Primo's page

You have got a good grasp of the rules for being new to the game, but there are just a few notes:

With the duelist you can technically hold your short sword in your off-hand and receive the bonus of precise strike.

Looking closer at the wording of parry,

"Whenever the duelist takes a full attack action with a light or one-handed piercing weapon, she can elect not to take one of her attacks. At any time before her next turn, she can attempt to parry an attack against her or an adjacent ally as an immediate action. To parry the attack, the duelist makes an attack roll, using the same bonuses as the attack she chose to forego during her previous action. "

Since the parry ability requires a full attack action with 'a' light or one-handed weapon you can not use the short sword to parry. But, if you are not taking the extra attacks with the short sword and use the same bonuses as the forgone Rapier attack I don't see a problem with saying you are using the short sword to parry. In my opinion ditch the short sword and avoid future arguments.

Vital Strike requires the character to use the attack action which is a standard action.

Otherwise, he looks good. I would take a look at the free hand fighter in the advanced players guide. I think this alternate class really compliments the duelist class also I would look into getting some combat maneuver feats because your damage will not be on par with other combat characters with higher strength mods. The trip and disarm combat maneuvers can be used in place of an attack.

I hope this helps I have made a character similar to this and really enjoyed it. Good luck!

leo1925 wrote:

Don't get hung up on a small detail that's in a book that hasn't yet received any sort of errata.

Erm... correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the one who's getting hung up on flavor text?

leo1925 wrote:

the purpose of the ability is that as long as have one arcane point remaining the blade can't be destroyed period.

Oh? How do you know that, exactly? All I see is the ability's description, which gives a very specific benefit (immune to one specific condition). How do you know what the purpose of the ability is? Wouldn't it have been easier (and lowered the book's word count) if they simply said, "The black blade is immune to damage and cannot be destroyed as long as you have one arcane point remaining"? But they didn't. So how do you know what the intent is?

Like another poster said, you're getting a bit too hung up on the word "Unbreakable". Let's try out this other, new ability I made up just now, and let me know what you think the intent is:

Awesome (Ex): As long as it has at least 1 point in its arcane pool, a black blade is immune to the broken condition. If broken, the black blade is unconscious and powerless until repaired. If destroyed, the black blade can be reforged 1 week later through a special ritual that costs 200 gp per magus level. The ritual takes 24 hours to complete."

See that? The first sentence states that it's immune to a specific condition under specific conditions. Then, it gives some other stuff that's related.

I think the purpose is to troll, but seeing as you are agreeing with me... Troll on!

I see your reasoning Primo and yes technically you are correct but please let's be reasonable the purpose of the ability is that as long as have one arcane point remaining the blade can't be destroyed period. If it was intended to work like you say then the ability is hardly worth mentioning because anyone serious enough to attempt a sunder it will most likely destroy it entirely.

Don't get hung up on a small detail that's in a book that hasn't yet received any sort of errata.

That is not even close to what the ability does. I happen to think being immune to the broken condition is great, especially at 3rd level. I would just like to bring up the point that if it "can't be destroyed" then why did they not call it "Indestructible."

I am the other party on the discussion and I would like to bring to the attention that broken and destroyed are two different effects. This is the Unbreakable rule, "Unbreakable (Ex): As long as it has at least 1 point in its arcane pool, a black blade is immune to the broken condition. If broken, the black blade is unconscious and powerless until repaired. If destroyed, the black blade can be reforged 1 week later through a special ritual that costs 200 gp per magus level. The ritual takes 24 hours to complete." Nowhere in this description say that cannot take hit point damage only that it is immune to the broken condition.

The second section under sunder states, "If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition (see Conditions). If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition."

This seems pretty straight forward to me, but I think you are all getting strung up on the word “Unbreakable” which is just a title of the ability.

Primo wrote:

To the guy with the massive post above...

I can see your grip with the lack of utility that other classes have but I have never seen a primary spell caster deal the most damage!
My game right now is overrun with ranged and two-handed fighters with crap like gravity bow on their weapon dealing 2d6(x2)+ 12 for their first shot alone and then they have another 2 to 3 to deal with and they are only level 6. Granted there are attack rolls to be made but it is still consistently more damage each round and a rouge in theory would deal more with help from his team.
And can I get an example of something "nothing but a spell can solve the problem" please?

You really DON'T want to start "fighters vs. wizards" discussion with CoDzilla.

I am not saying that fighters are better I am just saying that primary casters are not the only solution to all the problems.

To the guy with the massive post above...
I can see your grip with the lack of utility that other classes have but I have never seen a primary spell caster deal the most damage!
My game right now is overrun with ranged and two-handed fighters with crap like gravity bow on their weapon dealing 2d6(x2)+ 12 for their first shot alone and then they have another 2 to 3 to deal with and they are only level 6. Granted there are attack rolls to be made but it is still consistently more damage each round and a rouge in theory would deal more with help from his team.
And can I get an example of something "nothing but a spell can solve the problem" please?

Well, why take Shield Fighter when the weapon training includes the shield and spiked gauntlet.

Weapon Training (Ex): Starting at 5th level, a fighter can select one group of weapons, as noted below. Whenever he attacks with a weapon from this group, he gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls.

Every four levels thereafter (9th, 13th, and 17th), a fighter becomes further trained in another group of weapons. He gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when using a weapon from this group. In addition, the bonuses granted by previous weapon groups increase by +1 each. For example, when a fighter reaches 9th level, he receives a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with one weapon group and a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls with the weapon group selected at 5th level. Bonuses granted from overlapping groups do not stack. Take the highest bonus granted for a weapon if it resides in two or more groups.

A fighter also adds this bonus to any combat maneuver checks made with weapons from this group. This bonus also applies to the fighter's Combat Maneuver Defense when defending against disarm and sunder attempts made against weapons from this group.

Weapon groups are defined as follows (GMs may add other weapons to these groups, or add entirely new groups):

Close: gauntlet, heavy shield, light shield, punching dagger, sap, spiked armor, spiked gauntlet, spiked shield, and unarmed strike.

Thanks for the link Maezer that clears everything up. I did not see it as overpowered but more as an odd concept that I was not quite sure on the ruling. again, thanks.

Ok, here is the issue our fighter is main-handing a shield and off-handing a spiked gauntlet. I have no problem with it but I came across this rule and it certainly peeked my intrest. She has the following feats: improved shield bash, two weapon fighting and shield focus.

Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See “shield, heavy” on Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn. An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

The way I read it is that the shield can only be held and used in the off-hand. If there is an official ruling on this I would be glad to resolve the issue.

I know how poisons work I am just wondering on how the cost is based, is it per dose? If so then that seems like it is terribly expensive, for example Black adder venom is an injury poison with a fort save of 11 with a frequency of 1/rd. for 6 rds. And dealing 1d2 Con with only 1 save. If there is only one dose and it cost 120 gp it is not worth it especially at a Dc 11. By throwing 2 poisoned items you could have almost master worked an item..... Please some one help with this confusion.