Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A different version of the duelist for your consideration.
Prestige Class: DUELIST
Requirements
To qualify to become a Duelist, a character must fulfill all the following criteria.
Base Attack Bonus: +6
Feats: Agile Maneuvers, Combat Expertise, Dazzling Display, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (any one-handed or light piercing weapon)
Skills: Acrobatics 5 ranks, Perform 3 ranks
Hit Die:[b] D10
Full BAB
[b]Good Saves: Reflex
Class Abilities
1st - Canny defense, precise strike
2nd - Elaborate parry
3rd - Enhanced mobility, Stunning Defense
4th - Evasion
5th - Sneak attack +1d6
6th - Acrobatic charge, Whirlwind Attack
7th - Riposte
8th - Improved evasion
9th - Deadly Stroke, grace
10th - Sneak attack +2d6
Skills (4 + Int bonus per level): Acrobatics (Dex), Bluff (Cha), Climb (Str), Disguise (Cha), Escape Artist (Dex), Perception (Wis), Sense Motive (Wis)
Class Features
The following are class features of the Duelist prestige class. Unless otherwise noted, all of a duelist's class abilities require that he be unarmored and unencumbered, and bonuses apply only when wielding a single one-handed or light weapon (not including a natural weapon) that can be used with the Weapon Finesse feat in one hand.
Canny defense (Ex): A duelist gains a bonus to initiative checks and a dodge bonus to AC equal to his Intelligence bonus (to a maximum of his duelist level).
Precise strike (Ex): A duelist gains a bonus to damage equal to his duelist level when using Weapon Finesse with an appropriate weapon (see above).
Elaborate Parry (Ex): At 2nd level, when fighting defensively or using the total defense or the withdraw action, a duelist gains a dodge bonus to AC equal to his duelist level. In addition, once per round when you are attacked you can use an attack of opportunity (even if using the total defense action) to try to deflect the attack with a CMB check against your attacker. You gain a bonus on this check equal to your duelist level. If you succeed, you deflect the attack and take no damage.
Enhanced Mobility (Ex): At 3rd level, you may stand up from prone without provoking attacks of opportunity. You do not lose your Dexterity bonus when balancing or climbing and you may take 10 on Acrobatics and Climb checks even if you are rushed or threatened.
*Stunning Defense: At 3rd level, a duelist receives Stunning Defense as a bonus feat.
Evasion (Ex): At 4th level, a duelist gains evasion.
Sneak attack (Ex): At 5th level, a duelist gains sneak attack. At 10th level, it improves to +2d6.
Acrobatic Charge (Ex): At 6th level, a duelist's movement is no longer slowed by difficult terrain. In addition, when charging a duelist gains her Elaborate Parry bonus to AC and need not move in a straight line.
*Whirlwind Attack: At 6th level, a duelist receives Whirlwind Attack as a bonus feat.
Riposte (Ex): At 7th level, a duelist fighting defensively or using the total defense action may take an attack of opportunity once per round against a foe that attacks and misses him in melee. The attacker is considered flat-footed against this attack.
Improved Evasion (Ex): At 8th level, a duelist gains improved evasion.
*Deadly Stroke: At 9th level, a duelist gains Deadly Stroke as a bonus feat.
Grace (Ex): At 9th level, a duelist gains a +2 competence bonus to all Reflex saves, Dex checks, and Dex-based skill checks.
|
I don't think that the requirement should be 'wielding a single weapon'; I'd have it as 'attacking with a single weapon' (unless that's what 'wielding' means). Although as I've said before, I'd prefer no single weapon requirements at all, at least let them hold them and decide whether they want to use both (also two-weapon defense would still work). The sorts of fighters, rangers and rogues that become duellists -- dexterity-intensive characters -- will often have taken TWF earlier on as a natural feat pick, so let's not make it entirely useless to them.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
It's neat, easy to understand, now tell me why this is better then current default?
Being at work and having already blown too much time on D&D today I can't give a point by point, but I'd sum it up as follows:
1. The abilities are more closely scaled with level, so you GET them early and they keep getting better, rather than getting nothing... nothing... nothing... NOW it's good! It's an unarmored fighter; how about some love at the lower levels of the PrC?
2. The parrying rule is simpler and easier to accomplish/succeed at doing than the one in the document, esp. vs. the large beasties you'll be fighting more of at higher levels.
3. If memory serves, this version relies more on existing mechanics or models in the rules rather than special exceptions unique to the class.
4. The special abilities here support one another in function.
Sometime when I have more time, maybe I'll go back to the Duelist class in the PrC document and comment specifically on the good & bad of it.
So, off the top of my head I'd say those would be my reasons for preferring this model. I might change the above after I go back and look more closely at the current beta version of the Duelist.
What do you think about this one vs. that one?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I don't think that the requirement should be 'wielding a single weapon'; I'd have it as 'attacking with a single weapon' (unless that's what 'wielding' means). Although as I've said before, I'd prefer no single weapon requirements at all, at least let them hold them and decide whether they want to use both (also two-weapon defense would still work). The sorts of fighters, rangers and rogues that become duellists -- dexterity-intensive characters -- will often have taken TWF earlier on as a natural feat pick, so let's not make it entirely useless to them.
One reason would be backwards compatibility, in that this is how duelists were established in 3rd Ed.
Another would just be flavor - how do we model the single-weapon fencer as a PrC. There are others that fit better with TWF, so why not have one specially made for one-handed light fighting?
Nothing compelling, no commandments, just history and flavor.
I did stipulate that it was wielding a single weapon, not just that one ought not be attacking, but that you could only have one weapon in hand and ready for action. Yes, I know some fencing styles used the main-gauche, but others did not. Heck, some fencers wore a heavy felt cap that could be used held in the off hand to catch a weapon. Still, that was the idea in mind here - not just to discourage TWF, but to model one-sword, one empty hand swashbuckling (or using the empty hand to climb or swing from a rope or whatever).
I like this. It's more concise than the current version (of which I am also a fan); should be it be incorporated into the existing model I would like to add in a some thoughts:
1) The language for the rules about a weapon in one hand and whether or not prequisites for bonus feats are necessary should be tightened up. There's fairly standard language for these items that I am sure you are familiar with, so I won't elaborate further.
2) The bonus feats granted are rather common fare for the Pathfinder Duelists I've seen run (there have been two). Should there be a mechanic to give them an additional feat if they already have the one offered? Or grant them a bonus to the relevant feat?
3) I do not think sneak attack is necessary. I've never been a fan of its proliferation in splat books, but SA is a very potent ability for characters such as these. They're already dealing a significant amount of extra damage with you Precise Strike mechanic (which is a nice way to keep them on par with two-handers), do they really need an extra 2d6 on top of it?
Again, I think it's a solid alternative model. These are just some of the thoughts I had while reviewing it.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Backwards compatibility would be 'attacking' rather than 'wielding'; you can hold a weapon in each hand with the 3.5 duellist, but you can only attack with one if you are to use precise strike.
Mebbe yer right. I don't have the books in front of me and am too lazy to walk 5 feet to my shelf and get it. Can... almost... reach... ehh, never mind... :)
Ok, attempt 3 (I hate posting from work, I keep getting interrupted)
The only problems I see with the version of the class as provided by Paizo is the Prereqs and Parry rules, other than that minor clean ups should be all it needs.
Prereqs
Base Attack Bonus: +4.
Skills: Acrobatics 6 ranks, Perform 2 ranks.
Feats: Dodge, Mobility, Weapon Finesse.
Changing the BAB to 4 lets a Rogue or other 3/4 BAB class get access to at a reasonable level rather than having to wait till 9th before they can take their first level of the PrC. I might even suggest dropping the BAB requirement entirely and rely purely on the Acrobatics ranks, but that lets 1/2 BAB classes in at the same level, if that's even an issue.
To counteract the drop in BAB increasing the skill ranks required stops it from being picked up too early by the 1/1 BAB classes.
I might add Agile Maneuvers to the list of feats as it does fit, and I do like your adjustment to the Parry feature.
Precise Strike, should use the same mechanism as Sneak Attack especially if the list of critable creature is increased, as it has been mentioned it will be.
Parry, needs to be addressed, as it stands it's a whole new mechanic that's almost never going to be used. As the OP has suggested shifting it over to a CMB is a good start to reducing the complexity. I'd probably keep the payment of an attack from the previous round, or with a slight re wording of Repost switch it to an AoO.
|
|
What do you think about this one vs. that one?
I think that the Prereqs are too feat heavy, as well as the BAB is too high.
I think that Elaborate Parry and Riposte are excellent, but that it biases the class too much in favor of needing to use defensive fighting, or full defense.
I like your choice of feats, but I think they'd be better in a feat pool with some other viable options for different styles of duelists.
I'd like the ability to count levels of duelist as fighter for feats which prerequire fighter levels, or for rogue for rogue talents which prerequire rogue levels. Some of the new Feats for high level fighters on criticals are excellent and would also fit in with the duelist's flavor.
I like the clean up on the class features.
I think the requirements are still a little too much. Five feats and that high of a BAB requirement practically demands certain builds if you want to play in this class before 10th level.
While I don't mind some builds being able to get in a little eariler I would like to see everyone else that wants in able to do it within the a level or two (an optimized build could get in at 6th level, everyone else either 7th or 8th).
Personally I don't like it being tied down to just one weapon in hand. Swashbuckling requires a buckler, and while many schools of fencing do practice with just one weapon historically you want a dagger or shield in that off hand for defense if nothing else (though again the best defense is a good offense). But that's just me.
Other than that a very nice job, especially on the class feature clean up. If they use your type up here they will save several words.
Elaborate Parry (Ex): At 2nd level, when fighting defensively or using the total defense or the withdraw action, a duelist gains a dodge bonus to AC equal to his duelist level. In addition, once per round when you are attacked you can use an attack of opportunity (even if using the total defense action) to try to deflect the attack with a CMB check against your attacker. You gain a bonus on this check equal to your duelist level. If you succeed, you deflect the attack and take no damage.
Acrobatic Charge (Ex): At 6th level, a duelist's movement is no longer slowed by difficult terrain. In addition, when charging a duelist gains her Elaborate Parry bonus to AC and need not move in a straight line.
Was it your intent that the duelist get a huge AC bonus whenever charging? Not sure if you just didn't read it through when posting.
With this ruling, at 10th level, a duelists AC will be 8 higher than normal when charging. Along with the new rule that tumbling (a skill a duelist will have maxed) now prevents all attacks from whom ever you succeed against, I don't particularly care for this. Reach monsters already took a beating with that rule (1 check and their reach is useless), now giving the character a big bonus to AC (meaning the creature will most likely miss) as well as a way to negate the hit (with a big bonus; if the creature was lucky enough to actually hit in the first place) if the character happens to get unlucky and rolls badly, as well as the ability to avoid AoO's from surrounding creatures (acrobatic charge - around and over are options for charging now) so that the only AoO will be the target monsters.
Also, there is no reason to not be charging, ever. More damage to attacks and better AC coupled with acrobatic charge (which pretty much negates the drawbacks from charging) allowing you to charge when you shouldn't be able to. Adding class level to abilities (when dealing with 10 level classes) like skills is generally not too bad depending on the skill, adding it to combat stats is probably too much. Maybe half the class level would be more appropriate.
Requirements
To qualify to become a Duelist, a character must fulfill all the following criteria.
Base Attack Bonus: +6
Feats: Agile Maneuvers, Combat Expertise, Dazzling Display, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (any one-handed or light piercing weapon)
Skills: Acrobatics 5 ranks, Perform 3 ranks
I agree with others that BAB +6 is too high (I realize you didn't change it; I like the idea of Oni_NZ of BAB +4 balanced by Acrobatics 6 ranks) and there are too many required feats. I do like some of your required feat changes, so I would require only Agile Maneuvers, Combat Expertise, and Weapon Finesse.
Hit Die: D10Full BAB
Good Saves: Reflex
I like full BAB, but I think d8 makes more sense for the hit die. The duelist is supposed to avoid getting hit in the first place. This also gives us more room to be generous with other more interesting abilities.
Skills (4 + Int bonus per level): Acrobatics (Dex), Bluff (Cha), Climb (Str), Disguise (Cha), Escape Artist (Dex), Perception (Wis), Sense Motive (Wis)
I like the addition of Climb but not Disguise. Also you dropped Perform. Since that's required for entry to the PrC, it should also be a class skill.
Class Features
The following are class features of the Duelist prestige class. Unless otherwise noted, all of a duelist's class abilities require that he be unarmored and unencumbered, and bonuses apply only when wielding a single one-handed or light weapon (not including a natural weapon) that can be used with the Weapon Finesse feat in one hand.
Nicely done.
Canny defense (Ex): A duelist gains a bonus to initiative checks and a dodge bonus to AC equal to his Intelligence bonus (to a maximum of his duelist level).
Thank you for trimming the unnecessary text. I like the simplifying idea of rolling Improved Reaction into Canny Defense, except that I'm not sure we should overstress high Intelligence. Before, you could get a +4 initiative bonus at 8th level without any Int bonus. I prefer (1 + Duelist level) / 2, which also prevents abusing a single level dip (especially since a lower BAB requirement opens the class to high Int casters).
Elaborate Parry (Ex): At 2nd level, when fighting defensively or using the total defense or the withdraw action, a duelist gains a dodge bonus to AC equal to his duelist level. In addition, once per round when you are attacked you can use an attack of opportunity (even if using the total defense action) to try to deflect the attack with a CMB check against your attacker. You gain a bonus on this check equal to your duelist level. If you succeed, you deflect the attack and take no damage.
I agree it's strange to start a +1/level ability at level 7. Since the Duelist already has Canny Defense, does this seem a little overpowered to anyone? I might just double the Canny Defense I proposed earlier. I like adding the withdraw action.
I liked the existing description of Parry, which is more consistent with Elaborate Defense, in that it sacrifices attack to add defense. Charging an AoO seems a little too cheap, especially when you have the Combat Reflexes feat (even though you limited it to once per round). I also liked that it can parry an attack against an adjacent ally, which your description does not allow. However, since the class emphasizes mobility, it seems counter-intuitive to allow Parry only during a full attack, when the Duelist is limited to a 5-foot step. I would let the Duelist move (possibly to reach an ally) and still parry, sacrificing his only attack in that round. Since it requires you to sacrifice an attack, you could not parry using total defense, but you could parry when fighting defensively; your exception for total defense might still make sense.
*Stunning Defense: At 3rd level, a duelist receives Stunning Defense as a bonus feat.
I prefer the bonus feat list you proposed as an alternative at the end of your post, and I'd add the feats I removed from the PrC requirements.
Evasion (Ex): At 4th level, a duelist gains evasion.
Good call, seems perfect for a class that excels at mobility and damage avoidance.
Sneak attack (Ex): At 5th level, a duelist gains sneak attack. At 10th level, it improves to +2d6.
I don't like sneak attack for a Duelist. I thought the idea of a duel is a fair fight, like you warn your opponent by shouting "En garde!", or you agree to meet at a certain place and time, etc. I think that most fictional swashbucklers have a strong sense of honor and justice. The combination you describe is pretty cool, and it remains possible for characters who enter the PrC as rogues.
Riposte (Ex): At 7th level, a duelist fighting defensively or using the total defense action may take an attack of opportunity once per round against a foe that attacks and misses him in melee. The attacker is considered flat-footed against this attack.
Technically, a parry should precede a riposte, as in the current Pathfinder description, which also does not require fighting defensively. I like the idea of making the attacker flat-footed.
Grace (Ex): At 9th level, a duelist gains a +2 competence bonus to all Reflex saves, Dex checks, and Dex-based skill checks.
I see that you powered it up by adding Dex checks and Dex-based skill checks and moved it from 4th to 9th level. I liked it better at 4th level, even with your powered-up version. You also got rid of Deflect Arrows and No Retreat at 9th level. I don't like Deflect Arrow either; it feels too much like a monk or a ninja (although I can't deny its usefulness to a Duelist). Can you give a reason why you dumped No Retreat?
I thought Crippling Critical was a good idea, since it provides a way to weaken or reduce the mobility of your opponent. Your progression seems to lack a capstone ability.
|
|
Backwards compatibility would be 'attacking' rather than 'wielding'; you can hold a weapon in each hand with the 3.5 duellist, but you can only attack with one if you are to use precise strike.Mebbe yer right. I don't have the books in front of me and am too lazy to walk 5 feet to my shelf and get it. Can... almost... reach... ehh, never mind... :)
I checked and it reads to me as if the 3.5 duellist can have something in his other hand. As I see no reason why he should have to have that hand empty, that's how I'd prefer it (and also, as it takes until level 6 at least before you can become a duellist, to be viable below that the player will probably have invested in some other stuff that isn't about using a light or medium weapon in one hand, so it's a shame if they have to burn all that once they become duellists; in 3.5, a TWF rogue-duellist could at least make the decision, probably depending on whether or not they had a full attack available, as to what to do and they could still benefit from two-weapon defense, for what that's worth).
I like the idea of a 'duellist' class, but I don't like the fact that as per the rules it has to be a single-light/medium-weapon fighter. That's mostly a complaint about the name, though (as the 'duellist' we get is a tiny subsection of the duellists we might have).
I checked and it reads to me as if the 3.5 duelist can have something in his other hand. As I see no reason why he should have to have that hand empty, that's how I'd prefer it (and also, as it takes until level 6 at least before you can become a duelist, to be viable below that the player will probably have invested in some other stuff that isn't about using a light or medium weapon in one hand, so it's a shame if they have to burn all that once they become duelists; in 3.5, a TWF rogue-duelist could at least make the decision, probably depending on whether or not they had a full attack available, as to what to do and they could still benefit from two-weapon defense, for what that's worth).I like the idea of a 'duellist' class, but I don't like the fact that as per the rules it has to be a single-light/medium-weapon fighter. That's mostly a complaint about the name, though (as the 'duelist' we get is a tiny subsection of the duelists we might have).
First, I agree with your suggestion of moving canny defense to lvl 2. As you said, you have to wait a long time and then "poof", you're invulnerable...
I personally wouldn't mind if the duelist could fight with two weapons or with a buckler (the main gauche was specifically created as a off-hand weapon to go with the rapier after all, and the Florentine style was fought with two rapiers), but fighting with an empty off hand shouldn't be a sub-par option.
Maybe some class features (as opposed to all class features) should require an empty hand (not even an unused, held object or weapon), such as acrobatic charge maybe? Something that the two-weapon user would loose while still having access to the class.
Maybe a slight advantage could be given to the duelist fighting with an empty hand. Something that allow him to move things out of the way, hinder his opponent, grab a rope and swing across the ballroom while attacking all the same...
'findel
|
|
Why not just add some level-related bonus to Acrobatics if the duellist has the other hand empty (someone may already have suggested this)? That seems to me to capture both what people want from the "Duellist as one-handed fighter" (which is more "swashbuckling derring-doer" than "duellist", in my opinion, but that is again just a matter of nomenclature) whilst also encompassing pretty much the main advantage of fighting in that fashion (you can do other stuff because you have a free hand).
First, I agree with your suggestion of moving canny defense to lvl 2. As you said, you have to wait a long time and then "poof", you're invulnerable...
Did you mean elaborate defense (from 7th to 2nd)?
I personally wouldn't mind if the duelist could fight with two weapons or with a buckler (the main gauche was specifically created as a off-hand weapon to go with the rapier after all, and the Florentine style was fought with two rapiers), but fighting with an empty off hand shouldn't be a sub-par option.Maybe some class features (as opposed to all class features) should require an empty hand (not even an unused, held object or weapon), such as acrobatic charge maybe? Something that the two-weapon user would loose while still having access to the class.
Maybe a slight advantage could be given to the duelist fighting with an empty hand. Something that allow him to move things out of the way, hinder his opponent, grab a rope and swing across the ballroom while attacking all the same...
I agree, I don't see how the class is hurt by allowing a buckler or another light weapon in the off-hand. I wouldn't require a free hand for any class ability, although a slight advantage to something that could conceivably require swinging or clever manipulation of the environment seems OK.
EDIT: Maybe a slight penalty to Canny Defense, in keeping with the idea of sacrificing offense to improve defense.
|
|
I don't see how the class is hurt by allowing a buckler or another light weapon in the off-hand. I wouldn't require a free hand for any class ability...
I agree. If you've got TWF you have to decide if you are going to use that second weapon or are you going to use a dualist ability. But don't force people to have an empty hand.
Hit Die: D10Full BAB
Good Saves: Reflex
I like full BAB, but I think d8 makes more sense for the hit die. The duelist is supposed to avoid getting hit in the first place. This also gives us more room to be generous with other more interesting abilities.
To a certain extent, a higher hit die is avoiding getting hit in the first place, or at least making them very close misses rather than fatal strikes.
One comment, this PrC has no capstone, and no real reason to get the 10th level.
I like full BAB, but I think d8 makes more sense for the hit die. The duelist is supposed to avoid getting hit in the first place. This also gives us more room to be generous with other more interesting abilities.
To a certain extent, a higher hit die is avoiding getting hit in the first place, or at least making them very close misses rather than fatal strikes.
I'd agree if the higher hit die was the only way this notion was being expressed as a game mechanic, but the Duelist has some pretty awesome defensive options that make d10 redundant.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Was it your intent that the duelist get a huge AC bonus whenever charging? Not sure if you just didn't read it through when posting.Elaborate Parry (Ex): At 2nd level, when fighting defensively or using the total defense or the withdraw action, a duelist gains a dodge bonus to AC equal to his duelist level. In addition, once per round when you are attacked you can use an attack of opportunity (even if using the total defense action) to try to deflect the attack with a CMB check against your attacker. You gain a bonus on this check equal to your duelist level. If you succeed, you deflect the attack and take no damage.
Acrobatic Charge (Ex): At 6th level, a duelist's movement is no longer slowed by difficult terrain. In addition, when charging a duelist gains her Elaborate Parry bonus to AC and need not move in a straight line.
Yes, it was. Bear in mind, of course, that the 'elaborate parry' AC bonus only applies when fighting defensively or using the total defense action. The latter precludes a charge. The former does not, but does impose a -4 penalty to attack rolls and a +2 to AC (+3 if Tumble is 5+, which it almost certainly will be). Charging also imposes a -2 AC penalty and a +2 attack bonus as normal; those are not changed.
So, you have a net -2 to hit and +1 to AC, plus your Elaborate Parry bonus, and you only get to make a single attack.
With this ruling, at 10th level, a duelists AC will be 8 higher than normal when charging. Along with the new rule that tumbling (a skill a duelist will have maxed) now prevents all attacks from whom ever you succeed against, I don't particularly care for this.
When you are the greatest nonepic duelist in the world, SHOULDN'T you be awesome at doing what duelists do? YMMV.
And actually, there are two things to consider here:
1. The comparison to 'than normal' is a little specious if you mean "without fighting defensively," because I would expect that a duelist would pretty much ALWAYS be fighting defensively. It's what they do. It's how they compensate for wearing no armor and using no shields (yes, we have endless threads on light characters being able to have awesome AC anyway, so let's not reopen that can of worms).
2. Since it's a dodge bonus to AC, it goes *poof* vs. any attack that denies them their DEX bonus or prevents them from taking actions (e.g., it would be lost when dazed or nauseated, because either prevents you from attacking, which prevents you from fighting defensively, which prevents you from using this ability).
Reach monsters already took a beating with that rule (1 check and their reach is useless), now giving the character a big bonus to AC (meaning the creature will most likely miss) as well as a way to negate the hit (with a big bonus; if the creature was lucky enough to actually hit in the first place) if the character happens to get unlucky and rolls badly, as well as the ability to avoid AoO's from surrounding creatures (acrobatic charge - around and over are options for charging now) so that the only AoO will be the target monsters.
Avoiding AoOs and dancing around in combat is pretty much this class' schtick. I would fully expect them to be awesome at it. I don't see that as a bug but a feature.
This is not something every character can do. It is something a character specializing in doing it can do, and I think that's a good thing. Other people have other specialties.
Also, there is no reason to not be charging, ever.
Sure there is. Any time you want to make multiple attacks would be a reason not to charge.
More damage to attacks and better AC coupled with acrobatic charge (which pretty much negates the drawbacks from charging) allowing you to charge when you shouldn't be able to. Adding class level to abilities (when dealing with 10 level classes) like skills is generally not too bad depending on the skill, adding it to combat stats is probably too much. Maybe half the class level would be more appropriate.
Charging doesn't increase your damage unless you're using a lance or a PrC that is not the duelist.
|
|
It's how they compensate for wearing no armor and using no shields (yes, we have endless threads on light characters being able to have awesome AC anyway, so let's not reopen that can of worms).
Sometimes, particularly at high level, it won't much matter what armour you wear as you're going to get hit anyhow and with the new Power Attack nerf, as Jess Door and Mattastrophic point out (and I think CoL did before), there's no real benefit to it anyhow. However, the PFRPG duellist can wear some armour (unlike the 3.5 duellist), on which a few enchantments can therefore be hung.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
major snippage
Thanks for the comments. I've been mostly off the boards recently (just busy IRL) and can't comment too much, but one thing I should say is I actually wrote this PrC up almost 2 months ago, around the beginning of October, following a conversation with one of the Paizonians, which was before the Beta PrC document came out. Thus, any questions about things I added or subtracted would only be relevant to the SRD version, not the Beta version, since it didn't exist when I wrote it!
I suppose I coulda gone back and revised it after seeing the Beta Duelist, but laziness overcame me. Zzzzzz...
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Hit Die: D10Full BAB
Good Saves: Reflex
I like full BAB, but I think d8 makes more sense for the hit die. The duelist is supposed to avoid getting hit in the first place. This also gives us more room to be generous with other more interesting abilities.
To a certain extent, a higher hit die is avoiding getting hit in the first place, or at least making them very close misses rather than fatal strikes.
One comment, this PrC has no capstone, and no real reason to get the 10th level.
I think an extra sneak attack die is nice, but you are right that there is no uber/signature HL ability at 10th. I think the signature abilities come at lower levels.
there is no uber/signature HL ability at 10th. I think the signature abilities come at lower levels.
I think there's a difference between a signature ability and a capstone. One of the things I like about PrCs is they give you a way to multiclass and still get a capstone ability. A signature ability at lower levels in no way diminishes the need to provide a compelling capstone.
major snippageThanks for the comments. I've been mostly off the boards recently (just busy IRL) and can't comment too much, but one thing I should say is I actually wrote this PrC up almost 2 months ago, around the beginning of October, following a conversation with one of the Paizonians, which was before the Beta PrC document came out. Thus, any questions about things I added or subtracted would only be relevant to the SRD version, not the Beta version, since it didn't exist when I wrote it!
I suppose I coulda gone back and revised it after seeing the Beta Duelist, but laziness overcame me. Zzzzzz...
You're welcome! I hope you'll still do us the favor of revising it after reviewing the Beta and the suggestions in this thread.
Yes, it was. Bear in mind, of course, that the 'elaborate parry' AC bonus only applies when fighting defensively or using the total defense action. The latter precludes a charge.
Um no you broke that rule with a class ability.
Acrobatic Charge (Ex): At 6th level, a duelist's movement is no longer slowed by difficult terrain. In addition, when charging a duelist gains her Elaborate Parry bonus to AC and need not move in a straight line.
Not only are you giving them a very potent ability, you are rolling in a more powerful version of a feat. At least the feat had restrictions like one turn up to a 90 degree from original direction.
The former does not, but does impose a -4 penalty to attack rolls and a +2 to AC (+3 if Tumble is 5+, which it almost certainly will be). Charging also imposes a -2 AC penalty and a +2 attack bonus as normal; those are not changed.So, you have a net -2 to hit and +1 to AC, plus your Elaborate Parry bonus, and you only get to make a single attack.
A single attack at your highest attack bonus that could come from any direction (getting flank) with sneak attack. Pros: almost as much damage as you would be doing against a non flanked foe (dex based light weapon class) with a full round of attacks. How? You would be able to move past an enemy (provoking an AoO that will more than likely miss on its own and you have a back up for that if it does hit)allowing you to Precise Strike/Sneak Attack at your highest attack bonus then continue on towards the target of your charge and hit him/her with an attack that was at your highest bonus as well as possible Sneak Attack from flank. That is 2 attacks at full BAB on a charge, one definitely with SA, the other "probably with" because of your Acrobatic Charge. Cons: Not as much damage against a flanked foe with a full round attack (the last attack might have been a 20 and hit).
Regardless you are still getting an AC boost that scales 1:1 with your level that can be active all the time as you can charge and not be going in a straight line. No other class does this, none, even in the all "broken" splat books everyone complains about you will not find such an ability available to be used every round. I'm not saying an AC boost isn't a good idea, its core from the class, I'm saying it is way too much as you have it written. +1 every 2 class levels is still better than the Fighter is getting from leveling straight up in 10 levels.Or how about this, the Duelist can stack the PrC levels with Fighter levels to determine his/her Armor Training Bonus with light armor. The number of feats and the BAB basically require Fighter levels, this would actually be even better as it builds on using an ability you have already and doesn't require any more extra rules while giving you the extra AC and mobility the class would be known for.
When you are the greatest nonepic duelist in the world, SHOULDN'T you be awesome at doing what duelists do? YMMV.
This is kinda in jest but: "Real Duelists don't tumble". Swashbucklers do that stuff. A difficult to hit mobile character is one thing, giving up offense to get defense is understandable. The "I can't hit the b@$t@rd except on a 20 even when he is attacking and if I try to hit him I'm going to regret it more than he would if I were to actually connect" isn't.
2. Since it's a dodge bonus to AC, it goes *poof* vs. any attack that denies them their DEX bonus or prevents them from taking actions (e.g., it would be lost when dazed or nauseated, because either prevents you from attacking, which prevents you from fighting defensively, which prevents you from using this ability).
There are generally fewer ways to deny a dodge bonus than there are to deny/get rid of an armor or natural armor bonus. More often than not your "dodge bonus" will be better than the other guys "armor bonus" before getting into whatever number it is on that basis alone (ie touch attacks/attacks that have to hit before you are forced to make a saving throw and possibly be inflicted with said status effects).
Avoiding AoOs and dancing around in combat is pretty much this class' schtick. I would fully expect them to be awesome at it. I don't see that as a bug but a feature.This is not something every character can do. It is something a character specializing in doing it can do, and I think that's a good thing. Other people have other specialties.
I guess my idea of a "schtick" is something in the rules that gives a moderate bump or a decent bump with a moderate drawback. Not something that gives you 3 different stacking ways to avoid being hit that gain from a very significant bonus. I'm not even that opposed to the 3 different abilities, it is the huge bonus you are proposing that is losing me.
Charging doesn't increase your damage unless you're using a lance or a PrC that is not the duelist.
It does when you are making an "round about" acrobatic charge while fighting defensively into one foe to gain flank and SA kicks in on your attack, as well as the Riposte you took at the opponent when you moved through a threatened square not tumbling to intentionally provoke an attack from them so you can take an AoO against that foe due to them missing (because your huge AC and even if they hit you could have deflected it and cause them to miss with a second of your AoO's) which makes them flat footed.
You aren't limited to 1 attack on a charge (not getting into the spells, magic items, templates and class abilities that you could gain to access the pounce ability) as you have said and you are basically doubling or tripling your weapon damage (light or 1H weapons usually are around the 1d6 range) with the addition of sneak attack when you already have Precise Strike. Granted you aren't multiplying Precise Strike but it is still stacking on more damage to someone who I would guess is supposed to be quick and mobile and hit lightly in exchange for not being hit. They have Precise Strike to up the damage output and not be lagging behind the other melee types, I don't really see a reason for even more damage on top of that with everything else.
You believe a character is not going to use acrobatic charge to get flank whenever possible? With a high tumble/acrobatics, mobility feat that gives bonus to AC against AoO's for moving through threatened area, defensive fighting (bumped from skill), PrC level to AC and using one of many available AoO's of their own to deflect an attack that makes it through - Character builds with less do a good job. The duelist suggested here could charge down a 5'wide x5' tall x30' long hall through a party member, tumble through and past the opponent(allowing an AoO so you could attack him flat footed as you leave the square when they miss you) turn around and finish the charge getting flank. That is all as you have it written, not even twisting the rules a little.
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not really trying to be a jerk, just trying to point out some flaws with the design you have posted and why I don't agree with some of them.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Um no you broke that rule with a class ability.
Yes, it was. Bear in mind, of course, that the 'elaborate parry' AC bonus only applies when fighting defensively or using the total defense action. The latter precludes a charge.
Actually, no.
The total defense action is its own separate standard action. Ipso facto, it cannot be used in the same round as a charge, which is a full-round action.
Acrobatic Charge (Ex): At 6th level, a duelist's movement is no longer slowed by difficult terrain. In addition, when charging a duelist gains her Elaborate Parry bonus to AC and need not move in a straight line.
Aha! I now see the point of confusion.
In the sentence above where it says "gains" it should read "can gain" or "may use." You read it as automatically applying, which is a reasonable reading but not the intended one. [side note: This is why they have editors, to catch sloppy writing!]
The intent is that the EP bonus has to be activated by fighting defensively or total defense, so if you want to use it when charging you have to be fighting defensively, not that it just automatically powers up with a normal charge.
On looking carefully at the PH, though, I'm actually seeing an issue, which is that by rule you can only fight defensively as a full-round action, when taking a full attack action, which you aren't doing when you charge even if you can cheat your way into a pounce, because pounce "lets you make a full attack at the end of a charge," which is technically not the same as "taking a full attack action."
So, as it stands, the Acrobatic Charge rule about the EP AC bonus is invalid because it is predicated on my mistaken belief that you could fight defensively during a charge or normal attack, when in fact you can't do it unless you're using the full attack action, nor could you use it when charging with total defense because you can't do a standard action (TD) and full-round action (charge) in the same round.
IOW, the EP bonus to AC cannot apply when charging because neither of the actions you would need to take to activate it are things you can do while charging.
Which probably saves a lot of point-by-point exegesis.
Not only are you giving them a very potent ability, you are rolling in a more powerful version of a feat. At least the feat had restrictions like one turn up to a 90 degree from original direction.
The former does not, but does impose a -4 penalty to attack rolls and a +2 to AC (+3 if Tumble is 5+, which it almost certainly will be). Charging also imposes a -2 AC penalty and a +2 attack bonus as normal; those are not changed.So, you have a net -2 to hit and +1 to AC, plus your Elaborate Parry bonus, and you only get to make a single attack.
See above - my math is invalid cuz "fighting defensively" can't be done with a charge.
A single attack at your highest attack bonus that could come from any direction (getting flank) with sneak attack. Pros: almost as much damage as you would be doing against a non flanked foe (dex based light weapon class) with a full round of attacks. How? You would be able to move past an enemy (provoking an AoO that will more than likely miss on its own and you have a back up for that if it does hit)allowing you to Precise Strike/Sneak Attack at your highest attack bonus then continue on towards the target of your charge and hit him/her with an attack that was at your highest bonus as well as possible Sneak Attack from flank. That is 2 attacks at full BAB on a charge, one definitely with SA, the other "probably with" because of your Acrobatic Charge. Cons: Not as much damage against a flanked foe with a full round attack (the last attack might have been a 20 and hit).
Flanking IME is not as easy to set up at higher levels, both cuz creatures are much bigger and because they cheat harder in terms of movement, but still yes, the intent is that, inasmuch as flanking is possible, this class will be a sooopa-flanker.
The class almost requires Combat Reflexes to maximize its cheatasticness, since you can spend more AoOs. I'm not so sure about HL enemies auto-missing you, no matter how much AC you throw up at them, but it's an interesting trade-off - tumble to avoid their attacks, or take the chance to get in your lick on the way. Depends on the target, I suppose, and how gnarly their attack seems to be. Don't wanna get tripped or grappled obviously.
Regardless you are still getting an AC boost that scales 1:1 with your level that can be active all the time as you can charge and not be going in a straight line. No other class does this, none, even in the all "broken" splat books everyone complains about you will not find such an ability available to be used every round. I'm not saying an AC boost isn't a good idea, its core from the class, I'm saying it is way too much as you have it written. +1 every 2 class levels is still better than the Fighter is getting from leveling straight up in 10 levels.
Fair enuf.
Or how about this, the Duelist can stack the PrC levels with Fighter levels to determine his/her Armor Training Bonus with light armor.
Which is useless to this duelist cuz it can't wear any armor or shield. The Beta duelist uses light; this one is riffed off the SRD which uses none.
The number of feats and the BAB basically require Fighter levels, this would actually be even better as it builds on using an ability you have already and doesn't require any more extra rules while giving you the extra AC and mobility the class would be known for.
This is kinda in jest but: "Real Duelists don't tumble". Swashbucklers do that stuff. A difficult to hit mobile character is one thing, giving up offense to get defense is understandable. The "I can't hit the b@$t@rd except on a 20 even when he is attacking and if I try to hit him I'm going to regret it more than he would if I were to actually connect" isn't.
Jason Nelson wrote:When you are the greatest nonepic duelist in the world, SHOULDN'T you be awesome at doing what duelists do? YMMV.
Duelist and swashbuckler are pretty much one and the same in their D&D 3rd Ed realization. Descriptively, they are different kinds of people, but game mechanically they're both trying to model the Errol Flynn type. Without all the drinking and domestic... indiscretions...
There are generally fewer ways to deny a dodge bonus than there are to deny/get rid of an armor or natural armor bonus. More often than not your "dodge bonus" will be better than the other guys "armor bonus" before getting into whatever number it is on that basis alone (ie touch attacks/attacks that have to hit before you are forced to make a saving throw and possibly be inflicted with said status effects).
2. Since it's a dodge bonus to AC, it goes *poof* vs. any attack that denies them their DEX bonus or prevents them from taking actions (e.g., it would be lost when dazed or nauseated, because either prevents you from attacking, which prevents you from fighting defensively, which prevents you from using this ability).
It depends. It's some of this and some of that. If you can wangle your way into uncanny dodge, your dodge bonuses to AC become a lot more valuable cuz far fewer things nerf them.
I guess my idea of a "schtick" is something in the rules that gives a moderate bump or a decent bump with a moderate drawback. Not something that gives you 3 different stacking ways to avoid being hit that gain from a very significant bonus. I'm not even that opposed to the 3 different abilities, it is the huge bonus you are proposing that is losing me.
Avoiding AoOs and dancing around in combat is pretty much this class' schtick. I would fully expect them to be awesome at it. I don't see that as a bug but a feature.
This is not something every character can do. It is something a character specializing in doing it can do, and I think that's a good thing. Other people have other specialties.
That's fine.
It does when you are making an "round about" acrobatic charge while fighting defensively into one foe to gain flank and SA kicks in on your attack, as well as the Riposte you took at the opponent when you moved through a threatened square not tumbling to intentionally provoke an attack from them so you can take an AoO against that foe due to them missing (because your huge AC and even if they hit you could have deflected it and cause them to miss with a second of your AoO's) which makes them flat footed.
Charging doesn't increase your damage unless you're using a lance or a PrC that is not the duelist.
The charge isn't so much the issue as the moving around to flanking position, that is being able to double-move and attack. The riposte is likewise not related to the charge but due to whatever form of tactical movement you choose to use.
The AC bonus for charging is, as noted above, mechanically unsound but doesn't help your damage anyway, though it may embolden you into putting yourself into theoretically risky positions trusting in your l33t AC to save you.
You aren't limited to 1 attack on a charge (not getting into the spells, magic items, templates and class abilities that you could gain to access the pounce ability) as you have said and you are basically doubling or tripling your weapon damage (light or 1H weapons usually are around the 1d6 range) with the addition of sneak attack when you already have Precise Strike.
We'll say you're a Ftr6/Duelist10
You can get 1 attack at +16 BAB, +2 for flanking, +2 for charging, and +2d6 for SA (assuming SA works, which seems more likely in PF than in 3.5). We'll say you get +8 DEX (weapon finesse) and +3 from a combination of weapon bonus and feats (since you probably have a +1 [insert special ability] weapon). We'll say you also have +4 from STR (oddly, I don't see a feat like Deadly Aim for melee weapons where you use your DEX, maybe I just missed it). Damage for your rapier is 1d6 +1 (magic), +2 (WpnSpec), +4 (Str), +10 (precise strike).
So, if you charge, you get one attack at +30 for 1d6+17, or 3d6+17 if sneak attack works.
You probably also have IpvCrit with a rapier, so you get 30% for 2d6+34 (or 4d6+34 with SA).
If you don't charge but make a full attack (assume you used your cheater charge to close into melee on round 1), you end up with 4 attacks:
+28/+23/+18/+13, each of which does the same damage as your charging attack (including flanking plus SA damage as long as you can maintain your flanking position). They also each benefit separately from any party buffs, from bard song to spells. You also can take an extra attack at your highest bonus with haste or a speed weapon, which you can't do when charging.
You could also fight defensively to get a monster AC bonus with the full attack action. Your attacks all get dinged to +24/+19/+14/+9.
I'm not sure how charging is giving them MORE damage than standing still. A better to hit with one shot, plus the ability to suck up the AoO and get another one, which probably will not be a flanking shot (unless you tumble part of the way past a monster, then stop tumbling on the other side of him, which you could certainly do).
Granted you aren't multiplying Precise Strike but it is still stacking on more damage to someone who I would guess is supposed to be quick and mobile and hit lightly in exchange for not being hit. They have Precise Strike to up the damage output and not be lagging behind the other melee types, I don't really see a reason for even more damage on top of that with everything else.You believe a character is not going to use acrobatic charge to get flank whenever possible?
Of course they will - that's the point of the ability!
But once you get in and flank, it's usually going to be to your advantage to stay in flanking position and pour on the damage, and/or fight defensively and pour on the AC.
With a high tumble/acrobatics, mobility feat that gives bonus to AC against AoO's for moving through threatened area, defensive fighting (bumped from skill), PrC level to AC and using one of many available AoO's of their own to deflect an attack that makes it through - Character builds with less do a good job. The duelist suggested here could charge down a 5'wide x5' tall x30' long hall through a party member, tumble through and past the opponent(allowing an AoO so you could attack him flat footed as you leave the square when they miss you) turn around and finish the charge getting flank. That is all as you have it written, not even twisting the rules a little.Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not really trying to be a jerk, just trying to point out some flaws with the design you have posted and why I don't agree with some of them.
JERK!!! JERK!!! YOU SAID IT!!!
Now, it's all good, I'm just messin with you.
We post stuff to the boards cuz it's fun to talk about. If you're thin skinned, you shouldn't post stuff on message boards lest your widdle feelings get hurt.
Elaborate Parry really, really bugs me, because it works off of Fighting Defensively, but the duelist has Combat Expertise (aka "Improved Defensive Fighting") as a prerequisite -- but can't use it because EP works off of the almost-identical, but much clunkier, defensive fighting mechanic. Argh.
Here's what I'd really like:
1. Combat Expertise is renamed Improved Defensive Fighting (you pick the penalty and corresponding bonus, instead of having them set in stone, and get a 1:1 ratio of attack penalty to AC bonus, instead of 2:1).
2. Elaborate Parry would then act like a Greater Defensive Fighting feat, allowing an even more favorable ratio, and a higher limit (e.g., the duelist might take up to -1 to attacks per 2 class levels, in exchange for +2 dodge to AC per -1 to attacks).
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Elaborate Parry really, really bugs me, because it works off of Fighting Defensively, but the duelist has Combat Expertise (aka "Improved Defensive Fighting") as a prerequisite -- but can't use it because EP works off of the almost-identical, but much clunkier, defensive fighting mechanic. Argh.
Here's what I'd really like:
1. Combat Expertise is renamed Improved Defensive Fighting (you pick the penalty and corresponding bonus, instead of having them set in stone, and get a 1:1 ratio of attack penalty to AC bonus, instead of 2:1).
2. Elaborate Parry would then act like a Greater Defensive Fighting feat, allowing an even more favorable ratio, and a higher limit (e.g., the duelist might take up to -1 to attacks per 2 class levels, in exchange for +2 dodge to AC per -1 to attacks).
It's a good idea. Again, I was kinda playing off of the SRD version and for good or bad tried to keep some things closer to the way they were, but it's a reasonable idea to tie it to Combat Expertise, either:
1. Allow a double-dip on Combat Expertise (1:2 attack:AC ratio); or,
2. Give a flat bonus to AC when using ANY amount of Combat Expertise, say +1/2 duelist level. So a 10th level Duelist could take -1 to hit and get +6 AC.
Either way would work, and probably #1, which is what you suggested, is the better option of the two. My idea for something like #2, though, is to make the ability BETTER for higher-level duelists. #1 is really the same for a 1st level duelist as a 10th level duelist, which is a little bit lame to me.
I like abilities that get better over levels, one of the problems that martial characters have - they get more abilities, but they have to spend more just to try to keep par because their abilities rarely improve. (WF/WSpec, I'm looking at YOU!)
1. Allow a double-dip on Combat Expertise (1:2 attack:AC ratio); Either way would work, and probably #1, which is what you suggested...
Jason, thanks for the feedback. Just to clarify, my suggestion was #1, with the additional idea that the limits imposed by Combat Expertise actually be expanded with increasing duelist level somehow (e.g., maximum +1 to AC per duelist level, regardless of ratio). Yes, currently you get a flat -1/+1 to -5/+5, and that's tied to Int (much like Canny Defense, now that you mention it... maybe that can be tied in as well?). Hmmm, some more fiddling is needed here.
Just wanted to clarify that I'm in 100% agreement that combat feats (and class features which are similar to combat feats) should scale with BAB (or class level) a lot more often than they do.
|
|
Wielding is the step after carrying which includes attacking. Carrying means you've got your sword in your belt, sheathe, whatever. Wielding means it's gripped in the ready position in your hand. Which is generally enough to get you into trouble if you're walking down the town streets that way. :)
Yeah, that was how I read it, which is why I think that it's the wrong requirement (particularly given that the 3.5 version doesn't require it and merely precludes attacking with an off-hand weapon to get the Precise Strike damage).
http://swordforum.com/articles/ams/char-rapier.php
A discussion of the rapier, for better or worse. Like all weapons, it filled a niche, evolved, and was eventually made obsolete in the arms race that is human evolution.
The ideal off-hand weapon for a duelist would be a defending dagger.
I think there should be no penalty for having one in hand, if you don't fight with it.
As the article states, later development from the rapier (a rather slow sword,) to the small sword (the rapier we imagine from 3 Musketeers fiction) made the main gauche obsolete, for the most part.
And no, I don't have a dog in this fight. The one duelist I played with scrapped his character for one that did better damage (a cohort ranger archer, promoted to PC).
Weapon vs. armor and weapon speed were optional parts of AD&D. While they gave realism to armed combat, they were ridiculously cumbersome, and did little for real play.
I just thought that a look at the historical rapier might be good for this discussion.
One thing I allowed for the rapier (and the cutlass and saber from a 3.5 Spelljammer campaign) was to allow the basket hilt to grant a +2 to resist being disarmed, and to treat it as a gauntlet for punching.
In that game, a cutlass was treated as a finesse weapon that did slashing and piercing damage, and did bludgeoning damage as a gauntlet. A versatile weapon for a spacer (sailor). It probably wouldn't make sense in Golarion.
http://swordforum.com/articles/ams/char-rapier.php
A discussion of the rapier, for better or worse. Like all weapons, it filled a niche, evolved, and was eventually made obsolete in the arms race that is human evolution.
The ideal off-hand weapon for a duelist would be a defending dagger.
I think there should be no penalty for having one in hand, if you don't fight with it.As the article states, later development from the rapier (a rather slow sword,) to the small sword (the rapier we imagine from 3 Musketeers fiction) made the main gauche obsolete, for the most part.
And no, I don't have a dog in this fight. The one duelist I played with scrapped his character for one that did better damage (a cohort ranger archer, promoted to PC).
Weapon vs. armor and weapon speed were optional parts of AD&D. While they gave realism to armed combat, they were ridiculously cumbersome, and did little for real play.
I just thought that a look at the historical rapier might be good for this discussion.
One thing I allowed for the rapier (and the cutlass and saber from a 3.5 Spelljammer campaign) was to allow the basket hilt to grant a +2 to resist being disarmed, and to treat it as a gauntlet for punching.
In that game, a cutlass was treated as a finesse weapon that did slashing and piercing damage, and did bludgeoning damage as a gauntlet. A versatile weapon for a spacer (sailor). It probably wouldn't make sense in Golarion.
In my game I allow the rapier to slash/pierce/blunt with basket hilt.
ONly the fencing rapier (as in the modern sport) was blunted and could not be used for any kind of slashing (even in the three musketeeers movie you see the rapiers used to slash ropes or tapestries.)
as for duelists, my wifes characters only melees with one rapier, she uses her off hand for throwing a dagger (shes has 11 of them) and for off hand two weapon defense. As I read it as long as she doesnt attack with her off hand, she can precise strike. She throws daggers in rounds she does precise strike in.