Swashbuckler Base Class (WIP) WOULD LOVE YOUR HELP

[BRKNdevil]

Link to google docs.

Spoiler: PICTURES

Show

Duelist

Gunslinger

*Neither of these images are mine.

Reworked it some, moved around bits and pieces and such (10/18/2014)
IF YOU FIND THIS BASE CLASS OP, THEN INSTEAD OF SAYING IT IS OP, WOULD YOU KINDLY POINT OUT WHERE AND HOW YOU SUGGEST TO FIX IT. SUCH COMMENTS WOULD BE INFINITELY MORE USEFUL.

This is based on the Swashbuckler Base Class of 3.5, the Duelist Prestige Class, Streetfighter Prestige Class, Blade Bravo Prestige Class, the Pathfinder Gunslinger Base Class, and the Pathfinder Hybrid Base Class also Called Swashbuckler.

I took elements of all of them to help make this while trying to balance it all out.
The Deeds & Dares limitations are taken from the warlock invocation limits, and the Points Pool from the Monk for better balance. Some of the elements of the above where adapted such as a fusion of a skilled character with some of the abilities of the Fighter to make things easier since a buttload of new features are not generally well balanced and i found no need.

I need a better selection of Dares and Deeds, and some finishing touches on both of the subclasses.

Finally i chose to not base all the DC's off one stat due to the need to make a decently balanced character for both in and out of a fight. So you can choose what kind of character you are by having the spell like ability DC's based off a single mental stat.

AS FOR THOSE HELPING ME ON OTHER RANDOM THINGS I DO. This is something I've been playing with for about 2 months while in school when i get bored. ENGINEERING IS A PAINFUL DEGREE. You don't get much fun and they built the business majors building too damn close so i get to here how they went to a party in the middle of the week and ****. So starting something else is the only thing that gives me fun.

[Pramxnim]

I would suggest you improve the formatting of the class first, since it's almost unreadable in its current form on Googledocs. I don't have Office, so I can't just download and read it off Excel. I'm afraid I won't be able to offer feedback unless the class profile is accessible online.

[BRKNdevil]

This is a pain in the butt to edit, so i reworked the format onto a word doc and posted the doc at the start of the thread. (10/18/2014)

[BRKNdevil]

there! Happy?! jk

[Shadow]

There was one major problem that I got to and stopped reading.
Saving Throws: Constitution, Dexterity

The saving throws are split into two groups. Major Saves and Minor Saves.
The Major Saves are the ones from 3e: Dex, Con, Wis
The Minor Saves are the "new" saves: Str, Int, Cha
Every class in the PHB is proficient on one of these three major saves and one of the three minor saves.
Your class is proficient in two major saves.

{{scrubbed}}

[BRKNdevil]

There was one major problem that I got to and stopped reading.
Saving Throws: Constitution, Dexterity

The saving throws are split into two groups. Major Saves and Minor Saves.
The Major Saves are the ones from 3e: Dex, Con, Wis
The Minor Saves are the "new" saves: Str, Int, Cha
Every class in the PHB is proficient on one of these three major saves and one of the three minor saves.
Your class is proficient in two major saves.
{{scrubbed original, scrubbed quote}}

{{scrubbed}}

[Shadow]

{{scrubbed}}

Every single class in the PHB has proficiency in one traditional save and one of the "new" saves. The traditional saves are the most common and most deadly, generally speaking.
{{scrubbed}}

Which ones would I recommend?
I'd recommend one traditional save and one new one, just like every other class in existence.

[BRKNdevil]

Every single class in the PHB has proficiency in one traditional save and one of the "new" saves. The traditional saves are the most common and most deadly, generally speaking.
{{scrubbed}}

Which ones would I recommend?
I'd recommend one traditional save and one new one, just like every other class in existence.

{{scrubbed}}

[Shadow]

After a quick glance, it's not even remotely balanced.
You basically cherry-picked all of the best features from the melee classes and threw them all together into one "monster" melee class.

Light armor + shields + max dex + defense style + half proficiency bonus = AC
You're almost the best tank in the game.

Dual wielding with any two light -OR- finesse weapons, and all of those weapons automatically become both light -AND- finesse for you, and they eventually deal 1d10 damage each, with the TWF style, plus Flurry, all with no feat reqs.
You're the best TWFer in the game.

Bard skills + expertise twice. You're a skill monkey.

I'm just getting started. Need I go on?

[BRKNdevil]

After a quick glance, it's not even remotely balanced.
You basically cherry-picked all of the best features from the melee classes and threw them all together into one "monster" melee class.

Light armor + shields + max dex + dueling style + half proficiency bonus = AC
You're the best tank in the game.

Dual wielding with any two light -OR- finesse weapons, and all of those weapons automatically become both light -AND- finesse for you, and they eventually deal 1d10 damage each, with the TWF style, plaus Flurry, all with no feat reqs.
You're the best TWFer in the game.

Bard skills + expertise twice. You're a skill monkey.

I'm just getting started. Need I go on?

{{scrubbed}}
K, on side thought, then lets say drop the half prof. to ac or the shield prof., but the two weapon fighting doesn't stack with flurry and thus i wonder what the issue is. What limitations or skill list would you suggest for a Swashbuckler? Should their be expertise? and its not like i gave it true spellcasting.
And is that combination of AC's any better than a Barbarian with full Con and Dex with a shield and dipping fighter?

Finally, Dex and Int saves or Dex and Str saves?

[Amnoriath]

K, on side thought, then lets say drop the half prof. to ac or the shield prof., but the two weapon fighting doesn't stack with flurry and thus i wonder what the issue is. What limitations or skill list would you suggest for a Swashbuckler? Should their be expertise? and its not like i gave it true spellcasting.
And is that combination of AC's any better than a Barbarian with full Con and Dex with a shield and dipping fighter?

Finally, Dex and Int saves or Dex and Str saves?

1. Except a Barbarian doesn't benefit from being a Fighter that way. That style only applies if they are wearing armor. Additionally in order for a Barbarian to benefit and still be able to hit well he has to be rocking 20 stats in all 3 physical stats meaning unless he is a Beserker and raging mental attacks will demolish him. This on the other hand needs only Dexterity to get the same AC and to hit bonuses. You also could have both magical armor and shield.
2. Well, to be honest, does this really need to be a class? The Swashbuckler has that same crafty on your feet attitude as the Rogue or it has similar fighting expertise as fighter with a little rogue. Either way you have to same kind of flavor to crunch vision, just different bases to work with. This is very apparent in the constrained sub classes you made. Here though you have both the Bards skills, Rogue's defense, with a Fighter's frame and Monk+monk tradition+Battle Master variety of attacks. The fact is you really can't balance with the others without looking like a multiclass character.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: I would highly suggest that we consider how we address others.

[BRKNdevil]

K, so dropping shield, prof. and the Defense Fighting style, Reducing it to two skills from a limited selection of lets say, Athletics, Acrobatics, Insight, Intimidation, Perception, and Sleight of Hand. And Removing the Tool Prof. Lets say Reduce Expertise to a one time thing at level 10 and I'd prefer to keep 1/2 Prof. Bonus to AC at level 6 and considering how late it is, its not exactly dippable and most importantly it scales, thus not really equating to much until late game.
As for whether or not its not needed. Well, a lot of people seem like they want a swashbuckler class and thus this idea was inspired, and that was a month ago so i dunno, what do you think? Have people found an acceptable alternative? As for the Combo to Combo idea of things, that's because I'm basing it off this http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybr...s/swashbuckler and you are limited to at most 8 options. If you think this should be reduced, to how much, and why?

The reason there is the railroading of the Archetypes is 1, its in pre-alpha and 2 the selection of deeds & dares lets you decide how you want to play.

Finally, I think everyone has decided that two weapon fighting is possibly the worst style in the game, so if you are the best of the lowest pile, does that really matter past the fluff of your character?

[Amnoriath]

K, so dropping shield, prof. and the Defense Fighting style, Reducing it to two skills from a limited selection of lets say, Athletics, Acrobatics, Insight, Intimidation, Perception, and Sleight of Hand. And Removing the Tool Prof. Lets say Reduce Expertise to a one time thing at level 10 and I'd prefer to keep 1/2 Prof. Bonus to AC at level 6 and considering how late it is, its not exactly dippable and most importantly it scales, thus not really equating to much until late game.
As for whether or not its not needed. Well, a lot of people seem like they want a swashbuckler class and thus this idea was inspired, and that was a month ago so i dunno, what do you think? Have people found an acceptable alternative? As for the Combo to Combo idea of things, that's because I'm basing it off this http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybr...s/swashbuckler and you are limited to at most 8 options. If you think this should be reduced, to how much, and why?

The reason there is the railroading of the Archetypes is 1, its in pre-alpha and 2 the selection of deeds & dares lets you decide how you want to play.

Finally, I think everyone has decided that two weapon fighting is possibly the worst style in the game, so if you are the best of the lowest pile, does that really matter past the fluff of your character?

1. Okay, good skill selection here and nothing wrong with the AC. My main issues was the smattering of others
2. Well, a lot of people want an assassin as a base class or duskblade..etc. Again that really isn't my big issue with what you have. I suggested that because it is easier and both have good bases to work with what you are looking for as you borrowing a lot.
3. Many sub classes have selection of abilities. You need to define yours better from the others or a multiclass character.
4. The reason why two-weapon fighting is bad is because of the language of the off-hand attack. The fact is a Monk can have two light weapons or with Duel-Wielder and proficiency two rapiers ending up dealing more damage than one with a Duelist fighting style. Yes, he can dip and get it but then he needs to multiclass losing his final damage upgrade and other abilities making a decimal point worth of better average damage rather superfluous.
What you need to really bring something different is the socialite, think on your toes type of abilities in which others don't really do or do with spells.

[BRKNdevil]

1. Okay, good skill selection here and nothing wrong with the AC. My main issues was the smattering of others
2. Well, a lot of people want an assassin as a base class or duskblade..etc. Again that really isn't my big issue with what you have. I suggested that because it is easier and both have good bases to work with what you are looking for as you borrowing a lot.
3. Many sub classes have selection of abilities. You need to define yours better from the others or a multiclass character.
4. The reason why two-weapon fighting is bad is because of the language of the off-hand attack. The fact is a Monk can have two light weapons or with Duel-Wielder and proficiency two rapiers ending up dealing more damage than one with a Duelist fighting style. Yes, he can dip and get it but then he needs to multiclass losing his final damage upgrade and other abilities making a decimal point worth of better average damage rather superfluous.
What you need to really bring something different is the socialite, think on your toes type of abilities in which others don't really do or do with spells.

2
And I've seen the attempts, also Assassin has already been made, but the people are dissatisfied with the Eldritch Knight and want a slightly overpowered Duskblade with full 4 attacks and casting Cantrips at the same time. As for the rest of that comment, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

3
The subclasses do have a selection of abilities with the deeds they have access to that only they can access and for me to be able to define it against a multiclass character would be bloody insane and repeated constructs of abilities happens all over the place in the PHB so i find that argument sort of weak

4
Wouldn't that be an entirely different class? Everything I'm reading about the swashbuckler would have pretty much nothing to do with being a socialite, though that was always a possibility but that was due more to the person's background than anything else. The swashbuckler seems to be someone who fights with skill and flair over the other things, and i tried to keep the spell like abilities constricted to things that a normal person under extraordinary circumstances would be able to do. What would you suggest?
Also the language for the Light and Finesse thing says that a weapon with Finesse is treated as Light, only in terms that you can wield a weapon that has the Light Property in your offhand, but may or may not have the Finesse Property. As it stands, you can wield a Rapier, and a Dagger, but not two Rapiers. This is so that you can have Main Gauche as a viable flair to your character and still be legal. Normally you would not be able to do this.

[Amnoriath]

2
And I've seen the attempts, also Assassin has already been made, but the people are dissatisfied with the Eldritch Knight and want a slightly overpowered Duskblade with full 4 attacks and casting Cantrips at the same time. As for the rest of that comment, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

3
The subclasses do have a selection of abilities with the deeds they have access to that only they can access and for me to be able to define it against a multiclass character would be bloody insane and repeated constructs of abilities happens all over the place in the PHB so i find that argument sort of weak

4
Wouldn't that be an entirely different class? Everything I'm reading about the swashbuckler would have pretty much nothing to do with being a socialite, though that was always a possibility but that was due more to the person's background than anything else. The swashbuckler seems to be someone who fights with skill and flair over the other things, and i tried to keep the spell like abilities constricted to things that a normal person under extraordinary circumstances would be able to do. What would you suggest?
Also the language for the Light and Finesse thing says that a weapon with Finesse is treated as Light, only in terms that you can wield a weapon that has the Light Property in your offhand, but may or may not have the Finesse Property. As it stands, you can wield a Rapier, and a Dagger, but not two Rapiers. This is so that you can have Main Gauche as a viable flair to your character and still be legal. Normally you would not be able to do this.

1. I am saying that all it takes for a rogue to be a swashbuckler is a little bit more fighting prowess and some tricks. The Fighter only needs some skills and stunts.
2. What you have are sub classes that only manage to say I am ranged and I am melee. If you would introduce a little more modularity in your wording you would have no need to have either, much less flavor. Are you saying you can't define it against a Battle Master/Rogue X? It is one thing to say there a few different things that render a target prone, it is another to say well I want the Martial Arts, Flurry..etc ability so I will put another name on it and slightly change the wording. In essence you don't have a unique class mechanic or set of abilities that say I am the Swashbuckler vs. X/X or X+spell..etc.
3. No, when I say socialite I mean abilities related to being social. The Swashbuckler is almost always a charmer or a haggler of some kind if they want to and their aren't any class abilities that really deal with things like that.
4. quote from Dual-Wielder, "You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light,"(165, PHB 5e) So, that means neither need the light property once you have this.

[BRKNdevil]

OP
and I hv 10 ch

Translation please, I understand the OP bit, and that is currently being fixed but the rest of it is making me go wha???

[BRKNdevil]

1. I am saying that all it takes for a rogue to be a swashbuckler is a little bit more fighting prowess and some tricks. The Fighter only needs some skills and stunts.
2. What you have are sub classes that only manage to say I am ranged and I am melee. If you would introduce a little more modularity in your wording you would have no need to have either, much less flavor. Are you saying you can't define it against a Battle Master/Rogue X? It is one thing to say there a few different things that render a target prone, it is another to say well I want the Martial Arts, Flurry..etc ability so I will put another name on it and slightly change the wording. In essence you don't have a unique class mechanic or set of abilities that say I am the Swashbuckler vs. X/X or X+spell..etc.

I'm not saying that such a thing can't be covered by multiclassing but that this is a common enough archetype of combat that would benefit from having a class system of its own without being some terrible mutation and amalgam of multiclassing that requires you to write in 6 size font to fit on the line describing your classes. Its nice to have a viable build on the generic idea of your character to happen sometime before level 20 and being some legendary being.
The comment of the modularity of my archetypes is probably no worse then the druid, i'm a wildshaper, and i'm a slightly better spellcaster, or the Bard, I can hold my own as a frontline or rear end fighter, or i have a huge spell list. But still it could use improvement and as stated above was mentioned among the things i wish to improve. You pointing something I have already acknowledged while only giving vague details about how you don't like it is less than helpful and would prefer actual advice on how it should be built.
Finally if you would note, that i'm building this off partially from not only ideas from the multitude of swashbuckler ideas of the Streetfighter, Duelist, Blade Bravo, Swashbuckler (3.5), Gunslinger Pathfinder, but most importantly The Swashbuckler of Pathfinder, which is a hybrid class of Gunslinger and Fighter of the Pathfinder vein.

If we where to take that idea of gameplay of only having what classes that are needed. Then we could go back to having the Fighter, Magic User, and Rogue

3. No, when I say socialite I mean abilities related to being social. The Swashbuckler is almost always a charmer or a haggler of some kind if they want to and their aren't any class abilities that really deal with things like that.

In the example above, note that none of those classes have any class ability that has anything to do with being some socialite character in the least regards past having the skill Bluff and Intimidate and using the already present game framework to do the same thing a rogue would do. If you would be so kind to give me an example from previous works besides Fiction Stories of high flying adventure, I will be assuming that instead of having the PC actually Roleplay his character in such a fashion, you wish to make a quantification of game mechanics that i think 5e is trying to move away from and thus, past the Dare of casting fear as one would Intimidate for, and the Possible inclusion of Glibness I don't know how i should have added Socialite abilities to the system.

4. quote from Dual-Wielder, "You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light,"(165, PHB 5e) So, that means neither need the light property once you have this.

And i am trying to find how me moving away from the mechanic of having a character wielding two Rapiers in both hands because he took this feat. While sticking to the more historical connotation of a Swashbuckler with a Sword in one hand and some small weapon in the other, such as a gun or dagger, without detracting from the lost in mechanical damage while embracing the fluff is a bad thing. And Finally i think it has been noted that Two Weapon Fighting is considered the weakest in mechanical damage and thus the likelihood of anyone actually getting the feat is terribly low that such a concept deserves a break.

Now if you wish to argue the balance of the character and how it can be balanced, and the cost and benefit of the individual abilities instead of arguing why it exists that would be lovely. In which I thank you for commenting on abilities that are elsewhere in the game in some form or another so that any faults can be dealt with.

[Amnoriath]

I'm not saying that such a thing can't be covered by multiclassing but that this is a common enough archetype of combat that would benefit from having a class system of its own without being some terrible mutation and amalgam of multiclassing that requires you to write in 6 size font to fit on the line describing your classes. Its nice to have a viable build on the generic idea of your character to happen sometime before level 20 and being some legendary being.
The comment of the modularity of my archetypes is probably no worse then the druid, i'm a wildshaper, and i'm a slightly better spellcaster, or the Bard, I can hold my own as a frontline or rear end fighter, or i have a huge spell list. But still it could use improvement and as stated above was mentioned among the things i wish to improve. You pointing something I have already acknowledged while only giving vague details about how you don't like it is less than helpful and would prefer actual advice on how it should be built.
Finally if you would note, that i'm building this off partially from not only ideas from the multitude of swashbuckler ideas of the Streetfighter, Duelist, Blade Bravo, Swashbuckler (3.5), Gunslinger Pathfinder, but most importantly The Swashbuckler of Pathfinder, which is a hybrid class of Gunslinger and Fighter of the Pathfinder vein.


In the example above, note that none of those classes have any class ability that has anything to do with being some socialite character in the least regards past having the skill Bluff and Intimidate and using the already present game framework to do the same thing a rogue would do. If you would be so kind to give me an example from previous works besides Fiction Stories of high flying adventure, I will be assuming that instead of having the PC actually Roleplay his character in such a fashion, you wish to make a quantification of game mechanics that i think 5e is trying to move away from and thus, past the Dare of casting fear as one would Intimidate for, and the Possible inclusion of Glibness I don't know how i should have added Socialite abilities to the system.



And i am trying to find how me moving away from the mechanic of having a character wielding two Rapiers in both hands because he took this feat. While sticking to the more historical connotation of a Swashbuckler with a Sword in one hand and some small weapon in the other, such as a gun or dagger, without detracting from the lost in mechanical damage while embracing the fluff is a bad thing. And Finally i think it has been noted that Two Weapon Fighting is considered the weakest in mechanical damage and thus the likelihood of anyone actually getting the feat is terribly low that such a concept deserves a break.

Now if you wish to argue the balance of the character and how it can be balanced, and the cost and benefit of the individual abilities instead of arguing why it exists that would be lovely. In which I thank you for commenting on abilities that are elsewhere in the game in some form or another so that any faults can be dealt with.

1. But you have so many abilities as it stands that you already doing this if not more.
2. One bonds more closely to animals while the other to its environment. One is Skald learning from his stories and of war while the other is a Lorekeeper keeping even more various tid bits of information.
3. You said though that people seem to want it enough to justify its existence. The realm of 5e has taken those sorts of stories and lore, trying to replicate them into the characters. If you want a reason to do so from those alone the Blade Bravo gains Goad as a bonus feat and a class bonus to feinting.
4. The Deadeye will be spammed to all heck and back, especially with rogue. The only thing that can compare to be used with such impunity is Reckless Attack which gives advantage back to the enemies. Your dares at this points are how can get back more grit while coming back to life better than a Barbarian and nova more than a monk. Also these abilities are strictly better than the Monk's.
"1 point of Grit to make a Dodge Action as a Bonus Action, at 5th Level you can use your Reaction to use a Weapon Attack on someone who misses you while you use this option
… 1 point of Grit to make a Disengage or Dash Action as a Bonus Action. At 5th level when you use this option you ignore Difficult Terrain"
Finally, your Duelist is in every sense better than the Champion.

[BRKNdevil]

1. But you have so many abilities as it stands that you already doing this if not more.

Which is why this is a WiP and not some set idea. You arguing this point over and over is not in anyway helping this be fixed and if you continue with this line of argument i will block you from this thread due to wanting to drag your argument into the ground without contributing to fixing the issues in any way. Now if you want to add suggestions on how this can be balanced, that would be welcomed, but this means actual suggestions and reasons being listed behind them.

2. One bonds more closely to animals while the other to its environment. One is Skald learning from his stories and of war while the other is a Lorekeeper keeping even more various tid bits of information.

You literally added your fluff to the mechanics of a class which can be argueably put on any archetype and thus i find this argument invalid.

3. You said though that people seem to want it enough to justify its existence. The realm of 5e has taken those sorts of stories and lore, trying to replicate them into the characters. If you want a reason to do so from those alone the Blade Bravo gains Goad as a bonus feat and a class bonus to feinting.

This argument makes no sense and thus needs clarification.

4. The Deadeye will be spammed to all heck and back, especially with rogue. The only thing that can compare to be used with such impunity is Reckless Attack which gives advantage back to the enemies. Your dares at this points are how can get back more grit while coming back to life better than a Barbarian and nova more than a monk. Also these abilities are strictly better than the Monk's.
"1 point of Grit to make a Dodge Action as a Bonus Action, at 5th Level you can use your Reaction to use a Weapon Attack on someone who misses you while you use this option
… 1 point of Grit to make a Disengage or Dash Action as a Bonus Action. At 5th level when you use this option you ignore Difficult Terrain"
Finally, your Duelist is in every sense better than the Champion.

Being better than the Champion is like being better than a retarded child in a mental subject. Not hard, not necessarily bad, and not your fault. As long as I'm not better than a wizard or paladin, or the onion druid than i think that is alright. But how would you balance such a mechanic?

[Amnoriath]

Which is why this is a WiP and not some set idea. You arguing this point over and over is not in anyway helping this be fixed and if you continue with this line of argument i will block you from this thread due to wanting to drag your argument into the ground without contributing to fixing the issues in any way. Now if you want to add suggestions on how this can be balanced, that would be welcomed, but this means actual suggestions and reasons being listed behind them.


You literally added your fluff to the mechanics of a class which can be argueably put on any archetype and thus i find this argument invalid.


This argument makes no sense and thus needs clarification.


Being better than the Champion is like being better than a retarded child in a mental subject. Not hard, not necessarily bad, and not your fault. As long as I'm not better than a wizard or paladin, or the onion druid than i think that is alright. But how would you balance such a mechanic?

1. Rather than have strict archetypes maybe borrow from the Warlock a bit. Break up your archetypes into sets of flavor(personalities) and let whether they are good at melee or range become a choice in which both can have. Also you dares are just obscene and makes scarcity nothing to worry about.
2. I am not adding anything which isn't already there and enforced. One has circles of spells with the name of environments on them and it gains favored terrain like abilities as well as a mass sanctuary. The other increases the multitude of forms and likely beasts they have met. The College of Valor has more tandem buffing related to battle as well as wanting to emulate it. While the other actually gains the ability to decrease enemies(sort of dark knowledge) checks as well as actually use inspiration himself de-facto gaining bardic knowledge and then some. Then they all have paragraphs detailing their flavor and specialties. A Marksman though can easily have every bit the same personality as a Duelist in this class without having to make any kind of exceptions. These others clearly point towards different focuses.
3. It means that if one of the reasons you are doing this is because people want a unique base classes enough you ought to consider many of the stories, movies...etc with such heroes rather than just someone else's class mechanics.
4. Oh, so you admit it sucks now. It is one thing to say well I have many other things I can do and some of yours so I am probably a better than out right saying I am going to take your star features expand on them plus about 10 others and somehow you are still suppose to see yourself as viable.

[Shadow]

As long as I'm not better than a wizard or paladin, or the onion druid than i think that is alright.

I'm removing the wizard and paladin (as that is what the -or- does by itself).
The onion druid (and the moon druid itself) is the most broken archetype in the game at the moment, and it will be the most houserule-tweaked subclass there is. Our group (and four other tables that I personally know of) have already tweaked it and houseruled moon druid so that it isn't broken at all anymore.
Claiming that you're not as broken as the most broken option available isn't a fair comparison by any means.

The bottom line is that you have taken all of the best (and sometimes even class defining) features from almost every single melee class and thrown them all together into one completely OP class. You may as well just make him a full caster on top of it at this point, because it wouldn't break the class much more than it already is.
Your swashbuckler is broken beyond repair. It's time to go back to the drawing board. Seriously, start from scratch. Because this thing is so completely OP that there's no fixing it in its current state.

[BRKNdevil]

I'm removing the wizard and paladin (as that is what the -or- does by itself).
The onion druid (and the moon druid itself) is the most broken archetype in the game at the moment, and it will be the most houserule-tweaked subclass there is. Our group (and four other tables that I personally know of) have already tweaked it and houseruled moon druid so that it isn't broken at all anymore.
Claiming that you're not as broken as the most broken option available isn't a fair comparison by any means.

The bottom line is that you have taken all of the best (and sometimes even class defining) features from almost every single melee class and thrown them all together into one completely OP class. You may as well just make him a full caster on top of it at this point, because it wouldn't break the class much more than it already is.
Your swashbuckler is broken beyond repair. It's time to go back to the drawing board. Seriously, start from scratch. Because this thing is so completely OP that there's no fixing it in its current state.

I'm assuming you where one of those people who thought the Tome of Battle was filled with overpowered weeaboo characters and have not actually put those characters in play against level appropriate matches. And the fact that you removed two out of the three is something of an odd thing. Finally, is it any less broken then some of the things that you have put on this board? Because by the comments of the things i see, no they aren't. Thus you continue to try to fix them so that they are balanced. This is merely what I'm trying to do and you are not in any way being constructive or useful.

[Shadow]

I'm assuming you where one of those people who thought the Tome of Battle was filled with overpowered weeaboo characters and have not actually put those characters in play against level appropriate matches.

You can't compare ToB/3e with anything from 5e. 3e was an unbalanced mess, and by the time ToB came out it was well beyond repair. ToB was a godsend because it attempted to fix some of the balance issues. 5e is fairly well balanced all in all.
You can't even compare them.

And the fact that you removed two out of the three is something of an odd thing.

It's not an odd thing. You didn't say -and-, you said -or-.
Your wording removed the first two by itself.

Finally, is it any less broken then some of the things that you have put on this board? Because by the comments of the things i see, no they aren't. Thus you continue to try to fix them so that they are balanced. This is merely what I'm trying to do and you are not in any way being constructive or useful.

I have posted exactly one thing, and that thing has generally been agreed to be balanced with extremely little discussion about any balancing issues being needed.
Your swashbuckler is beyond repair. You could certainly make one that has a chance to be balanced, but the chassis upon which it now rests leaves that an impossibility.
The only constructive thing that I could say, I have already said. Start from scratch, because as is it's beyond repair.

edit:
The only other constructive thing that I could say would be that swashbuckler doesn't need a base class. Fighter subclass, sure. Rogue subclass, maybe. A new base class, not needed at all.

[BRKNdevil]

Reworked the Design and made some changes. Also Shadow, under the direction of the Moderator I've been told to put you on the ignore list. So, if you would, stop posting on this thread since all it seems we do is argue.

[AgentPaper]

Ok, everything is much more legible now, but the more I read it, the more I can't help but wonder why this isn't just a Rogue subclass. I know that might sound lazy, but I just can't see why you added a lot of the features, many of which only serve to complicated mechanics that already allow you to fulfill the Swashbuckler archetype. As is, the class seems more like a magical MacGyver rather than a daring pirate or musketeer.

[BRKNdevil]

Mainly because it felt like you needed to go somewhere between 3-4 different classes in order to get to a Swashbuckler Class and I find that image and mechanics of the Swashbuckler from Pathfinder probably captured the idea the best. I also felt that the Dexterity Combatant needed an archetype for itself due to ideas like Gunslinger and other such classes.
Personally I don't like having to wait till i'm level 5 or 6 before becoming the idea of my character. As for the Swashbuckler character via Multiclassing. I'd start with Barbarian 1 then go Fighter for at least 2 and maybe 6, then go Rogue. i'd splash Monk for the dodge as a bonus action.
If i made a subclass that incorporated all of that, I'd get yelled at for why are you taking features from other classes.

[AgentPaper]

Mainly because it felt like you needed to go somewhere between 3-4 different classes in order to get to a Swashbuckler Class and I find that image and mechanics of the Swashbuckler from Pathfinder probably captured the idea the best. I also felt that the Dexterity Combatant needed an archetype for itself due to ideas like Gunslinger and other such classes.
Personally I don't like having to wait till i'm level 5 or 6 before becoming the idea of my character. As for the Swashbuckler character via Multiclassing. I'd start with Barbarian 1 then go Fighter for at least 2 and maybe 6, then go Rogue. i'd splash Monk for the dodge as a bonus action.
If i made a subclass that incorporated all of that, I'd get yelled at for why are you taking features from other classes.

What does Barbarian have to offer a Swashbuckler? Fighter seems iffy, sure you get the fighting style, but those aren't really needed for you to be a swashbuckler. Monk is even less necessary, as the Rogue's Cunning Action does the same thing (minus flurry) without using any resources.

You can be a swashbuckler from level 1 by just going Rogue. Grab a Rapier, or a Scimitar and a hand Crossbow, and you're basically set. Choose Acrobatics and Athletics as your Expertise skills. Sneak attack encourages you to use tricks to get the upper hand on your opponent, whether that's sneaking up and backstabbing someone or throwing dirt in their eyes to distract them. Use your expertise to climb on tables, swing from chandeliers, or whatever stunts you can think of that your DM will let you do to get advantage on your attacks. At level 2, you get Cunning Action, which is the most Swashbuckler thing you could possibly do with your bonus action every round. Then you hit level 3 and you pick the Swashbuckler roguish archetype, and you start getting abilities that support this playstyle throughout the game.

[BRKNdevil]

What does Barbarian have to offer a Swashbuckler? Fighter seems iffy, sure you get the fighting style, but those aren't really needed for you to be a swashbuckler. Monk is even less necessary, as the Rogue's Cunning Action does the same thing (minus flurry) without using any resources.

You can be a swashbuckler from level 1 by just going Rogue. Grab a Rapier, or a Scimitar and a hand Crossbow, and you're basically set. Choose Acrobatics and Athletics as your Expertise skills. Sneak attack encourages you to use tricks to get the upper hand on your opponent, whether that's sneaking up and backstabbing someone or throwing dirt in their eyes to distract them. Use your expertise to climb on tables, swing from chandeliers, or whatever stunts you can think of that your DM will let you do to get advantage on your attacks. At level 2, you get Cunning Action, which is the most Swashbuckler thing you could possibly do with your bonus action every round. Then you hit level 3 and you pick the Swashbuckler roguish archetype, and you start getting abilities that support this playstyle throughout the game.

Barbarian because it gives you the Unarmored Defense, Fighter for the combination of fighting style, and Battlemaster for the alternative attack Flair, and cunning action only gets you the hide option, whose use can be easily negated depending on the situation and suits ranged characters more then melee. What you described wasn't a swashbuckler but the poorly trained throwaway character from an old pirate movie. A swashbuckler seems to have always been a lightly armored upfront and skilled fighter that seems to have originated in the period when a fencing sword was civilian legal. the Weapon choices prevent you from doing some of the more traditional fencing styles such as pairing a rapier and a dagger and if you decide to mention the use of the feat Two Weapon fighting. Then the use of such a pair becomes extremely subpar. Basically going rogue is fighting without flair and being a sneaky git as well, which doesn't really fit the image of a swashbuckler. In comparison to 3.5 character classes, your idea wouldn't fit there either.

[BRKNdevil]

Also the only reason i haven't made a Gunslinger Subclass is because their aren't any guns statted out for me to use. Otherwise Marksman would be gone and i'd have that there. However, if someone can link me to some gun stats that are generally considered balanced or good, send it to me please.