Duelist -- Doesn't work as advertised?

nameless said:
Duelists' AC isn't the problem, the fact that they still need uber-strength to be competitive in damage is the problem. It's feasible to get a high Dex and Int, but three or four high stats (Con is still important, too) is more difficult.

Which is the trade-off you face - make yourself more capable of defending yourself, or do more damage. It's the very definition of Strength-based versus Dexterity-based fighters. I don't see any problem with it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I played a Duelist in a recent 3.0 game all the way up to level 20. He had by far the best AC in the group, regularly eclipsing 50 when buffed and fighting defensively.

While 3.5 did nerf the classes' offensive punch a little (especially at epic levels), this is going to be slightly offset by the fact that the 3.5 duelist no longer has Ambidexterity as a prereq, which is going to give duelist players an extra feat.

On the other hand, with the rogue's Uncanny Dodge being moved back a level, it made the 3.0 optimum build far less useful in 3.5. (3 levels of rogue, 4 levels of fighter, 10 levels of Duelist, whatever until 20th, Duelist all the way afterwards)

Overall, though, I still think the class is pretty balanced.
 

Once Duelist hits level 7, the AC shoots so high its broken.

Until level 7, the duelist is still better than your average fighter.
D10 hp
Fighter BAB
4 skill points per level
Increased Initiative +4
Precise Strike +2d6
etc.
 

Endur said:
Once Duelist hits level 7, the AC shoots so high its broken.

Until level 7, the duelist is still better than your average fighter.
D10 hp
Fighter BAB
4 skill points per level
Increased Initiative +4
Precise Strike +2d6
etc.
Your average fighter aorund the same level:

Power Attack
Cleave
Weapon Focus (greatsword)
Improved Initiative
Iron Will
Weapon Specialization (greatsword)
Improved Sunder
Great Cleave
Greater Weapon Focus (greatsword)
Improved Critical (greatsword)
Mounted Combat
Ride-By Attack
Greater Weapon Specialization (greatsword)


So I don't agree that duelists rock fighters. It's not even close. ;)
 

nameless said:

With the way magic stacks, the Duelist will almost always have a higher AC than a comparable tank. Tanks wearing fullplate can't buff their Dex to increase AC. Fullplate +5, Large Shield +5, Dex of 12, +5 Deflection and +5 Natural armor is pretty much the maximum possible AC without temporary buffing spells, which gives you a 41 AC. A Duelist can put on Bracers of Armor +8, use magic to get a Dex of 22ish, Int of maybe 20, the same ring and amulet, then fight defensively. That would be an AC of 49 at the minimum level for Elaborate Parry. The Duelist is more open-ended than the fighter, since he can directly buff 5 things instead of 4, so the gap will most likely widen.

Hmm...mithral full plate (higher Ac from Dex allowed), shield, ring, amulet, dwarven duelist, Elaborate Parry, Dex 16, fight defensively (with tumble synergy, since dwarves can tumble in full plate), and I got AC 53 at level 7 of duelist, and AC 56 at level 10. If the dex gets insanely high, I suppose +5 Celestial armour (still better than bracers of armour +8) might be an answer (Celestial armour has a +8 max dex bonus -- if it starts becoming a matter of a dex giving an even higher bonus, then we are in a campaign with which I have never been familiar), and it is still better than bracers of armour. Since you didn't add combat expertise to your duelist, I won't add it to mine. :)

My argument isn't that a duelist has to suck (although I think that she is hurting badly at the initial levels of duelist if she goes unarmoured). It is that a duelist works better in armour than unarmoured, which seems to go against tthe concept of the duelist. Note that the armoured duelist does not need or use any INT bonus, which also goes against the concept. It just seems odd to me.
 

I love the concept of the Duelist but no one has ever tried the PrC because the way its setup it only works well for very high stats characters.

I was quite surprised someone relating that they had a very strong Duelist ... anyone else had sucessful Duelists in their Campaigns ?
 

Rashak Mani said:
I love the concept of the Duelist but no one has ever tried the PrC because the way its setup it only works well for very high stats characters.

I was quite surprised someone relating that they had a very strong Duelist ... anyone else had sucessful Duelists in their Campaigns ?

I play a Duelist...and its the best character I've ever had. No armor? Pfft. Good Int and Dex help out. I took a lot of Fighter levels, so I've sunk feats into Improved Trip, Improved Feint, and Improved Disarm.

The key to being a Duelist is not just focussing on those class abilities. I think its a bad way to judge a class just by saying "Well X doesn't work like I think it should so it looks underpowered". The tried and true way to show that is to really test it out...and my Duelist is the guy who's Tumbling, charging, and almost literally dancing around the battlefield. Damage isn't huge, but who needs it when the character is just so FUN. :)
 

I'm glad that you have fun with your duelist, and that your understanding DM correspondingly gives you less challenging monsters to fight than if you were not a duelist. But functionally, it still seems sub-optimal. Heck, I do all the fun stuff you do with my rogue. I'm a tumbling fool, and sometimes a blinking fool (ring of blinking, when on a plane in contact with the ethereal plane), and I have a ball! But I also have way more skill points, so can do more noncombat stuff. So what role is the duelist filling here? Can't a rogue, or fighter/rogue, do the same role, and do it better? And they could wear light armour, too.

So we are back to the duelist being less than optimal in the unarmoured state, and being completely out of concept in the heavily armoured state. That is my problem with it.
 

Do you think it's possible to balance all classes and PrC's at the ultimate twinked-out extreme? I don't, and I don't think it's worth the trouble to try.

I think making a character concept playable is a reasonable goal, and I think the Duelist, if not optimal, is playable. Could you twink out a fighter or rogue to be a better unarmored swashbucking type? Sure, but you wouldn't be a Duelist, which I think has a certain roleplaying flair.

Then again, I tend to develop character concepts from miniatures that catch my eye (and whose paint jobs I don't royally screw up), so the loss of a couple of extra points of damage at epic levels isn't going to ruin the journey for me. That's not to say anyone's wrong for taking that position on the Duelist or any other class, but I don't personally feel that a PrC is wasted if it's combat effectiveness is slightly below the curve.

SJ
 

-> feel that a PrC is wasted if it's combat effectiveness is slightly below the curve <-

I think what most are saying is that the duelists combat effectiveness is too below the curve. Not that everyone has to be totally balanced... but that some PrCs go too much off the "curve" be it up or down is a fact.

Now if I made a Rogue/Fighter combo that seems to fit the Duelist "archetype" better... than I certainly might call him a duelist... but PrCs are supposed to do that.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top