| 46 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a character with +12 bonus to AC (+6 Dex, +6 Int) and celestial armor (max Dex +8).
What is the order of operations on determining how much actually adds to the AC?
Is it +6 Dex to AC, check limit (reducing as necessary), then add +6 Int?
Or is it +12 Dex/Int to AC, check limit, effectively reduced to +8?
If it's the latter, then it's no wonder nobody likes Duelists.
Looking for an official response if possible.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
** spoiler omitted **
I have a character with +12 bonus to AC (+6 Dex, +6 Int) and celestial armor (max Dex +8).
What is the order of operations on determining how much actually adds to the AC?
Is it +6 Dex to AC, check limit (reducing as necessary), then add +6 Int?
Or is it +12 Dex/Int to AC, check limit, effectively reduced to +8?
If it's the latter, then it's no wonder nobody likes Duelists.
Looking for an official response if possible.
I can see it being read both ways. I will hit the FAQ button for you.
Also hitting FAQ but the way i understand it the armor isn't techniclly denying your bonus only limiting it so i would say no. It it Denied it then anyone in halfplate who had a +1 dex would be sneak attack able all the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The INT bonus is considered as (and added to) the DEX bonus for AC purposes.
Since armor caps the maximum DEX, I'd say you only get as much as your armor allows.
I've seen that before. And they way it is writen you cannot use armor if you want to benefit from high int and dex. I do hope they fix it though. Luckily the Kensai (as people said) doesn't get armor prof anyway, so...
The INT bonus is considered as (and added to) the DEX bonus for AC purposes.
Since armor caps the maximum DEX, I'd say you only get as much as your armor allows.
That is pretty much how I read it too. It means that high int/dex duelists pretty much have to swap to bracers of armor at some point.
Just reading the ability...
Canny Defense (Ex)
When wearing light or no armor and not using a shield, a duelist adds 1 point of Intelligence bonus (if any) per duelist class level to her Dexterity bonus to modify Armor Class while wielding a melee weapon. If a duelist is caught flat-footed or otherwise denied her Dexterity bonus, she also loses this bonus.
This tells me that the number is added to your Dexterity bonus to modify armor class. Because the Dexterity bonus to AC is limited by the type of armor you wear, the total number would be limited as well. At least that's how I read it.
If it were otherwise they wouldn't have bothered to mention that it is added to your Dexterity bonus and simply give its own type (such as dodge as that bonus works similar to your Dex bonus in that it applies to your base and touch ACs, but not flat-footed, and would stack regardless of armor).
So on your stat block in the AC section, instead of it being:
AC 22 (+6 Dex, +6 Int)
It would be:
AC 22 (+12 Dex)
FAQed it too :)
Would be really nice to have an official answer to this issue. Even better if it happens before my next session (I have an NPC depending on this ruling).
It it Denied it then anyone in halfplate who had a +1 dex would be sneak attack able all the time.
Incorrect. Even if you don't have a dex bonus to armor period, you still have to be caught flat-footed normally. It doesn't make you automatically sneak attacked by everything.
The rogue's attack deals extra damage (called "precision damage") anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not)
As for OP, I agree with Exoow (and maybe others) in the fact that you'd only be able to apply 8 of it.
So it would be AC 27 (+8 "dex", +9 Armor)
I also agree that the INT bonus is added to the DEX bonus, and such is also limited by armor.
I remeber that in the flavor background text about duelists it states that the best duelists no longer wear armor because it hinders their movements. So it would seem that that is their intention.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to echo what wraithstrike said in the hijacked Crane Style thread - I keep flip-flopping on this. I think the RAW is pretty clear in saying that the INT bonus is added to the DEX bonus, and it's also clear that DEX bonus is limited by armor.
However, it's pretty odd that Canny Defense would be limited by armor in this way, since it's clearly designed to help the AC of duelists as they go up in levels, but has a cap (in the form of a max DEX bonus) placed on its usefulness. It seems strange to structure it so as the Canny Defense ability builds up, you have to keep moving to lighter and lighter armor, with no net gain (and potentially a drop) in AC.
Not to mention that I don't feel it makes sense that armor would keep you from anticipating your opponents' moves, or otherwise applying your INT to keep from getting hit. (In the other thread I suggested that perhaps the armor kept you from reacting quickly enough to that info, but I was trying to articualte what the developers' view might have been - and I can't really buy it.)
I'm going ask my GM about it for a duelist I'd like to build, and I suspect he'll houserule to agree with Mr. Dork and Malachi - but, in the spirit of flip-flopping, I'll be okay with a ruling the other way, because I do think a duelist with no armor and a still quite good AC is an awesome roleplaying opportunity, even if he's not completely maximized for safety in combat.
Design Manager
|
Most prestige classes tend to be geared towards theme over massive power gain. Plus, bards and rogues, the two classes that particular prestige class is primarily aimed at, only use light armor anyways and don't gain any class abilities to mitigate armor check penalties. So a class that graduates them out of armor all together makes sense mechanically and thematically.
It it Denied it then anyone in halfplate who had a +1 dex would be sneak attack able all the time.Incorrect. Even if you don't have a dex bonus to armor period, you still have to be caught flat-footed normally. It doesn't make you automatically sneak attacked by everything.
Reread Marthian, he misspelled 'If' as 'It', but he said If it denied dex bonus, then anyone in halfplate who had a +1 dex would be sneak attackable all the time. He was basically saying it wasn't that it denied dex, it just limited it. In other words, you both agree on how the mechanic works, which means your incorrect was incorrect, as you're disagreeing with the person you agree with. :)
Reread Marthian, he misspelled 'If' as 'It', but he said If it denied dex bonus, then anyone in halfplate who had a +1 dex would be sneak attackable all the time. He was basically saying it wasn't that it denied dex, it just limited it. In other words, you both agree on how the mechanic works, which means your incorrect was incorrect, as you're disagreeing with the person you agree with. :)It it Denied it then anyone in halfplate who had a +1 dex would be sneak attack able all the time.Incorrect. Even if you don't have a dex bonus to armor period, you still have to be caught flat-footed normally. It doesn't make you automatically sneak attacked by everything.
From what it sounded like, if you didn't get a dex bonus to AC, you were flat-footed period.
Even if your armor has a Max dex bonus of +0 and your only AC boost is from Armor, you aren't flat-footed unless you are actually flat-footed.
|
Most prestige classes tend to be geared towards theme over massive power gain. Plus, bards and rogues, the two classes that particular prestige class is primarily aimed at, only use light armor anyways and don't gain any class abilities to mitigate armor check penalties. So a class that graduates them out of armor all together makes sense mechanically and thematically.
First, I've always seen this as a primarily warrior class, albeit with lines blurred with rogue. Not only for flavour purposes (it's all about fighting!), but also mechanically. If it were intended for rogues not warriors, then the entry requirements would be acrobatics/perform 6 ranks and BAB +4, allowing rogues entry at 7th. As written, skill requirements are a measly 2 ranks! The BAB requirement is a harsh +6!
Warriors can qualify for their first duelist level at 7th, but rogues earliest is at 9th! It's designed to make warriors more rogue-y, not rogues more warrior-y.
Second, they deliberately changed duelist from not wearing armour in 3.5 to wearing light armour in PF. The wording upon which we disagree was written for the 3.5 version, wearing no armour. When they chose to change to light armour they didn't do so in order to get the duelist out of it again!
You could still use armor, especially as a fighter 10. If going for a more rogue Duelist. You could focus more on STR or CON and sink a couple of points into DEX/INT. *shrug* I've been fiddling around with Duelists in Hero Lab and I rather like not having to worry about armor. Bracers of Armor, AMulet of Nat Armor, so on and so forth. Hm. I think I'll go see how a STR focused Duelist stacks up.
|
Design Manager
|
Most prestige classes tend to be geared towards theme over massive power gain. Plus, bards and rogues, the two classes that particular prestige class is primarily aimed at, only use light armor anyways and don't gain any class abilities to mitigate armor check penalties. So a class that graduates them out of armor all together makes sense mechanically and thematically.First, I've always seen this as a primarily warrior class, albeit with lines blurred with rogue. Not only for flavour purposes (it's all about fighting!), but also mechanically. If it were intended for rogues not warriors, then the entry requirements would be acrobatics/perform 6 ranks and BAB +4, allowing rogues entry at 7th. As written, skill requirements are a measly 2 ranks! The BAB requirement is a harsh +6!
Warriors can qualify for their first duelist level at 7th, but rogues earliest is at 9th! It's designed to make warriors more rogue-y, not rogues more warrior-y.
Second, they deliberately changed duelist from not wearing armour in 3.5 to wearing light armour in PF. The wording upon which we disagree was written for the 3.5 version, wearing no armour. When they chose to change to light armour they didn't do so in order to get the duelist out of it again!
Read the class description, it specifically says most Duelist are rogues or bards. Right in there dude. They gave them light armor because the Canny Defense ability wasn't actually useful until 4 levels in otherwise.
Real duelists use morningstars (they are one-handed piercing weapons, after all).
Yeah, but I don't those are Finessable which is a requirement for the Duelist, isn't it?
You can go STR, get Celestial armor and if your a fighter of, I think 6th level, Celestial armor would allow a +9 Dex Bonus. Not really a powerhouse either way, but you can lay down some hurt with power attack.
I think it's competly fine for Canny Defense to be capped by the Dex bonus. Doesn't make it useless, imo. Though,some of these threads make it sound like if it doesn't have an AC of 50 or something it's usless. :P
Also. Jiggy. Favorite Duelist thus far? Hobgoblin Rogue/Duelist with A Light Pick, heh.
|
Design Manager
|
Yeah, but I don't those are Finessable which is a requirement for the Duelist, isn't it?Duelist requires that you have the Weapon Finesse feat. But your weapon just has to be a light or one-handed piercing weapon.
I thought about making a trident wielding Duelist until I realized the trident kind of sucks, particularly for a mobile combatant.
Well, yeah, but why not use the feat you had to take, right? xD In all honestly, my Hob Duelist had a morningstar at first.
Oh gods. Now I'm imagining the Hobgoblin doing an Old SPice commercial..
The RAW is clearly limiting the bonus, because it adds to DEX.
The RAI, I'm not sure (hit the FAQ already)
In my opinion, Duelist isn't going to break the game, so it's not a balance issue. It might be a flavor issue, if people want their duelist using no armor/silken armor/haramaki-like armor instead of mithril breastplates.
|
Design Manager
|
I'm not sure how one could argue the RAI being different than the RAW when the rules are written so explicitly. The way it's written that INT bonus can't possibly be anything but added to the DEX and subject to the same limitations. You have to intentionally write something that specific, it's not really something that could have been done "accidentally". The Duelist has been around for at least a decade (actually a bit more) and no one has changed that particular block of wording in all that time, despite multiple writers/editors/designers/players reviewing it and carrying it between multiple editions and companies.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have, say, 18 DEX, some people will say "wear light armor so you can make use of that DEX bonus". But with 18 DEX, your AC will be:
18 in a chain shirt
19 in a breastplate
20 in full plate
So if (prior to archetypes) you were an archer of some sort whose class had heavy armor proficiency, your best bet (AC-wise) would be to wear full plate.
Which seems really weird to me. I wish that armor and DEX balanced each other out - that is, three PCs who each wear the best armor of a given category (one in light, one in medium, one in heavy) and each utilize the max DEX of their armor, that they'd each end up with the same AC.
But perhaps that's just me.
|
Design Manager
|
** spoiler omitted **
In 4th Edition, DEX-based characters in light armor actually out-scaled heavy armor wearers. It's a difficult mechanic to manage and balance within the bounds of the existing framework.
Also, the Duelist's Canny Defense functionally gets him past that effective DEX of 30, which is why he doesn't need armor after about the 6th or 7th level of the prestige class.
** spoiler omitted **
This makes so much sense. I have a strong preference for high Dex characters over meat shields, and I've been paying for that in AC for 30+ years.
/whine
People act as if using bracers of armor is a terrible thing. If your dex bonus to AC is so high that you can't use armor effectively anymore, enjoy the high touch AC. Welcome to the anti-caster club, we have a potluck on Sundays.
Anyone who would be tempted to use Bracers of Armor should ALWAYS look at Haramaki instead, or the Ceremonial Silk Robe. Monks are pretty much the only exception.
|
|
Sorry, but I'm going to do the same as before, and answer each point within the greyness. My comments are in brackets.
I'm not sure how one could argue the RAI being different than the RAW when the rules are written so explicitly. The way it's written that INT bonus can't possibly be anything but added to the DEX and subject to the same limitations. (that is self-evidently not the case! For over a decade I've been reading the rule to say that both Int and Dex add to AC)You have to intentionally write something that specific, it's not really something that could have been done "accidentally". (when it was written the duelist could wear no armour, so the 'max Dex' issue just wasn't an issue. In PF they changed that to 'light or no armour', but they just cut and paste the rest. Thats the 'accident' youre looking for) The Duelist has been around for at least a decade (actually a bit more) and no one has changed that particular block of wording in all that time, despite multiple writers/editors/designers/players reviewing it and carrying it between multiple editions and companies. (that's the problem! Given a little more thought and a little less 'cut and paste' they'd have re-written the part of the rule upon which we disagree. They either read it like I did so there is no 'increasing' Dex bonus, just both bonuses adding to AC, OR they didn't connect the dots and realise that the wording, if it just makes your Dex bonus bigger, has just nerfed the change they did make, which was to allow light armour!)
Again, apologies for my lack of computer skill. I've only just learned how to get bold and italics. Until I did I used capitals for emphasis, and people thought I was shouting at them. : )
|
Design Manager
|
Here's a quick Duelist I threw together on a full 20 level spread. As a note, I made three edits that didn't manage to upload for some reason. His damage with both UAS and Rapier should be 1d6(1d4 UAS)+14+10(+ any extra as noted). His longbow would be 1d8+5 and has a 33/33/28/23 attack. Also, the +7 INT bonus should have applied to his Touch AC as well. I didn't really make him to be the best I could possibly drum up, just a solid example of an unarmored Duelist with good damage and an AC that can only be hit on a nat 20 by every single published monster. He's also still got 1/4 of his WBL left for Will and Fort boosting items, wands, potions, etc. He's also a fantastic skill monkey for dealing with most situations.
The lack of armor is really not a big deal. In fact, it gave me a reason to make a build that actually benefits from Bodywraps of Mighty Striking!
(And this build was built by PFS rules, it could be better!)
Anyone who would be tempted to use Bracers of Armor should ALWAYS look at Haramaki instead, or the Ceremonial Silk Robe. Monks are pretty much the only exception.
Depends. Cost aside, you can get a higher bonus to AC from the bracers(+8 at top of the line) where as you can only get a +6 from the Haramaki once it's fully enchanted. Of course the bracers can't get the +5 worth of abilities, but if all you care about is AC, well, you simply get the better bonus from bracers.
... And like Clint said, we do have a potluck on sundays.
|
Design Manager
|
**stuff**
Malachi, I'm sorry, but it seems like your argument has devolved to : "I want it to work differently so it must have been an editing accident, even though we're going into the fifth printing of the third gaming edition where this ability has been worded exactly the same". It's clearly written a specific way. Whether you think it should work that way is entirely another matter. The class description says it's primarily for Bards and Rogues. This is a fact. Another fact is that Canny Defense unambiguously adds the INT bonus to the DEX bonus to modify AC, specifically, intentionally tying it to that DEX bonus and all benefits and limitations that come with it.
So you're limited to light/no armor. Big Deal. You get two stats that feed into your touch AC, meaning that Wizards and Gunslingers are going to have particular reason to hate you over anyone else, particularly wizards who won't even be able to pretend they can hit your 40 touch AC!!!!. I get that the build I posted is at level 20, but if you follow my feat chain and figure appropriate WBL throughout, he stays effective through all levels of play. He uses that bow a lot more during his first 4 levels, but.... Cest' le vie| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really know how you can read the Int bonus to AC as being separate from your normal Dex bonus to AC. It specifically calls out adding the Int bonus to Dex. It doesn't completely ruin their ability to wear armor, although it certainly allows you to build a character who gets no benefit to AC from most armor. I have personally played a duelist whose AC went down if he put on any armor other than Bracers of Armor (this was back when APG was new, there was no silken ceremonial armor or anything like that).
At lower levels, a duelist can definitely use light armor since his Dex to AC won't be crazy from Canny Defense yet. I think the change was intended to boost duelist AC before Canny Defense catches up, and now it even helps after that with the armors that have no max Dex bonus.
|
Design Manager
|
I don't really know how you can read the Int bonus to AC as being separate from your normal Dex bonus to AC. It specifically calls out adding the Int bonus to Dex. It doesn't completely ruin their ability to wear armor, although it certainly allows you to build a character who gets no benefit to AC from most armor. I have personally played a duelist whose AC went down if he put on any armor other than Bracers of Armor (this was back when APG was new, there was no silken ceremonial armor or anything like that).
At lower levels, a duelist can definitely use light armor since his Dex to AC won't be crazy from Canny Defense yet. I think the change was intended to boost duelist AC before Canny Defense catches up, and now it even helps after that with the armors that have no max Dex bonus.
Exactly, the addition of light armor was because your canny defense doesn't scale quickly enough to jump right out of your clothes and go fight in the buff during your first PrC level. It scales up. You could even potentially make a Duelist who doesn't have a fantastic DEX, just enough to meet the prereqs, and uses his INT to cap off his DEX bonus while wearing a Mithril Chain Shirt. The fact that a character who Pours everything into INT and DEX will be better without armor, and will have levels where his armor bonus is the same out of armor as in, doesn't make the class not fit for purpose. It serves a lot of purpose, the biggest one being that when it replaces that armor with bracers, it's improving its Touch AC, possibly quite dramatically.
|
Design Manager
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good News everyone! SKR will be dropping a FAQ updating the Duelist to the definition that Malachi Preferred:
"Sean K Reynolds (Designer)
The Canny Defense ability is worded very poorly.
As written, it's easily interpreted that you use her Int bonus to boost her Dex bonus to AC, which would mean it runs into the max Dex limit from armor.
How it's supposed to work is the duelist* adds her Int bonus to her AC (not to her Dex bonus to AC), and she loses that Int-based AC bonus under any situation where she's denied her Dex bonus to AC. Therefore, her Int-based bonus to AC ignores the max Dex limitation of armor because the Int-based bonus to AC is not a Dex bonus.
* when wearing light or no armor, not using a shield, and wielding a melee weapon
Expect a FAQ blog about this next week."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ssalarn - that's great news. Not only that there will be a FAQ, but that it goes in the direction that seems to make logical sense, in that armor shouldn't hamper your ability to intelligently anticipate what your opponent will do.
We can still go back and forth on whether your reading nerfed the duelist, or whether they'll have excessive AC now, but I'd think we can all agree on the internal logic at this point.
|
|
Ssalarn, thanks for the link. I admire integrity.
I'll not rake over old coals. I'll note, however, that the max Dex issue most likely will still be an issue due to high Dex alone, but it will be at the kind of levels when we can get a Dex of thirty or so. Canny Defense now works for Sukie, and she is very happy!
: )
See!
|
Design Manager
|
Ssalarn, thanks for the link. I admire integrity.
I'll not rake over old coals. I'll note, however, that the max Dex issue most likely will still be an issue due to high Dex alone, but it will be at the kind of levels when we can get a Dex of thirty or so. Canny Defense now works for Sukie, and she is very happy!
: )
See!
: )