First question is simple, what do you think about a battlemaster/swashbuckler multiclass? It seems reasonably optimized while also having a one-way ticket to flavortown. Tips on when to multiclass? I started as a fighter and just got my level 3 battlemaster maneuvers.
Also, the game is great, but there's a slight difference between myself and the DM's playstyles. I like a slow and steady, survivalish, using your wits, kinda game. I like making traps and weapons outta random things I find, and using 100% of the world to my advantage. So much so that I've earned the nicknames McIver and Fred from Scooby Doo.
My DM doesn't like nitty gritty games like that. Like he gave an example from a previous game he ran when a player asked: "When can I go to town to use my smiths tools?" to which he said, "I dunno man, the game is about kicking ass and advancing the plot."
Don't get me wrong, I love making my character powerful, but I like to feel like I earned that power through creative problem solving and roleplay. I've been accused of min-maxing at the table, which is fair enough, because I do, but I also don't get enough credit, because I really do care about the roleplay. Like I wouldn't mind a hunger/thirst mechanic, or variant exuberance.
I love the idea of a party having to hunt in the wild to stay alive, then using all the parts of the animal, maybe using bones and sinew to make string for a new bow or the hilt of a sword, selling the pelts back in town and it gives you just enough for that healing potion that saves your hide two sessions later.
Yeah there's no conflict yet, I could just see it as a source of potential conflict. I know he'll allow me the space to do these kind of things, but I feel guilty every time I do because it seems like I'm slowing the pace of the game and making it center around me. I don't wanna do that to the other players and the DM.
"Like he gave an example from a previous game he ran when a player asked: "When can I go to town to use my smiths tools?" to which he said, "I dunno man, the game is about kicking ass and advancing the plot."
I am totally with the DM on this one. The player, and it sounds like you have the same philosophy as the player, wants to have the DM specifically create a setting so that player can showboat and play with his specific skillset. Sorry, but no. That is not how D&D works. You use your skills and abilities of your char when it makes sense to help the group. The group, and DM, does not cater the game to allow you to explore every facet of your character.
I never wanted to showboat, I do want to use my skillset though and explore my character. The whole point of this post was to find a strategy to compromise with my DM if this ever became a problem. The point was never to get validation for my side of an argument that isn't even happening.
I think a lot of people put too little emphasis on tools, crafting, and creative problem solving That's all this is. It was never about me wanting to show off my character.
I'm not even sure what point your addressing because it bares little resemblance to any question I asked.
If I brought this to my DM I'm not gonna get upset if he shoots it down. It's fine, it's his game. He's also really great, flexible, and creative, so I'm still having fun. Just trying to get ahead of a potential problem. That's all.
I've always found that multi-classed characters are weaker than just sticking with one class. That said, this game is about fun, so if you want to multi-class than go for it. The multi-class you describe and the reconciliation will add to the gameplay I think. If you like to roll play than this is the way to do it.
I never wanted to showboat, I do want to use my skillset though and explore my character. The whole point of this post was to find a strategy to compromise with my DM if this ever became a problem. The point was never to get validation for my side of an argument that isn't even happening.
I think a lot of people put too little emphasis on tools, crafting, and creative problem solving That's all this is. It was never about me wanting to show off my character.
I'm not even sure what point your addressing because it bares little resemblance to any question I asked.
If I brought this to my DM I'm not gonna get upset if he shoots it down. It's fine, it's his game. He's also really great, flexible, and creative, so I'm still having fun. Just trying to get ahead of a potential problem. That's all.
I think VinceSnetterton, while maybe a bit direct, has a point that actually speaks well to your post and you not recognizing it may actually further validate their point. You're anticipating a problem, and I saw the word reconciliation of styles floated in this thread. That's important thing to hold onto. Reconciliation requires an even handed look at all points of view. In the dynamic you outline I see two, you and the DM and no one else at table. You give over twice as much verbiage to what you want out of the game to how you frame the DM's play style (and again, no real accounting of the game that you yourself say "is great" so far).
What I see is a player who wants every decision you make in character generation to be addressed in the game, at prompting (i.e. "Where can I use my blacksmith tools?" I know, another player another game's words, but your case in point as to foreshadowing the anticipated "problem"). Did the DM know anything about your character before they set up the adventure? Unless there was a session 0 before the campaign was given shape, that's a big ask. You claim to have an improvisational ability, use it. D&D is sort of like a communal poker variant with everyone's (except the DM's) cards on the table. Your character sheet is your hand. You play your cards and gain new ones and your hand shuffles over the game till the pot fulfills everyone. Just let the game go, you have a blacksmith card or what have you. It's fine outside of actual playing game time to request an angle that can utilize a feature of your character for the group's advantage or some notion you have of character development, but otherwise just pay attention to what the DM deals you and look for an opportunity where these skills or your particular game aptitudes can make an entrance into play.
The multi class and table dynamic questions are very far apart, really warranting separate posts if you want them addressed coherently, although the former begs some of the questions apparent in the latter. What about the game your character is actually in is motivating the character to take a turn to evolve in a roguish to eventual swashbuckler direction? Is it just your conceit from character creation to do this (not saying you're definitely doing this, but similar to DM railroading, there's this tendency among some players to have a character arc in mind and adhere to that arc no matter where the game actually goes. I mean, it's fine to look ahead, but sometimes if you're in a garden you're not familiar with, stopping to smell the alien roses in said alien garden may change your character's life direction.
You want your character to have an impact, that's understandable, but it feels like you should try to feel the impact of the world your character is in. It's a balancing act and the sweet spot is a personal thing, but my take is it's better to put that in mind rather than pregame table conflicts.
I never wanted to showboat, I do want to use my skillset though and explore my character. The whole point of this post was to find a strategy to compromise with my DM if this ever became a problem. The point was never to get validation for my side of an argument that isn't even happening.
I think a lot of people put too little emphasis on tools, crafting, and creative problem solving That's all this is. It was never about me wanting to show off my character.
I'm not even sure what point your addressing because it bares little resemblance to any question I asked.
If I brought this to my DM I'm not gonna get upset if he shoots it down. It's fine, it's his game. He's also really great, flexible, and creative, so I'm still having fun. Just trying to get ahead of a potential problem. That's all.
I think VinceSnetterton, while maybe a bit direct, has a point that actually speaks well to your post and you not recognizing it may actually further validate their point. You're anticipating a problem, and I saw the word reconciliation of styles floated in this thread. That's important thing to hold onto. Reconciliation requires an even handed look at all points of view. In the dynamic you outline I see two, you and the DM and no one else at table. You give over twice as much verbiage to what you want out of the game to how you frame the DM's play style (and again, no real accounting of the game that you yourself say "is great" so far).
What I see is a player who wants every decision you make in character generation to be addressed in the game, at prompting (i.e. "Where can I use my blacksmith tools?" I know, another player another game's words, but your case in point as to foreshadowing the anticipated "problem"). Did the DM know anything about your character before they set up the adventure? Unless there was a session 0 before the campaign was given shape, that's a big ask. You claim to have an improvisational ability, use it. D&D is sort of like a communal poker variant with everyone's (except the DM's) cards on the table. Your character sheet is your hand. You play your cards and gain new ones and your hand shuffles over the game till the pot fulfills everyone. Just let the game go, you have a blacksmith card or what have you. It's fine outside of actual playing game time to request an angle that can utilize a feature of your character for the group's advantage or some notion you have of character development, but otherwise just pay attention to what the DM deals you and look for an opportunity where these skills or your particular game aptitudes can make an entrance into play.
The multi class and table dynamic questions are very far apart, really warranting separate posts if you want them addressed coherently, although the former begs some of the questions apparent in the latter. What about the game your character is actually in is motivating the character to take a turn to evolve in a roguish to eventual swashbuckler direction? Is it just your conceit from character creation to do this (not saying you're definitely doing this, but similar to DM railroading, there's this tendency among some players to have a character arc in mind and adhere to that arc no matter where the game actually goes. I mean, it's fine to look ahead, but sometimes if you're in a garden you're not familiar with, stopping to smell the alien roses in said alien garden may change your character's life direction.
You want your character to have an impact, that's understandable, but it feels like you should try to feel the impact of the world your character is in. It's a balancing act and the sweet spot is a personal thing, but my take is it's better to put that in mind rather than pregame table conflicts.
Be fair here. There are DM's who actually dislike improvisational ability. Some such DM's have their plot, they have it tightly scripted and dislike anything they see as deviation from it (very common if they are running modules). Others take the position that anything other than combat is some sort of 'cheating' since no lives are on the line during crafting and convincing a potential enemy to step aside or sneaking past them is something they see as 'bypassing content.'
Such DM's are very strict on limiting how their world is 'impacted.'
Had one DM a few monts ago have a major NPC place a ban on brewing and alcohol despite one of the players playing a drunken monkey style monk. Then proceeded to act like the party would have a hard time building a still... despite there also being an artificer in the party, mine also having skills in various tools and both of us having the fabricate spell, so even making such a thing should not have taken any more than the 10 min casting time. Basic stills are ancient tech in the real world, not particularly complex concepts.
I run a grand (in this context, a large, long-term, with huge over-arching plots) game. I ran a table pre-Covid of 6 players. I asked every player for a decent backstory, and then tried to incorporate those stories into the game. I had the party travel to an enclave of druids to witness the ceremony as one of the players was incorporated into the Circle of the Forest (leveling up from 1 to 2). There is still an outstanding side-quest to rescue one of the player's mother from a prison, unjustly incarcerated. I am sporadically pass notes to players that are personal dreams/ contact with their god, where it is key to plot development. Sometimes I even pull a char away from the table for a 3-5 minute private convo about something they just personally experienced (wizard tried Identify on a relic, with a resulting flashback sequence, key to giving the group some history relevant to the game)
But under no circumstances do I allow a player to say "I want to burn 20-40 minutes of precious gametime while I explore my char's blacksmithing skills, and everyone sits back and watches an exchange solely between me and the DM". That is pure selfishness on the part of the player.
Now, in the midst of Covid, that table is 3 players, which should allow for more personal time. But I am more acutely aware of the fact that 2 of the players are just twiddling their thumbs if I had a player tell me they wanted to do some shopping, alone. To their credit, the players are excellent (two of them love to RP) and respect the other players enough never to ask for such special treatment.
I never wanted to showboat, I do want to use my skillset though and explore my character. The whole point of this post was to find a strategy to compromise with my DM if this ever became a problem. The point was never to get validation for my side of an argument that isn't even happening.
I think a lot of people put too little emphasis on tools, crafting, and creative problem solving That's all this is. It was never about me wanting to show off my character.
I'm not even sure what point your addressing because it bares little resemblance to any question I asked.
If I brought this to my DM I'm not gonna get upset if he shoots it down. It's fine, it's his game. He's also really great, flexible, and creative, so I'm still having fun. Just trying to get ahead of a potential problem. That's all.
I think VinceSnetterton, while maybe a bit direct, has a point that actually speaks well to your post and you not recognizing it may actually further validate their point. You're anticipating a problem, and I saw the word reconciliation of styles floated in this thread. That's important thing to hold onto. Reconciliation requires an even handed look at all points of view. In the dynamic you outline I see two, you and the DM and no one else at table. You give over twice as much verbiage to what you want out of the game to how you frame the DM's play style (and again, no real accounting of the game that you yourself say "is great" so far).
What I see is a player who wants every decision you make in character generation to be addressed in the game, at prompting (i.e. "Where can I use my blacksmith tools?" I know, another player another game's words, but your case in point as to foreshadowing the anticipated "problem"). Did the DM know anything about your character before they set up the adventure? Unless there was a session 0 before the campaign was given shape, that's a big ask. You claim to have an improvisational ability, use it. D&D is sort of like a communal poker variant with everyone's (except the DM's) cards on the table. Your character sheet is your hand. You play your cards and gain new ones and your hand shuffles over the game till the pot fulfills everyone. Just let the game go, you have a blacksmith card or what have you. It's fine outside of actual playing game time to request an angle that can utilize a feature of your character for the group's advantage or some notion you have of character development, but otherwise just pay attention to what the DM deals you and look for an opportunity where these skills or your particular game aptitudes can make an entrance into play.
The multi class and table dynamic questions are very far apart, really warranting separate posts if you want them addressed coherently, although the former begs some of the questions apparent in the latter. What about the game your character is actually in is motivating the character to take a turn to evolve in a roguish to eventual swashbuckler direction? Is it just your conceit from character creation to do this (not saying you're definitely doing this, but similar to DM railroading, there's this tendency among some players to have a character arc in mind and adhere to that arc no matter where the game actually goes. I mean, it's fine to look ahead, but sometimes if you're in a garden you're not familiar with, stopping to smell the alien roses in said alien garden may change your character's life direction.
You want your character to have an impact, that's understandable, but it feels like you should try to feel the impact of the world your character is in. It's a balancing act and the sweet spot is a personal thing, but my take is it's better to put that in mind rather than pregame table conflicts.
Be fair here. There are DM's who actually dislike improvisational ability. Some such DM's have their plot, they have it tightly scripted and dislike anything they see as deviation from it (very common if they are running modules). Others take the position that anything other than combat is some sort of 'cheating' since no lives are on the line during crafting and convincing a potential enemy to step aside or sneaking past them is something they see as 'bypassing content.'
Such DM's are very strict on limiting how their world is 'impacted.'
Had one DM a few monts ago have a major NPC place a ban on brewing and alcohol despite one of the players playing a drunken monkey style monk. Then proceeded to act like the party would have a hard time building a still... despite there also being an artificer in the party, mine also having skills in various tools and both of us having the fabricate spell, so even making such a thing should not have taken any more than the 10 min casting time. Basic stills are ancient tech in the real world, not particularly complex concepts.
I am being fair here and was asking the OP and those taking them at their word to be fair too to reconcile _anticipated_ conflict among play styles (or what a lot of players in the group may view as "drama"). Again, look at what is represented. The case is uneven in its accounting of perspective, privileging the OP representation of what they bring to the game, minimizes the DM's actual DMing apart from a past game the player may not have even been involved in, and no mention of the other critical element of the game: the other players. We also get the issue conflated with advice on a character build that may involve a preconceived arc into "flavortown" that begs the question of game engagement.
Validation is one thing and appropriate when things are accounted for. But I offer pause and request an actual holistic look rather than the sort of validation and encouragement I worry being sought (license to pursue table conflict for the good of the game, which I'm concerned is actually, to be flippant, approval to create table "drama" when the game isn't giving enough "drama" to their character.
Of course, you're right there are DMs who don't fulfill players game expectations for a number of reasons. There are also players who have expectations which the player needs to negotiate with the game they're in, since the pro scene aside TTRPG are literally (to go all Cal Institute of Integrated Studies on this) a labor of love. Based on the original representation (how the OP constructed their sense of the game) I wanted to express concern that there's anticipation of conflict when, as is the case more often than not when someone comes to DDB forums with a "folks, my DM or PC won't let me do the cool", it seems the bolder step (in a game of heroism) would be to reflect more clearly about the players wants and how the DMs and other players wants shape the table's capacity.
Honestly, to give the NPC booze ban example as a path to total validation of the OP, as if the history of spirits doesn't have a legacy of prohibition and arguable "heroic" efforts to subvert such bans with their own thieves cant and tactics including vehicular maneuvers that made it into canonical maneuvers like car wars (i.e. "the bootlegger reverse"). Frankly, sounds like an adventure hook.
I think a lot of this stuff can be handled between sessions. It's 2020, we all have email and the ability to communicate away from the table.
If OP wants to harvest his kills, let him write an email about it sent to the whole group. The people who want to read it can read it, and the DM can award him a couple of pelts or something that may or may not find a use later. Same deal with the smithing guy.
Now it may be that the DM just doesn't want to deal with this stuff at all, if so that's an issue you all need to solve outside of the game. But when you move these kinds of solo scenes to emails, it's no longer taking up table time and the DM doesn't need to just figure out the results on the spot. Removing those pressures can make it a lot more palatable to a DM that might not otherwise want to deal with solo stuff.
You might think no one would read these, but the times I've done it, I've received messages that they really liked it. You may get even better feedback and acknowledgement than you might have at the table. And others who are less good at improvising in the moment may feel a bit more empowered through this manner of RP as well.
As for Fighter/Swashbuckler, it's pretty common to go to 5 to get that sweet double attack before multiclassing. I would add though that 'Swashbuckler' is just a name and could easily describe a Battlemaster Fighter. Fighters get feats out the wazoo and the Mobile feat gives you one of the defining aspects of Swashbuckler, so you really might want to just consider sticking with Fighter and styling yourself as a swashbuckler through roleplay. If you are intent on MC, I'd set your first goal to be Fighter 5/Rogue 3 and then from there build towards whichever class features are the most compelling to you.
First question is simple, what do you think about a battlemaster/swashbuckler multiclass? It seems reasonably optimized while also having a one-way ticket to flavortown. Tips on when to multiclass? I started as a fighter and just got my level 3 battlemaster maneuvers.
Also, the game is great, but there's a slight difference between myself and the DM's playstyles. I like a slow and steady, survivalish, using your wits, kinda game. I like making traps and weapons outta random things I find, and using 100% of the world to my advantage. So much so that I've earned the nicknames McIver and Fred from Scooby Doo.
My DM doesn't like nitty gritty games like that. Like he gave an example from a previous game he ran when a player asked: "When can I go to town to use my smiths tools?" to which he said, "I dunno man, the game is about kicking ass and advancing the plot."
Don't get me wrong, I love making my character powerful, but I like to feel like I earned that power through creative problem solving and roleplay. I've been accused of min-maxing at the table, which is fair enough, because I do, but I also don't get enough credit, because I really do care about the roleplay. Like I wouldn't mind a hunger/thirst mechanic, or variant exuberance.
I love the idea of a party having to hunt in the wild to stay alive, then using all the parts of the animal, maybe using bones and sinew to make string for a new bow or the hilt of a sword, selling the pelts back in town and it gives you just enough for that healing potion that saves your hide two sessions later.
Can these two styles of play be reconciled?
Yeah there's no conflict yet, I could just see it as a source of potential conflict. I know he'll allow me the space to do these kind of things, but I feel guilty every time I do because it seems like I'm slowing the pace of the game and making it center around me. I don't wanna do that to the other players and the DM.
"Like he gave an example from a previous game he ran when a player asked: "When can I go to town to use my smiths tools?" to which he said, "I dunno man, the game is about kicking ass and advancing the plot."
I am totally with the DM on this one. The player, and it sounds like you have the same philosophy as the player, wants to have the DM specifically create a setting so that player can showboat and play with his specific skillset. Sorry, but no. That is not how D&D works. You use your skills and abilities of your char when it makes sense to help the group. The group, and DM, does not cater the game to allow you to explore every facet of your character.
I never wanted to showboat, I do want to use my skillset though and explore my character. The whole point of this post was to find a strategy to compromise with my DM if this ever became a problem. The point was never to get validation for my side of an argument that isn't even happening.
I think a lot of people put too little emphasis on tools, crafting, and creative problem solving That's all this is. It was never about me wanting to show off my character.
I'm not even sure what point your addressing because it bares little resemblance to any question I asked.
If I brought this to my DM I'm not gonna get upset if he shoots it down. It's fine, it's his game. He's also really great, flexible, and creative, so I'm still having fun. Just trying to get ahead of a potential problem. That's all.
I've always found that multi-classed characters are weaker than just sticking with one class. That said, this game is about fun, so if you want to multi-class than go for it. The multi-class you describe and the reconciliation will add to the gameplay I think. If you like to roll play than this is the way to do it.
I think VinceSnetterton, while maybe a bit direct, has a point that actually speaks well to your post and you not recognizing it may actually further validate their point. You're anticipating a problem, and I saw the word reconciliation of styles floated in this thread. That's important thing to hold onto. Reconciliation requires an even handed look at all points of view. In the dynamic you outline I see two, you and the DM and no one else at table. You give over twice as much verbiage to what you want out of the game to how you frame the DM's play style (and again, no real accounting of the game that you yourself say "is great" so far).
What I see is a player who wants every decision you make in character generation to be addressed in the game, at prompting (i.e. "Where can I use my blacksmith tools?" I know, another player another game's words, but your case in point as to foreshadowing the anticipated "problem"). Did the DM know anything about your character before they set up the adventure? Unless there was a session 0 before the campaign was given shape, that's a big ask. You claim to have an improvisational ability, use it. D&D is sort of like a communal poker variant with everyone's (except the DM's) cards on the table. Your character sheet is your hand. You play your cards and gain new ones and your hand shuffles over the game till the pot fulfills everyone. Just let the game go, you have a blacksmith card or what have you. It's fine outside of actual playing game time to request an angle that can utilize a feature of your character for the group's advantage or some notion you have of character development, but otherwise just pay attention to what the DM deals you and look for an opportunity where these skills or your particular game aptitudes can make an entrance into play.
The multi class and table dynamic questions are very far apart, really warranting separate posts if you want them addressed coherently, although the former begs some of the questions apparent in the latter. What about the game your character is actually in is motivating the character to take a turn to evolve in a roguish to eventual swashbuckler direction? Is it just your conceit from character creation to do this (not saying you're definitely doing this, but similar to DM railroading, there's this tendency among some players to have a character arc in mind and adhere to that arc no matter where the game actually goes. I mean, it's fine to look ahead, but sometimes if you're in a garden you're not familiar with, stopping to smell the alien roses in said alien garden may change your character's life direction.
You want your character to have an impact, that's understandable, but it feels like you should try to feel the impact of the world your character is in. It's a balancing act and the sweet spot is a personal thing, but my take is it's better to put that in mind rather than pregame table conflicts.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I run a grand (in this context, a large, long-term, with huge over-arching plots) game. I ran a table pre-Covid of 6 players. I asked every player for a decent backstory, and then tried to incorporate those stories into the game. I had the party travel to an enclave of druids to witness the ceremony as one of the players was incorporated into the Circle of the Forest (leveling up from 1 to 2). There is still an outstanding side-quest to rescue one of the player's mother from a prison, unjustly incarcerated. I am sporadically pass notes to players that are personal dreams/ contact with their god, where it is key to plot development. Sometimes I even pull a char away from the table for a 3-5 minute private convo about something they just personally experienced (wizard tried Identify on a relic, with a resulting flashback sequence, key to giving the group some history relevant to the game)
But under no circumstances do I allow a player to say "I want to burn 20-40 minutes of precious gametime while I explore my char's blacksmithing skills, and everyone sits back and watches an exchange solely between me and the DM". That is pure selfishness on the part of the player.
Now, in the midst of Covid, that table is 3 players, which should allow for more personal time. But I am more acutely aware of the fact that 2 of the players are just twiddling their thumbs if I had a player tell me they wanted to do some shopping, alone. To their credit, the players are excellent (two of them love to RP) and respect the other players enough never to ask for such special treatment.
I am being fair here and was asking the OP and those taking them at their word to be fair too to reconcile _anticipated_ conflict among play styles (or what a lot of players in the group may view as "drama"). Again, look at what is represented. The case is uneven in its accounting of perspective, privileging the OP representation of what they bring to the game, minimizes the DM's actual DMing apart from a past game the player may not have even been involved in, and no mention of the other critical element of the game: the other players. We also get the issue conflated with advice on a character build that may involve a preconceived arc into "flavortown" that begs the question of game engagement.
Validation is one thing and appropriate when things are accounted for. But I offer pause and request an actual holistic look rather than the sort of validation and encouragement I worry being sought (license to pursue table conflict for the good of the game, which I'm concerned is actually, to be flippant, approval to create table "drama" when the game isn't giving enough "drama" to their character.
Of course, you're right there are DMs who don't fulfill players game expectations for a number of reasons. There are also players who have expectations which the player needs to negotiate with the game they're in, since the pro scene aside TTRPG are literally (to go all Cal Institute of Integrated Studies on this) a labor of love. Based on the original representation (how the OP constructed their sense of the game) I wanted to express concern that there's anticipation of conflict when, as is the case more often than not when someone comes to DDB forums with a "folks, my DM or PC won't let me do the cool", it seems the bolder step (in a game of heroism) would be to reflect more clearly about the players wants and how the DMs and other players wants shape the table's capacity.
Honestly, to give the NPC booze ban example as a path to total validation of the OP, as if the history of spirits doesn't have a legacy of prohibition and arguable "heroic" efforts to subvert such bans with their own thieves cant and tactics including vehicular maneuvers that made it into canonical maneuvers like car wars (i.e. "the bootlegger reverse"). Frankly, sounds like an adventure hook.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I think a lot of this stuff can be handled between sessions. It's 2020, we all have email and the ability to communicate away from the table.
If OP wants to harvest his kills, let him write an email about it sent to the whole group. The people who want to read it can read it, and the DM can award him a couple of pelts or something that may or may not find a use later. Same deal with the smithing guy.
Now it may be that the DM just doesn't want to deal with this stuff at all, if so that's an issue you all need to solve outside of the game. But when you move these kinds of solo scenes to emails, it's no longer taking up table time and the DM doesn't need to just figure out the results on the spot. Removing those pressures can make it a lot more palatable to a DM that might not otherwise want to deal with solo stuff.
You might think no one would read these, but the times I've done it, I've received messages that they really liked it. You may get even better feedback and acknowledgement than you might have at the table. And others who are less good at improvising in the moment may feel a bit more empowered through this manner of RP as well.
As for Fighter/Swashbuckler, it's pretty common to go to 5 to get that sweet double attack before multiclassing. I would add though that 'Swashbuckler' is just a name and could easily describe a Battlemaster Fighter. Fighters get feats out the wazoo and the Mobile feat gives you one of the defining aspects of Swashbuckler, so you really might want to just consider sticking with Fighter and styling yourself as a swashbuckler through roleplay. If you are intent on MC, I'd set your first goal to be Fighter 5/Rogue 3 and then from there build towards whichever class features are the most compelling to you.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm