# What do you think of the Duskblade?



## DM-Rocco (Apr 2, 2007)

What do you think of the Duskblades?

I have some mixed feelings about them.  The basic idea of the class is great, but the channeling magic through a melee weapon seems to be limited.  I looked up the "touch" spells in the spell list and I think it was something like 3 or 4 touch spells.  That seems a bit limiting as a class feature.  Sure you could take the learn spell feat and get cause critical wounds, but just going off of the spell list, it seems weak.

Unless you allow "ranged" touch spells too.  Then they are mean, nothing worse than a full Whirlwind attack of Disintegrate per hit     

Although, there is a difference between ranged touch attack and touch attack, so I would say that doesn't work.


----------



## Rhun (Apr 2, 2007)

I've never played on, but I did have a short-time player that played one. Seemed like a pretty nice class. His PC was more of the warrior type, and he used arcane channeling pretty effectively.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Apr 2, 2007)

Too many spells per day.

I don't like this class. Or any of the others in the same book. :\


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 2, 2007)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Too many spells per day.
> 
> I don't like this class. Or any of the others in the same book. :\



I never thought it had too many spells.  They can only get up to 5th level spells, at a worse progression than a Sorcerer (off the top of my head I don't think you even get 2nd level spells until 6th level) and you have a limited spell list.  If you ask me, the War Mage has a more useful spell list and a better progression.  They only suck cause you still don't get a decent BAB.

I just thought that the class feature to channel touch spells was too limited IMO


----------



## Drowbane (Apr 2, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> I never thought it had too many spells.  They can only get up to 5th level spells, at a worse progression than a Sorcerer (off the top of my head I don't think you even get 2nd level spells until 6th level) and you have a limited spell list.  If you ask me, the War Mage has a more useful spell list and a better progression.  They only suck cause you still don't get a decent BAB.
> 
> I just thought that the class feature to channel touch spells was too limited IMO




why would a Warmage need a good BA?


----------



## BlackMoria (Apr 2, 2007)

Definately, do not make ranged spells so they can be channelled through the blade as it would make the Duskblade too powerful.

If the lack of a variety of touch spells is perceived to be a issue, then touch spells could be added to the spell list, assuming the DM will allow it.

I have played a Duskblade and I don't have problem with the spell list.  Once the Duskblade reaches the level to cast Vampric Touch, that usually become the preferred spell to channel.   What's not to like - 1d6 damage / 2 levels and gain hit points equal to the spell damage.  In one protracted combat, my Duskblade beatdown his enemies and more than tripled his hit points in the bargain with that spell choice.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 2, 2007)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> why would a Warmage need a good BA?



For no reason other than the fact that the title of the class infers you will be in close quarter battle.  Yes, I know it more refers to the types of spells you cast versus you wielding a sword.  However, when I first read the class, it was what I thought the Duskblade might have been.  That is to say, a wizard who fights with steel and can blast with spells.

It would only stand to reason that if you could cast spells while in armor that you may also have a bit better BAB.  Maybe the cleric progression if not the full BAB.

After all, the first line in the text describing them is thus:
Some spell casters care for only one thing: war.

War or battles as part of a war, don't just get resolved in 4 rounds.  It is quite possable that a war mage, even one of high level, would run out of spells long before the battle is over.  I would think it more than reasonable that they would have at least a clerics BAB and some martial profiencies as back up.  Specially with the limited spell casting list.

But that is just me.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 2, 2007)

BlackMoria said:
			
		

> Definately, do not make ranged spells so they can be channelled through the blade as it would make the Duskblade too powerful.
> 
> If the lack of a variety of touch spells is perceived to be a issue, then touch spells could be added to the spell list, assuming the DM will allow it.
> 
> I have played a Duskblade and I don't have problem with the spell list.  Once the Duskblade reaches the level to cast Vampric Touch, that usually become the preferred spell to channel.   What's not to like - 1d6 damage / 2 levels and gain hit points equal to the spell damage.  In one protracted combat, my Duskblade beatdown his enemies and more than tripled his hit points in the bargain with that spell choice.



Don't get me wrong, I think that Vampric touch rocks; and vampric touch focused through your spiked chain while doing a whirlwind is just nuts.  It just seems like they could have added in one or two more touch attack spells to the list.  If someone wanted to play one in my game, I think I would allow them the chance to alter the list to include a few other touch attack spells and then remove at least one spell from the current list in its place.

I am actually going to be playing one in a friends game, but he won't alter it.

Anyway, I just wanted to hear from others on their experience from playing them or having DMed them.  All pros and cons welcome.


----------



## Greg K (Apr 2, 2007)

I don't like it and don't use it in my campaigns. I prefer both the battle sorcerer and AEG's Myrmidon


----------



## The_Gneech (Apr 2, 2007)

I'm not likely to use it myself because it never made it into _E-Tools_ and my math sucks. However, I think it's kind of a neat idea. If I -were- to use it, I'd probably make it available to elves as a favored class.

-The Gneech


----------



## Brain (Apr 2, 2007)

I've found duskblades to be quite powerful; they can be damage machines.  They suffer from ranger syndrome a little bit with their d8 hps, but otherwise they are pretty strong.  I've both played one and DMed for one.


----------



## 3d6 (Apr 2, 2007)

I think they look cool, but I've never had a chance to play one. When the time came for me to finally play again, Bo9S had just come out, and I just had to try that out.


----------



## mikebr99 (Apr 2, 2007)

BlackMoria said:
			
		

> In one protracted combat, my Duskblade beatdown his enemies and more than tripled his hit points in the bargain with that spell choice.



Temp hps... from the same source do not stack.

Mike


----------



## blargney the second (Apr 2, 2007)

3d6 said:
			
		

> I think they look cool, but I've never had a chance to play one. When the time came for me to finally play again, Bo9S had just come out, and I just had to try that out.



Ditto.  I'd really like to see a duskblade around our games some time!


----------



## brehobit (Apr 2, 2007)

Oddly...

It's a great dip class for a warrior type.  Mainly for RP reasons, but the large number of 0-level spells (more than any other 1 level dip?) is nice.  I took blade of blood and stand as my 1st level spells for my one level dip.  Not overpowering but darn handy in some situations (stand) and blade of blood always helps a little bit.  

It was an Eberron character from Talenta who was learning about the "outside world"  So some basic magic (detect magic, prestidigitation, read magic) were very handy to get the "sophisticate" feeling I wanted.  And nice from a min/max viewpoint.

If you want a warrior type with access to some simple magic its a great class as BAB doesn't suffer.

Mark


----------



## amethal (Apr 2, 2007)

mikebr99 said:
			
		

> Temp hps... from the same source do not stack.
> 
> Mike



Why not?

I mean, it sounds reasonable, but I need a page reference so I can complain to our party's ex-Duskblade.

Its kind of a moot point, since the reason he's an ex-Duskblade is (and I love this quote) "Those Bluespawn lizard things didn't have enough hit points." 

Not enough for their deaths to give him sufficient temporary hit points to survive being full attacked by a Bluespawn Godslayer, that is.


----------



## DungeonMaester (Apr 2, 2007)

amethal said:
			
		

> Why not?




I wish I had my books on my so I could give you a page number from the players hand book, but a common rule from 3.5 is that bonuses from a same source do not stack. Just like to 'Bull Strength's do not stack. 


---Rusty


----------



## Masquerade (Apr 2, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> What do you think of the Duskblades?




They're fine by me.  A PC in my current game is a skarn duskblade and is quite effective in combat.  I've also run a duskblade PC in a one-shot and have used the class more than once for NPCs and, in both instances, have had much fun with it.  IMHO, the perceived balance issues are really nothing to be concerned about.


----------



## Wik (Apr 2, 2007)

Right now, the Duskblade is on the top of my "I want to play this!" list.  I have a half-elven duskblade with a glaive that should be a lot of fun, if I ever get the chance to play him.

While they do get a lot of lower-level spells, that's mostly to power their main class abilities.  They lack decent close-range combat ability (that d8 hit die, coupled with their limited armour, really makes them more of a skirmisher), and most of their spells aren't particularly good outside of melee combat. Really, they're another versatile class that isn't particularly strong.

That being said, I've only used the class once - as an NPC.  It was around 5th level, and it didn't survive more than two or three rounds.  If that.


----------



## Elemental (Apr 2, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> What do you think of the Duskblades?
> 
> I have some mixed feelings about them.  The basic idea of the class is great, but the channeling magic through a melee weapon seems to be limited.  I looked up the "touch" spells in the spell list and I think it was something like 3 or 4 touch spells.




Just to check, you are looking at their complete spell list (at the very end of the class description, not the spell section of the PHB2), right?



			
				DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> That seems a bit limiting as a class feature.  Sure you could take the learn spell feat and get cause critical wounds, but just going off of the spell list, it seems weak.




If you mean Extra Spell, I think it was confirmed that you can't use that feat to grab spells from outside your class list.


----------



## Christian (Apr 3, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> I looked up the "touch" spells in the spell list and I think it was something like 3 or 4 touch spells.  That seems a bit limiting as a class feature.




Really? I count seven:

0: Touch of Fatigue
1: Chill Touch, Shocking Grasp
2: Ghoul Touch, Touch of Idiocy
3: Dispelling Touch, Vampiric Touch

None above 3rd level, though, so I guess it gets to be a problem for the higher level 'blade ... Still, at low levels, it's a significant fraction of their available spells.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Apr 3, 2007)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Too many spells per day.



I agree.  I like the basic concept, but the class is just a little _too_ good, IMO.


----------



## BlackMoria (Apr 3, 2007)

> Temp hps... from the same source do not stack.




Sorry to disagree but,

Stacking applies to named bonuses.  Unnamed bonuses do stack.  And hit points are not 'bonuses', they are ... well, hit points.  And even if they are consider a bonus, (which they are not) they are not a 'named' bonus - temporary is not a proper name. It is clear what is a bonus because the word bonus is included - Inherent bonus, luck bonus, enhancement bonus, etc.


----------



## Anti-Sean (Apr 3, 2007)

File off the laaaaaaaaame and outmoded "duskblades were created by the elves because elves are uber and teh awesum" flavor text, and I like 'em just fine.


----------



## Mort (Apr 3, 2007)

BlackMoria said:
			
		

> Sorry to disagree but,
> 
> Stacking applies to named bonuses.  Unnamed bonuses do stack.  And hit points are not 'bonuses', they are ... well, hit points.  And even if they are consider a bonus, (which they are not) they are not a 'named' bonus - temporary is not a proper name. It is clear what is a bonus because the word bonus is included - Inherent bonus, luck bonus, enhancement bonus, etc.




I think you still run afoul of this:

Per the SRD: Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the best one applies.

Vampiric touch provides temp. HP's that last for one hour (unlike a cure spell that provides real HP's that do not go away unless taken away) so no Vampiric touch doesn't stack with itself.


For the original poster: IME duskblades have been fun in play and not overpowered. To thos that say "too many spells" the duskblades spells for the most part last 1 round or less -they burn through spells much faster than a wizard or standard fighter mage, so it evens out rapidly.


----------



## Laman Stahros (Apr 3, 2007)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> I'm not likely to use it myself because it never made it into _E-Tools_ and my math sucks. However, I think it's kind of a neat idea. If I -were- to use it, I'd probably make it available to elves as a favored class.
> 
> -The Gneech



If you use a Windows based computer with Excel (not OpenOfiice), then you could use the fan supported Heroforge.

If you use Apple OS, then Heroforge won't work very well. Microsoft and Apple are not playing well with each other, you know.


----------



## Felon (Apr 3, 2007)

Dislikes: 
The name is lame.
Somewhat sloppy progression for class feature acquisition.
Inability to add spells to list.
Bizarre class list (which I suppose is what you get when you have a class that lacks sufficient self-explanation).
Supposed to use shields, but is rife with spells that require somatic components.

Likes:
Makes an effective "paper tiger", carving out its own niche amongst the heavy-damage/light-defense warriors.
Uses Int as spellcasting key attribute, not Cha.

Overall, I give it a thumbs-up.


----------



## Felon (Apr 3, 2007)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Too many spells per day.




Nah, not really if one stops to give the matter some consideration. That is to say, they get a LOT of bottom-tier spell slots, but the net effect is to keep them from having to arm themselves with 1st-level wands when their hands are supposed to be filled with weapons and shields.

Then again, I'd say that other arcanists get too few bottom-tier spell slots.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Apr 3, 2007)

Vegepygmy said:
			
		

> I agree.  I like the basic concept, but the class is just a little _too_ good, IMO.




I play a duskblade with this guy.

My character is very good but there are drawbacks.  That is necessary.  As much as I would want more spells, I'm happy as is.

A common misconception about the class happens with Arcane Channeling (full attack) is that if I cast vampiric touch, it affects every target hit with each attack.  Vampiric touch only affects one attack.  You may cast a spell with a full attack.  Chill touch can affect several targets would be applicable for each attack.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 3, 2007)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> A common misconception about the class happens with Arcane Channeling (full attack) is that if I cast vampiric touch, it affects every target hit with each attack.  Vampiric touch only affects one attack.  You may cast a spell with a full attack.  Chill touch can affect several targets would be applicable for each attack.



Actually...







> At 13th level, a duskblade can cast any touch spell he knows as part of a full attack action, and the spell affects each target he hits in melee combat that round.



Doesn't seem like a misconception to me. 

The more common question related to arcane channeling is whether, if the duskblade hits the same target twice in a round, the spell affects the target twice. My favored interpretation is that the spell affects each target only once in a round. This makes the full attack version of arcane channeling work better against multiple opponents than against a single powerful opponent.


----------



## Gez (Apr 3, 2007)

Anti-Sean said:
			
		

> File off the laaaaaaaaame and outmoded "duskblades were created by the elves because elves are uber and teh awesum" flavor text, and I like 'em just fine.



I've got your solution right here: pronounce "the elves" as "Elvis".


----------



## Anti-Sean (Apr 3, 2007)

Gez said:
			
		

> I've got your solution right here: pronounce "the elves" as "Elvis".



<elvis>Thankyou... thankyouverymuch!</elvis>


----------



## Klaus (Apr 3, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> What do you think of the Duskblades?
> 
> I have some mixed feelings about them.  The basic idea of the class is great, but the channeling magic through a melee weapon seems to be limited.  I looked up the "touch" spells in the spell list and I think it was something like 3 or 4 touch spells.  That seems a bit limiting as a class feature.  Sure you could take the learn spell feat and get cause critical wounds, but just going off of the spell list, it seems weak.
> 
> ...



 They're nice, but they ain't no Battle Sorcerer (a much more flexible class that should be made into core D&D in 4e).


----------



## Aus_Snow (Apr 3, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Nah, not really if one stops to give the matter some consideration.



One has stopped "to give the matter some consideration." And one has found, following such consideration, that the following is true:

Too many spells per day.






> Then again, I'd say that other arcanists get too few bottom-tier spell slots.



I see. So, in other words. . . 

Eh. Never mind.


----------



## krunchyfrogg (Apr 3, 2007)

Having never actually seen one in play, it seems too powerful to me.  My instinct is to think that my observations are incorrect though (since I haven't actually seen one played).

It reminds me a lot of the Elf class in OD&D.


----------



## Brian Compton (Apr 3, 2007)

I played a duskblade in a recent campaign, and it wasn't too overpowered.  The spells, while nice, are limited in that you know a very small number/level, and can only add one/level to any level you know.  The trade-out rule helps here somewhat, but I never saw a need to get rid of a current spell for a different one.  

The spells I used the most were Stand and Dimension Hop, with Shocking Grasp for offense.  With Shocking Grasp capped at 5d6, it's a nice spell early on but loses punch over time.  Stand is a nice spell to have, especially when enemies are using trip, but again, allowing someone to stand from prone as a free action once in a while is not overpowering, and also depletes your 1st-level spells (e.g. Shocking Grasp).  Dimension Hop helps in a quick escape, and combined with your free swift casting/day, can help a character get around the battlefield quickly.  Again, though, not a breaker.   

Yes, duskblades get Disintegrate and Polar Ray later on, but if you are relying on the duskblade as a primary arcane blaster, your party has other issues.  I could foresee my character never even picking up those spells, as his offense came mostly through his sword.   I would advise going the one-handed weapon and shield route.  With only a d8, you need all the defense you can get.  Don't overlook the Battle Caster feat too; at 7th level, your use of  medium armor upgrades to heavy armor.  

This class makes me wonder if a similar class for warrior-clerics could be done (similar to the 2E FR Crusader- I loved that class!).


----------



## Grimstaff (Apr 3, 2007)

Its always amusing to me the great lengths 3.5 designers have gone to to emulate the simple effectiveness of the 1E Elven Fighter/MagicUser. We have probably 100 or so pages of rules from various splats and corebooks all trying to do fix what d20 multi-classing rules broke: a competetive spell-casting multi-classed character.

Just an observation.   

That said, I think that if you favor high-level play, then the Duskblade is a viable option, with enough options at level 12 and higher to keep the character interesting in play. If you favor low-to-mid level games, the class seems a bit of a lame duck, once his few spells are expended he's just a fighter without all the cool feats.


----------



## The_Gneech (Apr 3, 2007)

Laman Stahros said:
			
		

> If you use a Windows based computer with Excel (not OpenOfiice), then you could use the fan supported Heroforge.
> 
> If you use Apple OS, then Heroforge won't work very well. Microsoft and Apple are not playing well with each other, you know.




Right now, I've got _E-Tools_ running and tweaked to the point that it does everything I want really, so I'm not going to switch just yet. I'm sure at some future time a Windows update or something will kill it, at which point I'll look at finding a replacement. But 'til then, the tool works, so I don't need a new one. Thanks anyhow! 

-The Gneech


----------



## Razz (Apr 3, 2007)

I personally like it but I really hate the fact that WotC doesn't give you any sort of rules to determine which NEW spells to add to the Duskblade spell list outside the PHB and PHB2. So far, most touch spells, small range spells and small area spells, and a few miscellaneous stuff were the guidelines.

Not entirely very helpful. It would've been better for WotC to state which schools of magic from which spell list they had access to, or which type of spells (e.g. "For spells outside the PHB and PHB2, any touch or ray spell may be added along with etc. etc.") That would've been helpful. They did it with the Beguiler, Warmage, Dread Necromancer, and especially the Spellthief.

Currently I had to painstakingly go through every spell from every WotC and Paizo product to look for spells that I can add to the Duskblade spell list. I did a half-ass job because, seriously, WotC should've had this already prepared for me. It's ridiculous I have to do this myself.


----------



## Garnfellow (Apr 3, 2007)

I had a player with a duskblade for most of my converted G3 and D1-2-3. In general, the class seemed pretty good, but what really made the character shine in combat were his use of new spells from the PHII and SC that focused on tactical movement and swift actions. The _regroup_ spell alone saved the party's bacon many, many times in G3.


----------



## wayne62682 (Apr 3, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> I personally like it but I really hate the fact that WotC doesn't give you any sort of rules to determine which NEW spells to add to the Duskblade spell list outside the PHB and PHB2.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Currently I had to painstakingly go through every spell from every WotC and Paizo product to look for spells that I can add to the Duskblade spell list. I did a half-ass job because, seriously, WotC should've had this already prepared for me. It's ridiculous I have to do this myself.




Umm.. that's just it.  They don't *want* you to add any new spells to the Duskblade's list, because adding neat spells like Haste or Wraithstrike would overpower the class, or so they claim  :\


----------



## krunchyfrogg (Apr 3, 2007)

Grimstaff said:
			
		

> Its always amusing to me the great lengths 3.5 designers have gone to to emulate the simple effectiveness of the 1E Elven Fighter/MagicUser. We have probably 100 or so pages of rules from various splats and corebooks all trying to do fix what d20 multi-classing rules broke: a competetive spell-casting multi-classed character.
> 
> Just an observation.
> 
> That said, I think that if you favor high-level play, then the Duskblade is a viable option, with enough options at level 12 and higher to keep the character interesting in play. If you favor low-to-mid level games, the class seems a bit of a lame duck, once his few spells are expended he's just a fighter without all the cool feats.



I totally agree, but many would argue that the F/M (even in 2e when they couldn't wear most armors) was too powerful.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 3, 2007)

Elemental said:
			
		

> Just to check, you are looking at their complete spell list (at the very end of the class description, not the spell section of the PHB2), right?



Yes, I was looking at the full list.  I didn't have time to double check them out, but I did a while ago and I recall something like 3 or 4 touch spells in the list.  Shocking grasp and vampiric touch the two that come off the top of my head.



			
				Elemental said:
			
		

> If you mean Extra Spell, I think it was confirmed that you can't use that feat to grab spells from outside your class list.



Hmm, I didn't know that.  Is that in the errata or just an enworld forum?


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 3, 2007)

mikebr99 said:
			
		

> Temp hps... from the same source do not stack.
> 
> Mike



I think you might be basing your info on things like Bulls STR, which is an enhancement bonus and the only bonuses that stack are dodge and unnamed.  The vampiric touch spell does not have a source, so it is unnamed.  IMO it would stand to reason that such a spell wouldn't work on undead, but since it doesn't have a type either, it does.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 3, 2007)

Christian said:
			
		

> Really? I count seven:
> 
> 0: Touch of Fatigue
> 1: Chill Touch, Shocking Grasp
> ...



Well, I stand corrected.  Although, I was guessing from memory, and I didn't look at the 0th level spells just cause they are usually like 1 point of damage or a minor effect, so for me, that is 6.  

Anyway, I guess I would like to see some 4th and 5th level touch spells and maybe one or two more lower level spells.  I guess my point is that for a class feature that is so much apart of the class you are limited in its use because of spell selections.

Don't get me wrong, those are good spells, it would just be nice to see a bit more of a selection.  

Maybe it is enough, when I start playing I'm sure I'll change my tune.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 3, 2007)

> I totally agree, but many would argue that the F/M (even in 2e when they couldn't wear most armors) was too powerful.




Aww, heck yeah! The 3e system didn't break it, it was broken to begin with.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 3, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> I personally like it but I really hate the fact that WotC doesn't give you any sort of rules to determine which NEW spells to add to the Duskblade spell list outside the PHB and PHB2. So far, most touch spells, small range spells and small area spells, and a few miscellaneous stuff were the guidelines.



Where did you see those guidelines and do you still have a list of the spells that you researched?


----------



## rgard (Apr 3, 2007)

BlackMoria said:
			
		

> Sorry to disagree but,
> 
> Stacking applies to named bonuses.  Unnamed bonuses do stack.  And hit points are not 'bonuses', they are ... well, hit points.  And even if they are consider a bonus, (which they are not) they are not a 'named' bonus - temporary is not a proper name. It is clear what is a bonus because the word bonus is included - Inherent bonus, luck bonus, enhancement bonus, etc.




You are absolutely correct.


----------



## Mort (Apr 3, 2007)

rgard said:
			
		

> You are absolutely correct.




again - how do you get around:

Per the SRD: Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the best one applies.

Vampiric touch is not a healing spell, it grants temporary HP's for 1 hour. So 2 (or more) on the same target = overlap, they do not stack.


----------



## Kestrel (Apr 3, 2007)

Prefer the Mageblade, but the Duskblade ain't bad.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 3, 2007)

Mort said:
			
		

> again - how do you get around:
> 
> Per the SRD: Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the best one applies.
> 
> Vampiric touch is not a healing spell, it grants temporary HP's for 1 hour. So 2 (or more) on the same target = overlap, they do not stack.



It doesn't matter what the SRD says.  Well, to a point.

What I mean is, if the item or rule in question (in this case the spell vampiric touch) states differently than the SRD, you use the most current version of the rules with the item in question over riding the rules.  In this case it is simple, the spell sets it owns limits.  It states that you can't gain more HP than the creature has plus 10.  That statement over rides anything in the SRD.

I side note, since the spell is initially meant for use on one person, you could argue that your SRD rules come into effect.  I however, in addition to 25 years of DMing, also happen to be a level 2 judge in Magic the Gathering for over 10 years.  I know how WOTC R&D designers think in terms of effects stacking and not stacking.  Without any additional information in the form of rules or relevant examples, I would say that it effects each individual creature struck with you gaining an equal amount of HP as long as you don't go over the total HP plus 10 of each creature, with each temporary HP stacking with the other.

Part of the reason for this is that, even though it is from the same type of spell, it is not from a different source.  It is from the same spell.  It is the same effect gathering all at once, not an individual instance of the spells taking effect several times.


----------



## DungeonMaester (Apr 3, 2007)

Mort said:
			
		

> I think you still run afoul of this:
> 
> Per the SRD: Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the best one applies.
> 
> Vampiric touch provides temp. HP's that last for one hour (unlike a cure spell that provides real HP's that do not go away unless taken away) so no Vampiric touch doesn't stack with itself.




Oh darn, you beat me to the punch. I was going to post that...Curse the closing internet contention being 19 miles away from me...

For a extra point, do you know which Dragon Magazine tackled this question?

---Rusty


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 3, 2007)

DungeonMaester said:
			
		

> Oh darn, you beat me to the punch. I was going to post that...Curse the closing internet contention being 19 miles away from me...
> 
> For a extra point, do you know which Dragon Magazine tackled this question?
> 
> ---Rusty



Well, the SAGE has made bad calls before, most he admits in a follow up magazine.  However, if he does tackle this question, or any other source, it is most likely not in the same contents.

I could maybe see how casting the spell round after round might not work, but casting it through the blade as part of a full round attack option should at the least.

Now I am curious.  Let me look something up once.


----------



## DungeonMaester (Apr 3, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Well, the SAGE has made bad calls before, most he admits in a follow up magazine.  However, if he does tackle this question, or any other source, it is most likely not in the same contents.
> 
> I could maybe see how casting the spell round after round might not work, but casting it through the blade as part of a full round attack option should at the least.
> 
> Now I am curious.  Let me look something up once.




Hint: the question to the Sage was if Temp hp stacked.

---Rusty


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 3, 2007)

Okay, with a bit of research I have have a slightly different answer.  I still hold I was correct about the above because I stated that with the information given.  

Anyway, with temp HP it is first in first out when it comes to HP gained through the same effect.  So, if you cast Vampiric touch one round and then again in another, you use which ever gave you more HP.  However, when you cast it as part of the Duskblade class feature to have it effect each creature in the attack, it is counted as one instance of the spell being cast, so all HP damage resulting from that one round of attacks is converted to temp HP.  

Doing that again in the next round would only gain extra HP if the Vampiric touch damage was greater than the temp HP remaining from the first round, which would also reset the duration of the temp HP.

Note, you can still gain extra temp HP from other spells and they would stack.

Yeah, WOTC is a mess     

The following is from the FAQ

Do temporary hit points from two applications of the same effect stack? What about from different effects? If I have temporary hit points from multiple sources, how should I apply damage?


Temporary hit points from two applications of the same effect don’t stack; instead, the highest number of temporary hit points applies in place of all others. Temporary hit points from different sources stack, but you must keep track of them separately.

For example, imagine a character who gained 15 temporary hit points from an aid spell. After taking 8 points of damage, she has 7 temporary hit points left from the spell. If another aid spell were cast on the same character granting 12 temporary hit points, this total would replace the other spell’s total, meaning the character would now have 12 temporary hit points (rather than 19). If the character then cast false life on herself, she would add the full benefit of that spell to the temporary hit points from the aid spell.

This also applies to temporary hit points gained from energy drain and similar special abilities. Each successful attack counts as one application of the effect (meaning that an attack that bestows 2 or more negative levels still counts as only one application of the effect). For example, a wight gains 5 temporary hit points each time it bestows a negative level with its slam attack. If it bestows another negative level while it has 2 temporary hit points remaining from the first attack, the new temporary hit points would replace the old ones. Temporary hit points are “first-in, first-out.” Damage should be taken off the oldest temporary-hit-point-granting effect first; when that effect is exhausted, apply damage to the next oldest effect. For this reason, you must track each supply of temporary hit points separately.


----------



## DungeonMaester (Apr 3, 2007)

That is a mess and hard to read. I remember the answer being that if you where two get temp hp then you always take the highest. So if where to gain 3 temp one round, and 6 the next round, then you have a next gain of 3 extra hp.

Now i'm going to do a little research...

---Rusty


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 3, 2007)

I think it's a really nice addition to the game.  I just wish they wouldn't have made the error on referring people to the wrong page for their spell list (it refers to the page of NEW spells for them, not their actual full spell list which is listed at the end of the actual character write-up in the book).  That minor error has caused so much confusion.


----------



## Drowbane (Apr 3, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> For no reason other than the fact that the title of the class infers you will be in close quarter battle.  Yes, I know it more refers to the types of spells you cast versus you wielding a sword.  However, when I first read the class, it was what I thought the Duskblade might have been.  That is to say, a wizard who fights with steel and can blast with spells.
> 
> It would only stand to reason that if you could cast spells while in armor that you may also have a bit better BAB.  Maybe the cleric progression if not the full BAB.
> 
> ...




I guess "Useless for anything but Blasting Mage" was already taken in a 3rd party book.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 3, 2007)

DungeonMaester said:
			
		

> That is a mess and hard to read. I remember the answer being that if you where two get temp hp then you always take the highest. So if where to gain 3 temp one round, and 6 the next round, then you have a next gain of 3 extra hp.
> 
> Now i'm going to do a little research...
> 
> ---Rusty



Okay, I just copied it from the FAQ and didn't re-format it to fit properly here.  So now I just re-did it, hope that is easier to read.


----------



## DungeonMaester (Apr 3, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Okay, I just copied it from the FAQ and didn't re-format it to fit properly here.  So now I just re-did it, hope that is easier to read.




Alright, I can read it now, and it looks like it is saying the same thing I was. 

I do not agree with it totaly, but it won't come up enough in play to 
house rule.

This gives a Idea for  character that nagates damage by a endless loop of Temp Hp.

---Rusty


----------



## Razz (Apr 3, 2007)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> Umm.. that's just it.  They don't *want* you to add any new spells to the Duskblade's list, because adding neat spells like Haste or Wraithstrike would overpower the class, or so they claim  :\




First of all, Haste is in the PHB and wasn't added to the Duskblade so it'll stay that way and should.

Second, why is it fair for Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerors/Wizards to constantly have more and more spells and, technically, making them more and more powerful by the book but the Duskblade has to remain static and never-upgrading? That's not fair nor is it balanced. What do you tell the Duskblade player when he goes "Hey! That Sorceror casted _Ray of Clumsiness_, I can cast _Ray of Enfeeblement_. They're close enough, why can't that be on my spell list too? It's clearly a Duskblade spell!"


----------



## Razz (Apr 3, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Where did you see those guidelines and do you still have a list of the spells that you researched?




It was in the PHB2 under the blurb for Duskblades, after their Class Feature explanations. Can't remember exactly where. I'm currently at work.

I do have the list of spells and can post them here when I get home. It's not perfect, and some spells that should've been on there probably are not and some spells that I did put on the spell list probably shouldn't be there. I did the best I could following the guidelines in PHB2 and the spells they have on their spell lists.

But this is what happens when D&D professional creators are lax on their work and a full-time working, part-time college student who's married has to do the work that should've been done by them.  :\


----------



## EyeontheMountain (Apr 3, 2007)

Taht is a problem, for sure. But in my games the ability of clerics and druids to reach into every single book every singel day and pick out spells has become a great gboost to their power. Sure, A wizard and sorceror can do so to a much much mroe limited extent, but the clerics and druids benefit most from improved spell access.

As for limited casting types like duskblade, Warmage and Behuiler, I look at their spell list and it is good enough, seriously. Sure, a player wuld like more spells, of course, but I see not real peoblems with thier lists. If a duskblade does not like the spell list they have, then play a standard fighter wizard or some such. Addingspells to any of the fixed lists is problematical, though I would agree to let the duskblade choose one touch spell to add to their lists at each level when they gain new spell levels after 1st level, much like the beguiler and warmage can add spells. But I stil don't think they actually NEED it.


----------



## DreadArchon (Apr 3, 2007)

I like all four PHB II classes.  I've worked out a Duskblade Dragon Disciple build that I want to try, but nobody in my area runs D&D, so meh.

The only Duskblade I ever threw at the party was horribly suboptimal, but he still did a LOT to them.  I still don't think it's overpowered, though.


----------



## Felon (Apr 4, 2007)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> One has stopped "to give the matter some consideration." And one has found, following such consideration, that the following is true:
> 
> Too many spells per day.




Sounds like you need to go back and mainate on the whole "lots of low-level spell slots just saves you some wand money" thing. The conclusion is rather inevitable.


----------



## Razz (Apr 4, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Where did you see those guidelines and do you still have a list of the spells that you researched?




I found it. It's stated under *Advancement * in the Duskblade entry. Not much, but it's useful.

Also, here is my personal Duskblade spell list. Again, I rushed through this so some of the spells listed shouldn't be there and some spells that should've been there probably isn't:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*DUSKBLADE*
**Spells in asterisks are spells from other sources unofficially added to the Duskblade's spell list. Spells noted as "3E Spells file" for its source is a personal file I created for myself as a reference to spells published in Dragon Magazine or the D&D Website that I have typed out in its own file, rather than pouring through Dragon Magazines to find the spell*

*0 LEVEL(Cantrips) *
Acid Splash (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Disrupt Undead (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Electric Jolt* (Spell Compendium)
Ray of Frost (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Sonic Snap* (Spell Compendium)
Touch of Fatigue (3.5 Player's Handbook)

*1ST LEVEL*
Accelerated Movement* (Spell Compendium)
Armor Lock* (Complete Scoundrel)
Benign Transposition* (Spell Compendium)
Bigby's Tripping Hand (Player's Handbook II)
Blade of Blood (Player's Handbook II)
Blades of Fire* (Spell Compendium)
Bloodletting* (Complete Mage)
Burning Hands (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Cause Fear (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Chill Touch (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Color Spray (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Corrosive Grasp* (Spell Compendium)
Darkvision, Lesser*	 (3E Spells file)
Deflect, Lesser (Player's Handbook II)
Ebon Eyes* (Spell Compendium)
Expeditious Retreat, Swift (Spell Compendium)	
Fist of Stone* (Spell Compendium)
Ice Dagger* (Spell Compendium)
Jump (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Karmic Aura* (Complete Mage)
Kaupaer's Quickblast* (3E Spells file)
Kaupaer's Reflexive Strike* (3E Spells file)
Kelgore's Fire Bolt (Player's Handbook II)
Know Protections*	(Magic of Faerun)
Low-Light Vision* (Spell Compendium)
Magic Weapon (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Master's Touch* (Spell Compendium)
Nerveskitter (Spell Compendium)
Obscuring Mist (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Ray of Clumsiness*	 (Spell Compendium)
Ray of Enfeeblement (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Ray of Flame* (Spell Compendium)
Resist Energy (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Rouse (Player's Handbook II)
Shivering Touch, Lesser* (Frostburn)
Shocking Grasp (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Silvered Weapon* (3E Spells file)
Stand (Player's Handbook II)
Transference (3E Spells file)
True Casting* (Complete Mage)
True Strike (3.5 Player's Handbook)

*2ND LEVEL*
Adrenaline Surge* (Masters of the Wild)
Animalistic Power (Player's Handbook II)
Bear's Endurance (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Bigby's Striking Fist (Player's Handbook II)
Bladeweave* (Spell Compendium)
Bone Soften* (3E Spells file)
Bristle* (Spell Compendium)
Bull's Strength (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Burning Sword* (Spell Compendium)
Cat's Grace (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Darkvision (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Deflect (Player's Handbook II)
Dimension Hop (Player's Handbook II)
Enlarge Weapon* (Complete Scoundrel)
Escalating Enfeeblement* (Complete Mage)
Fatal Flame* (Complete Scoundrel)
Fly, Swift	 (Spell Compendium)
Frost Weapon* (Frostburn)
Ghost Touch Armor* (Spell Compendium)
Ghoul Touch (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Invisibility, Swift (Spell Compendium)
Karmic Backlash* (Complete Mage)
Melf's Acid Arrow (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Mirror Move* (3E Spells file)
Mountain Stance*	(Spell Compendium)
Muritho's Randomscatter* (3E Spells file)
Opportunistic Dodge* (Complete Scoundrel)
Ray of Depletion* (3E Spells file)
Ray of Ice* (Spell Compendium)
Ray of Sickness* (Spell Compendium)
Ray of Stupidity* (Spell Compendium)
Ray of Weakness* (Spell Compendium)
Sap Strength* (Book of Vile Darkness)
Scorch* (Spell Compendium)
Scorching Ray (3.5 Player's Handbook)
See Invisibility (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Seeking Ray (Player's Handbook II)
Sonic Weapon* (Spell Compendium)
Speak to Allies* (Spell Compendium)
Spider Climb (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Stretch Weapon (Player's Handbook II)
Summon Weapon* (Complete Mage)
Sure Strike (Player's Handbook II)
Touch of Idiocy (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Unfettered Grasp* (Races of the Dragon)
Whirling Blade* (Spell Compendium)
Wracking Touch* (Spell Compendium)

*3RD LEVEL*
Crown of Might (Player's Handbook II)
Crown of Protection (Player's Handbook II)
Deeper Darkvision*	 (Spell Compendium)
Dispelling Touch (Player's Handbook II)
Disrupt Undead, Greater* (Spell Compendium)
Dolorous Blow* (Spell Compendium)
Doom Scarabs (Players's Handbook II)
Energy Aegis (Player's Handbook II)
Energy Surge (Player's Handbook II)
Ferocity of Sanguine Rage* (Dragon Magic)
Halt (Player's Handbook II)
Keen Edge (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Magic Weapon, Greater (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Phantasmal Strangler* (Complete Mage)
Protection from Energy (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Ray of Dizziness* (Spell Compendium)
Ray of Exhaustion (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Regroup (Player's Handbook II)
Repelling Shield* (Complete Mage)
Rusted Blade* (Complete Mage)
Shivering Touch* (Frostburn)
Sonic Blast (Lance of Disruption)* (3E Spells file)
Tenacious Dispelling* (Complete Mage)
Toxic Tongue* (Complete Mage)
Vampiric Touch (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Wreath of Flames* (Dragon Magic)

*4TH LEVEL*
Bigby's Interposing Hand (Player's Handbook II)	
Bladebane* (Unapproachable East)
Channeled Pyroburst (Player's Handbook II)
Dimension Door (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Dispel Magic (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Enervate	(3.5 Player's Handbook)
Fire Shield (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Firestride Exhalation* (Dragon Magic)
Incendiary Surge* (Complete Mage)
Karmic Retribution* (Complete Mage)
Lower Spell Resistance* (Draconomicon)
Phantasmal Killer (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Ray Deflection* (Spell Compendium)
Shout (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Spell Enhancer* (Spell Compendium)
Touch of Years* (Complete Mage)
Toxic Weapon (Player's Handbook II)
Unseen Strike* (Complete Mage)
Wingbind* (Spell Compendium)

*5TH LEVEL*
Bigby's Clenched Fist (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Chain Lightning (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Channeled Sonic Blast* (Complete Mage)
Coat of Arms* (Complete Mage)
Dimension Jumper* (Complete Mage)
Disintegrate (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Earth Reaver* (Spell Compendium)
Fire and Brimstone* (Complete Mage)
Hold Monster (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Indomitability* (Spell Compendium)
Lightning Leap* (Complete Mage)
Polar Ray	(3.5 Player's Handbook)
Prismatic Aura* (Complete Mage)
Prismatic Ray* (Spell Compendium)
Shimmermantle* (3E Spells file)
Slashing Dispel (Player's Handbook II)	
Sonic Shield (Player's Handbook II)	
Spell Theft* (Complete Scoundrel)
Storm Touch* (Magic of Eberron)
Touch of Vecna* (Complete Mage)
Waves of Fatigue (3.5 Player's Handbook)
Wrack* (Spell Compendium)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ahh, a MUCH better list for players to choose from. 

Don't ya think...?


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 4, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> But this is what happens when D&D professional creators are lax on their work and a full-time working, part-time college student who's married has to do the work that should've been done by them.  :\



Psst.    

I'm with you there.  But don't sing that too loudy, it strike a nerve with some if you expect them to do the job they are being paid for.

  Oops, did I say that out loud?


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 4, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> I found it. It's stated under *Advancement * in the Duskblade entry. Not much, but it's useful.
> 
> Also, here is my personal Duskblade spell list. Again, I rushed through this so some of the spells listed shouldn't be there and some spells that should've been there probably isn't:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...



Well, I'm off to bed soon, so I can't look them all over, but it certainly opens new doors.  Also, I don't think it is overpowering from an initial review mainly because there is no way you could ever learn all of them.  At level 20 you would still only have 21 1st through 5th level spells.  Just a bit more flavor and options.

Good work, I like


----------



## Razz (Apr 4, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Well, I'm off to bed soon, so I can't look them all over, but it certainly opens new doors.  Also, I don't think it is overpowering from an initial review mainly because there is no way you could ever learn all of them.  At level 20 you would still only have 21 1st through 5th level spells.  Just a bit more flavor and options.
> 
> Good work, I like




That is exactly my line of reasoning with it. 

It makes total sense that adding new spells to the Beguiler/Dread Necromancer/Warmage spell list will grossly overpower them (and make Advanced Learning obsolete as a class feature) because of the mechanics used for their spellcasting. But it would not do the Duskblade any harm. It simply enhances a larger variety of Duskblades and options for them


----------



## Aus_Snow (Apr 4, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> The conclusion is rather inevitable.



I agree.

Well, with _those_ words, anyway.


----------



## Janaxstrus (Apr 4, 2007)

Playing a Duskblade now.  My only beefs are that the class needs one of the following:

Slightly faster spell progression
OR
Slightly more variety in spells.

I'd be happy with the slow learning curve if there was a little more choice for some utility spells.  I don't want Wraithstrike, fireball, invisibility or any of that, but I wouldn't mind having Knock or Shield or Flight (not just swift fly).

It's an ok class, but if I had to do it over, I'd go more of the Gish route for more spells, even if it's less per day.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Apr 4, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> First of all, Haste is in the PHB and wasn't added to the Duskblade so it'll stay that way and should.
> 
> Second, why is it fair for Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerors/Wizards to constantly have more and more spells and, technically, making them more and more powerful by the book but the Duskblade has to remain static and never-upgrading? That's not fair nor is it balanced. What do you tell the Duskblade player when he goes "Hey! That Sorceror casted _Ray of Clumsiness_, I can cast _Ray of Enfeeblement_. They're close enough, why can't that be on my spell list too? It's clearly a Duskblade spell!"




I have been working on some feats that would add additional spells to the duskblade spell list.  It would be theme based on an attack strategy, melee, ranged or buffing.  And no, wraithstrike as it is wouldn't be in the list.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 4, 2007)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> I have been working on some feats that would add additional spells to the duskblade spell list.  It would be theme based on an attack strategy, melee, ranged or buffing.  And no, wraithstrike as it is wouldn't be in the list.



  Well, I would be interested in seeing them, but I see a fundamental flaw with this already.  Duskblades were not designed to be ranged warriors.  Or, that is to say that the empowering ability to funnel a touch spell through a melee weapon does not work on ranged weapons and that makes that class limited in design and excludes most ranged options.

  I think you might be better off with level substitutions for the class that put the Duskblade down one path or another.  This could then include ranged weapons but exclude melee weapons, as an example.


----------



## Eytan Bernstein (Apr 4, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Well, I stand corrected.  Although, I was guessing from memory, and I didn't look at the 0th level spells just cause they are usually like 1 point of damage or a minor effect, so for me, that is 6.
> 
> Anyway, I guess I would like to see some 4th and 5th level touch spells and maybe one or two more lower level spells.  I guess my point is that for a class feature that is so much apart of the class you are limited in its use because of spell selections.
> 
> ...




_Dimension hop_ is also a touch spell that can affect enemies by teleporting them away from you. It's a 2nd level spell on their list.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Apr 5, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> I found it. It's stated under *Advancement * in the Duskblade entry. Not much, but it's useful.
> 
> Also, here is my personal Duskblade spell list. Again, I rushed through this so some of the spells listed shouldn't be there and some spells that should've been there probably isn't:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...




I understand what you are trying to do and would love it as a duskblade player but the class is overall better than a fighter with their spells.  They need to give up something in order balance what is a fairly balanced class on the upper end of the power scale.  Below is some feats that I have been waiting to submit to give the class additional spells.

Expanded Duskblade Spell Knowledge Defender
You have an additional few spells added to the list in which to learn.
  Prerequisite: Duskblade level 9 for 1st feat, Shield Specialization.  Duskblade level 12 for 2nd feat.
  Benefit: You gain 2 additional spells per spell level to your spell list.  You are specializing in defensive and protective spells.  When you gain new levels, you may choose these spells as well as spells from the standard Duskblade list.
	1st Feat............................			2nd Feat
1st:	Mage Armor......................		Shield
2nd:	Blur..................................			Mirror Image
3rd:	Stoneskin......................... 		Displacement		
4th:	Ray of Deflection...............		Otiluke’s Resilient Sphere
5th:	Greater Stoneskin.............		Repulsion
  Normal: You would be limited to the standard Duskblade spell list.  This is an expansion list to the spells that the Duskblade who took the feat can learn and cast.
  Special: You cannot learn more than one of the three Expanded Duskblade Spell Knowledge Feats.  You have chosen to specialize in special Duskblade knowledge.

Expanded Duskblade Spell Knowledge Slayer
You have an additional few spells added to the list in which to learn.
  Prerequisite: Duskblade level 9 for 1st feat, Power Attack.  Duskblade level 12 for 2nd feat.
  Benefit: You gain 2 additional spells per spell level to your spell list.  You are specializing in attack and buff spells.  When you gain new levels, you may choose these spells as well as spells from the standard Duskblade list.
	1st Feat............................			2nd Feat
1st:	Enlarge Person..................		Ectoplasmic Armor
2nd:	Belker Claws..................... 		Blast of Force		
3rd:	Swift Enlarge Person**......	Haste
4th:	Mass Enlarge Person..........	Duskblade Wraithstrike (Next Attack only)
5th:	Greater Enlarge Person...... 	Know Vulnerabilities	
  Normal: You would be limited to the standard Duskblade spell list.  This is an expansion list to the spells that the Duskblade who took the feat can learn and cast.
  Special: You cannot learn more than one of the three Expanded Duskblade Spell Knowledge Feats.  You have chosen to specialize in special Duskblade knowledge.
**This would be a swift action enlarge that would last for one round.

Expanded Duskblade Spell Knowledge Spellsword
You have an additional few spells added to the list in which to learn.
  Prerequisite: Duskblade level 9 for 1st feat, Spell Focus Evocation.  Duskblade level 12 for 2nd feat.
  Benefit: You gain 2 additional spells per spell level to your spell list.  You are specializing in damaging spells.  When you gain new levels, you may choose these spells as well as spells from the standard Duskblade list.
	1st Feat............................			2nd Feat
1st:	Persistent Blade................ 		Magic Missile		
2nd:	Burning Sword.................. 		Ray of Stupidity		
3rd:	Sound Lance.....................		Chain Missile
4th:	Energy Spheres................		Force Missiles
5th:	Prismatic Ray...................		Ball of Lightning
  Normal: You would be limited to the standard Duskblade spell list.  This is an expansion list to the spells that the Duskblade who took the feat can learn and cast.
  Special: You cannot learn more than one of the three Expanded Duskblade Spell Knowledge Feats.  You have chosen to specialize in special Duskblade knowledge.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Apr 5, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Well, I would be interested in seeing them, but I see a fundamental flaw with this already.  Duskblades were not designed to be ranged warriors.  Or, that is to say that the empowering ability to funnel a touch spell through a melee weapon does not work on ranged weapons and that makes that class limited in design and excludes most ranged options.
> 
> I think you might be better off with level substitutions for the class that put the Duskblade down one path or another.  This could then include ranged weapons but exclude melee weapons, as an example.




They have several spells that are ranged.  The duskblade is flexibility with using only a few spells that are consistantly channeled through the sword.  Their higher level spells are for defense or ranged attack.

Touch of fatigue
Blade of Blood
Chill Touch
Shocking Grasp
Ghoul Touch
Touch of Idiocy
Vampiric Touch

Typically the higher level spells will be used for lower level one that can be channeled.  I pulled a trick tonight using a quick casted scorching ray followed up by a standard cast scorching ray.  I was able to do 16d6 with 4 rays which is all ranged attacks.  Channeling is just one of many tools that this class has.


----------



## Felon (Apr 5, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Well, I would be interested in seeing them, but I see a fundamental flaw with this already.  Duskblades were not designed to be ranged warriors.  Or, that is to say that the empowering ability to funnel a touch spell through a melee weapon does not work on ranged weapons and that makes that class limited in design and excludes most ranged options.



You jumped to that conclusion rather hastily. They have one class feature that's melee-oriented. That doesn't conscript their entire design to melee. Whenever you see a duskblade pop a scorching ray and then swift-cast another one (another handy class feature they happen to have), I hope you'll realize that.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Apr 5, 2007)

I really like the look of the Duskblade but unfortunately I haven't seen one in action yet.  If my Fighter/Cleric bites it in Shackled City I am bringing in a Duskblade.


----------



## DreadArchon (Apr 5, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> You jumped to that conclusion rather hastily. They have one class feature that's melee-oriented.



And they can use it with other classes, too, which is unusual for base caster classes.  (Still, they're clearly not melee-only, Ranged Touch attacks with a Full BAB is nice enough not to require much in the way of special features.)


----------



## rgard (Apr 5, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> First of all, Haste is in the PHB and wasn't added to the Duskblade so it'll stay that way and should.
> 
> Second, why is it fair for Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerors/Wizards to constantly have more and more spells and, technically, making them more and more powerful by the book but the Duskblade has to remain static and never-upgrading? That's not fair nor is it balanced. What do you tell the Duskblade player when he goes "Hey! That Sorceror casted _Ray of Clumsiness_, I can cast _Ray of Enfeeblement_. They're close enough, why can't that be on my spell list too? It's clearly a Duskblade spell!"




For comparison to Sorcerers/Wizards, the Duskblade's spell list is offset by the greater HP, best BAB, greater number of the lower level spells per day and ability to wear armor and cast spells.

It's not as clear when it comes to Clerics and Druids, but the Duskblade does still get the better BAB and greater number of lower level spells per day.

Really, if you don't like the Duskblade spell list, try playing a Battle Sorcerer from UA.  You can pick the exact spells you want, get the medium BAB, d8 for hp and cast in light armor.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## rgard (Apr 5, 2007)

Janaxstrus said:
			
		

> Playing a Duskblade now.  My only beefs are that the class needs one of the following:
> 
> Slightly faster spell progression
> OR
> ...




Another way around this would be to create a Domain-like feat for the Duskblade.  Go through the Cleric Domains and Domain Wizards lists (UA) and find a domain to apply.  I would keep the domain power (as per cleric domains) as part of the feat as you are only getting the benefit of 5 different spells added to the known list. 

Edit: Also, limit the Duskblade to taking this feat at first level and limit it to one feat even if the character has two feats as a human.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## rgard (Apr 5, 2007)

rgard said:
			
		

> Another way around this would be to create a Domain-like feat for the Duskblade.  Go through the Cleric Domains and Domain Wizards lists (UA) and find a domain to apply.  I would keep the domain power (as per cleric domains) as part of the feat as you are only getting the benefit of 5 different spells added to the known list.
> 
> Edit: Also, limit the Duskblade to taking this feat at first level and limit it to one feat even if the character has two feats as a human.
> 
> ...




I'll write this up in feat form sometime soon when I get some time.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## EricNoah (Apr 5, 2007)

I love the idea of a fighter/magic-user; and I'll get to see one in play starting Saturday as a new player joins my group.  I agree that it seems like there are very few touch spells on the list, and as that's a major part of his schtick I would want to remedy that.


----------



## blargney the second (Apr 5, 2007)

I'm feeling a little hypothetical.  If a Duskblade knew Empower Spell and Shocking Grasp, would it be bad to let him use one of his spells known to learn a standard action empowered shocking grasp as a third level spell?


----------



## DreadArchon (Apr 5, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> I'm feeling a little hypothetical.  If a Duskblade knew Empower Spell and Shocking Grasp, would it be bad to let him use one of his spells known to learn a standard action empowered shocking grasp as a third level spell?



That could work.  Isn't there a "Spontaneous Metamagic" feat anyway, though?


----------



## Razz (Apr 5, 2007)

Expanding the Duskblade spell list doesn't overpower them compared to a Fighter. They only get 1 spell per level, 20 spells max. The expanded spell list simply gives them more OPTIONS. They should be allowed that. They shouldn't have to sacrifice anything to acquire that. Just an understanding of which spells should be Duskblade and which shouldn't.

The Fighter has more options everytime new feats come out. Why not the duskblade whenever new spells come out? The Psychic Warrior is equal to, and sometimes is even better, than a Fighter but no one complains when they get new psionic powers added to their power list.


----------



## Pierson_Lowgal (Apr 5, 2007)

From the FAQ

Do temporary hit points from two applications of the
same effect stack? What about from different effects? If I
have temporary hit points from multiple sources, how
should I apply damage?

*Temporary hit points from two applications of the same
effect don’t stack; *instead, the highest number of temporary hit
points applies in place of all others. Temporary hit points from
different sources stack, but you must keep track of them
separately.
For example, imagine a character who gained 15 temporary
hit points from an aid spell. After taking 8 points of damage,
she has 7 temporary hit points left from the spell. If another aid
spell were cast on the same character granting 12 temporary hit
points, this total would replace the other spell’s total, meaning
the character would now have 12 temporary hit points (rather
than 19). If the character then cast false life on herself, she
would add the full benefit of that spell to the temporary hit
points from the aid spell.
This also applies to temporary hit points gained from
energy drain and similar special abilities. Each successful
attack counts as one application of the effect (meaning that an
attack that bestows 2 or more negative levels still counts as
only one application of the effect). For example, a wight gains
5 temporary hit points each time it bestows a negative level
with its slam attack. If it bestows another negative level while it
has 2 temporary hit points remaining from the first attack, the
new temporary hit points would replace the old ones.
Temporary hit points are “first-in, first-out.” Damage
should be taken off the oldest temporary-hit-point-granting
effect first; when that effect is exhausted, apply damage to the
next oldest effect. For this reason, you must track each supply
of temporary hit points separately.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 5, 2007)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> They have several spells that are ranged.  The duskblade is flexibility with using only a few spells that are consistantly channeled through the sword.  Their higher level spells are for defense or ranged attack.
> 
> Touch of fatigue
> Blade of Blood
> ...



I guess what I meant to imply was taht the arcane channel ability is not able to be used for ranged combat and that effects the classes design to be more melee than ranged.  While I understand the they have many ranged spells, they can channel any spells into ranged weapons.  I got the impression that the other individual was going to make feats that strengthed channeling into three catagories, melee, ranged and buffing.  

I may have misunderstood his intent.  

For the record though, I think they should be able to channel into ranged weapons.  If a Arcane Archer can do it, why can't a Duskblade?


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 5, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> You jumped to that conclusion rather hastily. They have one class feature that's melee-oriented. That doesn't conscript their entire design to melee. Whenever you see a duskblade pop a scorching ray and then swift-cast another one (another handy class feature they happen to have), I hope you'll realize that.



I see what you are saying, see above too.  I guess I don't consider them to be great ranged monsters though with spells.  However, I will be playing one soon, perhaps then I will change my mind.


----------



## DreadArchon (Apr 5, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> For the record though, I think they should be able to channel into ranged weapons.  If a Arcane Archer can do it, why can't a Duskblade?



Out on a limb here:
Because he's not an Arcane Archer?

Besides, if he had more AoE spells, he could take levels in Arcane Archer and do exactly that.


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 5, 2007)

rgard said:
			
		

> Another way around this would be to create a Domain-like feat for the Duskblade.  Go through the Cleric Domains and Domain Wizards lists (UA) and find a domain to apply.  I would keep the domain power (as per cleric domains) as part of the feat as you are only getting the benefit of 5 different spells added to the known list.
> 
> Edit: Also, limit the Duskblade to taking this feat at first level and limit it to one feat even if the character has two feats as a human.
> 
> ...



Umm, there's already a feat that allows to add domain spells to an arcane caster's list: Arcane Disciple from Complete Divine. Why invent a new feat?


----------



## rgard (Apr 6, 2007)

Jhaelen said:
			
		

> Umm, there's already a feat that allows to add domain spells to an arcane caster's list: Arcane Disciple from Complete Divine. Why invent a new feat?




Yes, I'm aware of that one, but I don't think you get the domain power with that, but I could be wrong.  I'm thinking it would be a better feat if you got the domain power to offset the lack of getting access to the 6-9 level spells.

Just a thought.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## wildstarsreach (Apr 6, 2007)

DreadArchon said:
			
		

> That could work.  Isn't there a "Spontaneous Metamagic" feat anyway, though?



To date, spontaneous has not been applied to the Duskblade.  I think that it should but love that it doesn't.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Apr 6, 2007)

Jhaelen said:
			
		

> Umm, there's already a feat that allows to add domain spells to an arcane caster's list: Arcane Disciple from Complete Divine. Why invent a new feat?




As good as this looks few will have the wisdom to support it on a duskblade.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 6, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> I'm feeling a little hypothetical.  If a Duskblade knew Empower Spell and Shocking Grasp, would it be bad to let him use one of his spells known to learn a standard action empowered shocking grasp as a third level spell?



Not only don't I think it would be bad, but I would encourage them to make good use of sudden meta magic feats since they have such a short cut off of spells levels they can use.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 6, 2007)

Pierson_Lowgal said:
			
		

> From the FAQ
> 
> Do temporary hit points from two applications of the
> same effect stack? What about from different effects? If I
> ...



  Not sure what you are going for here.  We already covered this on pages one and two and I posted the same thing from the FAQ.

  If you cast Vampiric touch through your weapon, you get temp HPs for all attacks that round, if using the 13th level version of arcane channeling,  because it is the same application, key word being same, just effecting different targets.  The only way this would not work is if WOTC came out and made an errata ruling that even though the spell is one application, the effect of arcane channeling counts as different applications individually for each hit, for purposes of this spell.  

  That is unless you can find a rule somewhere that I have missed that states exactly what they mean by the term "application" and how it is effected under certain circumstances.  It would have to be detailed, it would almost have to point out exactly how it would reflect the use of Arcane Channeling, since it is a new ability and thus trumping most older rules.

  If you do it again in the next round, it is a different application and the rules above apply.

  Was there something you wanted to add?


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 6, 2007)

Does anybody know of a touch spell that allows you to make multiple simultaneous touch attacks against the same target?  The key word being simultaneous. I can't think of any off of the top of my head.

This is a question from the FAQ:

How does the duskblade’s arcane channeling class feature (Player’s Handbook II, 20) work with spells that allow multiple touch attacks, such as chill touch?

For a spell that allows you to make multiple touch attacks against separate creatures (such as chill touch), you only channel one touch of the spell through your weapon attack, regardless of the number of touches allowed by the spell. If the spell’s duration is instantaneous (as chill touch), its effect is expended by a single weapon attack, even if the spell would normally allow multiple simultaneous touches.

If the spell allowed you to make multiple simultaneous touch attacks against the same target, treat it as if you had targeted the enemy struck by your weapon with all the eligible attacks.


----------



## Razz (Apr 6, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Does anybody know of a touch spell that allows you to make multiple simultaneous touch attacks against the same target?  The key word being simultaneous. I can't think of any off of the top of my head.
> 
> This is a question from the FAQ:
> 
> ...




Yes, there is a spell in *Savage Species * called _Spell Flower _ that allows you to cast multiple touch spells without losing the previous touch spell. You can only do it as many times as you have limbs. So, if you're a marilith you can cast 6 touch spells, one for each hand to carry the touch spell. A 7th would dissipate all of them, I believe. With a humanoid, however, the best you can do is 2 hands.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Apr 6, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Sounds like you need to go back and mainate on the whole "lots of low-level spell slots just saves you some wand money" thing. The conclusion is rather inevitable.



How the heck does one "mainate?"


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 6, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> Yes, there is a spell in *Savage Species * called _Spell Flower _ that allows you to cast multiple touch spells without losing the previous touch spell. You can only do it as many times as you have limbs. So, if you're a marilith you can cast 6 touch spells, one for each hand to carry the touch spell. A 7th would dissipate all of them, I believe. With a humanoid, however, the best you can do is 2 hands.



Hmm, while that is cool, it is not often that I can convince a DM to let me play a Maralith (twice to date)     
I was just wondering.  It seemed an odd entery or point of fact for a Sage answer.





			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> How the heck does one "mainate?"



 ROFL


----------



## Felon (Apr 7, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> How the heck does one "mainate?"



By inserting an "r" in there somewhere. I suspect you've been on the Internet too long to be stymied by a typo.


----------



## Felon (Apr 7, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> I see what you are saying, see above too.  I guess I don't consider them to be great ranged monsters though with spells.  However, I will be playing one soon, perhaps then I will change my mind.



Well, consider getting whip proficiency. That 15 foot reach works nicely with Arcane Channeling


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 7, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Well, consider getting whip proficiency. That 15 foot reach works nicely with Arcane Channeling



I was thinking the spike chain, but a whip sounds good too


----------



## Erywin (Apr 7, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> Ditto.  I'd really like to see a duskblade around our games some time!




Hey, if Galth dies and you allow me to go full Duskblade progression...  I would totally make that my next character


----------



## wildstarsreach (Apr 7, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Well, consider getting whip proficiency. That 15 foot reach works nicely with Arcane Channeling




I really by rule mechanic wish they had limited the class to blades hence the name Duskblade.


----------



## shilsen (Apr 7, 2007)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> I really by rule mechanic wish they had limited the class to blades hence the name Duskblade.



 What's in a name? Would a spiked chain, by any other name, not have reach?


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Apr 7, 2007)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> I really by rule mechanic wish they had limited the class to blades hence the name Duskblade.



Yeah, "Duskspikedchain" doesn't really do it for me, either


----------



## rgard (Apr 7, 2007)

Jonathan Moyer said:
			
		

> Yeah, "Duskspikedchain" doesn't really do it for me, either




Nor does Duskwhip.


----------



## Felon (Apr 7, 2007)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> I really by rule mechanic wish they had limited the class to blades hence the name Duskblade.



What a peculiar wish...I can't think of anything significant that restriction would accomplish, from either a mechanical or flavor point of view.


----------



## RainOfSteel (Apr 7, 2007)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> I had a player with a duskblade for most of my converted G3 and D1-2-3. In general, the class seemed pretty good, but what really made the character shine in combat were his use of new spells from the PHII and SC that focused on tactical movement and swift actions. The _regroup_ spell alone saved the party's bacon many, many times in G3.



I just read the spell.

Given most of the combats I've been through, if I ever cast this all the players would turn and throw dice at me, at a minimum, for disrupting their plans.

Can you provide some examples of how this was effective for your party?


----------



## DreadArchon (Apr 7, 2007)

Duskwhip sounds fine to me, albeit a bit silly.  (Does he come in a spray can?)

Now, a Duskgnomishhookhammer is another matter entirely.

(Duskimprovedunarmedstrike?  Dusklightrepeatingcrossbow?  Duskimprovisedweaponbrokenalestein?)


----------



## wildstarsreach (Apr 8, 2007)

Personally, I think that the Duskblade is about the perfect class for a fighter mage character.  Yes you don't get all the spells of a wizard but you get to cast sufficient spells while in a mithril full plate.


----------



## Razz (Apr 8, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Hmm, while that is cool, it is not often that I can convince a DM to let me play a Maralith (twice to date)
> I was just wondering.  It seemed an odd entery or point of fact for a Sage answer.
> 
> 
> ...




I just looked over my file and *Spell Flower * is actually presented in Spell Compendium. Still does the same thing, nothing changed with it.


----------



## Ragnar69 (Apr 8, 2007)

I´m going to play one in our Burning Skys campaign. Looks like a solid class to me. For feats I think Battle Caster, Somatic Weapon, Power Attack and Arcane Strike are pretty good.
The spell list is ok for a secondary caster.

I was thinking of adding Green Star Adept but my GM banned that PrC, so it will be straight duski all the way.


----------



## Klaus (Apr 8, 2007)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> Personally, I think that the Duskblade is about the perfect class for a fighter mage character.  Yes you don't get all the spells of a wizard but you get to cast sufficient spells while in a mithril full plate.



 A Battle Sorcerer with the Battle Caster feat *gets* all wizard spells and can cast them in mithril full plate.


----------



## rgard (Apr 8, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> A Battle Sorcerer with the Battle Caster feat *gets* all wizard spells and can cast them in mithril full plate.




Yes, my favorite arcane fighter!  That said, it only has one good save and medium BAB.  Still worth it in my opinion.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## Winterthorn (Apr 8, 2007)

DreadArchon said:
			
		

> Duskwhip sounds fine to me, albeit a bit silly.  (Does he come in a spray can?)
> 
> Now, a Duskgnomishhookhammer is another matter entirely.
> 
> (Duskimprovedunarmedstrike?  Dusklightrepeatingcrossbow?  Duskimprovisedweaponbrokenalestein?)




 pfffffft!     My gawd, I almost spit up all over my keyboard!   

Seriously: given the name "Duskblade" and it's elven roots, I think this class should have been presented as a prestige class of 10 levels along time ago; its tight specificities beg a prestige treatment. Alas there are already oodles of prestige classes, and plenty combining some magical ability with melee warrior abilities, so making the Duskblade a prestige class probably risked being redundant. Maybe it can be tweaked into being one in someone's campaign? It's the creative thing I might do in mine if there was player interest for that.

I also like the concept of an intelligent warrior who has also mastered some wizardly magic to support his combat effectiveness (in lieu of feats in the case of 3E). I am surprised the Duskblade has not appeared already in some elven oriented material given the popularity of the elf fighter-mage of earlier editions. But 3E studiously steered clear of racial prerequisites for full sized classes; maybe WotC should have said "these full-sized classes in the PH never have racial prerequisites, while those full-sized classes appearing in supplements might depending upon nature of said supplemental material..." (Of course, in the absence of official material, there are always house rules to fall back on **shrug**) 

As DM the Duskblade looks mecanically respectable. While I still find the name kind of awkward, the class' elven history has potential. I definitely would expand its spell list with spells appropriate and plausible with respect to the class concept - if I played one I'd ask my DM if there were options on the spells. While greater choice can empower a players usage of a PC, it does not always follow that said expanded choice actually raises a PC's mecanical power in game/combat. In other words, greater spell flexibility may enhance PC playability in more situations (given the fiats of DM encounter choices), but it doesn't guarantee an increase in basic power; one just covers more bases. I think the greatest risk to expanding the Duskblade spell list: treading too much upon another class' turf - options should be made with care! 

Gee, I hope made sense in all that there


----------



## Set (Apr 9, 2007)

The Elvish flavor text is easy enough to replace with your campaign's magical / warrior race or nationality.  Duskblades make a suitable replacement for Netherese or Halruan 'fighters' or Suel Arcanamachs or Asaatthi warrior / wizards.

The class is *very* narrow, which I'm not a huge fan of, but I do like the class itself.  Ideally, I'd rather that most of these specialized new base classes (and *all* PrCs) be turned into feat chains, but it is what it is.


----------



## Agent Oracle (Apr 9, 2007)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> One has stopped "to give the matter some consideration." And one has found, following such consideration, that the following is true:
> 
> Too many spells per day.




frankly, i think the Duskblade has a fine number of spells.  He just goes Nova more readily than a traditional caster.

I mean, he's RIGHT THERE in melee combat with the enemy, he has onyl a medium AC and medium HP, it's in his own best intrests to Blow enemies away.

As for "too many spells": They trail traditional caster classes in terms of number of spells all through their advancement, and they also have a fraction of their diversity in terms of spell choice (there are only two 5th level spells for a duskblade listed in the PHBII).  They also learn spells very slowly (they only start with two first level spells, and only gain one new spell per level)

All in all, they get a lot of spells per day, but they use them very quickly.  Their spells are almost universally "swift" spells, so their standard combat round runs with them casting their spell, then laying into full melee against their foe.


----------



## Aaron L (Apr 9, 2007)

I love the class.  I've been playing one since October, and just reached 12th level this Saturday (after starting him at 9th.)  Both the Fighter and the Sorcerer in the party consistently out-damage me, and the Fighter has nearly twice as many hit points as I do.  My advantage is flexibility.  The number of spells per day is fine, and any less would seriously hamper the class.    


I dearly love the Duskblade class.


----------



## Klaus (Apr 9, 2007)

rgard said:
			
		

> Yes, my favorite arcane fighter!  That said, it only has one good save and medium BAB.  Still worth it in my opinion.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rich



 As an exercise in crunch, I copied the Sorcerer from the SRD and applied the Battle Sorcerer modifications to it. I must say, the Medium BAB doesn't bother in the least (specially since you can cast stuff like Greater Magic Weapon, Bull's Strength and True Strike), whereas the good Will save means you can leave Wisdom at 10 or 12, putting a higher number in Constitution (boosting Fort saves) or Dexterity (boosting Reflex saves).

My love of the Battle Sorcerer knows no limits!


----------



## rgard (Apr 9, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> As an exercise in crunch, I copied the Sorcerer from the SRD and applied the Battle Sorcerer modifications to it. I must say, the Medium BAB doesn't bother in the least (specially since you can cast stuff like Greater Magic Weapon, Bull's Strength and True Strike), whereas the good Will save means you can leave Wisdom at 10 or 12, putting a higher number in Constitution (boosting Fort saves) or Dexterity (boosting Reflex saves).
> 
> My love of the Battle Sorcerer knows no limits!




If you take the feat that allows you to cast in medium armor, you really do approach the 1e & 2e Magic User/Fighter.

You gotta love this game.  Boatloads of different methods to achieve the character concept you envision.

Halcyon days my friends!

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## Felon (Apr 9, 2007)

krunchyfrogg said:
			
		

> Having never actually seen one in play, it seems too powerful to me.  My instinct is to think that my observations are incorrect though (since I haven't actually seen one played).



So your instinct is to trust your observations of a class that you haven't observed?


----------



## Felon (Apr 9, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> As an exercise in crunch, I copied the Sorcerer from the SRD and applied the Battle Sorcerer modifications to it. I must say, the Medium BAB doesn't bother in the least (specially since you can cast stuff like Greater Magic Weapon, Bull's Strength and True Strike), whereas the good Will save means you can leave Wisdom at 10 or 12, putting a higher number in Constitution (boosting Fort saves) or Dexterity (boosting Reflex saves).
> 
> My love of the Battle Sorcerer knows no limits!



You really think so? I would tend to think having the number of spells known reduced even farther would be a major hassle. I mean, the entire advantage of spontaneous casting is kind of a waste when you only know one spell.


----------



## DreadArchon (Apr 9, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> You really think so? I would tend to think having the number of spells known reduced even farther would be a major hassle. I mean, the entire advantage of spontaneous casting is kind of a waste when you only know one spell.



Though I haven't played one, it seems to me that the Battle Sorceror has too little Sorceror in it.  I think I'd sooner play a Cleric.

(But I like the concept.  If someone wanted to play one in my game, I'd let them, and I'd also give them the option for School Specialization:  One additional spell known per level, one additional spell cast per level, spell known needs to be from their chosen school but daily spell need not be.  Obviosuly they'd still lose two schools by specializing.)


----------



## Klaus (Apr 9, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> You really think so? I would tend to think having the number of spells known reduced even farther would be a major hassle. I mean, the entire advantage of spontaneous casting is kind of a waste when you only know one spell.



 When you're sole hook is to cast spells, sure, it's a hit. But the Battle Sorcerer can fight well enough (Medium BAB + Light armor + d8 HD), besides casting spells. And Reserve Feats go a long way into lessening this disadvantage (if your known 3rd-level spell is Lightning Bolt, you'll be zapping lightning all day long).

Also, you know one spell, but you can cast it quite a few times. And if you take Heritage feats, you can gain spell-like abilities that are quite worth your while. My favorite are the Fey Heritage feats (which also contribute to Fey Skin's DR x/cold iron).

That was actually one of the reasons I spelled out the Battle Sorcerer as a full class description: to see if the hit was too great. And it isn't.


----------



## frankthedm (Apr 9, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Then again, I'd say that other arcanists get too few bottom-tier spell slots.



They can burn GPs on wands and staves. 2250 GP for a double barreled {3rd level caster] magic missle wand when the tank is buying a 2500gp +1 full plate is quite reasonable.  At mid levels a Staff of Fire is kinda cheap.

The biggest road block is psychological. Players don’t want to burn treasure. Sure there is a ‘chance’ of the wand being sundered, but what makes PCs avoid wands is that players don’t want to burn up GPs. Unlike arrows, there is no _Greater Magic Wand_ workaround.


----------



## rgard (Apr 10, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> You really think so? I would tend to think having the number of spells known reduced even farther would be a major hassle. I mean, the entire advantage of spontaneous casting is kind of a waste when you only know one spell.




You can mitigate that.  Take the arcane disciple feat or the similar feat from the Dragon mag.  Doesn't increase the spells per day, but it makes up for the loss of 1 spell per level known.

Also, the 1 spell less known and 1 spell less per day does have a minimum of 1.  You can't reduce it to 0.  So you do get your 2nd level spell at 4th level.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## rgard (Apr 10, 2007)

rgard said:
			
		

> You can mitigate that.  Take the arcane disciple feat or the similar feat from the Dragon mag.  Doesn't increase the spells per day, but it makes up for the loss of 1 spell per level known.
> 
> Also, the 1 spell less known and 1 spell less per day does have a minimum of 1.  You can't reduce it to 0.  So you do get your 2nd level spell at 4th level.
> 
> ...




Hmmm...just re-read the feat from Complete Divine...does it allow you to choose from the domain for spells known or does it add the spell to your number known?

Not sure.


----------



## Odhanan (Apr 10, 2007)

The Duskblade grew on me, sort of. At first, I didn't really bother with it, but now I can see why it would be a cool alternative to the dozen of other "arcane fighter" concepts out there. Variety is good.


----------



## rgard (Apr 10, 2007)

rgard said:
			
		

> Hmmm...just re-read the feat from Complete Divine...does it allow you to choose from the domain for spells known or does it add the spell to your number known?
> 
> Not sure.




Having fun responding to my own posts.  The bloodline feats (Dragon Compendium and mags) do say the sorcerer adds a bonus spell known.

HR for me to do the same with arcane disciple if it hasn't already been officially clarified as a bonus spell known.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## rgard (Apr 10, 2007)

DreadArchon said:
			
		

> Though I haven't played one, it seems to me that the Battle Sorceror has too little Sorceror in it.  I think I'd sooner play a Cleric.
> 
> (But I like the concept.  If someone wanted to play one in my game, I'd let them, and I'd also give them the option for School Specialization:  One additional spell known per level, one additional spell cast per level, spell known needs to be from their chosen school but daily spell need not be.  Obviosuly they'd still lose two schools by specializing.)




I like the school specialization take on this.

I think we need a battle sorcerer thread as this thread is about the Duskblade.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 12, 2007)

rgard said:
			
		

> I like the school specialization take on this.
> 
> I think we need a battle sorcerer thread as this thread is about the Duskblade.
> 
> ...



No worries, feel free to talk about the battle sorcerer here.  I'm up for options and, unlike others, don't mind if the topic strays.  Go nuts.

Let me get on the same page, are you talking about the battle sorcerer alternate class from the Unearthed Arcana?


----------



## Klaus (Apr 12, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> No worries, feel free to talk about the battle sorcerer here.  I'm up for options and, unlike others, don't mind if the topic strays.  Go nuts.
> 
> Let me get on the same page, are you talking about the battle sorcerer alternate class from the Unearthed Arcana?



 Yep.

In short:

- Lose 1 spell known of each level. (minimum 1)
- Lose 1 spell per day of each level. (minimum 0)
- Swap Bluff for Intimidate.
- Increase HD to d8.
- Increase BAB to Medium (= cleric and rogue)
- Gain Light Armor Proficiency and Armored Mage (Light).
- Gain Martial Weapon Proficiency with one light or one-handed martial weapon.

I think this class is the perfect warrior/mage hybrid. It fights almost as well as a Fighter, casts spells almost as well as a Wizard, and is very customizable.

If you want to go for a tank, you can take feats like Battle Caster (and don mithril full plate) and Arcane Strike (and spend spell slots for +1/spell level to attack and +1d4/spell level to damage for 1 round). If you want a draconic character, be a human and take Dragonblooded and Dragon Wings at 1st level.

If you want a Sidhe-like knight, take the Fey Heritage feats (two of which give you lots of spell-like abilities, and another gives you a very good DR x/cold iron).


----------



## rgard (Apr 12, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> No worries, feel free to talk about the battle sorcerer here.  I'm up for options and, unlike others, don't mind if the topic strays.  Go nuts.
> 
> Let me get on the same page, are you talking about the battle sorcerer alternate class from the Unearthed Arcana?




Yes, that's the class from UA.  

Sorry, duplicate like post to Klaus'.


----------



## rgard (Apr 12, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Yep.
> 
> In short:
> 
> ...




And less tank to start, you can take one of the Bloodline feats from Dragon mag or Compendium and gain back your loss of one spell per level known and cast.

Also, there is also another feat in the Dragon mag that gets the BS a clerical domanin power and access to the domain list of spells (only one per day.)  The PC's alignment needs to be close to the Deity's.  Not bad if you take the War domain (weapn focus) or the Elf domain (Spell Compendium, which gets you point blank shot and true strike.)  I think you get point blank shot with the latter.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## wayne62682 (Apr 12, 2007)

Strange, I always heard (well, read) that Battle Sorcerer was complete garbage because it takes the Sorcerer (who already has paltry few spells known) and reduces them even further.  Something like you only get 3rd level spells at 9th level or thereabouts.  The worst part about Sorcerers is that they're one level behind a "real" caster and know fewer spells.  Making that two levels behind AND knowing even LESS spells is just adding insult to injury.


----------



## Klaus (Apr 12, 2007)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> Strange, I always heard (well, read) that Battle Sorcerer was complete garbage because it takes the Sorcerer (who already has paltry few spells known) and reduces them even further.  Something like you only get 3rd level spells at 9th level or thereabouts.  The worst part about Sorcerers is that they're one level behind a "real" caster and know fewer spells.  Making that two levels behind AND knowing even LESS spells is just adding insult to injury.



 You heard wrong.

The thing is, you get your spells known at the same levels a regular Sorcerer would (so 2nd at 4th level, 3rd at 6th level, etc...), but at those levels you get 0 spells per day, meaning you must stick to your bonus spells from high Charisma. If your charisma is high enough, you'll be casting spells at the same levels as a regular Sorcerer. And your caster level isn't reduced.


----------



## rgard (Apr 12, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> You heard wrong.
> 
> The thing is, you get your spells known at the same levels a regular Sorcerer would (so 2nd at 4th level, 3rd at 6th level, etc...), but at those levels you get 0 spells per day, meaning you must stick to your bonus spells from high Charisma. If your charisma is high enough, you'll be casting spells at the same levels as a regular Sorcerer. And your caster level isn't reduced.




It's actually a little bit better than that.  If you only show one on the chart for spells known or to cast per day, you don't reduce that to 0.  You always get a minimum of one.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 12, 2007)

rgard said:
			
		

> It's actually a little bit better than that.  If you only show one on the chart for spells known or to cast per day, you don't reduce that to 0.  You always get a minimum of one.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rich



I would be inclined to agree with you, but I wouldn't know why.  How come you  don't reduce it to zero?  There are plenty of other examples of why you would reduce it to zero.  Does it say somewhere why you don't reduce it to zero?


----------



## rgard (Apr 12, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> I would be inclined to agree with you, but I wouldn't know why.  How come you  don't reduce it to zero?  There are plenty of other examples of why you would reduce it to zero.  Does it say somewhere why you don't reduce it to zero?




Just re-read the description and it's a mix of the two.

For spells per day the minimum is '0'
For spells known per level the minimum is '1'

Klaus has it right, see above.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## rgard (Apr 12, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> I would be inclined to agree with you, but I wouldn't know why.  How come you  don't reduce it to zero?  There are plenty of other examples of why you would reduce it to zero.  Does it say somewhere why you don't reduce it to zero?




Here's the text:

SORCERER VARIANTS 


Battle Sorcerer 
The battle sorcerer is no weak arcanist, hiding behind the fighters. Instead, she is a capable physical combatant who mixes magical prowess with fighting skill. 

Hit Die 
d8. 

Base Attack Bonus 
The battle sorcerer uses the base attack bonus progression of the cleric. 
Class Skills 

Remove Bluff from the battle sorcerer's class skill list. Add Intimidate to the battle sorcerer's class skill list. 

CLASS FEATURES 
The battle sorcerer has all the standard sorcerer class features, except as noted below. 

Weapon and Armor Proficiency 
At 1st level, a battle sorcerer gains proficiency with any light or one-handed martial weapon of the character's choice. She also gains proficiency with light armor. 

Spellcasting 
A battle sorcerer can cast sorcerer spells derived from her class levels of battle sorcerer while in light armor without the normal arcane spell failure chance.
A battle sorcerer has fewer daily spell slots than a standard sorcerer. Subtract one spell per day from each spell level on Table: The Sorcerer (to a minimum of zero spells per day). For example, a 1st-level battle sorcerer may cast four 0-level spells and two 1st-level spells per day (plus bonus spells, if any).

A battle sorcerer knows fewer spells per spell level than a standard sorcerer. Subtract one spell known from each spell level on Table: Sorcerer Spells Known (to a minimum of one spell per spell level). For example, a 4th-level battle sorcerer knows five 0-level spells, two 1st-level spells, and one 2nd-level spell. When she reaches 5th level, the battle sorcerer learns one additional 1st-level spell, but doesn't learn an additional 2nd-level spell (since two minus one is one).


----------



## ohGr (Apr 13, 2007)

Actually, the minimum number of spells per day, with this variant, is 2; sorcerers never have fewer than 3 spells per day of a given level.


----------



## Klaus (Apr 13, 2007)

ohGr said:
			
		

> Actually, the minimum number of spells per day, with this variant, is 2; sorcerers never have fewer than 3 spells per day of a given level.



 Yes, but the text explicitly spells out "minimum 0". But you are correct. If you apply the changes to the Sorcerer table in the SRD, the smallest ammount of spells per day you get is "2".


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 13, 2007)

rgard said:
			
		

> Just re-read the description and it's a mix of the two.
> 
> For spells per day the minimum is '0'
> For spells known per level the minimum is '1'
> ...



Oops, I miss read that, I see now


----------



## rgard (Apr 13, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Yes, but the text explicitly spells out "minimum 0". But you are correct. If you apply the changes to the Sorcerer table in the SRD, the smallest ammount of spells per day you get is "2".




Silly to put a minimum of '0' in the text.  Oh well.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## Klaus (Apr 13, 2007)

rgard said:
			
		

> Silly to put a minimum of '0' in the text.  Oh well.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rich



 Yeah, well... 

Also, there are some Sorcerer substitution levels floating around that give something in exchange for a new spell known of a certain level (I *think* it's in Races of the Dragon, but I'm not sure), and there's the Stalwart Sorcerer alternate feature in Complete Mage that reduces the Spells Known of your highest level by 1. So it could all add up.


----------



## rgard (Apr 14, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Yeah, well...
> 
> Also, there are some Sorcerer substitution levels floating around that give something in exchange for a new spell known of a certain level (I *think* it's in Races of the Dragon, but I'm not sure), and there's the Stalwart Sorcerer alternate feature in Complete Mage that reduces the Spells Known of your highest level by 1. So it could all add up.




Don't have the Races of the Dragon handy, but yes, that and Stalwart Sorcerer could all add up.

BTW, anybody know of a feat or class feature that lets you add your charisma bonus to your melee damage?

So far we have (besides strength):

Dexterity: Elf God's chosen or champion or something like that in Races of the Wild.
Intelligence: Swashbuckler (3rd level I think)

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## Klaus (Apr 14, 2007)

Dexterity = Champion of Corellon Larethian in Races of the Wild

For Charisma, there's (iirc) Snowflake Wardance in Frostburn, but it requires that you spend a bardic music use, and you're fatigued when it ends.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Apr 15, 2007)

It seems that the title "What do you think of the Duskblade?" is now irrelevant.  Everybody is talking about other gish classes than about the Duskblade.  Thanks but I have looked over them and find them lacking from the plusses that the Duskblade class has.


----------



## Felon (Apr 15, 2007)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> It seems that the title "What do you think of the Duskblade?" is now irrelevant.  Everybody is talking about other gish classes than about the Duskblade.  Thanks but I have looked over them and find them lacking from the plusses that the Duskblade class has.




Yeah, plus every time I spot the thread's title, I keep seeing the word "duckblade". It takes me bad places.


----------



## Gez (Apr 15, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Yeah, plus every time I spot the thread's title, I keep seeing the word "duckblade". It takes me bad places.



That's nothing compared to the swordsage. Rather than separating it in sword-sage, I always think of it as a portmanteau of sword and sausage.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 16, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Yeah, plus every time I spot the thread's title, I keep seeing the word "duckblade". It takes me bad places.



Well, that would be because of your vision, reading ability or because of the lame name that WOTC gave them versus my expert spelling


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 16, 2007)

rgard said:
			
		

> Silly to put a minimum of '0' in the text.  Oh well.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rich



You can get into wierd places if you go into negatives, plus, just because you have a 0 doesn't mean you can't cast spells of that level i.e. high ability bonus spells.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 16, 2007)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> It seems that the title "What do you think of the Duskblade?" is now irrelevant.  Everybody is talking about other gish classes than about the Duskblade.  Thanks but I have looked over them and find them lacking from the plusses that the Duskblade class has.



I guess I prefer the duskblade as well.  I like the sorcerer only because you can cast the really good spells at higher levels, like meter swarm.  But, if I was to go for a class like that, I guess I would prefer a straight up sorcerer.  However, I am more partial to Wizards, it is just to hard to give up the flexability and the bonus feats.

For what it does, I think the Duskblade is pound for pound a more complete character than the Battle Sorcerer, mainly because of the full BAB and the arcane channeling, which you could still do a Arcane strike on top of, ouch!


----------



## Klaus (Apr 16, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> I guess I prefer the duskblade as well.  I like the sorcerer only because you can cast the really good spells at higher levels, like meter swarm.  But, if I was to go for a class like that, I guess I would prefer a straight up sorcerer.  However, I am more partial to Wizards, it is just to hard to give up the flexability and the bonus feats.
> 
> For what it does, I think the Duskblade is pound for pound a more complete character than the Battle Sorcerer, mainly because of the full BAB and the arcane channeling, which you could still do a Arcane strike on top of, ouch!



 I don't know. I find the Duskblade's spell list to be really limited (which it needs to be, to balance off the full BAB). The Duskblade is, imho, more of a "fighter with arcane tricks" than a warrior/mage hybrid.

YMMV, of course.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 16, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I don't know. I find the Duskblade's spell list to be really limited (which it needs to be, to balance off the full BAB). The Duskblade is, imho, more of a "fighter with arcane tricks" than a warrior/mage hybrid.





Well, if you look at the class that it was modeled after, it is within standards.  It appears to be taliored after the fighter/mage class from first edition.  Take a 20th level character in each edition and you get about the same amount of power and spells per day as a fighter/mage when compared to a 20th level duskblade.  The difference is a full BAB with the Duskblade versus the full spell list of the fighter/mage.

I think I would prefer to see them have full use of the wizard spell list with a clerics BAB, which is closer to the class they are modeled after.

I am going to play one this summer in a new game, and that DM is kind of a dink for rules, so I doubt he will change the list.  I however would alter the spell list or redo the class a bit if someone wanted to try one out in one of my games.



			
				Klaus said:
			
		

> YMMV, of course.



? :\


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 16, 2007)

As far as changes that I would make go, I would give them Automatic Still Spell for purposes of casting spells in armor, starting with light, then medium and then heavy.  If something else restricted their ability to cast spells, like being tied up, then they would have to use the still spell feat.

I would give a PC the option of an expanded spell list, more touch, cone and ranged touch spells to choose from, and they could keep their full BAB, or I would knock the BAB to medium and give them full wizard spell list to choose from with maybe a few extra spells to know.

I think a way to increase the DC of the spells being cast may be in order too.  At level 20, a wizard can heighten any spell to a 9th level slot, making the DC a lot higher, a Duskblade at the least, misses out on a potenial 4 to a DC increwase because of a lack of higher level spells.  Not sure how to resolve this, but it just occured to me.

I might also find a way to give them 6th level spells by level 19 or 20, but maybe that is just me.


----------



## rgard (Apr 16, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I don't know. I find the Duskblade's spell list to be really limited (which it needs to be, to balance off the full BAB). The Duskblade is, imho, more of a "fighter with arcane tricks" than a warrior/mage hybrid.
> 
> YMMV, of course.




Hi, found this over in the Dragon 355 thread:



			
				wayne62682 said:
			
		

> <snip>
> 
> The 1st level one is very nice.. you give up the bonus feat and can ignore the weight of armor for encumbrance and armor slows you as thought it was one category lighter than it is, and ASF is half-normal.  4th level one gives you Evasion as long as you're unencumbered or lightly encumbered.  8th level is okay.. it lets you bond your armor so you can don/remove it as a full-round action and gives you some minor AC bonuses.  10th level gives you Fortification (another neat one).  The 18th level one gives you spell resistance equal to 11 + Hit Dice.
> 
> <snip>




The 1st level one with later addition of 1 Spellsword level is looking really attractive now.  Maybe a good alternative to the Duskblade and Battle Sorcerer.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## Klaus (Apr 16, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Well, if you look at the class that it was modeled after, it is within standards.  It appears to be taliored after the fighter/mage class from first edition.  Take a 20th level character in each edition and you get about the same amount of power and spells per day as a fighter/mage when compared to a 20th level duskblade.  The difference is a full BAB with the Duskblade versus the full spell list of the fighter/mage.
> 
> I think I would prefer to see them have full use of the wizard spell list with a clerics BAB, which is closer to the class they are modeled after.
> 
> ...



 YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Apr 16, 2007)

The character that I have in play is at 6th level.  I'm going the route of a backup tank with mithril fullplate.  I did some projections out to 20th level and I come up with an AC of over 40 and +35 to attack and spells to boot.  Going down to a medium BAB and increasing the spell list would be great but I like the class as is.

The class comes out to a decent backup fighter and an adequet backup wizard.  It's not everything but it is a good compromise.  Most people I think from impressions think you need to be cast 9th level spells, fight as well as a fighter in full armor.  This class offer everything that I want.  In fact my group bristles with irritation when I do an attack that does 5d6 shocking grasp + 3d6 Blade of blood and a d8 +3.  I'm doing about 40% of the CR's that we are fighting in one hit.  The class is incredibly strong in a short single encounter.  It is a good class on the strong side for the long 3-5 encounter stint.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 17, 2007)

Oh, that is a new one for me, thanks


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 19, 2007)

slightly off topic, what do you guys think of the eldritch knight?  Do you think it is worth the reduction in spell casting ability?


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Apr 19, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> slightly off topic, what do you guys think of the eldritch knight?  Do you think it is worth the reduction in spell casting ability?




The Eldritch Knight will be less useful than a straight spellcaster, but if spells are selected to play to its strengths, it can be useful enough so that the player doesn't feel frustrated at how inferior their PC is to the other PCs.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Apr 19, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> slightly off topic, what do you guys think of the eldritch knight?  Do you think it is worth the reduction in spell casting ability?




I love it since I love the general idea of the gish.  Somewhere is a perfect gish build but here is what I think is idea Human

1 F1  WF 2Hand Sword, Improved Initiative, Power Attack
2 W1
3 W2 Empower even though you can't effectively use it yet
4 w3
5 w4
6 w5 Sudden maximize, Arcane Strike
7 EK1/w5 Practiced Spell caster
8 EK2/w6(8)
9 Spellsword1/W7(9) Extend spell, get -10% arcane penalty
10 Abjurant Champion 1/W8(10)
11 AC 2/W9(11)
12 AC 3/w10(12) Craft Arms and Armor, I like the idea of custom making my own items
13 AC 4/w11(13)
14 AC 5/w12(14)
15 EK3/w13(15) Craft Contingent spell, an awesome prepatory ability
16 EK4/w14(16)
17 EK5/w15(17)
18 ek6/w16(18) Persistant because I like the idea of a broken 24 hour wraithstriking power attacking arcane strike monkey.  Broke and should be banned.
19 ek7/w17(19) 
20 ek8/w18(20)

BA +17, enough HP but with great prepatory abilities, custom magic items, 9th level spells, ability to wear lt mithril armors with no or almost no penalty or mithril plate with only 1 in 6 spells failing and the potential for brokenness.

You also cast in damage potential per spell equal to the wizard/sorcerer in your group.

You could substitute Sorcerer and still have 9th level spells at 20th level instead of 19th for the wizard base class.


----------

