DM ruling on Swashbuckler

[Consensus]

I'm a pretty new player with a new DM who has had experience in 3.5/pathfinder and I was considering playing a swashbuckler. (I'm guessing) due to the dueling themes of the subclass and my character he said that I wouldn't be able to benefit from normal flanking sneak attack, only from the sneak attack that the swashbuckler gives you, would this make the swashbuckler not worth playing, or not change that much?

[Misterwhisper]

I'm a pretty new player with a new DM who has had experience in 3.5/pathfinder and I was considering playing a swashbuckler. (I'm guessing) due to the dueling themes of the subclass and my character he said that I wouldn't be able to benefit from normal flanking sneak attack, only from the sneak attack that the swashbuckler gives you, would this make the swashbuckler not worth playing, or not change that much?

Yes it hurts a lot.

You could never attack from ranged, and it would actively hurt you to work with the team.

You would also have to take all the hits yourself.

If those are his rules, do not play a rogue.

[Rysto]

Sneak Attack is your primary source of damage. Without it, you're useless in combat. Taking away Sneak Attack when an ally is adjacent to your target is a horrendous, unplayable nerf. Personally I'd be wary of playing a game under a DM with so little knowledge of the balance of the game.

[Spiderguy24]

Depends on what your DM decides to houserule. RAW make it where you can sneak attack an enemy within melee range as long as his ally isn't within 5 feet of him. Basically you wouldn't get the sneak attack on a lone enemy from range if your ally isn't near them. But you're a swashbuckler, you're made to charge in, dance around the enemy, and taunt them while stabbing them over and over. :P

[Consensus]

Personally I'd be wary of playing a game under a DM with so little knowledge of the balance of the game.

Eh, there's not very good d&d community where I live, at least people my age (highschool) and he's a friend and besides his house rules he's a good dm. He just doesn't have a very good idea of 5e balance :smallannoyed:

[Consensus]

Depends on what your DM decides to houserule. RAW make it where you can sneak attack an enemy within melee range as long as his ally isn't within 5 feet of him. Basically you wouldn't get the sneak attack on a lone enemy from range if your ally isn't near them. But you're a swashbuckler, you're made to charge in, dance around the enemy, and taunt them while stabbing them over and over. :P

That is mainly what I was planning on doing, but I feel that I would be arbitrarily separated from the party more than I like, considering I'd be no tank

[Spiderguy24]

That is mainly what I was planning on doing, but I feel that I would be arbitrarily separated from the party more than I like, considering I'd be no tank

Not really. You just have to make sure that you're only fighting one guy at a time, or you're near an ally that's fighting an enemy to get the sneak attack.

[Ruslan]

Eh, there's not very good d&d community where I live, at least people my age (highschool) and he's a friend and besides his house rules he's a good dm. He just doesn't have a very good idea of 5e balance :smallannoyed:
Play a Moon Druid then.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Just find a better GM. Thisone's likely to keep coming up with bad house rules and screwing things up for you.

[Edgerunner]

Dancing around the edge of melee combat and practically ignoring Attacks of Opportunity are what the Swash Excels at.

Yea loosing the Rogues natural SA is a tad rough but you should not be gimped to badly. Just make sure the DM allows you to use the Sneak Attack that is provided by the Swashbuckler Sub-Class. As long as no one is within 5' of your Target... you get the SA right there, and since the swash is made for Two weapon fighting you can attack one opponent along with your Tanks and then take a hand crossbow shot at the enemy over there by themselves with SA.

[Hairfish]

Eh, there's not very good d&d community where I live, at least people my age (highschool) and he's a friend and besides his house rules he's a good dm. He just doesn't have a very good idea of 5e balance :smallannoyed:

Not gaming is better than bad gaming. Don't kid yourself; making up "house rules" that gimp abilities that the class expressly gets, particularly when it's a martial class (which are already underpowered compared to caster classes) is precisely what makes a bad DM.

[Consensus]

Play a Moon Druid then.
Why moon druid? I know what it does, but why do that with a dm with a bad idea of balancing


then take a hand crossbow shot at the enemy over there by themselves with SA.
swashbuckerSA is limited to melee attacks, and besides, I'm not really going optimized here and so would be using just a rapier to stay to the idea I had for he character, I just made the thread to tell if I'd be putting in enough damage for it to be enjoyable

[Misterwhisper]

Why moon druid? I know what it does, but why do that with a dm with a bad idea of balancing


swashbuckerSA is limited to melee attacks, and besides, I'm not really going optimized here and so would be using just a rapier to stay to the idea I had for he character, I just made the thread to tell if I'd be putting in enough damage for it to be enjoyable

It depends on how long the game goes. Up to level 5 or so you will be fine, past that it is all down hill combat wise.

I played a Swashbuckler from level 1 to level 14, past level 10 or so I just started looting or picking locks, or stealing things while everyone else handled combat because my damage was so horrible it never made a difference.

It got to the point where I did not even bother rolling initiative, I would just tell the DM I was going to steal things around the room and loot the bodies when the group killed them to save time.

[Bahamut7]

I would stick to the guns and insist that you should benefit from SA of both kinds (didn't know there was a difference) and call the DM out on trying to nerf your class. If they insist, play a Monk, they are awesome and don't require anything from the DM.

[Veniur]

I think it absolutely makes it unplayable because what happens when you go to fight a boss with no minions? No sneak attack for the entire encounter. That basically makes you do as much damage as a wizard in close combat hitting with a quarterstaff (without BB or GFB)

[Puh Laden]

Now does he mean no sneak attack from having advantage either in addition to no sneak attack from having an ally within 5ft (while not having disadvantage)? Or was there perhaps a miscommunication and he meant that he wouldn't be using the variant flanking rules that give advantage?

If it is what everyone thinks it is maybe ask if he thinks an arcane trickster shouldn't get sneak attack from adjacent allies either.

[Consensus]

Now does he mean no sneak attack from having advantage either in addition to no sneak attack from having an ally within 5ft (while not having disadvantage)? Or was there perhaps a miscommunication and he meant that he wouldn't be using the variant flanking rules that give advantage?

If it is what everyone thinks it is maybe ask if he thinks an arcane trickster shouldn't get sneak attack from adjacent allies either.

no sneak from flank, I assume advantage is still fine

[Tanarii]

no sneak from flank, I assume advantage is still fine
The reason for the question is there is no sneak attack from flank in 5e, unless he's using the optional flanking rule from the DMG.

There is sneak attack if an enemy of your target (not necessarily your ally) is within 5ft of your target. Or it's incapacitated. Or you have advantage.

If he's using the optional flanking rule, you gat advantage from that, so if advantage still gives a sneak attack, then you get it from the optional flanking rule because of the advantage it provides anyway.

So clarification is needed.

[Matrix_Walker]

I'm a pretty new player with a new DM who has had experience in 3.5/pathfinder and I was considering playing a swashbuckler. (I'm guessing) due to the dueling themes of the subclass and my character he said that I wouldn't be able to benefit from normal flanking sneak attack, only from the sneak attack that the swashbuckler gives you, would this make the swashbuckler not worth playing, or not change that much?

You guessed incorrectly! Normal SA usage still applies.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/776800469041582080

But if the GM insists on using just one as a houserule... I would rethink the subclass.

[Consensus]

The reason for the question is there is no sneak attack from flank in 5e, unless he's using the optional flanking rule from the DMG.

There is sneak attack if an enemy of your target (not necessarily your ally) is within 5ft of your target. Or it's incapacitated. Or you have advantage.

If he's using the optional flanking rule, you gat advantage from that, so if advantage still gives a sneak attack, then you get it from the optional flanking rule because of the advantage it provides anyway.

So clarification is needed.
I believe he hasn't read the DMG, I believe I know the rules better than him, or at least i think so from the rules lawyering I do in sessions

[Theodoxus]

I would not play a swashbuckler in this instance. You'd essentially be relegating every round to BA Disengage as the rest of your allies moved in to engage.

Given that, I'd probably go Thief instead.

However, one possible silver lining would be MCing into Paladin. Then you can tank your own group, using Smites when SA isn't granted and SA otherwise to save slots. Charisma is a huge boost to both swash and pally... Ancients provides a lot of group benefit - not as much as if you could SA when standing next to your buds, but...

Would it be possible to just drop the SA portion of Rakish Audacity and just stick with the regular SA? I'd much rather be able to gang up with my friends rather than only be able to lone wolf it all the time... Still leaves Fancy Footwork and the Cha bonus to Initiative...

[Matrix_Walker]

... would this make the swashbuckler not worth playing, or not change that much?

It would be a very big difference, and you would have an inferior sneak attack to other rogues in an archetype designed to have an enhanced version. It's like saying you have darkvision, so you can no longer see in the light.

I would not touch this archetype if the GM ruled this way.

[JackPhoenix]

Depends on what your DM decides to houserule. RAW make it where you can sneak attack an enemy within melee range as long as his ally isn't within 5 feet of him. Basically you wouldn't get the sneak attack on a lone enemy from range if your ally isn't near them. But you're a swashbuckler, you're made to charge in, dance around the enemy, and taunt them while stabbing them over and over. :P

This is actually wrong. It doesn't matter who's in 5' to your target as long as nobody besides your target stands in 5 feet of YOU.

Edit: also, nowhere it states that Swashbuckler's Sneak Attack only work in melee. And there's the ending part...


In addition, you don't need advantage on your attack roll to use your Sneak Attack if no creature other than your target is within 5 feet of you. All the other rules for the Sneak Attack class feature still apply to you.

[Spiderguy24]

This is actually wrong. It doesn't matter who's in 5' to your target as long as nobody besides your target stands in 5 feet of YOU.

Edit: also, nowhere it states that Swashbuckler's Sneak Attack only work in melee. And there's the ending part...

I misspoke that. Yes, you are right and it's what I tried to say. It's a ruling that I find a lot of people to be very confused about.

[MadBear]

If he's a friend and you like him, I 100% recommend ignoring the people who are saying to find a better DM (at least until you've game'd with him long enough to decide how much you like gaming with him yourself).

If I was you I'd ask him a two things:

1. Why are you taking away the normal SA method?

Don't be adversarial about it, and just see what his reasoning is. Maybe he has a genuine concern that is making him do this.

(2.a) assuming he gives a reason, that's flawed in some way, ask him

"Are you willing to change your opinion if you provided a good reason for not implementing this house rule."

(2.b) assuming he gives a great reason, maybe you'll agree with his point of view. I doubt it, but you never know.

For example.

DM: I'm just worried that this will lead to a scenario where you are getting SA every single turn no matter what. Combined with a d8 weapon and high Dex mod, you'll be doing far more damage then anyone else at no cost.

Player: Would you change your mind if I showed you that my damage wouldn't be higher then everyone else?

DM: Yes

Player: Here's Kryx's DPR chart over how much damage other classes are doing per level. (you can even print out a fancy graph, which will show, even with SA every round the Swashbuckler isn't going to outshine the other players)

Or:

(DM: no)
(Player: ok, I'll play something else then)

The key here is to find out why the DM's doing this, and see if he'd be willing to change his mind. Who knows, maybe he has a really good reason that no one else knows about (unlikely, but if you don't find that out, you'll never know).

Also, it's important to ask him the second question before providing him evidence. First, you get to save time if he won't change his mind in the first place. Second, it gets him to commit to changing his mind in the face of evidence.

[Consensus]

This is actually wrong. It doesn't matter who's in 5' to your target as long as nobody besides your target stands in 5 feet of YOU.

Edit: also, nowhere it states that Swashbuckler's Sneak Attack only work in melee. And there's the ending part...

See I didn't know the archetype was in the SCAG, I've been using the UA version as I don't have acess to the SCAG currenty.It the UA it says:

Toujours l’Audace
....
In addition, you can use Sneak Attack with any
melee attack made against a target that has none
of your allies adjacent to it.


no sneak attack from flank in 5

Sorry, by saying flank I mean the ally within 5 ft of target rule that allows SA


Now does he mean no sneak attack from having advantage either in addition to no sneak attack from having an ally within 5ft (while not having disadvantage)? Or was there perhaps a miscommunication and he meant that he wouldn't be using the variant flanking rules that give advantage?

The above explantion applies. I believe having an advantage would still get SA. And I'm pretty sure it's not a miscommunication, he's very zealous with house rules that "balance" things for thematic reasons.


If he's a friend and you like him, I 100% recommend ignoring the people who are saying to find a better DM (at least until you've game'd with him long enough to decide how much you like gaming with him yourself).


I believe I'll take this course of action.

I'm pretty sure I just won't play a swashbuckler, and as I'm new myself I don't have the best idea of how class damage scales so I may not be the best candidate to make the argument about how the damage scales well, thanks for all the replies, guys

[djreynolds]

Will he allow you to sneak attack with advantage?

Shield master and rogue is devastating

What I mean is, along as you have advantage from hiding or the enemy on his back, you can sneak attack.... regardless of a buddy or multiple baddies

[Cazero]

Your DM seems to think that the swashbuckler fluff doesn't fit the rogue class and is trying to fix this.
He's doing it wrong. He should be proposing a swashbuckler subclass for the fighter.