Please rate the Duelist

[drnuncheon]

I don't think that duelist is "necessary" for a finesse fighter to hold his own - in fact, in our high level campaign my Ftr4/Rog10 does just fine without levels in that PrC. Maybe that's because there's no Ftr14 to compare him with - but he's definitely does just as well as either of the other 'front-line' people (a paladin and a monk).

I considered Duelist, but rejected it because it would have required a feat I didn't want to spend (for Ambidexterity), it would have cut down on my skill ranks, and the AC bonus would be far less than what I'd get for wearing even nonmagical armor.

J

 

[kigmatzomat]

Loki, I can't figure out which side you're arguing. Some of your comments seem anti-PrC

That isn't fun. Neither is getting more "power" than your fellows with the same experience because of your focus.

but you defend the concept of PrCs later.

You are not arguing against the duelist, you are arguing against all PrCls.

Then you imply that the armor wearing classes are what the game is designed for so there are no disadvantages to armor

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.

and follow it up with

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.

I like playing devil's advocate, but not in the same post.

 

[Celebrim]

LokiDR: Well, I admit that you have caught me on one thing - I don't like the PrC and classes like OoBI, Master of Chains, and Weapon Master are poster children for why I don't like it. Actually, I find those classes even worse than the duelist, because you can't argue that archers or spiked chain wielders need a class focused on them to make the concept viable.

I do generally feel that PrC's are 3rd ed.'s one big design mistake. Third ed. went a huge step away from having each class be a single stereotype individual basically identical to every other person with the same class, and towards flexible customizable character creation and development. Third ed. took a huge step towards making all classes equally fun to play and equally useful and balanced against each other. Yet in the middle of this, it decided to drop in these rather unflexible, personality confining, unbalanced classes. Not only does this undo much of the work that they accomplished, it flies smack in the face of the notion of the CR/EL/ECL system they tried to develope to help DM's. If PrC's are really supposed to be more powerful than core classes, then this means not all 4 member Xth level parties are equal in terms of CR or EL. This shoots a huge hole into an already holey system.

If you really wanted 'advanced classes' then you should have only given the core classes 10 levels of progression as was done in D20 modern. Even that isn't fully satisfying to me, but it would be better than what they have now. What we have now are the core classes, and then PrC's - which are core classes that gain more feats than regular core classes. Ei, there are 'fighter' PrC's that are just fighters with more bonus feats than one every other level, and 'spell caster' PrC's that are Wizards with more bonus feats than one every 5th level. There are some others types, but I think in practice no one ever plays those and they are relegated to NPC's if they are used at all.

I do think that the vast majority of PrC class abilities can be converted to feats. Those that can't are either too good to grant to anyone (the various bonuses damage granted to a Master of Chains for instance, as if the Spiked Chain was somehow a weak weapon as defined in D20), or else can be fiddled with by limiting them or breaking them into two or more feats (X, Improved X, and Superior X).

As to a Wizard taking say Enhanced Mobility, what is wrong with that if the Wizard has a +8 BAB, 5 ranks of tumble, dodge, and mobility? Maybe few wizards will have such things, but if they qualify why not? After all, a wizard _could_ (if they wanted to) have Great Cleave. Nothing prevents it. It just isn't the usual path of development. But if I want to do it, I can. For that matter, a 12th level wizard could probably take levels of Duelist. What I am saying is that if the color and crunch of Duelist were made into feats, he could do so and we wouldn't have to worry about making 'Duelist' classes with full spell progression and them being too powerful. The limited availablity feats would naturally balance such things. And we certainly wouldn't have to worry about core classes becoming obselete after a certain point.

But I agree with kigmatzomat that your arguement against what I have to say, other than the fact that I am indeed argueing against the concept of PrC's in general, is somewhat erratic.

 

[LokiDR]

I am on my own side. See my sig Seriously, I was just not writing very clearly because I kept being interupted.

Loki, I can't figure out which side you're arguing. Some of your comments seem anti-PrC

but you defend the concept of PrCs later.

In real life, if I wear armor and you don't, I have a huge advantage. That isn't fun to role-play. But it also isn't fun to role-play a character who has more AC and attack because the rules say duelists are just that good. In a perfect world, I would like PrC to balance vs. the base classes. Because they don't, I will settle for balancing them against each other. Does that make more sense? I don't want to see a person getting half the abilities of duelist and full spell casting, as I believe it would ruin balance.

Then you imply that the armor wearing classes are what the game is designed for so there are no disadvantages to armor

and follow it up with

I like playing devil's advocate, but not in the same post.

Duelist is balanced with "armor check doesn't matter too often" in mind. A good portion the balancing factors Celebrim mentions take the opposite approach. If you take Celebrim's approach, duelist IS too good. If you stick to what I would consider more "average" style, duelist isn't that overpowered. Style of play changes a lot balance issues, and needs to be taken into account.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

You should never take this class

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

The Duelist isn't harder to hit than the Monk, which is a core class. The Monk/Duelist is a sick combination, though, because the Siangham is a one-handed piercing weapon. Flurry of Blows/Lightning Fist even evades the Duelist's main limit-- his inability to fight with two weapons effectively. The AC bonus is negligible unless you have obscene mental ability scores.

Since you're required to take Ambidexterity, it's worthwhile to take Two-Weapon Fighting, Twin Sword Style, and Off-Hand Parry. Precise Strike doesn't work when attacking with two weapons, but there's nothing that says you can't be holding an extra weapon or even using it to defend yourself. A Defender in your off-hand enhances this effect, though, Construct Bane and Undead Bane are good insurance in case you run into something not effected by your Precise Strike. Speed is good for your main weapon, to squeeze that extra bit of pain out of Precise Strike.

If you have the feats to spare and you're high enough level, the above tactic works especially well with Tempest, since it improves your defense while using your Precise Strike, and boosts your offense when you're not. Rapiers are a light weapon, so Supreme Two-Weapon Fighting allows you to attack with no penalties.

Duelist/Soulknife is the bane of all living things, combining Sneak Attack with Precise Strike and the ability to do Constitution damage.

From a style perspective, I love the Duelist. My characters rarely wear armor, and I play a lot of flashy, witty characters. It's a natural fit, and makes them a little less silly-looking in the dungeon. At least, until we're attacked by Skeletons and Oozes.

 

[Darklone]

Rapiers are a light weapon, so Supreme Two-Weapon Fighting allows you to attack with no penalties.

Nope. Rapier: Not light.

 

[smetzger]

er...uhm....

Lets remember this is the _Rules_ Forum. So lets try and stick to discussing existing rules.

Thank You,
*:> Scott

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Nope. Rapier: Not light.

You're right. Another thread just forced me to verify that.