core problem: duelist

[Darklone]

Now... I assume SOMEONE has mentioned in this thread yet that a duelist CAN go TWF with IUS... once or twice.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Now... I assume SOMEONE has mentioned in this thread yet that a duelist CAN go TWF with IUS... once or twice.

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways:

If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)

and

When making a precise strike, a duelist cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield.

 

[pawsplay]

You forgot "As long as it is a wimpy finessable one-handed pointy weapon and I gimp myself by not using the other hand for anything, be it shield or second weapon." Trust me, I'd much rather just get the TWF chain (which I could have easily taken with bonus feats if those 10 levels were in Fighter) than having +2d6 with the restrictions the Duelist has.

A rapier is not what I would call "wimpy." It does one die size less than a longsword, and has a better critical range.

The TWF chain is pretty good, but it's feat intensive. Obviously, your suggestion of ten fighter levels has its merits. However, the duelist should be able to hold his own. There are definitely reasons to prefer +2d6 at your highest BAB than multiple attacks at a penalty. If you have two elemental weapons, TWF looks pretty good, but a duelist could do a lot with that kind of cash, too. And in a pinch, a duelist can get by with nothing more than a dagger and still dash out some good damage.

The lack of a shield is something of a weakness. However, a duelist has a touch AC that an armored fighter cannot begin to compete with. Plus, bracers protect against incorporeal touches. And once they reach a level where characters start having crazy access to shields, a duelist can start using elaborate parry for equally crazy effect.

Your free hand can be used to quaff potions, grab opponents, climb, and so forth. Also, it's very handy for an Eldritch Knight/Duelist for spellcasting.

 

[SlagMortar]

Now... I assume SOMEONE has mentioned in this thread yet that a duelist CAN go TWF with IUS... once or twice.

Even if IUS is allowed to be used with two-weapon fighting and precise strike, unarmed strikes are not piercing and so do not benefit precise strike. I think there's a feat somewhere to make unarmed strikes piercing, but that adds another feat to an already very feat intensive build.

 

[Rystil Arden]

A rapier is not what I would call "wimpy." It does one die size less than a longsword, and has a better critical range.

The TWF chain is pretty good, but it's feat intensive. Obviously, your suggestion of ten fighter levels has its merits. However, the duelist should be able to hold his own. There are definitely reasons to prefer +2d6 at your highest BAB than multiple attacks at a penalty. If you have two elemental weapons, TWF looks pretty good, but a duelist could do a lot with that kind of cash, too. And in a pinch, a duelist can get by with nothing more than a dagger and still dash out some good damage.

The lack of a shield is something of a weakness. However, a duelist has a touch AC that an armored fighter cannot begin to compete with. Plus, bracers protect against incorporeal touches. And once they reach a level where characters start having crazy access to shields, a duelist can start using elaborate parry for equally crazy effect.

Your free hand can be used to quaff potions, grab opponents, climb, and so forth. Also, it's very handy for an Eldritch Knight/Duelist for spellcasting.

I can mathematically prove that the expected value of two attacks at a -2 is better than that of one attack with +2d6 damage (which doesn't apply against a decent number of enemies anyway) unless the enemy has unreasonably high AC (and even then--the two attacks at -2 are better if you need a 20 to hit). If your attack does at least 17 damage, you're better with TWF, even if you need a 14 to hit the enemy normally (and a 16 to hit when TWF). If your attack does at least 15 damage, the same is true for needing a 13. For 13 damage, the same is true for needing a 12, etc. And the more damage you do per hit, the worse and worse the Duelist becomes.

 

[pawsplay]

I can mathematically prove that the expected value of two attacks at a -2 is better than that of one attack with +2d6 damage (which doesn't apply against a decent number of enemies anyway) unless the enemy has unreasonably high AC (and even then--the two attacks at -2 are better if you need a 20 to hit). If your attack does at least 17 damage, you're better with TWF, even if you need a 14 to hit the enemy normally (and a 16 to hit when TWF). If your attack does at least 15 damage, the same is true for needing a 13. For 13 damage, the same is true for needing a 12, etc. And the more damage you do per hit, the worse and worse the Duelist becomes.

What about wielding a weapon of speed versus an opponent with unreasonably high AC? How about if you DON'T do at least 17 damage? What if you are fighting an advanced templated hydra that keeps moving and attacking, requiring you to also move? What if you are fighting an evil scout that moves at least 10' every single round? What if you are slowed? What if you need to drink a potion? What if your opponent has DR x/adamatine? What if you have a surprise round?

etc.

 

[Rystil Arden]

What about wielding a weapon of speed versus an opponent with unreasonably high AC? How about if you DON'T do at least 17 damage? What if you are fighting an advanced templated hydra that keeps moving and attacking, requiring you to also move? What if you are fighting an evil scout that moves at least 10' every single round? What if you are slowed? What if you need to drink a potion? What if your opponent has DR x/adamatine? What if you have a surprise round?

etc.

Easy answers: If you don't do 17 Damage per hit by the time you would have Precise Strike +2d6 (level 16 or higher only!), you suck, so you don't matter anyway. Weapon of Speed doesn't change anything either way. If the hydra is moving and denying itself all those heads worth of attacks, it is being moronic. If you are trading one hit for one hit with an evil scout, you're being foolish and letting her get the advantage anyway. If you're slowed, consider yourself lucky--you just failed a Will save at level 16: If your opponent wasn't an idiot who cast Slow on you, you would be dead or dominated. If you need to drink a potion, something is weird, so deal with it--almost no potions would help you noticably at level 16 in mid-battle. On the surprise round, you usually can't attack anyway because you'd need Quick Draw and an opponent close enough to partial charge. If your opponent has DR X/Adamantine, it is probably also immune to your Precise Strike, making TWF better. If not, then it just got buffed with Stoneskin, so you should wait for it to be dispelled anyway.

But seriously, all these situations are much less likely than fighting something immune to Precise Strike, in which case Precise Strike is always worse.

 

[pawsplay]

Easy answers: If you don't do 17 Damage per hit by the time you would have Precise Strike +2d6 (level 16 or higher only!), you suck, so you don't matter anyway.

Why? If you are a finesse fighter, why wouldn't precise strike be the bulk of your damage output?

Weapon of Speed doesn't change anything either way.

I believe it adds another attack with +2d6 precise strike, but I could be wrong.

If the hydra is moving and denying itself all those heads worth of attacks, it is being moronic.

... So moronic it reads the MM and knows that

Hydras can attack with all their heads at no penalty, even if they move or charge during the round.

If you are trading one hit for one hit with an evil scout, you're being foolish and letting her get the advantage anyway.

Oh? Your damage output is nearly as good, and you have a better BAB.

If you're slowed, consider yourself lucky--you just failed a Will save at level 16: If your opponent wasn't an idiot who cast Slow on you, you would be dead or dominated.

An idiot who memorizes Quickened Slow, that is. Or who radiates a constant slow effect. Or is a golem.

If you need to drink a potion, something is weird, so deal with it--almost no potions would help you noticably at level 16 in mid-battle.

I don't know, a potion of restoration can come in handy once you'd lost 2d6 or so ability points. Or how about a potion of haste after your last haste got dispeled?

On the surprise round, you usually can't attack anyway because you'd need Quick Draw and an opponent close enough to partial charge.

... Unless, of course, you ambushed them, and therefore have your weapon in hand and are within striking range, with a partial charge if need be.

If your opponent has DR X/Adamantine, it is probably also immune to your Precise Strike,

... unless it is a dwarf wearing adamatine armor, a warforged, or under the effect of any of a number of spells...

making TWF better. If not, then it just got buffed with Stoneskin, so you should wait for it to be dispelled anyway.

Because sitting around waiting while your opponents continue attacking is such a winning strategy.

But seriously, all these situations are much less likely than fighting something immune to Precise Strike, in which case Precise Strike is always worse.

Hmmm....

 

[Rystil Arden]

Why? If you are a finesse fighter, why wouldn't precise strike be the bulk of your damage output?



I believe it adds another attack with +2d6 precise strike, but I could be wrong.



... So moronic it reads the MM and knows that

Hydras can attack with all their heads at no penalty, even if they move or charge during the round.



Oh? Your damage output is nearly as good, and you have a better BAB.



An idiot who memorizes Quickened Slow, that is. Or who radiates a constant slow effect. Or is a golem.



I don't know, a potion of restoration can come in handy once you'd lost 2d6 or so ability points. Or how about a potion of haste after your last haste got dispeled?



... Unless, of course, you ambushed them, and therefore have your weapon in hand and are within striking range, with a partial charge if need be.



... unless it is a dwarf wearing adamatine armor, a warforged, or under the effect of any of a number of spells...



Because sitting around waiting while your opponents continue attacking is such a winning strategy.




Hmmm....

If the bulk of your damage output is 7 damage at level 16, you are worthless to your team.

The Weapon of Speed could be adding equivalent attacks for the other guy.

I did forget the hydra thing, but the hydra would still have to have Spring Attack or else suffer a full attack when it first closes. And trading a single attack with Precise Strike (particularly if you think the 7 Damage is the majority of your damage as you said above) for a full attack from a hydra is not a winning strategy.

You can't have it both ways--if your damage output is nearly as good as a Scout (particularly with the no-brainer improved skirmish from Complete Scoundrel), you can't possibly be getting most of your damage from the 2d6 precise strike.

Yep, an idiot who memorised Quickened Slow--I cannot think of a worse use of a level 7 spell slot and a Swift action (beyond casting something completely irrelevant to intentionally waste the slot, of course). As for slowing golems, those are pathetic at level 16--the GM would have had to specifically created advanced versions of those golems (possibly just to prove the point that you can be Slowed?), and don't forget--golems are immune to Precise Strike.

Potions of Restoration? Huh?

If you ambushed an enemy at that distance at level 16, something is probably very weird. It is also all of one attack on round 1 with 7 extra damage that won't ramify into better damage any time else--if you really wanted to do extra damage on the surprise attack, you'd be a Rogue.

When you said X/Adamantine, I assume you meant X was large. For an adamantine armour wearer or a Warforged, the X is small enough that the TWF Fighter will still be doing more damage. Versus Stoneskin, you lose nothing if you delay to let your friendly caster Greater Dispel it. And if your caster is known for not doing this, you should have some adamantine weapons on hand anyway: Particularly, if the +2d6 is really 'the majority of your damage', the Precise Striker isn't going to cut through the DR 10/adamantine much anyway, and the TWFer will discharge Stoneskin faster.

 

[DreadArchon]

You forgot "As long as it is a wimpy finessable one-handed pointy weapon and I gimp myself by not using the other hand for anything, be it shield or second weapon."

It doesn't have to be finessable. "...light or one-handed piercing weapon..." You could Precise Strike with a Morningstar, Heavy Pick, Short Spear, or Trident, if you wanted to.

I agree that the Duelist class is a bit too gimped, though. It's possible to build around, but not nearly well enough, IMO.