Duelist prereqs?

[Morose]

First off, yes... I do have Sword and Fist. However, I'm at work and thinking up a character concept and I don't have it with me. Just figured someone here would have the prerequisites for the Duelist PrC memorized and could rattle them off for me. Thanks in advance for helping me avoid actually doing something work related.

 

[Skullfyre]

First off, yes... I do have Sword and Fist. However, I'm at work and thinking up a character concept and I don't have it with me. Just figured someone here would have the prerequisites for the Duelist PrC memorized and could rattle them off for me. Thanks in advance for helping me avoid actually doing something work related.

Pre req's

BAB +6
Perform: 3 ranks
Tumble: 5 ranks

Feats: Ambidexterity,Dodge,Mobility,Weapon Proficiency(Rapier)

Hope that helps

 

[JRRNeiklot]

BAB +6
Perform: 3 ranks
Tumble: 5 ranks
Feats: Dodge, weapon proficency (rapier), ambidexterity, mobility.

Enjoy!

 

[Morose]

Thanks guys.

 

[Corwin]

Warning! This is a house rule post. Warning!

Although those are indeed the official prerequisites, I changed them slightly.

I removed the ambidexterity requirement and added skill focus: tumbling instead.

The reason I did this is because, IMO, fencers should not be required to be equally proficient with both hands. Don't get me wrong, if a duelist wants to be ambidetrous, great. More power to 'em. But I don't think it should be a requirement.

One of the main reasons I chose to do this is the famous duel scene in Princess Bride. The Man in Black (Wesley) and Inigo both fought left handed in an effort to reduce their sword fighting skill. Neither knew this of the other until halfway through the duel, but that's what makes for great comedy, right? This would not have made any sense if they were both ambidextrous, since switching hands would have made no difference.

Plus, skill focus: tumble is a bit more of a "feat burn" that something as useful as ambideterity. Especially at mid to high level when tumbling becomes automatic and enhanced mobility (+8) comes into play.

Anyway, just my little observations and preferences. Do with it what you will.

 

[daTim]

As someone who actually fences (not that I can prove it...) it is almost necessary to be able to fence with either hand, and it is a very well thought out decision to put in that feat requirement. It's also a clever way to sneak in a Dex requirement of 13.

 

[Corwin]

As someone who actually fences (not that I can prove it...) it is almost necessary to be able to fence with either hand, and it is a very well thought out decision to put in that feat requirement. It's also a clever way to sneak in a Dex requirement of 13.

A few thoughts on this...

1) You said almost necessary. I would think that means you agree with me, right? Since "almost necessary" isn't the same as "necessary".

2) I even said that it would be great for a duelist to take ambidexterity anyway. I understand the value of the feat. But that isn't the same as making it a requirement. Just like a fighter with weapon focus being very likely to take weapon specialization. It's an obvious good choice for a feat, but not required. I see ambidexterity being the same in this case.

3) As a fencer in real life, can you say all the fencers you've ever met are equally good at fighting with either hand? If you cannot then how can you say ambidexterity should be a requirement rather than just a good choice. That's the fine-line difference I was trying to get to.

4) The "Dex 13+" requirement does not need to be sneaked in with ambidexterity since it is there already for dodge.

 

[daTim]

As a fencer I know almost nothing about tumbling [or performing for that matter...] but I do know that within a month of taking lessons they tought me to fight with both my hands... you are at a serious disadvantage (in real life at least) if you cannot use both hands equally. Its like playing baseball and not being able to hit against left handed pitchers. You can go awhile without meeting the problem, but eventually it will be a detriment. I realise there isnt a good way to impliment this in the duelist, but it goes with the flavor. Also, you said ambidexterity was useful... it is if you dual wield, but a duelist cannot dual wield weapons and use the precise strike ability, so they are at a disadvantage by taking the feat, as it will have almost no use to a duelist. [dual weilding... duelist... confusing] Just a little heads up...

 

[Tylias]

ambidexiterity and dual-wielding...

well... duelists are fencers, swashbucklers - anything along that vein, I suppose. I've never seen fencers tumbling in the middle of the fight, but it fits well with the derring-do antics of fantasy swashbucklers, so why not?

Dual-wielding makes more 'sense' for fencers than tumbling - though some people contest the whole 'swinging-from-chandeliers' part of heroic swashbuckling, the use of bucklers, parrying daggers, main-gauche, etc. fits well with the tradition of fencing, as far as I know.

Off-hand parry is not a requirement for the Duelist class, since not every foil, epee, or rapier wielder is going to use an off-hand parrying weapon... but it fits the concept very well That's probably what they meant by, 'a duelist can defend, but not attack with, a weapon in her off hand while using Precise Strike'

 

[Corwin]

As a fencer I know almost nothing about tumbling [or performing for that matter...] but I do know that within a month of taking lessons they tought me to fight with both my hands... you are at a serious disadvantage (in real life at least) if you cannot use both hands equally.

But that is where your real-world experience falls short of a fantasy duelist. You are a fencer. A duelist is a flashy, bouncy swashbuckler with lots o' tumbling flavor built right in. So I don't think your argument holds in that regard.

BTW, I noticed you didn't answer my direct question regarding all the fencers you know and whether they are each good with either hand equally.

So, yes, your fencing experience has some merit. No, it isn't the end-all-be-all of what a duelist is/isn't. To me, a duelist can be defined by the example I gave before. That of the fight between Wesley and Inigo. And, there was tumbling in that duel.