# duskblade-- too powerful?



## brehobit (Jul 29, 2006)

OK,
I know there have been arguments that the duskblade is too powerful here ("Broken").  I generally ignore those comments because I find that WotC has always done a solid job at keeping power levels of the base classes down.  Even the PrCs that most people complain about (Radiant Servant etc.) aren't _that_ powerful.  And I've found the base classes to either be weak (samuri, scout) or the same (spirit shaman, warmage) as the better base classes (cleric, druid, paladin).

But looking at the duskblade, I just don't see how this thing can be balanced with the other full-BAB classes. Heck, it is a better caster, IMO, than the bard...

For the first few levels it isn't that bad.  It has a crazy number of 0-level spells compared to any other caster (8/day for an INT of 14 at first level).  But the 1st level spell list isn't too bad (well color spray is a nice spell) and the d8 for hitpoints and light armor keep it from being too crazy in hand-to-hand.  

But by 3rd level the duskblade has gotten a bonus feat (combat casting) and can now cast a touch spell and attack as a standard action.  At this point, with chill touch on his spell list, the caster is doing an extra d6 on every attack and possibly 1 point of STR damage (Fort save negates the save).  I mean he can cast it 5 times/day at it lasts for 3 hits and he can cast it as part of an attack.  Really huge for that level.

Come 5th level he's just getting 2nd level spells.  But he can quicken 1 spell/day for free.  So at 5th level he can "blow his wad" and attack, cast ghoul touch and true strike and power attack (if he has the feat.)  This single attack provides +15 to attack, +10 damage (if using a 2-handed weapon) and a Fort save or be paralized.  (if you wish to claim that the spells can't be cast without  1 hand free (debated if you can release and grasp the weapon as a free action) then just true stike works pretty well).  

At 13th level he can take a full attack (at least 3 attacks) and everyone he hits can get wacked by a vampiric touch.  (extra 6d6 damage, I'm not clear if the bonus hitpoints drained stack or not).  And he can do this around 8-10 times a day (using 4th level spell slots).  

How is this class NOT broken?  It has poor skills (both selection and points) and a d8 for hit points.  Other than that it seems pretty darn useful in a fight.


----------



## shilsen (Jul 29, 2006)

brehobit said:
			
		

> But looking at the duskblade, I just don't see how this thing can be balanced with the other full-BAB classes. Heck, it is a better caster, IMO, than the bard...




I think it's one of the more powerful new classes introduced by WotC, but not broken. 



> But by 3rd level the duskblade has gotten a bonus feat (combat casting) and can now cast a touch spell and attack as a standard action.  At this point, with chill touch on his spell list, the caster is doing an extra d6 on every attack and possibly 1 point of STR damage (Fort save negates the save).  I mean he can cast it 5 times/day at it lasts for 3 hits and he can cast it as part of an attack.  Really huge for that level.




For a big hit on the spot, don't forget Shocking Grasp (+3d6 on one hit at 3rd lvl). Which you can use in the same round as Blade of Blood (swift action). So that's an extra +6d6 dmg on one hit (if you take the 5 pt dmg to make Blade of Blood do +3d6). Personally, I think this benefit is balanced by the fact that you can do it a max of thrice a day, in which case you're using up all of your 1st lvl spells and have only 0th lvl ones left. Compare it to a fighter or barbarian using Power Attack on every attack, or the versatility of an actual 3rd lvl wizard, and it's not that bad.



> Come 5th level he's just getting 2nd level spells.  But he can quicken 1 spell/day for free.  So at 5th level he can "blow his wad" and attack, cast ghoul touch and true strike and power attack (if he has the feat.)  This single attack provides +15 to attack, +10 damage (if using a 2-handed weapon) and a Fort save or be paralized.  (if you wish to claim that the spells can't be cast without  1 hand free (debated if you can release and grasp the weapon as a free action) then just true stike works pretty well).




Which he can do just 1/day. I think that's an important balancing factor. As wth many classes, the duskblade will be much more effective in a game where there's only a combat or two in a given game day, and much less so in one with multiple encounters.



> At 13th level he can take a full attack (at least 3 attacks) and everyone he hits can get wacked by a vampiric touch.  (extra 6d6 damage, I'm not clear if the bonus hitpoints drained stack or not).  And he can do this around 8-10 times a day (using 4th level spell slots).




This is the level/ability where I think the class has the potential to become a little problematic. Still, when I consider what a 13th lvl barbarian can put out damage-wise or the versatility of a 13th lvl fighter (esp. with the PHB2 feats) or the effectiveness of a 13th lvl cleric or versatility of a 13th lvl wizard, I'm loath to say that it's clearly too far ahead of the power curve.



> How is this class NOT broken?  It has poor skills (both selection and points) and a d8 for hit points.  Other than that it seems pretty darn useful in a fight.




It is. I just don't think it's *too* useful. IMSNSHO, YMMV, and so on


----------



## Masquerade (Jul 29, 2006)

I'm not an expert on mechanics by any stretch, but this is my take on the class:

Fighters use feats to attack more frequently, more accurately, and more painfully.  Duskblades use spells to accomplish the same.  The spells are more potent than the feats, but you don't see fighters running out of high-level feat slots after a couple of encounters.

I have played a duskblade (well, duskblade/totemist) in a one-shot, and I would not think twice about letting one of my players use the class.


----------



## frankthedm (Jul 29, 2006)

GoblinMasquerade said:
			
		

> I'm not an expert on mechanics by any stretch, but this is my take on the class:
> 
> Fighters use feats to attack more frequently, more accurately, and more painfully.  Duskblades use spells to accomplish the same.  The spells are more potent than the feats, but you don't see fighters running out of high-level feat slots after a couple of encounters.
> 
> I have played a duskblade (well, duskblade/totemist) in a one-shot, and I would not think twice about letting one of my players use the class.



What level did you play the duskblade at? And if you run out of spells in a couple of encounters with the Duskblade, you are being reallly wasteful. Their spellstack is so fat you would have to be activly trying to burn through it. The Tanks will run out of HP before you go dry unless you are playing _"Overkill the Mooks!"_

The Duskblade really is severely limited in spell selection. 

I too feel the 13 level ability might be a scale tipper though. shocking grasp and vampiric touch are the big ones that worry me. While the temp HP of VT may not stack depending on the DM, a 1st level spell dumping 5d6 on each swing feels too damn potent.


----------



## Victim (Jul 29, 2006)

The full round action version of the Arcane Channeling is interesting.  Melee characters, lacking AoE effects, have tremendous incentives to focus all their attacks on one guy so that he dies faster.  That's why Whirlwind Attack normally sucks; sure, you may do more total damage with it, but none of the enemies are dropping so you take many more hits.  But some of the PHB2 feats and abilities seem designed to incentivise spreading attacks around.  The Duskblade can hit with his channeled spell more than once - if he attacks multiple guys.  Two weapon Rend is also once per opponent.  So that ability at least seems balanced since it increases the power of a normally poor tactic.

Like many caster classes, the Duskblade gains a big boost with only 1 or 2 encounters, since they can freely use up spells for 1 shot damaging effects.

Also, the class doesn't add that much damage as it levels.  A 5th level duskblade can add like 5d6 with a channeled spell.  A 10th level duskblade is still probably adding 5d6, he just gets a side benefit and can do it more often.  If the class is overpowered at all, it's probably only at low levels.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 29, 2006)

Concerning Arcane Channelling (full attack), it reads:



			
				PH II said:
			
		

> At 13th level, you can cast any touch spell you know as part of a full attack action, and the spell affects each target you hit in melee combat that round. Doing so discharages the spell at the end of the round, in the case of a touch spell that would normally last longer than 1 round.




To me, the wording of "each target you hit" means that the spell will not affect one person more than once. In other words, in order to get the full effect, you have to hit a different target creature with each iterative attack (or off hand attack). Even if you use _shocking grasp_ and hit the same guy with six attacks that round, _shocking grasp_ will still only affect them once. That's how I told my group I was going to run it.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 30, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Which he can do just 1/day. I think that's an important balancing factor. As wth many classes, the duskblade will be much more effective in a game where there's only a combat or two in a given game day, and much less so in one with multiple encounters.




See, this is where I disagree. Well yes, the duskblade will of course do better with 1 or 2 combats, he's not doing a crappy job the rest of the time. He still has good saves, and a full BAB, so with a nice shiny sword he can still do almost as much damage as a fighter.


----------



## shilsen (Jul 30, 2006)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> See, this is where I disagree. Well yes, the duskblade will of course do better with 1 or 2 combats, he's not doing a crappy job the rest of the time. He still has good saves, and a full BAB, so with a nice shiny sword he can still do almost as much damage as a fighter.



 I never said he can't do nearly as much damage the rest of the time (though a fighter using the PHB2 feats will have a decent lead there, I think). The fighter's big advantage isn't so much in damage-dealing as in versatility, IMO. The duskblade's primary focus is on damage, which is spell dependent. The fighter not only does decent damage (though not pulling out the big hits like the duskblade does with its spell + melee combos) but its feats give it mastery of combat maneuvers, defensive capability, and other options that the more focused duskblade lacks.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jul 30, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> To me, the wording of "each target you hit" means that the spell will not affect one person more than once. In other words, in order to get the full effect, you have to hit a different target creature with each iterative attack (or off hand attack). Even if you use _shocking grasp_ and hit the same guy with six attacks that round, _shocking grasp_ will still only affect them once. That's how I told my group I was going to run it.




This is how I read it too...


----------



## brehobit (Jul 30, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> I never said he can't do nearly as much damage the rest of the time (though a fighter using the PHB2 feats will have a decent lead there, I think). The fighter's big advantage isn't so much in damage-dealing as in versatility, IMO. The duskblade's primary focus is on damage, which is spell dependent. The fighter not only does decent damage (though not pulling out the big hits like the duskblade does with its spell + melee combos) but its feats give it mastery of combat maneuvers, defensive capability, and other options that the more focused duskblade lacks.




Well...

With chill touch, you are basically always going to have +1d6 damage and 1 point str damage (save for the str damage).  At pretty much any point past 3rd level you only really need to cast it once per fight.  And as casting it is often free (maybe losing the option to charge), it is pretty much free damage.  So if you want a slow-and-steady class, you can have it.  Throw in the quicked true strike (icky if you have power attack) and things get ugly once or twice a day in addition.  And frankly, ghoul touch, vampiric touch, and even touch of fatigue are pretty nice.

And as of 13th level, you are going to have a very hard time running out of spells (~28-30 spell slots).  And even the lowly shocking grasp is doing 5d6 to every target.  5d6 is pretty nice...  

I am starting to buy that the class isn't _way_ over the top.  But it has a lot of flexiblity in "blowing the wad" vs. slow and steady.  It does both as well as the classes that specialize in one or the other (fighter vs. wizard).


----------



## frankthedm (Jul 30, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> To me, the wording of "each target you hit" means that the spell will not affect one person more than once. In other words, in order to get the full effect, you have to hit a different target creature with each iterative attack (or off hand attack). Even if you use _shocking grasp_ and hit the same guy with six attacks that round, _shocking grasp_ will still only affect them once. That's how I told my group I was going to run it.



I and another DM in my group agrees with you on this one.


----------



## Nightfall (Jul 30, 2006)

I actually think it's a lot weaker than it's "cousin" the Mageblade and I've yet to hear anyone call that "broken".


----------



## Question (Jul 30, 2006)

A duskblade would need either whirlwind attack or the higher level spring attack feats to actually use full arcane channeling. Otherwise its pretty much a non-functional class ability. And taking either takes a ton of feats.


----------



## MarkB (Jul 30, 2006)

Question said:
			
		

> A duskblade would need either whirlwind attack or the higher level spring attack feats to actually use full arcane channeling. Otherwise its pretty much a non-functional class ability. And taking either takes a ton of feats.



By 13th level, when he gains Full Attack arcane channeling, the Duskblade can make three attacks per round. And there's nothing preventing him from making each of them against a different opponent.

Also, it doesn't work with the higher-level Spring Attack feats, as you're not making a full attack when using Spring Attack.


----------



## Question (Jul 30, 2006)

How is the duskblade going to use each of them against a different opponent unless they give him AoOs?


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jul 30, 2006)

Question said:
			
		

> How is the duskblade going to use each of them against a different opponent unless they give him AoOs?



 Huh?  She just attacks three different opponents.  Did you think a full attack requires attacking the same person with each attack?  Sure, it's usually smarter to do that, but it certainly is not required.


----------



## Question (Jul 30, 2006)

Huh, i thought you HAD to full attack one opponent only?


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jul 30, 2006)

Nope.  Read this, paying attention to the part about not needing to specify the targets of later attacks until waiting to see how the first attacks turn out:



> If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.


----------



## Question (Jul 30, 2006)

/me bangs head against desk.


----------



## Taren Seeker (Jul 30, 2006)

Just to really mess with your head, you can even take a 5ft step in between your attacks. Only 1 per round of course.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 30, 2006)

MarkB said:
			
		

> By 13th level, when he gains Full Attack arcane channeling, the Duskblade can make three attacks per round. And there's nothing preventing him from making each of them against a different opponent.




Hey, with TWF (or ITWF) he can get even more. But, now he's got to be surrounded by enemies (it only works for melee) and spreading his attacks out, which are really subpar strategies, or at the very least his strategies become very niche oriented. That's why I don't consider Arcance Channeling to be too powerful.

Though, I suppose the spiked chain wielding, Combat Reflexes, Improved Trip monkey, with Arcane Channeling might be a tad annoying.


----------



## BadMojo (Jul 30, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Hey, with TWF (or ITWF) he can get even more. But, now he's got to be surrounded by enemies (it only works for melee) and spreading his attacks out, which are really subpar strategies, or at the very least his strategies become very niche oriented. That's why I don't consider Arcance Channeling to be too powerful.




Yeah, being surrounded by enemies with only medium armor and D8 hitdice is pretty risky.  You'd best hope whatever spell you Channel kills at least one of your foes.


----------



## brehobit (Jul 30, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Though, I suppose the spiked chain wielding, Combat Reflexes, Improved Trip monkey, with Arcane Channeling might be a tad annoying.



Oh ick.  I'd read the ability as only working for your attacks during the full round action.  But as written AoO also get the bonus.  Ouchy ouch ouch.

Mark


----------



## MarkB (Jul 30, 2006)

brehobit said:
			
		

> Oh ick.  I'd read the ability as only working for your attacks during the full round action.  But as written AoO also get the bonus.  Ouchy ouch ouch.



It's a little unclear, in fact. It says the spell is discharged at the end of the round, but "end of the round" is practically a null concept under 3.5e's cyclical initiative system. It could be interpreted either as "just before your next initiative", or "at the end of your turn". I'd tend to go for the latter on balance grounds.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 30, 2006)

MarkB said:
			
		

> It's a little unclear, in fact. It says the spell is discharged at the end of the round, but "end of the round" is practically a null concept under 3.5e's cyclical initiative system. It could be interpreted either as "just before your next initiative", or "at the end of your turn". I'd tend to go for the latter on balance grounds.




Technically, I think, the round still exists as an artifact, reseting after the initiative count loops from low to high. This is one of the few places that references it, and while I personally doubt they meant for that, it appears to the best of my knowledge to be what it says, unfortunately.

Personally, I wouldn't run it like that because I don't reference Initiative numbers after setting up the order, and I'm not looking to add back that level of complexity. I'm not sure, however, which of those two methods to use in my games so far.

Anybody know who wrote the Duskblade?


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 30, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> I actually think it's a lot weaker than it's "cousin" the Mageblade and I've yet to hear anyone call that "broken".




Well for one, I think AE classes in general are a little stronger than their 3.5 counterparts. Also, the mageblade has 3 medium saves to a duskblades 2 GOOD saves...and the big difference, the duskblade has a full BAB. A full BAB is a big bonus for any fighter type.


----------



## evilbob (Jul 30, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> To me, the wording of "each target you hit" means that the spell will not affect one person more than once. In other words, in order to get the full effect, you have to hit a different target creature with each iterative attack (or off hand attack). Even if you use _shocking grasp_ and hit the same guy with six attacks that round, _shocking grasp_ will still only affect them once. That's how I told my group I was going to run it.



Several people have chimed in on this, and it's a little bit off the OP's topic, but I wanted to say that I actually disagree with this interpretation.  I cannot think of a precedent in which "each target you hit" specifically implies that a target cannot be the same creature more than once; every time "each target" is used to mean that, it is followed with the phrase "no two of which may be the same."  A full attack strikes any number of targets with any number of attacks (as discussed above) including one target multiple times, so I see no reason why a Duskblade could not target the spell multiple times on one "target."

Hopefully that made sense.  Darn you words that can be either a noun or a verb!


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 30, 2006)

evilbob said:
			
		

> Several people have chimed in on this, and it's a little bit off the OP's topic, but I wanted to say that I actually disagree with this interpretation.  I cannot think of a precedent in which "each target you hit" specifically implies that a target cannot be the same creature more than once; every time "each target" is used to mean that, it is followed with the phrase "no two of which may be the same."  A full attack strikes any number of targets with any number of attacks (as discussed above) including one target multiple times, so I see no reason why a Duskblade could not target the spell multiple times on one "target."
> 
> Hopefully that made sense.  Darn you words that can be either a noun or a verb!




Ah, but it says "... the spell affects each target you hit in melee combat that round." Basically IF you hit them that round THEN they are affected. Not WHEN you hit them they are affected. If it said "... the spell affects each target you hit with a melee attack," I might agree with you. However, becuase of the "each target you hit... this round" thing, I'm more inclined to say that it means litterally, the spell affects each target you hit in the round.


----------



## evilbob (Jul 30, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Ah, but it says "... the spell affects each target you hit in melee combat that round." Basically IF you hit them that round THEN they are affected. Not WHEN you hit them they are affected. If it said "... the spell affects each target you hit with a melee attack," I might agree with you. However, becuase of the "each target you hit... this round" thing, I'm more inclined to say that it means litterally, the spell affects each target you hit in the round.



Ah, that's a good point, and I see what you're saying.  I still don't interpret it that way, however, because it is unlike most other "attack" precedents, in which an effect is resolved at the end of the individual attack action and not at the end of the attack sequence / round, which is what I believe you are saying.  Your way might imply that you couldn't even apply your shocking grasp damage until you made sure you were finished making any AoOs that round as well, since you must wait until all hits are resolved for the entire round to see who is affected, and I do believe that AoOs are included in "each target you hit in melee combat that round."  (In fact, you could conceivably run into the situation of being hit later in the round by the enemy you were trying to shock who would not have actually been up because you were waiting to apply the shocking grasp damage until all possible attacks by you were resolved.)

Edit:  Oh, and to the OP:  yes, I agree that having something on the order of 11 shocking grasps at level 13 that can be delivered potentially three (or more with AoOs) times to a single target is extremely powerful.  However, so are level 7 spells like _finger of death_ and _mass hold person_, which a full wizard could (theoretically) do at the same level.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 30, 2006)

evilbob said:
			
		

> Your way might imply that you couldn't even apply your shocking grasp damage until you made sure you were finished making any AoOs that round as well, since you must wait until all hits are resolved for the entire round to see who is affected, and I do believe that AoOs are included in "each target you hit in melee combat that round."




I was hoping it wouldn't come up because it really does sound wonky.  That is a possible implication of my reading, unfortunately. But, I blame the author, not myself!


----------



## MarkB (Jul 30, 2006)

evilbob said:
			
		

> Ah, that's a good point, and I see what you're saying.  I still don't interpret it that way, however, because it is unlike most other "attack" precedents, in which an effect is resolved at the end of the individual attack action and not at the end of the attack sequence / round, which is what I believe you are saying.  Your way might imply that you couldn't even apply your shocking grasp damage until you made sure you were finished making any AoOs that round as well, since you must wait until all hits are resolved for the entire round to see who is affected, and I do believe that AoOs are included in "each target you hit in melee combat that round."  (In fact, you could conceivably run into the situation of being hit later in the round by the enemy you were trying to shock who would not have actually been up because you were waiting to apply the shocking grasp damage until all possible attacks by you were resolved.)



Why would you need to wait until the end of the round to resolve the effect? Since it has the same effect upon any individual target no matter how many it affects, it can affect each target immediately whilst still only affecting each target only once.


----------



## evilbob (Jul 30, 2006)

MarkB said:
			
		

> ...Since it has the same effect upon any individual target no matter how many it affects, it can affect each target immediately whilst still only affecting each target only once.



While certainly possible, I'm not sure how one would get to this interpretation.  If the spell affects each target you hit in a round, and it affects the target immediately upon a hit, why would the spell not affect the same target more than once?  I guess my point is just that it seems to me as though "affecting the same target more than once" would be implied in that line of reasoning, since it seems more similar to other precedents, while "not affecting the same target more than once" doesn't seem to really follow without being expressly described.


----------



## Mort (Jul 31, 2006)

evilbob said:
			
		

> Ah, that's a good point, and I see what you're saying.  I still don't interpret it that way, however, because it is unlike most other "attack" precedents, in which an effect is resolved at the end of the individual attack action and not at the end of the attack sequence / round, which is what I believe you are saying.  Your way might imply that you couldn't even apply your shocking grasp damage until you made sure you were finished making any AoOs that round as well, since you must wait until all hits are resolved for the entire round to see who is affected, and I do believe that AoOs are included in "each target you hit in melee combat that round."  (In fact, you could conceivably run into the situation of being hit later in the round by the enemy you were trying to shock who would not have actually been up because you were waiting to apply the shocking grasp damage until all possible attacks by you were resolved.)
> 
> Edit:  Oh, and to the OP:  yes, I agree that having something on the order of 11 shocking grasps at level 13 that can be delivered potentially three (or more with AoOs) times to a single target is extremely powerful.  However, so are level 7 spells like _finger of death_ and _mass hold person_, which a full wizard could (theoretically) do at the same level.




I interpret the ability to allow the duskblade to affect each target with the spell once.  Any time you start using the phrase “well, it could be interpreted” and add in the fact that that interpretation sounds way over the top, it is almost always best to use the less problematic interpretation.


I think the duskblade is an interesting class and certainly not overpowered:

1)	It’s extremely multi attribute dependant: good strength needed obviously, good dex needed especially at first because no heavy armor, good con needed – in melee a lot with d8 hit die, good Int needed because otherwise being able to cast spells means nothing,  and also for saves on those spells.  The bard, for example, is not nearly so dependant because almost all abilities as well as spell casting sync with Cha. The duskblade id on the same level as the monk for multi attribute dependency.

2)	 The class is extremely feat starved. By 10th level, the class gets 5 feats (counting combat casting) to define an arcane and combat focus. The fighter gets 9, the wizard gets 7, a standard gish (ftr1/wiz6/ek3) gets 8.

3)	The class knows very few spells: 11 spells (3rd level max and discounting 0 level) by 10th level – bards know 14 (4th level max), sorcerers know 15 (5th level max). A wizard gish is of course not limited in spells known, though the minimum spells known at 10th is 17 (4th level max). A sorcerer gish knows 11 (4th level max).

4)	The class spells are mostly of the 1 shot variety, meaning the spells will burn away very fast. Also many of the  “big” fighter buffs and “big” wizard spells are missing, no: enlarge, magic missile, orb spells, mirror image, wraithstrike, haste – any many others I’m sure I missed.

5)	The class resists multi-classing because the abilities are so spread out (actually I think this is a good thing and should be more the norm for core classes).

These are of course the negatives, which make it balanced, I still think it would be a good class to play.


----------



## Victim (Jul 31, 2006)

evilbob said:
			
		

> While certainly possible, I'm not sure how one would get to this interpretation.  If the spell affects each target you hit in a round, and it affects the target immediately upon a hit, why would the spell not affect the same target more than once?  I guess my point is just that it seems to me as though "affecting the same target more than once" would be implied in that line of reasoning, since it seems more similar to other precedents, while "not affecting the same target more than once" doesn't seem to really follow without being expressly described.




Because it's restricted by target.  The spell has an effect on each target, not on each successul attack.  Otherwise, it would say each hit or each successful attack without mentioning targets in the first place.


----------



## Nightfall (Jul 31, 2006)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Well for one, I think AE classes in general are a little stronger than their 3.5 counterparts. Also, the mageblade has 3 medium saves to a duskblades 2 GOOD saves...and the big difference, the duskblade has a full BAB. A full BAB is a big bonus for any fighter type.




I'm glad you said in general since there are some that are much weaker than 3.5 counterparts.  I'll grant you the BAB and saves, but compartively speaking, I don't see why they couldn't have given duskblade a full compliment of spells (IE 0-9 level). It would make him even more useful. I have no problem with a limited selection, just a wider range would be nice.


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 1, 2006)

BadMojo said:
			
		

> Yeah, being surrounded by enemies with only medium armor and D8 hitdice is pretty risky.



The class assumes access to Mithral Full Plate.  







So the highest dex one _needs _ is 16. Not that high at higher levels.


----------



## evilbob (Aug 1, 2006)

Actually, the class assumes "Battle Caster" from the Complete Arcane - 1 feat at level 1 means you're in medium armor till 4, then heavy after that.    Dex is really not required (although 12 would be nice) for this class.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 1, 2006)

A twelve would help with those pesky reflex saves...


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 1, 2006)

evilbob said:
			
		

> Actually, the class assumes "Battle Caster" from the Complete Arcane - 1 feat at level 1 means you're in medium armor till 4, then heavy after that.    Dex is really not required (although 12 would be nice) for this class.



Are you _positive_ you are reading them correctly?


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 1, 2006)

Uhm actually I'm not sure he is Frank. See when I played a duskblade a while back, I took that as my 2nd character feat (I was human so I had two other feats), and that allowed me to cast in heavy armor. Or was it 6th level...anyway point is I'm sure it doesn't grant you the ability to continually upgrade.


----------



## Question (Aug 1, 2006)

I dont think most DMs would have an issue with it "upgrading" as you go along. Its not exactly broken or anything.


----------



## shilsen (Aug 1, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Uhm actually I'm not sure he is Frank. See when I played a duskblade a while back, I took that as my 2nd character feat (I was human so I had two other feats), and that allowed me to cast in heavy armor. Or was it 6th level...anyway point is I'm sure it doesn't grant you the ability to continually upgrade.



 It does read, to me, like it upgrades if the class ability does. The benefit section of the feat says: "You are able to wear armor one category heavier than you can normally wear while still avoiding the chance of arcane spell failure." 

Since what you can normally wear for this purpose upgrades when you hit 4th lvl in the class, I think the feat's benefit would have to similarly upgrade.


----------



## wayne62682 (Aug 1, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> It does read, to me, like it upgrades if the class ability does. The benefit section of the feat says: "You are able to wear armor one category heavier than you can normally wear while still avoiding the chance of arcane spell failure."
> 
> Since what you can normally wear for this purpose upgrades when you hit 4th lvl in the class, I think the feat's benefit would have to similarly upgrade.



 That would be my interpretation, as well, although when I played a Duskblade I had better things to spend feats on than that (just get Mithral Full Plate.. it counts as Medium)


----------



## Rkhet (Aug 1, 2006)

kinda OT, but that picture looks more Drow Adamite than Mithral to me.


----------



## brehobit (Aug 1, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Uhm actually I'm not sure he is Frank. See when I played a duskblade a while back, I took that as my 2nd character feat (I was human so I had two other feats), and that allowed me to cast in heavy armor. Or was it 6th level...anyway point is I'm sure it doesn't grant you the ability to continually upgrade.




Why not?
"You are able to wear one category heavier than you can normally wear while still avoiding the chance of arcane spell failure.  For example, if you have the ability to normally wear light armor without incurring a chance of spell failure, you can wear medium armor and contimue to cast spells as normal. ...."

Looks like it will upgrade with you...  Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean?


----------



## Question (Aug 1, 2006)

You save quite a bit of cash by not taking mithral full plate though and just using regular plate. Especially if you only have 12 dex.


----------



## jcfiala (Aug 1, 2006)

Question said:
			
		

> You save quite a bit of cash by not taking mithral full plate though and just using regular plate. Especially if you only have 12 dex.




Mithral may be expensive, but feats can be even more expensive than that.


----------



## erc1971 (Aug 1, 2006)

Battle Caster upgrades - it is plainly obvious.  It allows you to wear 1 category higher than you normally could.  You don't lose the feat if your category goes from light to medium.

And 13th level arcane channeling.  You can't channel the spell through the same target more than once?!  If you played that way, the Duskblade would become the Castratedblade.  I am playing one now in a campaign where we are 11th level (well, we hit 12th at the end of the last session, but have not played at that level).  My duskblade is by far the weakest PC.  Our Paladin does Rhino Charge, Charging Smite charges for around 100 damage, our wizard pastes everything with maximized, empowered orbs of force (Metamagic Rods and the sudden feats are just wrong), our cleric uses Divine Metamagic to quicken Divine Power and Righteous Might the beginning of combat and tears through everything.  I channel a single spell and hit the guy just enough to beat DR and then do a whimpy 5d6.  The other classes have 2 more levels to gain in power before I see my full attack channeling - it is going to be needed just to keep up.  Realistically, that is only 2 hits a round, that last attack has such a low bonus, it only hits on 19 or 20 anyways (we are in Shackled City, most the stuff we fight has a CR of +3 or 4, so the AC's are jacked).

Can the Duskblade be overpowered?  Hell yeah.  Try critting on a leap attack with a full power attack with a scythe after using a swift True Strike to ensure you hit.  The combo of a melee class being able to cast True Strike is the nasty part.  Though, our group banned Leap Attack (100% agreement on this too!), ugh, I can imagine the Paladin doing another 40 damage a hit with that feat!


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 1, 2006)

Well I guess I just read it different than some but there you are. 

Still don't think Duskblade is that badass compared to Mageblade.


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 1, 2006)

erc1971 said:
			
		

> I am playing one now in a campaign where we are 11th level (well, we hit 12th at the end of the last session, but have not played at that level).  My duskblade is by far the weakest PC.  Our Paladin does Rhino Charge, Charging Smite charges for around 100 damage, our wizard pastes everything with maximized, empowered orbs of force (Metamagic Rods and the sudden feats are just wrong), our cleric uses Divine Metamagic to quicken Divine Power and Righteous Might the beginning of combat and tears through everything.  I channel a single spell and hit the guy just enough to beat DR and then do a whimpy 5d6.  The other classes have 2 more levels to gain in power before I see my full attack channeling - it is going to be needed just to keep up.



Broken splat material on other core classes does not mean your class is balanced.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 1, 2006)

Or that it is unbalanced either.


----------



## Malum (Aug 2, 2006)

Duskblade, Bladesinger, Arcane Archer or Spellsword are any broken or underpowered in your opinion?


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 2, 2006)

Just duskblade since I think it wouldn't kill them to grant 0-9th level spellcasting.


----------



## Audaxanarchy (Aug 2, 2006)

Has anyone looked at the Duskblade enlightened fist combo? The enlightened fist gets an ability called hold ray that allows the pc to cast ranged touch as melee touch. Our group is debating if that works with the Duskblade.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 2, 2006)

Uhm it might work...but no idea.


----------



## Deset Gled (Aug 2, 2006)

The main problem that I have with the Duskblade is that it is much too good of a class to make a one level dip into.  The first level or two need to be better spread out across the class.

Also, I don't like the abilities the get to cast spells as a swift action, but that's more of a personal prejudice against the abundance of swift and immediate action spells that have been added to D+D lately.


----------



## brehobit (Aug 2, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> The main problem that I have with the Duskblade is that it is much too good of a class to make a one level dip into.  The first level or two need to be better spread out across the class.
> 
> Also, I don't like the abilities the get to cast spells as a swift action, but that's more of a personal prejudice against the abundance of swift and immediate action spells that have been added to D+D lately.



It is nice, but really you'd want 3 levels to get the touch-attack thing.  Just one level doesn't get you too much (although it isn't bad with the full BAB).  Cleric w/luck and war is still probably the best 1 level dip.  You lose the BAB, but free feat and reroll 1/day (plus a bit of healing) is nice.

Mark


----------



## wayne62682 (Aug 2, 2006)

brehobit said:
			
		

> It is nice, but really you'd want 3 levels to get the touch-attack thing.  Just one level doesn't get you too much (although it isn't bad with the full BAB).  Cleric w/luck and war is still probably the best 1 level dip.  You lose the BAB, but free feat and reroll 1/day (plus a bit of healing) is nice.
> 
> Mark



 I don't know.. being able to get True Strike is pretty nice for any Fighter build.. being able to keep your BAB high and getting two good saves along with it is even better (and remember, True Strike has no Somatic component so isn't affected by ASF at all).  Personally I just love the class so much I would keep it all the way to level 20.


----------



## BadMojo (Aug 2, 2006)

Malum said:
			
		

> Duskblade, Bladesinger, Arcane Archer or Spellsword are any broken or underpowered in your opinion?




The latest versions of Bladesinger and Arcane Archer are both, IMO, firmly on the side of underpowered.  I actually like the Duskblade as far as flavor and balance.

Twenty levels of Duskblade can emulate both the lightly armored Bladesinger character and a spellcasting "tank" like the Spellsword (with the good old Battlecaster feat mentioned below).


----------



## Vysirez (Aug 4, 2006)

Part of the problem I have found with a lot of discussions like this is that most people compare the duskblade to the fighter. Which is one of the weakest core classes in my opinion. So stating that a duskblade is more powerful then a fighter =! that it's overpowered. If you honestly feel that a duskblade is stronger then a cleric or druid then I can see your POV on overpowered a bit easier.

In my opinion the best "class" to compare a duskblade to is a gish build. Yes, a Gish uses PRCS, but if your talking about a base class from PHB2, I don't see a problem with a build using EK or Spellsword. So, comparing a Duskblade to a fighter/wiz/EK or fighter/wiz/SS/EK is a more useful comparison IMO.

Taking that in mind, and admiting that I havent played one or seen one played in a game, I think a duskblade will be good at the low levels(1-6 or so), start to drop in power up to 13, then the arcane channeling will bump him back up to par, then he will start to fall behind again. In my opinion a lvl 20 duskblade is significantly weaker then even a basic EK gish. Both because of lack of access to higher level spells, and a lack of the really good buffs.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 24, 2006)

Vysirez said:
			
		

> Part of the problem I have found with a lot of discussions like this is that most people compare the duskblade to the fighter. Which is one of the weakest core classes in my opinion. So stating that a duskblade is more powerful then a fighter =! that it's overpowered. If you honestly feel that a duskblade is stronger then a cleric or druid then I can see your POV on overpowered a bit easier.
> 
> In my opinion the best "class" to compare a duskblade to is a gish build. Yes, a Gish uses PRCS, but if your talking about a base class from PHB2, I don't see a problem with a build using EK or Spellsword. So, comparing a Duskblade to a fighter/wiz/EK or fighter/wiz/SS/EK is a more useful comparison IMO.
> 
> Taking that in mind, and admiting that I havent played one or seen one played in a game, I think a duskblade will be good at the low levels(1-6 or so), start to drop in power up to 13, then the arcane channeling will bump him back up to par, then he will start to fall behind again. In my opinion a lvl 20 duskblade is significantly weaker then even a basic EK gish. Both because of lack of access to higher level spells, and a lack of the really good buffs.




Let's not forget that the Duskblade gets Polar Ray and Disintegrate as part of their 5th level spells.

They have sufficiant spells feats to do the Job.  They are comparable but not superior to other classes.  I'm currently playing a 4th level Duskblade and plan to run it up to 20th in the shackled City campaign we are playing.  It does seem powerful but when I have run out of spells, It's no better than a lighter armored fighter.  Of course I'm using combat expertise to avoid being hit.  Survivability is what I'm working on.


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 24, 2006)

I'll repost my post from the thread with the same topic in the General forum:

I just recently had the opportunity to play a Dusklade as my new character. I came in at 9th level. He was [/i]definitely_ fun to play, a grey elven Duskblade in mithral fullplate with a mithral heavy shield (and using the feat Somatic Weaponry to cast spells while my hands were full,) but he was far from too powerful. The straight classed Fighter flat-out outclassed me in damage output. The spells helped make up for that somewhat, but I was in no way no more effective than he was.

But dang, he was fun to play.

(Incidentally, this was my first time to play D&D in over almost 2 years. Boy it's great to have a game again!)_


----------



## Votan (Dec 24, 2006)

Vysirez said:
			
		

> Part of the problem I have found with a lot of discussions like this is that most people compare the duskblade to the fighter. Which is one of the weakest core classes in my opinion. So stating that a duskblade is more powerful then a fighter =! that it's overpowered. If you honestly feel that a duskblade is stronger then a cleric or druid then I can see your POV on overpowered a bit easier.




Yes.  It is one of the annoying things in modern debates that people compare classes in terms of power to things with the same role.   There are a million threads pointing out how easily a cleric can take over the fighter's role.  If the Duskblade is better than the Cleric that is one thing but that 13th level ability that people are so wprried about has 2 implicaitons:

1) You took 13 levels in Duskblade without taking a prestige class or 3.  Very few melee characters in modern D&D make it to 13th level with prestige classing.  Heck, the cleric I talk about above could easily have slipped into something nasty like Contemplative by then . . .  

2) The real limiting thing in D&D is actions.  Sure, the Duskblade can kill a lot of things with this ability if they are weak and he has managed to acquire whirlwind attack somehow.  Please compare to other focused builds and realize just how weak that really is.  At 13th level the Cleric is casting Destruction and the Wizard has access to things like Finger of Death, Reverse Gravitry, Mass Hold Person (and, as second level back-ups, has Disintegrate, Chain Lightening and Flesh to Stone).  

Under this view, the Duskblade is not even remotely overpowered compared to other high level options available to players.


----------



## pallandrome (Dec 26, 2006)

brehobit said:
			
		

> Come 5th level he's just getting 2nd level spells.  But he can quicken 1 spell/day for free.  So at 5th level he can "blow his wad" and attack, cast ghoul touch and true strike and power attack (if he has the feat.)  This single attack provides +15 to attack, +10 damage (if using a 2-handed weapon) and a Fort save or be paralized.  (if you wish to claim that the spells can't be cast without  1 hand free (debated if you can release and grasp the weapon as a free action) then just true stike works pretty well).




Please note that the paralyzation effect of Ghoul Touch does not allow a fort save. The fort save only prevents other baddies around the humanoid from being nausiated by the 10ft radius secondary effect.

EDIT: Unless I'm wrong, but I do not think that I am.


----------



## szilard (Dec 26, 2006)

brehobit said:
			
		

> Heck, it is a better caster, IMO, than the bard...




Bards have a much wider range of spells available to them.

-Stuart


----------



## brehobit (Dec 26, 2006)

pallandrome said:
			
		

> Please note that the paralyzation effect of Ghoul Touch does not allow a fort save. The fort save only prevents other baddies around the humanoid from being nausiated by the 10ft radius secondary effect.
> 
> EDIT: Unless I'm wrong, but I do not think that I am.



http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/ghoulTouch.htm

I see how you get that.  However, I'm 99% sure that because the spell reads "Saving Throw:  	Fortitude negates" it means that the main effect is negated by a fortitude save.

Mark


----------



## brehobit (Dec 26, 2006)

szilard said:
			
		

> Bards have a much wider range of spells available to them.
> 
> -Stuart



Yep.  But a duskblade is a very powerful caster....

Mark


----------



## pallandrome (Dec 26, 2006)

Most of the spells are balanced around either requiring a to-hit roll, or allowing a save. Given the limited use of the spell (humanoids only, touch attack required) I would be amazed if it ALSO allowed a save for the primary effect. Since the secondary effect requires no touch attack, it allows a save. As I said, I could be wrong, but I could not find a single touch attack spell that allows a save, nor a single spell that allows a save, which also requires a touch attack.


----------



## Arkhandus (Dec 27, 2006)

The saving throw entry would say "Fortitude partial" or "Fortitude negates (see text)" if it meant that only the stench was negated by a save.  Instead it says just "Fortitude negates" in the Saving Throw line, therefore the entire spell is negated if the target succeeds on a Fortitude save.  If they fail that, then it takes effect on them, and nearby creatures are then allowed a Fortitude save to avoid nausea from the stench, as noted in the description.

There is no clause in the description stating that the stench occurs regardless of whether or not the target is stricken or makes their own saving throw, therefore the stench is negated too if the target makes the Fort save.

Note that Hold Person is 3rd-level for sorcerers and wizards, whereas Ghoul Touch is 2nd-level, yet Ghoul Touch has the greater effect normally; thus why it requires both a touch attack and a saving throw, and then allows other victims nearby a saving throw of their own against the secondary effect.  And before 3.5, Hold Person was more likely than Ghoul Touch to succeed fully (since it only allowed one save then, and had pretty good range; of course 3.5 neutered Hold Person to be hardly worthwhile).

Now Ghoul Touch is clearly superior, but the fact that it has more than one way to fail is its balancing factor, just as Disintegrate allows a Fortitude save even though it also needs a ranged touch attack.


----------



## Quolyte (Dec 27, 2006)

brehobit said:
			
		

> With chill touch, you are basically always going to have +1d6 damage and 1 point str damage (save for the str damage). At pretty much any point past 3rd level you only really need to cast it once per fight. And as casting it is often free (maybe losing the option to charge), it is pretty much free damage. So if you want a slow-and-steady class, you can have it. Throw in the quicked true strike (icky if you have power attack) and things get ugly once or twice a day in addition. And frankly, ghoul touch, vampiric touch, and even touch of fatigue are pretty nice.




Just want to point something out here.  The above example is wrong because when you use arcane channelling the effect only lasts one round, so you wouldn't be able to attack with chill touch more than once.


----------



## Belbarid (Jan 13, 2007)

brehobit said:
			
		

> But looking at the duskblade, I just don't see how this thing can be balanced with the other full-BAB classes. Heck, it is a better caster, IMO, than the bard...




And I know that this post is old news, but I just got done making a Duskblade for a new campaign



			
				brehobit said:
			
		

> For the first few levels it isn't that bad.  It has a crazy number of 0-level spells compared to any other caster (8/day for an INT of 14 at first level).  But the 1st level spell list isn't too bad (well color spray is a nice spell) and the d8 for hitpoints and light armor keep it from being too crazy in hand-to-hand.




8/day?  The PHBII that I'm looking at says 3/day.  How is an Int of 14 giving an extra 5 spells?

And for that matter, where is Color Spray coming from?  It's not on the Dusblade spell list on page 98 of the PHBII.



			
				brehobit said:
			
		

> But by 3rd level the duskblade has gotten a bonus feat (combat casting) and can now cast a touch spell and attack as a standard action.  At this point, with chill touch on his spell list, the caster is doing an extra d6 on every attack and possibly 1 point of STR damage (Fort save negates the save).  I mean he can cast it 5 times/day at it lasts for 3 hits and he can cast it as part of an attack.  Really huge for that level.




Again, where are you looking?  I don't see Chill Touch on the list, either.



			
				brehobit said:
			
		

> How is this class NOT broken?  It has poor skills (both selection and points) and a d8 for hit points.  Other than that it seems pretty darn useful in a fight.




True Strike and Ghoul Touch also mentioned, which I also don't see on the Duskblade's spell list.

What are you looking at that I'm not?


----------



## FalcWP (Jan 14, 2007)

Belbarid said:
			
		

> 8/day?  The PHBII that I'm looking at says 3/day.  How is an Int of 14 giving an extra 5 spells?
> 
> And for that matter, where is Color Spray coming from?  It's not on the Dusblade spell list on page 98 of the PHBII.
> 
> ...




The extra cantrips are from Arcane Attunement, which gives them a handful of cantrips as spell-like abilities a number of times per day equal to 3 + Int Modifier.

As for Color Spray, Chill Touch, True Strike, and Ghoul Touch, they (as well as the actual Duskblade spell list) are all on page 24 of the PHB II under "Duskblade Spell List".  Page 98 is just new spells from the PHB II that are on their list.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Jan 14, 2007)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> That would be my interpretation, as well, although when I played a Duskblade I had better things to spend feats on than that (just get Mithral Full Plate.. it counts as Medium)




It reads that way to me.  My current Duskblade is saving up for mithril fullplate.


----------



## Belbarid (Jan 14, 2007)

FalcWP said:
			
		

> The extra cantrips are from Arcane Attunement, which gives them a handful of cantrips as spell-like abilities a number of times per day equal to 3 + Int Modifier.
> 
> As for Color Spray, Chill Touch, True Strike, and Ghoul Touch, they (as well as the actual Duskblade spell list) are all on page 24 of the PHB II under "Duskblade Spell List".  Page 98 is just new spells from the PHB II that are on their list.




Huh.  Hey- look at that.  Guess it helps to read *all* the words on the pages.    

Thanks


----------



## wildstarsreach (Jan 14, 2007)

Is the Duskblade too powerful?  No.  It is a strong class.  It can seem overwhelming in a one or two encounter a day situation.  When you stretch out over 3-5 encounters, he comes out only slightly ahead.  He is equitable to a fighter.  This is an excellent fighter/mage.  It is in overall balance moderately weaker than a fighter/wizard/Eldrich Knight build.  The difference in the base attack is balanced if the eldrich knight has taken arcane strike.  He will do more damage than a duskblade as well all else being equal.  The duskblade has greater HP and more than likely a better AC but having the ability to cast up to 9th level spells shows that this is the weaker but sold base class.

I love the class.  The real limitation is their spell list.  If they didn't have such a restrictive list, their ability to arcane channel would be grotesque.  Whereas I would love to see them have a spell such as wraithstrike, their class list is well balance to what they do.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Jan 14, 2007)

I've made the same mistake about the Duskblade spell list.  It is on page 24 of the PHB II.


----------



## blargney the second (Jan 14, 2007)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> It can seem overwhelming in a one or two encounter a day situation.  When you stretch out over 3-5 encounters, he comes out only slightly ahead.



I wonder what they're like in parties with classes that have at-will, per-encounter, or always-on staying power. (ie warlocks, Bo9S, dragon shamans, etc)


----------



## wildstarsreach (Jan 14, 2007)

brehobit said:
			
		

> http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/ghoulTouch.htm
> 
> I see how you get that.  However, I'm 99% sure that because the spell reads "Saving Throw:  	Fortitude negates" it means that the main effect is negated by a fortitude save.
> 
> Mark




He's right above.

Now with regards to spell casting and arcane channeling.

People have stated that chill touch and ghoul touch are a problem.

Procedure.  Arcane channeling allows you to transfer the spell you cast in combat and tranfer thru the sword/weapon that round.  Chill touch which has a multiple round duration does not.  It only lasts for that round.  If you cast it normally, you have to personally touch the target, not through your sword.  Ghoul touch only works on one opponent.

Blade of blood enhances you blade until discharged for several rounds.  If you use shocking grasp as you normally would and not arcane channeling and are using a sword, it was reasonable to be able to discharge this through said weapon.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Jan 14, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> I wonder what they're like in parties with classes that have at-will, per-encounter, or always-on staying power. (ie warlocks, Bo9S, dragon shamans, etc)




I don't know since I haven't had that opportunity.  But they could take reserve feats to stretch out their spell power though I think that as a blaster, they are moving away from what I perceive as their forte.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 14, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> I wonder what they're like in parties with classes that have at-will, per-encounter, or always-on staying power. (ie warlocks, Bo9S, dragon shamans, etc)



I predict, unless he paces himself, the duskblade becomes a lazy sacks of &*%$ who always want to waste time and sleep.


----------



## Mort (Jan 14, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> I wonder what they're like in parties with classes that have at-will, per-encounter, or always-on staying power. (ie warlocks, Bo9S, dragon shamans, etc)




I'v started the Red Hand of Doom adventure: The 4 PC's are a warblade, swordsage, crusader and a duskblade. So far the duskblade is doing just fine both in terms of pacing and in terms of power level. The duskblade does have to pace herself better, but has plenty of spells per day to keep up (at least so far).


----------



## Belbarid (Jan 15, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> I predict, unless he paces himself, the duskblade becomes a lazy sacks of &*%$ who always want to waste time and sleep.




So, at least for me, a case of Art imitating Life.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Jan 18, 2007)

Is the duskblade too powerful?  I say no.  The reasons are numerous as has been pointed out on this list.  It is an effective class through high level.  From 15th on it does lose an edge to either a fighter or wizard but is by no means outclassed by them.

One of the misconceptions that I have seen is about the arcane channeling.  The spell that is arcane channeled, lasts for only one round.  If you cast chill touch normally, it does not work through your sword as an arcane channel would.  The only exception would be shocking grasp as a sword is metal and metal is an electrical conductor.  The arcane channeling only works with touch spells, not ranged touch spells but just touch spells.  You can't use your polar ray channeled through your sword or your disintegrate spell.


----------



## hong (Jan 18, 2007)

Am I missing something, or do duskblades ONLY get the spells that are listed in the PHB2? Ie, no old reliables like haste, magic missile, fly, etc?


----------



## shilsen (Jan 18, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Am I missing something, or do duskblades ONLY get the spells that are listed in the PHB2? Ie, no old reliables like haste, magic missile, fly, etc?



 You're corect. And they don't get all the spells in the PHB2, but only the ones on the duskblade spell list (pg.24), and specifically those they choose to learn (they get 1 new spell known per level).


----------



## hong (Jan 18, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> You're corect. And they don't get all the spells in the PHB2, but only the ones on the duskblade spell list (pg.24), and specifically those they choose to learn (they get 1 new spell known per level).



 Mang, that's just cracked.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Jan 18, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Mang, that's just cracked.




Maybe but its the balance the class.  If you had access to more spells without some specific provisions, the class would then be problematic.


----------



## hong (Jan 18, 2007)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> Maybe but its the balance the class.  If you had access to more spells without some specific provisions, the class would then be problematic.



 Personally I'd drop the BAB to cleric and give them more spells to choose from (including buffs).


----------



## jasin (Jan 18, 2007)

Simpsons Unearthed Arcana did it!

Really, the duskblade isn't your typical D&D fighter/wizard. It's much closer to an arcane paladin than an arcane cleric in that it isn't a warrior/spellcaster, but a supernatural warrior.

If you want to be beating up people with a greatsword, but be all crackling with arcane power as you do it, duskblade is great. If you want to be beating people up with a greatsword one moment, but making people fly or scrying on enemies the other, a battle sorcerer is a much better choice.

Of course, the battle sorcerer could do with some interesting (perhaps duskblade-like) specials... But then, so could the sorcerer.


----------



## hong (Jan 18, 2007)

Speaking of battlemage builds, the eldritch knight in the current game must be the only EK build in the world without Arcane Strike (the guy specialises in ranged attacks and has a bow).


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 18, 2007)

Hong,

I feel sorry for you.


*still believes in the power that is Mageblade*


----------

