I think, perhaps, the issue wasn't that you couldn't play a swashbuckler.  It was that, as a swashbuckler, you weren't going to be running around in full plate with shield and long sword - all of whcih had mechanical advantages over floopy hat, big boots and rapier.

So people wanted to play these other kinds of characters, but not be faced with the inherent mechanical disadvantages. This is, I think, what Cab references as keeping all of the sprwaling list of classes in balance. It's one of my problems with 3.5, actually - the class system is broken, but not because you can play all of these wild classes and combinations, but that in order to model the character you want you have to do so.

I understand why that is - the balance issue.  Who is going ot play the swashbuckler or the spell slinging thief if that character is set up to fail in the dangerous world of D&D?

There is a specific problem with being a 'swashbuckler'.

In a world with broadswords and heavy armour, its very hard to be a swashbuckler with a rapier, flouncy white shirt and buckler. You might be a bit quicker than the other guy, but the other guy isn't that slow, and he's only going to have to hit you once and he'll cut you in two.

So D&D in all of its incarnations really favours the tank-like fighter, and its quite hard to balance the 'swashbuckler' concept against that. Some would say that you just shouldn't do it, but I don't know, I quite like the idea that in a fantasy context it could work.

One way is to do your swashbuckling as a thief, so you're there to flounce about with a sword, hurl an insult at the enemy, and then back off... But ultimately, in a stand up fight, the guy clad in metal should still beat you.
Another way (perhaps the best I've seen) was in the Savage Coast/Red Steel stuff for 2nd ed, a curious little sub-system in the proficiencies section called 'panache', which gave you bonuses to subsequent rolls every time you did something with style.

But I think you have to be careful; sometimes you can faff about with something to make a concept fit and be balanced, but it isn't always a good idea to even try. If a player comes to me and says 'I want to be a fighter who carries a short sword, a buckler, wears leather armour and carries a bow, he's a swashbuckler type with a fether in his har' then I'll let him, but I'll make sure he is aware that alongside greater mobility comes greater vulnerability too.

Quote from: CabThere is a specific problem with being a 'swashbuckler'.

In a world with broadswords and heavy armour, its very hard to be a swashbuckler with a rapier, flouncy white shirt and buckler. You might be a bit quicker than the other guy, but the other guy isn't that slow, and he's only going to have to hit you once and he'll cut you in two.

Agreed. You can't divorce swashbuckling from the historical context which gave rise to that kind of story - and that's a historical context that includes cannons and musket. Gunpowder becoming widespread made personal body armour pretty much useless up to the invention of kevlar. Once muskets came onto the scene being light and quick became an advantage - you want to get up to the enemy's musket line and cut them down before they get a chance to reload, otherwise you're toast.