3.5 revision: "schticks" for other fighting classes

Another in my series about house rules improving fighter-like classes.
Before making changes I'm trying to focus on a core "schtick" or "theme"
for each class. For pure fighters it was fighting ability, combat
options, and getting better use of equipment. For paladins it was
divine favour (channeling, divine grace) and, to a lesser extent,
fighting specialization.

Here are some thoughts on other fighter-like classes:

Barbarian: These are basically "berserkers"; they need something like
rage or frenzy, and I like the Pathfinder approach with "rage points"
and "rage powers". I might quibble with some of them: classically,
berserkers' wounds were reputed to heal instantly during berserksgang,
and the extra HP from the Con increase doesn't seem to me to fit since
they disappear at the end of the rage (which could lead to insta-death).
The "renewed vigor" power might be a bit too costly. So I'll probably
just adopt Pathfinder barbarians and maybe fiddle a bit with the rage
powers.

Swashbuckler: The classic image is a kind of urban light-fighter: low
armour, light weaponry, and "flashiness" both in combat and in person.
Regardless of its being a very weak class in most peoples' mind -- at
least, past 3rd level -- the features in CW don't really seem to fit.
Some of the CW abilities seem reasonable, like the focus on dexterity
(agility) skills, weapon finesse, and extra damage from something other
than Str so it wasn't too MAD. I think Charisma ought to play more of a
role, though, rather than Int, so as a DAD class it would focus on Dex
and Cha. Possible ideas:
- Feint as a move action, or, at higher levels, a swift action. Perhaps
at higher levels a successful feint might deny the opponent's DEX bonus
against attacks by allies in addition to the swashbuckler.
- Some kind of benefit from "flashiness". There was a "perform(weapons
display)" idea in CW giving gladiators some benefit from a positive
crowd reaction.
- Skills maybe as now; acrobatics (balance, jump, maybe tumble but maybe
not), bluff, maybe diplomacy. But I plan to make a whole bunch of
skills changes eventually, too.

Samurai: I have no idea how to approach this one. I skimmed a bit of
the "Oriental Adventures/Rokugan" material I found online, which talked
about a bunch of schools; does it involve a bunch of martial-arts sort
of maneuvers?

Ranger: sort of fighter, sort of skillmonkey, so I'll think about it later.

David Lamb wrote:

> Here are some thoughts on other fighter-like classes:
>
> Barbarian: These are basically "berserkers"

In part. They're outsiders too, untrained in the ways of the
civilised societies that produce Wizards and Fighters. These are the
heroes of the natural-born warrior tribes, all raw power in a mindless
fury.

Yes, they need healed before the rage ends, but that's because
they're dead already, they just don't know it yet.

> Swashbuckler: The classic image is a kind of urban light-fighter

Age of sail, totally anacronistic, which is D&D all over.

The climber, runner, tumbler, jumper. The fight is about ensuring you
stand with advantage at all times: higher ground, narrow space against
numbers, always moving to a new one when they overcome the last. Finess,
disarming, easy withdrawal, unusual movement.

> Samurai: I have no idea how to approach this one.

The noble knight. Duty, honour, service, but to a specific cause or
person, not all of sentient life like the Paladins. Not a full class IMO,
a couple of Fighter feats should do the job. Reasonable name change for
Fighters in eastern styled campaigns.

> Ranger: sort of fighter, sort of skillmonkey, so I'll think about it
> later.

Hunter-killers in the borderlands, keep'n them dang monsters out of
where the proper folk live. Mobile and self-sufficient, at one with the
wilds they patrol (by law, tradition, for personal vengeance, or a cheap
thrill).

--
tussock

The different ways one can approach D&D is what makes it D&D.