OK I was going over the rules of this class and prestige class and so far I don't see anything against it not being able to work.
The Strength of Duelist prestige class is of course the parry and riposte abilities. A Monk's unarmed attacks are considered to be light weapons so you could parry with a Monk's normal attacks. But then I got the idea that you could apply this to a Monk's Flurry of Blows as long as he announces his intent before his next turn and how many he is reserving. To my logic an attack is still an attack and visually this is a very monkish sort of thing a monk should be able to do.
Any Flurry attack is still an attack and part of a full round action and this is what is needed for the parry and riposte of the duelist.
Although I think this is legal I want to be honest enough to run it by everyone else to see if it is legal to do so or at least that it seems logical enough.
If you can somehow get your monk's unarmed strikes to become piercing weapons, then yeah, he can use them to parry. Alternately, he can pick up a kama or siangham (both monk weapons in the core book) with which to parry, since both are piercing weapons. See the first half of the bolded section below.
Parry (Ex): At 2nd level, a duelist learns to parry the attacks of other creatures, causing them to miss. 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. If her attack roll is greater than the roll of the attacking creature, the attack automatically misses. For each size category that the attacking creature is larger than the duelist, the duelist takes a –4 penalty on her attack roll. The duelist also takes a –4 penalty when attempting to parry an attack made against an adjacent ally. The duelist must declare the use of this ability after the attack is announced, but before the roll is made.
Also, though you didn't explicitly say you wanted to do so, I'm going to just mention that the wording of Parry allows for only a single parry attempt per round. It says that she can not take "one of her attacks" and that she can attempt to parry "an attack". All references are singular. So your monk can forgo a single attack from his flurry to attempt to parry a single attack from an enemy.
From an optimization standpoint, you further MAD the monk by making INT an important score. Now you benefit heavily from everything except CHA. Unless there is a monk variant in the APG (I don't have my copy with me right now) that converts features that rely on WIS to features that rely on INT, you might be hurting yourself a little. Unless you plan to ignore the Canny Defense class feature, in which case you can ignore this section.
I actually don't agree just because the wording is in singular mean that you can only use the ability once a round. Two reasons, there have been other wording for many other abilities that specifically state only once per round and in this instance this is not the case. The singular usage is in reference to the exchange of one attack for one parry. The amount of parries you can do a round is limited to how many attacks you give up.
For the weapon thing, it says light or one-handed piercing weapon and not light piercing weapon or one-handed piercing weapon.
A good example of what I mean is the following. The Sai is a light blunt weapon designed for disarming and historically you could easily parry with it.
You're welcome to choose to read it that way, but it quite clearly reads "light or one-handed piercing weapon". If it were to mean what you think, it would have said "light weapon or one-handed piercing weapon". Same with choosing to forgo multiple attacks for multiple parries. You (or your GM) can choose to read the rules that way if you agree to, but the rules as written state that you can "elect to not take one" attack to attempt a parry. Rule 0 is your friend here, but you asked if it was legal, so I responded with RAW. In a rules forum you can expect nothing less.
You're welcome to choose to read it that way, but it quite clearly reads "light or one-handed piercing weapon". If it were to mean what you think, it would have said "light weapon or one-handed piercing weapon". Same with choosing to forgo multiple attacks for multiple parries. You (or your GM) can choose to read the rules that way if you agree to, but the rules as written state that you can "elect to not take one" attack to attempt a parry. Rule 0 is your friend here, but you asked if it was legal, so I responded with RAW. In a rules forum you can expect nothing less.
Well we are both reading the RAW differently and you are correct about rule 0. I would like to hear more from others though about this matter.
BTW, is it just me or the forums really screwed up these last couple of days?
I agree with Mauril's reading. It clearly states one attack. Also, while the wording "light or one-handed piercing weapon" could be read your way, I think it is clear from the class description as a whole that it means any light piercing or one-handed piercing weapon.
I agree with Mauril's reading. It clearly states one attack. Also, while the wording "light or one-handed piercing weapon" could be read your way, I think it is clear from the class description as a whole that it means any light piercing or one-handed piercing weapon.
Yet it reads Light weapon or one-handed piercing weapon.
Even if it only meant piercing weapons you would get some goofy stuff you could duel with.
Gauntlet, Spiked
Pick, Light
Spiked Light Shield
Now personally I find it really weird that it limits it only to light weapons or light piercing weapons because the Rapier and longsword are not technically light weapons. They are listed under one-handed weapons. Well shoot there goes the image of the iconic duelist that has a rapier in her hand and not to mention all those Errol Flynn movies where he dueled with a rapier or a longsword. Here I thought you could parry with those weapons, silly me.
BTW, I have seen training manuals for real medieval sword fighting. Longswords should be piercing and slashing.
As for the whole plural vs singular, lets break this down shall we?
Parry (Ex): At 2nd level, a duelist learns to parry the attacks of other creatures, causing them to miss.
That is plural.
At any time before her next turn, she can attempt to parry an attack against her or an adjacent ally as an immediate action.
I don't know the whole at anytime thing makes it sound like you can I don't know do it at anytime.
So let's get down to the real issue. It is not just the parry but the riposte that raises concerns but it is only if the attack is parried well and then the riposte grants a OOA and since duelists come with combat reflexes they can make a lot of those. When you look at the build combat reflexes is gained just before riposte. To me that looks like it was intended to happen a lot.
To say that a duelist can only make a single parry or riposte at any given time, well that just throws the verisimilitude right out of the window. It would also seriously gimp the whole concept of the prestige class.
Now personally I find it really weird that it limits it only to light weapons or light piercing weapons because the Rapier and longsword are not technically light weapons. They are listed under one-handed weapons. Well shoot there goes the image of the iconic duelist that has a rapier in her hand and not to mention all those Errol Flynn movies where he dueled with a rapier or a longsword. Here I thought you could parry with those weapons, silly me.BTW, I have seen training manuals for real medieval sword fighting. Longswords should be piercing and slashing.
Umm... you can parry with a rapier, since the ability regards light piercing weapons or one-handed piercing weapons. Since "one-handed" is a category of weapons, where rapiers are contained, it works just fine. I'll agree that longswords ought to be applicable, but that's not what the rules allow.
Parrying with shields also makes perfect sense to me, but maybe I've been fooled with how shields work.
As for the whole plural vs singular, lets break this down shall we?
Parry (Ex): At 2nd level, a duelist learns to parry the attacks of other creatures, causing them to miss.That is plural.
At any time before her next turn, she can attempt to parry an attack against her or an adjacent ally as an immediate action.I don't know the whole at anytime thing makes it sound like you can I don't know do it at anytime.
So let's get down to the real issue. It is not just the parry but the riposte that raises concerns but it is only if the attack is parried well and then the riposte grants a OOA and since duelists come with combat reflexes they can make a lot of those. When you look at the build combat reflexes is gained just before riposte. To me that looks like it was intended to happen a lot.
To say that a duelist can only make a single parry or riposte at any given time, well that just throws the verisimilitude right out of the window. It would also seriously gimp the whole concept of the prestige class.
I never said you couldn't make your parry attempt at any time, so I'm not sure why you are arguing that. What I did say was that you get one parry attempt per round and can only sacrifice a single attack on your turn. The reason Combat Reflexes is given to the Duelist is so that (assuming a Dex of 12 or better) the Duelist doesn't have to choose between using his/her parry ability or taking an AoO in a single round.
Basically what seems to have happened here is that you have decided how you want these abilities to work and were looking for validation. When you were contradicted by clear statements in the rules and had that confirmed by another poster, you continued to argue. As mentioned, if you want to Rule 0 these to follow your interpretation, you are more than welcome to do so. You just must recognize that in a rules forum on the internet, you will get RAW (rules as written) responses that will not consider your houserules (unless they are stated in the OP) and will, at best, make mention of possible RAI (rules as intended) but defer to the RAW.
OK I was going over the rules of this class and prestige class and so far I don't see anything against it not being able to work.
The Strength of Duelist prestige class is of course the parry and riposte abilities. A Monk's unarmed attacks are considered to be light weapons so you could parry with a Monk's normal attacks. But then I got the idea that you could apply this to a Monk's Flurry of Blows as long as he announces his intent before his next turn and how many he is reserving. To my logic an attack is still an attack and visually this is a very monkish sort of thing a monk should be able to do.
Any Flurry attack is still an attack and part of a full round action and this is what is needed for the parry and riposte of the duelist.
Although I think this is legal I want to be honest enough to run it by everyone else to see if it is legal to do so or at least that it seems logical enough.
If you want to go into duelist with a monk you can, you're better off going in at 8 and using a siangham or shuriken as your piercing weapon. light or one handed piercing weapon refers to what kind of piercing weapons you can use i.e. not a longspear, this could be inferred by a third grader reading this text. Nothing says you can't wield two weapons either you just can't TWF with it, so you could potentially have a defending weapon in your offhand which makes a lot of sense for a duelist if you think of it like a parrying dagger.
Mauril your RAW doesn't clearly state that the ability only is used once per round because if it did it would actually say that. Saying something is clearly stated doesn't make it so unless it is very specific.
You read it for "one attack' but I read it as " one parry for one attack". No where in the description does is specifically say that this exchange can only be done once per round.
There have been plenty past abilities from other classes that have stated only once per round.
I also do know that you can parry with a rapier but when you made your little "Amendment" to what weapons can be used it would exclude the rapier. That was the point I was making.
BTW you deflect with a shield you don't parry.
Parry (Ex): At 2nd level, a duelist learns to parry the attacks of other creatures, causing them to miss.That is plural.
At any time before her next turn, she can attempt to parry an attack against her or an adjacent ally as an immediate action.I don't know the whole at anytime thing makes it sound like you can I don't know do it at anytime.
I agree with Mauril. The reference to "parry attacks" in "Parry (Ex): At 2nd level, a duelist learns to parry the attacks of other creatures, causing them to miss", is simply a general reference to the ability. Perhaps they should have written it as "parry an attack of another creature", but they didn't.
The specific description 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" is unambiguous. It does not say "give up a number of attacks up to the maximum number she could make that round".
Likewise, "at any time before her next turn, she can attempt to parry an attack against her or an adjacent ally as an immediate action", is clear. If it read "parry as many attacks as attacks she gave up from her full attack action", then your argument would be valid.
As stated in many threads, the specific description take precedence over the brief descriptions.
Personally I would be happy to house rule that a Duellist could give up multiple attacks and just be a parrying machine (aka Danny Kaye in The Court Jester).
BTW you deflect with a shield you don't parry.
Parry, block, deflect, interpose.... regardless of the name they are all the same. Manipulating/positioning your shield or weapon so that the opponent's weapon strikes it rather than you. Parry may be the technical term used in fencing etc, but the effect is the same.
Gallo, I feel that you made a better argument or at least said in away that appeals to my sense of logic. Everything else just sounded like the beating of a dead horse to me.
So I am just going to house rule that a duelist can give up a number of attacks although I personally don't like making to many house rules. The reason that I will house rule it is because I still don't agree mainly because of the fact that the ability only to parry and riposte once a round doesn't scream duelist to me. I would rather a duelist fight like Errol Flynn.
With that aside and with the fact of it now being a house rule, perhaps because I didn't phrase my question correctly, would a monk be able to give up one of his flurry attacks in exchange for a parry?
I don't want to make a new house rule and nor will I be resistant as long as any answer I get is logical one.
Gallo, I feel that you made a better argument or at least said in away that appeals to my sense of logic. Everything else just sounded like the beating of a dead horse to me.
So I am just going to house rule that a duelist can give up a number of attacks although I personally don't like making to many house rules. The reason that I will house rule it is because I still don't agree mainly because of the fact that the ability only to parry and riposte once a round doesn't scream duelist to me. I would rather a duelist fight like Errol Flynn.
With that aside and with the fact of it now being a house rule, perhaps because I didn't phrase my question correctly, would a monk be able to give up one of his flurry attacks in exchange for a parry?
I don't want to make a new house rule and nor will I be resistant as long as any answer I get is logical one.
Monks flurry is simply a special full attack with monk weapons. This should have no problem applying parry. If you house rule more than one parry per turn then monks have a bit of an advantage with the extra free attacks, but no more than a TWF Fighter who doesn't attack but only parries with his offhand weapon to keep his precise strike.
Monks flurry is simply a special full attack with monk weapons. This should have no problem applying parry. If you house rule more than one parry per turn then monks have a bit of an advantage with the extra free attacks, but no more than a TWF Fighter who doesn't attack but only parries with his offhand weapon to keep his precise strike.Gallo, I feel that you made a better argument or at least said in away that appeals to my sense of logic. Everything else just sounded like the beating of a dead horse to me.
So I am just going to house rule that a duelist can give up a number of attacks although I personally don't like making to many house rules. The reason that I will house rule it is because I still don't agree mainly because of the fact that the ability only to parry and riposte once a round doesn't scream duelist to me. I would rather a duelist fight like Errol Flynn.
With that aside and with the fact of it now being a house rule, perhaps because I didn't phrase my question correctly, would a monk be able to give up one of his flurry attacks in exchange for a parry?
I don't want to make a new house rule and nor will I be resistant as long as any answer I get is logical one.
I agree. In fact it could help a character with poor AC not get hit as often, as an alternative to just beefing up your AC (the old arms race between boosting AC versus ever increasing to hit chances of your foes).
Just don't forget to give a circumstance bonus to the parry rolls if the player can artfully quote Wesley or Inigo from The Princess Bride, Court Jester or any of Flynn's movies ;-)
Yar!
I agree that "light or one-handed piercing" means light piercing or one-handed piercing. It is the same as saying, for example: light or one handed bladed weapons (meaning light blades or one-handed blades, and not any light weapon, including bludgeons, or one-handed blades), or writing it as light/one-handed piercing weapons.
I also agree that parry allows you to not take ONE attack during a full-attack action (of which flurry-of-blows qualifies as) in order to parry ONE incoming attack.
In order to avoid house rules, I shall note that there is a great feat to make an unarmed monk-duelist possible. Hamatulatsu. This lets you do piercing damage with unarmed strikes (you don't have to change types every round), and as a monk, you get it added to your list of monk bonus feats at 2nd level, and you get to ignore the prerequisites. The only issue is that it does not appear to be pathfinder society approved... it's source is pathfinder campaign setting 83. (as a side note, this combined with hamatula strike creates an intimidating image, grappling a foe by impaling them on your fist/arm/foot)
As for getting more than one parry a round, I currently see no way RAW in order to do so. I assume the reasoning for this is the duelist was intended to be a character who is able to parry + riposte while on the offensive, as opposed to one who simply sits back and blocks + counters everything... though I do think such a character could be stylish (and definitely fitting with certain archetypes of monks). This would have to be a house rule though. I can theorize that one of the reasons for this is game balance. To allow every attack in your flurry/full-attack to be a parry, you essentially give yourself 2 ACs. Your regular AC, and a variable AC (your parry). If you do make this house rule, I greatly suggest you limit the number of parries possible per round to the number of AoO you can make per round (combat reflexes) or the number of attacks you can make in a full-attack action, whichever is LOWER.
I'll also note that I believe the dueling style of fights where almost every attack is blocked is actually covered via Canny Defense and your regular AC (plus combat expertise, which requires you attack with a melee weapon to use; and the ability to fight defensively). I'm watching a compilation of Errol Flynn fight scenes right now, and he is simply blocking most attacks and waiting for the right moment to switch to offense. What he is NOT doing is making a riposte/attack/counter-attack in response to every attack that he blocks (which is what this houserule would allow you to do, to some extent). I dare say that the actual rate of offensive strikes he is making is much closer to the D&D/Pathfinder equivalent of 1 per round, and if these movies were simulated in D&D/Pathfinder, him and his opponents also appear to be fighting defensively as full round actions and using combat expertise most of the time (hence all of the blocks and misses despite the large number of attacks made by both sides).
Yeah... blocking every attack with your weapon is really a combination of Canny Defense, Combat Expertise, and fighting defensively. Ripostes (counter-attacks, where there is a concentrated/greater effort put into stabbing at your foe to kill) don't actually happen all that often... like once every 6 seconds or so. Sometimes more often (represented by your regular attacks not given up in order to parry), and sometimes less often (misses, failed parries, total defense instead of fighting defensively, etc).
Just my thoughts on the matter though. (I've also been thinking of making a character like this for a while now, and I imaging it would be great fun to play, even with only one parry + riposte per round)
~P
It is true that Errol didn't make that many ripostes but he did parry a whole lot. Canny Defense just doesn't cut it really because at high levels you will have a pathetic AC anyways because all melee types will be able to hit it.
Because of your research and plus you brought back memories I think that I am going to change my houserule to that you can give up any number of attacks but can only riposte once.
Plus I always wanted to say that line from Robin Hood Men In tights line.
"Parry, Parry, Thrust . . . Good! :)
Your houserule still runs into another problem, barring a changing of the wording. I would have brought this up earlier but I just noticed it.
At any time before her next turn, she can attempt to parry an attack against her or an adjacent ally as an immediate action.
You only get one immediate action per turn. Even with Combat Reflexes, you only get one immediate action per turn (since attacks of opportunity are never, in RAW, listed as immediate actions but seem to be their own kind of action). So you are still limited to one parry attempt per turn. Now, if you change the wording into a free action, then it works just fine with your houserule.
In addition to Hamatulatsu, there's also a 3.5 feat called versatile strike that can make your unarmed strikes deal piercing damage.
And for the MAD, kung-fu genius or carmendine monk.