Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Duelist class (LONG, Mech in 2nd post) - Seek Critique
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Khaalis" data-source="post: 1591401" data-attributes="member: 2167"><p>I think that is shied away from this style so as not to step on the toes of the Monk. Also, many feel the monk is close to or is outright broken being one of the most powerful of the classes. There is also the theoretical response. Monks train arduously (thus the Lawfulness) to gain the benefits they do. They are masters of martial arts which in most cases are supposed to be a self-defense combat styles. Weapon fighters are, in general, not so dedicated to self-defense. Weapons in general lend to a more offensive tactic. These, I think are the basic reasons why the melee weapon classes are stripped of most inherent defensive abilities. This is why I shied away from it, as much as I agree. I was afraid it would overbalance the class to give them an inherent AC bonus.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>* Stat when unarmored: I had though of this but was afraid it would be unbalancing. My preference for the style of the class would be to use cold intellect and calculation (Intelligence). I do like the idea of the AC bonus being useable with light armor (but no heavier).</p><p></p><p>Choices would be…</p><p></p><p>From Duelist SRD</p><p><strong>Canny Defense (Ex):</strong> When not wearing armor or using a shield, a duelist adds 1 point of their Intelligence bonus (if any) per duelist class level to their Dexterity bonus to modify Armor Class while wielding a melee weapon. If a duelist is caught flat-footed or otherwise denied their Dexterity bonus, they also lose this bonus.</p><p></p><p>Or from Monk SRD</p><p><strong>AC Bonus (Ex):</strong> When unarmored and unencumbered, the duelist adds their Intelligence bonus (if any) to their AC. This bonus to AC applies even against touch attacks or when the duelist is flat-footed. They lose this bonus when thy are immobilized or helpless, when they wear any armor, when they carry a shield, or when they carry a medium or heavy load.</p><p></p><p>* Dodge Bonus: Actually a monk’s level bonus isn’t a Dodge bonus, it is just a flat unnamed bonus to AC. From the SRD <em>” In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC at 5th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every five monk levels thereafter (+2 at 10th, +3 at 15th, and +4 at 20th level).”</em>. I definitely don’t know if I want to steal the monk’s thunder on this ability, especially in combination with the INT bonus to AC. However, the Monk’s +4 is still more balanced I think than +7 that you think the unfettered get, especially in light of the duelist’s offensive capability.</p><p></p><p>* Unfettered Bonus: The problem I think with using that, is that the duelist surpasses the unfettered in class abilities. I will have to check a copy of AU when I get the chance, but if I remember correctly the unfettered’s AC bonuses are one of its primary class features, am I correct?</p><p></p><p>In either regard if I add the AC effects, I will reduce the HD from d10 to d8 to compensate, otherwise the duelist will exceed the Fighter as the melee of choice and it shouldn’t. It should be an equal but different choice.</p><p></p><p>Another question is when to give the bonuses? Currently the Dodge bonus is 5/10/15/20. This actually coincides with the Monk’s flat AC bonus. Would you condone Canny Defense at 1st or 2nd and then the Dodge bonus at 5-20?</p><p></p><p>Thoughts?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Anything is a help, either for better ideas or to help concrete the logic behind choices.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This was the determining factor, especially when compared with the Swashbuckler. However, if I follow the AC ideas put forward by Tywyll, I will reduce this back to d8 to balance the two aspects.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Perform is an obvious choice, though not all Duelists will bother with it. Many duelists are showman. They make a show of their skills and know how to work a crowd just as well as they know how to toy with an opponent. Take the example duelist of Archibald. He knows very well how to work a crowd to his advantage, and earns their favor regardless of the fact that he is a worm.</p><p></p><p>Gather Information fits the D&D implications of the class. First, the duelist is a social profession. Also, keep in mind that in many places duels are illegal. It falls within the bounds of GI to learn of an area’s local news, laws, rumors, etc. This is a very important skill for the accomplished duelist. Not only to become aware of local custom for duels, where to have them, when, what places to avoid – but more importantly to dig up the information, rumors and news on people they will need to spur their “insults”.</p><p></p><p>Also remember that some duelists act as "public assassin" either outright killing someone for pay in an "honorable" duel or assassinating someones honor by public humiliation.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is again, one that I think falls to individual taste. Like Perform, not every duelist will be skilled in both, though they Should be, but don’t have to be. The fictional blurb in the beginning is a perfect example. Diego is skilled in both Intimidation and Diplomacy. Keep in mind that Diplomacy also involves knowing the correct customs/etiquette for the situation. He knows when to be polite and gentlemanly as well as to act respectfully to the magistrate, yet is doesn’t prevent him from intimidating his foes. On the flip side, Mirt, also an accomplished duelist shows no hint of diplomacy. He is gruff, crude and to the point. It’s a matter of style, background and personal influences. I don’t think it hurts to keep both skills as viable to the class.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Correct. It is from OA Iajutsu, chosen as such to be an already written rule rather than inventing a new one, though if I remember correctly, I tweaked the skill results to make them a bit harder to achieve… need to recheck that.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Good points that have merit on “core format. However, as you pointed out, it is because it makes it more difficult to assign the class abilities later on that are dependant on weapon proficiency: Duelist’s Grace, Swift Reflexes and Precision Strike. I would rather it be:</p><p></p><p><span style="color: darkorange">Duelist’s Grace (Ex): With any weapon from the Light Blade or Duelist Blade weapon groups or any other weapon normally allowed to be finessed, the duelist gains the benefit of the Weapon Finesse feat, even if they or their weapon would normally not qualify for the feat. </span> </p><p></p><p>Rather than…</p><p></p><p><span style="color: darkorange">Duelist’s Grace (Ex): With any of the following weapons: Dagger, Punching Dagger, Rapier, Short Sword, Cutlass, Khopesh, Main Gauche, Long Sword, Saber, Scimitar (including Daphan Scimitar), Singing Sword, Smallsword, Soldano Blade, Sword Cane, Torres Blade, Aldana Blade, Dietrich Sword, Gallegos Blade and Zepeda Blade; or any other weapon normally allowed to be finessed, the duelist gains the benefit of the Weapon Finesse feat, even if they or their weapon would normally not qualify for the feat. </span> </p><p></p><p>And I definitely do NOT want it to state “with any weapon the Duelist is proficient with” due to the potential mess that would be caused by multiclassing and the Fighter/Duelist using Duelist’s Grace on the Great Sword…</p><p></p><p>Being worded as a “group” really doesn’t change anything mechanic’s wise. It is still similar to a Wizard’s weapon list – stating only specific weapons rather than the core handbook “Simple” or “Martial” groups which are totally inappropriate for the class. As you note, no ranged weapon other than the dagger.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Does it “Need” to be a class ability? No, there is no such thing as “Need” in a class design. Yes the archetype was based on characters from Rob Roy as well as some other typical characters of fiction such as:</p><p>Inigo Montoya and Count Rugen… </p><p>“Hell. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die!”</p><p><em>”STOP SAYING THAT!”</em></p><p>Or (not as appropriate but a comical example)</p><p>Connor McLeod and Mr. Basset “I apologize, Mr. Bassett, for calling your wife a bloated wart-hog. I trust honor has been satisfied, and bid you good day.””</p><p>Or the Three Musketeers, etc.</p><p></p><p>I was going for a feel to the duelist that differentiates them from just any other generic sword swinger like the Swashbuckler or the DMG’s bland Duelist. Something more to the flavor of the original Duelist (which I realize few people have access to anymore) or along the more interesting niche of the Hexblade. I wanted abilities with flavor and flair as much as just combat mech. The mech itself was just adapted from existing classes.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>See the statements on this above.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I will have to dig, as its been a while since I completed the build, but I am almost positive that this is an ability directly from an existing class, possibly the Samurai’s Great Kia? (Don’t have books handy.) It would be rather odd to make the ability anything more than a free action considering speaking is considered a free action. A Bard’s abilities require more than simply speaking, it involves performing, not just making a statement. At most it wouldn’t be more than a move-equivalent but that just seems silly. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, I will need to dig up the source but I am almost positive this is as written in another core class (if I remember correctly either the CW Samurai or Swashbuckler which were used as the templates for this build).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Actually it doesn’t trump the Bard. The bard is not designed to be an intimidating fighter. Granted, in my opinion I’m still not really sure what it <strong>IS</strong> designed to be, but its definitely not anything close to the role of the duelist. Their performance abilities are based around either Inspiring allies or controlling the minds of others. Its not a fair comparison.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As you have stated its not your personal taste to use the “Intimidation” line tactics, which would also mean you don’t like many of the existing CW classes?</p><p></p><p>I am not yet convinced to agree. I think the class uses the abilities as flavor and a bit of forced role-play as well as useful tactics to the style of fighter they are supposed to be. All of their abilities shouldn’t be geared toward mass combat – its not what they do. And reducing them to only 1 “intimidation” line ability removes the logic of them. They are designed to be a part of the class, not the oddball ability that seems to make no sense among the others, which is why they take up 6 ability slots. I might be convinced to drop this down to 3, and open it up to 3 more “pure fighter” oriented abilities, but overall I thin the concept should remain or they lose their flavor. It would be like having the Hexblade but taking away its Hex ability.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, I will have to verify the reference, but these are also direct from existing class(es). Weakening Strike and Wounding Strike are from the Swashbuckler though Weakening is also the same as the Rogue’s.</p><p></p><p>As I stated in the beginning of the 1st post the Swashbuckler and Samurai were used heavily as base templates for abilities to create this class to be balanced with the CW core classes as an addition to those classes.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Are Swashbuckling Adventures feats OGL? Need to check that as well. Also not sure I like the whole “Parry” feat line. I will have to re-look at them.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>All of the comments help. Not sure I am swayed on the loss of 8 of the 16 abilities I gave them however. The duelist is not just a swashbuckler aka light armored sword swinger, nor are they a main-line tank. They are meant to be a flavor oriented niche fighter. I look forward to more comments, and I will post more once I re-look at some of the abilities to denote sources and look at other mentioned.</p><p></p><p>Thanks!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Khaalis, post: 1591401, member: 2167"] I think that is shied away from this style so as not to step on the toes of the Monk. Also, many feel the monk is close to or is outright broken being one of the most powerful of the classes. There is also the theoretical response. Monks train arduously (thus the Lawfulness) to gain the benefits they do. They are masters of martial arts which in most cases are supposed to be a self-defense combat styles. Weapon fighters are, in general, not so dedicated to self-defense. Weapons in general lend to a more offensive tactic. These, I think are the basic reasons why the melee weapon classes are stripped of most inherent defensive abilities. This is why I shied away from it, as much as I agree. I was afraid it would overbalance the class to give them an inherent AC bonus. * Stat when unarmored: I had though of this but was afraid it would be unbalancing. My preference for the style of the class would be to use cold intellect and calculation (Intelligence). I do like the idea of the AC bonus being useable with light armor (but no heavier). Choices would be… From Duelist SRD [b]Canny Defense (Ex):[/b] When not wearing armor or using a shield, a duelist adds 1 point of their Intelligence bonus (if any) per duelist class level to their Dexterity bonus to modify Armor Class while wielding a melee weapon. If a duelist is caught flat-footed or otherwise denied their Dexterity bonus, they also lose this bonus. Or from Monk SRD [b]AC Bonus (Ex):[/b] When unarmored and unencumbered, the duelist adds their Intelligence bonus (if any) to their AC. This bonus to AC applies even against touch attacks or when the duelist is flat-footed. They lose this bonus when thy are immobilized or helpless, when they wear any armor, when they carry a shield, or when they carry a medium or heavy load. * Dodge Bonus: Actually a monk’s level bonus isn’t a Dodge bonus, it is just a flat unnamed bonus to AC. From the SRD [i]” In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC at 5th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every five monk levels thereafter (+2 at 10th, +3 at 15th, and +4 at 20th level).”[/i]. I definitely don’t know if I want to steal the monk’s thunder on this ability, especially in combination with the INT bonus to AC. However, the Monk’s +4 is still more balanced I think than +7 that you think the unfettered get, especially in light of the duelist’s offensive capability. * Unfettered Bonus: The problem I think with using that, is that the duelist surpasses the unfettered in class abilities. I will have to check a copy of AU when I get the chance, but if I remember correctly the unfettered’s AC bonuses are one of its primary class features, am I correct? In either regard if I add the AC effects, I will reduce the HD from d10 to d8 to compensate, otherwise the duelist will exceed the Fighter as the melee of choice and it shouldn’t. It should be an equal but different choice. Another question is when to give the bonuses? Currently the Dodge bonus is 5/10/15/20. This actually coincides with the Monk’s flat AC bonus. Would you condone Canny Defense at 1st or 2nd and then the Dodge bonus at 5-20? Thoughts? Anything is a help, either for better ideas or to help concrete the logic behind choices. This was the determining factor, especially when compared with the Swashbuckler. However, if I follow the AC ideas put forward by Tywyll, I will reduce this back to d8 to balance the two aspects. Perform is an obvious choice, though not all Duelists will bother with it. Many duelists are showman. They make a show of their skills and know how to work a crowd just as well as they know how to toy with an opponent. Take the example duelist of Archibald. He knows very well how to work a crowd to his advantage, and earns their favor regardless of the fact that he is a worm. Gather Information fits the D&D implications of the class. First, the duelist is a social profession. Also, keep in mind that in many places duels are illegal. It falls within the bounds of GI to learn of an area’s local news, laws, rumors, etc. This is a very important skill for the accomplished duelist. Not only to become aware of local custom for duels, where to have them, when, what places to avoid – but more importantly to dig up the information, rumors and news on people they will need to spur their “insults”. Also remember that some duelists act as "public assassin" either outright killing someone for pay in an "honorable" duel or assassinating someones honor by public humiliation. This is again, one that I think falls to individual taste. Like Perform, not every duelist will be skilled in both, though they Should be, but don’t have to be. The fictional blurb in the beginning is a perfect example. Diego is skilled in both Intimidation and Diplomacy. Keep in mind that Diplomacy also involves knowing the correct customs/etiquette for the situation. He knows when to be polite and gentlemanly as well as to act respectfully to the magistrate, yet is doesn’t prevent him from intimidating his foes. On the flip side, Mirt, also an accomplished duelist shows no hint of diplomacy. He is gruff, crude and to the point. It’s a matter of style, background and personal influences. I don’t think it hurts to keep both skills as viable to the class. Correct. It is from OA Iajutsu, chosen as such to be an already written rule rather than inventing a new one, though if I remember correctly, I tweaked the skill results to make them a bit harder to achieve… need to recheck that. Good points that have merit on “core format. However, as you pointed out, it is because it makes it more difficult to assign the class abilities later on that are dependant on weapon proficiency: Duelist’s Grace, Swift Reflexes and Precision Strike. I would rather it be: [COLOR=darkorange]Duelist’s Grace (Ex): With any weapon from the Light Blade or Duelist Blade weapon groups or any other weapon normally allowed to be finessed, the duelist gains the benefit of the Weapon Finesse feat, even if they or their weapon would normally not qualify for the feat. [/COLOR] Rather than… [COLOR=darkorange]Duelist’s Grace (Ex): With any of the following weapons: Dagger, Punching Dagger, Rapier, Short Sword, Cutlass, Khopesh, Main Gauche, Long Sword, Saber, Scimitar (including Daphan Scimitar), Singing Sword, Smallsword, Soldano Blade, Sword Cane, Torres Blade, Aldana Blade, Dietrich Sword, Gallegos Blade and Zepeda Blade; or any other weapon normally allowed to be finessed, the duelist gains the benefit of the Weapon Finesse feat, even if they or their weapon would normally not qualify for the feat. [/COLOR] And I definitely do NOT want it to state “with any weapon the Duelist is proficient with” due to the potential mess that would be caused by multiclassing and the Fighter/Duelist using Duelist’s Grace on the Great Sword… Being worded as a “group” really doesn’t change anything mechanic’s wise. It is still similar to a Wizard’s weapon list – stating only specific weapons rather than the core handbook “Simple” or “Martial” groups which are totally inappropriate for the class. As you note, no ranged weapon other than the dagger. Does it “Need” to be a class ability? No, there is no such thing as “Need” in a class design. Yes the archetype was based on characters from Rob Roy as well as some other typical characters of fiction such as: Inigo Montoya and Count Rugen… “Hell. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die!” [i]”STOP SAYING THAT!”[/i] Or (not as appropriate but a comical example) Connor McLeod and Mr. Basset “I apologize, Mr. Bassett, for calling your wife a bloated wart-hog. I trust honor has been satisfied, and bid you good day.”” Or the Three Musketeers, etc. I was going for a feel to the duelist that differentiates them from just any other generic sword swinger like the Swashbuckler or the DMG’s bland Duelist. Something more to the flavor of the original Duelist (which I realize few people have access to anymore) or along the more interesting niche of the Hexblade. I wanted abilities with flavor and flair as much as just combat mech. The mech itself was just adapted from existing classes. See the statements on this above. I will have to dig, as its been a while since I completed the build, but I am almost positive that this is an ability directly from an existing class, possibly the Samurai’s Great Kia? (Don’t have books handy.) It would be rather odd to make the ability anything more than a free action considering speaking is considered a free action. A Bard’s abilities require more than simply speaking, it involves performing, not just making a statement. At most it wouldn’t be more than a move-equivalent but that just seems silly. Again, I will need to dig up the source but I am almost positive this is as written in another core class (if I remember correctly either the CW Samurai or Swashbuckler which were used as the templates for this build). Actually it doesn’t trump the Bard. The bard is not designed to be an intimidating fighter. Granted, in my opinion I’m still not really sure what it [b]IS[/b] designed to be, but its definitely not anything close to the role of the duelist. Their performance abilities are based around either Inspiring allies or controlling the minds of others. Its not a fair comparison. As you have stated its not your personal taste to use the “Intimidation” line tactics, which would also mean you don’t like many of the existing CW classes? I am not yet convinced to agree. I think the class uses the abilities as flavor and a bit of forced role-play as well as useful tactics to the style of fighter they are supposed to be. All of their abilities shouldn’t be geared toward mass combat – its not what they do. And reducing them to only 1 “intimidation” line ability removes the logic of them. They are designed to be a part of the class, not the oddball ability that seems to make no sense among the others, which is why they take up 6 ability slots. I might be convinced to drop this down to 3, and open it up to 3 more “pure fighter” oriented abilities, but overall I thin the concept should remain or they lose their flavor. It would be like having the Hexblade but taking away its Hex ability. Again, I will have to verify the reference, but these are also direct from existing class(es). Weakening Strike and Wounding Strike are from the Swashbuckler though Weakening is also the same as the Rogue’s. As I stated in the beginning of the 1st post the Swashbuckler and Samurai were used heavily as base templates for abilities to create this class to be balanced with the CW core classes as an addition to those classes. Are Swashbuckling Adventures feats OGL? Need to check that as well. Also not sure I like the whole “Parry” feat line. I will have to re-look at them. All of the comments help. Not sure I am swayed on the loss of 8 of the 16 abilities I gave them however. The duelist is not just a swashbuckler aka light armored sword swinger, nor are they a main-line tank. They are meant to be a flavor oriented niche fighter. I look forward to more comments, and I will post more once I re-look at some of the abilities to denote sources and look at other mentioned. Thanks! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Duelist class (LONG, Mech in 2nd post) - Seek Critique
Top