Talk:Swashbuckler

Merge
I didn't realize this when I made the swashbuckler article, but the DMG 3.5 refers to duelists and swashbucklers as the same thing.

As such I feel like these two articles should be merged. Because "Swashbuckler" is the term use in the most recent addition in a Realms-specific sourcebook, and "Duelist" is used in an older, vanilla D&D book, that article should be merged into this one. Ruf (talk) 12:53, August 7, 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Also, most abilities are very similar. It makes sense to merge. ― Sirwhiteout (talk) 15:19, August 8, 2020 (UTC)


 * While they involve similar concepts or have some shared abilities, so do a whole lot of classes in D&D, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are the same. Else you could merge barbarian and fighter or sorcerer and wizard. In any case, the DMG 3.5 says "The duelist (sometimes known as the swashbuckler)"; that's just an alternative name, not saying the class is the same as another. Then 3e later gave the name Swashbuckler to a new base class in Complete Warrior. It and the Duelist have distinct differences in fluff and crunch. I believe the 3e Swashbuckler would be equivalent to the 2e and 5e Swashbucklers, not the Duelist. Merging a 3e prestige class and a differently named 3e base class would be very confusing and complicate the infobox and organization. — BadCatMan (talk) 15:44, August 8, 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah, makes sense. I wasn't aware of the 3e base class. In that case it's really better to keep them separate. ― Sirwhiteout (talk) 15:52, August 8, 2020 (UTC)