Talk:Duelist (3.5e Class)

Munkin

Could someone please explain to me why +10 (and +20) on 4 skills is not a munkin? --Pwsnafu 22:23, 24 April 2007 (MDT)

Can you put together an optimized character design based on this class that breaks the system? —Sledged (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2007 (MDT)

It has nothing to do with optimizations. I'm saying compared with other classes (eg SRD) how can the author justify giving a +20 bonus for 4 skills? The class is just not balanced. --Pwsnafu 19:07, 29 April 2007 (MDT)

Hm, what would you rate it (you don't have to if you don't want to)? --Green Dragon 20:45, 2 May 2007 (MDT)

I must agree with the objection. The general rule is that "extraordinary circumstances" (such as intensive acrobatic training) only grant a +4 bonus. With these bonuses, the character is partially turned into the physical equivalent of Herakles. –EldritchNumen 19:30, 4 May 2007 (MDT)

I agree. Changed all +10 to +4's. --Green Dragon 21:04, 6 May 2007 (MDT)

No rating. I just don't have the time right now to analyze this. If you just want a deadpan rating...probably 3/10. Badly named (duelist implies one-on-one combat, but there's nothing) and doesn't distinguish itself from other classes (especially swash). --Pwsnafu 17:53, 7 May 2007 (MDT)

Rating - 7/10

I give this class a rating of 7. It seems fairly well balanced (assuming it was pulled from the duelist prestige class) and lends to a decent duelist in the end. My only complaint is the weakening critical and wounding critical along with the excessive Cunning abilities (7 total i beleive, shouldnt be more then 4 maybe 5). Alot of beneficial abilities, along with some bonus feats for a more dashing specialist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.160.102.101 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 21 May 2007 (MDT). Please sign your posts.

Would you like to modify this class and fix the above problems you pointed out? I think it should be okay to updated this class because the author (who was an IP) has not modified this in a very long time... So, would you like to help improve this? --Green Dragon 21:01, 21 May 2007 (MDT)

Cunning is definitely broken. Aside from being not half bad as a two level dip, consider that it gives better saves and ac than a monk gets while still allowing the duelist to wear light armor —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.85.239.50 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 27 January 2008 (MST). Please sign your posts.

This rating has been nullified with the implementation of the new Rating System. --Green Dragon 14:41, 20 February 2008 (MST)

Use?

This class appears to be a base class version of the Duelist PRC. It would be good if the text would describe it as such.

(No rating - not much original content and obviously unfinished.) --Mkill 23:15, 13 June 2007 (MDT)

This author is also no longer present on D&D Wiki. Feel free to help this out (after all, that is what the templates are trying to get people to do). --Green Dragon 12:28, 14 June 2007 (MDT)

Rating

Power - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because it lines up well with the Duelist prestige class out of the Sword and Fist handbook (at least I think that's the book!). Pretty well done, and not too powerful, I think. --144.81.41.176 05:53, 6 November 2008 (MST)

Wording - 4/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because some of the phrasing was a touch awkward at times and needed some clean up. I've tried to edit this to help, but I still think that some of the abilities unclear. Overall quite good. --144.81.41.176 05:53, 6 November 2008 (MST)

Formatting - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because there is a lot of basic background information about the class that is missing. A good example is that the description indicates that Charisma is important but nothing in the abilities indicates why this might be true. It might be more accurate to say intelligence is important. --144.81.41.176 05:53, 6 November 2008 (MST)

Flavor - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because I think overall it is a solid class. I'm not sure why this is called a duelist either here or in the Sword & Fist, especially with the Acrobatic Charge ability. Not that the ability is overpowering or out of place with the other abilities, but that it doesn't fit with the name necessarily unless a description is provided. Perhaps in a 'Princess Bride' style duel between Inigo Montoya and the Dread Pirate Roberts. That I would get, and that could be added to the description for flavor.--144.81.41.176 05:53, 6 November 2008 (MST)

Note: I did not write this review. I removed the nowiki tag that the poster neglected to remove. I shall try to retrieve the original post information. --Sulacu 05:54, 6 November 2008 (MST)

Weakening/Wounding Critical

As it is, there's nothing to keep a Duelist from dealing one point of Strength and Constitution damage on the same critical. Does this fall under the category of intentional strength or munchkin-y loophole? --98.183.215.11 17:42, 7 January 2009 (MST)

Pedantry

That quote has it backwards. When fencing, you use the length of the blade to parry and the point to kill. Which is relevant--this is a fencer, not a duelist. A duelist would be specializing in fighting other sentient, armed combatants, preferably one-on-one. -- Genowhirl 18:38, 7 January 2009 (MST)

To be technically correct, the Rapier uses the edge as well as the tip and is still classed as fencing. =P The Foil is the tip to hit only blade. I'd agree with the disagreement on the quote though. Medieval swords used the edge of the blade, rarely the point. Think Longword, Bastard sword, etc. Fencing swords generally use the point a lot more and is considered an artform compared to just swinging a 5ft bar of steel around. CJ 22:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Rating

Power - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<the class had many good features>>> --173.245.55.206 16:15, 10 July 2011 (MDT)

Wording - <<<4>>>/5 I give this class a <<<4>>> out of 5 because <<<it was very clear but there wasnt much info>>> --173.245.55.206 16:15, 10 July 2011 (MDT)

Formatting - <<<4>>>/5 I give this class a <<<4>>> out of 5 because <<<they had good background but not all of the categories filled>>> --173.245.55.206 16:15, 10 July 2011 (MDT)

Flavor - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<the background was great although i would have liked info on how to play this class well i didnt need it and it was easy to figure out once you started playing. also i thought that the special abilities for this class were great and provided an easy transition to the duelist prestige class>>> --173.245.55.206 16:15, 10 July 2011 (MDT)