Layonara World Lore > LORE Ideas, Suggestions and Requests

Duelist

(1/3) > >>

Chuckles_McChuck:
I honestly don't know if this should be in the LORE bugs forum or in this one, but I noticed 2 things while browsing the duelist class under LORE.1. The Duelist requires 5 ranks in persuade, but it is not a class skill.  This just does not make sense in an RP standpoint.  Why would you be required to learn and train in a skill to get into a certain trade or career only then to have absolutely nothing to do with that skill once you are in said trade/career.  Might I suggest that either:a. the requirement be switched to bluff which is a class skill and similar to persuade in that its a social skill; or,b. add persuade as a class skill for duelist.  If you think that makes it too many, then remove bluff, persuade makes more sense anyways. 2. This is more of a question that would lead to a suggestion based on the answer.  Does the Rangers Dual Wield count the same as the ambidexterity requirement to take the class?  Since Dual Wield is basically the same feat and then some, it definately should and would only lead to redundant feat aquisition just to take the class otherwise.

Acacea:
1. Since perform was made a class skill for Duelists, I think the Persuade req was intended to be a poor-man's perform. My understanding is that it was meant to act as a substitute for the traditional requirement of perform ranks, to prevent Duelist being locked into a bard-only PrC, and that for those rare few Duelists with no rogue or bard levels at all, five ranks was not a great hardship to cross-class. This is only background as I understand it. I'm in no position to debate actual alterations (though I do think with the canny feinting and dodging, bluff is certainly meant to be in their list of class skills and not persuade, hehe). 2. I believe it used to be the case that Dual-Wield did not satisfy the Ambidexterity prereq, making Ranger/Duelists impossible (rangers being unable to select the component feats of Dual-Wield) without adding another class. I believe this was changed somehow at some point, and a quick test level seemed to allow a Ranger/Duelist to proceed. (If LORE did not make it clear, you should know that Duelists lose their perks when fighting with more than one weapon.)

Chuckles_McChuck:
Yeah, that could make sense for the first one; I would still say that persuade should still be a class skill option, but its not that important and if it helps not making it a bard exclusive class, then I can't really complain.Hopefully that is fixed for the ranger/duelist combo and I am aware that Duelists lose thier bonus's if they use thier second hand at all.  Its too bad in my personal opinion, but in RP the duelist requiring ambidexterity can be simply explained as them being able to use their left/right arm with equal ability.  So much for rapier/stiletto or rapier/shieldbreaker.

Dorganath:
Rangers were updated a little while back, bringing  them a little more in line with 3.5. I do not have that list of changes handy (I think they're in an update log post somewhere), but I know it affected some of the mechanics of Rangers in terms of feats, skills and spells...or some combination thereof.That said, as Duelist bonuses vanish with a second weapon in-hand, then there isn't really going to be a "fix" for a Ranger/Duelist combo, meaning that this won't enable you to keep Duelist bonuses while fighting two-handed...though I believe you'll keep the other benefits of Dual Weild/Ambidexterity.

Acacea:

--- Quote from: "Dorganath"&cid="2761032" ---That said, as Duelist bonuses vanish with a second weapon in-hand, then there isn't really going to be a "fix" for a Ranger/Duelist combo, meaning that this won't enable you to keep Duelist bonuses while fighting two-handed...though I believe you'll keep the other benefits of Dual Weild/Ambidexterity.
--- End quote ---
By Ranger/Duelist fix, I think he meant, "hopefully Dual Wield now counts as fulfilling the Ambidexterity prereq for Duelist, since rangers are not allowed to take that feat" (because they get a better one). The other thing isn't really ranger specific and not anything broken with that particular combination... if anything Dual Wield qualifying as Ambidexterity means it's really less an investment than other classes actually taking the Ambidexterity feat, hehe!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page