said:

Class prerequisite: the player constantly cracks witty one liners and charms the ladies.

Back when I was using a 2nd Edition/3rd edition hybrid, I gave rogue types a "daze" effect once per fight against sentient beings. The idea was that they would use such a witty insult against their opponent that the opponent would be distracted trying to figure out the insult!

[Deleted]

I really liked the taunt ability of the kender as an idea, but in the one game I played that had kender in it that ability never seemed to work out all that great.

[oakesspalding]

I think Talysman is right that armor went out more for economic or social reasons than due to changes in military technology per se. Late Renaissance and Reformation armor-what most people think of as "plate armor"-was pretty good. 16th or 17th century armor was often "proofed"-there was a little dent in it signifying that it had stopped a test bullet at fairly close range. Of course if that half-price buckler had a hole in it instead of a dent, then buyer beware! Guns were thought of as super weapons not so much because they had better penetrating power than, say, crossbows, but because they were relatively easy to use and, at least in the case of pistols, could be easily concealed and then fired at close range by someone (perhaps even a woman!) who might not have been able to apply lethal force with only a small sword or knife. Thus, the "wheel-lock" was thought to be (and soon was demonstrated to be) the perfect assassin's weapon. In response, vip's wore gorgets or partial breastplates under their clothing. Muskets did have better penetrating power than longbows, but more importantly, good longbowmen, like slingers, had to pretty much grow up with the weapon. By contrast, you could (I think) give a quick-learning soldier a musket and train him up in a few weeks. Knights continued to wear fairly full armor until well into the 17th century, often combining it with a pistol in each hand. And in military paintings of the time, even through the end of the 17th century, it's the GENERAL who is often depicted as wearing plate.

The Musketeers of, say, Dumas' fiction didn't wear plate armor because, well, it wouldn't have been much fun to gallop around France wearing plate armor all day. In that time and context, absent a war or set battle, it would have seemed odd and not very romantic. You couldn't wink at the ladies, etc. But a guy with a rapier going up against a guy with a rapier AND a full suit of armor would have been toast. I'm sure any rational Musketeer looking down the steps of a dark, dank dungeon with no ladies (probably) to wink at, wouldn't hesitate to don a suit of plate. (And, incidentally, he would also toss out his rapier in favor of an axe, pick or hammer).

[Deleted]

Interesting, Spalding. I've always wondered about it, it is good to know a bit more.

[Deleted]

If you compare the hit taken while wearing armor versus the hits you would have taken if you were unarmored, leather armor blocks 18% of those hits, chainmail 35% and plate armor 55%. This is against a first level opponent. So, if you give a character a 1 in 6 "Dodge" save, that's equivalent to leather armor, 2 in 6 to chain and 3 in 6 to plate.

Now, as the character face monsters with higher hit dice (and, thus, better THAC0), armor will blocks fewer and fewer attacks while fixed Dodge save will still block the same percentage of hits. Because the save effect gets relatively better as the characters progress, there is little need to have it advance with level.

What I propose would be to give all unarmored characters a Dodge save based on their Dexterity. A high dex is 1 in 6 and a very high dex would be 2 in 6. This way won't require a new class or any special calculations on the player's part.

I see no need to limit the save to one per round or anything like that. Doing so would reduce it's effectiveness which would discourage Swashbuckling and thus be counterproductive.

[oakesspalding]

Oct 5, 2013 16:52:01 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

Interesting, Spalding. I've always wondered about it, it is good to know a bit more.

And thank you for Delving Deeper. I'm no expert, obviously. But I've found Arma - The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts to be a good online resource, among others. Don't let the name fool you. It's about medieval fighting too, although once you go back before about 1400, the knowledge and evidence is much more spotty. I recommend the essay, Top Myths of Renaissance Martial Arts, one of many fascinating ones on the site.

It's interesting how the subject is a combination of history, social history, literature, fine arts (much of our knowledge of historical weapons and armor comes from looking at paintings), archaeology and modern hands-on scientific experiment and reenactment. Sometimes (so I've gathered) things are best settled by tying a reconstructed breast plate to a tree and then blasting away with a reconstructed wheel-lock pistol or match-lock musket. Though of course even then you wonder whether you got your reconstruction right.

The caution is that after reading too much of this stuff you might become annoyed at how Gygax and his friends supposedly got so many things "wrong" in Chainmail and D&D. And that CAN become unhealthy if it detracts from, well, having fun...

[peterlind]

Now there is some really interesting info there! Here is a link I found about a Sword & Buckler tradition:

www.thearma.org/essays/SwordandBuckler.htm

From what I read here, I can see the "swashbuckler" as fitting fully within the Fighter class, perhaps as a sub-class or house-ruled fighting style.

However, some might see the "swashbuckler" as a broader archetype that takes in pirates, bandits, and the noble rogue (i.e. "blacksheep" of the noble family). Perhaps these are variants of the "Thief" class? For example, to create a bandit, I might take away a couple of thieving abilities and bring HD up to 1d6. . .

So I think that between the fighter and thief classes, you should have no problem coming up with your swashbuckler.

[premmy]

I think an important issue here is that a swashbuckler character really needs a (more or less) swashbuckler game to shine.

I mean, "standard DandD" has a set of assumptions, both stylistic and ruleswise - since the two inform each other. To wit, the rules as set up assume that an unarmoured combatant is going to be casually cut to ribbons by an armoured enemy of similar skill. Why? Because there's a huge gap in AC, because THAC0 advances with levels while AC only advances with equipment, because the range of AC bonuses you get due to Dexterity is narrow compared to the range of AC values you get due to equipment, and because by and large close combat boils down to whittling the other guy's HP down (i.e. there are no other ways to end a fight, like disarming, knocking someone down and pointing the blade at his throat, or other techniques that ignore armour). That's all in the rules.
And the set of assumptions that people incorporate in their campaign or setting follows the assumptions dictated by the rules: your standard DandD world is one where armour is a common commodity and everyone wears it all the time if they can, and it's that way because the rules set that up as the only viable way to survive. Consequence: no unarmoured, fancy-footwork swashbucklers.

Now, if you DO want to have swashbucklers, you have to change either the rules, or the setting, or both (since they inform each other). On one hand, this probably means tinkering with the rules to make it easier for a fighter in no or light armour to survive - others have suggested ways of doing this. But you also need to change the game world, because your standard DandD land is chock full of elements that are based on the assumption that every fighter is wearing armour. Like high-level monsters that have a good THAC0 (and will therefore easily hit everyone without heavy armour), and high HP (and will therefore stay in the fight long enough to whittle down the lightly armoured PCs' HP). You want swashbucklers, these monsters have to go. Depending on how the math works out, large groups of individually low-level monsters (or hostile men) might need to go for similar reasons.


Too long; didn't read version: a lightly armoured fighter is only viable if the DM removes such enemies that can only be defeated in heavy armour.