LightPhoenix
First Post
Particle_Man said:
I would just like to point out that Ankhie never said any such thing about less challenging monsters.
Duelist -- Doesn't work as advertised?
- Thread starter Particle_Man
- Start date
I would just like to point out that Ankhie never said any such thing about less challenging monsters.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
One of the PC's in my game plays a Monk2/Fighter6/Duellist2. Her best attributes are intelligence, wisdom and dexterity, and she has the best AC in the party (not to mention the best touch AC too... a real problem when people try to grapple her!). The player does feel that she has dropped behind the damage curve somewhat compared to the other fighter, and the lack of a big CON bonus hurts, but she makes an excellent duellist and is fun to play.
"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." - StumpwaterJack
I'm sorry, but why wouldn't you be a duelist if you're a fighter/rogue instead of taking the duelist PrC? You can call yourself whatever you want. The problem I have right now with a lot of PrC's is that they substitute class for character.
You can be a fighter/rogue/monk, and be a Ninja. Heck, an 18th level straight-classed rogue can be a Ninja, and a feared one at that.
Class is not character. The point people are trying to make here is that the Duelist PrC actually seems to make a less interesting and playable duelist (small "d") than a fighter/rogue.
"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." - StumpwaterJack
That's not all people are saying. I read a TON of threads over the last two years about the 3.0 ranger. Too many. And invariably, someone stepped in and said, "But I had fun playing my elven ranger. It's not a bad class."
They missed the point. People complained because overall, the 3.0 ranger was a poorly designed class. People weren't complaining because it wasn't twinked out, powergamed, munchkined with all the trimmings. They were complaining because the class itself sucked, and sucked bad. I don't think the Duelist PrC is as bad as the 3.0 Ranger, but overall I am beginning to see a lot of threads pointing out that whereas 3.0 may have erred sometimes on giving players too much power too quickly, 3.5 may be falling off the other side of the log and taking too much away.
I'm sorry, but why wouldn't you be a duelist if you're a fighter/rogue instead of taking the duelist PrC? You can call yourself whatever you want. The problem I have right now with a lot of PrC's is that they substitute class for character.
You can be a fighter/rogue/monk, and be a Ninja. Heck, an 18th level straight-classed rogue can be a Ninja, and a feared one at that.
Class is not character. The point people are trying to make here is that the Duelist PrC actually seems to make a less interesting and playable duelist (small "d") than a fighter/rogue.
"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." - StumpwaterJack
That's not all people are saying. I read a TON of threads over the last two years about the 3.0 ranger. Too many. And invariably, someone stepped in and said, "But I had fun playing my elven ranger. It's not a bad class."
They missed the point. People complained because overall, the 3.0 ranger was a poorly designed class. People weren't complaining because it wasn't twinked out, powergamed, munchkined with all the trimmings. They were complaining because the class itself sucked, and sucked bad. I don't think the Duelist PrC is as bad as the 3.0 Ranger, but overall I am beginning to see a lot of threads pointing out that whereas 3.0 may have erred sometimes on giving players too much power too quickly, 3.5 may be falling off the other side of the log and taking too much away.
drnuncheon
Explorer
Well, one thing to consider is: just because you have an ability that requires you to not wear armor doesn't mean you have to use it. I've got a character going for duelist who isn't going to benefit much from the Int bonus to AC - not enough to make it worthwhile giving up his magic mithril shirt, anyway - so he won't. The AC boost will simply be a nice benefit when he's caught without his armor (as has happened on one or two occasions).
It may be "wasting" the ability, but he's got Whirlwind Attack too, and he doesn't use that every round, or even every combat...
If you're going in as a straight fighter, then the class is still great even if you drop the 'not in armor' abilities - you essentially trade 5 feats for: Improved Initiative (effectively - but it stacks with II!), +2d6 damage in most cases (at least comparable to taking Weapon Specialization twice, when taking into account that some creatures are immune), Deflect Arrows, Acrobatic Charge (probably worth a feat) and Elaborate Parry (a souped-up Expertise). So, 5 feats for the equivalent of 6 at least - the AC bonuses are just gravy. Then there's the improved skill list and extra skill points...
Coming from a rogue perspective, you give up a little more, especially those higher-level rogue abilities. But precise strike is at least much easier to set up than sneak attack, and you get the hit points that will help you actually survive in melee.
J
It may be "wasting" the ability, but he's got Whirlwind Attack too, and he doesn't use that every round, or even every combat...
If you're going in as a straight fighter, then the class is still great even if you drop the 'not in armor' abilities - you essentially trade 5 feats for: Improved Initiative (effectively - but it stacks with II!), +2d6 damage in most cases (at least comparable to taking Weapon Specialization twice, when taking into account that some creatures are immune), Deflect Arrows, Acrobatic Charge (probably worth a feat) and Elaborate Parry (a souped-up Expertise). So, 5 feats for the equivalent of 6 at least - the AC bonuses are just gravy. Then there's the improved skill list and extra skill points...
Coming from a rogue perspective, you give up a little more, especially those higher-level rogue abilities. But precise strike is at least much easier to set up than sneak attack, and you get the hit points that will help you actually survive in melee.
J
JRRNeiklot
First Post
I played a bladesinger, which is similar to a duelist, in that he got his int bonus to ac. It was 32 point buy, and I could get my ac into the 40s without even trying hard. This was in a VERY low magic campaign. One of my biggest beefs with 3e is that there is really no reason whatsoever to wear armor. Every high ac character I've seen was damn near naked.
Ankh-Morpork Guard
First Post
LightPhoenix said:
...and for good reason. My DM doesn't pull any punches, and won't throw "less challenging" monsters at the party just because of one character. Why? Because she wants to see us crushed and laugh(wonderful girlfriend, isn't she?
).You can't stare at the mechanics so detailed. All they're say is what it can do, not how good(or broken, depending on your perspective) the class really is. The Duelist may LOOK like a suboptimal choice...but I think its one of the best PrCs for that REASON. You actually DO give something up to specialize.
Oh...and Elaborate Parry, Acrobatic Charge, and Deflect Arrows(with my rapier) are the coolest abilities, ever.
Sanackranib
First Post
I am planing on playing a bard 5/ fighter 2 who will become a duelist in our next game. since the characters are starting off at 1st level it will be a while before I become a duelist. so I plan to wear light armor until I do become one then evaluate the situation. when my AC will be better with no armor I will go that route. Since I know what I am working towards I will try to aquire the suitable magic items before that time, Ie bracers, amulets and rings. the class looks very playable and I will have even LESS HP then normal because of my d6's. but working with the rogue so we can both flank will offset this. also I will have several times the skill points of a fighter duelist - which I consider a fair trade off
my feats will be as follows in qualifing as a duelist:
I'll start off as an aprentice level character lev 0 bard/lev 0 fighter
level 1 2 weapon fighting
level 1 off handed (+2 hit/opponents suffer -4 to hit you - from the "evil sourcebook)
level 1weapon finess (bonus background feat from quint. fighter)
level 2 expertise (bonus fighter feat)
level 3 don't rember feat name but its in the 3.5 PHB allos you to trade the extra damage from a crit for a called shot
level 3 dodge (bonus fighter feat)
level 6 mobility
at 7th level I will become a duelist and my next feat will be improved disarm. does this not seem playable? I realize some of you will object to the off handed feat 'cause its not in the core rules but the DM for this game has approved it so I'm gonna use it.
my feats will be as follows in qualifing as a duelist:
I'll start off as an aprentice level character lev 0 bard/lev 0 fighter
level 1 2 weapon fighting
level 1 off handed (+2 hit/opponents suffer -4 to hit you - from the "evil sourcebook)
level 1weapon finess (bonus background feat from quint. fighter)
level 2 expertise (bonus fighter feat)
level 3 don't rember feat name but its in the 3.5 PHB allos you to trade the extra damage from a crit for a called shot
level 3 dodge (bonus fighter feat)
level 6 mobility
at 7th level I will become a duelist and my next feat will be improved disarm. does this not seem playable? I realize some of you will object to the off handed feat 'cause its not in the core rules but the DM for this game has approved it so I'm gonna use it.
Last edited:
Rashak Mani
First Post
I will check the 3.0 and the 3.5 Duelist again then... so many seem to have good Duelists...
As for the Cool Factor there is no question about it... we are just discussing the min/max or balance issue.
As for the Cool Factor there is no question about it... we are just discussing the min/max or balance issue.
Aust Diamondew
First Post
25 pt. buy
High level duelist AC:
Abilities: Str 18 (+6 enhancement) Dex 31 (+5 level, +5 inherit +6 enhancement) con 12 int 24 (+6 enhancement, +5 inherit)
45 =10+8 Bracers of Armor+5 ring of protection+ 5 amulet of natural armor+10 dex+7 int.
With 32 point buy it would proably be higher.
High level Sword and Shield Fighter AC:
Abilites: Str 31 (+5 level, +5 inherit, +6 enhanment), dex 17 (+4 enhacnement) con 20 (+6 enhancement)
45 =10+13 Mithril (w/ +5 enmhancement) Full plate+9 (w/ +5 enmhancement) Towershield+ 3 dex+ 5 amulet of natural armor+ 5 ring of protection.
Equal AC ufortunayley in the damage dealing departement the fighter will proably end up dealing more.
High level duelist AC:
Abilities: Str 18 (+6 enhancement) Dex 31 (+5 level, +5 inherit +6 enhancement) con 12 int 24 (+6 enhancement, +5 inherit)
45 =10+8 Bracers of Armor+5 ring of protection+ 5 amulet of natural armor+10 dex+7 int.
With 32 point buy it would proably be higher.
High level Sword and Shield Fighter AC:
Abilites: Str 31 (+5 level, +5 inherit, +6 enhanment), dex 17 (+4 enhacnement) con 20 (+6 enhancement)
45 =10+13 Mithril (w/ +5 enmhancement) Full plate+9 (w/ +5 enmhancement) Towershield+ 3 dex+ 5 amulet of natural armor+ 5 ring of protection.
Equal AC ufortunayley in the damage dealing departement the fighter will proably end up dealing more.
Similar Threads
