Please rate the Duelist

[smetzger]

Sword & Fist p.17
Requirements: Bab +6, Perform 3 ranks, Tumble 5 ranks, Dodge, Weapon Proficiency (rapier), Ambidexterity, Mobility

Class Features: Canny Defense, Precise Strike, Enhanced mobility, Grace, Acrobatic Attack, Elaborate parry, Improved Reflexes, Deflect Arrows

So, rate it on:
1) How well it stacks up with core classes.
2) How often a PC or NPC will go with this class.
3) How 'fun' it is to play this class and how much this class adds to the game.
Each is worth 3 points, with an additional point that you could add for Misc. reasons.

 

[Darklone]

Check out how many smackdowns use this class... need I say more?

 

[Crothian]

Exactly, it's a good concept class but the sheer power of it really makes it too tempting for the wrong players.

 

[reichtfeld]

Duelist: because the tarrasque only deserves to hit you on a natural 20.

 

[Celebrim]

I was forced based on the criteria to rate this class quite highly, but my opinion on the Duelist is quite mixed. I don't think it is a good example of a PrC, and I am not tempted to allow it into play.

The problem is three fold, and should be familiar to anyone having read my former criticisms of PrC's.

First, the class lacks a particular flavor which makes it sufficiently unique to warrant its separation from a core class. The duelist is a fighter which specializes in using fineese weapons. That is far too much overlap with the fighter core class. What is special about the Duelist that should deferientiate them from a fighter that specializes in Dueling with light weapons, and why should they can particular bonuses for doing so compared to that same fighter? IMO, no PrC should be exclusively a specialist with a particular type of weapons because you can already create such a concept by playing a fighter and choosing a set of feats that fits the concept. So what if perhaps it is possible that a fighter with a different concept (say tank) would beat the 'duelist' concept fighter in a straight up fight. The 'duelist' concept fighter would automatically have advantages is situations where heavy armor was impractical or socially forbidden. That is the price you pay, and it is no different than choosing to play a tank over an archer, or an archer over a tank.

Secondly, none of the class abilities of the Duelist cannot be easily converted to feats of various sorts (though some balancing might be in order), and thereby giving greater flexibility in character creation. There is no reason that a general character with the appropriate concept shouldn't be allowed some form of 'canny defence' without being locked into the narrowly defined role of duelist. Perhaps he is an intelligent battle field commander. Should I have to take 'duelist' to express this? What about cultures that don't have rapiers? Do I need a whole new class to have 'Duelists' in that culture?

Thirdly, like so many fighter BAB progression classes, the class boils down to 'Fighter with more bonus feats than one every other level'. The class is simply too powerful.

 

[LokiDR]

After playing a duelist, I have to say I like it. It balances relatively well against a tank. Less damage output for more AC.

Celebrim:
I don't agree with the argument against the class that it is just a repackaged fighter. A fighter can not survive effectively outside of armor past a few levels. Canny dodge gets around that limitation. The idea that some abilities should be feats is ill-considered, in my opinion. Monks would get more use out it than the general fighter. This PrCl fulfills the role of making a statistically weak concept viable.

As for the problems, I don't like a specific weapon proficiency, but something is needed to separate the class's defense from a martial artists defense. It is possible to combine them, but only after a lot of training.

I also agree that other character concepts should have access to canny-dodge. But the PrC is a focus on one concept. If you believe this PrC has too many abilities, what do you think of monk? Duelist is a good PrC as far as they go.

 

[DM_Matt]

Yes, this class makes you hard to hit, and yes, it is used in smacks beucase of some front-loaded goodness, But the problem is that in dnd, dex-based rapier fighters DONT DO ANY DAMAGE...againt stuff that is immune to crits, that is almost true literally. It is a good PrC, but still not enought to make actual dex-based rapier fighters (rather than fighting rogues).

 

[Darklone]

Precise strike doesn't help against mobs immune to crits, right?

 

[Celebrim]

I understand the variaty of objections to my reasoning, but I find most of them to be somewhat of red herrings.

If you don't think that this class is a repackaged fighter, what do you think it is? It is a class intended to make low armor fineese based fighters viable, as both of you has said. It is indeed a repackaged fighter. That it has synergy with rogue by providing combat 'feats' with fineese weapons is hardly relevant. Fighter has synergy with rogue by providing combat feats with fineese weapons and improving thier combat skills. Duelist is only more so. The main reason you see more rogue/duelists than fighter duelists is the tumble prerequisite - which itself is kinda odd because you don't get much acrobatic training as a fencer nor do you see much tumbling in real rapier duels.

First, that is in and of itself not justification for the class. If you are attempting to provide for a world the flavor that you don't have to roam around in heavy armor in order to be an effective combatant, then a better solution is to adobt a level based defence bonus alla Star Wars or Wheel of Time. If you aren't attempting to provide that flavor, it doesn't necessarily follow that everyone choosing every combat style should be the equal in combat versus everyone else. For one thing, there are inherent advantages to NOT depending on armor. If you can not depend on armor and have as high of an ac and as good of damage as a fighter with armor, then you would be stupid not to do it. After all, you are forgoing the need for an expensive peice of equipment, acquiring the ability to defend yourself when out of your armor (as sleeping or bathing or whatever), acquiring the ability to perform well in combats were honor forbids armor (as in certain formal duels), avoiding encumbrance, increasing your effective speed, and avoiding armor check penalties. At least in my game, avoiding armor check penalties is a pretty big deal. All these advantages should weigh against reduced protection and reduced damage.

Now, it might remain true that even so you would lag so far behind armored fighters that 'duelist' was not a viable concept under the core rules. Now, arguably, so what? But, lets say you wanted to support duelists as a concept without adding a new defence bonus mechanism. Well, nothing is to stop you from adding 'canny defence' et al as feats which have appropriate prequisites. This would result in greater versimilutude - because characters would be able to choose acrobatic attacks without knowing canny defense, or choose canny defense without knowing how to do acrobatic attacks. Maybe some of the class abilities would need to be written when converted to feats, but that's ok too.

Yes, it might be that certain new feats would be created of more benifit to monks than fighters. So what? Fighters would still be able to at a given level take more of these feats, and by virtue of superior BAB would qualify for the feats at a lower level than monks. (Some here would argue that mooks need the help anyway.) What is so different about having the class more readily accessible to rogues than straight fighters? By making them all feats, you make the abilities accessible to everyone who qualifies - even a wizard if you like. And you do so without the worry of having to give full spell progression to make multiclassing worth while and all the other oddities of PrC's.

So what if the duelist concept would possibly still lag behind 'big dude with a great sword concept' in a straight up fight with most things especially things that take brute force to overcome. Big dude with a great sword has a harder time keeping his balance, swimming when dumped into water, isn't accepted in polite company off the battlefield, is possibly breaking city law wearing such ironmongery, can't run away nearly as fast when he needs to, takes a couple of minutes to suit up before he can go into battle, and so forth. I consider that from an RP/adventuring angle a fair trade assuming the DM is doing something more than a maze of 30x20' flagstoned rooms with orc and pie.

 

[LokiDR]

I understand the variaty of objections to my reasoning, but I find most of them to be somewhat of red herrings.

Finess fighters suck in a fight where anything goes. Duelist is an attept to change that. If you rarely have fights where anything goes, duelist doesn't work for your game. Most of D&D is designed for unrestricted combat - i.e. the fighters can wear their plate mail and carry their great swords. Change that, and you chage the dynamic of the game.

If you don't think that this class is a repackaged fighter, what do you think it is? It is a class intended to make low armor fineese based fighters viable, as both of you has said. It is indeed a repackaged fighter. That it has synergy with rogue by providing combat 'feats' with fineese weapons is hardly relevant. Fighter has synergy with rogue by providing combat feats with fineese weapons and improving thier combat skills. Duelist is only more so. The main reason you see more rogue/duelists than fighter duelists is the tumble prerequisite - which itself is kinda odd because you don't get much acrobatic training as a fencer nor do you see much tumbling in real rapier duels.

Rules are rules, and the world is the world. The rules are built on the idea of balance, which doesn't exsist in the real world. If your opponent has a weapon and you don't, you are going to lose. That isn't fun. Neither is getting more "power" than your fellows with the same experience because of your focus. That is why duelists have tumble. An note that tumble increases your abilty to dodge, which is important in real rapier duels.

First, that is in and of itself not justification for the class. If you are attempting to provide for a world the flavor that you don't have to roam around in heavy armor in order to be an effective combatant, then a better solution is to adobt a level based defence bonus alla Star Wars or Wheel of Time. If you aren't attempting to provide that flavor, it doesn't necessarily follow that everyone choosing every combat style should be the equal in combat versus everyone else. For one thing, there are inherent advantages to NOT depending on armor. If you can not depend on armor and have as high of an ac and as good of damage as a fighter with armor, then you would be stupid not to do it. After all, you are forgoing the need for an expensive peice of equipment, acquiring the ability to defend yourself when out of your armor (as sleeping or bathing or whatever), acquiring the ability to perform well in combats were honor forbids armor (as in certain formal duels), avoiding encumbrance, increasing your effective speed, and avoiding armor check penalties. At least in my game, avoiding armor check penalties is a pretty big deal. All these advantages should weigh against reduced protection and reduced damage.

Adventures don't generaly spend most of their time at the kings court. They are out exploring ruins, finding items, fighting "bad guys", saving towns, traveling, or countering "evil" plots. Armor, in most of those cases, is a good thing to always have on. Thanks to spells like fly, armor check penalties don't come up much. And even if they did come up all the time, more damage and more AC more than makes up for it.

Now, it might remain true that even so you would lag so far behind armored fighters that 'duelist' was not a viable concept under the core rules. Now, arguably, so what? But, lets say you wanted to support duelists as a concept without adding a new defence bonus mechanism. Well, nothing is to stop you from adding 'canny defence' et al as feats which have appropriate prequisites. This would result in greater versimilutude - because characters would be able to choose acrobatic attacks without knowing canny defense, or choose canny defense without knowing how to do acrobatic attacks. Maybe some of the class abilities would need to be written when converted to feats, but that's ok too.

By that reasoning, all abilites should be feats. But some abilities are too good to be feats, so they are put into a package with some possible draw-backs compared to alternatives. You are not arguing against the duelist, you are arguing against all PrCls.

Yes, it might be that certain new feats would be created of more benifit to monks than fighters. So what? Fighters would still be able to at a given level take more of these feats, and by virtue of superior BAB would qualify for the feats at a lower level than monks. (Some here would argue that mooks need the help anyway.) What is so different about having the class more readily accessible to rogues than straight fighters? By making them all feats, you make the abilities accessible to everyone who qualifies - even a wizard if you like. And you do so without the worry of having to give full spell progression to make multiclassing worth while and all the other oddities of PrC's.

Should a wizard, who never focuses on weapon training, be able to pick up a complicated fighting style? Again, you are defeating the point of PrC in general.

So what if the duelist concept would possibly still lag behind 'big dude with a great sword concept' in a straight up fight with most things especially things that take brute force to overcome. Big dude with a great sword has a harder time keeping his balance, swimming when dumped into water, isn't accepted in polite company off the battlefield, is possibly breaking city law wearing such ironmongery, can't run away nearly as fast when he needs to, takes a couple of minutes to suit up before he can go into battle, and so forth. I consider that from an RP/adventuring angle a fair trade assuming the DM is doing something more than a maze of 30x20' flagstoned rooms with orc and pie.

And without the duelist a finess fighter will never hold his own in any fight outside of the lace-wearing high society.

Your concept of what an adventurer spends their time doing is different than the one the rules were focused on. Because of that, duelist has too many advantages. This does not mean it doesn't fit with the rest of the rule set pretty well, where the rules were intended to be used. A small amount of magic defeats some or all of the problems you describe. Glamored armor and winged boots. Use a horse for long trips.

Celebrim, most of your critisim of the class has been against PrCl in general or duelist fitting into the world. Outside of those constraints, what bothers you about duelist? Do you have the same problem with Weapon Master, Order of the Bow Initiate, and Master of Chains?