Daring Outlaw

[Fisticuffs]

I'm starting in a friend's campaign and was milling through afew ideas but ended up wanting to play a Swashbuckler idea I had awhile ago for a campaign that never got off the ground.

I think I'm going 1 Swashbuckler/1 Rogue/2 Swashbuckler/3 Swashbuckler/1 Hit-and-Run SA Fighter

I thinking I'm going to play a Stronghold Halfling and my feats will be:
1st TWF, ?(Racial), Weapon Finesse(Swash bonus)
3rd Craven
6th Daring Outlaw

Now my question is, assuming I end up our front-line fighter, is Invisible Blade worth going into at that point knowing that my DM will let the Prereq feats be changed to TWF, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus(dagger, kukri, punching dagger) and that he would put no restrictions on the feinting? On one hand it would greatly increase my potential for damage but on the other hand going from d10's, assuming I stayed the coarse of SB, to the Blade's d6's has me nervous plus it almost seems a waste of Daring Outlaw. And if it's not what would be a better option for the feat slot I would be using up on a Weapon Focus.

[gbprime]

If you're going Daring Outlaw in the build, stick with Swash or Rogue. The bonus sneak attack dice are too nice. Perhaps throw in Combat Reflexes later so you can get Vexing and Adaptive Flanker, allowing you to flank from any square instead of just the opposite one. And keeping your BAB as high as possible allows you to get Robilar's Gambit that much faster, which is even MORE flanking stabby death.

[Jallorn]

I just want you to be aware that Swashbuckler is even worse balance-wise than the normal fighter. I've made what I feel is a pretty good fix if you're open to homebrew. Check it out through my sig.

[gbprime]

I just want you to be aware that Swashbuckler is even worse balance-wise than the normal fighter.

One does not become a Swashbuckler for the efficiency. One becomes a Swashbuckler for the panache.

[Mongoose87]

Isn't Daring Outlaw + Craven generally considered the fix that makes Swash playable?

[the humanity]

as somebody currently playing a daring outlaw into invisible blade, it is a character that works best in a party of up front combatants early levels, giving you the niche of being good at maneuvering around tunnels filled with caltrops and the like.
later levels, going through attack phases is going to be like playing a duskblade- heavy fighting yes but if you can't kill it in one turn you need to run back into hiding.

regardless, invisible blade is a great class for it, especially if you are changing the feat requirements.

[AtwasAwamps]

If you suspect that you will be the frontliner, have you considered ditching rogue entirely?

The Sneak Attack Fighter variant will give you 2d6 SA by level 3, just as a rogue, and it will keep you with full BAB and d10 hitdice the whole way through. Since Daring Outlaw doesn’t actually require rogue levels, just the SA ability, you qualify for it with your swashbuckler levels…and if you want to be very sneaky, you can point out that only your swasbuckler levels count towards sneak attack progression, since you don’t have rogue levels to stack…thus, instead of being at level six with 3d6 SA from your stacked rogue/swashbuckler levels, you’d have 4d6 – 2d6 from three levels of SA Fighter and 2d6 from three levels of Daring Outlaw. Sneaky, but not that powerful in the long run. Still fun to have =P

If Tome of battle is allowed, I’d recommend a two level dip into swordsage, to net you some nice stances and maneuvers that would functionally replace invisible blade’s class features without forcing you into any particular feats, as well as actually providing weapon focus for your invisible blade progression should you choose to. Two levels nets you a handful of great stances, wis to AC in light armor, and the ability to take a feat that lets you get your Dex to damage instead of strength, letting you actually effectively dump strength.

Heck, if you want to get crazy, take invisible blade levels AFTER that. You’re going to end up a frontliner anyways, so might as well get Dex, Int, and Wis to AC for the hell of it. You may have to ditch light armor for that, so check with your DM about swordsage’s Wis to AC bonus and switch to unarmed swordsage variant if he won’t let it count in no armor without that switch. It doesn’t harm anything in the long run.

If you don’t go SS, then hopping straight into invisible blade is still fine. By choosing SA Fighter instead of rogue, you do lose out on some really neat class features, but you do keep near full BAB and have a few extra HP, which can help at lower levels.

[true_shinken]

One does not become a Swashbuckler for the efficiency. One becomes a Swashbuckler for the panache.

Oh, god. Now you are going to have to hear two thousand people telling you to refluff a wizard into a swashbuckler because fluff is mutable and classes are metagame concepts.

[gbprime]

If you suspect that you will be the frontliner, have you considered ditching rogue entirely?

The Sneak Attack Fighter variant will give you 2d6 SA by level 3, just as a rogue, and it will keep you with full BAB and d10 hitdice the whole way through. Since Daring Outlaw doesn’t actually require rogue levels, just the SA ability, you qualify for it with your swashbuckler levels…and if you want to be very sneaky, you can point out that only your swasbuckler levels count towards sneak attack progression, since you don’t have rogue levels to stack…thus, instead of being at level six with 3d6 SA from your stacked rogue/swashbuckler levels, you’d have 4d6 – 2d6 from three levels of SA Fighter and 2d6 from three levels of Daring Outlaw. Sneaky, but not that powerful in the long run. Still fun to have =P

The sneak attack fighter variant is useful for some things, yes. But in this case, I often think that 1 BAB and a few HP are a worthwhile trade off for the extra skill points and Evasion.

Neat trick, though.

[AtwasAwamps]

The sneak attack fighter variant is useful for some things, yes. But in this case, I often think that 1 BAB and a few HP are a worthwhile trade off for the extra skill points and Evasion.

Neat trick, though.

Agree, in the long run. It was just another option to craft a more front-line capable character at an early level.

[Fisticuffs]

1 Swashbuckler/1 Rogue/2 Swashbuckler/3 Swashbuckler/1 Hit-and-Run SA Fighter

I already had 1 level of Hit-and-Run SA Fighter in the build(it gets 2d6 at second, not third, and it's not very good with SB unless you take the Hit-and-Run alternate class feature from Drow of the Underdark), I kept the one level of Rogue for the skills, I forgot to mention that we house rule if a skill has ever been a class skill it remains a class skill for any other classes you go into. ToB is frowned upon but not really banned, so if I can get it approved, I'm thinking I might instead go:

1 Sword Sage(Shadow Hand)/1 Swashbuckler/1 Hit-and-Run SA Fighter/2 Swashbuckler/3 Swashbuckler/2 Hit-and-Run SA Fighter/1 Invisible Blade/2 Sword Sage/2-5 Invisible Blade

1st TWF, Shadow Blade, Weapon Focus(SS Bonus)
2nd Weapon Finesse(Swash bonus)
3rd Craven
6th Daring Outlaw
9th ?

[Greenish]

I already had 1 level of Hit-and-Run SA Fighter in the build(it gets 2d6 at second, not third,

SA Fighter gains SA just like a rogue, so 1d6 on 1st level, 2d6 on 3rd level and so on.

[Edit]: And Swordsage doesn't actually give Weapon Focus as the feat, but most DMs will probably allow it to work like that.

[Fisticuffs]

SA Fighter gains SA just like a rogue, so 1d6 on 1st level, 2d6 on 3rd level and so on.

My mistake, I remember them getting a d6 every level they would have gotten a feat, oops, my apologies.

[Curmudgeon]

My mistake, I remember them getting a d6 every level they would have gotten a feat, oops, my apologies.

No, it's a swap of one entire class feature for another, not a per-level substitution.

[gorfnab]

How about this (though not necessarily in this order):
Sneak Attack Fighter 3/ Swashbuckler 3/ Feat Rogue 14
With the feat Daring Outlaw this nets you 16 BAB, 11d6 sneak attack, and 8 bonus fighter feats.

If you do go Invisible Blade take a look at the feat Surprising Riposte from Drow of the Underdark and the skill tricks Group Fake-Out and Timely Misdirection from Complete Scoundrel.

[Curmudgeon]

How about this (though not necessarily in this order):
Sneak Attack Fighter 3/ Swashbuckler 3/ Feat Rogue 14
With the feat Daring Outlaw this nets you 16 BAB, 11d6 sneak attack, and 8 bonus fighter feats.

What amount of sneak attack you get depends on how your DM reads things, but it's never as high as that. You forgot to factor in the D&D stacking limits.

Sneak attack Fighter gets "Sneak attack (as Rogue)". The Rogue Sneak Attack class feature doesn't have any language allowing that to stack with any other sneak attack (including itself ─ note that each new sneak attack value in the class table is a complete replacement), so it only stacks if some other source says so. Daring Outlaw only allows Swashbuckler and Rogue levels to stack for sneak attack, and has no language permitting that total to stack with any other source. So the best you could hope for is the better of 2d6 and 9d6 sneak attack.

Now, many DMs would insist that there's no sneak attack in the combination of Swashbuckler + feat Rogue at all and thus Daring Outlaw provides no sneak attack improvement. So you'd get only 2d6 sneak attack total, but the full Grace as if you were a level 17 Swashbuckler. Or you could get a DM who says only straight Rogue is referenced in the feat, and you get no benefit at all with a variant.

[Tytalus]

I think I'm going 1 Swashbuckler/1 Rogue/2 Swashbuckler/3 Swashbuckler/1 Hit-and-Run SA Fighter

If you go Rogue1/Swash1 instead of Swash1/Rogue1, you gain 12 skill points for the price of 2 measly HP (on average).

Also, you get to spend your massive 1st-level skill points on a larger list of useful skills, including Use Magic Device.

[Urpriest]

If you go Rogue1/Swash1 instead of Swash1/Rogue1, you gain 12 skill points for the price of 2 measly HP (on average).

Also, you get to spend your massive 1st-level skill points on a larger list of useful skills, including Use Magic Device.

Yes, but if you start as such a character then you lack Weapon Finesse and thus in order to hit anything in melee at first level you lower the points you can spend on more valuable ability scores.

[Quietus]

What amount of sneak attack you get depends on how your DM reads things, but it's never as high as that. You forgot to factor in the D&D stacking limits.

Sneak attack Fighter gets "Sneak attack (as Rogue)". The Rogue Sneak Attack class feature doesn't have any language allowing that to stack with any other sneak attack (including itself ─ note that each new sneak attack value in the class table is a complete replacement), so it only stacks if some other source says so. Daring Outlaw only allows Swashbuckler and Rogue levels to stack for sneak attack, and has no language permitting that total to stack with any other source. So the best you could hope for is the better of 2d6 and 9d6 sneak attack.

Now, many DMs would insist that there's no sneak attack in the combination of Swashbuckler + feat Rogue at all and thus Daring Outlaw provides no sneak attack improvement. So you'd get only 2d6 sneak attack total, but the full Grace as if you were a level 17 Swashbuckler. Or you could get a DM who says only straight Rogue is referenced in the feat, and you get no benefit at all with a variant.

Are you really suggesting that all the sneaky monsters out there that have sneak attack, advance by character level, and have rogue as their favored class don't actually get to increase their sneak attack until their Rogue levels are more than twice their sneak attack dice from their racial abilities?

[Tytalus]

Yes, but if you start as such a character then you lack Weapon Finesse and thus in order to hit anything in melee at first level you lower the points you can spend on more valuable ability scores.

Of course, as a level 1 character with light armor you are much better off using ranged weapons anyway until you can actually take a good hit from level-appropriate opponents (see orcs, for instance).

[quiet1mi]

Oh, god. Now you are going to have to hear two thousand people telling you to refluff a wizard into a swashbuckler because fluff is mutable and classes are metagame concepts.

Should I mention that you can get spell like abilities as a ACF. (complete mage or arcane)

Sorry to butt in but what book is craven from? I look forward to making a NPC that is a Swashbuckler 3/ Rogue 3, for my level 6 Tome of battle Campaign.

1st: TWF
3rd: Craven
6th: Daring outlaw

I am still messing with what race the NPC would be... I am limiting the players to PHB races only....

[Curmudgeon]

Are you really suggesting that all the sneaky monsters out there that have sneak attack, advance by character level, and have rogue as their favored class don't actually get to increase their sneak attack until their Rogue levels are more than twice their sneak attack dice from their racial abilities?

I'm not suggesting anything; I'm stating that the D&D stacking rules apply unless there are exceptions given. For "all the sneaky monsters out there that have sneak attack, advance by character level, and have rogue as their favored class" the designers need to have put in a note like the following:

Sneak Attack: This is exactly like the rogue ability of the same name. The extra damage dealt increases by +1d6 every other level (2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, and 10th). If an arcane trickster gets a sneak attack bonus from another source the bonuses on damage stack.

Sneak Attack: This ability, gained at 4th level, is like the rogue ability of the same name. The extra damage increases by +1d6 every third level beyond 4th (7th and 10th). If a blackguard gets a sneak attack bonus from another source the bonuses on damage stack.

The Monster Manual III Errata added a note that gives the Naztharune Rakshasa sneak attack as if all their HD were Rogue levels, so that's "fixed" (in an overly generous manner, because if they take some other class that has sneak attack with a stacking note they'll get even more ). I only know of one remaining creature in all the MMs that has a problem in this regard. (That's pretty good considering the average error rate in monster writeups.)

[Quietus]

Fiend Folio is missing that statement from at least one - The Cuprilach (a variety of Rilmani) gains sneak attack with no "bonus stacks with" clause. Though perhaps since it gives HD-based advancement rather than character class, this might be a poor indicator.

Dark Ones, from the same book, have a similar thing. They gain sneak attack dice, but gives no "bonus" wording. The smaller of the two, "Dark Creeper", has only one HD, but LA +3. All it gains for that is some favorable stat bonuses, 1 natural armor, blindsight, a poorly-worded darkness ability, plus sneak attack and evasion. Given that their favored class is Rogue and they start out with +3 LA, I still think that's absolutely ridiculous that by the time they reach level 6, they'd have basically overwritten the racial traits that made them favor Rogue levels in the first place.

::Edit:: You can add Vulvitors, a particular type of Canomorph, to the list, with the same issues as Dark Ones, except in this case they start out as 7th level characters (3 HD, 4 LA), with 5d6 sneak attack - meaning they wouldn't even see an increase in their sneak attack dice until Rogue level 11.

[jiriku]

That's silly. The obvious intent of the game is that sneak attack gained from all sources stacks. The only reason that there's no statement pointing out that sneak attack gained from multiple base classes stacks is because the game doesn't have multiple base classes that grant sneak attack (and no, thumbnail descriptions of possible class variants don't count).

[Curmudgeon]

The obvious intent of the game is that sneak attack gained from all sources stacks.

I've got to disagree on that point. The easiest way of making sneak attack stack would have been to add an erratum for the Rogue class ability. As it is we've got dozens of prestige classes that have been forced to add "stacks with" language because of this lack. It seems obvious to me that they went out of their way to avoid this easy correction, so they didn't intend sneak attack to stack except where explicitly stated.

[Quietus]

I've got to disagree on that point. The easiest way of making sneak attack stack would have been to add an erratum for the Rogue class ability. As it is we've got dozens of prestige classes that have been forced to add "stacks with" language because of this lack. It seems obvious to me that they went out of their way to avoid this easy correction, so they didn't intend sneak attack to stack except where explicitly stated.

So you believe that it was the intent of the designers, when they were writing the Vulvitors, that they would gain 5d6 sneak attack as effectively a 7th level character, then be unable to go up to 6d6 until they reach 18th character level if they went straight Rogue - which is their favored class?

[Urpriest]

I've got to disagree on that point. The easiest way of making sneak attack stack would have been to add an erratum for the Rogue class ability. As it is we've got dozens of prestige classes that have been forced to add "stacks with" language because of this lack. It seems obvious to me that they went out of their way to avoid this easy correction, so they didn't intend sneak attack to stack except where explicitly stated.

This is typical of 4e, not of 3.5. While 3.5 occasionally provided errata of their original material for clarity or balance, they never did so for consistency with later sources. The absence of such errata does not establish anything in the realm of RAI.

[RagnaroksChosen]

I've got to disagree on that point. The easiest way of making sneak attack stack would have been to add an erratum for the Rogue class ability. As it is we've got dozens of prestige classes that have been forced to add "stacks with" language because of this lack. It seems obvious to me that they went out of their way to avoid this easy correction, so they didn't intend sneak attack to stack except where explicitly stated.

Stacking rules only apply to bonus's not extra damage.
The same reason you can get Sneak attack, sudden strike, and swashbucklers +int to dmg(which is extra damage if i remember correctly as well).
Or any other combination of precision damage.
Though most people say it "stacks"
Technicaly the damage would be like
1d6(weapon) +2(str) +2d6(rogue)+1d6(SA fighter)+1d6 (Suddenstrike) + 1d6 for flaming.
Because there is no rule saying that you are limited to only 1 source of extra damage otherwise, the elemental weapon enchants wouldn't work with Sneak attack.

[Curmudgeon]

Stacking rules only apply to bonus's not extra damage.

That can't be the case, because "extra" is a synonym for "bonus". From Dictionary.com:

bonus
–noun

3. something free, as an extra dividend, given by a corporation to a purchaser of its securities.

—Synonyms
1. reward, honorarium, gift. 2. Bonus, bounty, premium refer to something extra beyond a stipulated payment.

The D&D definition of bonus damage also applies to anything that deals extra damage:

bonus

A positive modifier to a die roll. In most cases, multiple bonuses from the same source or of the same type in effect on the same character or object do not stack; only the highest bonus of that type applies. Bonuses that don't have a specific type always stack with all bonuses.

Sneak attack is a positive modifier to your damage roll. So no matter what you call it, by the rules of the game any positive modifier to a die roll has got to conform to the stacking limits.

[hamishspence]

Sneak attack is not a positive modifier to a damage roll. That would be things like Power Attack.

Sneak attack is bonus dice to a damage roll.