|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Mar 19, 2014 17:56:49 GMT -6
I have no idea why my brain is working on new classes I came up with this after reading over Ways Archer class I came with this.
Swashbuckler
Although all fighters learn skill and grace in fighting the swashbuckler focuses on this style of fighting. Agility, grace and showmanship are all part of his fighting techniques. Although they have access to most weapons a fighter does, the swashbuckler does not train in bows of any sort. And their weapons of choice are a paired sword and dagger
Heroic combat — against opponents of 3 HD or less the swashbuckler makes one attack roll for each of his levels
Swashbuckling — this type of fighter trains to be light and fast on his feet eschewing armor. When wearing no armor and lightly encumbered he gains a defense bonus against armored opponents +1 against lightly armored (AC 6-8) +2 against medium (AC 4-5) and +3 against heavy (AC 3 or less). This could also be extrapolated to monster movement rates for the swashbucklers AC bonus representing the high mobility AC bonus -- MV9 (+1 bonus), 6 (+2 bonus), 3 (+3 bonus). This wouldn't stack with the above they get the better of the two AC bonus.
First strike — trained to use light swords for speed and grace as long as he is using a rapier or similar light sword he always gains the first attack in the first round of combat only,with his sword before initiative is rolled.
Sword and dagger — when wielding a paired sword and dagger the swashbuckler gains a +1 bonus to either their “to hit” bonus or defense this can be changed from round to round.
So good? bad? stupid?
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Mar 19, 2014 18:47:47 GMT -6
It just seems unnecessary.
You want to be a swashbuckler? Roll up fighting man with a fancy sword and an Errol Flynn mustache.
|
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Mar 19, 2014 19:00:30 GMT -6
Agreed, but there are players that just have to see "mechanical" differences. I don't see any fighter subclass as needed the fighter is flexible enough as is. And has more options that way. This is more of a thought exercise and and way to give someone that is just hard set on mechanics.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 19, 2014 22:36:45 GMT -6
Busy night Beastial  I have a few suggestions that may/may not be useful... I'd start with the cleric progression, mainly cos--in my eyes--fighters are supreme in combat. I don't know about the missile weapon restriction; after all The Three Muskateers were muskateers!"Heroic Combat" was, perhaps, an unfortunately choice of words since "Normal" and "Fantastic/Heroic" combat are already concepts with their own meaning. In this case, I think you actually mean "Normal Combat". Also, in normal combat (i.e., against normals) a fighter has one attack per HD, not per level. The AC bonus stuff looks pretty complicated. What about this instead: So if our hero is AC7 fighting a guy in plate armor, he's treated as AC 3. I'll have to think about the dual wielding. +1 to hit might be okay, especially on top of the cleric attack matrix, but I wonder if there might be a more interesting option? |
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Mar 20, 2014 5:38:24 GMT -6
Busy night Beastial I have a few suggestions that may/may not be useful... I'd start with the cleric progression, mainly cos--in my eyes--fighters are supreme in combat. I don't know about the missile weapon restriction; after all The Three Muskateers were muskateers!"Heroic Combat" was, perhaps, an unfortunately choice of words since "Normal" and "Fantastic/Heroic" combat are already concepts with their own meaning. In this case, I think you actually mean "Normal Combat". Also, in normal combat (i.e., against normals) a fighter has one attack per HD, not per level. The AC bonus stuff looks pretty complicated. What about this instead: So if our hero is AC7 fighting a guy in plate armor, he's treated as AC 3. I'll have to think about the dual wielding. +1 to hit might be okay, especially on top of the cleric attack matrix, but I wonder if there might be a more interesting option? Some good ideas thanks. I wanted to keep dual wielding simple so I'd be interested to see what you come up with. Your AC idea might be better I'll have to roll that idea around in my head. My intent is to keep it as simple and streamlined as possible without falling into the later addition trap of bonus inflation. This idea was just something that just came to my brain and I wanted to get it on paper and get some suggestions so I'm not set on anything real solid. But I do like your suggestions. |
|
idrahil
Level 6 Magician
The Lighter The Rules, The Better The Game!
Posts: 398
|
Post by idrahil on Mar 22, 2014 8:03:44 GMT -6
For dual-wield, I read somewhere about the following (and it is what I use):
1 attack roll per round. If you hit, roll 2d6 keeping the higher roll for damage. Double 6s = 8 damage.
|
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Mar 22, 2014 8:20:08 GMT -6
For dual-wield, I read somewhere about the following (and it is what I use): 1 attack roll per round. If you hit, roll 2d6 keeping the higher roll for damage. Double 6s = 8 damage. That's another interesting approach. I'll have too think on that one. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 22, 2014 8:36:58 GMT -6
The way I've been running dual wielding for the last couple of years is: if the attack roll is odd you hit with the left-handed weapon. If the attack roll is even you hit with the right-handed weapon. If you roll a 20 you hit with both. This works nicely, giving a significant but relatively rare boost to offense. I haven't done the math to figure out if it's over- or under-powered, but it seems "okay" from my experience. However... the upcoming revision of DD will include an interpretation of the "parry" rule (from Chainmail) which upsets my rule somewhat. Or it might not. I still need to think about it some more...  |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 22, 2014 8:39:33 GMT -6
If you hit, roll 2d6 keeping the higher roll for damage. Double 6s = 8 damage. What about roll two dice, keep the higher, if you roll any double add one? |
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Mar 22, 2014 8:55:20 GMT -6
My thought for allowing the +1 AC is that a weapon used for parry gives the same bonus as a shield. Normally if a character wins initiative I let them decide if they want that +1 to go to defense or attack. But if they don't get initiative they don't move quickly enough to use it offensively so it only works defensively. I figure since a shield gives a +1 bonus then doing the same for dual wielding won't add much bonus inflation to the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by cleverkobold on Mar 24, 2014 16:47:10 GMT -6
One player in my game is playing a swashbuckler-type fighter, these are the house-rules that let them do it:
*An unarmored characters (ascending)AC is equal to their DEX score.
*Dual wielding grants a a +1 to hit, all weapons do 1d6 and I rarely hand out magic weapons so no need to determine which weapon is the one that hits.
*All weapons get a minor 'special ability' that can only be performed by their wielder. The character wields a rapier, which allows a character to immediately make a counter attack vs. any enemy that rolled a 1 to-hit them. The character also has a main gauche which grants +1 AC.
|
|
