Swashbuckler Base Class (WIP) WOULD LOVE YOUR HELP

[BRKNdevil]

Link to google docs. (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8wfBieQIbTzenFBSDZtMlkxUE0/view?usp=sharing)

Duelist
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/4e/03/67/4e036704e7bdfd9e49cfaf8f2ca16764.jpg
Gunslinger
http://i.imgur.com/fxEBhBi.jpg
*Neither of these images are mine.


Reworked it some, moved around bits and pieces and such (10/18/2014)
IF YOU FIND THIS BASE CLASS OP, THEN INSTEAD OF SAYING IT IS OP, WOULD YOU KINDLY POINT OUT WHERE AND HOW YOU SUGGEST TO FIX IT. SUCH COMMENTS WOULD BE INFINITELY MORE USEFUL.

This is based on the Swashbuckler Base Class of 3.5, the Duelist Prestige Class, Streetfighter Prestige Class, Blade Bravo Prestige Class, the Pathfinder Gunslinger Base Class, and the Pathfinder Hybrid Base Class also Called Swashbuckler.

I took elements of all of them to help make this while trying to balance it all out.
The Deeds & Dares limitations are taken from the warlock invocation limits, and the Points Pool from the Monk for better balance. Some of the elements of the above where adapted such as a fusion of a skilled character with some of the abilities of the Fighter to make things easier since a buttload of new features are not generally well balanced and i found no need.

I need a better selection of Dares and Deeds, and some finishing touches on both of the subclasses.

Finally i chose to not base all the DC's off one stat due to the need to make a decently balanced character for both in and out of a fight. So you can choose what kind of character you are by having the spell like ability DC's based off a single mental stat.

AS FOR THOSE HELPING ME ON OTHER RANDOM THINGS I DO. This is something I've been playing with for about 2 months while in school when i get bored. ENGINEERING IS A PAINFUL DEGREE. You don't get much fun and they built the business majors building too damn close so i get to here how they went to a party in the middle of the week and ****. So starting something else is the only thing that gives me fun.

[Pramxnim]

I would suggest you improve the formatting of the class first, since it's almost unreadable in its current form on Googledocs. I don't have Office, so I can't just download and read it off Excel. I'm afraid I won't be able to offer feedback unless the class profile is accessible online.

[BRKNdevil]

This is a pain in the butt to edit, so i reworked the format onto a word doc and posted the doc at the start of the thread. (10/18/2014)

[BRKNdevil]

there! Happy?! jk

[Shadow]

There was one major problem that I got to and stopped reading.
Saving Throws: Constitution, Dexterity

The saving throws are split into two groups. Major Saves and Minor Saves.
The Major Saves are the ones from 3e: Dex, Con, Wis
The Minor Saves are the "new" saves: Str, Int, Cha
Every class in the PHB is proficient on one of these three major saves and one of the three minor saves.
Your class is proficient in two major saves.

{{scrubbed}}

[BRKNdevil]

There was one major problem that I got to and stopped reading.
Saving Throws: Constitution, Dexterity

The saving throws are split into two groups. Major Saves and Minor Saves.
The Major Saves are the ones from 3e: Dex, Con, Wis
The Minor Saves are the "new" saves: Str, Int, Cha
Every class in the PHB is proficient on one of these three major saves and one of the three minor saves.
Your class is proficient in two major saves.
{{scrubbed original, scrubbed quote}}

{{scrubbed}}

[Shadow]

{{scrubbed}}

Every single class in the PHB has proficiency in one traditional save and one of the "new" saves. The traditional saves are the most common and most deadly, generally speaking.
{{scrubbed}}

Which ones would I recommend?
I'd recommend one traditional save and one new one, just like every other class in existence.

[BRKNdevil]

Every single class in the PHB has proficiency in one traditional save and one of the "new" saves. The traditional saves are the most common and most deadly, generally speaking.
{{scrubbed}}

Which ones would I recommend?
I'd recommend one traditional save and one new one, just like every other class in existence.

{{scrubbed}}

[Shadow]

After a quick glance, it's not even remotely balanced.
You basically cherry-picked all of the best features from the melee classes and threw them all together into one "monster" melee class.

Light armor + shields + max dex + defense style + half proficiency bonus = AC
You're almost the best tank in the game.

Dual wielding with any two light -OR- finesse weapons, and all of those weapons automatically become both light -AND- finesse for you, and they eventually deal 1d10 damage each, with the TWF style, plus Flurry, all with no feat reqs.
You're the best TWFer in the game.

Bard skills + expertise twice. You're a skill monkey.

I'm just getting started. Need I go on?

[BRKNdevil]

After a quick glance, it's not even remotely balanced.
You basically cherry-picked all of the best features from the melee classes and threw them all together into one "monster" melee class.

Light armor + shields + max dex + dueling style + half proficiency bonus = AC
You're the best tank in the game.

Dual wielding with any two light -OR- finesse weapons, and all of those weapons automatically become both light -AND- finesse for you, and they eventually deal 1d10 damage each, with the TWF style, plaus Flurry, all with no feat reqs.
You're the best TWFer in the game.

Bard skills + expertise twice. You're a skill monkey.

I'm just getting started. Need I go on?

{{scrubbed}}
K, on side thought, then lets say drop the half prof. to ac or the shield prof., but the two weapon fighting doesn't stack with flurry and thus i wonder what the issue is. What limitations or skill list would you suggest for a Swashbuckler? Should their be expertise? and its not like i gave it true spellcasting.
And is that combination of AC's any better than a Barbarian with full Con and Dex with a shield and dipping fighter?

Finally, Dex and Int saves or Dex and Str saves?

[Amnoriath]

K, on side thought, then lets say drop the half prof. to ac or the shield prof., but the two weapon fighting doesn't stack with flurry and thus i wonder what the issue is. What limitations or skill list would you suggest for a Swashbuckler? Should their be expertise? and its not like i gave it true spellcasting.
And is that combination of AC's any better than a Barbarian with full Con and Dex with a shield and dipping fighter?

Finally, Dex and Int saves or Dex and Str saves?

1. Except a Barbarian doesn't benefit from being a Fighter that way. That style only applies if they are wearing armor. Additionally in order for a Barbarian to benefit and still be able to hit well he has to be rocking 20 stats in all 3 physical stats meaning unless he is a Beserker and raging mental attacks will demolish him. This on the other hand needs only Dexterity to get the same AC and to hit bonuses. You also could have both magical armor and shield.
2. Well, to be honest, does this really need to be a class? The Swashbuckler has that same crafty on your feet attitude as the Rogue or it has similar fighting expertise as fighter with a little rogue. Either way you have to same kind of flavor to crunch vision, just different bases to work with. This is very apparent in the constrained sub classes you made. Here though you have both the Bards skills, Rogue's defense, with a Fighter's frame and Monk+monk tradition+Battle Master variety of attacks. The fact is you really can't balance with the others without looking like a multiclass character.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: I would highly suggest that we consider how we address others.

[BRKNdevil]

K, so dropping shield, prof. and the Defense Fighting style, Reducing it to two skills from a limited selection of lets say, Athletics, Acrobatics, Insight, Intimidation, Perception, and Sleight of Hand. And Removing the Tool Prof. Lets say Reduce Expertise to a one time thing at level 10 and I'd prefer to keep 1/2 Prof. Bonus to AC at level 6 and considering how late it is, its not exactly dippable and most importantly it scales, thus not really equating to much until late game.
As for whether or not its not needed. Well, a lot of people seem like they want a swashbuckler class and thus this idea was inspired, and that was a month ago so i dunno, what do you think? Have people found an acceptable alternative? As for the Combo to Combo idea of things, that's because I'm basing it off this http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/swashbuckler and you are limited to at most 8 options. If you think this should be reduced, to how much, and why?

The reason there is the railroading of the Archetypes is 1, its in pre-alpha and 2 the selection of deeds & dares lets you decide how you want to play.

Finally, I think everyone has decided that two weapon fighting is possibly the worst style in the game, so if you are the best of the lowest pile, does that really matter past the fluff of your character?

[Amnoriath]

K, so dropping shield, prof. and the Defense Fighting style, Reducing it to two skills from a limited selection of lets say, Athletics, Acrobatics, Insight, Intimidation, Perception, and Sleight of Hand. And Removing the Tool Prof. Lets say Reduce Expertise to a one time thing at level 10 and I'd prefer to keep 1/2 Prof. Bonus to AC at level 6 and considering how late it is, its not exactly dippable and most importantly it scales, thus not really equating to much until late game.
As for whether or not its not needed. Well, a lot of people seem like they want a swashbuckler class and thus this idea was inspired, and that was a month ago so i dunno, what do you think? Have people found an acceptable alternative? As for the Combo to Combo idea of things, that's because I'm basing it off this http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/swashbuckler and you are limited to at most 8 options. If you think this should be reduced, to how much, and why?

The reason there is the railroading of the Archetypes is 1, its in pre-alpha and 2 the selection of deeds & dares lets you decide how you want to play.

Finally, I think everyone has decided that two weapon fighting is possibly the worst style in the game, so if you are the best of the lowest pile, does that really matter past the fluff of your character?

1. Okay, good skill selection here and nothing wrong with the AC. My main issues was the smattering of others
2. Well, a lot of people want an assassin as a base class or duskblade..etc. Again that really isn't my big issue with what you have. I suggested that because it is easier and both have good bases to work with what you are looking for as you borrowing a lot.
3. Many sub classes have selection of abilities. You need to define yours better from the others or a multiclass character.
4. The reason why two-weapon fighting is bad is because of the language of the off-hand attack. The fact is a Monk can have two light weapons or with Duel-Wielder and proficiency two rapiers ending up dealing more damage than one with a Duelist fighting style. Yes, he can dip and get it but then he needs to multiclass losing his final damage upgrade and other abilities making a decimal point worth of better average damage rather superfluous.
What you need to really bring something different is the socialite, think on your toes type of abilities in which others don't really do or do with spells.

[BRKNdevil]

1. Okay, good skill selection here and nothing wrong with the AC. My main issues was the smattering of others
2. Well, a lot of people want an assassin as a base class or duskblade..etc. Again that really isn't my big issue with what you have. I suggested that because it is easier and both have good bases to work with what you are looking for as you borrowing a lot.
3. Many sub classes have selection of abilities. You need to define yours better from the others or a multiclass character.
4. The reason why two-weapon fighting is bad is because of the language of the off-hand attack. The fact is a Monk can have two light weapons or with Duel-Wielder and proficiency two rapiers ending up dealing more damage than one with a Duelist fighting style. Yes, he can dip and get it but then he needs to multiclass losing his final damage upgrade and other abilities making a decimal point worth of better average damage rather superfluous.
What you need to really bring something different is the socialite, think on your toes type of abilities in which others don't really do or do with spells.

2
And I've seen the attempts, also Assassin has already been made, but the people are dissatisfied with the Eldritch Knight and want a slightly overpowered Duskblade with full 4 attacks and casting Cantrips at the same time. As for the rest of that comment, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

3
The subclasses do have a selection of abilities with the deeds they have access to that only they can access and for me to be able to define it against a multiclass character would be bloody insane and repeated constructs of abilities happens all over the place in the PHB so i find that argument sort of weak

4
Wouldn't that be an entirely different class? Everything I'm reading about the swashbuckler would have pretty much nothing to do with being a socialite, though that was always a possibility but that was due more to the person's background than anything else. The swashbuckler seems to be someone who fights with skill and flair over the other things, and i tried to keep the spell like abilities constricted to things that a normal person under extraordinary circumstances would be able to do. What would you suggest?
Also the language for the Light and Finesse thing says that a weapon with Finesse is treated as Light, only in terms that you can wield a weapon that has the Light Property in your offhand, but may or may not have the Finesse Property. As it stands, you can wield a Rapier, and a Dagger, but not two Rapiers. This is so that you can have Main Gauche as a viable flair to your character and still be legal. Normally you would not be able to do this.

[Amnoriath]

2
And I've seen the attempts, also Assassin has already been made, but the people are dissatisfied with the Eldritch Knight and want a slightly overpowered Duskblade with full 4 attacks and casting Cantrips at the same time. As for the rest of that comment, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

3
The subclasses do have a selection of abilities with the deeds they have access to that only they can access and for me to be able to define it against a multiclass character would be bloody insane and repeated constructs of abilities happens all over the place in the PHB so i find that argument sort of weak

4
Wouldn't that be an entirely different class? Everything I'm reading about the swashbuckler would have pretty much nothing to do with being a socialite, though that was always a possibility but that was due more to the person's background than anything else. The swashbuckler seems to be someone who fights with skill and flair over the other things, and i tried to keep the spell like abilities constricted to things that a normal person under extraordinary circumstances would be able to do. What would you suggest?
Also the language for the Light and Finesse thing says that a weapon with Finesse is treated as Light, only in terms that you can wield a weapon that has the Light Property in your offhand, but may or may not have the Finesse Property. As it stands, you can wield a Rapier, and a Dagger, but not two Rapiers. This is so that you can have Main Gauche as a viable flair to your character and still be legal. Normally you would not be able to do this.
1. I am saying that all it takes for a rogue to be a swashbuckler is a little bit more fighting prowess and some tricks. The Fighter only needs some skills and stunts.
2. What you have are sub classes that only manage to say I am ranged and I am melee. If you would introduce a little more modularity in your wording you would have no need to have either, much less flavor. Are you saying you can't define it against a Battle Master/Rogue X? It is one thing to say there a few different things that render a target prone, it is another to say well I want the Martial Arts, Flurry..etc ability so I will put another name on it and slightly change the wording. In essence you don't have a unique class mechanic or set of abilities that say I am the Swashbuckler vs. X/X or X+spell..etc.
3. No, when I say socialite I mean abilities related to being social. The Swashbuckler is almost always a charmer or a haggler of some kind if they want to and their aren't any class abilities that really deal with things like that.
4. quote from Dual-Wielder, "You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light,"(165, PHB 5e) So, that means neither need the light property once you have this.

[BRKNdevil]

OP
and I hv 10 ch
Translation please, I understand the OP bit, and that is currently being fixed but the rest of it is making me go wha???

[BRKNdevil]

1. I am saying that all it takes for a rogue to be a swashbuckler is a little bit more fighting prowess and some tricks. The Fighter only needs some skills and stunts.
2. What you have are sub classes that only manage to say I am ranged and I am melee. If you would introduce a little more modularity in your wording you would have no need to have either, much less flavor. Are you saying you can't define it against a Battle Master/Rogue X? It is one thing to say there a few different things that render a target prone, it is another to say well I want the Martial Arts, Flurry..etc ability so I will put another name on it and slightly change the wording. In essence you don't have a unique class mechanic or set of abilities that say I am the Swashbuckler vs. X/X or X+spell..etc.

I'm not saying that such a thing can't be covered by multiclassing but that this is a common enough archetype of combat that would benefit from having a class system of its own without being some terrible mutation and amalgam of multiclassing that requires you to write in 6 size font to fit on the line describing your classes. Its nice to have a viable build on the generic idea of your character to happen sometime before level 20 and being some legendary being.
The comment of the modularity of my archetypes is probably no worse then the druid, i'm a wildshaper, and i'm a slightly better spellcaster, or the Bard, I can hold my own as a frontline or rear end fighter, or i have a huge spell list. But still it could use improvement and as stated above was mentioned among the things i wish to improve. You pointing something I have already acknowledged while only giving vague details about how you don't like it is less than helpful and would prefer actual advice on how it should be built.
Finally if you would note, that i'm building this off partially from not only ideas from the multitude of swashbuckler ideas of the Streetfighter, Duelist, Blade Bravo, Swashbuckler (3.5), Gunslinger Pathfinder, but most importantly The Swashbuckler of Pathfinder, which is a hybrid class of Gunslinger and Fighter of the Pathfinder vein.

If we where to take that idea of gameplay of only having what classes that are needed. Then we could go back to having the Fighter, Magic User, and Rogue



3. No, when I say socialite I mean abilities related to being social. The Swashbuckler is almost always a charmer or a haggler of some kind if they want to and their aren't any class abilities that really deal with things like that.

In the example above, note that none of those classes have any class ability that has anything to do with being some socialite character in the least regards past having the skill Bluff and Intimidate and using the already present game framework to do the same thing a rogue would do. If you would be so kind to give me an example from previous works besides Fiction Stories of high flying adventure, I will be assuming that instead of having the PC actually Roleplay his character in such a fashion, you wish to make a quantification of game mechanics that i think 5e is trying to move away from and thus, past the Dare of casting fear as one would Intimidate for, and the Possible inclusion of Glibness I don't know how i should have added Socialite abilities to the system.



4. quote from Dual-Wielder, "You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light,"(165, PHB 5e) So, that means neither need the light property once you have this.

And i am trying to find how me moving away from the mechanic of having a character wielding two Rapiers in both hands because he took this feat. While sticking to the more historical connotation of a Swashbuckler with a Sword in one hand and some small weapon in the other, such as a gun or dagger, without detracting from the lost in mechanical damage while embracing the fluff is a bad thing. And Finally i think it has been noted that Two Weapon Fighting is considered the weakest in mechanical damage and thus the likelihood of anyone actually getting the feat is terribly low that such a concept deserves a break.

Now if you wish to argue the balance of the character and how it can be balanced, and the cost and benefit of the individual abilities instead of arguing why it exists that would be lovely. In which I thank you for commenting on abilities that are elsewhere in the game in some form or another so that any faults can be dealt with.

[Amnoriath]

I'm not saying that such a thing can't be covered by multiclassing but that this is a common enough archetype of combat that would benefit from having a class system of its own without being some terrible mutation and amalgam of multiclassing that requires you to write in 6 size font to fit on the line describing your classes. Its nice to have a viable build on the generic idea of your character to happen sometime before level 20 and being some legendary being.
The comment of the modularity of my archetypes is probably no worse then the druid, i'm a wildshaper, and i'm a slightly better spellcaster, or the Bard, I can hold my own as a frontline or rear end fighter, or i have a huge spell list. But still it could use improvement and as stated above was mentioned among the things i wish to improve. You pointing something I have already acknowledged while only giving vague details about how you don't like it is less than helpful and would prefer actual advice on how it should be built.
Finally if you would note, that i'm building this off partially from not only ideas from the multitude of swashbuckler ideas of the Streetfighter, Duelist, Blade Bravo, Swashbuckler (3.5), Gunslinger Pathfinder, but most importantly The Swashbuckler of Pathfinder, which is a hybrid class of Gunslinger and Fighter of the Pathfinder vein.


In the example above, note that none of those classes have any class ability that has anything to do with being some socialite character in the least regards past having the skill Bluff and Intimidate and using the already present game framework to do the same thing a rogue would do. If you would be so kind to give me an example from previous works besides Fiction Stories of high flying adventure, I will be assuming that instead of having the PC actually Roleplay his character in such a fashion, you wish to make a quantification of game mechanics that i think 5e is trying to move away from and thus, past the Dare of casting fear as one would Intimidate for, and the Possible inclusion of Glibness I don't know how i should have added Socialite abilities to the system.



And i am trying to find how me moving away from the mechanic of having a character wielding two Rapiers in both hands because he took this feat. While sticking to the more historical connotation of a Swashbuckler with a Sword in one hand and some small weapon in the other, such as a gun or dagger, without detracting from the lost in mechanical damage while embracing the fluff is a bad thing. And Finally i think it has been noted that Two Weapon Fighting is considered the weakest in mechanical damage and thus the likelihood of anyone actually getting the feat is terribly low that such a concept deserves a break.

Now if you wish to argue the balance of the character and how it can be balanced, and the cost and benefit of the individual abilities instead of arguing why it exists that would be lovely. In which I thank you for commenting on abilities that are elsewhere in the game in some form or another so that any faults can be dealt with.

1. But you have so many abilities as it stands that you already doing this if not more.
2. One bonds more closely to animals while the other to its environment. One is Skald learning from his stories and of war while the other is a Lorekeeper keeping even more various tid bits of information.
3. You said though that people seem to want it enough to justify its existence. The realm of 5e has taken those sorts of stories and lore, trying to replicate them into the characters. If you want a reason to do so from those alone the Blade Bravo gains Goad as a bonus feat and a class bonus to feinting.
4. The Deadeye will be spammed to all heck and back, especially with rogue. The only thing that can compare to be used with such impunity is Reckless Attack which gives advantage back to the enemies. Your dares at this points are how can get back more grit while coming back to life better than a Barbarian and nova more than a monk. Also these abilities are strictly better than the Monk's.
"1 point of Grit to make a Dodge Action as a Bonus Action, at 5th Level you can use your Reaction to use a Weapon Attack on someone who misses you while you use this option
… 1 point of Grit to make a Disengage or Dash Action as a Bonus Action. At 5th level when you use this option you ignore Difficult Terrain"
Finally, your Duelist is in every sense better than the Champion.

[BRKNdevil]

1. But you have so many abilities as it stands that you already doing this if not more.
Which is why this is a WiP and not some set idea. You arguing this point over and over is not in anyway helping this be fixed and if you continue with this line of argument i will block you from this thread due to wanting to drag your argument into the ground without contributing to fixing the issues in any way. Now if you want to add suggestions on how this can be balanced, that would be welcomed, but this means actual suggestions and reasons being listed behind them.


2. One bonds more closely to animals while the other to its environment. One is Skald learning from his stories and of war while the other is a Lorekeeper keeping even more various tid bits of information.
You literally added your fluff to the mechanics of a class which can be argueably put on any archetype and thus i find this argument invalid.


3. You said though that people seem to want it enough to justify its existence. The realm of 5e has taken those sorts of stories and lore, trying to replicate them into the characters. If you want a reason to do so from those alone the Blade Bravo gains Goad as a bonus feat and a class bonus to feinting.
This argument makes no sense and thus needs clarification.


4. The Deadeye will be spammed to all heck and back, especially with rogue. The only thing that can compare to be used with such impunity is Reckless Attack which gives advantage back to the enemies. Your dares at this points are how can get back more grit while coming back to life better than a Barbarian and nova more than a monk. Also these abilities are strictly better than the Monk's.
"1 point of Grit to make a Dodge Action as a Bonus Action, at 5th Level you can use your Reaction to use a Weapon Attack on someone who misses you while you use this option
… 1 point of Grit to make a Disengage or Dash Action as a Bonus Action. At 5th level when you use this option you ignore Difficult Terrain"
Finally, your Duelist is in every sense better than the Champion.
Being better than the Champion is like being better than a retarded child in a mental subject. Not hard, not necessarily bad, and not your fault. As long as I'm not better than a wizard or paladin, or the onion druid than i think that is alright. But how would you balance such a mechanic?

[Amnoriath]

Which is why this is a WiP and not some set idea. You arguing this point over and over is not in anyway helping this be fixed and if you continue with this line of argument i will block you from this thread due to wanting to drag your argument into the ground without contributing to fixing the issues in any way. Now if you want to add suggestions on how this can be balanced, that would be welcomed, but this means actual suggestions and reasons being listed behind them.


You literally added your fluff to the mechanics of a class which can be argueably put on any archetype and thus i find this argument invalid.


This argument makes no sense and thus needs clarification.


Being better than the Champion is like being better than a retarded child in a mental subject. Not hard, not necessarily bad, and not your fault. As long as I'm not better than a wizard or paladin, or the onion druid than i think that is alright. But how would you balance such a mechanic?
1. Rather than have strict archetypes maybe borrow from the Warlock a bit. Break up your archetypes into sets of flavor(personalities) and let whether they are good at melee or range become a choice in which both can have. Also you dares are just obscene and makes scarcity nothing to worry about.
2. I am not adding anything which isn't already there and enforced. One has circles of spells with the name of environments on them and it gains favored terrain like abilities as well as a mass sanctuary. The other increases the multitude of forms and likely beasts they have met. The College of Valor has more tandem buffing related to battle as well as wanting to emulate it. While the other actually gains the ability to decrease enemies(sort of dark knowledge) checks as well as actually use inspiration himself de-facto gaining bardic knowledge and then some. Then they all have paragraphs detailing their flavor and specialties. A Marksman though can easily have every bit the same personality as a Duelist in this class without having to make any kind of exceptions. These others clearly point towards different focuses.
3. It means that if one of the reasons you are doing this is because people want a unique base classes enough you ought to consider many of the stories, movies...etc with such heroes rather than just someone else's class mechanics.
4. Oh, so you admit it sucks now. It is one thing to say well I have many other things I can do and some of yours so I am probably a better than out right saying I am going to take your star features expand on them plus about 10 others and somehow you are still suppose to see yourself as viable.

[Shadow]

As long as I'm not better than a wizard or paladin, or the onion druid than i think that is alright.

I'm removing the wizard and paladin (as that is what the -or- does by itself).
The onion druid (and the moon druid itself) is the most broken archetype in the game at the moment, and it will be the most houserule-tweaked subclass there is. Our group (and four other tables that I personally know of) have already tweaked it and houseruled moon druid so that it isn't broken at all anymore.
Claiming that you're not as broken as the most broken option available isn't a fair comparison by any means.

The bottom line is that you have taken all of the best (and sometimes even class defining) features from almost every single melee class and thrown them all together into one completely OP class. You may as well just make him a full caster on top of it at this point, because it wouldn't break the class much more than it already is.
Your swashbuckler is broken beyond repair. It's time to go back to the drawing board. Seriously, start from scratch. Because this thing is so completely OP that there's no fixing it in its current state.

[BRKNdevil]

I'm removing the wizard and paladin (as that is what the -or- does by itself).
The onion druid (and the moon druid itself) is the most broken archetype in the game at the moment, and it will be the most houserule-tweaked subclass there is. Our group (and four other tables that I personally know of) have already tweaked it and houseruled moon druid so that it isn't broken at all anymore.
Claiming that you're not as broken as the most broken option available isn't a fair comparison by any means.

The bottom line is that you have taken all of the best (and sometimes even class defining) features from almost every single melee class and thrown them all together into one completely OP class. You may as well just make him a full caster on top of it at this point, because it wouldn't break the class much more than it already is.
Your swashbuckler is broken beyond repair. It's time to go back to the drawing board. Seriously, start from scratch. Because this thing is so completely OP that there's no fixing it in its current state.

I'm assuming you where one of those people who thought the Tome of Battle was filled with overpowered weeaboo characters and have not actually put those characters in play against level appropriate matches. And the fact that you removed two out of the three is something of an odd thing. Finally, is it any less broken then some of the things that you have put on this board? Because by the comments of the things i see, no they aren't. Thus you continue to try to fix them so that they are balanced. This is merely what I'm trying to do and you are not in any way being constructive or useful.

[Shadow]

I'm assuming you where one of those people who thought the Tome of Battle was filled with overpowered weeaboo characters and have not actually put those characters in play against level appropriate matches.
You can't compare ToB/3e with anything from 5e. 3e was an unbalanced mess, and by the time ToB came out it was well beyond repair. ToB was a godsend because it attempted to fix some of the balance issues. 5e is fairly well balanced all in all.
You can't even compare them.


And the fact that you removed two out of the three is something of an odd thing.
It's not an odd thing. You didn't say -and-, you said -or-.
Your wording removed the first two by itself.


Finally, is it any less broken then some of the things that you have put on this board? Because by the comments of the things i see, no they aren't. Thus you continue to try to fix them so that they are balanced. This is merely what I'm trying to do and you are not in any way being constructive or useful.
I have posted exactly one thing, and that thing has generally been agreed to be balanced with extremely little discussion about any balancing issues being needed.
Your swashbuckler is beyond repair. You could certainly make one that has a chance to be balanced, but the chassis upon which it now rests leaves that an impossibility.
The only constructive thing that I could say, I have already said. Start from scratch, because as is it's beyond repair.

edit:
The only other constructive thing that I could say would be that swashbuckler doesn't need a base class. Fighter subclass, sure. Rogue subclass, maybe. A new base class, not needed at all.

[BRKNdevil]

Reworked the Design and made some changes. Also Shadow, under the direction of the Moderator I've been told to put you on the ignore list. So, if you would, stop posting on this thread since all it seems we do is argue.

[AgentPaper]

Ok, everything is much more legible now, but the more I read it, the more I can't help but wonder why this isn't just a Rogue subclass. I know that might sound lazy, but I just can't see why you added a lot of the features, many of which only serve to complicated mechanics that already allow you to fulfill the Swashbuckler archetype. As is, the class seems more like a magical MacGyver rather than a daring pirate or musketeer.

[BRKNdevil]

Mainly because it felt like you needed to go somewhere between 3-4 different classes in order to get to a Swashbuckler Class and I find that image and mechanics of the Swashbuckler from Pathfinder probably captured the idea the best. I also felt that the Dexterity Combatant needed an archetype for itself due to ideas like Gunslinger and other such classes.
Personally I don't like having to wait till i'm level 5 or 6 before becoming the idea of my character. As for the Swashbuckler character via Multiclassing. I'd start with Barbarian 1 then go Fighter for at least 2 and maybe 6, then go Rogue. i'd splash Monk for the dodge as a bonus action.
If i made a subclass that incorporated all of that, I'd get yelled at for why are you taking features from other classes.

[AgentPaper]

Mainly because it felt like you needed to go somewhere between 3-4 different classes in order to get to a Swashbuckler Class and I find that image and mechanics of the Swashbuckler from Pathfinder probably captured the idea the best. I also felt that the Dexterity Combatant needed an archetype for itself due to ideas like Gunslinger and other such classes.
Personally I don't like having to wait till i'm level 5 or 6 before becoming the idea of my character. As for the Swashbuckler character via Multiclassing. I'd start with Barbarian 1 then go Fighter for at least 2 and maybe 6, then go Rogue. i'd splash Monk for the dodge as a bonus action.
If i made a subclass that incorporated all of that, I'd get yelled at for why are you taking features from other classes.

What does Barbarian have to offer a Swashbuckler? Fighter seems iffy, sure you get the fighting style, but those aren't really needed for you to be a swashbuckler. Monk is even less necessary, as the Rogue's Cunning Action does the same thing (minus flurry) without using any resources.

You can be a swashbuckler from level 1 by just going Rogue. Grab a Rapier, or a Scimitar and a hand Crossbow, and you're basically set. Choose Acrobatics and Athletics as your Expertise skills. Sneak attack encourages you to use tricks to get the upper hand on your opponent, whether that's sneaking up and backstabbing someone or throwing dirt in their eyes to distract them. Use your expertise to climb on tables, swing from chandeliers, or whatever stunts you can think of that your DM will let you do to get advantage on your attacks. At level 2, you get Cunning Action, which is the most Swashbuckler thing you could possibly do with your bonus action every round. Then you hit level 3 and you pick the Swashbuckler roguish archetype, and you start getting abilities that support this playstyle throughout the game.

[BRKNdevil]

What does Barbarian have to offer a Swashbuckler? Fighter seems iffy, sure you get the fighting style, but those aren't really needed for you to be a swashbuckler. Monk is even less necessary, as the Rogue's Cunning Action does the same thing (minus flurry) without using any resources.

You can be a swashbuckler from level 1 by just going Rogue. Grab a Rapier, or a Scimitar and a hand Crossbow, and you're basically set. Choose Acrobatics and Athletics as your Expertise skills. Sneak attack encourages you to use tricks to get the upper hand on your opponent, whether that's sneaking up and backstabbing someone or throwing dirt in their eyes to distract them. Use your expertise to climb on tables, swing from chandeliers, or whatever stunts you can think of that your DM will let you do to get advantage on your attacks. At level 2, you get Cunning Action, which is the most Swashbuckler thing you could possibly do with your bonus action every round. Then you hit level 3 and you pick the Swashbuckler roguish archetype, and you start getting abilities that support this playstyle throughout the game.

Barbarian because it gives you the Unarmored Defense, Fighter for the combination of fighting style, and Battlemaster for the alternative attack Flair, and cunning action only gets you the hide option, whose use can be easily negated depending on the situation and suits ranged characters more then melee. What you described wasn't a swashbuckler but the poorly trained throwaway character from an old pirate movie. A swashbuckler seems to have always been a lightly armored upfront and skilled fighter that seems to have originated in the period when a fencing sword was civilian legal. the Weapon choices prevent you from doing some of the more traditional fencing styles such as pairing a rapier and a dagger and if you decide to mention the use of the feat Two Weapon fighting. Then the use of such a pair becomes extremely subpar. Basically going rogue is fighting without flair and being a sneaky git as well, which doesn't really fit the image of a swashbuckler. In comparison to 3.5 character classes, your idea wouldn't fit there either.

[BRKNdevil]

Also the only reason i haven't made a Gunslinger Subclass is because their aren't any guns statted out for me to use. Otherwise Marksman would be gone and i'd have that there. However, if someone can link me to some gun stats that are generally considered balanced or good, send it to me please.

[Amnoriath]

Barbarian because it gives you the Unarmored Defense, Fighter for the combination of fighting style, and Battlemaster for the alternative attack Flair, and cunning action only gets you the hide option, whose use can be easily negated depending on the situation and suits ranged characters more then melee. What you described wasn't a swashbuckler but the poorly trained throwaway character from an old pirate movie. A swashbuckler seems to have always been a lightly armored upfront and skilled fighter that seems to have originated in the period when a fencing sword was civilian legal. the Weapon choices prevent you from doing some of the more traditional fencing styles such as pairing a rapier and a dagger and if you decide to mention the use of the feat Two Weapon fighting. Then the use of such a pair becomes extremely subpar. Basically going rogue is fighting without flair and being a sneaky git as well, which doesn't really fit the image of a swashbuckler. In comparison to 3.5 character classes, your idea wouldn't fit there either.

1. Actually Cunning Action allows the choice between Dash, Disengage, or Hide as a bonus action. Also, the rogue can be every bit of a quirky, snide character as this could as it just requires that he has advantage on the roll or if he "flanking". The question really is how.
2. While I have to disagree on the Barbarian comment from AgentPaper you still are doing a lot of splicing and I would also agree that why is he Macguyver. I do like that you relegated some of the other things as deeds but the dares still trouble me. I mean when you look at the Pathfinder Gunslinger remember how much grit he could have at one time? Like a little more than their wisdom modifier worth, here though you are still giving them a Monk ki pool with all sorts of additional regenerations.

[Amnoriath]

What does Barbarian have to offer a Swashbuckler? Fighter seems iffy, sure you get the fighting style, but those aren't really needed for you to be a swashbuckler. Monk is even less necessary, as the Rogue's Cunning Action does the same thing (minus flurry) without using any resources.

You can be a swashbuckler from level 1 by just going Rogue. Grab a Rapier, or a Scimitar and a hand Crossbow, and you're basically set. Choose Acrobatics and Athletics as your Expertise skills. Sneak attack encourages you to use tricks to get the upper hand on your opponent, whether that's sneaking up and backstabbing someone or throwing dirt in their eyes to distract them. Use your expertise to climb on tables, swing from chandeliers, or whatever stunts you can think of that your DM will let you do to get advantage on your attacks. At level 2, you get Cunning Action, which is the most Swashbuckler thing you could possibly do with your bonus action every round. Then you hit level 3 and you pick the Swashbuckler roguish archetype, and you start getting abilities that support this playstyle throughout the game.

I in effect said something like this before but he and many others want a full Swashbuckler class. At best you are just going to have him give up doing it so lets try to offer some specific critique.

[BRKNdevil]

1. Actually Cunning Action allows the choice between Dash, Disengage, or Hide as a bonus action. Also, the rogue can be every bit of a quirky, snide character as this could as it just requires that he has advantage on the roll or if he "flanking". The question really is how.
2. While I have to disagree on the Barbarian comment from AgentPaper you still are doing a lot of splicing and I would also agree that why is he Macguyver. I do like that you relegated some of the other things as deeds but the dares still trouble me. I mean when you look at the Pathfinder Gunslinger remember how much grit he could have at one time? Like a little more than their wisdom modifier worth, here though you are still giving them a Monk ki pool with all sorts of additional regenerations.

True, but that also ended up making the character damn near useless until they rested for the day or have them do some really random things through out the day.
Didn't notice the rogue extra features, probably missed it when i was speed reading.
The Grit point amount can be easily adjusted and I would like to hear to how much. Are you suggesting that it goes down to something like Bardic Inspiration amounts? Most of the features would be used about a round by round basis, something my Monk player has been pretty much doing and i felt that he got severely bored when he ran out of points. That's why I added the regeneration mechanics.
How should the Dares and Deeds be adjusted to maintain balance?

[Amnoriath]

True, but that also ended up making the character damn near useless until they rested for the day or have them do some really random things through out the day.
Didn't notice the rogue extra features, probably missed it when i was speed reading.
The Grit point amount can be easily adjusted and I would like to hear to how much. Are you suggesting that it goes down to something like Bardic Inspiration amounts? Most of the features would be used about a round by round basis, something my Monk player has been pretty much doing and i felt that he got severely bored when he ran out of points. That's why I added the regeneration mechanics.
How should the Dares and Deeds be adjusted to maintain balance?

1. Well, as it stands some of your deeds are worth 2 if not 3 Battle Master or Monk-type active abilities and you can have all of them including the dares. Now, I know you are looking for more but you may want to start with breaking some of them down to get more.
2. Well, is your Monk player of the Way of the Four Elements? Admittedly those are not very well designed and blast through ki like a kid with a bowl of candy. Yours though have significantly less cost to deal with and to the extent of at least half of what you have now. I also believe that maybe your dares maybe should offer some situational or momentary bonuses, because some players might not be tempted to take them if they are just another recharge mechanism.

[BRKNdevil]

1. Well, as it stands some of your deeds are worth 2 if not 3 Battle Master or Monk-type active abilities and you can have all of them including the dares. Now, I know you are looking for more but you may want to start with breaking some of them down to get more.
2. Well, is your Monk player of the Way of the Four Elements? Admittedly those are not very well designed and blast through ki like a kid with a bowl of candy. Yours though have significantly less cost to deal with and to the extent of at least half of what you have now. I also believe that maybe your dares maybe should offer some situational or momentary bonuses, because some players might not be tempted to take them if they are just another recharge mechanism.

1 which ones do you think should be broken down? the reason i grouped Utility, was because they didn't seem like that they had to many uses, and that they felt overall situational.
2 Nah, he went the shadow monk but that group is averaging at level 3, so in 3 rounds he is spent. Plus the only way i can get them interested in a fight is to go Deadly Encounters all the way.
3 I thought about that, but i just couldn't figure out what. I didn't want to use static sets of small bonuses, since that seems to be what they want to move away from so until i see what is being shown in the DMG i don't see any currently known small sets of static bonuses that aren't keyed off the Prof. Bonus.

[Amnoriath]

1 which ones do you think should be broken down? the reason i grouped Utility, was because they didn't seem like that they had to many uses, and that they felt overall situational.
2 Nah, he went the shadow monk but that group is averaging at level 3, so in 3 rounds he is spent. Plus the only way i can get them interested in a fight is to go Deadly Encounters all the way.
3 I thought about that, but i just couldn't figure out what. I didn't want to use static sets of small bonuses, since that seems to be what they want to move away from so until i see what is being shown in the DMG i don't see any currently known small sets of static bonuses that aren't keyed off the Prof. Bonus.
1. Trip and Disarm, as well as the Utility. If you are worried about the situational benefits than decrease their action cost or add a riding ability(an attack off Jump perhaps), though I think the Feign death option has a lot of uses, especially on those easily fooled or of low levels(spy on minions). Though once you would split trip and disarm I would add a riding ability on the trip, like maybe having advantage on the next attack regardless of their location. Disarm is actually fine as is, maybe include a little line on whether or not you can use said item if it was magical
2. Well, that was my second guess still at that level it is sort of expected. Those though do make good rogue splicing.
3. Well, lets use your Back from the Brink as an example you could for instance eliminate the need for a third successful death save. It is specific enough that it doesn't at all impugn on anyone else's ability(The Barbarian's is a constitution save and never allows them to fall unconscious) but it is still useful in that lucky sort of sense.

[BRKNdevil]

Ok, due to HW load, I haven't updated the word document but here are the ideas I currently have. Trip becomes its own separate thing with the added option to spend a bonus action or Reaction to make an additional attack on the downed foe.
I'm confused by what you mean on using it if its magical for disarm.
And I don't know if that option for Back from the Brink would be unbalanced or not and sort of wondering if AgentPaper will continue commenting or not.
I'm thinking Jump and Find Trap are too situational to separate, and Feign Death makes you Blind and Deaf so it can't really be used to spy so do you mean I should make it rather, like Feign Death but allow Hearing and/or Blindsight?

Also if they manage to release the Firearms from the Extra Life event. I'm so going to ditch Marksman, have it become Gunslinger, Because i find Gunslinger a natural evolution of Swashbuckler, and give it Gunsmiths Kit Proficiency, make up some price value around a blacksmiths kit and an alchemists kit. and some of the deeds that you can choose will address the deficiencies of old black-powder guns. such as breech loading as shown in this video.
http://youtu.be/NSyxpvIZXxY?t=3m26s

[BRKNdevil]

I updated the Class and it still needs more help. Duelist and the former marksman now Gunslinger needs revision. Added an iconic deed to both and it probably needs some work.
It is as close as i could figure to do it without it falling behind in ability.

[Amnoriath]

Trip becomes its own separate thing with the added option to spend a bonus action or Reaction to make an additional attack on the downed foe.
I'm confused by what you mean on using it if its magical for disarm.
And I don't know if that option for Back from the Brink would be unbalanced or not and sort of wondering if AgentPaper will continue commenting or not.
I'm thinking Jump and Find Trap are too situational to separate, and Feign Death makes you Blind and Deaf so it can't really be used to spy so do you mean I should make it rather, like Feign Death but allow Hearing and/or Blindsight?

Also if they manage to release the Firearms from the Extra Life event. I'm so going to ditch Marksman, have it become Gunslinger, Because i find Gunslinger a natural evolution of Swashbuckler, and give it Gunsmiths Kit Proficiency, make up some price value around a blacksmiths kit and an alchemists kit. and some of the deeds that you can choose will address the deficiencies of old black-powder guns. such as breech loading as shown in this video.
http://youtu.be/NSyxpvIZXxY?t=3m26s

1. Sounds good.
2. It means if you were to disarm and grab it could you use it or not?
3. Honestly, AgentPaper is very reserved and comes in with a lot of presumptions. The fact is all you are doing is giving a specific effect in which still requires that you are unconscious the only difference is that you act like you have saved on one roll already. The Dares sort of need this to actually compete with actively doing something.
4. Majorly increasing your jumping speed isn't all that situation. There could many obstacles too avoid and without increases at most you can only have is 20 while moving 10 feet before hand. Now, maybe a decrease in action is necessary. Yes, find traps may be more of a DM preference but may be this is where you could depart off Archetypes as one will be more mechanically inclined and other stylistic.
5. Who says they have to be deaf or even blind all the time? The classic trope in which this alludes to is that they are essentially acting. The question should be whether or not doing x in such situation while in this may become too obvious that you aren't dead.

[BRKNdevil]

1. Sounds good.
2. It means if you were to disarm and grab it could you use it or not?
3. Honestly, AgentPaper is very reserved and comes in with a lot of presumptions. The fact is all you are doing is giving a specific effect in which still requires that you are unconscious the only difference is that you act like you have saved on one roll already. The Dares sort of need this to actually compete with actively doing something.
4. Majorly increasing your jumping speed isn't all that situation. There could many obstacles too avoid and without increases at most you can only have is 20 while moving 10 feet before hand. Now, maybe a decrease in action is necessary. Yes, find traps may be more of a DM preference but may be this is where you could depart off Archetypes as one will be more mechanically inclined and other stylistic.
5. Who says they have to be deaf or even blind all the time? The classic trope in which this alludes to is that they are essentially acting. The question should be whether or not doing x in such situation while in this may become too obvious that you aren't dead.

2. So something like Trip, where they can spend a bonus action or reaction to attack with the weapon in hand/the weapon they just took?
3. oh, that's sad. I'd prefer more people to discuss this with since that gets me a greater variety of input. and on the second one... mm'kay i can see your point.
4. so make it a bonus action to cast? and i got confused reading the second bit.
5. So rather make it an action that is like Feign Death but with slightly different mechanics.

[Amnoriath]

2. So something like Trip, where they can spend a bonus action or reaction to attack with the weapon in hand/the weapon they just took?
3. oh, that's sad. I'd prefer more people to discuss this with since that gets me a greater variety of input. and on the second one... mm'kay i can see your point.
4. so make it a bonus action to cast? and i got confused reading the second bit.
5. So rather make it an action that is like Feign Death but with slightly different mechanics.

1. Well, no, since there are so many more things you could grab out of a person's hand it wouldn't be just another weapon. Obviously they could use a weapon but what about say a wand, potion, or such? The rules so far say that it takes an action to pick it up. I think to keep it line with its more broad things of objects to swipe I think it would be fair to allow a bonus action to automatically grab it.
2. Well, that is the simplest way to use it. Well, the real question here is finding traps really with in the swashbuckler flavor. At most I could see a Gunslinger have better mechanical know how to specifically search out such things but the ability doesn't strike me as more of a part of this character than many other mundane ones.
3. Correct, honestly this might be the most entertaining to see play out.:smallbiggrin:

[BRKNdevil]

As for the disarm, I just had it so it would be in the user's hand, not that he would get to use it in that same action, because i think that would be slightly unbalanced. and most potions and wands take an action.

Been getting help on multiple forums to help finish this up and have updated it slightly.

Currently thinking about gaining some cantrips, such as Vicious Mockery to add to a good reason to insult your foes, and various resistances to some status effects such as stunned, and frightened. As well as some effects like from the battlemaster that lets him determine the strength of an enemy and various minor roleplay effects such as having a reputation which would positively or negatively effect a situation.
All these things would be focused purely on the duelist archetype. I think the gunslinger path is good to go. emphasis on "I think"

[BRKNdevil]

Updated it with things in the duelist archetype and now it just needs review and playtesting. I would like volunteers to do it all tiers of play as shown in the player's handbook for and encounter based idea in multiple fields and tell me how it should be adjusted.
Would like multiple opinions.

[Argothair]

I would like to have a Swashbuckler class, and I think you've mixed together some very interesting ideas for building one. I especially like the "Dares and Deeds" mechanic, where taking actions from one list gives you the ability to take actions from a second list. That's very creative. However, there are a few things about the class that really bother me:

1) You're giving expertise (double proficiency in a couple of skills) and improvisation (half-proficiency on all other skills) to the same class. To me, those feel like they pull in opposite directions, both thematically and mechanically. Is a Swashbuckler someone who can make do with just about any set of tools, or is a Swashbuckler someone who learns how to use a particular set of tools really well? This class has so many different ways to gain a proficiency bonus or advantage on a roll that they start to blur and blend into each other -- when you want to do something with a DC of 20, the question is less "does this fit with my skill set?" and more "which rule do I need to invoke to make sure I get my bonus?"

2) You haven't fleshed out the Dare list, and the two examples you do have are kind of situational automatic recharges -- they're not actually things that you can or should choose to do voluntarily. If you're dying, it'd be crazy to encourage your teammates not to give you a healing potion so you can sit around rolling death checks just to recharge your Grit -- the extra round or two that you'd be sitting out incapacitated, even if you beat the death checks, would be more useful for your party than your extra Grit. And making two saves in a row is something you have almost no control over -- either your enemies are forcing you to roll saves, or they're not. The Dare list should be encouraging you to go out and take extra risks -- risks that are big enough to be dangerous, but not so big as to be insane. Also, you should get the benefit of the Dare whether you succeed or not -- e.g., instead of "pass two saves in a row," it could be "get attacked three times in the same round" or "end your turn in a position with no cover." You might get skewered, or you might dodge all the attacks, but either way, you've proved you have Grit.

3) The gunslinger subclass seems overpowered in any campaign where firearms are rare or unknown. If most factions have a few musketeers anyway, then the gunslinger is fine. But if the setting is closer to 8th-century Western Europe, then not only are you gaining access to unique / next-generation weapons technology, but you're also much better at using it than anyone else you'll ever meet. That seems like too strong of a benefit for a subclass. I'm not 100% sure how to fix this, but you could consider re-tooling the benefits so that they work roughly as well with crossbows as they do with firearms, and granting your choice of proficiency in crossbows or firearms. I would not have the subclass teach you how to manufacture your own weapons at all, and certainly not at Level 3.

Anyway, I encourage you to keep working on this. I think the class will be a lot of fun when you're done with it, and I look forward to seeing what you do with it. Good luck!

[BRKNdevil]

1) You're giving expertise (double proficiency in a couple of skills) and improvisation (half-proficiency on all other skills) to the same class. To me, those feel like they pull in opposite directions, both thematically and mechanically. Is a Swashbuckler someone who can make do with just about any set of tools, or is a Swashbuckler someone who learns how to use a particular set of tools really well? This class has so many different ways to gain a proficiency bonus or advantage on a roll that they start to blur and blend into each other -- when you want to do something with a DC of 20, the question is less "does this fit with my skill set?" and more "which rule do I need to invoke to make sure I get my bonus?"


meh, I figured it wouldn't be any worse then what the bard can do and it doesn't have full casting. I figured that a swashbuckler is someone who can do some things very well, a few things well and a smattering of other things that they picked up on the way.



2) You haven't fleshed out the Dare list, and the two examples you do have are kind of situational automatic recharges -- they're not actually things that you can or should choose to do voluntarily. If you're dying, it'd be crazy to encourage your teammates not to give you a healing potion so you can sit around rolling death checks just to recharge your Grit -- the extra round or two that you'd be sitting out incapacitated, even if you beat the death checks, would be more useful for your party than your extra Grit. And making two saves in a row is something you have almost no control over -- either your enemies are forcing you to roll saves, or they're not. The Dare list should be encouraging you to go out and take extra risks -- risks that are big enough to be dangerous, but not so big as to be insane. Also, you should get the benefit of the Dare whether you succeed or not -- e.g., instead of "pass two saves in a row," it could be "get attacked three times in the same round" or "end your turn in a position with no cover." You might get skewered, or you might dodge all the attacks, but either way, you've proved you have Grit.


What i meant by two saves in a row is not something that is arbitrarily separated by some unit of time. It is simply the player marking every time he has to make a save to mark whether or not they where successful or not and if two such saves happen to be successful in a row, then they get this effect. The other things are simply things that happen on an average game session, and thus aren't really that different from the usual so i didn't include it. I would like to hear your justification if possible since that would allow me to make a more in depth opinion over the matter.
Finally, I just didn't have enough ideas in the Dare range and would like some of everyone else.



3) The gunslinger subclass seems overpowered in any campaign where firearms are rare or unknown. If most factions have a few musketeers anyway, then the gunslinger is fine. But if the setting is closer to 8th-century Western Europe, then not only are you gaining access to unique / next-generation weapons technology, but you're also much better at using it than anyone else you'll ever meet. That seems like too strong of a benefit for a subclass. I'm not 100% sure how to fix this, but you could consider re-tooling the benefits so that they work roughly as well with crossbows as they do with firearms, and granting your choice of proficiency in crossbows or firearms. I would not have the subclass teach you how to manufacture your own weapons at all, and certainly not at Level 3.


I've never found D&D a century based sort of thing at all since a lot of it is mixed due to the lack of need for scientific advancement due to magic. Also, most of the abilities say a Ranged Weapon or Ranged attack and never specify a firearm, except for Pistolero for obvious reasons and some other situations where it also denotes crossbows. I don't find an issue of it teaching you how to make weapons considering that anyone with woodcarver's tools or smith's tools can also make their own weapons at level 1 and all the firearms are costly.