Swashbuckler: Rogue or Fighter?

[paladinn]

Hola all,

I've been pondering the nature of the "swashbuckler" character concept. Currently the SB is a Rogue subclass, which would seem to be appropriate given its reliance on speed, accuracy, mobility, evasiveness, "panache", and light weapons. Indeed, back in BECMI, there was a variant thief option called the Rake, which was basically a non-thieving thief with more of a dodge ability. That was it: the same HP and hit chances as any other thief.

Would/not a SB be better defined as a Dex-based Fighter sub? There are quite a few rogue class features that really don't lend themselves to the character concept IMO. And surely a SB would benefit from the greater HP, fighting styles, extra ASI/feats, etc.

Is there any reason to keep SB's as rogues? Has anyone developed a SB/fighter archetype?

Gratzi!

p.s. I'm ponder the same thing about the Scout subclass. Done right, a Scout/fighter could make a passable spell-less Ranger replacement.

[Sigreid]

Monk. Unarmored agile fighting style, check. Rapid attacks, check. Highly mobile, check. Flashy physical stunts that strain credulity, check. And simply by taking the kensi subclass, you can use your martial arts with the weapons you think best fit your character.

[paladinn]

Monk. Unarmored agile fighting style, check. Rapid attacks, check. Highly mobile, check. Flashy physical stunts that strain credulity, check. And simply by taking the kensi subclass, you can use your martial arts with the weapons you think best fit your character.

Not what I asked, and not quite the concept I'm going for. "Ki" isn't necessarily a swashbuckler thing.

[Sigreid]

Not what I asked, and not quite the concept I'm going for. "Ki" isn't necessarily a swashbuckler thing.

Just an idea I think is often overlooked.

[NontheistCleric]

Some of the subclass concepts for these classes could indeed work with either one. Swashbuckler is one of them. One might argue in the other direction as well, given that Rogues might do well to be able to use skilful maneuvers or shoot magic arrows.

In fact, Fighters might be better off than Rogues in this regard. At least when it comes to fighting ability, a Fighter can be built to do most of what a Swashbuckler Rogue can do, but a Rogue can't do most of what a Battle Master Fighter can do.

[Corran]

Hola all,

I've been pondering the nature of the "swashbuckler" character concept. Currently the SB is a Rogue subclass, which would seem to be appropriate given its reliance on speed, accuracy, mobility, evasiveness, "panache", and light weapons. Indeed, back in BECMI, there was a variant thief option called the Rake, which was basically a non-thieving thief with more of a dodge ability. That was it: the same HP and hit chances as any other thief.

Would/not a SB be better defined as a Dex-based Fighter sub? There are quite a few rogue class features that really don't lend themselves to the character concept IMO. And surely a SB would benefit from the greater HP, fighting styles, extra ASI/feats, etc.

Is there any reason to keep SB's as rogues? Has anyone developed a SB/fighter archetype?

Gratzi!

p.s. I'm ponder the same thing about the Scout subclass. Done right, a Scout/fighter could make a passable spell-less Ranger replacement.
If the swashbuckler is meant to be a more fight-y rogue, then I dont see why it wouldn't work as a more agile fighter (with some good uses for a high charisma). One issue I see is that there is not as much support for dex based melee fighters. If the subclass' features deal with that and/or we get more feat support for that playstyle, it could work nicely.

Scouts should probably go away entirely.

[strangebloke]

simple just take a few levels of battlemaster and a few levels of swashbuckler. Use the maneuvers that get you reaction attacks like riposte/brace etc. to get double sneak attack. (and ofc go for sentinel as well)

[paladinn]

simple just take a few levels of battlemaster and a few levels of swashbuckler. Use the maneuvers that get you reaction attacks like riposte/brace etc. to get double sneak attack. (and ofc go for sentinel as well)

Not a battlemaster fan in general. I don't think that many maneuvers lend themselves well to what I'm contemplating; but I may be wrong. And I'd rather not have to multiclass. I'd like to have a fighter subclass that would have most of the SB functionality while still having the fighter advantages. And I don't see sneak-attack as being as crucial as being able to attack often and precisely.

Also not looking to build a/nother missile fighter. Think of the Viper from GoT.

In older editions, it would be a slam-dunk to pick fighter over rogue, as there was a difference in hit-probability. In 5e, not so much. Which isn't a good thing, IMO.

[NontheistCleric]

Literally any Dex-based Fighter with the Mobile feat can do everything a Swashbuckler can in combat, and do it better, at least until Panache comes along. Still, that takes nine levels and is hardly emblematic of the general idea of a swashbuckler anyway. You don't even need to multiclass.

[paladinn]

Literally any Dex-based Fighter with the Mobile feat can do everything a Swashbuckler can in combat, and do it better, at least until Panache comes along. Still, that takes nine levels and is hardly emblematic of the general idea of a swashbuckler anyway. You don't even need to multiclass.

So what subclass would you recommend for this? Or am I still looking at creating a new one? I don't mind; I like to tinker.

There are a few roguish features like evasion and dodge that would be beneficial. Master Duelist might be cool too.

[solidork]

Not a battlemaster fan in general. I don't think that many maneuvers lend themselves well to what I'm contemplating; but I may be wrong.

Disarming Attack, Riposte and Commanding Presence seem like slam dunks for the archetypal swashbuckler to me.

What is it that you want from the Swashbuckler Rogue besides the name? What is it that you picture a Swashbuckler doing?

[Kane0]

One of those instances where it could fit on both, and the standardized subclass progression of onednd would allow it to be taken by either one depending on if you want a swashbuckler thats a bit sturdier and makes lots of attacks or a swashbuckler thats a bit more slippery and onle makes one chunky attack.

[NontheistCleric]

So what subclass would you recommend for this? Or am I still looking at creating a new one? I don't mind; I like to tinker.

There are a few roguish features like evasion and dodge that would be beneficial. Master Duelist might be cool too.

If you want Evasion, or something like it, pick up a Ring of Evasion or the Shield Master feat. If those don't fit your concept, just take the half damage. You have more HP than a Rogue anyway. Same with Uncanny Dodge. You don't need Master Duelist because you are already making more attacks than the Rogue, and unlike the Rogue, every one of your d20 rolls has the chance to result in its own damage.

As for subclass, almost anything will do. Battle Master for clever combat tactics, and some skill boosts depending on what maneuvers you pick. Champion to do all your athletic stunts, get defense style with your dueling, and just generally be a better fighter. Samurai for a bit of social stuff and to be a better better fighter than the Champion. Banneret for more social stuff and inspiring allies with your fancy moves, if not particularly well. Psi Warrior to pull off some really crazy stunts–and I guess you're also telekinetic. Pretend you're just lucky and the wind keeps blowing the right way. Or maybe you are telekinetic. No one said mutants can't swordfight. Eldritch Knight, Rune Knight and Echo Knight for the swashbuckler with the brains to pick up a little magic.

Really, only Arcane Archer and Cavalier don't fit, in my opinion (actually, Cavalier lets you replicate Panache somewhat, but the overall concept seems to be a mounted, Str-based tanky fighter, not quite the Swashbuckler ideal).

[LibraryOgre]

2e, both Thieves and Fighters had a Swashbuckler kit. I mean, both a Tiassa and Yendi might be a Swashbuckler, but they're going to swash them buckles a bit differently.

[Leon]

Why bother with classes if X should be Y ~ have a generic base class and tack on your choice of Subclasses to suit your idea/fantasy. Many good system out there that prob do that anyway but people persist in playing this mess called D&D

[animorte]

2e, both Thieves and Fighters had a Swashbuckler kit. I mean, both a Tiassa and Yendi might be a Swashbuckler, but they're going to swash them buckles a bit differently.
This was a prestige/subclass concept of secondary templates being smacked on top of whatever basic class you already have, each ending up with buckles being swashed noticeably different. I can't recall precisely where that originated, but I like it.

[Bosh]

Barbarian (possibly with a rogue dip, barbarians are so insanely frontloaded that they multiclass well with nearly everything which gives them incredible flexibility)

Highly mobile, great at swinging from chandeliers (advantage on atheletics from ranging), can get by without any armor if you have the right stats, can have a buckler to swash, get a bonus to speed and an even bigger one you're the right kind of totem barbarian, really easy to reflavor the Ancestral Guardian third level ability to you mocking enemies, and most importantly you can laugh in the face of danger and do stupidly risky stunts since you're stupidly hard to kill.

[Skrum]

I like swashbuckler as a rogue class because

1) I like subclasses being able to really change the flavor of a class. Bladesinger, college of swords or valor, the wild differences warlock patron/pact make, ALL of the artificer's subclasses; it's really cool when a subclass can almost make a class feel like a whole new class. My biggest complaint about the otherwise perfect paladin is that their subclasses are extremely similar.

2) I associated swashbuckling with the rogue archetype. Fighting with a rapier, swinging from ropes, balancing on....narrow bits of wood, basically the spar of a ship but it could be anything; that's all rogue-ish stuff. Not that fighters can't be dex-based of course, but the combination of movement, skills, and dex-based melee fighting screams rogue to me

All that said, it's utterly RIDICULOUS that the swashbuckler doesn't get extra attack. Bards have 2 subclasses that give extra attack. Wizards have a subclass that gives (super) extra attack. Artificers, another spellcasting class, have two subclasses with extra attack. But swashbuckler doesn't get it. Rogues should get it as a BASE FEATURE (and I will die on that hill), except not even their martial-focused subclass gets it. Absolutely outrageous.

[Kane0]

All that said, it's utterly RIDICULOUS that the swashbuckler doesn't get extra attack. Bards have 2 subclasses that give extra attack. Wizards have a subclass that gives (super) extra attack. Artificers, another spellcasting class, have two subclasses with extra attack. But swashbuckler doesn't get it. Rogues should get it as a BASE FEATURE (and I will die on that hill), except not even their martial-focused subclass gets it. Absolutely outrageous.

Because Rogue generally doesnt get much in the way of damage improvements from subclass, and they dont have a subclass level in the convenient 5-7 range to provide it. Best they get is level 9.
Buuuuut if we were to move to a universal 3, 6, 10, 14 subclass split for them...

[Trask]

As has already been said, I think a Battlemaster Fighter with Dexterity as his primary ability score makes a great swashbuckler. If you add on the Mobile or Defensive Duelist feat (or both) and the Noble or Entertainer background, even better.

[LibraryOgre]

This was a prestige/subclass concept of secondary templates being smacked on top of whatever basic class you already have, each ending up with buckles being swashed noticeably different. I can't recall precisely where that originated, but I like it.

I tend to view the 5e subclass system as being closest to the 2e kits... they are an overlay placed on a base class. This would be different than a prestige class, which is a completely separate class that can be developed or not as time goes on.

[False God]

Personally, I've always built my Swashbucklers as an MC Rogue/Battlemaster. So I don't have a good answer for which class should it fall under. I wouldn't mind a Stormwrack-style book where every class gets some sea-faring subclasses.

[Nerwen]

Hexblade warlock 1 level then swords bard.

Infinitely more powerful and can be played to the same flavor, just use all your powers being described as your swashbuckler fantasy. I really struggled with this. WOTC hates martials, simple math proves that. Deep hatred too. Any build to this ideal using martials will be woefully underpowered. Skirmishing is not a good fighting technique in DnD. The ideal needs mobility as defense and firepower. You need more than twice the movement of enemies to dart in and out reliably. There is no way to adequately and reliably boost your mobility enough. Maybe if you took a flying race for a safe refuge (up in this case). You do not have the protection when you inevitably get caught in melee and rogues don't get much HP support. You will be using your bonus actions and reactions to avoid damage rather than to do things. If all you do is react you die inevitably. Melee combat offers no advantage over ranged for the players but the monsters are almost always more powerful in melee. You NEED defenses and martials do not have adequate melee defenses in DnD compared to casters. The difficulty of your opponents are geared to overall party strength (hopefully), not the durability of the squishy martial so you will be facing monsters too strong for you. If you do the HexBard you will have phenomenal AC to make this viable. Remember any 'tanking' you want to do is always better with casters then martials. Sick but an overwhelming fact in DnD. Not only do you get AC with HexBard, you can really put out some good reliable damage (more than any rogue can). Any doubt about melee power of the HexBard? I ran a hypothetical generic Hexbard vs any barbarian. Ignoring the fact that the hexbard could just run away and spam eldritch blast which the barbar can not counter, in melee the barbarian has an edge only till the hexbard gets medium armor (they start with leather). After that (50 gp and a shoppe), it becomes close to impossible for the barbarian to win. By level 6 (level barbar has extra attack but hexblade doesn't) the barbar needs 3 nat 20s to defeat the bard while the bard needs 3 nat 9+. That is only using inspiration die and possibly lvl 1 spell slots for shield. Bard doesn't need resources over level 1 spells to be uber so you can save level 2+ spell slots for non-combat uses. You are not even acting like a caster in combat with this build.

[Trask]

Hexblade warlock 1 level then swords bard.

Infinitely more powerful and can be played to the same flavor, just use all your powers being described as your swashbuckler fantasy. I really struggled with this. WOTC hates martials, simple math proves that. Deep hatred too. Any build to this ideal using martials will be woefully underpowered. Skirmishing is not a good fighting style in DnD. You need more than twice the movement of enemies to dart in and out reliably. Maybe if you took a flying race for a safe refuge (up in this case). You do not have the protection when you inevitably get caught in melee and rogues don't get much HP support. You will be using your bonus actions and reactions to avoid damage rather than to do things. If all you do is react you die inevitably. Melee combat offers players no advantage over ranged but the monsters are almost always more powerful in melee. You NEED defenses and martials do not have adequate melee defenses in DnD compared to casters. the difficulty of your opponents are geared to overall party strength (hopefully), not the durability of the squishy martial. If you do the HexBard you will have phenomenal AC to make this viable. Remember any 'tanking' you want to do is always better with casters then martials. Sick but an overwhelming fact in DnD. Not only do you get AC with HexBard, you can really put out some good reliable damage (more than any rogue can). Any doubt about melee power of the HexBard? I ran a hypothetical generic Hexbard vs any barbarian. Ignoring the fact that the hexbard could just run away and spam eldritch blast which the barbar can not counter, the barbarian has an edge till the hexbard gets medium armor (they start with leather). After that (50 gp and a shoppe), it becomes close to impossible for the barbarian to win. By level 6 (level barbar has extra attack but hexblade doesn't) the barbar needs 3 nat 20s to defeat the bard while the bard needs 3 nat 9+. That is only using inspiration die and possibly lvl 1 spell slots for shield. Bard doesn't need resources over level 1 spells to be uber so you can save level 2+ spell slots for non-combat uses. You are not even acting like a caster in combat with this build.

The game isn't balanced around PvP and never has been. That said, you've made your point. Hexblade multiclasses are inordinately strong in 5e. That doesn't mean a Dex based Fighter is weak. The game isn't that challenging to begin with.

[Nerwen]

The game isn't balanced around PvP and never has been. That said, you've made your point. Hexblade multiclasses are inordinately strong in 5e. That doesn't mean a Dex based Fighter is weak. The game isn't that challenging to begin with.
PvP is just a demonstration how pitiful a barbar is. Saying the game is not designed around it does not invalidate that it is not really a one sided contest, it is no contest at all. IMO players are WAY too forgiving of the designers of this game.

You are correct that the HexBard being strong does not mean the rogue is weak. Being a martial in DnD means the rogue is weak. With the shield spell and armor being inclusive as opposed to exclusive, it is mathematically impossible for a martial to have the defenses of a caster in terms of AC if the caster expends any effort in that area. And it takes nearly no effort. In terms of other defenses (other damage types, saving throws etc.) the martials are effectively unarmed compared to casters. And the martials have no better damage, usually weaker. Mobility if anything worse (no spells or magic to help). And there is nothing any martial brings to the table to make up for these defects (except maybe the echo knight).

As for not being challenging, let me DM for you :smallcool:

[Trask]

As for not being challenging, let me DM for you :smallcool:

When do we start? It'd be a welcome change.

[strangebloke]

Psi Warrior can be really fun for a swashbuckler in that you get to leap all over the place.

[paladinn]

So we've gone from rogue vs fighter to barbarian/bard/warlock/psionic. How about arcana cleric? (sarcasm)

Thanks for the input

[Psyren]

You can call your Dex Fighter a "swashbuckler" just fine OP. Not sure what you're looking for.

Personally I think rogue got it because swashbucklers are as much known for being skilled rakes as they are combat.

[animorte]

I honestly think Rogue's basic features and mobility to ignore damage make them better (standard). It requires Fighter subclasses to match up (and often exceed), certainly not the other way around.

[Dork_Forge]

If you're looking to do a SB on a Fighter chassis, then some scattered thoughts:

- Dex primary with Cha sitting around at least a 14 with some Cha-based skill profs for the energy of a SB. Make sure Acrobatics and Athletics are taken for stunting
- Rapier + Dueling style, with some daggers on hand to toss around for flair and 'handling' multiple opponents (this isn't really necessary in D&D, but a common trope/style of SB-types fighting in fiction).
- Battlemaster taking: Disarming Attack, Evasive Footwork, Goading Attack, Feinting Attack, Parry, Riposte, Ambush, Commanding Presence, Quick Toss. You don't need all of them, these are just maneuvers I think all have a SB vibe to them. Grabbing Martial Adept really helps here, maybe also the Fighting Initiate feat for the Superior Technique style too.
- Mobile feat

V. Human would probably be best to help cover the skill profs and feat load this can potentially have, but a half-elf would be an excellent base too.

[Witty Username]

A brief note that I miss 3.5 prestige classes, precisely because classes could fit the same archetype but emphasize different things. like how the shadowdancer could fit well as a rogue or monk depending on what one wanted to take from the concept at the time. Or how the Duelist was accessible to all as a dex fighter with a specific set of skills.

But yeah, I agree with fighter could use a duelist subclass, in the same way rogue has swashbuckler. They could easily coexist without issue.

[da newt]

2wf / dual wielder would also be fitting.

You can definitely build a cool and effective swashbuckler using the rogue chassis and swashbuckler subclass (with or without a MC - season to taste), but you can also build them a number of different ways including but not limited to: BM fighter, most any DEXadin, pact of the blade warlock, most any ranger, kensai monks, sword/valor bard, bladesinger, etc. Between subclasses, races, MC, feats, fighting styles, etc you are only limited by your imagination and that's before you start homebrewing combos w/ your DM.

[Trask]

Psi Warrior can be really fun for a swashbuckler in that you get to leap all over the place.

Can concur. I'm playing a Dhampir Psi Warrior right now in a big and gloomy vampire city in the Shadowfell. Its truly quite awesome. I feel like a Swashbuckling Batman, like Grey Mouser with Shinobi training.

I can leap from the street to the rooftops in a single round, knock enemies prone despite having average Strength, which seems fitting for a fierce hero like a Swashbuckler. And being able to spend a Psi die to end Fear or Charm plays perfectly into the fearless character of the swashbuckling hero, not to mention it feels quite powerful.

I guess the downside would be that there's not much room left for Charisma, which feels like an iconic part of this kind of character. I play this character as dark and gloomy to avoid that, so not the typical laughing bravo type.

Also, I picked Blind Fighting (which helps me to feel like Batman) but I think Superior Technique would also be pretty good and more on brand for the Swashbuckler.

[Frogreaver]

I vote Rogue. Though the first 2 levels miss a bit of the flavor. Still all the combat stuff is baked in. Bonus action dash provides great tactical play.

Fighter is a great substitute. Maneuvers make great combat tricks. But rogues feel better out of combat and typically perform well in the damage comparison provided you twf.

Rogues are also surprisingly durable between uncanny dodge, evasion and high mobility.

[Slipjig]

This was a prestige/subclass concept of secondary templates being smacked on top of whatever basic class you already have, each ending up with buckles being swashed noticeably different. I can't recall precisely where that originated, but I like it.
They were in the "Complete [Class] Handbook" series. I don't remember the exact wording, but they specified that Fighter Swashbucklers were probably mostly focused on poking other people with their rapiers (a la The Three Musketeers), while Thief Swashbucklers were more likely to be engaged in over-the-top acrobatics and escapes (a la Zorro).

[KorvinStarmast]

Psi Warrior can be really fun for a swashbuckler in that you get to leap all over the place. I had not considered that, but then, Psi Warrior isn't something I've played.

They were in the "Complete [Class] Handbook" series. I don't remember the exact wording, but they specified that Fighter Swashbucklers were probably mostly focused on poking other people with their rapiers (a la The Three Musketeers), while Thief Swashbucklers were more likely to be engaged in over-the-top acrobatics and escapes (a la Zorro). That rings a bell.

[paladinn]

They were in the "Complete [Class] Handbook" series. I don't remember the exact wording, but they specified that Fighter Swashbucklers were probably mostly focused on poking other people with their rapiers (a la The Three Musketeers), while Thief Swashbucklers were more likely to be engaged in over-the-top acrobatics and escapes (a la Zorro).

So I guess when it comes to swashbucklers, do you want poking or non-poking?

[LibraryOgre]

Complete Handbook Swashbucklers:

Thief: Disarm special manuever, +2 to reaction rolls
Fighter: Can choose rogue proficiencies without penalty, -2 to AC when lightly armored (none, leather, padded), +2 to reaction rolls
Skills and Powers: -2 to AC when lightly armored (up to studded leather), +2 to reaction rolls.

As I said above, a Dex-based Battlemaster is a good swashbuckler, and I can see it as a subclass for rogues or bards.

[AdAstra]

Battlemaster/Swashbuckler multiclass really feels to me like the ultimate expression of swashbuckling stuff. Plenty of other ways to do it though.

Maneuvers like Riposte, Disarming Strike, etc are very thematic, while Swashbuckler and Rogue in general allow you good mobility and a nice chunk of extra damage that's quite accurate due to getting two chances or more to land it. Expertise and skills allow you to feel cooler outside of combat. Uncanny Dodge alongside Riposte allows you to feel like you have a good response to an opposing attacker, hit or miss.