The Gaming Den

PhoneLobster wrote:You could turn all of your weaponry options into different types of My Little Pony...

and it would turn out surprisingly awesome

Lago and Frank somehow don't understand that if you offer a starting character type "swashbuckler", then that's a trap option if they are not assured to get appropriate weapons during the campaign.

That's where all the hyperbole about "demanding katanas in a game where they do not exist" comes from. They simply have no answer for the question why it is ok for loot to be level-appropriate, but oh so bad if the level appropriate loot also is liked by the players. They also have no reason other than "I hate some players" for their random roll-fetish.

Ice9 wrote:What Frank seems to be advocating...

Several pages back, he explained this in much greater detail. I can't be arsed to go look for it, but the gist was that he did the following:

1a. Make a bunch of level appropriate places that the party might decide to go adventuring in.
1b. Stock the places from 1a with level appropriate treasure that was thematic to the people that lived there.
2a. Rolled up a bunch of level appropriate random treasure.
2b. Made up some encounters based on 2a by asking "What sort of random encounter would have this combination of treasure?" and placed those in the world.
3. Took all of the encounters from 1a and 2b and wrote them down in his DM notes, along with what sort of treasure they have and where in the campaign world they are.
4. Let the players use the Gather Information skill to find out if there are any [item] anywhere and then consulted the notes from 3 to answer that question if they were successful.

Josh_Kablack wrote:and it would turn out surprisingly awesome

No. We're not having that shit here.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:

hogarth wrote:So because your campaign might die out and fuck you over, there should be an additional possibility that bad luck fucks you over as well? That's about the worst argument I've seen in a while.

So what's the difference between not getting a +3 vorpal sword because it never showed up on the random treasure roll, not getting it because you never rolled the Market check to track it down, and not getting it because you didn't reach the right level before you could force it to drop?

The first two are shitty rules fucking you over and the last one is real life fucking you over. There's not much you can do about real life issues, but you can sure as hell fix or work around the shitty rules.

and it would turn out surprisingly awesome

the fact that a talented artist is wasting her abilities on MLP fanshit is really depressing. it'd be like if stephen king decided to write naruto fanfics instead of books.

Psychic Robot wrote:the fact that a talented artist is wasting her abilities on MLP fanshit is really depressing. it'd be like if stephen king decided to write naruto fanfics instead of books.

Psychic Robot wrote:the fact that a talented artist is wasting her abilities on MLP fanshit is really depressing. it'd be like if stephen king decided to write naruto fanfics instead of books.

Psychic Robot wrote:the fact that a talented artist is wasting her abilities on MLP fanshit is really depressing. it'd be like if stephen king decided to write naruto fanfics instead of books.

Psychic Robot wrote:the fact that a talented artist is wasting her abilities on MLP fanshit is really depressing. it'd be like if stephen king decided to write naruto fanfics instead of books.

Psychic Robot wrote:the fact that a talented artist is wasting her abilities on MLP fanshit is really depressing. it'd be like if stephen king decided to write naruto fanfics instead of books.

Psychic Robot wrote:the fact that a talented artist is wasting her abilities on MLP fanshit is really depressing. it'd be like if stephen king decided to write naruto fanfics instead of books.

Psychic Robot wrote:the fact that a talented artist is wasting her abilities on MLP fanshit is really depressing. it'd be like if stephen king decided to write naruto fanfics instead of books.

PhoneLobster wrote:No one is demanding items from outside the limits of the setting

.
Ah, there it is. See, when you demand that your character gets what you imagine he should, rather than just adapting to what turns up, you're breaking the limits of my setting. For reals. Adventurers are people who go questing for great treasures and rewards, and they hang daddy's sword on the mantle once they find something better amongst them.

I'm glad you can accept that the moment I think to call it a setting issue.

Fuchs wrote:Lago and Frank somehow don't understand that if you offer a starting character type "swashbuckler", then that's a trap option if they are not assured to get appropriate weapons during the campaign.

no, you do not understand "swashbuckler" does not mean "only uses a rapier", because you have a Zorro clone fetish.

try getting an education and learning what a swashbuckler is.

2e S&P wrote:Recommended weapon proficiencies: Swords are the traditional weapons of most swashbucklers, especially rapiers and sabres. However, they can use any weapons that fit their adventuring professions.

Equipment: A swashbuckler can wear any armor and weapons allowed to his class, though they should be flashy and of good quality.


Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

2e wrote:Description: Part acrobat, part swordsman, part wit, and entirely roguish —this is the Swashbuckler. He is a sophisticated city-dweller, the epitome of charm and grace.


Description: The Swashbuckler is the sophisticated, witty, lightly armed and armored hero in a sophisticated city-based campaign—a la The Three Musketeers. He's fully capable of putting on heavy armor, picking up a bastard sword, and soldiering alongside other tank warriors—but he shines in comparison when the heroes are adventuring in the city, in light armor and with light weapons.


Swashbuckler A swashbuckler is the lightly armed and armored hero with a flashing blade and rapier wit. Most at home in a city-based campaign (dungeons tend to ruin their expensive, foppish attire), the swashbuckler seems to have stepped right out of Dumas’ The Three Musketeers.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

Fuchs the Fop doesn't need a rapier, any fucking sword will do so get the fuck over it.

when you choose ANY character you choose it because you want to play it, NOT because you expect the campaign to be meant for it.

dont choose a Monty Python "class", if you dont want to be treated like a Monty Python player.

Statement A wrote:Lago and Frank somehow don't understand that

Statement B wrote:if you offer a starting character type "swashbuckler", then that's a trap option if they are not assured to get appropriate weapons during the campaign.

If Statement B is true, then Statement A is false.

Frank and Lago are aware that a character concept which is not viable if they don't get a particular item is a trap option if you don't get that item. Their response is to tell you straight up that, that character concept is not supported, so you shouldn't play it.

shadzar wrote:

Fuchs wrote:Lago and Frank somehow don't understand that if you offer a starting character type "swashbuckler", then that's a trap option if they are not assured to get appropriate weapons during the campaign.

no, you do not understand "swashbuckler" does not mean "only uses a rapier", because you have a Zorro clone fetish.

try getting an education and learning what a swashbuckler is.

2e S&P wrote:Recommended weapon proficiencies: Swords are the traditional weapons of most swashbucklers, especially rapiers and sabres. However, they can use any weapons that fit their adventuring professions.

Equipment: A swashbuckler can wear any armor and weapons allowed to his class, though they should be flashy and of good quality.


Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

2e wrote:Description: Part acrobat, part swordsman, part wit, and entirely roguish —this is the Swashbuckler. He is a sophisticated city-dweller, the epitome of charm and grace.


Description: The Swashbuckler is the sophisticated, witty, lightly armed and armored hero in a sophisticated city-based campaign—a la The Three Musketeers. He's fully capable of putting on heavy armor, picking up a bastard sword, and soldiering alongside other tank warriors—but he shines in comparison when the heroes are adventuring in the city, in light armor and with light weapons.


Swashbuckler A swashbuckler is the lightly armed and armored hero with a flashing blade and rapier wit. Most at home in a city-based campaign (dungeons tend to ruin their expensive, foppish attire), the swashbuckler seems to have stepped right out of Dumas’ The Three Musketeers.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

Fuchs the Fop doesn't need a rapier, any fucking sword will do so get the fuck over it.

when you choose ANY character you choose it because you want to play it, NOT because you expect the campaign to be meant for it.

dont choose a Monty Python "class", if you dont want to be treated like a Monty Python player.

Except we're not talking about 2nd Edition, and while 3e swashbucklers do have good weapon proficiencies, they need a weapon that is finessible if they don't want to be even more terrible than they already are (unless you make some special swashbuckler feature to be able to finesse everything, or give the ability to upgrade any weapon to be finessible). If the character also wants to be able to use techniques like disarming/sundering, then it pretty much requires him to use either a Rapier or a Scimitar, because those are the only finessible one-handed weapons in core (and thus the only finessible weapons that avoid that annoying -4 penalty light weapons get), though outside of core you get the Elven Courtblade, which is even better, but an exotic racial specific weapon that the character is even less likely to find AND has to waste a feat to get.

Seerow wrote:Except we're not talking about 2nd Edition, and while 3e swashbucklers do have good weapon proficiencies, they need a weapon that is finessible if they don't want to be even more terrible than they already are (unless you make some special swashbuckler feature to be able to finesse everything, or give the ability to upgrade any weapon to be finessible). If the character also wants to be able to use techniques like disarming/sundering, then it pretty much requires him to use either a Rapier or a Scimitar, because those are the only finessible one-handed weapons in core (and thus the only finessible weapons that avoid that annoying -4 penalty light weapons get), though outside of core you get the Elven Courtblade, which is even better, but an exotic racial specific weapon that the character is even less likely to find AND has to waste a feat to get.

except S&P being a player's option book, a supplement and not core, is what 3rd was built on, and 3rd has no core swashbuckler class anyway, so whatever finesse requirements exist are not only to be found in core. they should be found wherever the swashbuckler kit...(PrC?) would be found.

seeing a PrC is like a 2nd kit, look again at that section..."weapons allowed to his class". there could be mace wielding swashbucklers.

http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/classes.htm

has no swashbuckler listed...so please tell me in the core where it exists?

unlike 4th edition that assumes "everything is core and DMs are required to let players play with anything they purchased and have their wishlists" (Fuchs must love 4th edition), previous editions were houseruled when adding ANYTHING optional or supplemental like "swashbuckler".

"balanced" is not a factor in "core" like 4th edition developing morons think it is...that is just a selling and marketing attraction. "Core" is what every game assumes is going on before you add to it.

the Chia-pet is a pot for growing hair/fur looking grasses and other plant. hat is its core...you can get scooby doo, moe and larry, calvin, etc shapes, but its core is still a potted planter.

show me the description of a swashbuckler in 3rd, and give me the book it was in. i will damn sure bet you it wasnt a core book (PHB/MM/DMG).

so since you are hou7seruling anyway, then houserule the finesse type weapons, or remove the stupid requirement.

saying 3rd has a fucked up premise, does not excuse the premise it presents for being fucked up. realize Monte Cook was a moron and writing stupid shit and if you REALLY want to tell decent stories with characters that have some sort of aesthetic like a weapon, than realize what that aesthetic REALLY is rather than rely on Monte and his idiocy to provide you with information about what a "swashbuckler" means in the first fucking place.

R&D used to be about looking at real world cultural examples and applying them to the game...in Monte's work on 3rd R&D meant looking at the most recent edition and changing it to what peopel wanted to paly with.

the research was done wrong, which has led to wrong development.

or stop using the wrong damn word...if you want to say Zorro, then say Zorro class, not swashbuckler when you dont understand the word swashbuckler.

use the english language, and dont try to rewrite it for your purposes. then you have less work to do making rules when everyone can understand the term to begin with form the same sources...of which previous to 3rd there WERE sources for the material on various things that you could see where it came form rather than just claiming WotC made up swashbucklers or whatever as if they never existed in the game, or the real world before WotC decided to use the word.

you are just further showing the problem with wanting to USE this type of "class" when it is known to be so frail and poorly designed, not that a DM should cater to a player that choose a poorly designed class.

Fuchs is falling into the trap by Monte with 3rd because he is doing what Frank and Lago have been saying trying to make a shallow character concept because he is trying to clone Zorro or a Musketeer like Monte did.

so break the concept down to simplest parts...

Swashbuckler: Elan's wit, flashy weapon maneuvers, and a dapper charm.

Zorro, Musketeers, Robin Hood, Jack Sparrow, etc are swashbucklers. there weapons of choice... A SWORD; including but not limited to:

rapier
sabre
cutlass
curass
falchion
short sword
stiletto

so dont be married to jsut one, or you still have a flat character concept that IS the problem as IT reduces "player entitlement" via rules that force such a flat and narrow concept.

everyone bitching about loss of aesthetic needs to place the blame where it belongs...on the designers of the poor ruleset, and their own intentions to clone another fictional character outside of that characters fictional world. neither of which is the DMs fault.

Well, the polarization caused by MLP is actually totally relevant to the central arguments in this thread, so I'm not dropping it.

While, I could take the easy route and explain just how many of the show's antagonists come out of the MM, or how neatly some of the protagonists line up with various class abilities in the PHB - that's won't convince anyone who is unwilling to hear about the show, so instead I'll talk about the history of D&D and pop culture in general.

D&D has been about shamelessly stealing from pop culture since Gygax, Arenson and Co. plundered Tolkien, Howard and Lieber's races and classes and decided that Vorpal Swords were a magic item . D&D became about stealing from pop culture that's questionable to the genre and inappropriate to all settings when they based a class off of David Carradine in the 70s. ( See also: Githyanki, Psionics ) The trend off ripping off pop culture has carried through the subsequent decades, and 3e had an Austin Powers joke in the DMG, Mercurial weapons ripped from Gene Wolfe in Sword and Fist, Aliens-ripoff monsters in the BoVD, and the fanbase gave us a bunch of internet pop-culture riffing on Monte's "The orc and the pie" Wayback Link, a billion attempts to make Final Fantasy material, extensive rules for playable Pokemon and Pokemasters and for crying out loud, this very forum has a rip-off of a joke rip-off of all the prior rip-offs of the power rangers Link to session log on it. The trend continues in 4e and PF, with the heavy influence of WoW aesthetics.

If you're still going into a tizzy because talented amateurs are ripping off kiddie material (be it Pokemon, Power Rangers, TMNT, GI Joe, My Little Pony) for D&D you're being so insecure in your maturity that you're largely missing the point.

D&D has **always** been about ripping off pop culture, and the entire monomyth adventure of
Harry Potter - Neo - Luke Skywalker - Frodo Baggins - Dorothy Gale - King Arthur - King David - etc. about the everyboy/girl who leaves home to find their destined greatness in a complex world by defeating terrible evil has always been a kiddie story about the necessity and hardships and hopeful triumphs of growing up and leaving home. By excluding more contemporary riffs on this ancient tale, you are doing nothing but limiting your potential audience.

And limiting the potential audience is where we come back around to relevance with the rest of this thread. By eliminating or marginalizing certain character archetypes from an interactive role-playing game, you are likewise eliminating or marginalizing potential players who find meaning within those archetypes, and limiting the audience and appeal of your game. That's not always a bad thing, as RPGs are a small-group activity, so often a strong niche appeal is better than a broad appeal - and eliminating some potential options from a particular game in order to make the choices within your niche simpler and more prominent can aid in such niche appeal and strengthen the idiom of a particular game. However, you do have to realize that by eliminating options you are also narrowing your appeal and may eliminate an option that is essential for a player - even if such an option seems juvenile (or "weeabo" or "fetishist") or a trivial distinction to you.


******

tl;dr: Well you missed the point, so here's some Pony Inspired Music for your
D&D game. Don't tell your players where it comes from and they won't complain.

I'm not sure what all you're going on about Shadzar, because that post was even more incoherent than normal.

What I got out of that is that you don't know where the Swashbuckler class is. It is a full 20 level class in Complete Warrior. It's honestly a pretty weak class (though is better when used with a splash into rogue and Daring Outlaw, not anywhere near Wizard levels, but above average for a 3.5 physically based class).

I also got a lot of whining about how a swashbuckler who wants to use a weapon is just being a zorro clone, then a list of a bunch of different weapons. Problem is, as far as I'm aware most of those weapons don't exist in 3.5, or don't work that way in 3.5 (such as Falchion which is 2 handed and not finessible). Like I said I'm aware of exactly 3 finessible one handed weapons in 3.5, and none of them are particularly common, and the one non-core weapon I'm aware of is even rarer than the other two. Sure you can homebrew more, or homebrew the ability to slap finessible property onto any weapon (I've personally gone this route, allowing weapons to gain new properties when upgrading them to masterwork).

shadzar wrote:except S&P being a player's option book, a supplement and not core, is what 3rd was built on, and 3rd has no core swashbuckler class anyway, so whatever finesse requirements exist are not only to be found in core. they should be found wherever the swashbuckler kit...(PrC?) would be found.

seeing a PrC is like a 2nd kit, look again at that section..."weapons allowed to his class". there could be mace wielding swashbucklers.

http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/classes.htm

has no swashbuckler listed...so please tell me in the core where it exists?

Wait a minute. Why are we being restricted to core, all of a sudden?

(BTW, it's a crappy base class in Complete Warrior that started to suck less because of a feat in Complete Scoundrel.)

RobbyPants wrote:

shadzar wrote:except S&P being a player's option book, a supplement and not core, is what 3rd was built on, and 3rd has no core swashbuckler class anyway, so whatever finesse requirements exist are not only to be found in core. they should be found wherever the swashbuckler kit...(PrC?) would be found.

seeing a PrC is like a 2nd kit, look again at that section..."weapons allowed to his class". there could be mace wielding swashbucklers.

http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/classes.htm

has no swashbuckler listed...so please tell me in the core where it exists?

Wait a minute. Why are we being restricted to core, all of a sudden?

(BTW, it's a crappy base class in Complete Warrior that started to suck less because of a feat in Complete Scoundrel.)

I mentioned there were only 2 non-light finessible weapons in core so he took that as a reason to start rambling about core I think. That said I only know of two others outside of core, and one of those is a two handed weapon rather than one handed, so going out of core doesn't add a whole lot.

Fuchs wrote:Lago and Frank somehow don't understand that if you offer a starting character type "swashbuckler", then that's a trap option if they are not assured to get appropriate weapons during the campaign.

Why? I find it interesting that anyone could even think of comparing a type to a specific.

Swashbuckler or swasher is a term that emerged in the 16th century[1] and has been used for rough, noisy and boastful swordsmen ever since. A possible explanation for this term is that it derives from a fighting style using a side-sword with a buckler in the off-hand, which was applied with much "swashing and making a noise on the buckler".[2] Later the name "swashbuckler" (like Gunslinger) became common for an archetype and the accordant special film genre.[3]

There are a couple of elements we can basically derive from a swahbuckler; no armor; minor or no shields; damn fast weapons; one ton of barvado. That's about it. It's sort of like the implicit assumption that a "gunslinger" has to use revolvers (ever heard of "the rifleman?")

The real problem with the swashbucker is that there is the assumption that all guys who fight are fighters. However, the classic definition of fighter is "guy who fights IN ARMOR" which gimps trying to make a swashbuckler a fighter. You could make him a thief, but most people don't want to admit that because thieves should do thieving stuff and not fight.

(It also sucks that speed factors were eliminated with 2+ E - weapon speed was one of the reasons why swashbucklers swashed in the first place, even if they actually used side swords or dress swords because rapiers were too damn slow and epees wouldn't be invented for another centtury.)

Any thrusting sword like weapon could be used by a swashbucker, including (but certainly not limited to) rapier, saber, small sword, short sword, silly elvish sword, cutlas, etc.

IMAGE

That's completely different from someone who needs one specific type of sword to achieve his idiom.

Seerow wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:

shadzar wrote:except S&P being a player's option book, a supplement and not core, is what 3rd was built on, and 3rd has no core swashbuckler class anyway, so whatever finesse requirements exist are not only to be found in core. they should be found wherever the swashbuckler kit...(PrC?) would be found.

seeing a PrC is like a 2nd kit, look again at that section..."weapons allowed to his class". there could be mace wielding swashbucklers.

http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/classes.htm

has no swashbuckler listed...so please tell me in the core where it exists?

Wait a minute. Why are we being restricted to core, all of a sudden?

(BTW, it's a crappy base class in Complete Warrior that started to suck less because of a feat in Complete Scoundrel.)

I mentioned there were only 2 non-light finessible weapons in core so he took that as a reason to start rambling about core I think. That said I only know of two others outside of core, and one of those is a two handed weapon rather than one handed, so going out of core doesn't add a whole lot.

and when coupled with the idea that the rapier is the choice of weapon for the swashbuckler as presented with those "core" weapons, and the ideas from silly fictional representations that do not include the whole, we arrive at the entire problem.

3rd took something and refined it down to dehydrated water...

well the problem with 3rd is that that "Complete Warrior" is already a houserule to use, so why stay true to its broken rules? broken because the player wants this "class" to be happy, but finds out the nature of it being so limited ins cope they are NOT happy, unless NOW they get a whole slew of other things like the rapier drops.

give em an inch and they will take a mile.

it is kind of like the vow of poverty discussion. it wasnt intended to work within the WBL and such rules as stated in the book and was for more MATURE audiences. the swashbuckler class wasnt tailored to be in all campaigns so also requires mature players to use optional books.

when someone not mature enough to handle the addition of optional material and use thereof is not going to always produce the result you want, then you end up with Lago's thread here.

there was a reason everything want "core" prior to 3rd, so that people COULD decide what is right for there games without having to include everything, even though 3rd made it seem everything should be inclusive, and 4th cemented that idea.

Fuchs choose a bad character concept based on a bad idea, and bad class, and wants to blame the DM for it all, rather than himself and the designers for making a shit class to begin with.

ITT Shadzar teaches us splat books are house rules.

Seerow wrote: If the character also wants to be able to use techniques like disarming/sundering, then it pretty much requires him to use either a Rapier or a Scimitar, because those are the only finessible one-handed weapons in core

Scimitar isn't finessable. It should be because Prince of Persia and also that Drizzt asshole, but it isn't.

ModelCitizen wrote:

Seerow wrote: If the character also wants to be able to use techniques like disarming/sundering, then it pretty much requires him to use either a Rapier or a Scimitar, because those are the only finessible one-handed weapons in core

Scimitar isn't finessable. It should be because Prince of Persia and also that Drizzt asshole, but it isn't.

Okay, I stand corrected. I don't know where I got the idea that it was finessible, but there you go. Also, I realized after the fact I forgot two other finessible weapons: The ever notorious spiked chain, and the useless whip.


So in core we have 3 options: Rapier, Spiked Chain, Whip. Which of these 3 feel like a swashbuckler's weapon? Also worth noting, the Rapier is the only one of the three that isn't an exotic weapon, so SHOULD be found more commonly than either of the other two (or the Elven Courtblades which are also exotic).


Of course, it is perfectly valid to say "Dude you're a high level character, deal with the short sword and take a penalty to your disarming/sundering. Both of those options suck anyway", but disarming at least is something I'd consider a pretty common swashbuckler trick.

shadzar wrote:well the problem with 3rd is that that "Complete Warrior" is already a houserule to use, so why stay true to its broken rules? broken because the player wants this "class" to be happy, but finds out the nature of it being so limited ins cope they are NOT happy, unless NOW they get a whole slew of other things like the rapier drops.

give em an inch and they will take a mile.

Okay. Given that you need at least two splats to make the Swashbuckler playable beyond 3rd level, I'll say that a core Rogue does better at being a swashbuckler than a Swashbuckler. Still, you're almost certainly going to take Weapon Finesse, which means you're going to want light/finesse-able weapons dropped.

So, I still don't know where you're going with your core vs. non-core tirade.

well what is the list of light weapons then if you dont like rapier, whip or spiked chain?

why rapier was even added as a weapon in the core dumbfounds me as it is a FIRST time for such.

SRD doesnt have light weapons listed that i can find but the wiki claims it does...

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Light_Weapon

oh look some actual common weapons!

dagger and short sword!

so pick a light weapon instead of the rapier, whip or spiked chain.

but i have been saying get over the rapier and use a short sword all along...in every edition the rapier fits in the same class and effectiveness as the rapier anyway.

the problem rests again with Fuchs wanting his Zorro clone to have a rapier, not the rules saying he must use one.

if you still dont get it about core, then stop playing D&D.

Forgotten Realms, is not core, it is Ed Greenwood's houserules.
eBerron is not core, but Baker's houserules....

if it isnt core, you are using your own or someone else's houserules to get it in there, so sicne you are already houseruling the game, then houserule the swashbuckler rules IF they are a problem, but the finesse excuse is NOT a problem because the rules say you can use a short sword for the swashbuckler.

so Fuchs the Fop doesnt have to be Zorro the gay blade, he can be Zorro the blade with some girth...and the women might even like him better for it!

oh look some actual common weapons!

dagger and short sword!

so pick a light weapon instead of the rapier, whip or spiked chain.

Light Weapons have some disadvantages attached to them. A pretty major one that I already pointed out for the swashbuckler is that using a light weapon incurs a -4 penalty to disarm tests. This means he's both more likely to be disarmed and less likely to disarm someone else.

I was explicitly pointing out finessible One Handed or Two Handed weapons, that don't have the penalties of a light weapon attached to it.

so its all bitching about a stupid class you shouldnt choose, but chose anyway, so since it is a shit class Fuchs DM must coddle him and give him optimal weapons to still make this class sub-optimal overall?

still sounds like Fuchs Fuching up to me.