Found an interesting blog post that talks about making 5e fit swashbuckling genres:
http://wineandsavages.blogspot.com/2015/05/armor-class-in-d-5e-swashbuckling.html

The most interesting part was the decision point about what to replace armor with: a fixed AC bonus based on proficiency, or giving every character the Parry reaction granted by the Defensive Duelist feat.

Which do you think would work better for the genre and system balance?

Alternative methods of protection could also be explored.
A lot of people forget that the "buckling" part of "swashbuckling" comes from bucklers. Small shields, cloaks, and improvised defensive measures can act as a partial stopgap here.

The challenge is making the give and take interesting enough to be akin to fencing. If the ability is too strong it will be a no-brainer. If the ability is too static it will feel cold and not like a proper duel.

The challenge is to take small, repeatable effects, and turn it dynamic with stressing alternate resources. So I think the Parry as a reaction idea is good, but it should also embrace more, and it should also include bonus action resource as part of the fun. I would throw in altered Fighting Style Protection as well as altered Cunning Action + Fast Hands.

Make it native to the setting as a Background, replacing the skills/tools/languages package. It is the easiest way to tie it to setting and control its power access. Not every game can handle players with access to all these things. Here's what I'd do so far:

Duelist Background
Skills: none
Tools: none
Languages: none
Benefits: altered Protection Fighting Style. Defensive Duelist's Parry. Dual Wielder's +1 AC when TWF. Cunning Action + Fast Hands mash-up.

Thus you get...

Reactions:
Opportunity Attack - (as written) leave your reach, exposed to attack.
Parry - (as feat) +PB to AC vs. next melee attack you see. requires finesse melee weapon. self only.
Protection - (as fight style) Disadv vs. next melee attack you see. requires shield. (add) may protect self.

Bonus Actions:
TWF - (as written) light weapon in 1st & 2nd hand, no mod dmg, may use thrown property.
Cunning Fast - (as Rogue feature) Dash or Disengage. Or (as Thief archetype feature) DEX Sleight of Hand check or Use an Object.
-------------------------

Now a player has to decide how they want to duel. Each brings its own benefits.

• Buckler style is +2 AC with one Disadv reaction per turn. no free hand.
• TWF is +1 AC with one +PB Parry reaction per turn, self only. no free hand.
• 1H is no extra AC, but still one +PB reaction per turn. Has free hand to interact with environment twice. (very swashbuckler-like)

That should be plenty options while keeping close to core rules. By stressing react and bonus act economy players will have to make interesting decisions. To give even more, you could create Riposte as an action, but that hard for me to design so far. Maybe just use the Ready action.

You'd also have to reword your weapons to make TWF make sense in setting.

Instead of:

Rapier, 1d8 pierce, finesse.
Scimitar, 1d6 slash, finesse, light.
Shortsword, 1d6 pierce, finesse, light.

Reword to:

Sabre, 1d8 slash, finesse.
Rapier, 1d6 slash, finesse, light.
Epee, 1d6 pierce, finesse, light.

At least that's how I would do it.

Cloaks were used for reals for parrying, fouling weapon arms of opponents, obscuring eye-lines etc.

Quote from: Opaopajr;845484Instead of:

Rapier, 1d8 pierce, finesse.
Scimitar, 1d6 slash, finesse, light.
Shortsword, 1d6 pierce, finesse, light.

Reword to:

Sabre, 1d8 slash, finesse.
Rapier, 1d6 slash, finesse, light.
Epee, 1d6 pierce, finesse, light.

At least that's how I would do it.

Interesting. Is that really an accurate take on sabres though?

Cloaks can also be wrapped around the forearm and used as a shield against lighter weapons (nothing two-handed).

I like the ac bonus based on proficiency.  Just seems to make things simple.

For Parry would you add the +PB to AC /before/ you see the attack roll or after? Seems like it would remove any ambiguity from the decision to choose afterwards. You either can parry it or you can't.

Also I don't understand how you can slash with a Rapier.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;845561Interesting. Is that really an accurate take on sabres though?

Well a historical cavalry sabre would be less finesse than most Medieval swords so...well...

All the kinds of "duelist armor", are based on pure avoidance or weapons that a man can break or bend if he catches the blade in a stout leather gauntlet.  It doesn't take much to deflect a rapier.  Try the same thing with a broadsword.

Basically, the only replacement for "armor" is hideous critical wounds.

Street weapons cannot compete with battlefield weapons unless the encounter is specifically tailored to the street weapon.  For example, in most cities, you're not wearing armor, and can't carry heavy weapons, so the duelist style can dominate.  However, don't impose those laws, and a fully armed and armored knight will destroy your Florentine Swashbuckler with a rapier.

The way armor and hit points crossover in D&D makes it hard to make Duelists viable while not gimping armor.  Just go back to all the various Duelist incarnations they all do the same thing... get hit less means either 1. Better AC, or 2. More HPs.

Or you could use the abilities of the Fighter subclass with all the unique abilities and come with something similar to better reflect a Duelist.

You could just remove armor from the game.

Or make bullets completely ignore armor like it wasn't there. Then you have a reason to sway around when people are using guns.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;845594You could just remove armor from the game.

Or make bullets completely ignore armor like it wasn't there. Then you have a reason to sway around when people are using guns.

It'd be more mechanically sound to turn armour into Damage Reduction, but I see what you're going for.  Here's the thing, allow light armour (simply because leather armour was used), but make the heavy stuff for out and out warfare.

Remember, about the time in the Real World, that the Rapier, Cut-And-Thrust and Town-sword became popular was about the time bladed weaponry was leaving the battlefield.  Large shields had all but disappeared from the Infantry, plate ruled, requiring two handed weapons, or the gonne and cannon.  And about that time, ranged weaponry was starting to become the mainstay of real combat, and the Gonne was an incredibly simple weapon to teach, meaning that the era of the Knight on Horseback was long over.

Dueling however, that was done by the peasantry and non-military nobility, so blades didn't need to be heavy.  And the Rapier was the most common of weapons, because it wasn't as lethal.  Yes, yes, I know, people did die, and they died in droves, but the amount of damage a rapier caused, compared to a long sword, or a sabre was minimal compared, and it's assumed that a lot of people who did die in the duels did so because of either blood loss, or by multiple stab wounds (Because they never noticed many of the injuries acquired in the fight.)

Also, a Rapier is by no means a light weapon, even by D&D terms, it weighed in at about 4lbs, just as much as the average battle blade.

So, here's what I would do weapon-wise:

Keep the Rapier as is.  The Sabre is a Slash based Rapier, a Cut-And-Thrust is actually a type of short sword, but can both slash and pierce, and a Town-Sword would be a bigger/longer version.  (A Town-sword is a thin, tapering slashing weapon, actually a precursor to a Rapier.)

So Rapier 1D8, Finesse, Piercing
Sabre 1D8, Finesse, Slashing
Cut-And-Thrust 1D6, Finesse, Light, Slash/Pierce
Town-Sword 1D8, Finesse, Slash/Pierce

Most shields would still be around, but highly uncommon, save for the Buckler, which had many variations.  In fact, I'd put the Cloak under the same banner, if you want to keep it simple.  The whole flicking the eyes and other combat tricks are covered under 5e's Improvised actions (I house rule that depending on the action, it can do damage.)

As for Characters, I'd give ALL melee combat players get the Dual Wielder Feat straight out of the box -so to speak- no matter what races are available.

Next, turn all armour into Damage Reduction as per the AC bonus (-10 of course), keep shields as the 'Damage Avoidance' mechanic, and finally, I'd make give the Proficiency Bonus to AC.

I'd also consider making the Monk/Barbarian's Unarmoured Defense power into a feat, but instead of defaulting to one stat, players would get to pick any stat other than Dex to add to their defense.

So a fighter (note the small S) who prides himself on their toughness could choose Constitution and add that, where as the charming swordsman can use Charisma.  The smart fighter can take Int, if he or she wants to.  So on and so forth.

Again, these are just my ideas.

Why not give armor bonus to anyone who is proficient in it, even when they aren't using armor? So the fighter gets that bonus to AC because he is a fighter. That is a good enough explanation to me.

Or you can do "invisible armor" - which means, the fact that you have enough spare encumbrance means you can move quickly enough to get out of the way.

EDIT: the advantage of this is that the game "balance" remains unchanged. And simplicity.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;845594You could just remove armor from the game.

Or make bullets completely ignore armor like it wasn't there. Then you have a reason to sway around when people are using guns.

Actually the blog article discussed this very thing. It's worth taking a look. Basically  it is taking the middle ages conceits of supposed default D&D (i.e. FR setting) and progressing them into the logical conclusions of Renaissance technology.

As for setting, yes, you have to make crossbows and firearms be able to pierce armor and make it unacceptable to wear armor in cities. Then you get the rise of dueling. Hence why you'd have to adjust the game via background and weaponry adjustments, as I have tried.

As adjustments go, it's not all that hard. And it has been a topic of discussion from even the earliests parts of D&D. Certain things, like wushia monks, and swashbuckling duelists, are heavily context dependent. Rewriting the core engine has been explored before, but usually had diminishing returns; it's often easier controlling what's allowed (race, class, magic, equip, etc.) and what suffered obsolescence.