An idea I was tossing around *PRC*

[Deleran]

Are there any prestige classes that already exist which have a 5/4 BAB progression? Cause I've been thinking about making one. Does anyone see a problem with this idea?

Edit: Class on page 2!

[Brickwall]

Having a higher BAB advancement than a fighter? Sure, if you don't plan on giving him very many abilities or anything else. In fact, maybe 2 bonus feats by 10th level, seeing as how that gives about 12 BAB, plus the 10-max from another class. You've added a permanent +2 AB to a nonepic character right there. So its levels have to be less in abilities than a fighter for balance. doesn't sound worth it to me

[Hungerdog]

What Brickwall said.

I just don't see an effective way to have a BAB higher than the 1/per martial classes without it ending up so limited it's broken.

If you think you've got a workable one, stat it out for us, and I'm sure we'll all be happy to review it and feed back to you on it.

[Deleran]

I don't have a class to go with it per se, I was just trying to figure out the power level of the ability.

[Azrael]

A permanent +2 (over 10 levels) to base attack is not completely unfounded if you dig through the prestige classes. So, here are some restrictions that I would suggest:

* Only as part of a prestige class. A VERY well written one that has the flavor, pre-reqs and abilities to establish a purist fighter.
* The prestige class should be virtually unattainable by less than pure fighter breeds - i.e. it should not be a convenient way for a roque to get back to full base attack per HD.
* Any place this is used must compensate for the fact that BAB is... just awesome. It can only be taken away by level drain -- stat damage effects, antimagic field would have no effect.

The entire idea might be better suited to a special ability that would grant +1 @ 4th and +2 @ 8th.

EDIT: I've corrected the levels where the bonuses would accrue based on the next 3 posts.

[Deleran]

So basically what you're saying here is: Yes, there is a problem. Perhaps it could offset with an AC penalty (to represent that the character sacrfices defense for offense)?

Edit: Perhaps I could tank the rest of their stuff (all saves are bad, d8 hd or lower, small or nonexistant skills per level)?

[Democratus]

Keep in mind also that +5/4 is an extra +2 for every 8 levels - not every 10 levels.

[Deleran]

5 x 10 / 4= 12.5 round down = 12 or +2 over normal fighter. Its only a PrC, so theres only 10 levels. But you are correct that the bonuses would come at levels 4 and 8.

[Azrael]

Eh, a +BAB / -AC type thing could more easily be done with a single feat (or class ability) that would be the exact inverse of Combat Expertise. Prereqs of Power Attack and Cleave maybe?

I'm not really feeling the whole concept right now (which is strange, cause I love uber-fighter builds) so I'm not going to suggest an entire class concept. If you're up for it, start writing class features or a general outline of who/what/when and I'd be more than happy to critique...


EDIT: It gets said a lot, but it really is the best advice; When building a new mechanic Look for an existing class/feature/feat etc with close or similar abilities (not necessarily flavor, but statistical benefit) and work off of those.

[Julius]

Right, but 8 levels into the prestige class, you'd have +10 to hit. Thus, +2 after 8 levels.

Why don't you just grant a class feature that adds +X to the class's attack rolls. For example, there was a prestige class in sword and fist (Fist of Hextor), that allowed the character to add like +2 to attack rolls or damage rolls (but not both)... actually now that I think about it it was +1 and it increased to +2, +3 and maybe more as you progressed. Ah well, I can't remember exactly.

This way, you aren't breaking the hard and fast BAB progression rules.

[Deleran]

This way, you aren't breaking the hard and fast BAB progression rules.

That was kind of the whole point. I wanted to take something mundane and make it an exciting class feature.

Edit: Although its becoming increasingly clear that that might not be possible here.

[Azrael]

Any time you try to change a core dynamic, there will be resistance. Period.

Not to say the change isn't a) cool or b) helpful or even c) better... ;)

What we are trying to say, is that there are ways (plenty of them, I'd say) to achieve the desired result without rocking the entire system.

Didn't good ole' Forsaker give huge stat boost bonuses in exchange for not using magic? Between that and Hextor there should be some good precedent.

EDIT: Spelling.

EDIT X2: A true +12 in 10 levels would be a +6/5 progression. As stated above, the +5/4 would give you an extra +2 after only 8.

[Ayana]

The issue with BAB going above Character Level is that it wonks out PrC requirements, many of which are BAB-based.

I'd do something like this sort of like:

Class: base class
BAB: 1.0
Saves: Average / Poor / Poor (or Poor all the way if you don't go for Average save)
HD: d8
Proficiency: All simple and martial weapons, light armor, buckler.

L1: (stuff)
L2: (stuff)
L3:
L4: +1 unnamed attack bonus (only in light armor)
L5:
L6: Can take -2 on AC for +1 on attack (only in light armor)
L7:
L8: Treat your BAB as 1 higher for purpose of determining your number of iterative attacks (only in light armor)
L9:
L10: (stuff)
L11:
L12: +1 unnamed attack bonus (only in light armor)
L13:
L14: Can take -4 on AC for +2 on attack (only in light armor)
L15:
L16: (stuff)
L17:
L18: Add CHA to attack (only in light armor)
L19:
L20: +1 BAB (only in light armor)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd also probably also consider a line of feats that allows a permanent reduction in sneak attack (or other class features) to gain a permanent point of BAB. (Up to a max of Character Level) Should be interested for those who'd like a more fightery caster or rogue.

[Democratus]

There are three progression levels for saves? I thought it was just good and poor...

[Brickwall]

average goes up to 9 instead of 6 (poor) or 12 (good), I think. I believe some prestige classes have it

[Deleran]

Well, it would seem that the class is filling itself out just by the nature of having an improved BAB (as I figured it might).

#1) It needs a non-negligible penalty (the AC was just kind of a bad idea, I think).

#2) It needs good abilities at levels 9 and 10 to keep people interested in the class (So they don't just take 8 levels and go on). I like backloading abilities anyway, because it discourages munchkinry.

#3) It needs a fairly steep entry requirement (which could perhaps factor into the non-negligible penalty).

[Brickwall]

consider:

1. A decay of mental ability score(s) or dexterity

2. A good power to use might be Improved Power Attack (to go along with the high BAB). You get up to 1/4 (rounded down) of your BAB added to the Power Attack damage (I made that up in my brain, so you should be careful on using that)

3. An alignment requirement might be good in addition to others. Either good or evil, but probably not neutral. Also, DEFINITELY a good strength, like 15 at least. Maybe even 17. I'd probably include requiring Power Attack, and possibly even forcing the class to use only a certain weapon and require Weapon Focus (that weapon) and Improved Weapon Fopcus (that weapon). I'm starting to think of a Great Butcher class that is evil and specializes in greatswords and/or mercurial greatswords (Arms&Equipment guide if I'm not mistaken). If anyone likes that, do say so.

[Goumindong]

average goes up to 9 instead of 6 (poor) or 12 (good), I think. I believe some prestige classes have it


Average was removed in the jump to 3.5

Also, the +2 attack doesnt seem that broken, until you get into epic levels and have an extra iterative attack.(and you get the extra with 5 levels of this and 15 of a 1/1 bab class as well)

[Ayana]

I don't think this should have PA as a requirement. This kind of class might very well represent a very accurate fighter who knows how to hit very often, but not for a lot of strength. In fact sacrificing attack seems counter-themed for this class.

[McMouse]

The lowly Dragon Disciple get's a "total" of +11 to attack and +4 to damage, over 10 levels. I don't think +12 to attack would be bad...

[Sciurusaurus]

The lowly Dragon Disciple get's a "total" of +11 to attack and +4 to damage, over 10 levels. I don't think +12 to attack would be bad...

Uhh... no? If you include the Strength mods, it's +9 to hit and +2 to damage. The last to ability boosts are not to strength, but to Con and Int, respectively.

[Deleran]

I've got the idea for my class down. I'm pretty happy about it and it naturally incorporates the three required points. I'll have it up before the end of the week.

[Goumindong]

The lowly Dragon Disciple get's a "total" of +11 to attack and +4 to damage, over 10 levels. I don't think +12 to attack would be bad...


But remember, it is not "+12" to attack, it is +2 to Base Attack Bonus.

This is an extra iterative attack at 15 instead of 16, and another at 20

[Sir_Banjo]

Why not give the character an additional +1 to hit every 5 lvls? Or access to the under-utilised Weapon Focus tree?

I think these would work much better, especially Weapon Focus as it's already in the system.

[ImperiousLeader]

Assuming the PC takes only full BAB classes and this prestige class, they'd end with a BAB of 22, meaning they'd have 5 attacks in a full attack action. I haven't really played fighters, so I don't know if that's broken. I don't think so.

[Deleran]

So yeah, by "before the end of the week," I meant "tonight." This class was inspired because I was constantly put off by the way western swordfighting is usually depicted. A sword is not a club with an edge. I know better. And so does this guy. Also: I can't think of a good name. So help with that would be appreciated.
[hr]

Fencer

The fencer has trained with the bastard sword his entire life. He understands how to use the weapon to search out the weak points in his opponent's armor, and how to take advantage of the weaknesses in their technique. He is a highly technical fighter.

Prerequisites:
Feats: Heavy Armor Proficiency, Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Bastard Sword, Weapon Focus: Bastard Sword, Weapon Specialization: Bastard Sword, Improved Grapple, Improved Feint.

Alignment: Any Lawful

Hit Dice: d10
Good Saves: none
Skills: 2 + int modifier
Class Skills: Bluff
BAB: 5/4 (this is outlined elsewhere in this thread, but I'll provide a progression table anyway)

Abilities:
{table]
LevelBABSavesAbilities
1+1+0Swordfighter
2+2+0Point of Attack
3+3+1Improved Disarm
4+5+1
5+6+1Improved Initiative
6+7+2Sword Grapple
7+8+2Advanced Feint
8+10+2
9+11+3Improved Point of Attack
10+12+3Advanced Disarm
[/table]

Swordfighter: For the purposes of determining prerequisites for the Weapon Focus Tree, a fencer's class levels stack with any fighter levels he may already have. If he doesn't have any fighter levels, (good luck with that) his fencer levels count as fighter levels.

Additionally, a fencer may not use any of the abilities or feats granted by this class, excepting improved initiative, unless he is wielding a bastard sword with two hands, or with one hand and nothing in his other.

Point of Attack (Ex): At 2nd level, the fencer may deal his choice of piercing, bludgeoning, or slashing damage with a bastard sword. He must choose what type of damage he will deal before he makes his attack. He must be wearing heavy armor to use this ability.

Improved Disarm: At 3rd level, the fencer gains Improved Disarm as a bonus feat. If the fencer already has Improved Disarm, he may select another feat from the fighter bonus feat list.

Improved Initiative: At 5th level, the fencer gains Improved Initiative as a bonus feat. If the fencer already has Improved Initiative, he may select another feat from the fighter bonus feat list.

Sword Grapple (Ex) : At 6th level, the fencer may use a bastard sword in a grapple with no penalties.

Advanced Feint (Ex) : At 7th level, it becomes difficult to determine where the fencer's next attack is coming from. While wearing heavy armor, a fencer may feint once per turn as a free action.

Improved Point of Attack (Ex) : At 9th level, the fencer may use a bastard sword as a double weapon. If he does this, his primary attacks deal 1d10 damage and he gains an offhand attack which deals 1d8 damage. While using a bastard sword in this manner, he gains the benefits of the two-weapon fighting feat. He must be wearing heavy armor to use this ability.

Advanced Disarm (Ex) : At 10th level, if the fencer succeeds in a disarm attempt against an opponent, he immediately gets a melee attack against that opponent as if he hadn’t used his attack for the disarm attempt.
[hr]

So there she is. The prereqs are steeper than you think. Comments are appreciated, as is criticism.

Edit: forgot an important prereq! Edit 2: Fixes

[Goumindong]

Broken. :o

[Sciurusaurus]

Quick read looks good, however, you might want to specify damage tyoes (S/B/P) from Point of Attack, so you don't end up with ridiculous requests for fire, cold or even sonic damage ;)

[bosssmiley]

Reinventing the wheel.

See Duellist (SRD), Kensei (OA or CW?), Swashbuckler (CW), or even just a vanilla light-armoured Fighter with Exotic WProf: bastard sword + Wpn Focus/Spec tree.

Too much potential for brokenness in the hands of optimizers.

[Azrael]

Yeah, no. A bastard sword only class? Why limit it? There isn't any good reason that I can see. Plus, if you require the exotic weapon prof, that allows the character to wield in one hand -- the only reasons they'd use 2 if for the 1.5*str damage.

Plus, eventually treating a normal sword as a double weapon? Ridiculous. And having the damage reduced to d8? If you really love the idea, it needs TONS of work. A freebie iterative attack would be a FAR better mechanic. And honestly, that's an 8-10th level type feature. Look at Dervish for examples.

I think you've missed the concept of a character that is devoted to their chosen weapon -- so devoted that they are worthy of the extra BAB. I think that things like greater weapon spec/improved weapon focus/improved crit would be better features -- but those are already available to a straight fighter.

Improved feint and grapple as pre-reqs are clearly there only for your improved versions as class features-- but why would a tried and true sword master ever take (or want to take) those feats?

Perhaps a crit multiplier increase, an inverse-combat expertise, an improved power attack (a 1.5:1 ratio for instance) and maybe better damage (whether treated as a weapon of 1 category larger, or dealing 1.5 str even in one hand?) would be better choices (only one of two of them, mind you) to round it out.

Look at sword & fist, complete warrior. There are ample precedents for these types of features. And give it a better name, better text and an "I really love my chosen weapon (not just a B.Sword) a whole frikking lot" type flavor.

[heretic]

This is waaaayyyy broken. A second level human fighter could qualify as there is no BA prereq. And there should be more class skills, likely the same ones a fighter enjoys, plus bluff. The Advanced Feint is also broken comparing it with the Invisible Blade from CW and the two class's respective abilities.

Just add a +X BA requirement and more skills, take away maybe a third of the class abilities and you're golden.

[Akiosama]

Traditionally, wouldn't a fencer use a foil, rapier or epee? (Or in this case, simply a rapier, since I don't believe the other two exist in core D&D)? At least make the requirements for this PrC Fencer a finesse weapon and probably require the Weapon Finesse Feat, as fencing is a finesse combat style. (But then this sounds a lot like the Duellist class...)

Fencers do not typically wear heavy armor. The concept of fencing, as I see it (and granted, my experience is fairly limited), is about freedom of movement, feints, and disarms. Your PrC deals with the feints and disarms sufficiently, but the fencer, if anything, should probably disallow heavy armor.

Further, abilities that require heavy armor should have something to do with the bulk that the heavy armor creates. Why can the PrC Fencer only choose what type of damage is done only in heavy armor? In no armor, or light or medium armors this seems like it would be EASIER to do, not impossible. Same with the Advanced Feint. The Heavy Armor would probably not be masking movement in order to create the feint, and therefore the movement itself is the feint and should be easier to do w/o armor or in lighter armor as well. Unless the ability requires bulk behind it to be effective, I can't think of too many things that would be easier to do in heavy armor than outside heavy armor.

And last, I don't quite get the Sword Grapple ability. I understand about fencers being able to lock swords together, but would that count as grappling? I always visualized D&D grappling to be a lot like wrestling, with holds, locks, etc., and using a bastard sword in those situations, due to its size and form seems problematic at best, certainly if grappling with an unarmed opponent. I could perhaps see this if you wanted to grapple with an armed person using the weapon in the grapple (and the weapon would probably have to be a slashing weapon - the angle of a piercing weapon wouldn't allow for a parry-grapple (how I'm visualizing this ability) and a bludgeoning weapon would just push down on the sword with its bulk making the parry-grapple somewhat ineffective(unless you see this as a two-handed parry, with one hand supporting the blade, but then there could be other repercussions to this method).

I understand the concept you're going for, but perhaps Fencer is not the best name for this class. Also, I'd have to agree with other people here that the class doesn't seem balanced, and that fighters will exploit it quickly due to its light requirements for entry. It also seems like it's trying to hard to circumvent disadvantages of heavy armor, which by its very nature, is supposed to be disadvantageous because the AC it provides is so advantageous.

Try going down the list of advantages you're giving this PrC and visualizing how each of these abilities a)works (in both gameplay and roleplaying terms), b) came to be (why does this class have those abilities?), and c) how it compares to other classes' abilities. It might help you blueprint out the idea a bit more reasonably. Right now, it feels a bit overpowered.

My 2 yen,

Game on!

Akio

[Seffbasilisk]

I've been fencing for four years and like Akiosama said it's not bastard swords. Longswords or Rapiers. And while I fence in 'padded armor' it CERTAINLY is not heavy armor and does NOT help my control of sword. In fact you have to learn to use the sword in the suit otherwise you get major problems (damn elbow pads!)

Sword grapple? Well locked hilts and blades maybe, but specify. The damage subsitution is good. Stab/Slash/Thwack. It's good to do different. Damage amount may change with type though. (I can take someone down quicker with slashing/bludgeoning then i can with piercing)

Abilities + a higher BAB then a fighter? Very broken. I know it 'cause my Evil-DM side is SCREAMING at me to throw one at the players and slaughter them.

[Akiosama]

I know it 'cause my Evil-DM side is SCREAMING at me to throw one at the players and slaughter them.

Heh. That's a great benchmark! ;D

Game on!

Akio

[Draedan]

This reminds me of a Silver Age Sentinels (superhero rpg) campaign I was running. When we were setting up our characters I had two rules.

1. Characters shouldnt go over 100 power points
2. Stats shouldnt go over the guideline in the rulebook.

Now, I wanted my players to have fun so I flat out told them to build the character they want. As long as it didn't break those two rules, I was fine with it.

Player: I want to play a vampire.
Me: Great! Its a dark, gritty campaign anyway. He will fit in perfectly!
Player: Ok, I just have to make a template for it...
Me: ...template?
Player: Yeah. You know, to spell out what powers he gets when he becomes a vampire.
Me: I know what a template is. Just...why? The disabilities listed in the book would easily cover you being a vampire during character creation.
Player: Well yeah, but he turns in to a vampire later.
Me: ...Ok, write up what you are thinking and show it to me.

*Later*

Player: Ok, see? When he turns into a vampire, I just add this to my character sheet.
Me: ...But your character is already at 100 points. I even gave you a LOT of leeway with the gadgets!
Player: But this is what happens when he turns in to a vampire!
Me: If I allow this I am basically giveing you about 30 extra power points! You would be too powerful for this point in the campaign and it wouldnt be fair to everyone else. Sorry, but no.

Its just seems to be a case of trying to "fix" something that isnt broken.

[Deleran]

Question: Have any of you actually ever seen someone fight with a bastard sword? While wearing heavy armor, they use an armored glove to hold the blade about halfway up with their off hand and attack with the point as a spear, guiding it with their offhand, and the butt of the weapon using their offhand as a fulcrum. Western bastard sword use emphasizes joint locks and disarms. Sword grapple and advanced feint represent the common tactic of locking up your opponents sword arm with your off hand and stabbing them while they're exposed. Fencer is just a generic name for a swordfighter, and I realize its not the best name for this class, which is why I explicitly asked for help with that. And the prereqs can only be met by a 6th level fighter, 4th if they're human, which is my screw-up. I'll probably add weapon spec as a requisite to correct this.

I don't believe this class is overpowered, most of its abilities are only relevant against other humanoids, and they lose them while not using a bastard sword and some while not wearing heavy armor. They also perform poorly against spellcasters because of their low saves. Basically, my intention was to make a class that would beat any other hand-to-hand combatant in the game, but would be much worse against everyone else.

[Akiosama]

Question: Have any of you actually ever seen someone fight with a bastard sword? While wearing heavy armor, they use an armored glove to hold the blade about halfway up with their off hand and attack with the point as a spear, guiding it with their offhand, and the butt of the weapon using their offhand as a fulcrum. Western bastard sword use emphasizes joint locks and disarms. Sword grapple and advanced feint represent the common tactic of locking up your opponents sword arm with your off hand and stabbing them while they're exposed.

Hmm.. can't say that I have seen anyone fight with a bastard sword. Certainly, I've never seen anyone fight like that... and I've never even heard of anyone fighting like that. Seems... odd... but if you've heard/seen it, I'll give that to you. Still seems odd to use a 4 foot weapon in grapple to me, though.

Also, with the description you've given, there should be some damage penalties given when the weapon is used in that fashion. One CANNOT get the same out of a sword by swinging it from holding it halfway up the blade as they can from holding it at the hilt. It's not physically possible.

And just a clarification, Sword Grapple still provokes an AoO, right? It's like disarm or sunder in effect - you're putting your attention to the arm/weapon instead of the full combat...


They also perform poorly against spellcasters because of their low saves. Basically, my intention was to make a class that would beat any other hand-to-hand combatant in the game, but would be much worse against everyone else.

Um, now I think I see the crux of the balance issue. No class should be able to 'beat any other hand-to-hand combatant'. That's too large a percentage of encounters. While the existing classes are geared towards specialties, the basic types are at least relatively balanced against each other. Even PrCs are geared not to wreck the play curve too much. No class, PrC or otherwise, should be designed to 'beat' any one type of encounter.

Also, how big of a disadvantage is only using one type of weapon and one type of armor? In my experiences, most players take only one type of melee weapon, one type of ranged weapon, and one set of armor into the field... Unless you're losing your weapon or armor often enough, or playing with weapon/armor damage rules, it's not that big of a disadvantage.

And last, you mention poor saves. Are the saves any poorer than, say, a fighter's saves? They're pretty weak against spellcasters. Their Reflex saves aren't the greatest either. Unless the saves are Poor-Poor-Poor, then it's not any worse than most melee classes, and even then, it's not that big of a disadvantage either.

If you really want to emphasize poor saves, then you'd need to give this class penalties to the saves to make it much worse than other melee classes to offset the significant bonuses you're giving this class.

I give you credit, though, for the effort put into this idea. It's a fascinating concept... just not balanced enough, IMO.

Just my 2 yen,

Game on!

Akio

[Deleran]

Also, with the description you've given, there should be some damage penalties given when the weapon is used in that fashion. One CANNOT get the same out of a sword by swinging it from holding it halfway up the blade as they can from holding it at the hilt. It's not physically possible.

Nobody swung the sword like that. Ever. Western swords were stabbing swords. Always. You would only attempt a cut against an unarmored foe with the very tip of the blade. If you tried to club an armored opponent with a sword, it would break. Period.


And just a clarification, Sword Grapple still provokes an AoO, right? It's like disarm or sunder in effect - you're putting your attention to the arm/weapon instead of the full combat...

Well, Improved grapple is a requisite, so I'm not sure. I don't think it should provoke an AoO from your opponent.

As for being able to beat any hand to hand opponent, maybe that was misleading. He's very good against armed, humanoid, melee combatants. Even then he's not invincible. A good sense motive (like a paladin would have) negates his feint abilities pretty well. A locked gauntlet negates the disarm abilities. Unarmed opponents have nothing to disarm, and will be at least as good as him in a grapple. Non-humanoid opponents usually don't have disarmable weapons either, and are more difficult to use feint on as well. Larger opponents are difficult to disarm and grapple. He still has useful abilities against them, Improved initiative and the point of attack abilities, but he can't bring his full abilities to bear against all but a specific group of opponents. And his saves are all poor, if you didn't notice that. Theres also a nice tension between a requisite high intelligence and a non-existant skill set.

Edit: Since there seems to be some confusion here (http://ejmas.com/jwma/articles/2003/jwmaart_galas_0603.htm) is an analysis of a medieval fencing manual complete with illustrations.

[Azrael]

Western bastard sword use emphasizes joint locks and disarms. Sword grapple and advanced feint represent the common tactic of locking up your opponents sword arm with your off hand and stabbing them while they're exposed.

Well, you may have wanted your class features to represent these tactics, but the in-game mechanics of this idea are not represented in either feint or grapple. Some variant of Parry or Disarm might get closer.


I don't believe this class is overpowered

The rest of us do, and we are trying to explain why and help you solve the issues that we see. I understand a certain emotional attachment to any class that you've built, and how hard it can be to see it torn apart publically, but these are the risks involved in posting.

And an EDIT:


Western swords were stabbing swords. Always.

A statement like that is best discussed further on the "Weapon or Armor Question" thread... but... it is simply not true. No blanket statement like that could be.

And not to mention that a bastard sword (In DnD!) is a SLASHING weapon... Again, DnD != REALITY. Especially when dealing with very specific styles of combat (or skills too).


EDIT Again:

If you're aiming for this particular bastard sword technique, call the class Sword of [some Region, Group, God] and add descriptive text that illustrates the type of combat you're aiming for -- it would reduce or eliminate many of the "why bastard sword (only)" type comments.

But, on the other hand: If you're aiming for a deflect, lock hilts, grab-twisty-stab type class (e.g. one that uses physical tactics to improve combat prowess) then you're going to lose your argument for a better than normal BAB progression.

[Akiosama]

Since there seems to be some confusion here (http://ejmas.com/jwma/articles/2003/jwmaart_galas_0603.htm) is an analysis of a medieval fencing manual complete with illustrations.

That's an interesting manual, and I can now see where you're coming from for the style of combat.

However, do note that there must have been some tangible reason why the armor was dropped and the sword of choice went to rapier. Changes usually are made when the old techniques or technologies don't work against the new - another point for not making this class/style a virtuoso of hand-to-hand combat, at least not over the Duelist class, which is similar to what replaced the style of fencing presented in the manual. (Statement retracted. :))

Last, the manual takes into account WHERE on the body you're aiming for. D&D does not. That facet would be hard to replicate, as the BAB is generally too generic a concept for such an idea.

Just my 2 yen,

Game on!

Akio

Edit: I just reread the last post and I just thought of something... why not have the Bastard sword be a finesse weapon for this class? With all the fancy feinting and such I can see that being a possibility... though it WOULD conflict with the armor bit, it at least seems like it would make sense. The BAB problem is it applies to ALL weapons wielded by the character, or ALL combat, for that matter, not just the sword of choice, and therefore becomes too powerful.

[Darkie]

However, do note that there must have been some tangible reason why the armor was dropped and the sword of choice went to rapier.
Doesn't that have more to do with changes in warfare in general then anything else?

[Akiosama]

Doesn't that have more to do with changes in warfare in general then anything else?

I'm not entirely sure... possibly. I believe that the loss of armor came due to the invention of black powder, correct? Therefore ,it may just have been a natural progression from that.

I stand corrected.

Thanks.

My 2 yen,

Game on!

Akio

[Draedan]

I know this isn’t really the place to discuss it but since it has been brought up, I did some digging and came up with this article on armored and unarmored long sword fighting.




Hewing – this is cleaving with the edge.

Thrusting – this is piercing with the point or ramming with the pommel.

Slashing – this is raking with the edge.

Half-swording – This is when one hand grips the hilt and the other hand grips the blade.

Morte-striking – This is when both hands grip the blade to smite with the pommel or crossguard.



* Hewing and slashing are most wieldy for unarmoured*

The blade of a longsword wielded by hew or slash is effective against the unarmoured foe, or by hew for breaching the leather or maille-armoured foe – yet neither does well against the plate-armoured foe. Against such the hew may batter yet probably shall not breach. And the slash is next to worthless. Against plate-armour such strikes shall most likely simply bounce, glance or slide. Hewing must have proven frighteningly destructive against the unarmoured foe, or for that matter, the maille-armoured foe – as everything from battlefield archaeology to modern test-cutting on deer carcass shows – yet it just was not the thing for hurting the plate-armoured foe.

* Half-swording and morte-striking are best for armoured*

An unarmoured fighter can do both as needed, either against an unarmoured foe or especially against a plate-armoured foe. A longsword wielded by half-swording lets the fighter strongly set aside a foe’s strike and allows accuracy and power for thrusting, especially for seeking the gaps of plate-armour. If wielded to morte-strike, it makes for a fearsome attack against a foe whether unarmoured or armoured. With the pommel it allows battering of plate-armour; and with the crossguard, it allows piercing of its gaps or perhaps the armour itself, and hooking and wrenching of both his armour and the foe himself. The equally plate-armoured fighter and foe would surely do both half-swording and morte-striking against each other.

* Thrusting is ubiquitous to both armoured and unarmoured*

The point of a longsword wielded this way has overall efficacy, utilised to smite the unarmoured foe almost anywhere and to smite the armoured foe by breaching the gaps of his plate-armour. Thrusts can be driven with hands upon hilt or by half-swording.

Here is the full article.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/Talhoffer/HT-Web.htm


Edit:
Yes, armor stopped being used with rise of guns. Because people stoped useing armor they didnt need such large, powerful weapons to overcome it. Hence the rise of the rapier.

[Brickwall]

Switch it to Greatsword and give it to Roy XD

Seriously, though, you absolutely require a 10th level or so human fighter here. A lawful one, at that. Other people use bastard swords, y'know. And while I agree that giving the fighter the ability to use his weapon expertly, I think it's too narrow. Perhaps "Heavy Weapons Fighter" would be a better name for this class, requiring Exotic Prof: (exotic 2-handed melee weapon) and changing the rest of the feats so similar accomadation, and progress similarly. Oh, and also, the sword grapple thing seems to be a bit much. Same with the double weapon. Doesn't seem right, and kinda forces the guy to also take 2 weapon fighting trees along with this class to use it fully. If you got rid of the Weapon Spec requirement, it might be an attractive choice for a ranger. I'd also reccomend having to force this guy to study at Fighter College (change for your own campaign) to get this class, and pass certain courses.

[McMouse]

Uhh... no? If you include the Strength mods, it's +9 to hit and +2 to damage. The last to ability boosts are not to strength, but to Con and Int, respectively.

My mistake.:-[ Stupid NWN fouling things up. Dunno if it was also a final +4 Str in 3.0. I'll check my sources a little more carefully next time :P :-[

[Deleran]

The BAB problem is it applies to ALL weapons wielded by the character, or ALL combat, for that matter, not just the sword of choice, and therefore becomes too powerful.


Perhaps a second, lesser BAB progression (3/4?) for all other weapons?


Seriously, though, you absolutely require a 10th level or so human fighter here. A lawful one, at that.
Only 6th of any race. Lawful prevents multiclassing to barbarian or bard.


Doesn't seem right, and kinda forces the guy to also take 2 weapon fighting trees along with this class to use it fully. If you got rid of the Weapon Spec requirement, it might be an attractive choice for a ranger.
Taking the two weapon fighting tree would require a dexterity that would otherwise be worthless because of the heavy armor required for the ability. That was intentional as well. The heavy armor requirement is a balancing mechanic as much as a flavorful one.

Further, as I pointed out earlier the class plays two kinda sick jokes on the player. 1) It requires 13+ int for the combat expertise tree and then gives them no class skills. 2) As you go up in level and the increased BAB becomes increasingly relevant (extra attacks), you become far more likely to encounter non-humanoid or magical opponents that render the abilities this class grants as worthless. Thats why I dont think this class is broken. Maybe the extra iterative attack becomes broken at very high epic levels, but if you're playing a campaign there, just don't allow the class. Its that easy. I think its balanced up to 20 and maybe a bit beyond that, especially with some minor tweaks.

[Rigeld]

Sword Grapple (Ex) : At 6th level, the fencer may use a bastard sword in a grapple with no penalties.

So... you can use your full attack at no penalties to do 1d10 damage per hit? In a grapple?

Yeah.... no. Plus, in D&D, grappling is more like wrestling than sword locking. No matter how good you are with your sword, youre not going to be able to use a 4 foot blade when theres 3-4 inches seperating you.

Oh, and I would take off the notes about getting another feat if you already have Imp. Init or Imp. Disarm. No other prestige class in the game does that. (correct me if im wrong)