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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="IndyPendant" data-source="post: 3325980" data-attributes="member: 8738">I don't know if this is for you Nifft--but when I meddle with SRD classes and PrCs, I always try to look for the simplest, easiest change I can make that still remains true to that class' concept.  This serves two purposes: 1) there's less chance of screwing things up somewhere, and 2) it's much easier for my players to read and understand the changes.Now, let's look at what the Duelist offers: 1) full BAB, 2) d10 HPs, 3) good (not quite great) skillset, and 4) some pretty niffty (heh) special abilities, most of them defensive in nature.  Heck, it looks pretty durned good all by itself, actually.  So why does it suck so bad that players don't want to even look at it?  Personally, I think that can be summarized in two words: no. armour.The Duelist gets no casting progression.  It's not a spellcasting PrC.  I don't really *care* what you get in compensation; no armour is a *severe* hindrance to any sort of non-casting class.  Period, full-stop, end of paragraph.It's a neat concept, trying to be able to fight without armour--but the monk already does that.  The duelist doesn't need that ability to be fun to play or unique--his special abilities already do that for him.  So I think the duelist needs only two easy-to-understand changes to become appealing:1) The duelist can use all of his abilities while wearing light armour.  He still can't wear a shield or use an off-hand/two-handed weapon.2) *Possibly* also needs: Evasion at 4th level (or Imp Evasion if he already has Evasion), and Imp Evasion at 10th level.That would (probably) do it for me.  In fact, that may be what I'll do for it. : )</blockquote>

Verification