New Homebrew Duelist Class - Dex-based Defender

[ositonj]

Hey all. my buddy and I got started on this over the weekend, and we're looking to have people review the work and hopefully playtest the class. Please take a look and let me know what you think. If anyone playtests, kindly let us know how it goes.

Duelist

-Osito

 

[ositonj]

really? no one has anything to say?

 

[Starfox]

Quite a bit of raw data to chew here, that might explain the lack of comments. Also, people here seem loathe to follow links.

I like the idea, but its hard to do right. You have some good ideas, but need a lot more polish. This is not the first attempt at a fencer class, you should compare to the others (Fencer Class 4E.pdf).

I see you have made him a Dex attacker like the rouge but not made him use light blades. This is both good and bad - it gives versatility and allows many fighting styles, but it runs counter to what most people think of as a fencer. There is nothing to prevent this guy from picking up a really big axe and going all out for damage. (Agile defense is after all just a weaker version of a large shield, and many fighters don't use shields). Having him start with only simple melee but adding rapier proficiency, while making the powers only work with light blades is a start. You can then add a feat that allows the use of any weapon. The cost to use an unusual weapon would then be two feats - one fr proficiency, one for the special "can use non-light-blades with fencing" feat, which seems about right.

Without an in-depth analysis, it seems on the strong side. The dailies that are modified by style are potentially very strong, for example.

Gut punch mentions an off-hand weapon in the fluff, but requires neither an off-hand weapn nor a free hand. Of course, it could be a gut kick.

better Luck Next Time seems to offer a defensive advantage even to yourself in the Swashbuckling Duelist variant. Is this how its supposed to read?

Devious parry is unclear (do you still take the damage) and probably overpowered since its automatically successful.

 

[Khaalis]

Its a lot to digest and hard to comment on without testing. However, with that said a few things do jump out.

Were Do You Think You're Going? I think a "Knock Prone" power is too powerful for an at-will.

Charismatic Feint: My gut says this should be a Standard action, not a move action.

Defensive Flourish: This is, I believe, too complex in its wording.

That's all I have time to go over at the moment in detail. You might want to check the comments that were made when I attempted something similar (see my sig).

 

[ositonj]

I see you have made him a Dex attacker like the rouge but not made him use light blades. This is both good and bad - it gives versatility and allows many fighting styles, but it runs counter to what most people think of as a fencer. There is nothing to prevent this guy from picking up a really big axe and going all out for damage. (Agile defense is after all just a weaker version of a large shield, and many fighters don't use shields). Having him start with only simple melee but adding rapier proficiency, while making the powers only work with light blades is a start. You can then add a feat that allows the use of any weapon. The cost to use an unusual weapon would then be two feats - one fr proficiency, one for the special "can use non-light-blades with fencing" feat, which seems about right.

I'm glad you brought this up. There was some disagreement between my partner and I about whether we should be more restrictive of weapon choices. I remember specifically raising the concern of some jack-ass making a duelist with a craghammer. My original intent was to limit him to simple and military light blades and long swords. I wanted to leave the long sword in just so that an Eladrin canny duelist isn't totally left in the dust when it comes to damage dealing.

As for the two-weapon thing, I originally wanted to use a mechanic similar to the swordmage's defense bonuses - +2 normally, rising to +3 when wielding an off-hand weapon (this would stack with two weapon defense feat). And I didn't write the gut punch power, but I'm pretty sure it and the other two weapon powers were meant to require wielding an off-hand weapon.

Better luck next time - I will reword it, but yes, the defense bonus goes to whoever was attacked, including the duelist.

I'm not sure if devious parry is overpowered for a level 10 daily, but i could be wrong.


Khaalis:

What where do you think you're going were an encounter power?

Charismatic feint is a "power-ization" of the improved feint feat from 3e.

defensive flourish: yeah, just trying to find a way to word it without it becoming brokenly powerful

 

[Khaalis]

What where do you think you're going were an encounter power?

Yes I think it should be an encounter power. Prone is, I believe, too powerful an ability for an At-Will.

Charismatic feint is a "power-ization" of the improved feint feat from 3e.

But in 4E there is no "graying" of the line between action types. A move action is supposed to be movement oriented. This ability should be a standard action.

 

[ositonj]

my problem with the feint as a standard is that it is far less useful. i would be tempted to move it down to a minor action instead.

 

[Khaalis]

my problem with the feint as a standard is that it is far less useful. i would be tempted to move it down to a minor action instead.

The problems I see with that is that this power is identical to the skill but adds a +2 bonus to the skill roll. Making it a Minor Action to gain Combat Advantage is too powerful. There isn't even a rogue power that does this.

In fact I would simply make it state:

Charismatic Feint -- Duelist Feature
Your natural charm temporarily lowers your enemy's defenses.
Encounter - Martial
Minor Action -- Personal
Effect: You gain a +2 bonus to the next Bluff check made to gain combat advantage this round.

 

[Starfox]

I played around with a rogue feint power. Made it in two versions; One move action that had a feint and a shift, one minor action (but higher level) that had no movement in it.