|
Post by cadriel on Oct 8, 2013 9:27:48 GMT -6
Tweak the "Parry" rule from the Holmes rulebook. Holmes: sacrifice your attack to get -2 for parrying. If the opponent scores exactly what they need to land a hit, your weapon breaks but you take no damage.
1. Increase the Parry bonus for higher level fighting-men. (Maybe +1 per 3 levels) 2. Allow high-Dexterity fighting-men to parry without sacrificing their attacks. Or if you give extra attacks at higher levels, let them use each one either for an attack or a parry. Or allow a free parry if they are holding a main-gauche or dagger in their off hand.
|
|
|
Post by strangebrew on Oct 8, 2013 11:54:13 GMT -6
Yeah I think that a swashbuckler might best work as a kind of prestige class, since they are assumed to be experts in fencing. Kind of like the original Paladin. High charisma and dexterity requirement, and at least Hero status. Gives +2 bonus to AC when using a parrying dagger or buckler. Can wear leather armor and perhaps any magical armor. And maybe something fun like a 2-in-6 chance to charm any ladies (or lads) who catch the eye.
EDIT: Plus the Holmes parrying rule as mentioned above, with a decent chance to disarm the opponent. Play defense for awhile, take away his weapon, then turn to offense.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 8, 2013 17:37:26 GMT -6
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.I don't disagree with the gist of premmy's post, but BTB there are also morale checks and subdual rules to consider. The above example looks like subdual, and causing enemy morale failure is always the swiftest (and least hazardous!) means of victory, with or without amour.
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Dec 18, 2013 9:54:51 GMT -6
You really don't need to do anything at all, no need to mechanically differentiate swashbucklers from fighting men.
I didn't see anyone talking about movement/encumbrance, which is the key feature of lightly armored PCs. Too often, such things are overlooked.
The swashbuckler may not be using heavy armor, but he can outrun anyone who is using it! If he engages the enemy and starts losing, he can get away...the same can't be said of the reverse. I've found movement, evasion, and pursuit are a big part of my game (admittedly it's Basic D&D, not OD&D...but same principle).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2013 13:14:19 GMT -6
The swashbuckler may not be using heavy armor, but he can outrun anyone who is using it! If he engages the enemy and starts losing, he can get away...the same can't be said of the reverse. I've found movement, evasion, and pursuit are a big part of my game (admittedly it's Basic D&D, not OD&D...but same principle). Being able to outrun a bad guy is of no use if the rest of the party can't outrun it as well. Making lightly armored fighters viable is the primary reason I switch from a Level-vs-AC hit system to Level-vs-Level.
|
|