Thanks for the feedback.

Quote Originally Posted by cfalcon View Post
I'm concerned that you keep the only arguable broken part of the original duelist, which is the +10 AC at 10th level when fighting defensively.
I never saw it as a broken part. Remember, the duelist gives up all armor, and is already on a 2 stat split for stats, so a Monk belt isn't particularly attractive even if you do interpret it as giving wis to AC (some DMs do not). Aside from that you're paying about 4x more for your armor than other people are, and have a lower base, so the increased defensive fighting is good. Hell, even the monk gets a bonus to AC in addition to his wisdom. In addition to get that bonus, you're taking a -4 penalty to hit (though you can negate that with a decent int mod at level 7 on attacks of opportunity, you still take the penalty on your round)

Can you show an example where a character fighting defensively as a duelist is significantly higher than your average person with the same gear?

I really don't get the dim anchor part, and as (Ex) that strikes me as wildly out of place. Can't you have a cleric dim anchor the guy that is gonna get away? Once you start putting in counters to counters as class abilities you are metagaming class design! It also doesn't make since. Since when is Zorro or the Three Musketeers a portable 4th level passive spell effect with (Ex)?
The way I saw it was as an extention of Duelist's Challenge reducing movement, and Improved Opportunist making it harder to cast spells and SU abilities. Basically the duelist while he is within reach of the opponent and harassing him, he isn't able to teleport away. I used the dimensional anchor name to get that effect across without a lot of exposition.

I really like the buff to precise strike. I have a guy who will go duelist in the game I'm in. I'm just going to have him run the Paizo duelist ( They buffed it to a flat +10 at 10th level. Certainly the 3.5 one is too low, given what you are passing up by using a singleton combat technique.
Yeah, the core 3.5 precise strike is pitiful, 2d6 out of 10 levels when you can get 5d6 in the same 10 levels as a Rogue, without giving up an offhand weapon seems bad. This was increased to be a closer match, while Penetrating Strike is intended to make up the difference from not having that second weapon.

It's worth noting a flat +10 is only effectively 3d6, though it does have the advantage of being multiplied on a crit, which is nice. They probably average out close to the same.

As an aside what do you figure the chances are of me convincing you to try this out instead of the Paizo version?

Penetrating Strike is delicious, 10/10. Improved Penetrating Strike I don't know about, because I've always allowed Power Attack as it seems a very core mechanic for some weapons to be left out. Your top one is also very good.
If you allow Power Attacking with 2:1 with all weapons, you can leave out Improved Penetrating Strike with no harm done. After all, you get Riposte at the same level, so you still won't have any dead levels, and the power level is the same if the option is already available.

Riposte seems very misnamed.
Riposte may have been better for the first level of opportunist, but I feel it still fits here. The way I see it, Riposte is the counterstroke after parrying an attack. By the time you get Riposte you have Opportunist, so when you fight defensively and make an attack of opportunity, while some of it may go towards people moving, it will frequently be in response to somebody trying to attack you.

I agree it's a stretch, but I've never been particularly good at names. I'm open to rename suggestions for this or any other ability (Duelist's Challenge in particular bugs me)

On a unrelated note, I am considering updating the requirements of the class to consider having precision damage dice as +1 BAB for purposes of entering, so you could go say Rogue1/Fighter 4 and enter, or Rogue 3/Fighter2 (rogue is 2 BAB, Fighter is 2 BAB, +1 BAB for precision damage). The idea is to not make Rogue, or other precision based classes necessary, but it makes them not delay the entry as they currently do due to lower BAB progression. Any thoughts on that?

On another unrelated note, I did mention in the first post that I also made a prestige class version of the swashbuckler, that is intended to mesh with this Duelist (though isn't required). If you are interested in the duelist you may also be interested in this