Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Devilbass" data-source="post: 7517565" data-attributes="member: 6686729">Thanks for the feedback!  A fresh eye is always very useful.  I'll try to address most of what you've said here, and if in my regrouping of your comments I misconstrued your meaning/intent, please let me know, as it's not intentional.The potential impact of both Combat Superiority (CS) and Dueling Stances (DS) showing up at level 1 is something I had thought of, and had concerns about, but I'm not convinced it's as bad as it looks (definitely open to the discussion about it though, that's the point of the thread).  First, I want to consider level 1 on its own, forgetting about multiclassing.  CS and DS together right out of the gate seem very good, but let's compare to the Fighter .[table="width: 500, align: center"][tr]    [td]Fighter[/td]        [td]Duelist[/td][/tr][tr]    [td]10+ HP[/td]        [td]8+ HP[/td][/tr][tr]    [td]Fighting Style[/td]        [td]CS (2d4)[/td][/tr][tr]    [td]Second Wind[/td]        [td]DS (2)[/td][/tr][/table]So what this says to me is that on its own, the Duelist is not more powerful than the Fighter.More flexible?  Without a doubt.  I'd argue that 2d4 superiority dice (SD) is comparable to a Fighting Style (FS).  Those SD will most likely net less extra damage than Archery, Dueling, Great Weapon Fighting, or Two-Weapon Fighting.  True, they will give you extra effects, but that's the trade off.  Admittedly, if you use both SD on the Parry maneuver, that may be better than the Defense FS, but I think the fact that you don't have a D10 HD offsets that benefit a little.  Stances are defining, as you say, which is part of why I want them at 1st level.  Wizards get spells and cantrips at level 1, and those things define them far more than subclass, and the other abilities they get later on.  Most of their other abilities affect how they cast, or what they cast.  That's kind of what I'm going for.  If you look at the benefits of the stances, they're fairly light at level 1.  They grant you flexibility in exchange for damage, or they grant you a slight constant bonus (which are aimed to be less beneficial than a FS), or a moderate effect that is situational, but you have to anticipate.If you use only stances that increase your damage output, and maneuvers that increase damage, you have a slight edge over the fighter in flexibility, but probably only just match in damage, if you do at all.  Meanwhile, you are far behind defensively.If you invest everything into defense, yes, you beat the Fighter overall, but you need to, because you have fewer HP and no Second Wind.  Meanwhile, your offense falls noticeably behind, and you lose out on your flexibility.If you combine your CS and DS in such a way so as to get the best benefit in each moment, I think it's possible to exceed the offensive output of the Fighter while equaling their resilience.  I think it's possible, but I'm not convinced it would be the norm.Once you consider multicalssing, I agree, things get stickier.  As far as multiclassing with a battlemaster (BM), I agree that this needs to be addressed.  Honestly, I would probably do this the most simple way: you just gain the dice and maneuvers according to the level you're gaining in the appropriate class.  Much like with multiclassed casters, the stat you use with your maneuvers would depend on the class that gave them to you.  If this seemed too good, a possible solution might be something like this:MulticlassingCombat SuperiorityIf you gain the Combat Superiority class feature from more than one class, you have a number of Superiority Dice equal to the totals for both classes, however you use the smaller die-type of all classes granting the ability for all of your Superiority Dice.  For example, if you have 3 levels in the fighter class and have the battlemaster subclass, and 1 level in duelist, you have six Superiority Dice, all of which are d4s.Something else might be more appropriate, I'm just throwing something quick out there.You really could have quite a large number of SD, and perhaps a larger number of maneuvers known, but there would be tradeoffs.  As a BM multiclassing into Duelist, you're going to be sacrificing the size of your SD, the number of attacks you have, the number of ASIs you get,the number of uses you get of Indomitable and Action Surge (which also is relatively less effective the fewer levels you have in fighter), the efficacy of your Second Wind, and the number of HP you have.  Effectively, you're trading consistent raw power and resilience for flexibility.  The real issue is with dipping, as you pointed out.This is the kind of class that would grant minimal proficiencies when multiclassed into, and would probably have both a DEX and an INT requirement.  I think it might be prudent to grant one DS instead of two, or to move CS to level 2.  However, if CS is moved to level 2, it actually needs something else at level 1, because DS on its own really isn't enough.  Do you think switching CS to level 2, and FS to level 1 would be better?  Something else maybe?Yes, the duelist uses the BM maneuver list, which I have also expanded slightly with four more maneuvers (also available for the BM, as far as I'm concerned).  I didn't share them here because they aren't my ideas, I don't remember where I got them, and I didn't want to take credit for them.  One is to help disrupt a caster's concentration, one is to turn a miss into minor damage, one is to grapple as part of the attack, and one is to reduce the target's movement.  Given that, he Martial Adept feat doesn't muddy things as far as I can see.  If you already have SD, you just gain another one of whatever size already use.  And there are enough BM maneuvers that even if you take this feat, the most you could ever get is 15 out of 16 from the PHB, and that includes multiclassing BM and Duelist in order to get the most possible maneuvers.  Would that be too good?  I'd argue no, as there are a number of maneuvers that would probably almost never see use.  Also, it's another case of increased flexibility, decreased power.  And still generally less flexible (even in combat) than equivalent level casters.Of course, the number of maneuvers the duelist gets is certainly something that could change. Dueling Stances went through several iterations, and this is the most elegant form I came up with, which is heavily influenced by the Mystic's Psychic Focus, though these are generally less potent.  The whole idea is to give you an ability that gives you a number minor to moderate buffs/tactics that generally aren't universally useful (and if they are, they're only moderately potent), and you will likely want to change depending on the enemy you're facing, or the circumstances of the battlefield.  I'm glad you like what you've seen of them so far.As of right now, the idea is that the 6th level School Feature is a new maneuver unique to the subclass.  Something with a potent effect, but high cost ( 2 SD), like the Dirty Fighter's Blinding Strike.  So it's a useful new ability, but it's not free.  As such, I feel that adding the Enhanced Stances at level 6 is fair.As to why I chose level 6 for the Enhanced Stances, it has to do with Extra Attack, and the scaling of similar abilities in other classes.  Before level 5, the more offensive stances give you something useful to do and attack, however your attack is less damaging than normal.  The advent of Extra Attack makes many of those useful things far less appealing, as you're sacrificing the majority of your damage potential, so the stance is enhanced, and now lets you do a bit more damage.  Now it's actually worth considering you need two attacks, or one attack and mobility or some other useful gimmick.As far as stances that offer other benefits, they're meant to give you meaningful buffs that let you shine a bit more in combat, but that don't completely overshadow other classes with similar abilities.  Take Swift Stride for example.  At level 6, it increases your speed by 15 ft, which is significant.  This is the same increase as a level 6 monk, and slightly better than a level 6 barbarian.  The difference is that the duelist only gains this benefit while in this one stance.  And don't forget, there are ways to force a duelist out of a stance beyond just taking her out of the fight.If you feel differently after reviewing them more closely, I look forward to hearing what you have to say.Thank you.  I felt an important way to make maneuvers feel more varied, and to remain relevant as you level is to make it so they scale up somehow.  I also like how having only some of your maneuvers scale up kind of sort of mirrors having higher level spells.Other than not doing Radiant damage, this is the same as a Paladin's Improved Divine Smite.  Don't forget that this in lieu of three attacks.  Also, the duelist is really, really, really not intended to be a two-handed weapon wielder.  To me, this seems fine, and very much in line with a level 11 martial ability.  That being said, I have an idea for a subclass that utilizes Versatile weapons in new and interesting ways.Man, I reeeeeeeeeally need to work on the wording of this, lol.  Trust me, this is far from how it was intended.  The intent of Two-Weapon Momentum is that you can make a single off-hand attack as normal with the Attack action, but that you can also make a single off-hand attack (without using a bonus action) in other instances when you make an attack without using the Attack action.  So when you make an OA for example, or when you make the single attack you are granted during your Disengage action granted by the Deadly Retreat stance (if you took it).  That kind of thing.  I mean, that might still be really good, but that's more what I was aiming for.  I had no intention of making a dual-wielding duelist into a living blender.Thank you.  I felt that by the time you reach really high levels, those minor benefits from your stances might start to lose some of their oomph, and felt this was a good way to address that.  Also has the added benefit of giving you tiered stances, while making it so your primary stance isn't always going to be the go to.There are alot of moving parts, which does make this harder to evaluate.  For me, it was important to have alot of customization, as that's an aspect of the game I enjoy.  I tried to keep in mind the way that this number of options and level of customization can have unintended consequences.  I feel like the built-in limitations (one stance at a time, smaller SD size) and actual lowish inherent potency of some of the abilities would help address some of this, but that's also  part of the reason I'm playtesting it, and seeking opinions.You've definitely given me a few things to consider, and I hope I've cleared up a thing or two for you as well.  Thanks again for all the feedback!</blockquote>

Verification